President Obama’s budget is finally out -- a mere 65 days late -- and it’s loaded with tax increases.
At yesterday’s press briefing, White House flack-in-chief Jay Carney admitted that middle class tax increases were coming. But if a tree falls in the woods, does anyone hear it? Major media outlets like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and sadly even the Wall Street Journal failed to mention this aspect in their coverage of the budget’s unveiling today. Here's the relevant exchange from the April 9 briefing (emphasis mine):
Here’s a good definition of what The Washington Post doesn’t find newsworthy. The big headline on the front page of Monday’s Washington Examiner was “Most on D.C. welfare don’t look for work: 22% of able recipients meet job-search rules.”
A quick Nexis search of The Washington Post finds no attempt to report on this sad fact in the last few weeks. Examiner reporter Eric Newcomer explained:
As if it weren't enough for the Washington Post to cheerlead for Maryland's new stringent gun control law in the editorial pages and in biased news accounts, staff writers Aaron Davis and Paul Schwartzman today rewarded liberal governor and potential 2016 presidential contender Martin O'Malley with a 62-paragraph front-page victory lap headlined "Behind Md.'s tough gun law, a personal push."
"Md. governor driven by one fear: Could Newtown happen here?" insisted the headline on the the jump page. Left virtually unexamined, of course, would be how O'Malley's push for stringent gun control would help him campaign among liberal base voters in the 2016 primaries. No, Davis and Schwartzman painted O'Malley as driven by a purely altruistic desire to spare Maryland parents the pain of burying their children thanks to a mad gunman's rage:
It sounded like 2006 all over again: liberals and leftists plan a rally for illegal immigrants gaining an amnesty, and The Washington Post applies the usual liberal formula of pre-protest buildup: it’s going to be massive! And no one who’s organizing this is a liberal!
If the protests are large – and they were in 2006 – some credit should go to the free advertising the Post gives in advance. In this case, it was a story on the front page of Sunday's Metro section with a color photo. “Activists riding a fresh wave of optimism ahead of immigration rally,” promised the headline:
Here's today's sign the Washington Post is a Democrat rag. This story is on A-4: "Health-care law may backfire for some on Medicaid: Expansion threatens to oust thousands in states with generous programs." This story is on A-1: "Democrats seek infusion of new faces."
Paul Kane's front-pager passed along the DCCC's new strategy of finding "problem solvers" that...don't know how to solve problems yet. The central character is Kevin Strouse, a former Army Ranger with no set positions on the issues. "Immigration? Tax policy? 'Certainly I have a lot of research to do,' Strouse acknowledged" as he announced a House run in Pennsylvania. This is the Tea Party takedown?
Should federal prosecutors be allowed to pack heat? It’s a good question given the recent assassinations of a District Attorney and his assistant in Kaufman County, Texas. While not federal prosecutors, the recent assassinations illustrate that prosecutors have become a target for violence, particularly in federal cases where drug cartels – or terrorists – may be involved.
Recently, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) sent a letter to Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, seeking clarification on federal policy about the ability of federal prosecutors carrying firearms on federal property. The Washington Post covered this development in Friday's paper, but buried the item on page A10. What's more, within the story itself, reporter Ed O'Keefe buried in the next-to-last paragraph the fact that the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, which represent federal prosecutors, are supportive of the initiative that would permit their clients to carry firearms.
Brooks Thistlethwaite was praising the Fox News anchor for "vigorously defending his statement that opponents of same-sex marriage needed to do more than 'thump the Bible' if they wanted to win the debate." "If you want to influence public policy from a faith perspective, thumping the Bible does not constitute a religious argument," the Chicago Theological Seminary professor pontificated. But as we at NewsBusters have documented repeatedly, Brooks Thistlethwaite repeatedly uses the Bible to justify her calls for liberal policy prescriptions on everything from gun control to tax hikes to gay marriage.
Yesterday, Juliet Eilperin wrote for the Washington Post that “the public interest in climate change is waning.” Posted to Chris Cillizza’s Fix blog, it’s odd that Eilperin didn’t use any hard numbers in this piece. Citing Pew, she did say that support has dropped six points since last October, but what, pray tell, was the support at that time? Ten percent? Twenty-five?
Maybe she omitted the hard numbers for the simple reason that Americans have NEVER viewed this as a high priority issue. Let’s go back to January when President Obama – and the media – were pushing hardest for gun control policies. Aa Washington Post/ABC Poll found that 18 percent of all adults viewed addressing global warming as a high priority. Concerning the partisan breakdown, only 26% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans thought that stopping the polar ice caps was of the highest national urgency.
Yesterday, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler decided to not to be a lapdog for the Obama administration with his Pinocchio test concerning background checks for firearm purchases. On April 2, he awarded President Obama’s claim that 40 percent of gun sales don’t require a background check, which earned him three -- out of four possible -- Pinocchios from Kessler.
