An historic hearing will be conducted on Tuesday to determine whether House Democrats in August 2007 violated parliamentary procedure in defeating a motion to deny illegal aliens welfare benefits.
Readers likely remember the brouhaha this disgraceful display created at the time (video embedded right).
With high-ranking Democrats such as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Michael McNulty (D-N.Y.) scheduled to testify, one has to wonder whether this unprecedented event, especially in a critical election year, will get much coverage from media doing everything in their power to take back the White House.
As reported Monday by Jed Babbin of Human Events (emphasis added):
Here is a perfect example of the sort of wild-eyed leftism that is so infused into the very souls of every journalist that claims the mantle of the fourth estate. It's also a perfect example of how they are in the tank for their messiah, Obama. Newsweek's Rich Wolffe and Evan Thomas have presented a fawning review of how Barack Obama is so cool and collected under political fire, but warns their messiah that the GOP is still filled with meanies who have been "successfully scaring voters since 1968." Of course, not a word is spoken of all the scare tactics that the Democrat Party has used since time immemorial and Wolffe and Thomas act as if their pals at the DNC are just innocents in the wilderness unfairly assaulted by those nasty Republicans.
After celebrating Obama's new, gentler politics, Newsweek gets down to brass tacks to warn Obama about those awful Republicans.
Bob Herbert: voice of reason? On economics and the role of government, no. On the dynamics of the Dem nomination race? Actually, yes. In both his TV appearances and columns, Herbert, a military veteran who grew up largely in a comfortable New Jersey suburb, comes across as more clear-eyed and down-to-earth, less angry and ideological, than his NY Times confreres like Paul Krugman or Frank Rich.
Take Herbert's column of this morning, Heading Toward the Danger Zone. My sense is that, at heart, Herbert backs Obama. But that doesn't deter the columnist from offering an unblinking assessment of the very perilous electoral path on which Obama finds himself. Let's work backwards from Herbert's stunning conclusion [emphasis added]:
One of Senator Obama’s favorite phrases is “the fierce urgency of now.” There is nothing more fiercely urgent for him right now than to reassure voters and superdelegates that an Obama candidacy will not lead to a Democratic debacle in November.
In interviews with Barack Obama aired Thursday night, CBS anchor Harry Smith and ABC anchor Charles Gibson both shared their concern over how the protracted Democratic race could hurt the party in the fall -- with Smith urging Obama to demand, “with some severity,” that Hillary Clinton exit the race -- while Gibson hailed Obama's “extraordinary speech” on race before he wondered if Obama worries “race could become” the “central...issue.”
Smith told Obama: “If you're the presumptive candidate here, isn't it time that you say, with some severity, that we can't go on like this?” After Obama replied “well, no,” Smith rued: “At the cost of losing the general election?”
Gibson lamented: “No matter who emerges as the nominee for this, is the eventual nominee hurt by the extension of this contest?” Gibson next raised the same poll numbers he highlighted the night before, “But you had to be sobered by that Gallup poll yesterday: 28 percent of her supporters would vote for McCain if you get the nomination, 19 percent of yours would vote for him.”
Jack Kevorkian, AKA Dr. Death, has a celebrity in his fan club, "View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg.
Discussing the notorious suicide assisting doctor’s run for Congress on the March 25 edition, Goldberg said she’s a "big fan" of Kevorkian "because he believed that he could help people who were in, in a place where no one was helping them." Joy Behar wondered: "Why is he a bad guy? I don’t understand it...it’s over my head somewhere." [Audio available here.]
Elisabeth Hasselbeck expressed concern about a "gray area" and "lines blurring," if for example the one responsible for a suffering person’s care has financial motives for that person’s death. Sherri Shepherd, besides a few jokes, did not contribute much to the conversation. Transcript follows:
Americans will be in far greater danger of a terrorist attack after midnight Saturday due to House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), deciding to leave town for a break rather than vote on a surveillance bill that cleared the Senate Tuesday.
Sadly, the good folks at the Associated Press don't seem concerned, for instead of painting an accurate picture of this truly abysmal delay tactic by the left, the wire service chose to defend Pelosi and the Democrats while conveniently ignoring some key facts.
As reported moments ago (emphasis added throughout):
New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers's "news analysis" on Tuesday's front page, "Trial's Focus To Suit Bush" (on seeking the death penalty for six Guantanamo detainees for the 9-11 attacks) could have more accurately been labeled "one reporter's anti-war opinion."
Note the strangely precise excorations that Myers elicited from unnamed "critics."
Mr. Bush never sounds surer of himself than when the subject is Sept. 11, even when his critics argue that he has squandered the country's moral authority, violated American and international law, and led the United States into the foolhardy distraction of Iraq.
David Shuster’s suspension was a topic of discussion on the February 11 edition of "The View," as at least Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg disagreed with the Clinton campaign for demanding an even harsher punishment for Shuster. Walters first expressed mixed feelings that many people rely on "The View" for news adding "sometimes we’re very wonderful and very accurate and sometimes we’re not."
An offended Joy Behar chimed "I don’t think we’re less accurate than a lot of the shows that I watch, because I watch all of them," adding "we do our research here." Barbara Walters apologetically replied "I shouldn’t have said that."
Is ABC "View" co-host Joy Behar so far out of the political mainstream that she has a skewed sense of what entails a "liberal" and a "conservative?" The same woman who called Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "very moderate" on the February 7 show, John McCain has "been very conservative in all his policies." Apparently anyone who does not march lockstep with NARAL is an arch-conservative, as Behar explained that McCain is "so conservative because he’s against choice."
Very conservative in all of his policies? John McCain’s 2006 rating with the American Conservative Union was 65. While he certainly votes for the conservative position more often than not, he has far from a solid conservative record. The Club for Growth assailed McCain’s vote against the 2001 tax cuts and his class warfare reasoning for opposing it.
"View" co-host Joy Behar offered her political expertise to explain the conservative opposition to John McCain: Conservatives support "torture" (a liberal propaganda term for CIA interrogation methods of actual terrorists). On the February 4 edition of "The View," Behar, who considers the term "fringe liberal" "name calling," explains why "very extreme right wing conservatives" oppose McCain.
BEHAR: Ann Coulter, she says, Coulter, who makes a living by being provocative, picked a predictably offensive reason to oppose McCain. Quote, from Ann, "he has led the fight against torture at Guantanamo." That’s why she doesn’t like him because he is against torture. I think that’s fascinating.
GOLDBERG: I think if she meets him, he would torture her.
Proving once again in good European form that they think nothing American is democratic, good or fair, Reuters gives us a pity party for CAIR who is whining that they "feel left out" of the 2008 presidential elections. With the headline blaring "Some non-Christians feel left out of election," Reuters gives us a tale of woe guaranteed to make Europeans shake their heads knowingly that we Americans are really just Christian nuts out to oppress all minorities. One does wonder, however, how CAIR would like it if Muslims did become a focus of the 2008 elections? In light of current events it is doubtful if such a focus would be favorable to them, so, were I them, I'd be happy no one is paying attention to them!
In a U.S. election campaign where presidential candidates from both major parties have talked openly about their Christian faith, some non-Christians feel shut out or turned off.
Listen, this is a majority Christian nation and anyone wanting to get elected is naturally going to talk as closely as possible to that majority. This country is still over 75% Christian, so it is a logical presumption that citizens whose religion represents only a few percentage points would not be a focus of a politician's efforts!
Well, this will send the Kossacks into a tizzy! The Wall Street Journal has an op-ed by Dan Gerstein, "Decline of the Angry Left." Gerstein, a senior adviser for Joe Lieberman's various national campaigns, claims that the Daily Kos is finished as a mover and shaker in Democratic politics. After reading it over I think he is dead on with much of his analysis. The anger of the extremist, left as seen on a daily basis on the Daily Kos site has lost the contest for the hearts and minds of the Democratic Party. As Gerstein notes, he has been the target of the left before and this op ed certainly won't make him their newest American idol!
In fact, Gerstein might not make himself very welcome in many Democratic circles all the way 'round with his denigration of the party leadership at this time.
Heaping praise on moderate Republican Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), the Washington Post devoted not one but two articles in the January 31 paper to the congressman. The Post lauded Davis for his centrism, but particularly for angering the Virginia GOP's conservative base. Yet left unmentioned was any analysis suggesting moderation was what felled his wife's 2007 state senate reelection campaign.
Staff writer Bill Turque penned a Metro section front pager ("In Va., Congress, Davis Has Ruled From the Center") that began by noting Davis's Republican Party family pedigree before adding that Davis "crushed" his first political opponent in a 1979 election "by placing himself firmly in the center."
You don’t see this every day. In a fierce Maryland fight for a majority-black seat in Congress, Rep. Al Wynn’s campaign filed a complaint against Donna Edwards, the leftist challenger that he barely beat in the last election cycle. The Washington Post reported he said in a conference call with reporters: "There seems to be a vast, dare I say, left-wing conspiracy designed to circumvent campaign finance laws." Wynn is being challenged as too conservative, even though he has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 9.9 percent.
Edwards (the candidate the Post noted was supported in the cold by actor Danny Glover) is on leave as executive director of the Arca Foundation, a hard-left philanthropy. Its newest focus is on media groups – including $50,000 to Media Matters for America to monitor religious broadcasting (think Pat Robertson on "The 700 Club.")
