Tag Archives: politico

Matthews Reveals His Obama ‘Thrill’ Has Moved Up From Leg to ‘All Over Me’

Posted on September 7, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Chris Matthews is still getting a thrill up his leg, and even further, whenever he hears Barack Obama speak, as the MSNBCer, on Monday’s Hardball, announced to the world “I get the same thrill up my leg, all over me,” whenever he listens to Obama’s 2004 Democratic convention speech. Matthews also revealed he is really sensitive about how his “thrill” moments are described, as he took offense when a guest inaccurately labeled it a “tingle” as Matthews shot back: “It wasn’t a tingle, up my leg, that’s what right wing fascists say. I got a thrill up my leg. Okay? You’re reading the right wing blogs. Start tuning your station.” [ audio available here ] Matthews, however, is quite aware that the rest of the country doesn’t share the same all over body thrill he does as he asked his guests, Roger Simon of the Politico and Jim Kessler of Third Way, “Can President Obama stir us again and help his party keep power this November?”  The following is the full segment as it was aired on the September 7 Hardball: [5:17pm] BARACK OBAMA: I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story. That I owe a debt to all of those who came before me and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wow, that was America’s introduction to Barack Obama in 2004 in his acknowledgment that only in America was his story possible inspired us. And as he battled through the 2008 primaries he retold that story, and it was electric. OBAMA: My own story tells me that in the United States of America there’s never been anything false about hope, at least not if you’re willing to work for it. Not if you’re willing to struggle for it, not if you’re willing to fight for it. I should not be here today. I should not be here today. I was not born into money or status. I was born to a teenage mom in Hawaii. My father left us when I was two. But my family gave me love. They give me an education. And most of all they gave me hope. Hope, hope that in America, no dream is beyond our grasp. If we reach for it and fight for it and work for it. MATTHEWS: I get the same thrill up my leg all over me, every time I hear those words. I’m sorry, ladies and gentlemen that’s me. He’s talking about my country and nobody does it better. Can President Obama stir us again and help his party keep power this November? Jim Kessler is co-founder and vice president of Third Way, a progressive think tank. Roger Simon, our buddy is chief political columnist for Politico. Gentlemen, with a little bit of sentiment, Roger, try here. ROGER SIMON, POLITICO: I’m sentimental. MATTHEWS: Try to stick with me. It seems to me, that what’s thrilled me, and I admitted it so many times, is when he talked about America. He wasn’t saying “I’m going to do this because I’m a big shot and I’m a brain.” He said, you know, “I was lucky and also I was fortunate to live in this country and, and we can do things on our own without a lot of help from government and big stuff. On our own we can do things. That’s what your piece is about, isn’t it? He doesn’t talk like that any more. JIM KESSLER, THIRD WAY: Right. I think it’s hard to talk like that when you’re in the middle of a lot of legislative battles, but if you look back 10.8 percent unemployment, 6.3 percent inflation, decline in GDP, doubling of the deficit over the previous years and presidential approval ratings south of 40 percent, Ronald Reagan, November of 1982, at the exact moment of the midterm elections he held all 54 Republican Senate seats, they lost a couple dozen House seats, which is basically par for the course. It shows you can have an economic environment as bad or worse as what the Democrats and Barack Obama are facing- MATTHEWS: If? KESSLER: If, you have to own one thing. You have to own optimism. And that’s what, that’s what President Reagan was selling to the American people. A destination, a vision about success and where America was going. MATTHEWS: Was that a confidence in themselves or in his program? KESSLER: I think it was confidence in himself, as a leader, because there was doubts about Reaganomics. Reaganomics hadn’t worked for one moment, at that point, but they understood the destination where he wanted to take this country. And they said, “You know what we’re gonna hitch a ride with this guy. I’m not sure about the program but I know where he wants to take this country” and, you know, he, he, ya hitched a wagon to him. And people stuck, stuck with him. MATTHEWS: Somebody is giving him other advice here. He’s getting somewhere else because this, they’re talking, “They’re treating me like a dog.” This whining almo-, not whining. That’s a knock. But, you know, he’s talking like he’s being put down. He’s not being put down. He’s being criticized. SIMON: No, he’s the President of the United States. He can’t portray himself as a victim. One other thing that the Republicans had going for them in ’94 is that the Democrats were fat and sassy and lazy and didn’t see it coming. Also they had a movement leader in Newt Gingrich, and his Contract With America which was more symbolic than real. But people said, “Oh here it is in writing. This is a good deal.” MATTHEWS: Yeah, but only about one-fifth of people knew about that so-called contract. Let me ask you about Jim’s point, about the basic speech he used to give about America. No one questioned Barack Obama’s Americanism when he was running as a candidate. They didn’t talk about his religion. They knew he had an exotic name, Barack Obama. But that was so much like a lot of our names, they’re accidents of our parents or grandparents. It wasn’t who we are. Now the Republicans have tagged him with that, it’s his identity. He is Barack Hussein Obama. That’s who he is, it’s an identity because he doesn’t seem to wow us with his love of country like he used to, that’s my thought. SIMON: Well I think he’s suffering under the belief that he’s got to something for an encore. You can’t go back to the past. And you saw on the podium the past placard. “Change you can believe in.” MATTHEWS: Yeah. SIMON: “Change we can believe in. Well now people have the right to say, “Where is the change? Where is it? It didn’t happen.” MATTHEWS: Well it’s a year-and-a-half. SIMON: People are impatient. MATTHEWS: Yeah. SIMON: They want to see something. MATTHEWS: But why did they put up with Reagan for a year-and-a-half of nothing but 11 unemployment, 11 percent unemployment? SIMON: Reagan, as Barack Obama is, though in different ways, a very magnetic personable figure that people liked and trusted. Barack Obama, as I said, is the same. By Election Day he cannot improve the unemployment figures. But, by Election Day, he can goose up the Democrats. He can make them confident. MATTHEWS: Yeah okay. Here’s the question. Let’s watch Reagan for a second and then I’m gonna ask you Jim, can a Democrat be turned on the way a Republican can? I know I can. Somewhere in the middle, slightly left but I’m there and I can get it turned on by America as anybody on the right. But maybe, I’m gonna ask you whether Democrats really want to be positive. Here he is, Reagan being positive, maybe talking to the choir. Here he is in January of 1982. Let’s look. RONALD REAGAN: Don’t let anybody tell you America’s best days are behind her, that the american spirit has been vanquished. We’ve seen the triumph, too often in our lives, to stop believing in it now. MATTHEWS: Can a Democrat talk like that? KESSLER: Yes. I mean, look, you talked about that tingle up your leg. I mean you know… MATTHEWS: It wasn’t a tingle, up my leg, that’s what right wing fascists say. I got a thrill up my leg. Okay? You’re reading the right wing blogs. Start tuning your station. KESSLER: My, my apologies. MATTHEWS: No it’s not enough, because you’re reading the wrong stuff. But go ahead, I was just kidding. I can take it. I’m sorry.

Link:
Matthews Reveals His Obama ‘Thrill’ Has Moved Up From Leg to ‘All Over Me’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Vanity Fair Reporter Admits Error In Sarah Palin Hit Piece

Posted on September 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

For almost two years, Sarah Palin has been complaining about media members making things up about her. On Friday, one finally admitted it. As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, Vanity Fair’s October issue has a hit piece on its cover about the former Alaska governor that Palin-hating press members have been predictably fawning and gushing over. Now, the Associated Press is reporting that the author, Michael Joseph Gross, has admitted making a mistake in his piece: Reporter Michael Joseph Gross describes Palin’s youngest son, Trig, being pushed in a stroller by his older sister, Piper, before a rally in May in the Kansas City suburb of Independence. “When the girl, Piper Palin, turns around, she sees her parents thronged by admirers, and the crowd rolling toward her and the baby, her brother Trig, born with Down syndrome in 2008,” according to the article. “Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, bend down and give a moment to the children; a woman, perhaps a nanny, whisks the boy away; and Todd hands Sarah her speech and walks her to the stage.” Later in his piece, Gross described Piper joining Sarah on stage to “allow Palin to make a public display of maternal affection.”  Unfortunately, as Politico’s Ben Smith reported Thursday, that was a different Down syndrome baby: Trig wasn’t at the event, according to its organizer, Karladine Graves, a 61-year-old Kansas City physician, who, in 2009, founded one of the wave of new local conservative groups, this one called Preserving American Liberty. The “woman, perhaps a nanny,” was the boy’s mother, St. Louis talk radio host Gina Loudon, according to Graves. But it gets worse according to the AP: The mother of that child, conservative activist Gina Loudon, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she told Gross during the rally that the child in the stroller was her son, not Palin’s. She said she tried to make it clear because the two children look a lot alike. “I told him that. And he ignored it,” Loudon said. “It’s not even like he didn’t fact check – he just ignored facts.” Now, Gross has admitted it: Gross said in a written statement sent to The Associated Press that he was mistaken. “Trig was with his mother the next day in Wichita (Kan.), but the child in Independence was someone else, and I regret the error,” he said. He regrets the error? No he doesn’t. He regrets getting caught, for as Smith wrote Thursday, this has been a modus operandi for dishonest media members like Gross for two years: [T]he Vanity Fair piece on Sarah Palin is so emblematic of much that’s wrong about the way she’s covered that it’s worth returning to, and I’ve learned that the its long wind-up is based on fundamental confusion about which of Palin’s children was at an event in Kansas City. Palin almost never talks to neutral media outlets, leaving her – as critics accurately note – subject to none of the questions, challenges  and reality checks that the political press puts regularly to almost every other national political figure. She takes a lot of heat for this, deservedly. But with the hunger for information about her, and the traffic she drives, the press sometimes compensates by printing such thinly sourced, badly reported nonsense about her that it’s hard to imagine it making it into a serious magazine like Vanity Fair if it concerned any other figure. Of course, this might not happen if she spoke to reporters, but that’s no excuse. Yeah it is, Ben, for what’s the point of talking to the press if they’re going to just make stuff up? Of course, this is the kind of yellow journalism by “impotent, limp, gutless reporters” Palin ridiculed while chatting with Sean Hannity Wednesday, and is why it’s difficult to believe any of the nonsense about her in the media. Vanity Fair should be so proud of itself. 

See more here:
Vanity Fair Reporter Admits Error In Sarah Palin Hit Piece

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

CBS Early Show Promotes Palin-Bashing Vanity Fair Article

Posted on September 2, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Erica Hill interviewed Vanity Fair reporter Michael Joseph Gross about his article slamming Sarah Palin with outlandish accusations: “…we’ve watched Sarah Palin go from a small town hockey mom and the mayor to international celebrity….it certainly changed her, that’s according to a rather unflattering new article in Vanity Fair magazine. ” Talking to Gross, Hill noted how he “had a tough time…getting to people who are close to Sarah Palin,” but wondered: “…tell us about the people you did speak to who are around her….What kind of an impression did they give you of Sarah Palin?” Gross detailed some of the wild claims made by his questionable sources: “They’d tell stories about screaming fits, about throwing things….where Sarah and Todd will empty the pantry of canned goods, throwing them at each other until the front of the refrigerator looks like it’s been shot up by a shot gun.” Taken in by the story, Hill simply replied: “Wow.” Gross continued, alleging that Palin “tortured” former assistants, one of whom “had to quit the job, seek psychiatric counseling, and leave the state to escape Palin’s influence.” He asserted: “…[Palin] exacts retribution on people after they leave. They’re afraid that she’s going to get them fired from their job, try to ruin their reputations. That’s the modus operandi.” Earlier in the interview, he described Palin’s current political activity as an effort to exact “a kind of vengeance on the country for rejecting her” in the 2008 election. Hill seemed puzzled about Palin’s refusal to talk to Gross for the vicious hit piece: “These are all some pretty strong allegations. You tried to get in touch….with Sarah Palin, with her media people….Did they tell you why they wouldn’t speak with you?” Gross replied: “I tried everything. I tried sending messages through her father, through her hairdresser. I spent almost three weeks in Wasilla.” Hill wrapped up the segment by endorsing the smear: “It’s a fascinating article. It’s a fascinating read.” Prior to Hill’s interview with Gross, correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on the Vanity Fair attack: “The story portrays Palin as leading a life shrouded in secrecy, using fear to control those around her.” One accusation she highlighted: “The article gives new details about Palin’s heavily publicized campaign spending habits, saying she purchased over 400 items, including $3,000 on underwear and $20,000 on a new wardrobe for her husband, Todd.” A sound bite was featured from Politico’s Andrew Barr, who proclaimed: “…it seems like they’re [the Palins] going around, trying to, you know, bilk the RNC and others for as much money as they could get.” Cordes also noted: “Gross claims that before [Levi] Johnston issued a public apology to Palin, she met with him privately and demanded to know if he was wearing a wire.” She then touted how the Early Show provided a platform to Johnston yet again last week : “In an exclusive interview with the Early Show last Friday, Levi said he regretted making that statement [the apology].”    Here is a full transcript of the September 2 segment: 8:30AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Also ahead, we’ve watched Sarah Palin go from a small town hockey mom and the mayor to international celebrity. That kind of sudden fame can change anyone. And it certainly changed her, that’s according to a rather unflattering new article in Vanity Fair magazine. We’re going to speak with the author of that article, who followed Palin on the trail for months, spoke to dozens of people who know her. We’ll see the picture that he says emerged. 8:40AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: For two years now, Sarah Palin has been in the national spotlight. Making a political impact that’s felt from Washington to Hollywood and, of course, in Alaska. Her life has changed and so has her family’s. And as CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes tells us, those changes, according to a new report, aren’t always flattering. SARAH PALIN: We must restore America- [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Inside Palin’s World; New Revelations About Fmr. Alaska Governor] NANCY CORDES: She’s the Republican Party’s top draw. And Sarah Palin’s influence appears to be growing. She’s backed 20 winning candidates in this year’s primaries. But in an article published in this month’s Vanity Fair, author Michael Joseph Gross claims Palin is not who she appears to be. The story portrays Palin as leading a life shrouded in secrecy, using fear to control those around her. ANDREW BARR [REPORTER, POLITICO.COM]: Everyone who was leaking, who was talking to the press has been cut out of her circle. CORDES: The article gives new details about Palin’s heavily publicized campaign spending habits, saying she purchased over 400 items, including $3,000 on underwear and $20,000 on a new wardrobe for her husband, Todd. BARR: If you look through the campaign e-mails, if you look through disclosures, it seems like they’re going around, trying to, you know, bilk the RNC and others for as much money as they could get. CORDES: The article also sheds light on Palin’s public feud with her daughter’s former fiancee, Levi Johnston. Gross claims that before Johnston issued a public apology to Palin, she met with him privately and demanded to know if he was wearing a wire. In an exclusive interview with the Early Show last Friday, Levi said he regretted making that statement. LEVI JOHNSTON: The only thing I wish I wouldn’t have done is put out that apology, because it kind of makes me sound like a liar. CORDES: Palin has not commented on the article. In two weeks she will headline a GOP event in Iowa, adding to the speculation about her political plans for 2012. Nancy Cordes, CBS News, Washington. HILL: Joining us now is Vanity Fair writer Michael Joseph Gross. His article, ‘Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury,’ is in the magazine’s upcoming issue. Good to have you with us this morning. MICHAEL JOSEPH GROSS: Thanks for having me. HILL: You said the most important quote in this article is, ‘we weren’t good enough for America.’ Why do you feel that’s the most important quote that you have there? GROSS: When Sarah Palin got back to Wasilla after the election, she was in her house. The people from the Republican Party were trying to collect the clothing that had been purchased for return. She was talking to one of her children and she was crying and she said, ‘we weren’t good enough for America. We’ll never be good enough for America.’ I think she felt so rejected by this election that what we’re seeing subsequently has been a kind of vengeance on the country for rejecting her. I think what she’s doing is plugging into a similar sense of rejection among millions of people out there who feel like they’re not good enough. HILL: You had a tough time, you say, getting to people who are close to Sarah Palin, let alone Sarah Palin. First, tell us about the people you did speak to who are around her, who had been close in her camps. What kind of an impression did they give you of Sarah Palin? GROSS: The people who’ve been closest to her describe a temper that at first I couldn’t even believe could be true. They’d tell stories about screaming fits, about throwing things. We’re talking about everybody from friends who’ve stayed with the Palins, who’ve witnessed events where Sarah and Todd will empty the pantry of canned goods, throwing them at each other until the front of the refrigerator looks like it’s been shot up by a shot gun. HILL: Wow. GROSS: Everything from that to former assistants who’ve been so tortured by Palin that, in one case, one had to quit the job, seek psychiatric counseling, and leave the state to escape Palin’s influence. Because everybody who’s worked with her has seen the way that she exacts retribution on people after they leave. They’re afraid that she’s going to get them fired from their job, try to ruin their reputations. That’s the modus operandi. HILL: These are all some pretty strong allegations. You tried to get in touch with the Palin – with Sarah Palin, with her media people. A) Were you successful? And B) Did they tell you why they wouldn’t speak with you? Because they didn’t for this article. GROSS: The only responses that I received from them were that my request was under consideration. There was never any resolution to the conversation. That message was sent multiple times. And I tried everything. I tried sending messages through her father, through her hairdresser. I spent almost three weeks in Wasilla. So- HILL: Good to have you with us. It’s a fascinating article. It’s a fascinating read. GROSS: Thank you. HILL: Thanks for being with us. Michael Joseph Gross joining us from Vanity Fair.

See original here:
CBS Early Show Promotes Palin-Bashing Vanity Fair Article

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Open Thread: ‘Will Barack Obama Be a One-term President?’

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

“Yes, he might last that long,” Politico’s Roger Simon states in response to his own question. Honest to goodness, the man just does not get it. He might be forced to pull a Palin and resign before his first term is over. He could go off and write his memoirs and build his presidential library. (Both would be half-size, of course.) I am not saying Obama is not smart; he is as smart as a whip. I am just saying he does not understand what savvy first-term presidents need to understand: You have to stay on message, follow the polls, listen to your advisers (who are writing the message and taking the polls) and realize that when it comes to doing what is right versus doing what is expedient, you do what is expedient so that you can get reelected and do what is right in the second term. If at all possible. And it will help your legacy. And not endanger the election of others in your party. And not hurt the brand. Or upset people too much. Do you concur with that assessment, or is Simon being too cynical? Remember to give some examples to back up your point.

