Daily Beast

When the Obama scandals pile up and Obama's image of integrity starts to enter the shredder, what do the most partisan reporters do to fend off the bad publicity? Try to portray the conservatives as "nutso" impeachers. At The Daily Beast, there was this headline Monday: "The Coming Attempt to Impeach Obama: The idea of impeaching Obama is industrial-strength insane. Republicans will probably try anyway, predicts Michael Tomasky."

Tomasky portrays conservatives as "crazy" and Obama as the most clueless of presidents: he knew absolutely nothing about the Benghazi talking points? Then who elected him expecting a competent executive? Tomasky leads with his heart, with his fervent Obama-loving hope that history does not record these scandals as significant:

At the Daily Beast on Sunday, liberal Peter Beinart called on Democrats and liberals to "strongly denounce" former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian's insult campaign against Palmetto State Governor Nikki Haley, or else "Democratic Party bigotry is likely to get worse."

It's too early to test Beinart's long-term prediction (such bigotry is bad enough already), but the denunciations he desires are nowhere to be found, even as Harpootlian has doubled and tripled down on his original wish to see Haley sent “back to wherever the hell she came from.” Meanwhile, the establishment press has virtually ignored Harpootlian's unhinged harangues.

Kirsten Powers at Daily Beast made a shocking comparison – legislatively speaking – concerning the Gosnell trial and the abortion rights movement in her column today.  They’ve become “the NRA of the left," the liberal but pro-life Democrat charges.

To her buddies on the Left, those are meant to be fighting words. There is no greater insult for liberals than to be compared to the National Rifle Association, the nation's oldest civil rights organization founded in 1871.

The pro-abortion movement seems to have reached a new extreme in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell murder trial.  In a piece for The Daily Beast, columnist Michelle Goldberg argues that the real lesson of the Gosnell horror show is the need for “freely available and fully subsidized” early-term abortions. 

That's right, she wants you and me to pay for early-term abortions, so as to prevent the demand for the sort of late-term abortions Gosnell performed and, in many cases, botched.

In the paper's only story relating to the trial of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell on March 19 on Page A17, Jon Hurdle at the New York Times opened (HT Twitchy.com) by telling readers that "In opening statements in court on Monday, prosecutors charged that a doctor who operated a women’s health clinic here killed seven viable fetuses ..." -- not already-born infants.

On April 12, while attempting to defend the establishment press's general failure to cover the Gosnell trial ("Why Are the Media Apologizing About Kermit Gosnell Coverage?"), Josh Dzieza at the Daily Beast wrote that "Gosnell is accused of providing late-term abortions by inducing labor and then severing the fetus’ spinal cord with scissors." Uh, Josh, at that point anyone should concede that we're talking about a b-b-b-b ... baby. Gosh, even the obviously proabort Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, concedes that.

As NewsBusters reported, Fox News host Sean Hannity was rudely treated by Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) Tuesday.

Rather shockingly, the Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz and Lauren Ashburn, in a video posting at the website Daily Download, said Wednesday that Hannity was "in the right" and that it was indeed Ellison that behaved poorly (video follows with transcript and commentary):

On Friday, the now all-digital Newsweek marked Benedict XVI's impending departure from the papacy by turning to British writer Tim Parks, who took the opportunity to air his grievances against the current pontiff's predecessor, John Paul II. Parks bemoaned "how reactionary and old-fashioned" the Polish-born bishop of Rome was for daring to believe in Catholic devotions and in divine providence.

The Cambridge and Harvard-educated novelist later indicted John Paul for daring to speak out against a whole host of left-wing causes:

It's no secret that the liberal media are heavily sympathetic to liberal-leaning feminist nuns who have a habit of challenging or disregarding Church teaching. But the Daily Beast seems to think that said liberal nuns speak for all women religious (and lay Catholic women for that matter) in the church.

In her February 13 story, "American Nuns Hope for Sister-Friendly New Pope," Daily Beast writer Barbie Latza Nadeau hyped as a the most divisive "scandal" of Benedict XVI's papacy " the so-called clampdown on American nuns last April." "Its no wonder, then, that sisters across America are hoping that the next pope gives them a fairer shake," Nadeau continued, hyping her "exclusive interview"  with " the head of the largest group of American nuns," Sister Florence Deacon, whom the New York Times hailed last October as the "rebel nun."

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes had some harsh words about Barack Obama recently.

In an interview published by the New Republic Monday, Ailes said, "The president likes to divide people into groups."

Surprised they didn't opt for the auto da fe analogy . . .

On Chris Hayes's MSNBC show this morning, Ali Gharib, editor of the "Open Zion" blog at the Daily Beast, described the questioning of Chuck Hagel at his Senate confirmation hearing as "a Republican purge" and a "Maoist public shaming."  Michael Hastings of the Rolling Stone begged to differ, finding it more reminiscent of "Stalin."  View the video after the jump.

Conservatives have long joked that the national press corps see Barack Obama as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Today, Newsweek – at least what’s left of it, an online product for tablets and e-readers – made it official.

Next to a side shot of Obama’s head, the “Inauguration 2013” cover story pronounces: “The Second Coming.”

Nearly one month after the Newtown, Conn., shooting, the official police report on the crime scenes is nearing completion, and a police spokesman tells the Daily Beast's Diane Dimond that there will be some shocking, eye-opening conclusions that counter much of the media' faulty initial reporting. 

One such piece of misinformation was the early, egregious rumor that the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, was a survivalist or "doomsday prepper," a paranoid hoarder obsessed with what she considered the imminent collapse of society. In a January 7 post at the Daily Beast website, Dimond quoted a Lt. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police debunking that notion and saying a forthcoming police report will help to dispel urban legends that have crystallized in the public imagination:

At The Daily Beast, Howard Kurtz compares the gun debate to civil rights and the gay marriage issue. This despite his wanting the media to be "fair to all sides" on the issue.

After suggesting a "media agenda" on the gun issue, Kurtz notes "There was certainly a media agenda during the battle for civil rights in the late 1950s and 1960s. Television helped shine a spotlight on Alabama Gov. George Wallace and other Southern politicians who were fighting to preserve a segregationist society." Oh, so is the NRA the new George Wallace?

In August, President Barack Obama "secretly" authorized support for Syria's rebels. It was so "secret" that Reuters had a story about it. It "broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad."

At the Daily Beast, former Obama administration State Department member P.J. Crowley believes that " Later this year or early next, Washington may formally recognize the Syrian opposition as a viable alternative to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad." Well, okay, sometimes you have to back a less undesirable alternative, but if you do, I would think Obama owes it to the American people to have them understand the true nature of those you're backing. As of this moment, very few Americans know what the rebels would want to do if they achieve power. MEMRI does, because its people watch Middle Eastern TV and videos. What follows is a transcript from an October 21 broadcast (HT Weasel Zippers):

Reviewing several dispatches from the past couple of days, the latest news out of Egypt is that Egyptian "President" Mohammed Morsi "is not backing down in the showdown over decrees granting him near-absolute powers," that "clashes between the two camps (Morsi's Islamist supporters and secular opponents) ... left two dead and hundreds injured," and that the country's Muslim Brotherhood-dominated assembly "pushed through the 234-article draft (constitution) in just 21 hours from Thursday into Friday ... (after) Coptic Christians and liberals earlier had walked out."

The draft constitution includes several articles "that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities," and omits "bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties." Oh, and I almost forgot: "The Obama administration is declining to criticize Egypt's draft constitution." It's worth identifying at this point several (but by no means all; what follows is surely a small sample) of those who in 2011 reassured the world that Egyptians had nothing to fear if the Brotherhood and Islamists became dominant.

The shocking revelation of CIA Director David Petraeus's adultery has rocked Washington and has thrilled the media, perhaps a little too much.

Forget the pain that adultery causes and which Holly Petraeus must be feeling right now. For the Daily Beast/Newsweek's Lizzie Crocker, the whole situation is the perfect news peg to offer aspiring philanderers lessons they can learn from the ex-CIA chief's "rookie mistakes."

On Thursday, I wrote a piece exposing several factual errors in Andrew Sullivan's recent love letter to President Obama.

Sullivan responded hours later:

As hard as it might be to believe, the Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan has become a bigger cheerleader for President Obama than virtually anyone else in the media including the shills on MSNBC.

On Wednesday, he actually penned a drooling, gushing, sycophantic love letter to the current White House resident saying - and I'm not making this up! - "If you voted for Obama in 2008 and don't in 2012, you never really voted for him in 2008":

Andrew Sullivan made a fool of himself on ABC's This Week Sunday.

For the entertainment pleasure of viewers, George Will and PBS's Gwen Ifill assisted the Obama-loving Daily Beast columnist (video follows with transcript and commentary):

The Des Moines Register shocked many political observers Saturday by endorsing Mitt Romney for president.

Clearly not accepting such a thing, Michael Tomasky, the Obama-loving correspondent for the Daily Beast, came out Sunday claiming the Register's endorsement "is little more than a practical joke":

PolitiFact has received a fair share of criticism from conservatives for their spin-heavy fact-checks. The liberal media, for the most part, has accordingly been dismissive of such conservative complaints. But now even The Daily Beast/Newsweek is joining in on the criticism, with contributor Megan McArdle joining conservatives in noting the fact-checker repeated repetition of a falsehood regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Supreme Court case.

Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

In ancient Greece hubris, the sense of exaggerated pride or self confidence, was considered to be such a deadly sin that artists and sculptors of that era were known to purposely leave small imperfections in their works so as to avoid the wrath of the gods. The latest victim of the mortal sin of hubris seems to be Andrew Sullivan. Just 13 days ago Sullivan was in full gloat mode in his Daily Beast column, Romney's Current 3.6 Percent Chance Of Winning. Today? Well, it's an entirely different story judging from the title of Sullivan's current column, Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?

The Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan clearly hasn't gotten over last week's horrible debate performance by the President of the United States.

In an article entitled "Behind The Obama Implosion," Sullivan wrote Sunday evening, "If Obama was rattled by Drudge, Carlson and Hannity yelling 'Remember he's a n---er!' the days before, then the Romney campaign has gotten into Obama's usually impermeable head."

Andrew Sullivan is spitting mad at Tucker Carlson.  Writing at The Daily Beast today, Sullivan vilifies the editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller as a "degenerate, disgusting, racist demagogue."

Sullivan is infuriated by Carlson's Daily Caller having recently called attention to a 2007 speech, largely ignored by the MSM, by then presidential candidate Barack Obama.  Addressing an audience of black ministers, Obama lavishly praised Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed the LA riots and the response to Hurricane Katrina on racism and made, in the words of the Daily Caller, "repeated and all-but-explicit appeals to racial solidarity, referring to 'our' people and 'our neighborhoods.'”  More after the jump.

The headline writers at the Daily Beast are either dumber than a box of rocks, or really, really don't like the content of Eli Lake's story today. The smart money should be on the latter.

As of 5:20 p.m., Lake's story concerning previous attacks on Benghazi, numerous security warnings, and the State Department's refusal to beef up protection was Number 2 in the rotation on the Daily Beast's home page, but with the headline seen after the jump.

Despite having failed to stop let alone reverse the rising of the seas, Barack Obama has made Newsweek’s newest ten best presidents list, which gives readers a top ten of the chief executives since 1900. Newsweek, whose list unsurprisingly is dominated by liberal Democrats, gave this justification for selecting Obama in a caption in a photo slide:

Picking a sitting president in a tally of the best is tricky – history hasn’t had time to put things in a more sober context.  But the historic election of America’s first black president cannot be ignored.  That a man whose ancestors included a slave could become the leader of a nation founded to some extent in slavery is as much an achievement for the country as it is a marker for Obama himself.  Whether Obama stays or goes, his standing, as a fundamentally groundbreaking president will remain.

In an article published shortly before 5 a.m. EDT on the morning of Sept. 26, The Daily Beast's Eli Lake revealed that three separate U.S. intelligence officials confirmed to him that within 24 hours of the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the Obama administration had strong reason to suspect al Qaeda ties to the deadly violence.

Lake noted that the identities of at least four of the participants in the attack on the consulate were found within 24 hours, one of which has been tracked by his use of social media. This of course conflicts with the administration's early story. You may recall that four days after the attack, on Sept 16, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations insisted to CBS' Bob Schieffer that the attack was spontaneous and tied to an obscure video on YouTube.

Liberal Daily Beast writer Michael Tomaksy has already labeled this year's Republican National Convention as "reprehensible."  In his insufferable knowingness, Tomasky claimed that the next few days will be a "toxic waste dump of hate and lies and race-baiting."  In other words, it will be the most racist gathering of party delegates in the history of the republic.  Why? Because The New York Times said so, of course:

Tom Edsall said it without quite saying it this morning in the Times, that this Romney-Ryan campaign is becoming among the most racist we've ever seen. The two key lies so far are totally about race--that Obama is soft on welfare recipients, and that he's "robbing" $716 billion from Medicare (77 percent of recipients are white) to "pay for Obamacare" (that is, to extend health care to black and brown people who don't deserve it, havent earned it, etc.). 

Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas made a statement on Saturday's Fox News Watch that is guaranteed to raise a few eyebrows.

"An African-American president can divide racially in this country - as I believe this one has done quite effectively - and he gets a free pass from the media" (video follows with transcript):

Howard Kurtz considers himself to be a "media analyst."

So what's the deal with his highly-opinionated hit-piece published at the Daily Beast Tuesday with the highly-inflammatory title "Is Paul Ryan a Ticking Time Bomb as Mitt Romney’s Running Mate?"