The Times jumps into the liberal-inspired brouhaha over the RNC's supposedly racist TV ad against Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., who is running in Tennessee against Republican Bob Corker.
"The Tennessee Senate race, one of the most competitive and potentially decisive battles of the midterm election, became even more unpredictable this week after a furor over a Republican television commercial that stood out even in a year of negative advertising.
On last night's Hardball, Chris Matthews hinted at what he had in mind regarding the ad the RNC ran in Tennessee about Dem senatorial candidate Harold Ford, Jr. Claimed Chris:
"It has ethnic overtones, sexual overtones."
Tonight, Matthews took an ugly, explicit leap down into the atavistic mud. Interviewing Sen. Dick Durbin [D-IL] - who was relatively reserved in his comments - Matthews began by asserting that the RNC's goal in running the ad was to "get their point across to perhaps angry white voters, or people who had a problem with a black senator already."
Later, Matthews embraced the absolutely worst stereotype of a racist South, claiming the RNC was:
"playing on white sensitivities about losing white women to black guys. It was so obvious what they were doing there."
Another campaign, another opportunity for the mainstream media to discredit a Republican campaign ad as racist. On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams declared: “Tonight some are saying that one commercial in particular in one very close Senate race has now crossed a racial line.” Andrea Mitchell proceeded to critique the RNC ad attacking Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford and in offering a second example of how the “mid-year elections are getting rough,” Mitchell castigated Rush Limbaugh, ignoring the inaccurate Democratic ad he had criticized. The Tennessee ad made fun of how Ford once attended a Playboy party. In it, a white female recalls how “I met Harold at the Playboy party" and the ad ended with her whispering: "Harold, call me." Mitchell pounced: "The NAACP said the ad, quote, 'plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women'” and “advertising experts like Jerry Della Femina, a Republican, says it is a blatant racial appeal."
Mitchell moved to Limbaugh: "Take a look at what Rush Limbaugh is saying about Michael J. Fox, the actor who suffers from Parkinson's disease and is campaigning for Democrats who support stem cell research. Limbaugh said Fox was acting, exploiting his illness, when he taped this ad for the Democratic Senate candidate in Maryland." Viewers saw a clip of Limbaugh: "He is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act." But Mitchell ignored how Fox was injecting politics into medical research funding policy, how Fox has admitted going off his meds in order to look worse and that Limbaugh was also criticizing Fox's anti-Talent ad in Missouri in which Fox made the distorted claim that “Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us the chance for hope." Plus, it's worth noting that Fox was a lot more steady in a clip of him responding to Limbaugh. (Transcripts from NBC and Limbaugh follow, as well as from ABC)
Video of Mitchell's hit on Limbaugh with two clips of Fox in different conditions -- see screen shots below (1:00): Real (1.7 MB) or Windows Media (2 MB), plus MP3 audio (350 KB)
Referring to an RNC ad as the "Mehlman cesspool," Chris Matthews was being non-partisan. Really - he told us so!
On this afternoon's Hardball, Matthews interviewed Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., Dem candidate for senator from Tennessee. The first topic up was an ad the RNC is currently running using actors to tweak Ford on his positions on a variety of issues, from taxes to gun control to North Korea. The ad also alludes to the fact that Ford attended a Playboy party at the Super Bowl in Jacksonville in 2005.
At the ad's end, an alluring woman saying she met Harold at a Playboy party whispers "Harold, call me!"
Democrats have been quick to cry that the use of a white woman is an insidious appeal to racism. Matthews wasted no time sounding the Dems' battle cry:
The media's swooning over Barack Obama continued on Chris Matthews' syndicated weekend show. Obama drew such rave reviews from the panel as: "terrific!" "hero!" and "ridiculously good looking!" However Obama wasn't the only Democrat drawing praise as Harold Ford Jr's campaign was described as: "nearly flawless," but Republican George "not the brightest bulb on Broadway," Allen didn't fare as well with the critics, as his campaign was labeled: "one of the stupidest campaigns that [was] ever conducted in the history of American politics."