You can tell a lot about how the news media feel about conservatives by watching how they talk about Rush Limbaugh. They want his influence curbed. They pine for the day his career hits the skids. They’re constantly looking for a moment where they can declare that conservatives no longer have – that Rush Limbaugh no longer has -- the Grand Old Party in a menacing trance. They don’t want Republican candidates seeking a Limbaugh endorsement.
There were at least two completely sickening moments for conservatives on the Monday Today show. At the show's open, all the excitement about Ted Kennedy endorsing Barack Obama bubbled over after talk of co-host Meredith Vieira touring London with the royals. Ann Curry proclaimed: "We'll be checking in with Meredith in London in just a moment. Good morning, Meredith. But let's begin with American royalty - the Kennedys."
I'm sure conservatives would like that to be a trap-door phrase or a Nerf ball-pasting phrase -- the Kennedys as America's royal family. Obama being endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, and Caroline Kennedy? Obama should say "Only Caroline is allowed to drive me." Then there's Paul Begala with his usual embarrassing over-praise of Bill Clinton, who's now Tom Brady:
Comedian Al Franken is running for the U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota, this the media is happy to report. But, for some unexplainable reason, the media isn't so interested in reporting Franken's odd behavior. It seems that an ungovernable rage is always just under the surface with Franken, a rage that has several times broken free and resulted in assault and other violent or antisocial behavior. Why the media doesn't highlight this man's unstable behavior can only mean that they are lending him as much cover as they can to assist his campaign.
His unprofessional and intemperate language is well-known, of course. He has titled books by childishly calling people "big fat liars" and he has utilized his uncivil tongue as a talk-show, shocker. It all makes for a rather angry, uncivil fellow, but if that were all there were to it, one might at least be able to excuse it as mere bravado utilized to make some cash. Still, there is an always lurking anger that is detectable in his ranting. There is just something unstable about the man.
In a report on the upcoming Nevada caucus, CNN reporter Chris Lawrence highlighted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s outreach to Latino voters, and while he did mention the issue of "immigration reform," he did not do the elementary thing a reporter should do: explore what the candidates are saying to Latinos about their immigration proposals.
The report, which aired 21 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour of Thursday’s "American Morning," featured a committed Obama supporter who was once an "undocumented" immigrant (and is described as a "child of immigration reform"), and a Nevada talk radio host who claimed that Hillary Clinton’s experience made her more capable to handle the immigration issue than Obama. But did they talk about amnesty?
Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger, the Washington Post’s "Reliable Sources" gossip columnists, were all smiles in their column for leftist actor Danny Glover as he stumped for a leftist trying for a second to unseat Democratic Rep. Al Wynn in Maryland, contending he’s too conservative (with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 9.9 percent):
Lots of Hollywood types show up to a rally and give a two-minute speech. But who among them will do the real dirty work of politics?
Ladies and gentlemen, Danny Glover. The "Lethal Weapon" star turned out last night for congressional candidate Donna Edwards, doing the kind of chore that cures most folks of higher-office notions: standing at a Metro station on a cold winter night shaking hands with potential voters.
Glover is hailed for his commitment in the cold, and he jokes in the story that Mel Gibson would never do the same.
With the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act that would ban the export of US horses for slaughter before Congress, the Times dove right into this activist Thunderdome. The NYT revealed after the state bans, unwanted horses face “more grueling travel” and are shipped to Canada or worse, “gruesome deaths” in Mexico, where their spinal cords are severed with knives (bold mine).
The American slaughterhouses killed horses quickly by driving steel pins into their brains, a method the American Veterinary Medical Association considers humane. Workers in some Mexican plants, by contrast, disable them by stabbing them with knives to sever their spinal cords, said Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University..
Are Hillary Clinton’s recent troubles the result of unfair press coverage? According to "The View’s" Joy Behar they are. On the January 8 edition of the ladies chat show, the co-hosts discussed Senator Clinton’s recent emotional breakdown when Behar exclaimed, "I feel like crying for her now. I feel so bad about how the press has been vilifying her."
As is expected for a woman who frequently gets her factswrong, the facts simply do not back her up. Even the allegedly "conservative" Fox News gave the New York Senator a softball interview. Since the fall, several negative stories about Senator Clinton broke that the network news simply did not pick up. Some of the most prominent examples include news that former President Bill Clinton left his wife in charge of Clinton Library documents that have not been released, and raising an extremely high amount of money from poor Chinese immigrants.
Despite recent campaign flubs that have significantly challenged the inevitability of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) winning the Democrat nomination for president, the supposedly smartest woman in the world continues to go after prominent media members.
After highly-publicized attacks on NBC's Tim Russert and David Gregory last year, Hillary has now set her sights on CNN's Lou Dobbs, referring to "commentators who are doing well for themselves by making [immigration] a hot issue," while asking "does all that hot air solve anything?"
