Tag Archives: congress

Tom DeLay Cleared — N.Y. Times Puts the Story on Page A-18 (Behind Organic Golf Courses)

When former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay announced that the Justice Department was dropping its six-year investigation of his relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, The Washington Post put the news on the front page Tuesday. The New York Times decided that this story was best put on page A-18. The front page of the Times covered flooding in Pakistan, Team Obama’s tough evaluation of offshore drilling permits, and a chilling Rod Nordland story on new public executions by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan. But the front page also offered “Walking in New York? Beware Men Turning Left” and “Exclusive Golf Course Is Also Organic, So a Weed or Two Get In.” At least the Times covered the DeLay story. To date, the newspaper “of record” has not mentioned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s exclamation last Tuesday that “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.” The Times was quick to note that DeLay still faces the indictment of Democratic Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle from 2005. The caption under DeLay’s picture read “Tom DeLay still faces a trial in Texas on unrelated charges of money laundering and conspiracy.” Reporter Charlie Savage elaborated: Mr. DeLay’s legal troubles are not yet over. He still faces a trial in Texas on unrelated state charges of money laundering and conspiracy in connection with campaign donations during the 2002 election. A trial on those charges, for which he was indicted in 2005, was delayed for years because of an appeal by co-defendants, but a hearing on pretrial motions is scheduled for next week. Savage made no attempt to calculate how much money the federal government has spent investigating DeLay, which was standard operating procedure for the media during Clinton investigations. Instead, Savage reminded the reader of all the prosecutors’ successes: The scandal, which helped Democrats win majorities in Congress in the 2006 election, led to convictions or guilty pleas by two of Mr. DeLay’s former aides; former Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio; two former White House officials; Mr. Abramoff himself; and several other former Congressional aides and lobbyists. Mr. Abramoff was released from prison in June. There were no conservative groups to complain about the partisanship of the process, but Savage did bring in a liberal group (without a label) to lament how it was a malodorous outrage that DeLay hadn’t been jailed: Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, sharply criticized the Justice Department’s decision to close the investigation into Mr. DeLay’s role without charges. “It’s a sad day for America when one of the most corrupt members to ever walk the halls of Congress gets a free pass,” Ms. Sloan said. “The Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Mr. DeLay for his actions sends exactly the wrong message to current and future members.” The only supporter of DeLay in the Times piece was DeLay: But Mr. DeLay said that he had done nothing wrong and that his political enemies had spent more than  “criminalization of politics and the politics of personal destruction” that he contended his case exemplified. “The new politics — it’s a decade coming up with “frivolous” ethics charges against him. He denounced the “criminalization of politics and the politics of personal destruction” that he contended his case exemplified. “The new politics — it’s no longer good enough to beat you on policy,” he said. “They have to completely drown you and put you in prison and destroy your family and your reputation and finances, then dance on your grave.”

Read more:
Tom DeLay Cleared — N.Y. Times Puts the Story on Page A-18 (Behind Organic Golf Courses)

-Ground Zero: NY Says No to Rebuilding a Church Destroyed on 9/11 but Yes to the Mosque?

The ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ controversy keeps on going. President Obama weighed in over the weekend with a few comments that hit the fan so to speak. One observation he made is that Islam should be treated just like any other religion in America and I totally agree. In a previous post I commented that I believed that NY was giving preferential treatment to the Cordoba Mosque project and that I really doubted that a church would ever approved by the city to be built at the same location as the so-called ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. Turns out that I was entirely correct. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church which stood across the street from the World Trade center was reduced to dust on September 11, 2001. For 9 years the NY Port Authority has refused to let them rebuild their church—a church that was actually destroyed in the attack but plans for a new mosque are approved by the city? It is my view that St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church should be rebuilt. The President talked about private property rights and that the Muslims should be allowed to build on their own property near ‘Ground Zero’. Well, what about the property rights of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church? The church had been there since 1922 but their rights are being totally disregarded. The church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks should be rebuilt first before any new project like the Cordoba Mosque is considered. It is obvious to me that the Muslims in this case are receiving better treatment from the city than the church. Here’s an article written by George Demos who is running for Congress in that very area about the Church and the Mosque: “Rebuild the Church at Ground Zero, Not the Mosque” http://answersforthefaith.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-ny-says-no-to-rebuilding-a-… added by: congoboy

Ground Zero Mosque Organizers to Israeli Newspaper: ‘Go Back to Publishing Yiddish Fables!’

How’s this for “creating dialogue”? Yesterday, organizers of the Ground Zero mosque project took to Twitter to slam Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, after the paper incorrectly reported that plans for the controversial Islamic prayer center were being abandoned. But some say the mosque’s organizers went too far by mocking Ha’aretz with references to Jewish culture. ” On a side note, if Haaretz likes publishing fables, perhaps they could go back to the Yiddish ones with parables #welikethosebetter ,” Tweeted Park51 , which calls itself the “official Twitter account” of the Ground Zero mosque project. Yiddish is a language that originated with and was used primarily by the Ashkenazi Jewish community in Eastern Europe. After the Tweet caused a small outcry with some calling it “anti-semitic,” Park51 appeared to remove the comment from its Twitter page, though there is still a link available to the original statement . ” Fine lemme retract the yiddish one and restate – the intent was that Haaretz published an unsubstantiated fable not a fact,” Park51 Tweeted, in an attempt to backtrack on statement. ” Apparently we can take a bashing all day but we can’t make a jab about fables. :(” Later, Park51 attempted to explain the reasoning behind the Yiddish dig. ” I meant it as a joke as my cousin’s mother used to tell us Yiddish stories as kids (she’s Jewish) ,” Park51 Tweeted. Ah, the Ground Zero mosque project. Building bridges between cultures, one Jewish joke at a time.

View post:
Ground Zero Mosque Organizers to Israeli Newspaper: ‘Go Back to Publishing Yiddish Fables!’

ABC Links Dan Quayle’s ‘Potatoe’ to His Son: ‘Dust off the Jokes and Hold on to Your Potatoes’