See the original post:
Open Thread: ‘Will Barack Obama Be a One-term President?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NBC’s Chuck Todd on Hardball Ponders: Is Ken Buck, ‘Sharron Angle in Drag?’

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

NBC’s chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd, substitute hosting for Chris Matthews, on Wednesday’s Hardball, managed to question the political viability of two Republican candidates in one sentence as he asked his guest panelist, Jonathan Martin of the Politico, “Is Ken Buck, you know, Sharron Angle in drag?” Going over the results of yesterday’s primary races with Martin and Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, Todd claimed the “Democrats are doing a touchdown dance” because of Buck’s victory in the Republican primary contest for the Senate seat in Colorado and also relayed some rather colorful descriptions of Buck, as seen in the following exchange, aired on the August 11 edition of Hardball: CHUCK TODD: Hey Jonathan Martin it seems as if Democrats are doing a touchdown dance about Ken Buck and they’re trying to turn him into Sharron Angle and Rand Paul’s, somehow hidden brother in the basement. JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO: Right. TODD: Is Ken Buck, you know, Sharron Angle in drag? MARTIN: Chuck it’s funny you mention that. I’m actually doing a story right now about, what I call the race to define Ken Buck. And it just started last night, right after the results came in. Both the GOP and Democrats are in this furious battle now to see who can set the narrative of who is Ken Buck? Is he sort of this Princeton graduate, mainstream conservative, county prosecutor, respected pillar of the community? Or is he, like you said, is he the Rocky Mountain version of Sharron Angle? Which is what Democrats are saying, focusing on some of the controversial things that he said during the course of the primary that were not about spending, that were not about those sort of issues that Howard mentioned, that are winners for, for the Republicans this time around. I think it’s still an open question. I don’t think he has vulnerabilities, day in and day out, that a [Rand] Paul or, or an Angle has- TODD: Right. MARTIN: -who are pure libertarians. Who really have a strong philosophical view of, of the role of government. I think he’s more of a pragmatist, Buck is. But there’s no question about it, he went pretty far in some of his comments- TODD: Right. MARTIN: -during the course of the primary.

Visit link:
NBC’s Chuck Todd on Hardball Ponders: Is Ken Buck, ‘Sharron Angle in Drag?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Local DC ABC Reporter Suspended — For Conservative Bias?

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Long-time DC TV news anchor Doug McKelway has been suspended by local ABC affiliate WJLA-TV (owned by Allbritton Communications, the same people who own the paper and website Politico) after a standup report last month from a liberal cap-and-trade rally trying to capitalize on the BP oil spill. “According to several of McKelway’s colleagues,” reported Paul Farhi in The Washington Post , “the newsman’s reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry’s influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators ” — which must have included bigtime BP recipient Barack Obama. Don’t question the Democrats from a liberal protest!  Then came trouble: “The episode led to a meeting between McKelway and Bill Lord, WJLA’s station manager and news director, that featured sharp exchanges between them,” anonymous WJLA sources told the Post. They insisted the issue wasn’t the lines about Democrats, but about “insubordination.” But how is it not about conservative bias if that’s what put him on the hot seat with the boss? The Post added: McKelway has been cryptic when discussing his status with WJLA. In a posting on his Facebook page Thursday, McKelway wrote, “I’ve gotten so many emails and messages of concern about my employment situation. I wish I could say more!!! I don’t know if I’ll be back on the air, but I can tell you that life is very good. I’ve got a beautiful wife who’s telling me to stick to principle.” When asked late last month by morning radio host Elliot Segal if he had been fired, McKelway said, “All I can say is, I got a great lawyer.” He also said “I like contrarian things.” It’s also possible WJLA is still angry about McKelway’s really feisty interview with radical gay “outing” activist Mike Rogers on the local NewsChannel 8 (also an Allbritton station), which outraged gay leftists. (Notice McKelway calls out Barney Frank in the video .) At one point, McKelway told his guest: “I’d take you outside and give you a punch across the face….I think you’re hurting innocent people.” A day later, McKelway was unrepentant on the air, telling viewers, “An apology? Mike Rogers, you’re not getting one. You understand that? Because you’re a bully and you hurt innocent people, and you’re doing great harm to your movement, the gay rights movement, by doing what you’re doing.” McKelway has been with Channel 7 since 2001, and has long co-hosted WJLA’s “Good Morning Washington” newscast. He’s married to Susan Ferrechio, who’s also been a reporter for the Miami Herald, Congressional Quarterly, The Washington Times, and currently The Washington Examiner.  Of course, the Post had to lead with how “Veteran TV newsman Doug McKelway may have said too much — not to viewers but to his boss.” It’s just as plausible that McKelway simply “said too much” by saying a discouraging word about Democrats. The Post account also had to whitewash a rally by Greenpeace, Code Pink, and MoveOn.org , among other groups, as merely a “rally by religious and environmental groups to protest BP’s response to the oil spill and to advocate for legislation favoring renewable energy resources.” The lefties clearly planned to bother politicians who took BP contributions: “Following the rally, delegations of activists visited the offices of some of the lawmakers who have taken in the most in campaign contributions from BP during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.”  Allbritton and WJLA ought to be questioned if it’s possible for a reporter in Barack Obama’s Washington to mention on air that President Obama’s a major recipient of BP cash without getting chewed out in the newsroom.

Continue reading here:
Local DC ABC Reporter Suspended — For Conservative Bias?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hardball Panelist Bemoans: Townhallers Only Getting News From Limbaugh, Drudge and Fox News

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

NBC’s Chuck Todd, substitute hosting for Chris Matthews on Monday’s Hardball, invited on Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum and the Politico’s Jonathan Martin to navel gaze about what ailed the political structure as Todd questioned “Is Washington broke and beyond repair?” Pivoting off a Purdum article, that in part, blamed lobbyists, Martin offered his own explanation as he brought up the typical mainstream media boogeymen of the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. After Todd noted that it’s not just the “lobbying community” causing distress in D.C., that the “media is playing a role here” and “it’s not clear which came first, the polarized Washington or the polarized way that people get information” Martin offered his account of how townhallers in Florida were “listening to Rush Limbaugh,” “reading Drudge” and “watching Fox News.” JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO: But it’s also, it’s also the break down in not just Washington media but in regional newspapers. Last August, a year ago, I was down in Florida, the panhandle, going to Allen Boyd town hall meetings. The folks at those town hall meetings – Chuck, they, they were not reading the Pensacola News Journal, they were not reading the Tallahassee Democrat, they were listening to Rush Limbaugh, they were reading Drudge, and they were watching- CHUCK TODD: Local news has gone national. MARTIN: -and they were watching Fox News. And that’s where they got their information entirely! The following is the full exchange as it was aired on the August 9 edition of Hardball: CHUCK TODD: Well, we are back. Is Washington broke and beyond repair? Vanity Fair’s national editor Todd Purdum has a great big piece. One of those big think pieces in the latest issue of the magazine, which of course has Lady Gaga on the cover, because you have to sell the magazine. But it’s called “Washington, We Have A Problem.” We’re also joined by a Washingtonian from birth, Politico’s senior political reporter Jonathan Martin. And look you’ve gotten, Todd, you’ve gotten a lot of attention for this piece. This idea that it’s broken. I think Rahm Emanuel refers to Washington, in cementing his own four letter legacy as “F” Nutsville. But one part of your piece has not gotten a lot of attention and it was striking to me and that was the fact that the media is not the Fourth Estate it’s the industry of lobbying. Let me, this figure you used, you said in 2009 expenditures for lobbying – $3.5 billion, with a “b” dollars or $1.3 million for each hour that Congress was in session according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s, that to me, is the eye opener of this piece, almost more than anything now. TODD PURDUM, VANITY FAIR: It’s pretty incredible. And a single lobbying entity, the Chamber of Commerce, spent $144 million last year, which is more than the combined payroll of all 535 members of Congress. So I mean the, the stakes are so wildly disproportionate in terms what have resources can be brought to bear. And the typical congressman or senator, you know, doesn’t need that much. John Breaux, senator from Louisiana once famously said, “My vote can’t be bought, it can occasionally be rented.” TODD: You know Jonathan I was looking at this piece and I went into it with a little bit – cynical. You know is Washington broken? You know what? We’re all gonna thumb suck. You see a number like that though and you say, “Okay think maybe things have changed.” This lobbying community, like I said, you’ve grown up around here. JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO: Right. TODD: K Street is no longer just a street. It’s a community. MARTIN: Well it’s the entire, it’s the entire culture now of Washington. And also, if you go to the Hill, those bills are frequent, this is not a cliche, those bills are actually written by lobbyists. I mean the actual language itself, because the lobbyists are the only ones that actually are the experts on the issues. They’re the ones feeding the committee staff, the actual language of the bills. That’s a fact. But I was struck, Chuck, in this piece and also the New York piece by George Packer about the U.S. Senate. PURDUM: Wonderful piece. MARTIN: Two things. Increasingly, the, the real campaigns are played out within the parties themselves, not against each other, R’s versus D’s. But these folks are so scared of primaries nowadays that you’ve got now Republicans, for example talking about overturning the 14th Amendment. Why are they doing that? Does Mitch McConnell suddenly care about this issue? I would doubt it seriously. They are scared of a radicalized GOP base that, that right now is demanding action on immigration and they’re talking about addressing this issue because they’re scared of their own base and being primaried. That’s what drives the folks on the R side and the D side now increasingly. It’s primaries. TODD: Now you, rightly, I think put a focus, Todd, on this, the, the lobbying community as this sort of hidden Fourth Estate that no one talks about. You hear it sort of used as a punching bag. But the media is playing a role here, a little bit, too. And that is the fact that it’s not clear which came first, the polarized Washington or the polarized way that people get information about Washington. And then we’ve shined a spotlight on it, but with our own lens and we focus it in its special way. PURDUM: Well first of all, I mean the media from the French Revolution on, the media thrives on conflict. And that’s why we say “man bites dog,” and not “dog bites man.” So that’s, that’s a given. But it’s the intensity- TODD: Wait a minute, breaking news. Another plane has landed safely at National Airport. That is correct. Another – right, we never break in for that. Yeah. MARTIN: One hundred today now… PURDUM: You scared me for one second. I thought that’s going on here? TODD: No, no but that’s my point. We don’t break in for that. PURDUM: And we don’t say Washingtonians got up and had their coffee and went to school and… TODD: Right. PURDUM: But, but what has happened to the frequency, the velocity of it, has so increased, that even 15 years ago when I covered the White House for the New York Times, we like to say we had a 24/7 media, we really did not. We had CNN, which every 22 minutes kind of had the world headlines. But it wasn’t that some blogger sitting in a house some place, could cause a story that would make the White House reacted at midnight. That just didn’t exist. MARTIN: But it’s also, it’s also the break down in not just Washington media but in regional newspapers. Last August, a year ago, I was down in Florida, the panhandle, going to Allen Boyd town hall meetings. The folks at those town hall meetings – Chuck, they, they were not reading the Pensacola News Journal, they were not reading the Tallahassee Democrat, they were listening to Rush Limbaugh, they were reading Drudge, and they were watching- TODD: Local news has gone national. MARTIN: -and they were watching Fox News. And that’s where they got their information entirely!