The following are some of the move over-the-top blurbs from the panel on the October 21st, Chris Matthews Show:
It wouldn't be election season without at least one member of the MSM associating Republicans with the Ku Klux Klan. And who better to oblige than the New York Times, in its editorial of this morning It’s Voter-Fooling Time in America. The Times presents its piece as a non-partisan hand-wringer over dirty or deceptive campaign tactics in the last weeks before Election Day. And the editorial does dutifully claim that Dems are "no less tempted to flash bare-knuckle mischief" than Republicans, and offers one example of a Connecticut Dem making a nasty claim about his opponent.
But when you get down into the details, you notice that the Times attributes every other dirty trick or hardball tactic described to Republicans and - sure enough - manages to work in an allusion to the KKK:
It's Bush's fault because he's not sending enough money to local governments.
He doesn't care about the uptick because the victims tend to be young black men.
Oh, and to heck with the Constitution.
There. That wraps it up nicely.
My favorite bit is Venocchi's approving citation of L.A. police chief William Bratton:
``The federal government has stepped back significantly from dealing with the issue of local crime. This administration in Washington clearly feels that local crime is an issue for local towns and municipalities."
A. telling a story in which the n-word is liberally used, or
B. driving through a black neighborhood, flaunting rifles and yelling racial epithets?
I'm going with 'B.' So why did Chris Matthews devote the first half of this afternoon's "Hardball" to the n-word story, and not one second to the driving-through-the-black-neighborhood story?
You don't suppose, do you, that it could have anything to do with the fact that 'A' concerns Republican George Allen, and 'B' his Dem challenger, James Webb?
Matthews opened Hardball with an extended segment featuring Patricia Waring, who in 1978 was apparently the wife of the coach of the University of Virginia rugby club team. She claims that, attending one game, she overheard George Allen telling a story in which he repeatedly used the n-word. She says she confronted him about it, asking him not to use the word.
On Monday night's syndicated Geraldo At Large, Geraldo Rivera compared George Allen to Mark Fuhrman. Rivera, in his final commentary, aired the allegations of racism by Allen critics but never quoted Allen supporters. Teasing the segment Rivera made the Fuhrman comparison:
"Stand by everybody. What does the senator from Virginia have in common with the cop in the O.J. Simpson case? We'll be back in a flash with what may be the beginning of the end of a promising political career."
The following is the entire transcript of Rivera's segment from the September 26th edition of Geraldo At Large:
Rivera: "Do you remember the moment, the very moment that O.J. Simpson beat that murder rap, despite the mountain of evidence against him? I'll give you a hint it had nothing to do with the murders but everything to do with a lie. Watch."
CNN’s "American Morning" featured two reports this morning on Senator George Allen and the controversies engulfing him. Anchor Soledad O’Brien and political reporter Bob Franken apparently found the whole story amusing, as they could barely restrain their glee. During both segments, Franken brought up "macaca"-gate. At 8:07AM, after mentioning the most recent allegations that Allen, as a college student, used a racial pejorative, Franken characterized the macaca incident this way:
Franken: "And, of course, we know about the controversy that erupted when he used another slur, the word macaca, against an Indian-American operative for his opponent's campaign."
Interestingly, an hour earlier, he described the event differently:
Franken: "Of course, we also remember Senator Allen recently, who was captured on video, when he accused an operative for his Democratic opponent of being, quote, a 'macaca,' which we found out was a racial pejorative. Something that the Senator said he did not know."