Saturday’s Good Morning America on ABC devoted a full report to former Vice President Dan Quayle’s son Ben’s run for Congress in Arizona, focusing primarily on perceived gaffes by both him and his father. As anchor John Berman set up the report, he gave the impression that he views the former Vice President primarily as a joke: “It’s time to dust off the jokes and hold on to your potatoes. Who can forget the vice presidency of Dan Quayle? His mortal feud with TV’s Murphy Brown. His battles with the dictionary. Well, now, one of his children wants to follow in his footsteps and is making some headlines of his own, not all intentional.” During the piece which recounted a number of activities and statements by Ben Quayle that have come under criticism, or have come across to some as gaffes, correspondent T.J. Winick played a clip of the time that Dan Quayle infamously told a school boy that the word “potato” should have an “e” added to the end during a spelling lesson at a school. Winnick did not inform viewers that it was the teacher who led Quayle astray as she had misspelled the word on the word list she had given to the then-Vice President to check the children’s spelling. Winick also described what he called a “shocking ad” in which Ben Quayle labeled President Obama “the worst President in history,” and promised to go to Washington and “knock the hell out of the place.” The ABC correspondent also informed viewers that Quayle had been criticized for using a photograph of himself with his nieces in campaign literature because he has no children of his own. After the report, co-anchor Bianna Golodryga mused: “You know, every time I write out the word ‘potato’ I can’t help but think of Mr. Dan Quayle.” Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, August 14, Good Morning America on ABC: JOHN BERMAN: It’s time to dust off the jokes and hold on to your potatoes. Who can forget the vice presidency of Dan Quayle? His mortal feud with TV’s Murphy Brown. His battles with the dictionary. Well, now, one of his children wants to follow in his footsteps and is making some headlines of his own, not all intentional. Our man T.J. Winick has the story from Washington. T.J.? T.J. WINICK: John, good morning. Ben Quayle is the front-runner in a primary field of 10 candidates. He’s really struck a chord with angry voters, and, in more ways than one, he’s proven to be a chip off the old block. BEN QUAYLE, ARIZONA REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Barack Obama is the worst President in history. WINICK: It’s a shocking ad, Ben Quayle looking straight into the camera talking tough like a Washington outsider. BEN QUAYLE: Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out of the place. WINICK: But the 33-year-old may, in fact, be the ultimate insider. He’s the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle who’s tapped into his dad’s massive fund-raising network but also his dad’s history of making mistakes. Dan Quayle became a political punch line during the 1992 presidential race and in his four years as Vice President. (CLIP OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DAN QUAYLE TELLING A BOY TO ADD AN “E” TO THE WORD “POTATO”) WINICK: Now his son’s blunders like this campaign brochure have also become late night fodder. JAY LENO, FROM THE TONIGHT SHOW: Look at those two beautiful little girls. Trouble is, he doesn’t have any kids. WINICK: They were, in fact, Ben Quayle’s nieces, but that didn’t stop one campaign rival from accusing him of renting a family. RICK KLEIN, ABC NEWS SENIOR WASHINGTON EDITOR: People are looking for comparisons to his father. They’re looking for reasons not to take him seriously. They’re looking for reasons to make fun of him. And, so far, he’s only fueled that fire. WINICK: Quayle has also taken fire for calling himself the fourth generation of his family to live and work in Arizona. That’s because he was born in Indiana, grew up in Washington, D.C., and only moved to the state full time five years ago. CLIP OF AD: Arizona roots, worldwide experience. WINICK: This past week, the latest controversy, accusations that Quayle, campaigning as a family values conservative, once wrote for Dirty Scottsdale, a raunchy sex-themed Web site that covered the local club scene. The Web site’s creator says that Quayle used the alias “Brock Landers,” the name of a porn star in the movie Boogie Nights. Quayle admits he contributed to the site, but not under that name. KLEIN: Certainly, he benefits from the fact that people know that name and they know the name is associated with politics, but there’s just more scrutiny associated with being a Quayle. WINICK: One of the ways he has benefitted, well, Ben Quayle has raised over $1.1 million, and, not surprisingly, John and Bianna, many of those contributions have come from former colleagues and friends of his father. BIANCA GOLODRYGA: All right, T.J. You know, every time I write out the word “potato” I can’t help but think of Mr. Dan Quayle. BERMAN: I cross my fingers every time. (GOLODRYGA LAUGHS)

View original post here:
ABC Links Dan Quayle’s ‘Potatoe’ to His Son: ‘Dust off the Jokes and Hold on to Your Potatoes’

Juan Williams: Media Always Make Blacks the Victims and Whites the Perpetrators

Juan Williams on Saturday said when it comes to news stories about race, America’s media always make black people the victims and white people the perpetrators.  As the discussion on “Fox News Watch” turned to last week’s murders at a Hartford, Connecticut, beer distributor, host Jon Scott read clippings from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press all claiming the killer had been responding to years of racist treatment. When done, he said incredulously, “Juan, the guy was caught on camera stealing beer and the media turned it into a racial story.” Williams responded in a fashion that likely shocked many viewers (video follows with transcript and commentary):  JON SCOTT, HOST: Those murders in Connecticut last week at a beer distributor near Hartford. This week the business reopened eight days after a guy named Omar Thornton killed eight and wounded two moments after he lost his job for stealing beer. Omar was black, his victims were white, and this is how the coverage went. August 3rd, the New York Times headline read “Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing.” And in the second paragraph the Times reported, “He might also have had cause to be angry. He had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work.” Here is the Associated Press report from August 7th, four days after the murders. It was reprinted in the Washington Post and other places. “To those closest to him, Omar Thornton was caring, quiet and soft spoken. But underneath, Thornton seized with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage.” On August 7th, 2010, the Washington Post headline read “Beer Warehouse Shooter Long Complained of Racism.” Juan, the guy was caught on camera stealing beer and the media turned it into a racial story. JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: They don’t have to turn it. I mean, this is the way the media treats all race stories in this country, Jon. It’s always that black people are the victims, white people are the perpetrators. You know, it’s white guilt, black victimhood and it’s constant, it’s in every area, not just this, but in terms of our political discussions about race that to me are always one-side and twisted and prevent us from having the honest kind of dialog that is so important. In this story, I don’t have any objection to people saying, “What was the cause of this man committing the act?” But the way that they then back peddle and say. You know what, the unions don’t have any record of this. The employer has no record of this is to me evidence that in fact, this was a racial attack on whites. Subsequently we’ve seen other attacks on blacks in this country. But let’s have an honest discussion. Indeed, Juan. Let’s have an honest discussion. Unfortunately, that has seemed far less likely since the inauguration of Barack Obama despite America being sold on the notion that all of our race problems would go away with the election of our first black President. Quite the contrary, things have seemed to go backwards, especially for media members that have become even less colorblind than they were before. Why might that be? 

Originally posted here:
Juan Williams: Media Always Make Blacks the Victims and Whites the Perpetrators

Gallup Poll Finds Continuing Mistrust of Newspapers, Television News

Lymari Morales at Gallup reports that confidence in the news media remains low. Remember when they suggest high negatives for politicians, they are hardly popular, either. They’re “on par with Americans’ lackluster confidence in banks and slightly better than their dismal rating of Health Management Organizations and big business .” The report began: Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news — with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007…. The decline in trust since 2003 is also evident in a 2009 Gallup poll that asked about confidence and trust in the “mass media” more broadly . While perceptions of media bias present a viable hypothesis, Americans have not over the same period grown any more likely to say the news media are too conservative or too liberal . One of the ironies of Gallup’s annual Confidence in Institutions survey is that young Americans express the most trust in newspapers — while they’re the least likely to read them. That certainly paints a picture of blind trust:   Confidence is hard to find, even among Democrats and liberals, who have historically been the most trusting of the news media. While 18- to 29-year-olds express more trust in newspapers than most older Americans, Gallup polling has found they read national newspapers the least . Younger Americans also expressed more confidence than older Americans in several other institutions tested, including Congress, the medical system, and the criminal justice system, suggesting younger Americans are more confident in institutions in general. Perhaps the most interesting part of this survey comes in the chart. If you look at 1993 and compare it to 2010, newspapers haven’t fallen too far, from 31 percent with “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence then to 25 percent now. But television news has fallen much harder: from 46 percent in 1993 to 22 percent now.

Read this article:
Gallup Poll Finds Continuing Mistrust of Newspapers, Television News

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

Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama, According to Gallup Poll Data

In every week of his presidency until now, Barack Obama has enjoyed a majority approval rating in the Gallup Poll from people earning less than $2,000 per month. But that changed in the Gallup survey conducted from Aug. 2-8, when only 49 percent of Americans in that income bracket said they approve of the job Obama is doing. This marks the first time since Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, when Americans in all four of the income brackets reported in Gallup’s weekly survey of presidential approval gave Obama less than 50 percent approval. For the week of Aug. 2-Aug. 8, only 42 percent of Americans earning $7,500 per month or more said they approve of the job Obama is doing. Forty-four percent of those earning between $5,000 and $7,499 said they approve of the job he is doing. And forty-six percent of those earning between $2,000 and $4,999 said they approve of the job he is doing. The higher the income bracket an American occupies, the sooner he or she was likely to stop approving of the job Obama was doing and the more likely he or she was to stop approving of the job Obama was doing. The last time Obama had majority approval from people earning $7,500 or more per month was the week of April 19-25. The last time Obama had majority approval from people earning $5,000 to $7,499 was the week of May 3-9. The last time Obama had majority approval from people earning $2,000 to $4,999 was the week May 10-16. And the last time Obama had majority approval from people earning less than $2,000 was the week of July 26-Aug. 1. Obama’s approval peaked at 76 percent among Americans earning less than $2,000 per month in the weeks of April 20-26, 2009 and May 4-10, 2009. In May 2009, when Obama’s approval rating was at its peak among those earning less than $2,000 per month, the national unemployment rate was at 9.4 percent. It is now at 9.5 percent. In a poll released today, Gallup asked Americans that they thought was the most important problem facing the country. The top two problems cited were the economy in general and unemployment and jobs. Thirty percent said the economy in general was the most important problem, while 28 percent said it was unemployment and jobs. The third ranking problem in the poll was dissatisfaction with government, Congress and politicians, which was rated as the most important problem by 12 percent of respondents. Crossposted at NB sister site CNS News  

Follow this link:
Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama, According to Gallup Poll Data

Time Magazine: ‘Is Rangel Simply Guilty of Business As Usual?’

But everybody’s doing it! That excuse may not have gotten you out of hot water with your parents, but it seems to hold some sway with Time magazine, at least when it comes to ethically-challenged former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). Staffer Michael Scherer apparently drew the short straw for the August 13 assignment , in which he focused on just one of the numerous allegations of impropriety against Rangel: that he misused his congressional office to solicit contributions to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. Of course, there are other serious charges against Rangel — who used to chair the House committee responsible for federal tax policy — namely that he avoided paying taxes on property that he owns. From the July 29 Washington Times: The charges, detailed in a 40-page “Statement of Alleged Violation,” break down into four categories: that he solicited money for the Rangel Center from those doing business before his committee; that he made errors and omissions on his financial disclosure forms; that he was given use of a rent-subsidized apartment for an office; and that he failed to report rental income and and pay federal taxes on it. Curiously, Scherer failed to mention those three other categories in his blog post. 

See the original post here:
Time Magazine: ‘Is Rangel Simply Guilty of Business As Usual?’

Prop 8 Shredding Spurs Newsweek Editor to Repeat: ‘The Religious Case for Gay Marriage is Strong’

Newsweek has aggressively demonstrated its utter impatience with any antiquated resistance to the promotion of homosexuality in America. The latest judicial decision overruling (for a second time) a popular vote in California against gay marriage is “a victory for liberty,” according to an editorial by Newsweek editor Jon Meacham. The decision spurred Meacham to declare once again that “the religious case for gay marriage is strong.” Anyone who would deny any sinner access to “secular rights and religious sacraments” is just plain stupid: Broadly put, the Western monotheistic traditions hold that human beings are made in the likeness and image of God, and are thus all equal in the sight of the Lord. (In his The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, written in 1649, John Milton put the matter bluntly: “No man…can be so stupid to deny that all men naturally were born free, being the image and resemblance of God himself.”) If a person is homosexual by nature—that is, if one’s sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one’s identity as gender or skin color—then society can no more deny a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow. I have made this argument before (and Ted Olson, who, with David Boies, successfully argued the Proposition 8 case, wrote a cover story for us on the issue earlier this year). The reaction from the right has always been comfortably predictable, and no doubt will be again. The problem for those who assert biblical authority in support of traditional definitions of marriage is that one could, with equal validity, assert that the lending of money or certain kinds of haircuts are forbidden by God, or that slavery and the subjugation of women are authorized by the Lord. Scripture is not inerrant; believers are called to interpret biblical texts in light of tradition and reason. For now the debate is about civil marriage, but much of the opposition to opening the institution to gays and lesbians comes from those who profess a faith of charity. In the fullness of time, I suspect that bigotry against homosexuals will seem as repugnant as racial prejudice does today. Or so one hopes. In other words, the Word of God, like the U.S. Constitution, is to liberals just another “living, breathing document” that cries out to be modernized to fit the most current evolution of identity politics. If God exists, then He must be edited as propagandistically and relentlessly as a so-called “news” magazine.

Link:
Prop 8 Shredding Spurs Newsweek Editor to Repeat: ‘The Religious Case for Gay Marriage is Strong’