See original here:
Hardball Panelist Bemoans: Townhallers Only Getting News From Limbaugh, Drudge and Fox News

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Harris on ‘This Week’: Giving Bush Credit for Iraq Too Much for Obama to Swallow

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Christiane Amanpour on Sunday asked a rather surprising question of her “This Week” panel concerning President Obama’s speech earlier in the week about the troop draw down in Iraq:  Do you think everybody is taking a lot of credit but not giving credit where credit is due? Obviously, “everybody” in this instance meant the current White House resident who chose not to give credit to former President George W. Bush for the success in Iraq or to even mention “the surge” in his address. After former Bush speechwriter now Washington Post contributor Michael Gerson said, “I didn’t find the speech to be a particularly generous speech…he’s attempting to take credit for something that he opposed,” some truly shocking statements were made by Amanpour and Politico’s John Harris (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Before turning to domestic news, I want to start with Iraq, because we just heard from General Odierno we know that the draw down, President Obama makes a speech today reaffirming the draw down, rather this week. Do you think everybody is taking a lot of credit but not giving credit where credit is due? MICHAEL GERSON, WASHINGTON POST: I didn’t find the speech to be a particularly generous speech. I mean, this is really the implementation of the status of forces agreement that was agreed to in 2008 under the Bush administration. Barack Obama, people forget, actually voted against funding for the troops. He opposed the surge. He gave a speech without mentioning the surge or General Petraeus. I think that that’s probably, you know, he’s attempting to take credit for something that he opposed. AMANPOUR: The surge, let’s face it, has worked up until now. We can see that it’s had a huge, huge impact on stability in Iraq, despite a spike of violence. Do you think that it would have been even politically expedient to actually praise the surge, because the future of Iraq is this president’s future? Imagine that. Amanpour actually said the surge has worked. This wasn’t the tune she was singing on September 10, 2007, just before Petraeus spoke to Congress about how this strategy was doing: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in short, they’re very worried, because they see, as, in fact, General Petraeus himself admits in an open letter to his own troops ahead of this report on Congress, that, yes, they are making some progress in some areas. He’s said to his own troops, we have the ball and we’re driving it down the field. But in short, we are a long way from our goal. They are happy, of course, the change at the moment in the Anbar province, which used to be the most dangerous. But it’s now much more safe because some of the sheikhs and would-be insurgents have switch sides and joined the U.S. against al Qaeda. But then they see at other parts of Iraq how sort of as the surge is squelching some activity in some parts of Iraq, it’s sort of coming up and showing itself in other parts, the violence. So, around the world people are looking at that and wondering how this is going to proceed. The British themselves, who are the main coalition partners of the United States, have withdrawn their troops from a high of 30,000 during the war and the immediate aftermath of the war to now less than 5,000, and they have withdrawn completely from the urban area they were responsible for, Basra in the south. And they are at an air base. And, of course, that’s being carefully looked at as to see the effect of that and what that might mean for the future. But in short, the rest of the world is exceptionally anxious. Leaders in the region do not think that there can be potentially any progress. They are very concerned about this administration. They feel that it’s a lame-duck administration, and they are very concerned about the future of Iraq, because it has massive ripple effects in this whole region.  Now, almost three years later, all that anxiety was proven unwarranted. Regardless, here’s how Harris answered Amanpour’s question:  JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: Well, probably the more cynical thing to do, or sort of a more Machiavellian thing to do for President Obama, would have been to lavish credit on President Bush. I mean, one of the central parts of Obama’s brand at least when he came into Washington was that he was a bridge builder and could sort of drain politics. He would have therefore sort of cut off the conservative critique that he’s, which is out there, that he is leaving too soon, and looked gracious in doing so. I don’t know, I think that may have been, that doesn’t come naturally to him. It might have been a little too much to swallow. Hmmm. So admitting he was wrong doesn’t come naturally to Obama, nor does praising a former President whose strategy ended up being a huge success? Those seem like significant character flaws for the most powerful man in the world, wouldn’t you agree? Even so, it sure was nice to see two members of the mainstream media admit that our current President was taking credit for something he didn’t do especially given the other player involved. 

Read more from the original source:
Harris on ‘This Week’: Giving Bush Credit for Iraq Too Much for Obama to Swallow

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Media Liberals on ‘JournoList’ Plotted to Bury the Jeremiah Wright Story in 2008

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Daily Caller has another scoop on the leftist JournoList e-mails today, recalling when they all wanted the Jeremiah Wright story to be dead and buried in the spring of 2008. Jonathan Strong explained “Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.” Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”…The tough questioning from ABC left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.” In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people .” “Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.” The most eye-opening quote may come from Chris Hayes, a regular guest and occasional guest host on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, writing about how America is a murderous, torturing giant, and that’s much more outrageous than Wright. In fact, Hayes echoed Wright’s sermons: Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list. The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.” Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.” “Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote. For followers of the Clinton scandals, it gets incredibly rich when Katha Pollitt confesses: Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said. “Part of me doesn’t like this s–t either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.” Ackerman went on: I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear . Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Andrea Mitchell: House Democrats’ Spat With Gibbs is ‘Unfortunate’

Posted on July 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell is apparently a tad disappointed that the conflict between Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Robert Gibbs festered as much as it has recently. While talking to Politico’s Jonathan Martin about yesterday’s meeting at the White House between House Democrats and Obama administration officials, Mitchell lamented that the four-day uproar was “a little bit unfortunate.” “You think they didn’t need a four-day story about their infighting?” Mitchell asked sounding slightly annoyed that things escalated to that level for the Democrats. Mitchell analyzed the situation as an awkward statement that needlessly morphed into a full-blown conflict. “It just seems like Robert just answered a question on Meet the Press, and the Democrats decided to make a federal case out of it.” “But better now Andrea, in July, than October,” Martin reassured her. A transcript of the segment, which aired on July 15, at 1:25 p.m. EDT, is as follows: ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC anchor: Do you think that they sort of kissed and made up with “Brother Gibbs”? JONATHAN MARTIN, senior political reporter, Politico: Well I don’t think that Robert Gibbs was actually at this meeting, but I think the consensus that you hear today from Democrats, on both sides of Pennsylvania Ave., is that they are ready to move on and try and get beyond this, and try to hang together here for these next four months. MITCHELL: You think they didn’t need a four-day story about their infighting? A little bit unfortunate. It seems like, you know, Robert just answered a question on Meet the Press, and the Democrats decided to make a federal case out of it. Anyway. MARTIN: But better now, Andrea, in July, than October, certainly for them. MITCHELL: Exactly.

Here is the original post:
Andrea Mitchell: House Democrats’ Spat With Gibbs is ‘Unfortunate’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , ,