Tag Archives: laura ingraham

Sarah Palin Rips Michelle Obama, Decries First Lady’s Efforts to Curb Childhood Obesity

Sigh. Sarah Palin is back in the news again. For whatever reason, the ex-Alaska Governor took First Lady Michelle Obama and her efforts to improve childhood nutrition to task on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. We know conservatives believe in smaller government, and there are strong cases to be made for that philosophy. Attacking Michelle’s nutrition initiative, though? Sarah Palin is not a fan of Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity efforts . Of the First Lady, Palin told Ingraham that “I think she has got a different worldview and she is not hesitant at all to share what her worldview is.” As for Sarah Palin’s worldview, no one can make sense of it, but she does use big words like “exceptionalism” in the rant against Michelle below: “She encapsulated what her view of America is, I believe, unless she has evolved and things have changed in the last two years, but she said it on the campaign trail twice that it was the first time that she had been proud of her country when finally people were paying attention to Barack Obama.” “I think that’s appalling. We can think of this infinite number of reasons to be proud of American exceptionalism and it baffles me that anybody would have that view and then allow that view to bleed over into policy.” “Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat.” “I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.” Yes … the government needs to “get off our back” for this silly “anti-obesity thing.” Why encourage health when we can be as fat as we want! Freedom rules! Can’t you encourage people to make smarter choices that benefit themselves and the public health system as a whole? How is that an evil federal takeover? Choose your side : [poll id=”1662″ /]

Read the original here:
Sarah Palin Rips Michelle Obama, Decries First Lady’s Efforts to Curb Childhood Obesity

Under Ingraham’s Interrogation, Newsweek’s Fineman Pleads ‘No Contest’ for Newsweek’s ‘Mesmerized’ Obama Coverage

On Tuesday morning’s Laura Ingraham radio show, Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman pleaded “no contest” in Latin to the conservative host’s lecture that Newsweek was too busy celebrifying Barack and Michelle Obama to weigh whether Obama would succeed as president. (Audio here. ) He insisted the magazine was “mesmerized” by a “brilliantly run campaign,” as if it wasn’t also about their liberal wishes and dreams:  INGRAHAM: How is it though with all these smart people at Newsweek – I went around the block with Evan Thomas about this as well. How did you all think that a guy who basically went from the Harvard Law Review, to some community leafleting, organizing, whatever you want to call it, to a short stint, a few lectures about constitutional law at [the University of] Chicago, very short stopover in the state Senate, and a very short stopover in the U.S. Senate. How does that add up to experience to run the biggest economy and the biggest military in the world? And why wasn’t Newsweek, instead of doing these celebrified covers of Michelle and Barack as historic, and celebrity culture, and all this love-love-love-love-love, why wasn’t – Why weren’t those questions asked before this election took place? Because to me, those were the questions to ask. . It wasn’t about personality. It was about experience and outlook. FINEMAN: Well, uh, first, I’ll plead nolo [ contendere ] on a lot of this. But –  INGRAHAM: That’s what he did, in the U.S. Senate. He voted present. So you’re voting present for Newsweek. FINEMAN: No, no. Part of the problem is, or part of the reason is that we – as political reporters, we become enamored with the mechanics of the campaign, and I would still insist that – Ingraham saw right through the admire-your-mechanics trope:  INGRAHAM: You’re gonna do that if Paul Ryan is the nominee, for the Republicans? You’re gonna celebrify him? I don’t think so. FINEMAN: No, no. Let me back up for a second. That was – Whatever you say about Barack Obama and David Axelrod in your diaries and everything — INGRAHAM: Yeah. FINEMAN – It was a brilliantly run campaign. And I have come to despair of the notion of the relationship between the quality and shrewdness of a campaign that someone runs and the kind of presidency that they have. When Ingraham joked that Lady Gaga is good at branding, too, Fineman added; “We were mystified and mesmerized by the quality of the branding campaign that was Obama’s.” Another word for “mystified and mesmerized” would be that Newsweek was “suckered,” or “bamboozled,” or to use an Ingraham favorite, “razzle-dazzled.” But they knew he would be an inexperienced president, and make plenty of mistakes. They just calculated that they would cross that bridge when they arrived at it. “History” came first, incompetence afterwards.  When the media offers a contender like Obama yards and yards of gauzy press coverage, and when it papers over every inconvenient truth about his hate-preaching minister of two decades, among many contentious fractions of the candidate’s personal history, isn’t it much easier to portray his campaign as “brilliantly run”? Earlier, Fineman played the centrist correspondent who would have advised Obama to be less self-impressed with his own historic importance and seek half a loaf of government activism instead of greedily grabbing for a large socialist combination plate:  He consciously at the beginning set himself up as a kind of counterpoint to Reagan. Remember he said he admired Reagan and Hillary got all upset at him admiring Reagan? What Obama admired about Reagan was not his philosophy, or his program, but the fact that Reagan was an inflection point in history, was a big sea change in history. I believe Obama views himself in that way, and that’s why he went for the big health-care bill, and the big stimulus, and all the other big bills to make history, because he felt he would be the anti-Reagan. But I missed – I have to admit I miss half of what I cover when I’m out there. I thought Obama was shrewder than that, and wouldn’t use all of his political capital in the way he did, and it’s hurt him. But if Obama’s in dire political straits now, Newsweek’s over-the-top, ego-stoking coverage comparing him without any real factual foundation to historic presidents like FDR and Lincoln is a part of the problem. So maybe after November, Fineman and his colleagues can also plead “no contest” to unintentionally spurring the Republican wave that may come. 

Follow this link:
Under Ingraham’s Interrogation, Newsweek’s Fineman Pleads ‘No Contest’ for Newsweek’s ‘Mesmerized’ Obama Coverage

Colbert Claims Laura Ingraham’s Baby-Back Ribs Jokes Are ‘The Most Hideous, Hackneyed Racial Stereotypes’

Conservative talk-show host and The Obama Diaries author Laura Ingraham appeared to promote her book Wednesday night on The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. Fake-conservative Stephen Colbert suggested the Republicans didn’t have a visible agenda. But he really went after Ingraham in claiming it was somehow one of “the most hideous, hackneyed racial stereotypes” to joke that Michelle Obama ate baby back ribs. What? All those Chili’s “I want my baby back, baby back, baby back” ads were only designed for black customers? Obviously, there are more hackneyed culinary stereotypes than that. Ingraham was clearly trying to mock how Eat Right Michelle (if you’re not lost in one of those “food deserts”) probably pigs out on less healthy food in private. Colbert ripped the author’s “diaries” as horribly written (Video below the cut): COLBERT: What are the odds that Barack Obama’s private musings would completely and perfectly match up with the narrative the right is trying to push about him?

George Stephanopoulos Defends Ground Zero Mosque: What Better Way to Say Terrorists Haven’t Won?

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday Defended the building of a mosque near Ground Zero as a monument to tolerance. Talking to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, he proclaimed, ” This is a country founded on the notion of religious freedom. What better way to say they [the terrorists] haven’t won ?” Ingraham decried the plan for being so close to the site of 9/11 terrorist attack: “And I say the terrorists have won with the way this has gone down. 600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam?” This prompted the ABC co-host to chide, “In the name of militant, radical Islam, not in the name of Islam.” Deborah Norville, a former co-anchor of NBC’s Today, also appeared and strenuously disagreed with Stephanopoulos. Pointing out that a Greek Orthodox Church destroyed on 9/11 has had trouble rebuilding, she contrasted, “And, yet, a mosque, with no presence in the area, has been given the green light by getting the landmark status of this building rejected. A lot of people look at that and go, where are our priorities?” This logic seemed to give Stephanopoulos pause. (His father is a Greek Orthodox priest.) He conceded, “That’s a good point. I’m all for getting St. Nicholas up again. No question about it.” A transcript of the August 4 segment, which aired at 8:12am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Time now for our Morning mix, where we tackle the topics everybody is buzzing about. This week, uproar over that decision to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Mommy wars. Should breast feeding be mandatory? One super model thinks so. And why is Sarah Palin is happiest person in Alaska this morning? Levi is out of the picture. Joining me to talk about all this, Fox News contributor, Laura Ingraham. Also, the author of the new, number one New York Times bestseller The Obama Diaries. and Inside Edition anchor Deborah Norville. And let me talk about the decision to build a mosque. The clearance came yesterday, Laura. And this has created such passion here in New York City. LAURA INGRAHAM: There’s a disconnect, George, between the elites and the way they think about this. And, I think, most New Yorkers and most of the country. I know Michael Bloomberg was out there saying, our values need to be properly represented to the world. And if this mosque isn’t built, what is that going to say? The terrorists have won. And I say the terrorists have won with the way this has gone down. 600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam? And we’re- and we’re supposed to be- we’re supposed to be considered intolerant if we’re not cheering this? STEPHANOPOULOS: But, what- But, what- In the name of militant, radical Islam, not in the name of Islam. And what better- This is a country founded on the notion of religious freedom. What better way to say they haven’t won? INGRAHAM: We don’t have to prove anything to anyone, I don’t think. DEBORAH NORVILLE: Here’s the point. There is a point, George. There’s a church that was buried when the second tower came down. STEPHANOPOULOS: St. Nicholas Church. A Greek Orthodox church. NORVILLE: St. Nicholas church. A Greek Orthodox church. That church has run into every conceivable impediment. And in nine years that this church, this place of worship has not been able to get the port authority and other agencies to get them the green light to rebuild. And, yet, a mosque, with no presence in the area, has been given the green light by getting the landmark status of this building rejected, a lot of people look at that and go, where are our priorities? STEPHANOPOULOS: [Pauses] That’s a good point. I’m all for getting St. Nicholas up again. No question about it. INGRAHAM: Yeah! Come on, Greek orthodox . But, it’s a finger in the eye, I think, of New York. New York is coming back. You know, we hope. And it’s vibrant, economically. A lot of stuff happening downtown. This is sacred ground. Okay? And I don’t think people across the country are protesting. STEPHANOPOULOS: Ground Zero is sacred ground. The actual Ground Zero. INGRAHAM: This is 600 feet. I think the legitimate question to ask, George, is why? Why do they want to build a $100 million, 15-story mosque, Islamic center? Why? Why there? And no one’s protesting it around the country, building mosques. I don’t think- I don’t think there are big sit ins at mosques. So, I don’t think we’re intolerant. NORVILLE: And here’s another point: There’s no funding for this. This is an idea. But the funding for this, this mosque, this Islamic center, is not in place. They’re going to be going to charities and other agencies. INGRAHAM: Saudi Arabia. NORVILLE: And the people trying to put this up there. Saying, we’re going to be strict about who is allowed to contribute. But, we’ve seen how agencies and organizations that have contributed to causes, that often times are in support of Muslim issues, sometimes later are found to have terrorist connections. STEPHANOPOULOS: And that means this conversation is not going away for a very long time.

Original post:
George Stephanopoulos Defends Ground Zero Mosque: What Better Way to Say Terrorists Haven’t Won?

FNC’s O’Reilly Cites NewsBusters Video of Media Praising Obama’s ‘Brilliance’

At the top of Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor on FNC, host Bill O’Reilly cited a NewsBusters video montage of various media figures touting President Obama’s “brilliant” handling of the General McChrystal controversy: “[Obama] has a very powerful ally, the American media. After the President fired General McChrystal yesterday, NewsBusters.org put together this montage of press reaction.” O’Reilly played the video as part of his Talking Points Memo opening the show. After it finished, he joked: “So I guess the firing of McChrystal was a brilliant move.” He then noted how “…we could have played that montage with another 30 seconds with different reporters echoing the same theme.” Minutes later, O’Reilly asked radio host Laura Ingraham about the media all singing from the same hymnal: “When you hear the mainstream media, brilliant, it was brilliant, it was brilliant, it was brilliant.” Ingraham interjected: “It was hilarious.” O’Reilly replied: “Isn’t it? I mean, how far down in the tank does the American people – the American media have to go, before the people just say enough.” Ingraham concluded: “Well, it shows you Bill, how totally out of touch all these media figures – and that montage, I was screaming in the studio here, it was so funny to hear – but it’s so out of touch with the way regular people think.” Ingraham continued: “Most people are saying, okay, what they’re doing on the economy isn’t working. What they’re doing in Afghanistan, we’re losing confidence. We love our troops, we want them to win. But we’re not getting why this is working. And they’re losing confidence across the board in the way this administration is operating. And meanwhile, putting in Petraeus, who obviously is a hero, is ‘Oh, well, that’s brilliant. That’s decisive.’ Later, O’Reilly spoke with liberal Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill about the same topic and declared: “He [Obama] had to do it. But it wasn’t brilliant. It was like he had to do it. And these clowns are going ‘it was a brilliant move.’ What do you think?” Even Hill admitted: “Brilliant was pushing it.” O’Reilly grilled Hill on the left-wing media slant: “…you watch these guys in the mainstream media supposed, you know, objective reporters. You know it’s a farce.” Hill again admitted: “I’ll agree the response last night was clearly a left-leaning analysis.” O’Reilly later observed: “But traditionally, the media in this country are cynical and they’re distrustful of people in power, and they’re looking to get you, and then you go on and ‘he so brilliant.'” On Wednesday night, radio host Mark Levin also cited the NewsBusters item on his show and similarly mocked the media reaction. Here is a full transcript of O’Reilly’s June 24 Talking Points Memo: 8:00AM TEASE BILL O’REILLY: The O’Reilly Factor is on. Tonight: CHIP REID: It sounds like a pretty brilliant decision. WOLF BLITZER: A very brilliant move. CHUCK TODD: It’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President. O’REILLY: The mainstream media senses President Obama may be going down so they are propping him up. We will have opinions on that from Laura Ingraham and Marc Lamont Hill. 8:01AM SEGMENT O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. President Obama on the descent. That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo. As we reported last night, this week is the low point for the Obama administration. And today, a new Wall Street Journal poll confirms what we said yesterday. For the first time in that poll, more Americans think President Obama is doing a bad job than a good job. 48% Disprove, 45% say he’s doing okay. But the really bad news for the President is that 62% of Americans now feel the country’s heading in the wrong direction. That is the highest number since before the presidential election of 2008. Talking Points believes it is the chaos factor that is damaging the Obama administration, once again. The economy, shaky. The oil spill, chaos. The Afghan war, not going well. And the border situation is so bad the state of Arizona is now defying the federal government. Add it all up and you are in the chaos zone. No president can survive there. Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon were all done in by the perception they could not control the country. That is where the President is right now. But he has a very powerful ally, the American media. After the President fired General McChrystal yesterday, NewsBusters.org put together this montage of press reaction: CHIP REID: Sounds like a pretty brilliant decision, really. JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: This is nothing less than a stunning development, Brian. And quite frankly, at a quick glance, almost brilliant. CHUCK TODD: Politically, in this town, it’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President. WOLF BLITZER: A very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus. DAVID GREGORY: I think he took swift and decisive action. I think that’s how it’s going to be read. O’REILLY: So I guess the firing of McChrystal was a brilliant move. By the way, we could have played that montage with another 30 seconds with different reporters echoing the same theme. Like life, politics is not fair. President Obama didn’t cause the oil spill, he did not encourage General McChrystal to make indiscreet comments, he inherited a very bad economy, but has not been able to turn it around. For a guy like the President, who is ultra confident, this must be a frustrating time. His policies simply aren’t working. And if the war in Afghanistan and the economy get any worse, he will go the way of Jimmy Carter. Fair-minded Americans bear no malice towards Mr. Obama. Just as President Bush was treated unfairly at times, so has the President been. But the truth is, America is now in the chaos zone. And November is coming up fast. And that’s the memo.

Read the original here:
FNC’s O’Reilly Cites NewsBusters Video of Media Praising Obama’s ‘Brilliance’

Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?

