CBS News's Bob Schieffer falsely claimed Monday that he had reported one of the racial slurs Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden made in 2007.
The record proves otherwise.
Speaking with WOR Radio's Steve Malzberg about the differing media coverage for Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Biden, Schieffer made the case that the various gaffes and racially insensitive remarks uttered by the Delaware Senator aren't being discussed by mainstream media members now because they were already reported, including by him (eleven-minute audio available here, relevant section at 6:18):
Forget questions about her Pentecostal roots or mockery of her term as a small town mayor. The latest symptom of Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) may be painting the female Republican governor as an enemy of women, and no, it's not just vis-a-vis the typical pro-choice talking points.
Evangelicals and social conservatives have embraced McCain's vice presidential pick for what they call her "pro-family," "pro-woman" values. But in Alaska, critics say Gov. Sarah Palin has not addressed the rampant sexual abuse, rape, domestic violence and murder that make her state one of the most dangerous places in the country for women and children.
MarketWatch columnist, Jon Friedman, has posted a column that appears to have been composed in an alternate universe in an entirely different space/time continuum than ours. It is a universe in which the media somehow built up Sarah Palin and in which the public will also become bored with her. Does this sound like our own universe? Of course not. In our universe, the real one, the media has been tearing down Sarah Palin from day one. Therefore I am using this special cross-dimensional transmitter to relay to Friedman of the alternate universe a couple of examples of the media tearing down Palin right from the start such as this putdown of Alaska by CNN's Jack Cafferty as a "state that has 13 people and some caribou," and this diatribe by Campbell Brown. And those are but two of scores of such examples.
On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming segment on the presidential campaign by implying a new scandal was brewing around Sarah Palin: "Palin-tology, Obama sharpens his attacks, as questions are asked about Todd Palin's role in his wife's office." In the later segment, Rodriguez talked to former Bush advisor Dan Bartlett and Democratic strategist Joe Trippi about the campaign and asked Bartlett: "We see new investigations springing up this morning, allegations that she consulted with her husband before making major decisions and vetoing millions of dollars of projects, that she appointed friends in key positions. Dan, do you think that this could hurt?"
Bartlett responded by observing: "Well, show me a politician who doesn't consult their spouse or their friends when they get into political office. I think there's nothing here yet that I've seen that's gained any traction." Meanwhile, Rodriguez has not asked similar questions about what degree of influence Michelle Obama has over her husband’s political decisions.
With Barack Obama losing his lead in a variety of polls, CNN anchor John Roberts on American Morning today decided to look elsewhere for encouragement. He and CNN London correspondent Becky Anderson, with the bottom of the screen announcing, "The world wants Obama," looked at a BBC poll showing that, at least among foreigners, Obama is still a superstar:
ROBERTS: It has been said that politics is a popularity contest. And according to a new BBC Poll, Barack Obama is more popular among people overseas. CNN's Becky Anderson is looking at the poll results for us this morning. She is live right there by Carnaby Street in London.
Good morning to you, Becky.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.
You're absolutely right. An overwhelming majority of the 22,000 people who are polled across 22 countries around the world favor an Obama presidency. Now, let's be honest. Obama did have an advantage going into this campaign as far as the rest of the world is, was and will be concerned, John. It's anybody but Bush. And by dent of association, therefore, anyone but John McCain.
The good folks at "Fox & Friends" Monday morning credited NewsBusters for exposing the four hit pieces the New York Times published Sunday about Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
With the words "Palin Panic? NYT Puts Out 4 Hit Pieces In One Day" on the screen, co-host Gretchen Carlson teased (video embedded right):
In the meantime, we should talk a little New York Times, and the articles that they've been writing about Gov. Sarah Palin. In one day, in fact, I think that they had four articles on Sarah Palin, and last time I checked she was running for VP, wasn't she?
Co-host Steve Doocy ably took the handoff (h/t NBer blonde):
One would assume that the Old Media would have a phalanx of intrepid mushing, journos swarming about Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin's hometown. One would think that every single person that lives within 100 miles of Wasilla would have been contacted by at least one journalist by now. That the media's due diligence would have been dilagenced to death at this point. I mean, it's been two weeks! Well, according to Greta Van Susteren, the media is curiously absent in Wasilla.
Greta posted a quickie blog entry on September 12 wondering where the heck everyone was?
It's been less than a month since Barack Obama has picked Joe Biden to be his running mate and already there are calls from liberals, made desperate by Obama's plunge in the polls, to replace Biden with Hillary Clinton. One such plea comes from Huffington Post blogger Andy Ostroy, described as a "New York City-based political analyst," with a blog entry titled, "Why Replacing Biden With Hillary Makes Perfect Sense for Obama." Here is Ostroy's rationale for one of the biggest flip-flops in political history (emphasis mine):
Sen. Joe Biden's a perfectly appropriate vice presidential running-mate for Sen. Barack Obama. He's got 36 years of Senate experience, is a true intellect, a foreign policy expert, and a genuinely nice guy. But ever since Sen. John McCain added plucky Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket, the old adage nice guys finish last is beginning to take on new meaning in this year's presidential contest. It's time to dump Biden and replace him with Sen. Hillary Clinton. I don't care how it's done. Campaign chief David Axelrod can figure that out. And the sooner the better. Because I'm starting to think that if Team-Obama doesn't do something dramatic fast, it's gonna lose this election. There's a worrisome shift in momentum and in the polls. The Palin phenomenon, while truly unfathomable to Democrats, has energized McCain's campaign and allowed him like Houdini to snatch Obama's "change" theme right out from under him. It's time to snatch it back.
Decimate: 1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: the population was decimated by a plague. 2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
Is that the definition of the post-partisan politics Barack Obama claims to be preaching? You know, the kind where there's no blue-state America or red-state America: just the United States of America? Maybe Chevy Chase didn't get the email. Appearing on Morning Joe today, Chase expressed his disappointment that Tina Fey didn't go after Sarah Palin harder in her SNL impersonation. Chase wanted to see Fey "decimate" the Republican VP candidate.
Chase was appearing to tout a charity auction he and wife Jayni are conducting to fund environmental education in the schools. See Bonus Coverage for a disturbing factoid Jayni let slip. Chase's call for blood came in response to Willie Geist's very first question.
You... yes, you reading this right now. McClatchy wants you to know you are mean to them, your mistrust of them is merely egged on by a sly political tactic, and you fall for it because you only get your news from an "ideologically tailored" source. In other words, they are telling you that you are misinformed, mean-spirited, easily led... well, they are telling you that you are stupid. And then they wonder why people don't trust them!
In "McCain campaign systematically targets the news media," McClatchy writers Steven Thomma and Margaret Talev decided to try and explain why the Republicans are attacking the media with their basic conclusion being that it is an unfair convention that the GOP has employed at least since Spiro T. Agnew (of "Nattering nabobs of negativity" fame) was VP. But, despite the truth staring them in the face, they explain away the ire Americans have with the Old Media.
In a Sunday Washington Post hit piece on Sarah Palin, “As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood,” reporter Alec MacGillis took this inadvertently humorous shot at the growth of Wasilla during her years as Mayor, an observation that could be made just as well about many booming suburban and ex-urban areas of the lower 48:
The light hand of government is evident in the town's commercial core, essentially a haphazard succession of big-box stores, fast-food restaurants and shopping plazas.
Sounds like most of Northern Virginia outside of Washington, DC, or many other areas of the country, most with a pretty heavy hand of government-ruled zoning.
As we move into week three of the Sarah Palin era, it has become clear that one of the media's attacks on her has involved convincing the public that John McCain -- due to age and illness -- will likely die while in office thereby putting her in charge of the White House.
As such, her qualifications must be greater than those of the normal vice presidential candidate.
The Chicago Tribune nicely debunked this scare tactic Sunday by -- heaven forbid -- actually addressing the facts involved in age and mortality in the year 2008 (emphasis added):
I have no idea who made this video, but it marvelously uses a song from the hit Disney film "The Lion King" to expose what's behind the media's bloodthirsty attacks on Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin (h/t Copius Dissent via NBer stratman):
The New York Times is clearly in full meltdown mode concerning the popularity of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and is having a hard time covering up its obvious state of panic.
In its popular Sunday edition, the Gray Lady published four hit pieces about the Alaska Governor: a 3,100-word article prominently placed on the front page; two scathing columns by Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, and; an article questioning Palin's husband's role in their state's government.
That's over 6,000 words about the vice presidential nominee, most of them quite hostile as evidenced by the following from Dowd's piece (emphasis added):
Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden's Friday release of his tax returns embarrassingly revealed, according to a Bloomberg item in Saturday's Boston Globe, that Biden and his wife have, over the past ten years, donated a piddling “two-tenths of 1 percent” of their income to charities, but Saturday's Washington Post article didn't mention that and instead allocated six of ten paragraphs to how “progressive groups...want to determine whether [Sarah] Palin skirted tax obligations.” (In the middle of a paragraph deep into its story, Saturday's New York Times reported the mere “$995 in gifts to charities” by the Bidens in 2007, but made no further note of it.)
In the Post article, “Biden Releases His Tax Returns,” reporters Lyndsey Layton and Matthew Mosk pointed out how Biden is the “poorest” U.S. Senator, and then pivoted to Palin:
The disclosure came as Democrats tried to put increasing pressure on the Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to release her returns. Progressive groups said they want to determine whether Palin skirted tax obligations on about $17,000 in per diem payments she received as part of an arrangement that paid her extra for the nights she stayed in her home in Wasilla instead of the governor's mansion in Juneau, 600 miles away....
Liberal radio host Randi Rhodes made some terribly odd assumptions about GOP vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin on September 12(my emphasis added throughout):
She's the woman that shows up at the kids' birthday party and starts opining about everything from politics to lawn care. This is the woman that knows it all...will shout you down...will get revenge on you. That's who she is. She's friends with all the teenage boys. You have to say no when your kids go, 'Can we sleep over the Palin's?'...'No!, No!'
Brian Maloney of The Radio Equalizer initially found this terribly disturbing monologue of Rhodes. It is one thing for a liberal like Rhodes to critique conservative ideology. However, it is a whole other for a broadcaster to make such outlandish insinuations without any evidence whatsoever.
Did ABC use particular camera tricks to make Governor Palin look small and powerless in their Charlie Gibson interview? I've been pointed to a blog that makes a compelling case that they did just that. Using still shots of the Gibson interview with Palin compared to similar Gibson interviews with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it seems this blogger has proven it to be an open and shut case of manipulation of the viewer. The writer shows how ABC used special camera placements and lenses to make Governor Palin seem small and Charlie Gibson seem overpowering and large by comparison.
By now, just about everyone is aware of Hollywood's special effects and camera techniques. There have been so many TV shows explaining them, so many DVD extras laying out the techniques that most Americans are at least a little familiar with the effects and techniques that filmmakers use to heighten and enhance their work. The anonymous blogger is familiar with these special effects, claims to work in the business in Hollywood himself, and does a great job explaining and pointing out where such effects were used to belittle Governor Palin.
While liberal media members try to make the case that six years as mayor and less than two years as governor isn't enough experience to be vice president, shouldn't they be just as concerned about whether less than two years as senator qualifies one to be president?
After all, just days after winning his U.S. Senate seat in 2004, Barack Obama said he didn't have enough experience to sit in the White House.
As he basically threw his hat in the presidential ring during an October 22, 2006, appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," it means that less than 22 months in the Senate is all he needed to be more qualified than he felt he was roughly two years prior.
Here's what Obama said on November 8, 2004, when asked why he'd already ruled out running for president in 2008 (video embedded right):
Did you know that Sarah Palin has never been to Mongolia? Yeah, and despite the fact she never claimed to have visited there, we are making a big deal about it because of the impression she left only in our fervid imaginations that she did indeed visit Mongolia.
Think that was ridiculous? Well, guess what? That is exactly what CNN is doing with a manufactured scandal that Sarah Palin never visited Iraq. The problem for CNN is that Palin never claimed to have visited Iraq. Here is her answer in the recent ABC interview with Charles Gibson about her foreign travel:
Canada. Mexico. And then, yeah, that trip that was a trip of a lifetime, to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was a trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.
So where was Iraq in her answer about foreign travel? Nowhere. However, that hasn't stopped CNN from acting outraged about the fact that Palin never visited Iraq despite the fact that she never claimed to have visited there:
If you wanted a better understanding of why conservatives always beat liberals in a debate -- and why Barack Obama won't dare be interviewed by Fox News's Sean Hannity -- you to need to see Chuck Norris wipe the floor with Arianna Huffington.
In what almost turned into a free-for-all on Wednesday's "Larry King Live," Norris demonstrated how little Huffington understands about the Iraq war, while proving that liberal elites like her, because of their position, are allowed to say and write whatever they want, regardless of factual inaccuracy, and do so with total impunity.
With that as pretext, prepare yourself for this well-deserved and truly delicious smackdown of one of the nation's foremost, holier-than-thou, liberal media elites (video embedded right):
ABC's Charlie Gibson continues to receive poor reviews for his obvious attempt to perform a hatchet job on Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
One of the harshest assessments of Gibson's performance came from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer Saturday who also took the opportunity to bash the New York Times for misrepresenting some of the specifics of the interview in order to discredit Palin (emphasis added throughout):
"I want to take my limited time today and focus in on - I couldn't imagine a better moment for you to be here than after last night's stunningly distorted interview with Gov. Palin on ABC," Gingrich said. "Stunningly distorted because of one particular set of question, which I want to spend my time explaining and putting in context. I don't know how many of you have seen the original interview or excerpts, but there's a point where Charlie Gibson asks Gov. Palin about whether or not she believed that our soldiers were on a task from God and he quoted one-fourth of something she had said in her church."
On the September 12 edition of Hardball, Chris Matthews so twisted what Governor Sarah Palin said in reply to Charlie Gibson's question about Israel's defense decisions that her reply is hardly recognizable in Matthews' hands. By slyly adding his own additions to Gibson's question and Palin's reply, Matthews attempted to make Palin look naive on the foreign policy question. In essence, Matthews lied about what Palin said.
Matthews made a knot out of Palin's words, like taking a straw and tying it in a knot. It's still a straw, but it is no longer useful for what it was intended. With his underhanded additions to Palin's answer, Matthews made her words no longer fit the situation.
What do you do when a rival network scoops you in getting the first sit-down interview with a relatively unknown vice-presidential candidate? Why, you get someone to analyze said veep candidate's body language, that's what! That's just what CBS did on its "Early Show" yesterday, and the network's website reports on the segment with the tantalizing headline "Expert: Palin Didn't Look Confident."
Almost two weeks after John McCain announced she was his choice for a running mate, portions of Sarah Palin's first network television interview aired Thursday night.
How did she do in her talk with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson?
On The Early Show Friday, body language expert Jo-Ellan Dimitrius said Palin rated about a five on a scale of ten during the interview. As Dimitirius put it, "There were some aspects that could have been better and some that could have been worse."
Dontcha ya hate it when Old Media outlets beat up on other Old Media outlets? (Well, maybe you don't hate it, exactly) It's like Old Media on Old Media violence. In this case we have the United Press International (UPI), struggling lesser known news wire service, giving the big smack-a-roo to ABC. UPI is warning that Charlie Gibson's gruff handling of Governor Sarah Palin may "backfire," and that the interview revealed a "double standard" of harsh treatment for Republicans compared to the softballs they've thrown to Democrats in past interviews.
Who can disagree with that assessment?
UPI's Martin Sieff's one sentence assessment of the interview seems to be the general consensus of all dispassionate observers. "There were no surprises, no knockout zingers," Sieff says, "but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee."
A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
In portions of Charles Gibson's third interview with Sarah Palin aired on Friday's 20/20 and Nightline, but not earlier on World News, Gibson demanded to know why she and John McCain “keep saying” Barack Obama will raise taxes when he says he won't, followed up her wish that Roe v Wade be overturned by -- in a question left out of the ABCNews.com transcript -- contending “it's a critical issue for so many women. You believe women should not have that choice?” and after Palin expressed support for gun rights, he asserted “we spend billions of dollars a year every year treating people who are victims of gun violence” and pleaded, as if more gun control is the only solution: “Nothing we can do about that?”
As the two sat in Palin's Wasilla home, Gibson scolded her and McCain:
Why do you both keep saying that Obama is going to raise people's taxes? It's been pretty clear what he intends. He's talked about middle-class tax cuts, extending Bush tax cuts on everything but people who own or earn more than $250,000 a year -- cuts taxes on over 91 percent of the country. Why do you keep saying he's going to raise people's taxes?