Tag Archives: rachel maddow show

Catching Heat From Left, Obama Meets With Liberal Commentators to Discuss Gulf Spill

President Obama met with a group of prominent liberal commentators on Thursday to discuss the Gulf oil spill and the administration’s response. The meeting came in the midst of a rare firestorm of criticism from the left over the president’s response to the spill. It was surely not coincidence that the journalists seen leaving the White House that afternoon–the New York Times’s Gail Collins , the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson , MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow , and the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib –were some of the more prominent critics of the president’s Oval Office address on Tuesday. The meeting demonstrates two facts: the White House is trying furiously to spin media coverage of the federal response to the spill in the administration’s favor, and the old White House double standard towards the news media persists. Though hardly shocking, the Obama administration continues to employ a vicious double standard that dubs any news organization that criticizes the president something short of legitimate. Lest anyone has forgotten, two top White House officials–chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and political advisor David Axelrod –both rhetorically negated Fox’s credentials as a legitimate news organization. Thursday’s meeting suggests another layer of partisanship that, though hardly surprising, is still quite telling. While Fox is demonized, some of the left’s most partisan commentators are not only granted the White House’s seal of legitimacy, but are even give privileged access to the president. The meeting also suggests that Obama is devoting more effort to spinning his administration’s policies concerning the gulf spill than he is with actually devising more effective policies. His meeting with these lefty journalists was, after all, roughly three times as long as his meeting with BP CEO Tony Hayward.

Read the original post:
Catching Heat From Left, Obama Meets With Liberal Commentators to Discuss Gulf Spill

Shill Baby Shill: Rachel Maddow’s Oily Misdirection From Democrats Supporting Offshore Drilling

There are lies, damned lies and statistics, so the saying goes. Add Rachel Maddow’s lies of omission to the list. Maddow is doing her best to shield MSNBC viewers from awkward facts about political support for offshore drilling. Here’s how she began her show on Monday, with an announcement from July 2008 by then-President George W. Bush —  BUSH: For years my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. … One of the most important steps we can take to expand American oil production is to increase access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, or what’s called the OCS. … Today I’ve issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. MADDOW: That was President George W. Bush in July 2008 lifting the presidential ban on offshore oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. It was a presidential ban that had been first put in place by President Bush’s dad in 1990 after the big Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. Here was why Bush the second said he was lifting the drilling ban of Bush the first — BUSH: New advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. MADDOW: See, the technology is so safe now there’s no need to worry about oil spills any more. Now as I mentioned, President George W. Bush here was rescinding the presidential drilling ban that his father had put in place after the Exxon Valdez disaster. He was sort of trying to box Congress in, into repealing Congress’s drilling ban as well. Congress’s ban was even older than the presidential ban. Congress’s ban had been put in place starting in the early 1980s. BUSH: With this action, the executive branch’s restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the US Congress. … But Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s.  Maddow’s misdirection begins here — MADDOW: Well, why had Congress done that? Why had Congress restricted offshore drilling since the early 1980s? Ah, because of this. (Footage shown of Ixtoc oil spill) The Ixtoc oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. It blew up in 1979. They did not cap it until well into 1980. It released an estimated 140 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In trying to figure out what to do about that, Congress decided to put a moratorium on drilling in hundreds of thousands of acres of federal waters. Sorry, no more drilling. Did you see what just happened, people?! After a huge spill like that, you can see how politicians at the time maybe might want to stop and reassess things for a while. After the big Ixtoc disaster, that’s what Congress did. After the big Exxon Valdez disaster, that’s what the first President Bush did. And after the most recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf, that’s what President Obama has done, implementing a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling.  Moratoriums on drilling are what we have done in the past to respond to big oil disasters. The idea, presumably, is that we’re going to make drilling safer before we allow it to expand again. And even though President Bush touted that supposed improved safety back in 2008 when he was lifting the presidential moratorium, we no longer have to take anyone’s sober assurances about things like that. That issue has now been factually, conclusively settled. Notice what Maddow does — Bush the younger is depicted as an irresponsible outlier, running against the grain in comparison to three other parties: Congress imposing its moratorium in the early 1980s, Bush senior issuing his presidential ban in 1990, and Obama ordering a six-month moratorium after the BP spill. What Maddow couldn’t bring herself to acknowledge in the excerpt quoted above, nor in the entirety of the opening segment on Monday ( linked here ), is that Congress — and a Democrat-led Congress at that — ended the offshore drilling moratorium in September 2008, two months after the younger Bush’s announcement. Nor could Maddow bear to divulge the equally awkward fact that Obama came around to Bush’s enthusiasm for offshore drilling — weeks before the deadly Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20. This deceitful whitewashing, however, pales compared to the shabbiness from Maddow last night while reporting on five oil company CEOs testifying before a House Energy subcommittee (second part of embedded video) — MADDOW: For oil industry executives, even the biggest accidental blowout ever, 140 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, even Ixtoc, even that is apparently not a big deal when they think about their own industry. It’s not part of what they’ve learned about oil and oil companies and drilling. It’s not something that they talk about, it’s not a term they’re familiar with, it’s apparently, if you’re the head of an oil company, if you’re the CEO of an oil company, it’s apparently something you’ve never even heard of before. Footage is then shown from that day’s subcommittee hearing attended by executives from BP America, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips, and this question from Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. — WHITFIELD: I was reading an article about a well referred to as I-X-T-O-C 1, which I think was back in 1978 or ’79. … Are any of you familiar with the history of that particular well blowing in the Gulf? Any of you aware of the facts of that? Whereupon audio from the footage is silenced, a BP America executive begins to answer but cannot be heard, and Maddow makes this bizarre claim — MADDOW:  Yeah, we didn’t edit that to take away the sound. That’s them, they just, blank stares all around. Except for the man I just censored to keep you from hearing him speak. Except for that. When Maddow does things like this, is her rule of thumb — What Would Mao Do? Where Maddow sees blank stares, I see noncommittal responses from four oil executives to an exercise in Kabuki theater guilt by association. (For those interested in what BP America chairman Lamar McKay had to say, here is a link to C-SPAN’S coverage of the hearing; go to 1:30:52 in the clip . C-SPAN helpfully keeps the audio intact for the entire segment).

See more here:
Shill Baby Shill: Rachel Maddow’s Oily Misdirection From Democrats Supporting Offshore Drilling

Better Late Than Never: Rachel Maddow Taken to Task From Unlikely Quarter – The Huffington Post

It’s not often I see something on The Huffington Post I look forward to reading. Here’s an exception. In a post ungrammatically titled “Why Has the New York Times and Rachel Maddow Misled Us?”, novelist and essayist Richard Greener on Thursday wrote a stinging rebuke of a Times’ June 8 editorial and Maddow’s coverage on her show the following day of the Supreme Court emergency order intervening in Arizona’s political matching funds law. The specifics of Greener’s criticism of the Times and Maddow can be found by following this link to his post. (A video clip of the Maddow segment in question can be found here ). Greener laid it on thick when it came to Maddow, initially describing her as “always intelligent, smart and savvy and usually 100 percent credible” before going after her assertions about the court’s action. He concluded that “only two explanations remain for Rachel’s bad behavior” — One is, she’s just another TV entertainer, another pretty face in a long-line of million-dollar talking heads. She shows up, gets her make-up on and she performs her ‘show’ for the camera. Unsaid, is that she hasn’t a clue what the program’s about and perhaps doesn’t care very much. After all, it’s show business and it’s her living we’re talking about. It’s only ‘acting’ isn’t it? Second is she read the order. She knows perfectly well what it says. But she had a reason to do what she did, the way she did it. I don’t want to believe the first possibility. Don’t ask me why. I don’t know Rachel Maddow and I never will. But I kinda like her. I think she’s cool. And, I admit it — I usually agree with her. But I really don’t want to believe the second because its (sic) so fundamentally dishonest, deceptive and downright creepy that it makes me a little queasy. Greener deserves credit, as does The Huffington Post, for publishing this, knowing full well that many if not most of the readers on the site are also inclined to agree with Maddow. Where I part company with Greener is in his description of Maddow as “usually 100% percent credible.” Leaving aside the many examples on NewsBusters that undermine this claim, one need not venture far from the Maddow segment that Greener criticizes to see further evidence of this. The day before Maddow’s take on the Supreme Court action, Maddow interviewed Las Vegas Sun columnist and cable-show host Jon Ralston. The interview ended with a minor but telling error on Maddow’s part when she thanked Ralston for coming on her show ( click here for audio) — MADDOW: Jon Ralston, columnist for the Las Vegas Sun, host of ‘Face to Face with Jon Ralston,’ and as a political dean of the press corps in Nevada you’ve got one of the best jobs in American politics. … Except that Ralston works in journalism, not politics. Unless the person saying this sees no distinction between the two. What followed from Maddow on Wednesday and Thursday, however, was egregious. On Wednesday’s show, the same one featuring the segment criticized by Greener, Maddow revisited her verbal jousting with John Birchers at last winter’s CPAC gathering in her attempt to tar GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle with guilt by association ( audio here ) — MADDOW:  Seeing the John Birch Society back in the heart of the conservative movement has been sort of a trip. I mean, once they got over the impulse to try to pretend that they are not now and never were crazy about stuff like fluoride, they then got right back into the business of being super-paranoid, highly-imaginative conspiracy theorists about stuff like fluoride. These guys really believe if we’re going to get serious about stopping communist mind-control plots, we must oppose the dreaded Bolshevik fluoride in the water. Here’s the most amazing thing, though. The John Birch Society now, in that view, has a very highly placed champion, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, Sharron Angle — fighter against fluoride! Really! In 1999 the Nevada state assembly passed a bill requiring the fluoridation of water in two Nevada counties. Then-assemblywoman Sharron Angle tried to block fluoridation in one of those counties. According to an account in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, ‘Angle said she simply does not like fluoride.’ A day later, Maddow embellished on the basis for Angle’s opposition to fluoridation ( audio here ) — MADDOW:  Now that Sharron Angle has won the Republican nomination for Senate to run against Harry Reid in Nevada, now the fun part. Now the fun part is watching the national Republican political establishment try to figure out what to do with Sharron Angle. Try to figure out how to balance that national Republican frothing, clamoring, heart-racing desire to beat Harry Reid with the fact that their candidate against Harry Reid thinks that fluoride in drinking water is a conspiracy and recently suggested that beer should be illegal. Sow’s ear, can you become a silk purse? Can you?! To recap: Maddow on Wednesday — Angle’s opposition to fluoridation, according to the newspaper Maddow cited quoting Angle, is personal distaste. Maddow on Thursday claims as “fact” that Angle believes fluoridation is a “conspiracy” — as in Bolshevik. Sharing Angle’s concern, by the way, is that scurrilous right-wing rag Scientific American, which ran an article titled “Second Thoughts on Fluoride” in 2008. Guess they’re in on the conspiracy too. Maddow is “usually 100% percent credible”? Hardly. More like, slippery as an oil slick.

View original post here:
Better Late Than Never: Rachel Maddow Taken to Task From Unlikely Quarter – The Huffington Post