Tag Archives: conservatives

CBS ‘Early Show’: Can Obama Fix ‘Image Problem’ and Bring Back ‘Campaign Magic’?

Opening Saturday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Chris Wragge proclaimed: “Image Problem: The President is on vacation and under fire. From the jobless numbers to the Mosque mess – why is the man with the soaring rhetoric having such a hard time getting his message across?” The headline on screen during the later segment read: “Image Issues; Can Obama’s Team Bring Campaign Magic Back?” Introducing the segment, co-host Rebecca Jarvis referred to “conservative critics” taking issue with President Obama’s vacation time on Martha’s Vineyard. In a report that followed, White House correspondent Chip Reid made sure to parrot administration talking points on the matter: “White House advisers stress that this is a working vacation with numerous daily briefings….White House officials say they’re confident the American people understand that with such a high-pressure job, a President needs and deserves some time to unwind and recharge.” Reid also compared Obama’s time-off with that of his predecessor: “By the end of this trip, President Obama will have taken 9 vacations and visited Camp David 14 times for a total of 80 vacation days since he took office. But at the same point in his first term, President Bush had taken far more time away – 14 trips to his Ranch in Texas and 40 to Camp David. The total, 225 days.” During Obama’s earlier trip to Maine, Reid made the same comparison. Following Reid’s report, Jarvis spoke with conservative radio talk show host Amy Holmes and Jennifer Palmieri of the liberal Center for American Progress. Beginning with Holmes, Jarvis wondered about the President’s “image problem”: “…the President has received some criticism here for the types of vacations he’s been taking….Why do you think the White House is having such a tough time shaping its image right now?” Turning to Palmieri, Jarvis cited various low poll numbers for Obama and raised the possibility of replacing White House staff: “The team from Chicago that put this man in office, Jennifer, does that team need to be replaced at this point in time with the approval so low?” Palmieri dismissed the idea, but Jarvis went back to Holmes and asked: “Why do you think they were able to stay so on point throughout the campaign and now it looks like the administration is really missing the mark?” Holmes replied in part: “President Obama has weighed into such a wide diverse range of issues, most recently the Ground Zero Mosque, that he has muddled his own message about what is it he’s really trying to accomplish.” In her final question to Palmieri, Jarvis pressed: “Why isn’t the Obama administration keeping the focus number one on the jobs picture in this country?” Here is a full transcript of the August 21 segment: 8:00AM TEASE CHRIS WRAGGE: Image Problem: The President is on vacation and under fire. From the jobless numbers to the Mosque mess – why is the man with the soaring rhetoric having such a hard time getting his message across? 8:06AM SEGMENT REBECCA JARVIS: Now to President Obama on vacation for the third time this summer. This is a ten day get away and the others were much shorter but his conservative critics say the trip is sending the wrong message. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Beautiful scene behind you, Chip, good morning. CHIP REID: It sure is, Rebecca. In fact, critics are saying that the President is spending too much time in places like this, creating an image that’s inappropriate for these difficult economic times. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Image Issues; Is the President Struggling to Stay On Message?]   President Obama in casual clothes browsed at a bookstore on the first full day of his ten-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard. Later, he went off to play golf. But White House advisers stress that this is a working vacation with numerous daily briefings. JOHN BRENNAN [ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR COUNTERTERRORISM & HOMELAND SECURITY]: There are a number of issues that the President is following very, very closely and expects to be kept informed about developments on those issues. REID: The President has come under fire from some conservatives for his vacations this summer, first to Bar Harbor, Maine, last weekend to the Gulf, and for the First Lady’s trip to Spain. Critics say his attention should be on the dire economy and the plight of average Americans. RUSH LIMBAUGH: Yes, he’s been working so hard, he’s tamed the economy, he’s tamed Iraq and the oil spill’s fixed. He plugged the hole and now he gets to go to Martha’s Vineyard. REID: By the end of this trip, President Obama will have taken 9 vacations and visited Camp David 14 times for a total of 80 vacation days since he took office. But at the same point in his first term, President Bush had taken far more time away – 14 trips to his Ranch in Texas and 40 to Camp David. The total, 225 days. Presidents, though, are never truly on vacation. Crises often arise. For example, the Christmas day bomber tried to strike while President Obama was vacationing in Hawaii. And for President Bush, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf during a long stay at his Ranch. White House officials say they’re confident the American people understand that with such a high-pressure job, a President needs and deserves some time to unwind and recharge, Rebecca. JARVIS: Thank you, Chip Reid. CBS News’s Chip Reid. So why has it become so hard for the man who ran such a disciplined campaign for President to control his message now and his image in the White House? Joining us is independent conservative Amy Holmes, co-host of America’s Morning News, and Jennifer Palmieri of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal think tank. Jennifer and Amy, great to see both of you this morning. Thanks for being with us. AMY HOLMES: Good morning. JENNIFER PALMIERI: Good morning. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Image Issues; Can Obama’s Team Bring Campaign Magic Back?]                  JARVIS: And, Amy, let’s start out with you, because obviously the President has received some criticism here for the types of vacations he’s been taking, he spent a day visiting the Gulf and now he’s spending ten days in Martha’s Vineyard. His wife, Michelle, visited Spain in the midst of this economic crisis. Why do you think the White House is having such a tough time shaping its image right now? HOLMES: Well, they’re having a tough time because they’re having a tough economic time. But count me among the conservatives that does not begrudge our Presidents their vacations. In fact, I wish politicians spent more time outside of the beltway, less time in Washington, and being really in touch with the American people. Martha’s Vineyard, maybe not exactly in touch, maybe he should be in a camper, I’d like to see that. But, I’m not one of the people that’s actually attacking the President on taking some downtime. JARVIS: A lot of people, though, however are thinking that the President is falling short, his approval ratings have dropped this last week, Jennifer. Across the board, we saw a number of approval ratings that were particularly weak, the Associated Press, 49%, Time, 46%, the Gallup poll, only 42% approve of the President. The team from Chicago that put this man in office, Jennifer, does that team need to be replaced at this point in time with the approval so low? PALMIERI: No, I don’t – I think that the – that the team from Chicago has been dealt a very difficult hand and they’re doing just fine. But the – President Obama’s approval ratings are certainly lower than they have been in the past, but is worth noting that they’re higher than President Clinton’s approval ratings were in 1994 at the same time and even higher than President Reagan’s approval ratings were in 1982 at this same time. And the – I think the Reagan and the Obama situation are sort of – are good comparisons, because Reagan, also, had inherited a very difficult economy. And, you know, the Presidents had a lot of legislative victories, but the White House understands very clearly that you don’t get points from the American people just for legislative victories. They want to see results. And the uncomfortable truth that the White House is wrestling with is that a lot of these policies that they’ve enacted take time for people to see results in their everyday lives and I think, you know, the economy used to shed 600,000 jobs a month when Obama took office. Their adding jobs now each month, not as many as they’d like, but the economy is slowly recovering. But, they understand that there’s a frustration that exists until people see these changes really take effect and that’s just going to take some time. JARVIS: Amy, why do you think they were able to stay so on point throughout the campaign and now it looks like the administration is really missing the mark? HOLMES: Well, there’s a big difference between campaigning and governing and when you’re campaigning, you can stay on message with that close team from Chicago, you know, hope and change. But once you get into government, you’re actually dealing with this – panap- JARVIS: Panoply. HOLMES: This huge array – panoply, thank you – this huge array of issues. And where I think I might disagree with Jennifer in terms of the Obama-Reagan comparison, is that Obama came in with much higher approval. So his fall-off, the drop-off has been much more dramatic than what Ronald Reagan faced and I think also President Obama has weighed into such a wide diverse range of issues, most recently the Ground Zero Mosque, that he has muddled his own message about what is it he’s really trying to accomplish. So we can also look at his policies, even Barney Frank, the liberal from Massachusetts, said that it was quote-unquote ‘dumb’ of this administration to promise that their stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 8%, we’re at 9.5. So he see – the Democratic Party itself is sort of like shooting within the circle when it comes to their own message and this President and they have advisers telling them this fall run, do not walk, away from President Obama. JARVIS: Jennifer, isn’t everybody in this country worried about jobs, why isn’t the Obama administration keeping the focus number one on the jobs picture in this country? PALMIERI: Well, I think that when you see when the President gets out in the country, as he does probably a couple of days a week, that is what he’s – that is what he’s talking about. And they have taken a lot of steps in the beginning of the administration to stabilize the economy and I think that the reason why you don’t see his approval ratings falling off worse is because people understand that he did bring us back from the brink of a depression. And they also understand, and the polling reflects this, that it takes more than 18 months to get out of as a big of a hole as we did have in economy. So I think that people are frustrated but they do understand that why this is so difficult for the President to get out of. JARVIS: Jennifer Palmieri, Amy Holmes, thanks so much to both of you for being with us. PALMIERI: Thank you, Rebecca. HOLMES: Thank you.

