Tag Archives: 2008 presidential

Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

In late July, a Government Accountability Office report circulated which analyzed stimulus funding being spent by the Department of Energy.  The main gist of that report involved the cost of each job being generated by the stimulus bill – a staggering $194,000.  Tucked away in that report was a phrase that was new to most of us, a way to calculate jobs through a term called ‘lives touched’. Last week it was confirmed that some departments being funded by the stimulus are indeed using the metric ‘lives touched’ – a regression from the absurd ‘jobs saved or created’, which was already a step down from the incalculable ‘jobs created’. A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains: “Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act. Essentially, the Obama administration had figured out another way to inflate job numbers to better fit their claims of success.  And yet, the media has remained largely silent on this matter.  Even as Vice-President Biden released a report on the Recovery Act yesterday, with a specific focus on the Department of Energy and job creation. Below is an outline of how the administration and the DOE are collaborating to inflate their numbers by measuring the number of ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus bill. In their remarks , Vice-President Biden and DOE Secretary Chu reference job creation several times (emphasis mine throughout). Biden:   “… the Recovery Act’s $100 billion investment in innovation is not only transforming the economy and creating new jobs … Chu:  “…these breakthroughs are helping create tens of thousands of new jobs …” Biden:  “We’re planting the seeds of innovation, but private companies and the nation’s top researchers are helping them grow, launching entire new industries, transforming our economy and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the process.” The Biden report being cited, The Recovery Act: Transforming the American Economy Through Innovation , references several companies that have generated jobs through the Recovery Act.  Each footnote in the report explains that the job estimates are from a company’s own reports, which is the norm for reporting job results through the recovery website. Referring back to the CH2M company, we know that their reports include a directive to use numbers which estimate ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus.  We not only know this from the spokesperson’s explanation of the metric above, but by the reporting instructions provided to subcontractors which defines the phrase as “(the) total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a … contract.” One hour of work and your life has been touched.  Additionally, the instructions state that, “The lives touched headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts.  The total headcount will never decrease.” In other words, a temporary, part-time, or seasonal worker can come into a project, work no more than one hour on said project, and that person will continue to appear in the headcount with each report.  They will not be removed upon their departure from the project. The DOE themselves have also confirmed this metric.  Spokesman Cameron Hardy explains: “Lives touched” represents the cumulative number of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers that have been employed with EM Recovery Act funds at some point since the start of the program in April 2009.  As of June 30, 2010, the lives touched number is more than 24,000 and we have 10,500 full-time Recovery Act workers, working across the DOE Complex. The metric, according to the DOE, was developed by the Office of Environmental Management “to capture all workers that have been employed under the Recovery Act.”  But why the need to capture all workers, when some may have only worked a mere hour on a project, or who have only supported a project in some manner?  Simply put, to inflate the numbers. The GAO report claims that calculations from the DOE “ranged from about 5,700 jobs to 20,200, depending on the methodology used.”   What is the harm in providing an overall headcount, as long as it remains separate from official job reports?  Well, it turns out that they can’t seem to keep things separate. When these numbers are presented publicly and then parroted through the mainstream media who have clearly not done their homework, as was the case with yesterday’s Biden report, the result is deceit.  The administration provided job estimates while failing to provide any context or explanation as to how the numbers were derived. An example of this can be seen in an April News Flash provided by the Office of Environmental Management.  The chart on the right tallies up the total headcount or ‘lives touched’ as 20,249.  A statement on the left claims that “EM Recovery Act funding has employed over 20,000 workers on stimulus projects in 12 states.”  Which is it, employed or touched? A contract award summary for the National Opinion Research Center speaks volumes of the disparity.  In their ‘description of jobs created’ section, they explain how the numbers are derived: “…the total headcount, (the number of ‘lives touched’ or, the number of people who have labor hours funded by stimulus funds, not distinguishing between part-time and full-time, or the length of the job, as of June 30th is a combined total of 480 staff members hired/retained as of the end of the quarter.” The summary then goes on to explain that only 2 of the 480 jobs being discussed were newly created positions.  Two jobs, but a grand total of 480 are being reported.  That’s a markup up of 24,000%. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. It’s all part of the overall deception, however.  The White House continues to throw out random numbers in their quest to convince the public that their behemoth stimulus bill is saving jobs at a massive rate.  Whether it is created, saved, funded, or touched, the Obama administration’s smoke and mirrors tactics continue.  Perhaps that will change.  Perhaps the American people will see right through these lies. Perhaps the polls in November will clearly demonstrate how many lives are being touched by the stimulus bill – in a negative way. Crossposted at The Mental Recession