There’s one big problem with the presentation of “ The Party, In Exile ,” Pamela Paul’s snobby but interesting front-page Sunday Styles section piece on so-called conservatism in exile. As Karol Sheinin noted on her Twitter feed  — it doesn’t feature many actual conservatives. The caption under John Cuneo’s illustration made the disparity clear: “Insiders On The Outside: Members of the conservative intellectual elite at a party include, clockwise from left, David Frum, Michael Oren, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, Laura Ingraham and Kathleen Parker.” Of those six names, only one (Laura Ingraham) would be unanimously waved in to a garden party strictly for “conservatives.” The prolific, peripatetic, atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, is a long-time socialist who allied with conservatives on the Iraq War and some other issues (Paul noted he is a member “of the disenchanted left”). Former Bush speechwriter David Frum’s main interest of late is lamenting the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker is an inconsistent conservative ally at best. Ayaan Hirsi Ali — in whose name the party was held — may qualify as conservative in some respects. Yet the brave feminist apostate from Islam, who currently works with the American Enterprise Institute, has only been in America for four years after being forced to flee Holland. Michael Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Otherwise, the ambience at this intimate cocktail and buffet in honor of the Somalian-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a woman who faced death threats even before she wrote a film that led to the murder of its director, Theo van Gogh — was one of ease. Wearing a Michelle Obama-esque sleeveless emerald dress and sipping wine, Ms. Hirsi Ali, who has spent recent weeks traveling to Britain, Denmark and her former country of refuge, the Netherlands, while on tour for her new book “Nomad,” warmly met guests as they circled in admiration. “Nice to see you,” total strangers said upon introduction, as if fearing the failure to recognize someone possibly met on a previous occasion. Or perhaps in certain Washington circles people assume they already know everyone else. Either way, here at the stately Wesley Heights home of the former Bush speechwriter, David (“axis of evil”) Frum, and his wife, the writer Ms. Frum, nearly everyone did. Far from the typical New York book party, this was more a bunkering of the conservative intellectual elite, a group that domineered its way through the Bush years but is now sidelined, a somewhat baffled shadow of its former blustery self. Whither the conservative establishment in today’s bilious political landscape? Certainly the typical Tea Party denizen, with his “I Wanna Party Like It’s 1773” T-shirt and “You Lie!” trucker hat, would seem out of place on the Frums’ well-tended grounds, nibbling chicken skewers and mini-B.L.T.’s. In the presence of Ms. Hirsi Ali, at least, there was a sense of shared purpose. Paul addressed the controversies surrounding Frum, who “lost his salaried post at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, in March, after calling the passage of health care legislation the Republican party’s ‘Waterloo.'” Also present was The Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, prom-girl pretty and winner of a Pulitzer this spring for “gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead her to unpredictable conclusions,” including a rebuke of Sarah Palin. “Like all the best conservatives, I started off as a liberal,” she trilled. In a similar display of the intellectual right’s discomfort with Wasilla-brand populism, Ms. Frum mocked a speech by Ms. Palin in April on The Huffington Post. (“There was not a single memorable line, not a single new political idea, not a single proffered solution beyond the cliché.”) And lending a poignant immediacy to the rejiggered state of affairs was the Republican Senator Robert Bennett, ousted last month in the Utah primary for his votes on health care and Wall Street reform. A certain kind of nomad, all. If you can get past the knee-jerk “ick, Palin!” snobbery and mockery of the Tea Party movement, the latter half of Paul’s party piece contained some interesting anecdotes about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Islamist turned crusader for women and her shunning by her supposed liberal allies. Paul, to her credit, illuminated an issue Times Watch has discussed — the prickly response from the liberal media to Hirsi Ali’s crusade for women’s rights and against Islam: Not surprisingly, though she favors both gay and abortion rights, Ms. Hirsi Ali has alienated what might otherwise be fellow liberal travelers in her crusade against religious oppression. In The New Yorker, Pankaj Mishra dismissed Ms. Hirsi Ali’s “simple oppositions” and “growing familiarity with right-wing touchstones.” The Los Angeles Times called “Nomad,” which is dedicated to the former president of A.E.I., an “anti-Islamic screed” and “a tough jeremiad to read.” The historian Timothy Garton Ash and the Dutch-born academic Ian Buruma have both written dismissively of Ms. Hirsi Ali to the point that the N.Y.U. professor Paul Berman devoted much of his new book, “The Flight of the Intellectuals,” to mounting a defense. The Times review of Berman’s tome is here.

Original post:
Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?