Tag Archives: jake tapper

‘Red Eye’ Host Gutfeld Rips ‘Crybaby-in-Chief’ Obama for Rebuke of Fox News

Lately the Fox News Channel’s overnight program “Red Eye” has offered a plethora of media criticism – much of it dead-spot on. Last week during this his “Gregalogue” segment , host Greg Gutfeld took on the so-called “Rally to Restore Sanity” offered up by Comedy Central hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. On the Sept. 29 broadcast of his show “Red Eye,” Gutfeld responded to President Barack Obama’s comments about Fox News he made during a recent interview. “So President Obama was just interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine — that thinning pamphlet for our country’s dwindling supply of pony-tailed pensioners,” Gutfeld said. “When asked about Fox News, this is what our Commander-in-Chief had to say.” Gutfeld read a portion of that interview, which Obama played media critic and attacked FNC that appeared in the Oct. 15 issue of Rolling Stone : I think Fox … is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. But the “Red Eye” host reminded Obama he has the deck stacked in his favor, yet time and time again, he and members of his administration go after the Fox News Channel . “OK let me get this straight — you’re the President of the United States , with both Houses [of Congress] under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the history of the universe and yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it’s the only network that doesn’t have a thrill up its leg?” he continued. “Obama’s like a sports team who owns the ref, the fans and the field, but refuses to play until the kid in the tenth row stops chewing gum.” And as Gutfeld explained, it wasn’t Fox News Channel that has rallied the biggest thorn in the side of this administration, the Tea Party movement. Instead, it was Chicago CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli, who works for a competitor of Fox News. “So let’s indulge his fantasy and imagine if Fox News didn’t exist – the good old days, when the only media was a liberal one,” Gutfeld said. “Well, Obama would still be in trouble. See, it wasn’t Fox who started the tea parties. It was CNBC’s Rick Santelli – and then America went crazy with it.” And what would happen if there were no Fox News? This White House, which seems to want to take a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook and give its political opponents as label, would have to go after someone or something else. Gutfeld suggested it would be the American people. “In fact, it would be far worse for Obama if there was no Fox News, because then he’d only have the American people to get mad at,” Gutfeld said. “There is no Republican adversary right now, and without Fox News – who’s left? You. And this is why the Crybaby-in-Chief needs us. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying ‘those Americans.’ He can just say Fox News instead. And I don’t mind. We’re happy to help. And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic, taurophobe.”

Here is the original post:
‘Red Eye’ Host Gutfeld Rips ‘Crybaby-in-Chief’ Obama for Rebuke of Fox News

CBS, ABC Excited Over Barack Obama’s Bid to Recapture His ‘Glory Days’