See more here:
CBS ‘Early Show’: Can Obama Fix ‘Image Problem’ and Bring Back ‘Campaign Magic’?

Republican Babes are Smokin’ Hot, Dems are Definitely Not, Says Minnesota GOP [VideUhOh]

Want to see part of the brilliant strategy Minnesota Republicans have cooked up for November? Here’s a video the state GOP made that shows how totally hot conservative babes are, and how nasty (and hairy) liberal women are. More

Saving Sarah Palin

There has been an ocean of discussion about Sarah Palin, ever since the moment she took to the stage at the Republican National Convention in 2008. Ms. Palin has encouraged the discussion by making statements that, to me, seemed to be ignorant, insane, or both. As anyone who visits Current.com knows, I have been in love with Sarah since the first time I saw her beautiful face and delicious legs, and, earlier this week I was shocked and chastened to learn things about her which changed my feelings. The recent YouTube video, reposted on Current, that shows Sarah being upbraided by an Alaskan schoolteacher, started me on the path to a new appraisal. I was puzzled by Sarah's confounded reaction to the teacher's criticism, because it seemed Sarah was absolutely stumped as to how to react when the teacher asked her how she was protecting the Constitution. Then, when I looked further down the page on the Current posting, I saw that someone had posted the results of an IQ test that Sarah took as a schoolgirl. On the test, she scored an 83. According to Terman's Stanford-Binet Second Revision classification, Sarah Palin's IQ of 83 puts her into the “Dullness” category (Lewis Terman, developer of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence test). You can see the link below this video to examine the table for yourself. It's apparent that not only is Sarah wrong about most of what she says, she's too dull to even understand it. My earlier suspicions that the conservatives trotted her out to get votes have been confirmed. Here is a woman ill-equipped to do much more than interact with a family in a safe environment, yet she was placed in a position of power and authority by a cynical group of predators who are willing to ruin her life in order to gain political power. This same gang of crooks fulminated against Bill Clinton for his abuse of women. From now on I urge you to do what you can to save Sarah Palin from this sick and corrupt band of pimps who have willingly exposed her and her family to a torrent of attention and abuse. My postings here are almost always meant to make you laugh, but there is nothing funny about using an incompetent woman as a lure for votes and political power. That's just simple prostitution, and the last I heard, that's illegal in all 50 states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart added by: Progresshiv

CNN’s Lemon Argues With Black Tea Party Member; Civil War ‘Modern History’?

On Thursday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Don Lemon conducted a confrontational interview of a black tea party member and disputed his assertion that the U.S. is “more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history.” Lemon bizarrely reached back to the Confederacy to challenge his guest’s claim: “Some of the reasons for the Civil War….was racism….How can you say the country is more divided now?” The CNN anchor brought on the Reverend C. L. Bryant during a segment eight minutes into the 10 am Eastern hour to discuss the NAACP’s recent condemnation of the tea party’s “racism.” After playing a clip of Bryant from the 2009 9/12 tea party rally in Washington, DC, where the tea party leader accused the Obama administration of “building walls of racism… [and] class-ism,” Lemon first asked, “What do you think about this new resolution from the NAACP?” Bryant replied, “Well, unfortunately, those types of statements…are echoes of the left at this point in time.” Lemon then challenged the tea party leader both on his “wall of racism” accusation against the Obama White House and on his political labeling of the NAACP: “You just said that was a message that was coming from the left when you were talking about the NAACP’s message. Now…you said in the speech- you brought up racism. You said that the President was building walls of racism…. how can you say it’s just coming from the left when you just said the same thing? ” When Rev. Bryant gave his “more divided” line in response, the anchor made his Civil War reference as part of his retort: BRYANT: There are walls that have been built of racism in this country since this administration has taken oath of office, and I say that to say this- this country is more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history , and one of the reasons for that, I feel and fear, is because it is very convenient to play the race card when you have a black president. But if anyone voted for this president because of his color, then I would say to you, that was very foolish. LEMON: Well, how you can say that this country is more divided than ever? I mean, when you think about the- you know, s ome of the reasons for the Civil War- I mean, it was racism. The country was divided, I mean, actually divided along a line. That’s what the Mason Dixon line was all about. How can you say the country is more divided now? I mean, it’s not- for lack of a better word, that black and white because there’s progress in other ways. I’m sitting here on television. You’re doing what you are doing. I don’t know if we would be doing this at some other point in time. The Civil War is “modern history”? The 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War is next year in 2011. Bryant tried to clarify what he meant, but this resulted in another challenge from Lemon: BRYANT: When we take into consideration since 1965, when I received the right to vote, and where we sit now, as you very adeptly said here in 2010, and you and I both are on television, and we have the opportunities we have- but yet, we’re still talking about race in this country. There evidently is a place of division that exists in modern society, not since the Civil War, but since 1965 – LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t be talking about it? We shouldn’t talk about race? BRYANT: I’m sorry- say again. LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t talk about race? BRYANT: Of course, we must talk about race, but it must have a more intellectual tone- LEMON: Okay. BRYANT: Because African-Americans in this country are now more diverse than we ever have been before. Near the end of the interview, the CNN anchor emulated his colleague Rick Sanchez from the previous evening in bringing up the two most egregious example of racially-charged imagery from tea party rallies: LEMON: As I’m talking to you now, you’re seeing the pictures of people- you know, with monkeys; ObamaCare, with the thing- the bone through his nose and all of that, and you’ve been to these tea party rallies. Have you not seen any of these sort of things- signs and elements ? BRYANT: Out of the thousands of people that attend tea party rallies, we are very hard-pressed to police any foolishness that you may see in those types of signs, and as I said earlier, we have discouraged and do denounce anyone who brings those types of signs to any of our rallies. That’s not what we’re about- LEMON: And I think that’s what the NAACP- that’s what the resolution is about, and Ben Jealous said he’s not saying that the entire tea party or the tea party group- that they are racist. He’s saying that the tea party should denounce the racist elements. Do you agree or disagree with that? BRYANT: We have denounced those elements, and we call upon the NAACP to denounce the murderous comments that were made by [Black] Panther members last week. If, in fact, we’re going to play this particular game, then let’s make it fair and balanced. If, in fact, they call on us to denounce a certain element of the right, then they must, too, come to the table and denounce certain elements that are, evidently, on the left. LEMON: Nice talking to you, Reverend C.L. Bryant- and a civil conversation, as we should be talking about all issues. Thank you, sir.

My Open Letter To President Obama.

Dear Mr. President. I love you Dude, but I have to tuff love you here. Sorry! I know you have accomplishes a lot, but the average American does not know that, see that or think that. They wanted to see change that would rock the earth back in 2008. You have to start rocking the earth NOW. USE THE RAGE AND ANGER THAT IS OUT THERE TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!!! Republicans do. Attack the Republicans; right now you look like an appeasing vacillator. NO MORE LINCOLN AND MORE TEDDY ROSEVELT thank you!!! If you do not rock the earth NOW, we will lose Congress and you will certainly lose the White House in 2012 as a lame duck. PLEASE MR. PRESIDENT, please do not leave us again at the mercies of the Conservatives. We will be so poor, and we will literally die with our children starving and freezing in the streets. America will lose its last bit of democracy as well, as we fall into complete corporate dictatorship. Get Joe Biden to lower the filibuster break to 51 votes and then ram forward Change We Can Believe IN, fast and furious before November. Let the Republicans walk out! Then call the Republicans what they are un-American, traders for BP, Big Oil and anyone that will fill their pockets with money, who want unemployed desperate workers who will work for pennies, who want to see American jobs go overseas, and want to fill the pockets of the wealthy from the pockets of the middle class and poor. They loved George Bush and they want Jeb next, so American can be poorer. SAY IT! SAY IT SIMPLE, so the average dullard will understand, BUT SAY IT WITH AL THE VOLCANIC ANGER THAT IS IN THE AMERICAN HEART RIGHT NOW. USE THAT ANGER, PLEASE!!! And while the pigs are away, pass everything we need. Then take the credit when it gets better!!! The south is not going to secede, why should they, they think they can beat you in November. Mr. President, millions of lives are in YOUR hands. The fate of the planet is in YOUR hands. This is your defining moment for your soul. Do not hear me, and it will be the end of all of us in America and the world. This is the leading pivotal moment in history, you decide if we survive as a species or not. added by: ezrierin

MSNBC Fill-In Host: Conservative Liberal Media Claims Based On Racism

Cenk Uygur, host of the left-wing internet talk show ‘The Young Turks,’ filled in for MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan during the 4PM ET hour on Wednesday and decried the nation’s “shift to the Right.” He lamented: “…when I started out I was a liberal Republican. No such thing exists anymore.” [Audio available here ] He wondered why the media hadn’t reported on the supposed radical shift in American politics and quickly came up with this explanation: “Why the media didn’t challenge it is because they [conservatives] kept calling them the liberal media, and why did they call them that? Because during civil rights, they [the media] said ‘yeah, black people and white people are the same’ and the conservatives at the time said ‘damn liberal media,’ and, you know, that intimidated the media into not recognizing this trend.” Uygur’s liberal guests, author Linda Monk and Wesleyen University professor Claire Potter did not disagree. In fact, Monk made sure to criticize President Eisenhower for his views on civil rights: “…let’s not be too celebratory of Eisenhower. He did stand up for the desegregation decisions. He did his job as president. But privately he was known for saying that racial desegregation was social disintegration, so he perhaps wasn’t as progressive on the race issue as some would interpret his actions to be.” Here is a transcript of the July 7 exchange: 4:43PM CENK UYGUR: And Claire, why do you think the spectrum has shifted so much, and another question is why is the media apparently not noticed it at all? CLAIRE POTTER [PROFESSOR, WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY]: Well, I think one of the things you have to look at is the context. A figure like Eisenhower, for example, was a politician during a period in which the Republicans and the Democrats had a horror of extremism. I think in the 15 or 20 years after World War II, there was a kind of centrist consensus that both extremes were to be avoided and that cooperation should be the norm. Now the only place that didn’t really work is race, until the Johnson administration. But for- LINDA MONK [AUTHOR, THE WORDS WE LIVE BY]: I think you’ve got McCarthy, though, coming along in the Eisenhower time, and certainly that was within the Republican Party, and that was a strong ideological bent, so I hear what you’re saying about there’s a concern about extremism, but certainly it had a place during the Republican Party at that time. POTTER: Sure. I mean, I don’t think you’re wrong about that, but I think one of the things that you see between 1948 and 1970 is a seismic shift in relation to who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. MONK: Right. POTTER: So that there is an enormous liberal block in the Republican Party the Democratic northern liberals are working with. MONK: Right. POTTER: And that southern Democrats, who are conservatives and can be brought along with a variety of Democratic initiatives, eventually moved to the Republican Party. MONK: Right. POTTER: Over desegregation and busing. UYGUR: Linda and Claire, I agree with both of you, and by the end of it, you know, I remember, even in my lifetime, when I started out I was a liberal Republican. No such thing exists anymore. POTTER: You and Nelson Rockefeller. UYGUR: Yeah. That’s wiped off the face of the earth, and so we see how – and part of the movement I think is because – and why the media didn’t challenge it – is because they kept calling them the liberal media, and why did they call them that? Because during civil rights, they said ‘yeah, black people and white people are the same’ and the conservatives at the time said ‘damn liberal media,’ and, you know, that intimidated the media into not recognizing this trend, I think. MONK: Well, and let’s not – let’s not be too celebratory of Eisenhower. He did stand up for the desegregation decisions. He did his job as president. But privately he was known for saying that racial desegregation was social disintegration, so he perhaps wasn’t as progressive on the race issue as some would interpret his actions to be. POTTER: Well- UYGUR: That’s a very fair point. We got to wrap it up right there. Linda and Claire, thank you, both of you, for joining us. Really appreciate it. MONK: Thanks, Cenk. POTTER: Thank you.

The rest is here:
MSNBC Fill-In Host: Conservative Liberal Media Claims Based On Racism

Washington Post Blogger Resigns Over Private Emails to Friends [Resignations]

Recently hired Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel , who wrote a great blog about the conservative movement for them, has resigned after some blunt private emails to his “friends” were released to the public. Nice going, everyone! More

WaPo Paints the Spitzer-Parker Show as a ‘Democrat’ and a ‘Conservative’

The Washington Post Style section promised an article on CNN’s new Eliot Spitzer-Kathleen Parker chat show with this front-page blurb: ” Odd couple on CNN: New show pairs a conservative with a Democrat.” Inside, in an article surprisingly shy on her typical snark, TV columnist Lisa de Moraes also described the pairing as the “disgraced/rehabbed former governor Eliot Spitzer, the New  York Democrat” vs. “Pulitzer-prize winning conservative columnist Kathleen Parker,” syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group (this could explain the lack of snark against Parker, if not Spitzer.) The TV columnist made no attempt to assess whether conservatives felt she was one of them (they don’t). She did see this as a turnabout for “Crossfire”-canceling CNN president Jon Klein, but she reproduced his sales chat without much objection: In an interview with The TV Column, Klein said that Spitzer and Parker “can address an appetite that is not being satisfied now — the 99 percent of the country not watching” the other 8 o’clock cable news shows. “We’d like to begin the long, slow, steady process of reaching the underserved. . . . We think America’s ready for that. . . . I can’t think of two people better suited than these super-intelligent, ultra-opinionated but rational individuals .” Leave it to Klein to make a talk-show sound like a soup kitchen. The cable-news “underserved”? Then, he tops that by making them sound like a super-ultra comic-book pairing, a pundit Wonder Twins? In TV terms, they’re green-as-Shrek rookies, but Klein isn’t bothered:  Klein said he’s not worried that neither Spitzer nor Parker has extensive on-air hosting experience yet are joining forces for a new show in a punishing time slot. “We cast a very wide net, and after looking at scores of potential anchors, Kathleen and Eliot demonstrated they belong at the head of the pack,” he said. I’m sure you could find the same sales talk when CNN acquired Campbell Brown from NBC. That’s pretty empty blather — and at least Brown was a broadcaster, with no vice-squad “buzz.” Actually, Spitzer also had a Washington Post connection to tame the poison tip of the de Moraes pen: Recently, Spitzer has been doing the old phoenix-rising-from-ashes thing as a TV personality, as have so many fallen men before him. He got high marks when he subbed on MSNBC. (Spitzer is also a contributor to Slate.com, which is owned by The Washington Post Co.) Parker made the show sound like it would merge “Crossfire” with “Take 5,”  the hip-friends pundit show they tried with Jake Tapper in 2001. Parker told The TV Column the show’s goal is “to change people’s mind.” To that end, they are rounding up a stable of regular contributors for the show. “We’re looking for the smartest, coolest, hippest, funniest friends.” What she likes about the new show, she said, is that “we are from such different worlds in every way….And, I informed Eliot, there are lot more people like me than him.” This apparently means there are more opportunistic moderates (some who trash popular conservatives to get famous on TV and in the WashPost) than there are partisan liberals with a zipper problem. At least de Moraes rehashed Klein’s old trash talk when he killed “Crossfire” that “CNN is a different animal. We report the news. Fox talks about the news.” Klein told the Post writer “We think Eliot and Kathleen are a can’t-miss show. It’s like your favorite blog — you think, ‘I can’t really understand how to think about what’s going on today until I’ve checked out XYZ blogger.’ We think that’s how their show is going to feel.” Lisa went really, sadly soft here, or an editor slashed some copy: right next to Klein’s “different animal” boasting in the New York Observer in 2005  is his blogger-bashing: He dismissed bloggers as “guys in pajamas” (he coined the phrase while defending Mr. Rather on Fox News) and told NPR that pundit shows on cable news were “crack.” And: “There is always going to be an important role for the guys who grab the cameras and shoot the pictures of stuff that’s actually happening,” he said. “What happens after that in the great repurposing engine that is cable news and the blogosphere is out of our hands.” Already, Mr. Klein’s flip comments had hit the blogosphere. Mickey Kaus at Slate seemed all shook up that former Crossfire conservative Tucker Carlson had been unceremoniously released from service. “Boy, people at CNN do not like Jonathan Klein!” Mr. Kaus wrote. “Doesn’t he realize it’s hard to be a highly unpopular boss in the Web era, especially at a big media enterprise the press will pay inordinate attention to? Ask Howell Raines.” “It’s a little early for Mickey to be rooting for my downfall,” said Mr. Klein, who said he didn’t have time to read blogs. But earlier, Mr. Klein had been happy to compliment the blogs with an easy backhand: “I don’t think that blogging, which is, you know, glorified Web-site hosting — that’s what it is. I had a blog for a while, but I just didn’t have time,” he said. “I don’t think that blogs topple news organizations because of the difficulty of sifting through reliable information and mere opinion. But they certainly have arrived on the scene as a player.”

Read the rest here:
WaPo Paints the Spitzer-Parker Show as a ‘Democrat’ and a ‘Conservative’

Randi Rhodes: Conservatives Hate Cops, Fire Fighters, Teachers, and First Responders

On Tuesday’s Randi Rhodes radio show, Rhodes was complaining that the stimulus money is running out, leading to layoffs of public employees. She lamented that Colorado Springs is going without street lighting and selling police helicopters, and starving the public sector is what conservatives want, because they hate public servants.  And this is exactly why the conservatives keep harping on spending, spending, spending as the problem: because they know spending, spending, spending is the solution, and they don’t want this solved! They don’t want this solved because they hate government! They hate teachers. They hate police officers. They hate first responders. They hate firemen. They hate EMT workers. They want it all to be privatized! That’s when you gonna get the haves having police protection and excellent schools and the have-nots having no police protection and no schools! And therein is the dreamworld for them. This is nirvana for them! She said 32 states don’t have the money for unemployment benefits , and that isn’t because they’ve overreached, but because they’re underpaid by the taxpayer. She’s talk radio’s answer to John Kenneth Galbraith. The fantasies about the conservative anarchists continued:  They’re firing every city and state worker. And that is what they’ve had in mind all along. Because then, remember when they were wildfires in California, and I had people screaming at me ‘Well, if I have more money, I should be able to hire a private fire-fighting company that has a gel that we don’t make available to the city firefighters.’ This was their argument. This was exactly what they were saying all along. If you have the money, you can save your house by buying a private firefighting company. If you don’t have the money, too bad for you, stand outside and watch your house burn down. Same thing with your kids, and their education. Same thing with EMTs coming to your house. If you can afford to have an ambulance come and get you, a private company, good! You’ll get to the hospital on time. If not, get in your car and drive yourself.  Oh you can’t? You passed out? Too bad for you. Shoulda had the money. That’s the world that they are building. How government is starving to death with Obama, Pelosi & Reid in charge is a bit puzzling, but liberals on the radio are imagining it any way. 

Excerpt from:
Randi Rhodes: Conservatives Hate Cops, Fire Fighters, Teachers, and First Responders

Networks That Found Bad Omens at CPAC Skips Pelosi Facing Heckler Protest at Liberal Confab

For the last several years, TV news stars have found electric moments at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) worth predicting how Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives would soon be driving the Republican Party into an electoral ditch. So it was noteworthy that no network except Fox News found it worth a story that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got booed and heckled Tuesday afternoon at a liberal version of CPAC. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post relayed on Wednesday that Pelosi tried to engage the hecklers unsuccessfully, then pledged to continue her speech: And she did, for an excruciating half-hour. The hecklers screamed themselves hoarse, dominating Pelosi’s speech through her concluding lines: “I want to say thank you to Campaign for America’s Future for your relentlessness, for your dissatisfaction, for your impatience. That’s what I see every day in my district.” Political movements tend to unravel gradually, but on Tuesday this one seemed to be imploding in real time. As the “tea party” right has gained strength, Obama’s hope-and-change left has faded. The frustration has crystallized at the gathering this week of demoralized activists.  On Wednesday, PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer whistled right past Pelosi’s heckled event, reporting on coming environmental-regulation bills: “In the meantime, members of the House began working on their own proposals. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asked committee chairs to draft new regulatory legislation by the Fourth of July.” MSNBC’s Ed Schultz suggested he would discuss it on Wednesday night’s Ed Show: “Also, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, well, she got heckled. Not by the Tea Partiers, but by progressives. I`ve got a ‘Rapid Fire’ response to all of that.” Later, he listed it as a topic again: Let’s get some “Rapid Fire” response from our panel on these stories tonight. Liberal activists are not happy with Congressional Democrats. At a progressive conference, a group angry about the lack of action on disability rights booed, heckled and shouted down House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Tea Partiers got a big win in Nevada. Sharron Angle will challenge Harry Reid this fall.And Sarah Palin says President Obama should call her for advice on how to handle the oil disaster? But in the midst of fighting about Angle and Palin, Schultz never returned to Pelosi.

See the original post here:
Networks That Found Bad Omens at CPAC Skips Pelosi Facing Heckler Protest at Liberal Confab