Tag Archives: bush

Lauer to Laura Bush: Is It ‘Painful’ to Be in New Orleans, Since So Much Blame Is Laid At Your Husband’s Feet?

Today co-anchor Matt Lauer traveled to New Orleans, on Friday, to mark the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and interviewed the likes of former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, former FEMA Director Mike Brown, current Democratic Mayor Mitch Landrieu and Louisiana  Governor Bobby Jindal, but saved any sort of direct shots at George W. Bush for his interview with Laura Bush. At the very end of his August 27 interview about her charitable work in the region, Lauer laid the following guilt trip on the former First Lady: [ audio available here ] MATT LAUER: There’s no easy way to ask this question, I’m just gonna ask it. Is it ever painful for you to come back to this region, because in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seems so much of the blame for what happened or didn’t happen here was laid at the feet of your husband? LAURA BUSH: No, not really. I mean I feel very close to the people on the Gulf Coast and always have. And, and I know what the circumstances were. And of course the President takes the blame in any situation, as we can see now with the new president. But I also knew what George really thought and how he felt about the, the Gulf Coast. We gave unprecedented support. The United States Congress passed large bills. I think $180 billion that George signed and has come to the Gulf Coast. And what we’ve seen really is so inspirational. The people here, the school people are the ones that I’ve been with the most. And they came back, when they were in FEMA trailers or living with relatives and did everything they could to rebuild their schools so kids could come back. LAUER: I know the people of the region are thankful for the work you and your foundation are doing here. Mrs. Bush thanks for joining us this morning. I appreciate it.

Read more from the original source:
Lauer to Laura Bush: Is It ‘Painful’ to Be in New Orleans, Since So Much Blame Is Laid At Your Husband’s Feet?

ABC’s David Muir: Could Gay White House Staffer Have Dissuaded Bush on Marriage Amendment?

Good Morning America’s David Muir on Thursday used the announcement that Republican operative Ken Mehlman is gay to push the GOP towards rethinking its stance on marriage. Talking to former George Bush staffer Ed Gillespie, the ABC host speculated, “…Had Ken come to terms with this…when he was influential in the White House with the President, do you think that he could have influenced the President differently, in looking back?” (An odd suggestion, considering that Bush’s own Vice President disagreed with him.) After reading from the Republican Party’s platform on the issue of gay marriage, the GMA guest anchor pressed, “Do you think the Republican Party should take a second look at this?” During a previous segment, reporter Jake Tapper featured a clip from Mike Rogers, a gay activist who outs closeted Republicans: ” [Mehlman] was really the architect of all the homophobia we saw in 2004 out of the Bush re-election campaign, which he was the general manager of.” To be fair, Tapper also quoted from Mehlman’s call for tolerance towards those in the Republican Party who oppose gay marriage. The other two morning shows, unlike GMA, mostly ignored the story. NBC’s Today gave it a brief mention at the end of a political round-up segment. Ann Curry responded to the news that Mehlman would now lobby for gay marriage by asserting, ” Well it’s a pretty brave move on his part .” On CBS’s Early Show, Jeff Glor just read a news brief and noted, “It’s making news because Mehlman was a key GOP operative at the same time some Republicans were pushing anti-same sex marriage initiatives.” A transcript of the Ed Gillespie interview, which aired at 7:10am EDT on August 26, follows: DAVID MUIR: And want to bring in Ed Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee to talk about the changing face of the Republican Party. And he joins us from Long Beach Island, New Jersey, this morning. Ed, as always, good morning. ED GILLESPIE: Thanks for having me on, David. MUIR: I know you’re good friends with Ken. You go way back in your work with the Republican Party with him. And he shared this with you a couple of weeks back. I’m just curious what you said back to him. GILLESPIE: Ken was my friend ten years ago. He’s my friend today. And if I’m lucky, he’ll be my friend ten years from now. And I accepted his decision. And we agreed to disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage. But, you know, proponents of same-sex marriage in the Republican Party have gained an effective advocate. I don’t think the party should abandon its position that marriage remain between one man and one woman. But Ken and I can respectfully disagree on that. MUIR: So, you’ll be one of the friends who agrees to disagree, as he alluded to there. But, I wanted to point out a quote here. One thing he says he regrets is the fact that “I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics. And I genuinely regret that. So, I could have worked against it.” And he’s talking about the constitutional amendment pushed by President Bush. But, we did check the Republican Party platform. And let’s put this up on the screen. It still says, “We call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.” When you take what we’ve now heard from Ken Mehlman, and even Vice President Dick Cheney, who has changed his view in recent weeks, saying that he still believes it should be up to the states but that gays should have a shot at marriage. Do you think the Republican Party should take a second look at this? GILLESPIE: Well, as I said, I believe, it’s a tenet of my faith, and I believe it, that we’re best suited to have in our society, marriage being one man and one woman. But, look, there’s advocates inside the party. You mentioned Vice President Cheney, now, Ken, and others who will advocate that it be reconsidered. There are Democrats, obviously, beginning with President Obama, who share my perspective on this issue. So, there is a debate going on in the country, andtates, where states are sanctioning gay marriage. And, you know, inside the party, as well. That debate’s ongoing. And people have views. I think Ken’s point is a good one. I accept Ken. He’s my friend. I accept his point of view on this, you know, very heartfelt issue in a lot of ways. And he accepts mine. And I think that civil discourse is very important. MUIR: Ed, you know the inner workings better than anyone. And I’m sort of curious, had Ken come to terms with this, as he puts it, at an earlier time, when he was influential in the White House with the President, do you think that he could have influenced the President differently in looking back? GILLESPIE: Well, there’s no doubt, I mean, Ken’s an influential person and effective advocate for policies and positions that he believes. But I don’t believe that, at that time, or this time, the Republican Party platform would change on the issue. We’ve had courts injecting themselves into this decision making process, into the political process, in a way I think is generally unhealthy for unelected judges to make decisions about whether or not government should sanction gay marriage or not. I think it’s best left to the political and policy debate. And I think the President, in 2004, in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, made the right decision, to call for constitutional amendment because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. A same-sex couple married in Massachusetts and moves to my home state of Virginia, could conceivably, Virginians could be compelled to recognize that. So, I think there is a constitutional issue here. And I think President Bush was right to adopt that position. I think the Republican Party is right to keep it as part of the platform. MUIR: All right. Ken Mehlman’s friend, Ed Gillespie, who says he plans to continue, obviously, being his friend. Thanks for weighing in honestly on the debate. We sure do appreciate it.

Originally posted here:
ABC’s David Muir: Could Gay White House Staffer Have Dissuaded Bush on Marriage Amendment?

Color Of Change Goes After Fox News With Free ‘Turn Off Fox’ Stickers

Topping the internet’s most popular news aggregators today is the no-strings-attached offer by grassroots, web-based organization ColorOfChange.org to provide anyone who wants one a “Turn Off FOX” sticker, free of charge (yes, even shipping). And who isn’t a fan of free things? Or simple bumper sticker activism for that matter. And while, most casual liberals may see this as a random grassroots giveaway, but it’s actually a part of Color of Change’s long struggle against FOX News. Color of Change first seriously battled the network last summer, when they lead the charge of getting advertisers to drop Glenn Beck after he said President Obama held a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.“ Then in September, Glenn Beck got his revenge when a petition saying the Bush administration “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen” was found with the signature of Color of Change founder Van Jones on it. Though Jones vehemently denied this was a stance he held, the damage was done and he was forced to resign as Obama’s Green Jobs Czar. Now today, the organization is striking again by giving out these “Turn Off FOX” stickers to anyone in America willing to sign a petition saying FOX is “spreading hate, lies and division.” FOX and ColorOfChange.org have had a long and conflict-filled history. So perhaps as the people who chose to do so are putting these stickers on their cars, they get reminded that it’s also time we all learn to Coexist. added by: TimALoftis

Meet the Press: Dick Armey Slams Alan Greenspan’s View of Bush Tax Cuts

David Gregory on Sunday finally got an answer to his question about extending the Bush tax cuts, but it certainly wasn’t what he was expecting. For those that have been watching “Meet the Press” this month, the host has been grilling his conservative guests about this issue ever since former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told him on August 1 that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Having badgered Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about this earlier in the program with no success, Gregory broached the subject with former House Majority Leader Dick Armey in a subsequent segment. With a hanging curveball coming into his wheelhouse, Armey whacked a long drive that still hasn’t landed (video follows with transcript and commentary): DAVID GREGORY, HOST: I want to, I want to address the tax debate . And what you hear from Republican leaders is an unwillingness to pay the bill as you move forward to extend the Bush tax cuts . FORMER REPRESENTATIVE DICK ARMEY (R): Not at all. MR. GREGORY: Is that wrong? You heard Alan Greenspan say that it’s borrowed money … REP. ARMEY: No. Right. MR. GREGORY: …and that they do not pay for themselves. REP. ARMEY: Where has Alan Greenspan been? John — I, I was a young undergraduate watching all my faculty celebrate the genius of John F. Kennedy as he taught us you cut taxes , revenues increase. Reagan cut taxes , revenue doubled. What — the first, most important, critical thing for the American economy is to cut the size of the federal government. This is a big, fat, sloppy, inefficient, obstructionist, Porky Pig that’s standing in the way of economic progress for the American people. It is counterproductive. It’s an extra weight. It is — and it needs to be cut or this economy can’t carry the weight. This is no thinking… D’oh! Now, that’s the way to hit a hanging curveball! With the crowd still on its feet, Gregory turned to his liberal guest for her view:  MR. GREGORY: This is the argument. GOV. JENNIFER GRANHOLM (D-MICHIGAN): Just quickly — this is the argument, and it’s a 20th century argument, it’s not a 21st century argument. When we’re competing in a global economy , the government has to partner with the private sector to create jobs. If you just slash spending, you slash the investments in the things that are going to move our economy forward, we miss out. Just very quickly, last year, the vice president came to Michigan , said we were going to get all these battery grants; we created — we have 16 companies now in Michigan just in the past year because we partnered with the private sector creating 62,000 jobs. Strategic investment with the private sector is what works in the 20th century. Actually, Granholm was playing rather fast and loose with the facts. As MLive.com reported on July 27 in an article titled “Experts Warn ‘Battery Bubble’ Could Burst Michigan’s Dreams”: Michigan and the federal government have placed a multibillion dollar bet that advanced batteries and electric vehicles will someday power the state and national economies. But experts at a National Academy of Sciences conference on the future of batteries, held here Monday, said the bet could go bust if consumers don’t buy those vehicles. And no one knows if they will. The Obama administration last year allocated $2.3 billion in stimulus funds to help develop the nascent advanced battery industry. More than half of that money — $1.35 billion — was awarded to Michigan companies and organizations. Much of the money is being spent on research and development, and on the manufacturing of advanced batteries. Michigan has supplemented that with lucrative tax credits for companies manufacturing cells and battery packs in the state. And those 62,000 jobs Granholm said were already created? Gov. Jennifer Granholm said the state expects to create 62,000 new battery jobs in Michigan over the next 10 years. Ah. So, with unemployment currently at 13.1 percent in her state, these are jobs Granholm hopes will be created in the next ten years. But that’s not what she told Gregory on Sunday. Sadly, he let her get away with it, although he did ask a good follow-up question:  MR. GREGORY: But should the Democrats be raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans during a recession? Understanding her previous faux pas concerning jobs “created,” listen to her answer:  GOV. GRANHOLM: It’s — the question is, should the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 2 percent so that we can make the investments that will grow jobs? Yes. That’s the most effective way of creating job growth. The CBO has said that cutting taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent is the most ineffective way of creating job growth. Yep. The most effective way of creating jobs is to tax employers so the government can get the money rather than employees. Of course, what folks like Granholm and the current White House resident do is then claim they “saved” or “created” jobs regardless of any real impact to payrolls or unemployment. Pretty neat, huh?  Fortunately, Armey was having none of this:  REP. ARMEY: I’ll give you, I’ll give you anywhere from — a minimum of $2 trillion to a possible $8 trillion worth of real stimulus of the economy from the private sector if we can just relieve the private sector that’s sitting on its cash from the fear that this administration ‘s going to screw up the future of this economy. Let them understand this administration ‘s going to stand down from any new cockamamy ideas and not raise taxes and take away the return on an investment, and they’ll put that cash to work in America. MR. GREGORY: I’m going to make that the last word.  So am I. 

Read the rest here:
Meet the Press: Dick Armey Slams Alan Greenspan’s View of Bush Tax Cuts

Valerie Plame ‘Fair Game’ Movie Tosses Name Leaker Richard Armitage Down Memory Hole

The only way we even know the name of Valerie Plame (and fame seeking hubby Joe Wilson) is that that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage leaked her name as a CIA officer to columnist Robert Novak. That is what set in motion the long drawn out Plamegate affair in which only Scooter Libby was convicted of something other than leaking her name. So you would figure that the supposedly biographical movie scheduled for a November USA release about Plame, Fair Game , would feature Armitage front and center as the principal villain. Right? Wrong. The fact is that “Fair Game” has tossed Richard Armitage down the memory hole. The man who is responsible for the reason that any of us even know who Valerie Plame is appears nowhere in the extensive IMDB cast credits for this movie. Of course, the aforementioned Scooter Libby (David Andrews) who did not leak her name is listed. Also listed in the cast is the Armitage-leaked name of Valerie Plame (Naomi Watts), fame seeking hubby Joe Wilson (Sean Penn), Nervous Analyst #1 (Louis Ozawa Changchien), Chauvinist Analyst (Sean Mahon),  Head Paparazzo (Harry L. Seddon), Four Seasons Waitress (Satu Rautaharju), Starbucks Employee (Angela Lewis), and Turkish Embassy Guest (Marsall Factora). However, as for the person who made the “Fair Game” movie possible by leaking Valerie Plame’s name, he appears nowhere in the cast credits. Ironically you can learn more about the real facts of the Plame case (and who leaked Plame’s name) by reading the IMDB “Fair Game” message board than by seeing the movie itself. Some sample posts that delivers the information that the “Fair Game” propanda movie refuses to touch: …The film conveniently leaves out the fact that we know who leaked her name and that character isn’t even in the film… Funny how neither Novak nor Armitage are in the film then, right? Libby didn’t leak Plame’s name. Armitage (a Bush critic and enemy) “leaked” it and only after he was specifically asked by Novak why on earth James Wilson was sent to Niger in the first place. Novak then called the CIA to make sure it was ok to publish her name, and they gave him what he considered the green light. The CIA made absolutely no effort to convince him he shouldn’t print the name, so he printed it. That’s how real journalists in a free state operate. If the CIA wanted the name kept secret, they could have easily done so. Novak himself has kept names out of articles many times over the years for exactly such reasons. The CIA made no efforts, most likely because Plame wasn’t all that “undercover” and they genuinely didn’t have any valid reasons to convince Novak not to use her name, so they didn’t bother.  Wilson was hired by the CIA to investigate claims about yellow cake in Niger. He later wrote an op-ed piece attacking the Bush administration using his experience investigating in Niger as source of authority. It became a big news story. At that point, the smarter journalists started wondering who this Wilson guy was, and did some background checking on him. This background check left them puzzled, because their was nothing in Wilson’s resume which would even remotely recommend him being sent on such a mission. So Washington DC based reporter Robert Novak called around trying to find out why Wilson got sent. Eventually, George W. Bush enemy and Colin Powell lap boy Richard Armitage told Novak that Wilson’s wife works at the CIA and she’s the one who pushed him for the job. I am amazed how Hollywood is willing to lose hundreds of millions, if not billions, to sell their leftist progapanda. At some point this will be self-limiting, when they run out of money or studio stockholders tire of losing money.  The final poster above has a point. “Fair Game” is doomed to become another leftwing proganda flick flop that will follow in the wake of many other such box office bombs. However, it is not too late for the producers of “Fair Game” to salvage this movie. Your humble correspondent recommends that they do some creative editing to remake this movie as a comedy. Keep all the original scenes but edit in one of my favorite actors, Bruce McGill (who also portrays the CIA Deputy Director for Operations Jim Pavitt), with a shaved head and a lot of jacket padding to play the part of a phantom Richard Armitage who nobody in the movie even notices. As the boring melodramatic “action” in the movie takes place, McGill as Armitage  appears in many of the scenes yelling things like, “HEY VALERIE! Nobody would even know you if I hadn’t leaked your name! Why don’t you or anybody else here even acknowledge my existence?” Not only would such a movie be more accurate but it would draw much more box office sales than the doomed-to-fail original.

Read the original here:
Valerie Plame ‘Fair Game’ Movie Tosses Name Leaker Richard Armitage Down Memory Hole

In ‘Tillman Story,’ Anti-Bush Conspiracy Just Doesn’t Add Up

There are three important things going on in “The Tillman Story” (in selected theatres today), two of which almost make the conspiracy-mongering documentary worth your time. The first and best is the opportunity to get to know better the extraordinary and extraordinarily complicated and interesting Pat Tillman. In the best sense of the word, this was a fierce and fiercely passionate man – fierce on the football field, fierce on the battlefield, and fierce in his personal beliefs. This was also a man who only ever dated one woman, the woman he would marry the same week he enlisted; and my guess is that Tillman was the kind of man and husband who found leaving the fame of professional football much easier than leaving his young bride.  You also meet Tillman’s family; his parents, brother and wife – a decent, loving, inconsolable group dealing with the terrible loss of someone they obviously loved and miss very much. This is a family furious with a United States government who didn’t know all the facts before they told the story of Tillman’s death to them, and to the American people. And as far as that goes, they are right to be angry.  Unfortunately, you also witness a partisan filmmaker attempting to prop up the absurd anti-Bush conspiracy theory that it wasn’t the ever-reliable incompetence of government bureaucracy that caused what was probably the second worst day in this family’s life – the day they were told Tillman had been killed in a friendly fire incident, but rather a sinister plot hatched by the Administration and the Pentagon to use Tillman’s death as a flag-waving symbol to bolster military recruitment and support for the war. The Tillman family agrees wholeheartedly with this conspiracy, believes that the memory of their heroic son was maliciously abused in this way. But with all due respect to them (and they are due our respect), neither logic nor facts come close to making that case.    As far as addressing the specific details surrounding the film’s specific charges, using his military experience and keen mind, Kurt Schlichter has already taken much of the film’s case completely apart, piece by piece, and I urge you to  read his review . My review will remain focused solely within the context of the documentary itself, a documentary no intellectually honest person can respect, much less champion.    To director Amir Bar-Lev’s credit, the most important fact of this entire case is not left out of what basically plays like an overlong “60 Minutes” segment. But this important fact is glossed over and presented so early on that – probably by design – you might forget all about it during the third act as circumstantial evidence is laid out hot and heavy with the help of foreboding camera moves – such as the one that slowly rises though a mob chart of Administration “bad guys” until ominously arriving at the smiling face of one President George W. Bush. It’s just too bad for Bar-Lev that the melodramatic use of a camera crane doesn’t equal damning facts.  On May 3rd, 2004, a memorial for Pat Tillman took place in San Jose’s Municipal Rose Garden. Tillman was posthumously awarded the Silver Star and both his family and the whole world believed he had been killed in a Taliban ambush during a brave attempt to draw their fire in order to save his own men.  Just a few weeks later, the Army would come forward to acknowledge that this narrative was wrong and that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire.  At this point, the question that came to my mind was why would the Pentagon and the Bush Administration voluntarily come forward and uncover their own conspiracy? The film makes no mention of any outside pressure on the Pentagon from the Tillman family or even the media to get the bottom of anything. Meaning that at this point everyone believed the initial report and apparently all the Administration and military had to do to keep us all believing was to keep their mouths shut.  So the question is: If the idea was to use Tillman’s death for nefarious pro-war purposes, why just a few weeks after the memorial service would those with the most to lose from doing so, voluntarily kick over a political hornets’ nest by telling the truth? Why not milk the situation for as long as possible and for as much propaganda as possible, especially with a presidential election just five months off? At the very least, why not save all the political heartache and fallout this revelation was sure to bring (and did) and stall until after Bush is reelected?  A producer once told me that whenever you have a film character open a refrigerator door you either have to show them close it or include the sound effect of the door closing, or else the audience will get unsettled thinking the door has been left open. Bar-Lev’s refusal to address or explain why a supposed-group of conspirators would of their own volition blow the whistle on their own supposed conspiracy leaves that door open. And no fancy camera move or sinister scoring is going to close it.  As the film moves towards its climax, an August of 2007 Congressional hearing, the conspiracy becomes even less convincing. Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman brought together all the players, including Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, to testify under oath and before the television cameras about what they knew and when they knew it. You get the sense that Bar-Lev actually wants us to believe that Henry Waxman, one of the most extreme Bush haters in all of Congress, was – at best – less than enthused at this opportunity or maybe even in on the alleged cover up.  Bar-Lev’s sin of omission is not giving the audience any background on Waxman’s  investigative crusades to bring Bush down , which would go a long way towards giving this Congressional hearing looking into the Tillman case credibility. But that kind of knowledge would also work against the filmmaker’s obvious political agenda. No one wanted Bush’s scalp more than Henry Waxman. Instead, however, all we see are shots of the Congressman looking indifferent and bored.  To anyone who’s even a tenth the independent thinker Pat Tillman was, this documentary looking into his death never rises above the level of left-wing propaganda.  Pat Tillman was a patriot and an American hero, and the truth of what happened that terrible day changes none of that. As far as Pat Tillman’s family, there is nothing they deserve more than whatever emotional closure one can have in such a situation. I do hope they find it. But where they’re looking for it now, it simply doesn’t exist. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

View post:
In ‘Tillman Story,’ Anti-Bush Conspiracy Just Doesn’t Add Up

Todd: ‘Anthropological’ Obama Didn’t Mean To Demean With Bitter-Clinger Line

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  — candidate Barack Obama, remarks at fundraiser, April, 2008 Discussing with Andrea Mitchell today the kerfuffle over Pres. Obama’s Christianity, Chuck Todd hearkened back to PBO’s infamous bitter-clinger line. Obama offered his pronouncement at a private, hoity-toity fundraiser in San Francisco—and Todd claimed Obama didn’t mean to demean by it.   According to Todd [quoting Paul Begala], Obama is his mother’s son, and like the anthropologist she was, he was simply offering an anthropological analysis of the plight of those poor rural Pennsylvanians. CHUCK TODD: I would say the real danger for the president on issues like this, is less about this, and more about–Paul Begala one time said this to me–he said, you know, the guy really is his mother’s son sometimes when it comes to studying society.  He’s anthropoligcal about it.  Remember that time when he was studying people in Pennsylvania, and he said to that fundraiser in Pennsylvania, you know they cling to their guns.  He wasn’t meaning it as demeaning in his mind, but it came across that way. ANDREA MITCHELL: It’s intellectualized. TODD: He’s the son of an anthropologist, and I think sometimes he goes about religion that way, almost in this, as I said because he’s very well studied on, not just Christianity but on a lot of religions, but in that, frankly, anthropological way, and that can come across as distant. Todd speaks of the bitter-clinger line as the fruit of Obama’s “studying” people in Pennsylvania.  Is there evidence Obama undertook a study of rural Pennsylvania, or was this simply what it sounded like: cocktail chatter for the oh-so-smart set?  Question for Chuck: how do you know that “in his mind” Obama wasn’t meaning it as demeaning? I can’t top HotAir’s analysis of just how demeaning Obama’s statement was, so let me simply quote it: What’s most offensive? The condescension displayed here by the intelligentsia’s candidate of choice? The sheer breadth of the stereotype, which would send Team Obama screaming from the rooftops if a white politician drew a similarly sweeping caricature of blacks? The crude quasi-Marxist reductionism of his analysis, which he first introduced in his speech on race vis-a-vis the root causes of whites’ “resentment” — namely, exploitation by the bourgeoisie in the form of corporations and D.C. lobbyists? Or is it the shocking inclusion of religion, of all things, in the litany of sins he recites? What on earth is that doing there, given His Holiness’s repeated invocations of the virtues of faith on the trail? Note the choice of verb, too. Why not just go the whole nine yards and call it the opiate of the masses?

Read the rest here:
Todd: ‘Anthropological’ Obama Didn’t Mean To Demean With Bitter-Clinger Line

Obama Forgot "New Direction" In Drug Policy; Sticks With DEA Nominee Michele Leonhart Despite Criticism of Raids

Obama is confident that Leonhart is the right choice, the White House staffer said, and that as of Friday the president wasn’t considering anyone else for the position. In other words, the response from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a chorus of concerns boils down to: Leonhart or bust. In response to this message, critics have pointed out that Obama is shifting his stance on marijuana policy. “It’s unfortunate — and outright baffling — that the Obama administration would choose someone for this post whose resume is so strongly at odds with the ‘new direction’ this administration had promised for drug policy in general and medical marijuana in particular,” the Marijuana Policy Project’s Mike Meno told The Daily Caller. “During the election campaign, and again through the Department of Justice memo in October, President Obama vowed to stop the outrageous Bush-era practice of raiding and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers who operate under state law. If change is what they seek, why would the administration nominate a Bush holdover under whom the DEA continues to raid the private property of citizens obeying state law? It makes no sense.” MPP and other marijuana activists have pointed to a series of raids the DEA conducted in California as recently as last month as evidence that Leonhart is continuing the Bush-era strategy of cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries and growers, even if they are operating legally under California law. They say this conflicts directly with statements Obama made on the campaign trail, such as this one from April 2008: “When it comes to medical marijuana, I have a practical view more than anything. My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or a cancer treatment, there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine, or anything else.” But the White House and the Justice Department both told TheDC that Holder’s memo does not give dispensaries carte blanche to grow or sell marijuana, and that recent raids don’t conflict with what Obama expressed while campaigning. “I wouldn’t say the memo ‘discourages’ certain raids,” a DOJ offical told TheDC. Rather, “it talks about prioritizing resources most efficiently.” And both the White House and the DOJ argued that the gist of the Holder memo was that the DEA would “not focus its limited resources on individual patients with cancer or other serious diseases.” Critics see the distinction between cancer patients who take medical marijuana and the people who sell them medical marijuana as hair-splitting. “Attorney General Eric Holder was crystal clear last year when he directed officials within his department not to waste federal resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws,” wrote FireDogLake’s Jane Hamsher in the open letter distributed by the Marijuana Policy Project. “Yet throughout the tenure of President Obama’s administration, the DEA’s raids have continued in a manner wholly inconsistent with the spirit of that directive. What part of ‘not a priority’ does Michele Leonhart not understand?” added by: Omnomynous

Rained Out: DC CBS Affiliate Preempts Evening News With Storm Coverage

On Thursday, instead of showing the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, the network’s Washington DC affiliate, WUSA-TV, decided to continue with live storm coverage. The last time the CBS broadcast was preempted by local coverage occurred during the massive winter blizzards, which buried the region in a few feet of snow. The Evening News has consistently ranked third among the network evening newscasts during Couric’s tenure. During the week of August 2 , the Evening News was around 2 million viewers behind competitors ABC Worlds News with Diane Sawyer and NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Couric is about to mark her 4th anniversary in the anchor chair. —Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Link:
Rained Out: DC CBS Affiliate Preempts Evening News With Storm Coverage

After Bashing Bush on Unemployment, NYT Now Touting ‘Benefits’ of High Unemployment

In late 2009, when high rates of unemployment began looking like a sad fact of life for the foreseeable future, the media started looking for ways to put a positive spin on the situation. Sure, many had predicted the next great depression when unemployment stood at around 6 percent in 2008, but with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, a number of reporters suddenly found the recession’s many silver linings. “All I Want for Christmas Is a Layoff” read the headline of one ABCNews.com column following employees who would rather get a nice severance package than continue in their dull vocations. Newsweek cheerily noted that since men had been hit harder by the recession than women, they would now be able to help out around the house. The Los Angeles Times coined possibly the most absurd term of the recession to date in ” funemployment ,” and discussed jobless Americans who prefer “hitting the beach” to “punching the clock.” Now the New York Times is celebrating the fact that the 90.5 percent of those who are employed are seeing a pleasant rise in their wages. See, the recession’s not that bad. After the obligatory introduction – a few paragraphs lamenting those Americans who have lost their jobs – the Times started searching for the upside: But since this recent recession began in December 2007, real average hourly pay has risen nearly 5 percent. Some employers, especially state and local governments, have cut wages. But many more employers have continued to increase pay. Something similar happened during the Great Depression, notes Bruce Judson of the Yale School of Management. Falling prices meant that workers who held their jobs received a surprisingly strong effective pay raise. This time around, nominal wages – the numbers people see in their paychecks – have risen throughout the slump, as companies have passed along some of the impressive productivity to their (remaining) workers. Meanwhile, inflation has been almost non-existent, except for parts of last year, when real wages did briefly fall. Obviously, real wages could begin falling again if inflation picks up or more employers cut pay. And many workers are already struggling with big debts and diminished 401(k) accounts. Still, the contrast is pretty stark. The typical jobless person has been out of work six months. The typical worker has received a raise. Yes, the typical worker has received a raise. In fact, fewer than ten percent do not have a job. Say, why isn’t anyone giving Obama credit for the 90.5 percent employment rate? After all, the typical person is still employed. During the Bush years, the Times was of course more concerned about actual employment during a recession. Throughout 2002, the paper bemoaned the “jobless recovery” – despite the fact that the unemployment rate was never more than two percent below pre-recession levels. The Times shunned good news outright, favoring to report the more glum details of the nation’s economic outlook. “Employers Balk at New Hirings, Despite Growth,” was a headline typical of the Times’s attitude. Paul Krugman consistently opined on the ” jobless recovery ,” and some Times reporters speculated that government accounting tricks had shielded the public from seeing just how bad the economy was. The recession beginning in late 2001, though less severe than the one in which the country finds itself now, lasted a good deal longer than this one has lasted so far, as you can see in this graph, courtesy of Calculated Risk .   That is not to say that the 2001 recession more serious. As you can see, our current economic downturn is much deeper, and if it continues on its current trajectory may last even longer than the early-2000s recession. It does mean, however, that the New York Times had ample opportunity to ponder all the benefits of recession economics in an economic environment that was far less severe than the current one. I wonder why we were never informed of all the upsides.

Read the original here:
After Bashing Bush on Unemployment, NYT Now Touting ‘Benefits’ of High Unemployment