Both ABC and CBS on Wednesday played up Barack Obama’s attempt to reignite his Democratic base and defeat surging Republicans. Good Morning America host George Stephanopoulos labeled the President’s trip to Madison, Wisconsin a ” glory days tour. ” On CBS’s Early Show, Chip Reid used nearly identical language, claiming the President was “recalling his glory days on the 2008 campaign trail.” The two networks played up the Democratic comeback storyline with little focus on the Republicans. GMA and The Early Show also ignored what it meant for the President to be traveling to an extremely liberal city in order to excite his Democratic base. Reid enthused, “President Obama rallied a raucous crowd of at least 15,000 people at the University of Wisconsin in a speech us that beamed to more than 100 college campuses nationwide. (NBC’s Savannah Guthrie sounded a similar theme on the Today show : “The President proved last night, in Wisconsin, he can still pack tens of thousands of young people into an arena.”) Although CBS did point out that Obama has, thus far, failed to fire up young voters (Jake Tapper made this point on ABC), Reid avoided noting that the President is playing defense in Democratic states. Instead, he closed by highlighting that “there are more campaign-style rallies on college campuses scheduled in the weeks to come.” ABC’s Tapper played up Democratic discontent, featuring the liberal Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake: “[Obama] is telling voters, on the Democratic base, they are irresponsible. They’re, you know, they’re slackers. They don’t care enough to show up.” Pivoting off this, Stephanopoulos later worried to pollster Matt Dowd: “You saw that Vice President Biden came out earlier in the week and said stop whining. You think they [the White House] have to refine the message a little bit?” Stephanopoulos hopefully observed, “The President stepping it up there. He went to church with his family two Sundays ago. Everything you see him doing that, trying to re-establish that emotional connection with the voters.” A transcript of the September 29 Early Show, which aired at 7:06am EDT, follows: HARRY SMITH: Now to President Obama back on the campaign trail, trying to reignite the fire in young voters who helped him win the White House. But getting them to support Democrats this year seems to be a bit of a challenge. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President in Des Moines. Good morning, Chip. CHIP REID: Well, good morning. The President is doing whatever he can to fire up the Democratic base before election day. He told Rolling Stone magazine it’s ‘irresponsible and inexcusable’ for Democrats not to go to the polls. And at the University of Wisconsin he gave a barn-burner of a speech. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s Call to Action; Rallies Youth in Midterm Push] BARACK OBAMA: What did you say, Wisconsin?! CROWD: Yes, we can! REID: Recalling his glory days on the 2008 campaign trail. OBAMA: Hello, Wisconsin! REID: President Obama rallied a raucous crowd of at least 15,000 people at the University of Wisconsin in a speech us that beamed to more than 100 college campuses nationwide. OBAMA: We cannot sit this one out. We can’t let this country fall backwards because the rest of us didn’t care enough to fight. The stakes are too high for our country and for your future. REID: This is the first in a series of campaign rallies aimed at reigniting enthusiasm among young voters who helped propel the President to victory two years ago. But, the problem for Democrats is that many young voters are far less interested in the midterm elections, now just five weeks away. DANEZ SMITH [STUDENT]: The level of enthusiasm, as far as like, this election coming up, I don’t think it’s there at all. BROCK FRITZ [STUDENT]: He’s just trying to get excitement for other people, and not himself. So I guess that kind of changes. REID: Makes it a lot harder. FRITZ: Yeah. RALLY ANNOUNCER: Our United States Senator, Russ Feingold! REID: Other Democrats, like Senator Russ Feingold, who recently avoided appearing with the President at a campaign event, but Tuesday night made a surprise stop. RUSS FEINGOLD: You are my president! You are our president! And I’m thrilled that you are here with all us badgers! REID: The President returned the favor, hoping to give a boost to Feingold, who not long ago was favored to win reelection but is now trailing in the polls. OBAMA: Because, if everybody who fought for change in 2008 shows up to vote in 2010, we will win. We will win. The polls say the same thing, we will win. REID: Today, the President changes the focus back to the economy with another backyard event, but there are more campaign-style rallies on college campuses scheduled in the weeks to come. Back to you. SMITH: Chip Reid in Des Moines, thanks.

Original post:
CBS, ABC Excited Over Barack Obama’s Bid to Recapture His ‘Glory Days’

George Will Quotes Obama To Smack Down Liberal’s Attack On Sarah Palin

George Will on Sunday used a Barack Obama quote to smack down a predictable attack on Sarah Palin made by the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus. As the Roundtable discussion of ABC’s “This Week” moved to the former Alaska governor’s “Mama Grizzlies” video, Marcus voiced her unsurprising displeasure.  “I think it’s the same, old, vapid, platitudinous Sarah Palin,” said Marcus. “There is not a shred, not a shred of substance in this ad.” When he got his turn, Will tore Marcus apart, “On the vapidness meter, that ranks nowhere near, ‘We are the ones we have been waiting for,’ which was Obama’s way of flattering the self-esteem of his supporters” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JAKE TAPPER, HOST: There was an interesting political development this week here domestically in the United States with former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin rearing her head and releasing this Web video for her PAC. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SARAH PALIN: Moms kind of just know when something’s wrong. There in Alaska, I always think of the mama grizzly bears that rise up on their hind legs when somebody’s coming to attack their cubs, to do something adverse toward their cubs. If you thought pit bulls were tough, well, you don’t want to mess with the mama grizzlies. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: So, Ruth, you’re the actual only mama grizzly at the table. What’s your take on this? RON BROWNSTEIN, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Rear. Rear for us. RUTH MARCUS, WASHINGTON POST: Well, yes, I think I’ll withhold my rearing, unless there’s an adverse event towards one of my cubs. BROWNSTEIN: Yes. MARCUS: I — there’s been a lot of talk about this video as signaling a kind of new, kinder, gentler Sarah Palin, trying to broaden her appeal beyond the kind of Tea Party base. I don’t get it. I think it’s the same, old, vapid, platitudinous Sarah Palin, not to put too fine a point on it. There is not a shred, not a shred of substance in this ad. What are the adverse events and what do you intend to do about them? TAPPER: Reihan’s shaking his head. You liked it. REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: I thought it was an outstanding ad, very impressive, and I’ve got to say, quite a lot of issue — non-issue issue ads from the Obama campaign during the 2008 that proved very successful. Basically, Republicans have a problem. TAPPER: Yes, we can. MARCUS: “We’re for vapidity.” SALAM: They have a problem. They have a problem, which is the gender problem. They have a huge problem with connecting with upper-middle-class women. And, you know, Sarah Palin might not be able to do that, but working-class women are huge. They’re very important. Get them out there. Get them energized. Get them active. And if you look at Hillary Clinton circa this time in the cycle, she had very high negatives. And I don’t think that issue ads were going to help her with those high negatives. Similarly, Sarah Palin has sky-high negatives. So I think that that’s something she has to manage, something she has to work on, and this is a kind of plucky Sarah Palin that I think really appeals to people, that’s not as hard-edged, not as polarizing, and I think that it was really impressive, far more impressive than anything I’ve seen from her in a long time. BROWNSTEIN: You know, Sarah Palin as a political figure is much more of a cultural statement than she is a policy agenda, and she really does divide the electorate along cultural lines. If there is an audience for Sarah Palin, as Reihan suggests, it is a blue-collar female audience, which does relate to her in some ways, but she is an enormously polarizing figure with a real low ceiling. If she runs in 2012, I believe you would see the Republican Party divide along the same class and cultural lines that the Democrats did in ’08 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. TAPPER: But, quickly, are mama grizzlies, as she predicts, going to be a force this November? BROWNSTEIN: I know about the lower 48, how many grizzlies there are. But yes. Yes. You know, blue-collar — if she is referring there to culturally conservative, working-class white women, they have moved away from the Democrats pretty sharply under Obama. There’s a lot more erosion there than there is the upper-middle-class, where he’s still pretty strong. So in that sense, she is speaking to a constituency. Whether she is the voice that you want to ultimately be defining your party, that’s another question. TAPPER: George? GEORGE WILL: She’s trying to get — flatter people by telling them — they may be grandmothers — but telling them they’re grizzly bears, and it makes them feel good. On the vapidness meter, that ranks nowhere near, “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” which was Obama’s way of flattering the self-esteem of his supporters. Bravo! In the end, despite what his fawning press think, some of the most vapid comments in presidential history have come from Barack Obama.   It is therefore marvelous that ABC has Will around to point this out when some liberal media member is predictably bashing a conservative.  Exit question: Would “This Week” be worth watching if Will wasn’t a Roundtable panelist?

Read more from the original source:
George Will Quotes Obama To Smack Down Liberal’s Attack On Sarah Palin

George Will: Obama Is An Expert At Selling Snake Oil

George Will on Sunday accused Barack Obama of being an expert at selling snake oil. As the Roundtable segment of ABC’s “This Week” began, host Jake Tapper asked Will if the President’s claim that Republicans “are peddling that same snake oil that they’ve been peddling now for years” will resonate with voters this November. Will marvelously responded, “No, because he is an expert on snake oil.” “This is the man who said, if we pass the $767 billion stimulus bill, which it turns out costs $862 billion, a $95 million oops, we would have unemployment at 8 percent and no higher, and it went higher,” continued Will. “This is the man who last week was out saying, ‘I’m going to give $2 billion, about $2 billion, to two companies to create about 1,600 jobs.’ That’s $1.5 million per job. That is snake oil” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary:  JAKE TAPPER, HOST: I want to start with President Obama out on the campaign trail again this week trying to sharpen his message. Here’s a glimpse. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: They’re not coming back and saying, “You know what? We really screwed up, but we’ve learned our lesson, and now we’ve got this new approach, and this is how things are going to turn out really well.” That’s not their argument. They are trying to sell you the same stuff that they’ve been peddling. They are peddling that same snake oil that they’ve been peddling now for years. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: So the president, George, is trying to make this not a referendum on him, but rather a choice between him and Republicans. Is it going to work? WILL: No, because he is an expert on snake oil. This is the man who said, if we pass the $767 billion stimulus bill, which it turns out costs $862 billion, a $95 million oops, we would have unemployment at 8 percent and no higher, and it went higher. This is the man who, in another form of snake oil, said we have this wonderful idea of homeowner tax credits for buying first-time homeowners, which we now realize has largely subsidized home purchases that would have been made anyway. This is the man who last week was out saying, “I’m going to give $2 billion, about $2 billion, to two companies to create about 1,600 jobs.” That’s $1.5 million per job. That is snake oil. A bit later, Tapper asked the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, “Is the president doing the right thing here? Is this — is this the effective message to help at least lower the losses in November? Marcus surprisingly responded: Well, that presumes there’s any effective message. And the president says, look, these guys drove the car into the ditch. Why would you give the keys back to them? The only problem with that is, who’s been driving the car for the last 18 months and where are we? Quite shocking to hear that from the Obama-loving Marcus, wouldn’t you agree? 