So, Franken had to find out what the word means? He didn’t instantly know its definition? Then perhaps he shouldn’t assign a motive to Senator Allen’s usage of the phrase.
the past week, Salon has interviewed 19 former teammates and college
friends of Allen from the University of Virginia. In addition to the
three who said Allen used the word "nigger," two others who were
contacted said they remember being bothered by Allen's displaying the
Confederate flag in college, but said they do not remember him acting
in an overtly racist manner. Seven others said they did not know Allen
well outside the football team, but do not remember Allen demonstrating
any racist feelings. A separate seven teammates and friends said they
knew Allen well and did not believe he held racist views. "I don't
believe he was insensitive," said Paul Ryczek, who played center in
Allen's year before joining the Atlanta Falcons. "He had no prejudices,
biases or anything else."
The San Francisco Chronicle has finally found a "hate crime" it can write about.
No, it isn't the hate crime of self-proclaimed terrorist, Omeed Aziz Popal, who drove his SUV into pedestrians throughout San Francisco, killing one, paralyzing another, and injuring many... no not that story. Why Omeed was just a poor, sick-in-the-head fellow, not an Islamist terrorist despite that he claimed to be to all who would listen to him.
I have looked at quite a few San Francisco Chronicle articles, and none of them have used the words "hate crime" in connection with the Aziz Popal story. (Here is a typical oneFamily cites history of mental problems, where the Chronicle never seems to get around to accusing hate crimes, but does feel sorry for the perpetrator)
I wonder how much we'll be hearing of this news in the political press and how much Marylanders will from their MSM:
Rep. Benjamin Cardin has fired a campaign staffer who wrote racially
charged comments on an Internet blog against his opponent, Republican
Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is black, Cardin's campaign confirmed
The blog includes a reference to "Devouring the Competition" by eating
Oreo cookies, which Steele has said people threw at him during a 2002
debate as a slight directed at his race and political views.
In a statement, Cardin also condemned "anti-Semitic" comments written by the female staffer on her own Internet blog [formerly at persuasionatrix.blogspot.com].
One important fact left out of the AP report I quoted above is that the story was broken by our friends over at Wizbang. AP reporter Brian Witte's behavior in this instance is all too familiar. Blogs are often not given the proper credit they deserve for reporting, especially if they're conservative ones.
When Ben Cardin, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senator from Maryland, appeared on this afternoon's Hardball, host Chris Matthews played a Cardin TV ad most of which was taken up by Cardin informing voters that:
"I always try to do what's right, what's in the best interest of Maryland families: taking on the drug companies, the oil companies, the insurance companies."
Let's first note Cardin's daring admission that he tries to do 'what's right.' Bold stuff! Actually, come to think of the track record of Maryland politicians when it comes to obeying the law, maybe it is a rather maverick position after all.
But moving to the meat of his message, is this the platform that Dems in general and Cardin in particular want to offer voters? Vote for us: we'll attack our country's biggest employers and taxpayers! You might call the platform: Cardin vs. Capitalism.
Nobody likes a nag. But liberal Dems are in danger of becoming the party of scolds. First there was Tom Frank and his "What's the Matter With Kansas," scolding red-state Americans for being too dumb to realize it's in their interest to vote Democrat. Then the New York Times berated investors for reacting too enthusiastically to good economic news, driving up stock prices.
Now Los Angeles Times columnist Erin Aubry Kaplan in Not So 'Hot,' Arnold lashes Latinos and other minorities for being insufficently outraged over comments that Arnold Schwarzenegger recently made. Arnold, speaking of CA Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, said that Latina women with black blood are "very hot."
With the 'macaca' controversy growing painfully ancient by the day, Washington Post staff writer Tim Craig found a new liberal talking point to further against Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in his September 6 Metro section article, "Entertainment Industry Donates to Allen's Bid."
My home-delivered Maryland Edition of the paper ran the story without any 'macaca' references on page B5, but Nexis shows the paper's Final Edition ran the story on B1 with two references to 'macaca' in the article.
According to Nexis, the headline for that run of the article was "Music, TV Industry Donates to Allen; Senator Has Faulted Webb's Ties to Field." I noticed it was the 11th story filed or co-written by Craig to mention the 'macaca' flap.
Last July a prankster in Maine rolled a severed, frozen pig's head through the doors of a storefront turned Muslim Mosque in the town of Lewiston. on Sept. 5th, The New York Times decided that this incident is an example of "simmering tensions in this overwhelmingly white, working-class city"-- they helpfully let us know that the census claims that "Maine is 96 percent white" -- over the changing ethnic flavor of the city.
Apparently, Lewiston is a hotbed of racism as far as the Times is concerned.
Naturally, there is not a single mention of just WHY people might be suspicious of Muslims in this day and age. The Times, though, feels it solely a racism without cause that forced Men to flee in fear and a child to feint. There was lots of fleeing and fainting. It was so bad that...
Friday’s Washington Post reported that the NAACP has been cleared by the IRS of charges of violating its tax-exempt status with overt partisan advocacy. Reporter Darryl Fears never described the NAACP as a liberal group, instead using a very typical formulation, that they were "the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization." Fears repeatedly watered down the fiery rhetoric of NAACP speeches, as well as the 2000 commercial where the daughter of dragging-death victim James Byrd claimed then-Gov. George Bush seemed like he was killing her father all over again.
Technically, if we’re not merely defining "civil rights" as the liberal black agenda, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization is the National Rifle Association, fighting for the civil right to bear arms. It’s older and larger than the NAACP.
Bill Maher on HBO’s September 1 “Real Time” went on quite an anti-theistic rant that clearly demonstrated his utter disdain for Christians as well as conservatives. To be sure, this wasn’t the first time Maher went so atheistically ballistic as reported by NewsBusters here.
In this instance, Maher suggested that, “If converting to Islam is all it takes to get the terrorists off our backs, then all I have to say is, ‘Lalalalalalala!’” He referred to Americans as “Christians in name only,” asserting that "the best part is that nothing that really matters to you will be different. It’s not like we’re asking you to change your e-mail address." And, he stated that converting to Islam would make conservative Christians happy: “You mean we can stone homosexuals instead of just bitching about them on talk-radio? Thank you Jesus…I mean, Allah.”
To fully appreciate the level of the vitriol – albeit disguised as comedy with some admittedly humorous moments – one must see the video here (go to minute two). Hat tip to our old friend Ian Schwartz who now works for Hot Air. A full transcript follows:
The Wall Street Journal has a good editorial on CBS's latest ratings ploy, dividing contestants on its "Survivor" show up by race. The board argues, correctly in my view, that this isn't good for America:
Last week CBS revealed that its reality program "Survivor" would divide
competing teams (or "tribes") by race. Sometime this fall we could thus
be treated to an announcement like, "The white team has managed to vote
the black team off the island."
To more than a few people,
not surprisingly, this didn't exactly seem like a great idea. In fact,
it seemed like a very bad one, playing up identity-politics divisions
in a crude and potentially rancorous way. "This idea is so
ill-conceived that it would be funny--but for the fact that racism does
still sometimes rear its ugly head," New York City Councilman John Liu
Still, network executives have not backed down, even
when GM, a major "Survivor" sponsor, announced this week its decision
to pull its advertising from the program. (GM claims this had nothing
to do with the show's new season.) Mark Burnett, the producer of
"Survivor," has defended his race-based concept by noting that the show
has been criticized in the past for not having enough diversity. "We're
always hearing about how we only have two token blacks on the show."
surely Mr. Burnett and his colleagues realized that their new effort at
"diversity" would not pass without controversy. They probably welcomed
it, for the show's ratings are in need of a boost. And, like it or not,
the ploy will probably work. You don't have to survey every American
family, or even every Nielsen family, to find out that people like
watching people who look like themselves on TV. Many "Survivor"
watchers may well find themselves cheering on "their team." Mr. Burnett
suggests that his program is simply presenting life as it really is:
"Even though people may work together, they do tend in their private
lives to divide along social and ethnic lines."
Stuart Taylor Jr. writes in Slate that the New York Times "still seems bent on advancing its race-sex-class ideological agenda, even at the cost of ruining the lives of three young men" from the Duke lacrosse team.
If you're the New York Times and the story is the alleged gang rape of a black woman by three white Duke lacrosse players—a claim shown by mounting evidence to be almost certainly fraudulent—you tone down your rhetoric while doing your utmost to prop up a case that's been almost wholly driven by prosecutorial and police misconduct.
And by bad journalism. Worse, perhaps, than the other recent Times embarrassments. The Times still seems bent on advancing its race-sex-class ideological agenda, even at the cost of ruining the lives of three young men who it has reason to know are very probably innocent. This at a time when many other true believers in the rape charge, such as feminist law professor Susan Estrich, have at last seen through the prosecution's fog of lies and distortions.
A night after NBC anchor Brian Williams featured, as his sole expert of the impact of race in the Katrina disaster, left-wing professor Michael Eric Dyson who charged that Barbara Bush's suggestion -- that many victims were better off in their new cities -- “reinforced the reputation of the Bushes as clueless patricians,” Williams confronted President George W. Bush Tuesday with the insult, as if Dyson is some sort of authoritative figure. Williams hit Bush with this indictment: "You have apologized for the damage, but what about the damage to your presidency? And, Mr. President, here's what I mean. Most of the analysts call it your low point. A lot of Americans are always going to believe that that weekend, that week, you were watching something on television other than what they were seeing, and Professor Dyson from the University of Pennsylvania said on our broadcast last night it was because of your 'patrician' upbringing, that it's a class issue."
Williams soon demanded to know if Bush has “any moments of doubt that we fought the wrong war, that there's something wrong with the perception of America overseas?" When Bush replied that “the war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said let's hope calm works. And we were attacked," Williams gratuitously retorted: "But those weren't Iraqis." Williams also advocated a tax hike in the guise of a question: "The folks who say you should have asked for some sort of sacrifice from all of us after 9/11, do they have a case, looking back on it?" (Transcript follows)
Looking back at Katrina a year later, NBC's Brian Williams decided to raise the issue of race and to showcase as his sole expert, on both Monday's NBC Nightly News and a prime time special, left-wing professor Michael Eric Dyson, author of Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster. Williams, from New Orleans, set up his Nightly News segment by arguing the disaster “destroyed” a lot and “it exposed a lot, too, including, some say, the dicey issues of race and class in our country.” Dyson, a regular on Bill Maher's HBO show and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, declared: "The people in New Orleans were left behind long before the vicious winds and violent waters of Hurricane Katrina came along to wash them away."
Williams asked: "What was your reaction when Barbara Bush said they're really better off?" Dyson retorted: "Yeah, I'm a Christian minister man, so I always try to give love as the first response. But I'll tell you, when Barbara Bush said that, it reinforced the reputation of the Bushes as clueless patricians, number one. Number two, inadvertently, let's be honest, she was right at a certain level...” Williams followed up: "Were they robbed of their dignity by the government?" (Transcript follows)
Over the weekend on NBC’s syndicated "The Chris Matthews Show," Matthews and his media panel predicted the House would fall to the Democrats, prompting Matthews to wonder what sort of "scare tactic" Republicans would employ in the upcoming midterms. Matthews asked Time’s Michael Duffy if the Republicans were "gonna bring in the ethnic factor?"
Then later in the program Matthews honored the media’s Katrina coverage by highlighting this exaggerated report from an NBC cameraman: "Dead people around the walls of the Convention Center laying in the middle of the street."