Read the original:
Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

Chris Matthews Accuses Fox of Being GOP Shills Then Attacks Sarah Palin

In today’s “People In Glass Houses” segment, Chris Matthews accused Fox News of being shills for the Republican Party just minutes before he said “the scariest three words in the English language are: President Sarah Palin.” MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Tuesday began with a lengthy segment in which Matthews, with the help of co-conspirators from the Huffington Post and Media Matters for America, made the case that the Fox News Channel was a platform to assist Republican candidates to get elected. Obviously missing the irony, the very next piece dealt with why President Obama ought to replace Vice President Biden with Hillary Clinton to not only assist him in getting reelected in 2012, but also set her up to win in 2016. Still oblivious to the hypocrisy, Matthews ended the program with his take on why the thought of Palin becoming president is scaring “tens of millions of Americans, and not just Democrats.” To give you an idea of the absurdity of this hour of television, let’s start with quotes from the first segment (videos and partial transcripts follow with commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS: I want to ask you a larger thing, Eric, now that I have you on, and also Ryan. We just looked at the Gallup poll, the highest favorabilities among Republican potential candidates — potential candidates — for 2012 — I mean, potentially. We don`t know who`s going to run. Palin, Newt and Mike Huckabee — that`s the top three. ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTER FOR AMERICA: Right. MATTHEWS: All three are on the payroll of Fox — BOEHLERT: Absolutely! MATTHEWS: — as commentators. But you have to ask yourself — these people have a lot of options. Are they on there as candidates? Are they using Fox as a platform, the way that Sharron [Angle] thinks she can use it as a candidate — BOEHLERT: Right. MATTHEWS: — for 2010? In other words, is she a little ahead of schedule? They`re looking towards 2012 using Fox, she`s trying to use it openly and flagrantly — BOEHLERT: Right. Right. MATTHEWS: — as a vehicle for reelection — or for election to the United States Senate. BOEHLERT: Right. The Fox Green Room is now sort of the GOP convention in waiting for 2012. They`re all on the payroll. I think they`re all — they want to use it to make a lot of money either on Fox News or with books or appearances. And then they`re just going to sort of wait and see how it — see how it plays out. In the meantime, they`ve got this national audience whenever they want it. They`ve got a paycheck, and they`ve got the Fox News, you know, recommendation or seal of approval. MATTHEWS: Yes. BOEHLERT: It`s perfect for them as they wait.  As a little background, the segment began with a video clip of Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle telling Fox News’s Carl Cameron how she needs the press to be her friend and how her campaign “wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.” From this, Matthews, Boehlert, and Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim – notice the absence of any conservatives to go against the consensus! – divined that this meant Fox was actively assisting Republican candidates. And that’s where the fun really began, for after a commercial break, Matthews brought on exclusively left-leaning guests to make the case that Obama should replace Biden with Clinton so as to assure his reelection in 2012 and position her to be president the following eight years. Assisting him to put forward this strategy was former Virginia governor Doug Wilder – who wrote a piece about this for Politico Monday – followed by New York magazine’s John Heilemann: JOHN HEILEMANN, “NEW YORK”: The thing that Governor Wilder is right about and I know that you see is that it`s possible that, in 2012, what President Obama will need most of all is to be able to connect to a set of voters, particularly white working-class and rural voters, that he has trouble with. MATTHEWS: Yes. HEILEMANN: And there would be no bigger asset for him than not just Hillary Clinton Enhanced Coverage LinkingHillary Clinton on the ticket, but having both Clintons out full force on his side in 2012. MATTHEWS: Even if it means — even if it means laying the groundwork for a Clinton ascendancy? HEILEMANN: I think she`s going to run in 2016, no matter what. MATTHEWS: OK. MATTHEWS: An interesting thought from you. HEILEMANN: And she`s going to — and she`s going to run in 2016. And she`s going to — right now, the schedule, I think, for her is, she will do four years and four years only as secretary of state. And if she is an outgoing secretary of state, a lame-duck secretary of state in 2012, she won`t be in the political position to really help Obama. She will do thinking about doing something like going and becoming the chancellor of the University of Iowa to set herself up to run for 2016. MATTHEWS: I agree. HEILEMANN: So, Obama is faced with the notion of Clinton following him anyway. So, why not make the best of that situation and put it to his advantage? MATTHEWS: I don`t know. I had never heard this before. All her people deny that, of course, right? HEILEMANN: Well, of course they do. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think it`s fascinating. I think she`s done a great job. (CROSSTALK) HEILEMANN: I don`t think there`s almost anybody who believes them. MATTHEWS: And I agree with you. I think she would help him in Pennsylvania, help in Ohio. And, by the way, I think the general election of 2012 now looks like a nail-biter, closely run. It will have to be. You`re right. And they are not going to win much south of the Mason-Dixon Line. They have got to win those old Democratic states that the Clintons are dominant in, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, et cetera, et cetera, New York. She would ground him up. I just think it has to be handled the way you say if it ever does come to pass. HEILEMANN: Well — MATTHEWS: Joe Biden has got to be happy with this. HEILEMANN: Yes. MATTHEWS: He`s got to have a smile on his face. And he`s got to say, I can`t wait to get to Foggy Bottom and be secretary of state, convincingly, if this ever happens. (CROSSTALK) HEILEMANN: And I think he could say that, Chris, because, as you know, before Obama urged him to become vice president, picked him, that was what Biden had his eye on. He wanted to be secretary of state. MATTHEWS: Well, it`s a great job. HEILEMANN: He`s wanted to be secretary of state his whole life. And on the question of what has to happen in 2012, I think you`re exactly right. I think it`s going to be a nail-biter. You remember, Barack Obama won, what, 42 or 43 percent of the white vote, a really high percentage of the white vote, better than John Kerry — MATTHEWS: Yes. HEILEMANN: — better than Al Gore in 2000. He`s right now running at about 35 percent approval rating with the white vote. And if he`s going to — you can`t win the presidency with 35 percent of the white vote. MATTHEWS: No. HEILEMANN: He needs to do something to solve that problem. Joe Biden is good with those people — MATTHEWS: OK. HEILEMANN: — but Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are better. MATTHEWS: Well, this will be the ultimate example of President Obama being a transactional politician. I`ll tell you, it looks a little cold on the outside. You may be able to warm it up, John Heilemann. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: You would have another “Game Change.” Here’s maybe the best part of this sequence – when Matthews says his guest is a liberal writer:  Thank you. Congratulations, the best book on politics. Nancy Reagan — I was just out there at the Reagan Library — she loves your book. And I know this will offend you as somewhat of a liberal writer, but she says, Ronnie would have loved it, too. There`s a — he`s a pol, too.  How nice. So, what we’ve had so far were too liberal guests talking to an admittedly liberal host about how Fox News is a shill network promoting Republican candidates. Next, we had a Democrat introduce an idea specifically designed to assist Obama in his reelection efforts whilst also putting Hillary Clinton in position to win the White House in 2016 thereby ushering in another twelve years of Democrat control of the executive branch of our government. Then, a so-called journalist that Matthews admits is liberal discusses with the host why Wilder’s idea makes sense – all this happening immediately after a segment accusing Fox of being shills for Republicans. Really makes you wonder how everybody involved in the production of this show completely missed the glaring hypocrisy on display.   But don’t leave your seats for the concession stand or the restroom just yet, for really putting the icing on the cake the host concluded the show with a monologue about why the scariest three words in the English language are “President Sarah Palin”: MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the fact that for tens of millions of Americans, and not just Democrats, the scariest three words in the English language are: President Sarah Palin. Those words could, if events go a certain way, get a hell of a lot scarier. I`ve noticed how Palin has been positioning herself as the Christian woman in national Republican politics. This gives her incredible leg up in the first in the country Iowa Republican caucuses where the Reverend Pat Robertson once triumphed. The shape of the 2012 Republican presidential field in the Iowa caucuses would be Sarah Palin against a field of Republican men. And with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee, all more secular than she is. The results, the Christian woman beats out the four or five men running somewhere to her left. No one gets to her right — and as long as nobody does, this lone woman in the Republican field, the one openly running as a religious fundamentalist beats the competition, hands down. Get this number into your head. Sarah Palin`s latest Gallup Poll favorable rating among Republican voters nationwide is 76 percent, by far the highest of any contender. So she wins Iowa. Next, New Hampshire. Even if Mitt Romney outpolls Palin in the Granite State, it will be a fact dismissed by the national political press. Why? Because New Hampshire is the Boston media market. It`s right in it and therefore seen as home base for the former Massachusetts governor. Next, Palin trucks down to South Carolina where she made Nikki Haley governor and wins among fellow religious fundamentalists. Another win in Palin country, an increasingly wide expansion in Republican politics. Now for the knockout. Palin has said that Michigan where Romney`s father was governor was overlooked by Republicans last time. She started her book tour there. Republican women who lined up to buy “Going Rogue” are her first round of investors. With two or three men besides Romney still appearing on the ballot, she pulls it out in Michigan. Now, anything is possible at this point. Nominated in Tampa, Florida, and the Republican National Convention in an economy that might still be shaky, the political situation of this country becomes frighteningly dicey. All can I say is that I remember how liberals thought Ronald Reagan could never do it. As we learned in 1980, tough times yield surprising — yes, scary election prospects. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.  And this guy has the nerve to accuse Fox of being shills. 

Follow this link:
Chris Matthews Accuses Fox of Being GOP Shills Then Attacks Sarah Palin

‘CBS Evening News’ Anchor Couric Ridiculed Palin from Day One; Mocks Son’s Name

Want more evidence of an elitist vibe coming from the upper echelons of the mainstream media? You ought to remember the Sept. 24, 2008 Katie Couric interview of Sarah Palin. It’s been celebrated time and time again as a heralded part of American journalism . However, raw footage appearing to be from Aug. 29, 2008 shows that Couric, anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” was already predisposed not to have a high regard for the Alaska governor long before that interview. (h/t Conservatives4Palin.com ) Outtakes of CBS’s “Evening News” show Couric taking a few petty shots at the Palin in her coverage leading up to the 2008 Republican National Convention. This five-minute clip has several highlights, showing Couric favoring “moose burgers and beauty pageants,” instead of her professional credentials as mayor of Wasilla, a town Couric has trouble announcing, and her tenure as governor of Alaska. Highlights include the following: Couric mocking Palin’s oldest son’s name:  “Her oldest son, 19-year-old Track-Where the hell do they get these [names]?” [laughter] (1:09) “She hunts, fishes and eats moose burgers. Her parents, Sally and Chuck Heath, were out hunting caribou when they got the news. You can’t make this up – OK hold on a second. [laughter]” (1:43) “I’m saying I’m glad you took out the feminine side because you can be feminine and play basketball, right Jerry?” (1:59) Struggles with the pronunciation of the name of the town Wasilla. (4:05) This isn’t the first time Couric has been caught on camera and the footage leaked out. In 2007, footage of Couric openly mocking her predecessor Dan Rather found its way on the Internet.

Continued here:
‘CBS Evening News’ Anchor Couric Ridiculed Palin from Day One; Mocks Son’s Name

Conservative Pundits Strike a Chord as Nation Grows Wary of Liberalism

On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli helped create a movement whose political impact has not yet been fully realized. The ” Rant Heard ‘Round the World ,” as it has become known, was a profound, if hardly isolated example of the power of conservative pundits to enact political change. That power has grown as Americans have become more sympathetic to the economic conservative argument–both the moral/spiritual element of it, and the strictly economic one. The American people have by and large come full circle in a short time, and the pundits that retain the most influence in our society have changed accordingly. Santelli is the perfect example, as he was certainly not the prominent name he is now before he let loose on the floor of the Chicago exchange. Michael Barone explains the essential appeal of the rant. He wrote Wednesday that it “was both an economic and a moral argument.” Economic, because subsidies to the improvident are an unproductive investment. We know now that very many of the beneficiaries of the administration’s mortgage modification programs ended up in foreclosure anyway. Subsidies just prolonged the agony. But it’s also a moral argument. Taking money away from those who made prudent decisions and giving it to people who made imprudent decisions is casting society’s vote for imprudence and self-indulgence. It mocks thrift and makes chumps out of those who pay their own way. We should, Santelli argued, “reward people that can carry the water rather than just drink the water.” Barone also notes the amazing speed at which tea party rallies were set up all over the nation. The country seemed predisposed to the sort of objections Santelli had raised. “We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July,” Santelli said. As it turned out, thousands of previously uninvolved citizens flocked to tea parties all over America even sooner, and now they’re making their mark in primaries and special elections. New Deal historians can’t explain that. Rick Santelli’s rant does. A year and a half later, the tea party continues unabated. It has played large roles in electoral contests throughout the year–most notably in the election of Sen. Scott Brown–and will assuredly continue to do so through November. But more importantly, the spirit that made Santelli’s rant is still alive and well, as evinced by the continued influence of the same message of fiscal and personal restraint–a mishmash of conservatism, libertarianism, and populism. Earlier this week, Glenn Beck harnessed this same spirit when he promoted Friedrich Hayek’s monumental work “The Road to Serfdom,” on air. In about a day the book was number 1 on the Amazon and Barnes and Noble bestsellers lists. That’s a far cry from starting a political movement, but it is a power unrivaled except perhaps by Oprah. Beck’s wildly successful promotion of Hayek’s work demonstrates this point. Mediaite’s Frances Martel reported today on the tremendous success of “The Road to Serfdom” since Beck promoted it on air. Before Beck dedicated an entire program to it, The Road to Serfdom  was doing slightly better in the bestseller rankings than the average mid-20th century political science book, coming in at #295 on the Amazon list and #3,254 rank on Barnes and Noble’s site. The “slightly better” is partly due to the fact that Tuesday’s appearance wasn’t the first on a Fox network for the book: libertarian Fox Business host John Stossel started wearing a ball and chain to work to advertise the book (or at least the catchphrase) long before it landed on Beck’s radar. Now it’s topping both lists, and shortly after the program was over, the book title soared to the top of Google’s top search list. Beck and Santelli together demonstrated one fact: when conservative pundits speak, people listen. Why is that? Perhaps it has something to do with the message both Beck and Santelli offered: they both resonate with Americans in profound ways. The influence enjoyed by the likes of Santelli and Beck serve to counter the consistent pro-Obama reporting from the legacy media. But that influence is also born of a similar national mood to the one that made the media so influential in the run-up to the 2008 election. Voters unhappy with the Republican Party and President Bush were predisposed to the liberal messages being thrown at them daily by the liberal press. Now the nation’s mood has turned against liberalism–and hence against the mainstream media–and conservative commentators, though fewer in number, have the ability to enact political change.

View original post here:
Conservative Pundits Strike a Chord as Nation Grows Wary of Liberalism