Visit link:
George Will: Obama Is An Expert At Selling Snake Oil

Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

In today’s “Careful What You Ask For” segment, liberal publisher Arianna Huffington is crying at her website because the folks at PolitiFact didn’t back up her statement that Halliburton has defrauded American taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. Making this most delicious, Huffington asked to be fact-checked by the group! For those that have forgotten, the former outspoken conservative was a guest on ABC’s “This Week” on June 6 when she get into the following squabble with Liz Cheney (video and transcript follow with commentary, relevant section at 7:30): ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Right here, we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism. Halliburton involved in this, and we haven’t said about that. They after all were responsible for cementing the well. Here’s Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars — LIZ CHENEY: Arianna, I don’t know what planet you live on, but that’s not — HUFFINGTON: — it’s involved again. I’m living on this planet. You’re living in a planet that is — CHENEY: — it’s — Arianna, what you’re saying — HUFFINGTON: — continuing — CHENEY: — has no relationship to — HUFFINGTON: It is completely — CHENEY: No relationship to the effects — HUFFINGTON: — Halliburton was involved in this. How can you say it is not? TAPPER: Well, Halliburton was cementing the pipe. HUFFINGTON: How can you say Halliburton has no relationship? CHENEY: Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government — HUFFINGTON: It did. It did. CHENEY: It was Bush-Cheney cronyism is the left talking point — HUFFINGTON: It was — hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. CHENEY: Arianna, is absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true. HUFFINGTON: OK, I’m so glad Politifact is going to be checking this. I’m so glad. CHENEY: Good. On June 9, PolitiFact acceded to her request: In evaluating Huffington’s statement, we’re most bothered by her use of the word “defrauded.” Some of the overbilling in Iraq appears to have been done from haste or inefficiency, or even in a desire to please military officials in the field without regard for cost. Whether the waste in contracting constitutes fraud is still being examined. “It’s a lot money being spent in a region of the world where we don’t have a lot of infrastructure for accounting for how the money is being spent. It will take years before we fully determine how we spent the money,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. In ruling on Huffington’s statement, we find much in the public record to support her statement, most notably the Justice Department lawsuit. Certainly there have been hundreds of millions of dollars that Halliburton’s KBR attempted to charge the government that have been denied. Government audits of KBR’s work in Iraq will likely continue for some time, and we do not expect a final accounting on these fronts anytime soon. Huffington glossed over some of these points in her back and forth with Liz Cheney. There’s also much evidence that makes us believe that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to waste and inefficiency, not deceitful fraud. So we rate Huffington’s statement Half True. Almost a month later, Huffington is whining about it at her website: Whenever I speak about the future of media, I get the most positive reaction when I talk about the urgent need to create an online tool that makes it possible to instantly fact-check politicians and commentators as they speak (a bubble pops up, containing the actual facts supporting or contradicting what’s been said). Truth 2.0. That’s why I had such high hopes when it was announced that PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times, was going to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made each Sunday an ABC’s This Week. It wasn’t going to be instant, but it was a step in the right direction. Then my dust-up with Liz Cheney on the show last month was given the PolitiFact treatment — and I saw firsthand why the pursuit of Truth 2.0 is going to be harder than we think. PolitiFact’s finding that my statement that Halliburton had defrauded American taxpayers of “hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq” was “Half True” — after first documenting example after example of why it was completely true — was an object lesson in equivocation, and a prime exhibit of the kind of muddled thinking that dominates Washington and allows the powerful to escape accountability. Despite the ludicrousness of the Half True rating — and since I was in the final throes of finishing my new book — I let it stand, feeling that the absurdity of PolitiFact first making my case for me, then falling back on the safety of a split-the-baby conclusion spoke for itself. Then, over the weekend, I read this entry detailing PolitiFact’s readers’ reaction to the Half True finding. Rummaging through its Mailbag, PolitiFact quoted three readers who said I was right (while castigating the site for “rhetorical tap-dancing” and “falling victim to the ills of pious fairness”), one who said I was wrong, and one who thought Half True was “right on.” Because this kind of hedging-your-bets thinking runs rampant in our media and political circles, and allows the corrupt no-accountability status quo to continue wreaking havoc on our country — and with my book at the printers, and a long weekend on my hands — I’ve decided it’s worth returning to the scene of the crime to do a little CSI exam of the evidence and see what we can conclude from PolitiFact’s head-scratching conclusion. After equivocating her case, Huffington concluded: Which is why I’d like to borrow two of the busiest letters of the day, and take this BP: Beyond PolitiFact. In the end, this is not about me, or Liz Cheney, or even Halliburton. It’s about our accountability double standard. It’s actually not that complex, nor is it ambiguous. It’s plainly obvious and the American people know it. And the refusal of our political and media leaders to acknowledge it is contributing to the widespread anger and cynicism sweeping the country right now. As long as we allow truth backed up by a mountain of evidence to be, in the name of “pious fairness,” downgraded to Half True, that’s the way the planet we’re all living on is going to continue to operate. And that’s a fact. I guess she’s no longer “so glad Politifact is going to be checking” her!  In the end, Huffington asked PolitiFact to access the veracity of her statement. They complied, and came to the conclusion that she was only half right. And like a true liberal, she whined about it claiming that it’s an example of everything that’s wrong with the world. Don’t you love how the mind of a liberal media elite works?

Read more here:
Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

White House Teleprompter Shatters, Obama Miraculously Carries On

Oh noes! Barack Obama was giving a speech on urban policy late this afternoon when his precious teleprompter fell and shattered all over the floor. How could he possibly get through it

More:
White House Teleprompter Shatters, Obama Miraculously Carries On