Matthews and the panel began the show discussing the inevitability of the Democrats retaking Congress and what Republicans would stoop to, to prevent the takeover which led to this exchange between Matthews and Duffy:
It seems everyone's going to be getting in on the Katrina-exposed-racism extravaganza this week. Looking through Thursday night's BBC World rebroadcast that's shown locally here on PBS station WETA, MRC's Michelle Humphrey found something weird. As reporter Jim Fish narrated a story on racial cohesion in Britain and France, he then took a jolting turn to a one-sentence condemnation of America:
"And in the most renowned melting pot society of all, the United States, Hurricane Katrina exposed the grim reality that far too many black people remain at the bottom of the pile, too often ignored and cut off from the American Dream."
As Tom Johnson noted, Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon wrote a column for Thursday's paper, headlined "Gumbel Has the Right To Say What He Feels." After Gumbel insulted union leader Gene Upshaw about needing a "leash" because he was the NFL Commissioner's "pet," Wilbon said he disagreed with the argument that Upshaw made bad deals for football players, but suggested the idea of the NFL Network removing Bryant Gumbel from broadcasting their football games later this fall "not only won't fly but will look like the silliest Nixonian attempt at censorship." But don't give him a First Amendment Award. That's not the way Wilbon felt about Rush Limbaugh broadcasting football games. In May of 2000, when ABC was considering Limbaugh as the third man in the broadcast booth for "Monday Night Football," he declared Rush was a racist, and has no right to broadcast:
The New York Times might be thankful that it is not on trial with Dan Abrams serving as prosecutor. The impassioned argument he made against the journalistic value of the Times' lengthy account of the Duke rape case in today's paper, Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers, might have sent the paper to the Big House for years to come.
Interviewed by Tucker Carlson, Abrams, who until taking over as head of MSNBC had his own justice-oriented show on the network, came out guns ablazin'.
"I thought it was shameful. I think it was an editorial on the front page of what is supposed to be the news division of the newspaper."
Previous NewsBusters posts (this one, for example) have dealt with the racial elements of Bryant Gumbel's Tagliabue/Upshaw/leash remark, but what about its substance? Is it true, as Gumbel contends, that NFL players have been shortchanged by weak union leadership? Two prominent columnists -- one white, one black, and, incidentally, both politically liberal -- aren't buying it.
Gregg Easterbrook, in this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on ESPN.com, wrote:
As to the substance of Gumbel's claim, he's way off...Baseball long-term has had the most confrontational labor relations of the major sports, so let's compare MLB player pay with NFL player pay since the onset of the NFL salary cap in 1994. Adjusting for inflation, the average pro baseball player's pay has risen 71 percent since 1994, while the average pro football player's pay has risen 132 percent. NFL player pay increases have dwarfed all other team sports, which hardly sounds like the union is on a leash...
Update 9/01/06: As reported in a later entry, S R Sidarth was contacted via telephone and denied ever having posted at autoadmit as S R Sidarth. The postings at autoadmit have since been altered to include a different poster ID. While the ID's of posters at autoadmit ultimately remain anonymous to outsiders, it is not believed to be the S R Sidarth, recently in the news due to a remark by Senator Allen, who made the posts in question.
It’s been noted on this site before that David Shuster’s reports for MSNBC’s Hardball read like DNC press releases and last night was no exception as he attacked the administration on Katrina and Iraq and even found time to slam Sen. George Allen. Shuster opened fire: "Almost a year since Hurricane Katrina swamped the Gulf Coast, left the country shocked at the Bush administration's ineptitude the Bush team is now engaged in damage control for the year after reminder."
During his report Shuster cited Nancy Pelosi to attack Bush on Katrina, Sen. John McCain to hit Bush on Iraq and Howard Dean to slam Allen. Then Shuster called the Democrat's "wise" and doomed the GOP with this sign-off: "Reminding voters of your opponent's mistakes is a wise political campaign strategy and between George Allen, the problems in Iraq and the anniversary of the Bush team's Katrina debacle Democrats are now having a field day. Republicans are simply trying to hang on just 75 days before the congressional elections. I'm David Shuster for Hardball in Washington."