On Wednesday's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," the host marvelously struck back by stating that "candidates that pander to both extremes, are, as far as I am concerned, abject fools" who "will pay a price for it in the general election when they have to answer to the great center of the country":
What is not reported is often far more important than what is
The Media, Their Mouths and Their Minds
And you thought the media made it tough with their mouths open. They make things far more difficult when they choose to keep them shut.
Consuming news as a conservative is always an unappetizing proposition, given the Leftist slant to nearly everything on the menu. Being fed a steady diet of what collectively amounts to "You are wrong, and an ass (to boot) for what you think" leaves the average diner unsatisfied.
We are delivered so many servings of these media bias sins of commission we have been forced to make antacids the fifth food group. Here at the Media Research Center we find ourselves perpetually understaffed and overwhelmed in our efforts to chronicle it all. (We were going to address this by conducting a hostile takeover of the New York Times, but we found them to be too hostile and with too little left to take over.)
Was it a change of heart or manipulating the media? My personal opinion is of the latter, and I've gathered several reactions from other bloggers that seem to agree. The way the media is reporting it right now, Mike just made a stupid mistake and it is backfiring already.
NBC’s Ann Curry interviewed Mitt Romney on Friday morning's Today on the impact of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, and in a tough interview, she dismissed Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy credentials. When Curry questioned Romney’s foreign policy experience, Romney noted that Reagan "was a governor, not a so-called foreign policy expert." Curry dismissively stated "Reagan was not elected at a time of war."
No, Reagan was just elected in an intense point in the Cold War. The Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and U.S. diplomats were still being held hostage in Iran. Romney did say that Reagan was "elected at a time of the Cold War. And the Cold War was the greatest challenge that was faced by this nation in the last half of the last century."
Chris Matthews was in full flight on today's Morning Joe, vividly expressing himself on everything from the historic shockwaves that an Obama Iowa victory would send, to Media Matters's role as a Hillary front, to the attitude of NewsBusters. But the Hardball host was especially animated in describing the way the Clintons use intimidation to keep people in line.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: In the world, in the universe, the biggest American political story of modern times if Obama wins the Iowa caucuses. It will be all over the world; it will sweep the headlines in every newspaper in the world: friend, foe or neutral. It will be the Third World story of the century, of the last century [Barack's Time Machine?], the biggest story of modern Third World history, really, if Obama wins the American presidential caucus in Iowa.
NewsBusters and affiliate The Business & Media Institute have been reporting for many months the continuous, bearish assessments of economic gloom and doom by America's press.
Of course, this all comes despite 24 straight quarters of Gross Domestic Product growth, 50 consecutive months of job gains, higher wages for virtually all Americans, and last month's consumer spending explosion.
Ignoring all this Sunday morning were panelists on "The Chris Matthews Show" who demonstrated such a deplorable lack of economic acumen that maybe they shouldn't be allowed to comment on such matters when cameras and microphones are on.
As 2007 comes to a close, one has to wonder just how much further the press are willing to go printing Democrat talking points in order to get the candidates of their choice elected next year.
Throughout 2006, the biased media told the citizenry that all their problems would be solved if they kicked Republicans out of office, and elected enough Democrats to take over the Senate and the House.
Now that the first year of the 110th Congress has ended with key Democrat campaign promises not having been fulfilled, it's all the Republicans' fault.
Despite the absurdity of such a claim, that's exactly how the Associated Press depicted the situation in an article published moments ago, while making the case that if readers want Congress to accomplish more in the future, they had better vote for Democrats in 2008 (emphasis added throughout):
With less than a year to go until the November elections, it seems a metaphysical certitude any media outlet addressing the campaign efforts of a Republican candidate is going to figure out a way to reference the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
After all, supposedly impartial press representatives in 2004 did everything within their power to discredit the claims against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) made by this organization, so much so that "Swift Boat" has become both a verb and an adverb in political parlance.
Such was the case Wednesday when the Los Angeles Times published an article about Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Even though the piece dealt with an organization opposing the former New York City mayor, it did so by grossly misrepresenting some pertinent facts about Kerry's detractors (emphasis added throughout, h/t Patterico and NBer Bingo):
Although just 30% of those polled give Democrats in Congress good marks, they favor the party by a 53%-40% margin in next year’s elections. That represents a silver lining for Democrats, who achieved only a fraction of their ambitious agenda after taking over Congress.
It’s odd because Wolf doesn't indicate how many of those polled gave Republicans in Congress good marks. It's even odder that the 53%-40% election margin Wolf cited is nowhere to be found in the survey detail. Also, neither the article nor the survey detail have an external link to information relevant to this margin.
But the survey detail does tell us that 26% give Republicans in Congress good marks, only 4 points fewer than the Dems. Wolf "somehow” managed not to mention that.