Kessler explained that " there are two key problems with the president’s use of this statistic:
Since the existing background-check system began, in 1994, officials have screened more than 108 million people before they could buy a gun, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the federal government has blocked 1.9 million attempted purchases because of felony convictions or other problems with the would-be buyers’ background.
But no background check is required for about 40 percent of gun purchases, including those made online or at gun shows, federal officials estimate. Requiring checks for those purchases would be the single most effective way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, advocates say.
To his credit, the Washington Post's Zachary A. Goldfarb reported yesterday that the Obama administration is possibly repeating the same policy mistakes that sank the housing market. To get to the heart of the matter, our national housing bubble quickly inflated as a result of too many people with poor credit buying homes that they couldn’t afford. As that number multiplied, banks created more unstable mortgages to keep up with demand until eventually the bubble burst
Well, it seems that Mr. Obama is pushing banks to restart this self-destructive economic policy. Goldfarb wrote:
I find that the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza usually plays things pretty much down the middle, and subscribe to his Fix email blast.
So it came as an unpleasant surprise to find in my inbox a little while ago a Cillizza email, linking to his current Fix column, tthat referred to Mark Sanford as "the turd in the political punch bowl." Cillizza repeated the line in the column itself. View the screengrab after the jump.
You have to hand it to Washington Post editors. They're pretty slick. In hiring Jennifer Rubin as their token conservative blogger, they have a rightie who criticizes the Right enough to ensure they seldom have to actually put in the print edition excerpts of her posts critical of President Obama. In early March I noted how Post opinion editors excerpted a Rubin blog which bashed the conservative CPAC conference rather than say publish a blog post which attacked Obama and the media over sequester hype.
In the Monday, April 1 paper the Post was at it again, choosing to run a Rubin piece that sought to explain how socially conservative opponents of same-sex marriage "lost the fight" on the policy issue. But a review of Rubin's Right Turn blog archive shows a piece she wrote on Friday morning that would have been excellent to put in print and which attacked President Obama over his "gun histrionics." Here's an excerpt which includes many of her key points (emphasis mine):
Ken Shepherd was amazed on Thursday that Washington Post "On Faith" diva Sally Quinn took 48 days to slam Dr. Ben Carson for the alleged rudeness of his National Prayer Breakfast speech. But that's nothing. In Sunday's Post, Metro columnist (and former Metro section editor) Robert McCartney trashed the Washington Nationals for picking William Howard Taft as their new racing president...65 days after the announcement.
"This mascot ought to be impeached," screeched the headline. The other four racing presidents at Nationals Park are on Mount Rushmore, while "Taft doesn't merit being on a pebble." McCartney complained the "gutsy" move would have had an FDR mascot wheeling behind the race every day:
Maybe we should take to ironically nicknaming Sally Quinn as "Scoop" for this: On March 27, in a column headlined "Does Ben Carson Have a Prayer?" the Washington Post On Faith editor attacked Dr. Ben Carson for his National Prayer Breakfast speech delivered on February 7. That's 48 days between the speech and Quinn's holding forth on why Carson, in her view, improperly politicized a characteristically apolitical prayer breakfast.
Of course, this is rich coming from Quinn because On Faith is chock full of columns by liberal Christians who contort Scripture to make political cases for more gun control, tax hikes, and same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court of Indiana ruled unanimously that their state’s voucher program was constitutional, much to the chagrin of Washington Post blogger Valerie Strauss. “It isn’t the first time a supreme court has made a questionable call,” she wrote in her March 26 Answer Sheet post.
According to Strauss, voucher programs are bad for several reasons. First, she is quite offended that families can choose to use their funds at private religious schools who teach “anti-scientific notions” like creationism. Her article made no room for school voucher proponents, nor did it include any pro-voucher arguments.
The media are in love – with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. From his soda ban, to his global warming views, to his opinions on gay marriage, journalists and pundits have repeatedly given him a platform to promote whatever he wants … and praised him repeatedly.
One of the more interesting things regarding the coverage of the Supreme Court hearing two cases regarding gay marriage has been the lack of reporting on the thousands of individuals who marched on Tuesday in support of traditional marriage.
If you only got your news from the Washington Post, you'd have no clue that the march happened at all, as in two separate pieces both authors ignore the significance of the march, which attracted thousands of traditional marriage supporters.
Washington Post humorist Gene Weingarten -- a former editor of the newspaper's "Sunday Style" section -- is using his "humor" to pinch conservative "evil" again, this time in poetic form. On his weekly chat at washingtonpost.com, Weingarten's "Ode to Pure Evil" is about NRA chief Wayne LaPierre.
In case you don't want to read this entire attempt at rhyme, it ends with a saint shooting LaPierre in the crotch: "Methinks St. Peter will espy him, standing there / And smile, and aim a 30-30 at his scrotum." Did you know liberals wrote "hate poetry"? Here's how it was posted:
The Supreme Court will hear two sides of a debate on gay marriage this week. But if the liberal media had their way, the debate would be over, and the social conservatives would have to sit down and shut up. Take this headline from The Washington Post today: "Political debate on same-sex marriage is over."
Chris Cillizza, who is usually careful to avoid taking a side on issues, made a passionate argument claiming the smart Republicans are already waving a rainbow flag of surrender:
In what looks like a commentary on the front page, Washington Post reporter Zachary Goldfarb's story was a liberal lament: "Signing cuts, Obama lets priorities slip." The little sequester is somehow a major failure for Obama's liberal vision.
"With his signature this week, President Obama will lock into place deep spending cuts that threaten to undermine his second-term economic vision just four months after he won re-election," Goldfarb mourned. Liberal economist Lawrence Mishel has the wackiest quote in the piece:
On Thursday in Ramallah, as Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard blog noted, U.S. President Barack Obama "addressed the assembled journalists while standing under a Yasser Arafat banner." Arafat is rightly considered the “father of modern terrorism.” Since U.S. establishment press coverage is non-existent, I'll take readers to an outraged Nile Gardiner at the UK Telegraph to express how utterly offensive Obama's silently condoning Arafat's legitimacy really is:
The “nonpartisan” Organizing for Action is using the president’s twitter account. How is that not a violation of their 501 (c) (4) status? They’re selling access to the president. The site’s URL is Barackobama.com, and they recently made the decision to not disclose their donors, which seems to be fine with the D.C. watchdog community. Under Bush, this conduct would’ve drawn vociferous reactions from the political left, but Obama has the left and the media cowed.
Aaron Blake reported for the Washington Post on March 22, that the OFA was going to share the president’s Twitter account.
While The Washington Post found it highly newsworthy in a horrified way that Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli would compare abortion to slavery, their Sunday magazine humorist Gene Weingarten thought it was funny to suggest Republicans have a softer line on slavery then on tax hikes.
His column addressed the question "Are there subjects so controversial that you just can’t joke about them? I believe the answer is no. You just have to do it right." Like mock Republicans as savagely racist:
Today, the Washington Post's Ann Marimow and Aaron Davis published a rather celebratory piece on the Metro section front page claiming that a federal court panel's upholding of Maryland’s restrictive "may issue" concealed carry law is a “decision seen as [a] victory for public safety.” "'This is huge' for advocates of gun control," gushed the headline on the jump page, B8. Ever since Newtown, the Washington Post's editorial board has reinvigorated its push for fresh gun control, and ostensibly objective reporters at the paper have also done their part to stack the deck in how they color news related to gun rights issues.
A three-judge panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit -- comprised of jurists appointed by Democratic presidents -- ruled on March 21 that the law passed constitutional muster. Clinton appointee Judge Robert B. King wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel:
On Thursday, The Washington Post's Metro section put the Democrats' choice of “news” on the front page. “Democrats keep focus on abortion in Va. Race.” Post reporter Laura Vozzella relayed their outrage that GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli was caught by a Democrat tracker describing abortion as a moral evil like slavery, as did one of his big financial backers, the Susan B. Anthony List.
A funny thing happened on the way to banning assault weapons in the deep blue state of Maryland. Some Democrats in the overwhelmingly-Democratic House of Delegates are considering amendments to reform the bill to carve out some exemptions. Given the composition of the state government, it may be the best bet that gun rights advocates in Maryland can realistically hope for in the short term, but to the Washington Post, it's a "gut[ting]" of Gov. O'Malley's proposal, even as House Democrats pushing changes say they are seeking to avoid banning guns merely on the basis of cosmetic features.
In his page B1 March 20 story, "Proposals would allow some semiautomatic rifles in Md.," staff writer Aaron C. Davis opened by lumping in "veterans and sportsmen" unfavorably with the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooter and the Beltway snipers by noting that "[s]ome semiautomatic rifles" that were "popular" with the former were used by the latter and could be legal under a revised gun ban in the Old Line State.
If you peruse the Washington Post online, you’d notice that the top five stories didn’t even mention Harry Reid’s egregious comments about the seven Marines that were killed in Nevada yesterday. Likewise, although the fatal training accident itself was reported on page A3, Reid's comments were nowhere in the March 20 print edition.
On the Senate floor yesterday, Reid suggested a link between their deaths and the current budget sequestration. Here's what the Nevada Democrat said which the capital city's newspaper of record apparently finds unremarkable: