Tag Archives: democratic

How to Speak "Palinese"

Thanks to Debbye… There's a new dialect that can be witnessed in mainstream media news and talk radio. It's called “Palinese.” Here's how you too, can speak it… Recent examples of Palinese: language of the double standard: If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a 'token hire.' If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a 'game changer.' Black teen pregnancies? A 'crisis' in black America. White teen pregnancies? A 'blessed event.' If you grow up in Hawaii you're 'exotic.' Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential 'American story.' Similarly, if you name your kid Barack you're 'unpatriotic.' Name your kid Track, you're 'colorful.' If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you're 'reckless.' A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a 'maverick.' If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review,create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African Amerian voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor,then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced. If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, you've got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia. If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an 'arrogant celebrity'. If you are a popular republican female candidate you are 'energizing the base'. If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself and makes his own decisions you are 'presumptuous'. if you are an older male candidate who makes last minute decisions you refuse to explain, you are a 'shoot from the hip' maverick. If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are 'an elitist 'out of touch' with the real America. if you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals) graduate of Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions you are a hero. If you manage a multi-million dollar nationwide campaign, you are an 'empty suit'.If you are a part time mayor of a town of 7000 people, you are an 'experienced executive'. If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are 'extremist'. If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is man made, you are 'strongly principled'. If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian. If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years with whom you are raising 2 beautiful daughters you're 'risky'. If you're a black single mother of 4 who waits for 22 hours after her water breaks to seek medical attention, you're an irresponsible parent, endangering the life of your unborn child. But if you're a white married mother who waits 22 hours, you're spunky. If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you 'First dog.' If you're a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you 'beautiful' and 'courageous.' If you kill an endangered species, you're an excellent hunter. If you have an abortion you're not a christian, you're a murderer (forget about if it happens while being date raped) If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents. If you teach responsible age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society. added by: EthicalVegan

Lefties Upset By Murdoch Donation Take Note: 88 Percent of Network Donations Went to Dems

With liberals up in arms over News Corp’s political contributions, here’s an interesting fact worth noting: of the roughly $1.15 million network TV employees gave to political candidates in 2008, a full 88 percent of it went to Democrats. Barack Obama received almost half a million dollars from those same execs, while John McCain received just over $25,000. The discrepancy between donations to the Democratic and Republican parties was also enormous. Though the numbers are striking, the imbalance is not altogether surprising. But they do help to put in prospect the left’s righteous indignation over the political activities of Fox News’s parent company. According to the Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott : The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744… President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709, Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881. Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805… Notable contributors found in the CBS data include “journalist” Seth Davis, who gave $2,750 to Obama, CBS Corporation vice president and editor-in-chief Jane Goldman, who contributed $250 to Obama, CBS Radio “host” Mike Omeara, who gave $1,471 to Obama, and “journalist” Beverly Williams, who donated $200 to Obama. Among NBC contributors were Saturday Night Live producer Jeffrey Ross, who contributed $500 to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, former NBC Today Show weatherman Willard Scott. who gave $500 to the Republican National Committee, NBC Universal CFO Jennifer Cabalquinto, whose donations to Obama totaled $1,200, NBC Universal “editor” David Mack, with $250 to Obama and $2,300 McCain.

Read more from the original source:
Lefties Upset By Murdoch Donation Take Note: 88 Percent of Network Donations Went to Dems

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?

Glenn Beck Slams ABC’s Story: ‘Something Goebbels Would do’

Good Morning America’s Claire Shipman on Friday launched a pre-emptive one-sided attack on Glenn Beck’s August 28 rally in Washington D.C., including selectively editing clips from the conservative host. The ABC journalist featured a snippet of Beck asserting, “Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King.” [MP3 audio here .] On his radio show, Friday, Beck complained about the “hatchet job.” Shipman clearly distorted the context. He actually said, “Whites don’t own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King. Those are American icons, American ideas and we should just talk about character.” (H/T to The Right Scoop and Noel Sheppard.) Playing the segment on the radio, Beck hyperbolically declared, “That’s what Goebbels did. The truth didn’t matter.” Now, while ABC should be criticized for the dishonest editing job, it is over-the-top to play the Nazi card. Shipman featured clips of Al Sharpton, liberal comedian Stephen Colbert and former Democratic Congressman Walter Fauntroy. She asserted that there are angry voices ” comparing the Tea Party to the KKK.” Fauntroy then scolded, “The Klu Klux- I meant to say the Tea Party. You all forgive me. But, you have to use them interchangeably.” Shipman even went to Al Sharpton for a quote. He worried, “…I’m trying to be disciplined and not make this about those that have, in my opinion, hijacked a location, but will never be able to hijack the dream.” Faux conservative Stephen Colbert mocked, “Finally, someone is bringing Martin Luther King’s movement back to its conservative white roots.” Other than Beck himself, ABC had no clips of anyone defending Beck or the conservative rally. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:17am EDT on August 27 follows: DAVID MUIR: In the meantime, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck stirring up controversy with a rally now planned for tomorrow at the Lincoln memorial in Washington. Some people are angry the rally is taking place on the anniversary of another famous event there, Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. And Claire Shipman is at the Lincoln Memorial with much more on this this morning . Claire, good to see you. CLAIRE SHIPMAN: David, there’s a lot of emotion swirling over this issue. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago, that Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist. So, his choice of timing to hold his rally here tomorrow, a surprise, to say the least. MARTIN LUTHER KING: I have a dream. SHIPMAN: Immortal words of unity. But the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s speech is producing just the opposite. GLENN BECK: Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King. LORETTA ROSS (Sistersong): Glenn Beck is no Martin Luther King. SHIPMAN: Even angry words comparing the Tea Party to the KKK. REVEREND WALTER FAUNTROY (civil rights activist): The Klu Klux- I meant to say the Tea Party. You all forgive me. But, you have to use them interchangeably. SHIPMAN: All this because of an unlikely rally planned by conservative TV and radio host, Glenn beck, for the day of the anniversary on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. BECK: We are doing something absolutely amazing. SHIPMAN: Beck says his rally, which will feature Sarah Palin and many Tea Party supporters, is meant to honor America’s troops. And he insists he picked the day, not realizing it was the anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech. But, not everyone is buying that. STEPHEN COLBERT: Finally, someone is bringing Martin Luther King’s movement back to its conservative white roots. SHIPMAN: Some, like the Reverend Al Sharpton, who is organizing his own march on Washington on Saturday, have more serious concerns. AL SHARPTON: It’s very hard and I’m trying to be disciplined and not make this about those that have, in my opinion, hijacked a location, but will never be able to hijack the dream. SHIPMAN: Beck insists he plans to honor King. BECK: I heard it over and over again in the media that because of this event, on the date of this event, I’m somehow or other Martin Luther King’s speech. I’m not big enough to do that. No one is. SHIPMAN: And Martin Luther King has weighed in on this, saying his father would never limit voices. But that he urges that everybody use the right sort of rhetoric, David. MUIR: A lot of controversy. We’ll be watching it this weekend.

Read more:
Glenn Beck Slams ABC’s Story: ‘Something Goebbels Would do’

CBO’s Rosy Stimulus Numbers Have Little Basis in Reality, But Media Again Report Them as Fact

In the media’s continued effort to sell the stimulus to the American public, reality is simply a nuisance. It’s much easier to use rosy economic projections with little to no grounding in the real world, and to refrain from informing readers just how disconnected from reality those models are. That is exactly what many in the media have done since the Congressional Budget Office released numbers yesterday ( pdf ) claiming that the stimulus has, in the words of ABCNews.com reporter Andy Sullivan, “put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter.” The only problem with this reasoning: it has no basis in reality. Those employment and economic growth numbers exist only on paper. The models may tell economists and policymakers that a certain number of jobs have been created, but that number has literally no connection to the actual unemployment situation. Of course that hasn’t stopped the media from reporting CBO’s numbers as fact before. And once again, they’ve demonstrated their own disconnect from reality. There are two essential problems with CBO’s findings: first, they assumes what they purport to demonstrate. CBO accepts as given that each dollar in stimulus spent will create X number of jobs and Y points of economic growth. The logic looks like this: the stimulus creates jobs, therefore the stimulus created jobs. Second, the CBO’s analysis, by its own admission, did not take into account what could have happened without the stimulus. So it is entirely possible that the economy could have created more jobs and economic growth without the legislation. The latter point is simple economic logic, but it is also reinforced by scholarship. A recent study at Harvard Business School found that the more money federal legislators sent back to their home states or districts, the more private businesses in those areas retrenched. Private sector economic activity actually decreased as more pork left Washington. Ed Morrissey wrote of the study’s findings: If this seems counterintuitive, it might be from marinating too long in Beltway conventional wisdom. When private entities (citizens or businesses) retain capital, it gets used in a more rational manner, mainly because the entity has competitive incentives to use capital wisely and efficiently. The private entity also has his own interests in mind, and can act quickly to use the capital to its best application. Private entities innovate and look to create and expand markets, creating more growth. Since the stimulus is just a massive pork barrel project, it stands to reason that it could adversely affect economic activity even where it is most heavily targeted. Could that actually be the case? Well, according to the CBO report released yesterday, Although CBO has examined data on output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment, those data are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. In other words, the report did not examine what the economy might have looked like absent the stimulus package. Considering the media’s fondness for touting jobs saved – a completely hypothetical claim – one would imagine they would at least ponder the possibility of a stimulus-less economy. Of course even CBO’s measurements concerning stimulus spending were a tired exercise in theoretical economics. It was the same methodology the CBO has been using since the stimulus passed, and – surprise! – it produced nearly identical results. Reason’s Peter Suderman reported in March: …In response to a question at a speech earlier this month, CBO director Doug Elmendorf laid out the CBO’s methodology pretty clearly, describing the his office’s frequent, legally-required stimulus reports as “repeating the same exercises we [aleady] did rather than an independent check on it.” CBO tweaks its models on the input side, he says-adjusting, for example, how much money the government has spent. But the results the CBO reports-like the job creation figures-are simply a function of the inputs it records, not real-world counts. Following up, the questioner asks for clarification: “If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?” Elmendorf’s response? “That’s right. That’s right.” Even if it were acceptable to use models to gauge economic growth without actually examining the economy, we now know that the stimulus was a failure even by the most basic standards of federal spending aimed at promoting economic growth. Former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey claims he was cited as a supporter of a generic stimulus package before the measure was actually passed. But even Lindsey, who supported the idea of a stimulus package in the abstract, wrote earlier this month that “the bill that was actually passed into law was both so expensive and so badly flawed that it gives the whole concept of macroeconomic stimulus a bad name.” Since the projections in CBO’s models are based on previous experience with economic stimulus packages – as is, presumably, Lindsey’s support for a theoretical stimulus – assuming that those models apply neatly to today’s economic situation is misguided at best. Despite all of these facts, many in the media have trumpeted the CBO’s findings as irrefutable signs that the stimulus saved the American economy from even greater catastrophe. The Washington Post , the Associated Press , Bloomberg , and ABC News are four outlets that reported CBO’s findings without mentioning that its numbers were based on economic models that were not derived from actual economic conditions, and do not take into account the failures of the actual bill to do what its supporters claimed it would. The CBO was forced to do something similar during the health care debate, when Democratic congressional leaders were scrambling to keep the bill’s price tag below a trillion dollars. Even if CBO knows its forecasts or predictions are beyond the pale of reality, they must score what Congress gives them. The CBO does not presume to know what would have happened had the stimulus package not been passed at all. Research suggests that the economy could even have been better with no federal spending at all. This possibility also escaped mention by these reporters. It’s getting continually more difficult to tout the successes of the stimulus by using real-world examples. The media, apparently, have devised a solution: ignore reality.

Read this article:
CBO’s Rosy Stimulus Numbers Have Little Basis in Reality, But Media Again Report Them as Fact

The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

I have no idea what is going to happen in the November congressional elections, but it seems the polls — for what they’re worth — predict a huge Republican win. It may or may not happen, I just don’t know, but if it does and the aisles of Congress are littered with Democrats who will be kicked out in the New Year, will they feel they don’t have anything to lose and try to pass the remainder of their socialistic agenda before they’re forced to leave. And if lame duck Democrats try to do this will the Republicans and remaining Democrats who will return have the guts and the honor to block them? Will they let cap and trade, card check and all the other catastrophic crap they have proposed be passed? America has not even begun to feel the lash of Obama’s whip from the legislation his sycophants have already passed. The cost of health care insurance is already going up in anticipation of the restrictions Obamacare will put on insurance companies. The federal unemployment numbers continue to hover right around 10% and there’s no telling what the actual numbers are. The economy is headed for the pits and you could run out of ink trying to add all the zeros to the national debt. How much more can this nation take? We may well find out with a lame duck Congress, a room full of ticked off losers who want to show the country that they’ll still have their way although the very programs they would be passing into law are what got them kicked out of office to start with. But let’s just get something straight; just because somebody has an “R” after their name doesn’t mean they are the kind of conservatives it will take to undo some of the damage Obama and the Democrats have done. Remember some of them were bitter disappointments voting for bills they knew their constituents were against and some of them sold out for favors only them and Obama’s operatives know about. I don’t claim to know what it will take to bring America out this morass we’re in but there are a few common sense factors that are tried and true. The old Democrat mantra, “tax cuts for the rich” is misleading it’s not the rich they’re hurting when they raise taxes. The rich people are going to get along just fine. They’ll just hang on to their money instead of investing it in businesses to create more jobs. The card check proposal is nothing short of ridiculous. What business is it of anybody’s how somebody casts their vote for union leadership or anything else for that matter? This just opens someone up for intimidation and ostracizing and subverts the very heart of the Democratic process. Nobody even knows how the health care fiasco will play out, even those in Congress who sold out the people who voted them in to pass it. But there’s something I can guarantee you; the cost of health care will go up instead of going down as Obama said it would. In fact it’s going way up. If nothing else, the new bureaucracies it will take to administer and enforce it will see to that. Obama is insincere in really wanting to do something to bring down the cost of health care as no meaningful bill could possible leave out tort reform. If we’re not going to let our troops win the war in Afghanistan, we should just write off that part of the world and bring them home. Why keep dribbling American lives down the drain in a country where most of the people don’t want us there to start with. The only way we’ll ever destroy the Taliban is to accept tremendous collateral damage to the civilian population and evidently we’re never going to do that so why stay? A year or so after we pull the troops out of Iraq that country will go right back to what it was except this time the mullahs in Iran will be calling the shots. The most dangerous and powerful enemy in that part of the world is Iran; they export terrorism and arm our enemies. Until something meaningful is done about them our efforts in that part of the world are meaningless and any victory is temporary. Playing politics with the energy production in this country is going to play out to be a stupid and horribly costly mistake because one day. Sooner than later, the oil from the Persian Gulf will suddenly stop coming to this country. We should be drilling in ANWR, and the shale deposits in our western states and bring these sources on line before this catastrophe happens. I agree that we should be pursuing alternative energy sources for all we’re worth, but let’s face it… We’ve been pursuing them for years and are not anywhere near the point that we can depend on them. Let’s go for it, make an all out effort to harness wind and water, create fuel cells, build nuclear plants, discover non-food supply sources of ethanol. But in the meantime, we’re going to need petroleum and we’re not going to get it by the feeble and superficial gestures the federal government is making. You want alternative energy? Make it profitable for the private sector. Get out of their way and it will happen. A government that sues a state for keeping the law and turns a blind eye to sanctuary cities for breaking it is seriously out of balance and needs to have its priorities adjusted. Let’s hope that will happen in November.

See more here:
The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

Open Thread: Big Labor to Pool Resources Against ‘Right-wing Group Labor Assault’

Apparently sensing that November could spell disaster for union-friendly candidates, some of the heaviest hitters have agreed to team up.  The leaders of the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have agreed to coordinate spending millions of dollars in the midterm elections to support pro-union candidates, most of them Democrats. The two labor organizations say they have a combined $88 million or more to deploy in this year’s election cycle. It’s not clear how much of that money they will pool together. The renewed alliance between the two big labor groups comes as Democrats are battling to retain control of both houses of Congress. The AFL-CIO and SEIU plan to target elections in 26 states, all but five of which they consider battleground territory, including California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio… “It’s unclear to what extent you’re going to see the labor and other groups be able to match the right-wing group labor assault,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “I think labor’s main message will be that things have clearly begun to improve and the biggest mistake now would be to return to the failed Bush economic policies.” Putting aside for a moment Van Hollen’s ridiculous proclamations, do you think Big Labor’s cooperation will produce results?

View original post here:
Open Thread: Big Labor to Pool Resources Against ‘Right-wing Group Labor Assault’

Time Compiles ‘Best Viral Campaign Ads of 2010’, Pans Most of the Republican Entries

It was inevitable that someone with enough time on their hands would compile a list of the best viral campaign video ads of 2010 . There sure have been some doozies this year, so I can’t fault Time magazine for including hits like “Demon Sheep” and the Dale Peterson ad in their top 20 list. That said, of the 15 Republican ads in the list, most were panned by Time staffers. By contrast, two Democrats’ ads — Rep. Tom Perreillo (Va.) and  Sen. Pat Leahy (Vt.) primary opponent Dan Freilich — were panned,  yet neither candidate’s Democratic affiliation was mentioned in the blurbs about the ads. By contrast, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (S.D.), who’s presenting herself to voters as a fiscal conservative , was praised for an ad featuring her toddler son, and Time’s FeiFei Sun cheered Colorado Democratic gubernatorial nominee John Hickenlooper for his “Clean Campaign” in which he humorously promised to eschew negative campaign ads. Sun did get in a few digs at the infamous Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) , whose anti-Republican attack ad she labeled as “hyperbolic,” but she also joked that James Cameron should direct feature-length versions of his campaign ads.  By contrast, a Republican primary candidate hoping to spar against Grayson in November, Dan Fanelli, was roundly denounced by writer Katy Steinmetz for his “terrorist profiling ad”: We can’t tell if Florida congressional candidate Dan Fanelli is being serious with this ad. He opens with some pretty intense racial profiling he points to a nerdy white guy and a stacked Arab guy, and asks which one looks like a terrorist. Then he moves on to deluded narcissism. Grinning, Fanelli approaches the camera and says, “Let’s face it. If a good-looking, ripped guy without much hair was flying airplanes into the Twin Towers, I’d have no problem being pulled out of line at the airport.” Sorry, Dan; you might be as bald as Bruce Willis, but you’re lacking in just about every other department.

Read more:
Time Compiles ‘Best Viral Campaign Ads of 2010’, Pans Most of the Republican Entries

New York Times Faults Gov. Candidate Rick Lazio for Mosque Opposition, Downplays Firefighter Protests

The front page of Monday’s New York Times featured a story on how Rick Lazio, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, is gaining voter appeal from his strong opposition to the building of a mosque two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks: ” Lazio Finds an Issue in Furor Over Islamic Center .” Reporter Michael Barbaro, while conceding the popular appeal of Lazio’s opposition, managed by tone to suggest Lazio was somehow engaged in inappropriate politicking, confirmed by the story’s text box: “Commercials that appeal to some may risk the alienation of moderates.” Mr. Lazio’s relentless opposition to the project — he again attacked the imam behind it during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” — is, above all, aimed at Republican primary voters, analysts say. But it risks alienating moderates who could prove crucial in a general election. And it certainly is infuriating many Muslim leaders, who say he is preying on the worst fears of voters; and provoking a backlash from some influential voices in the community of Sept. 11 emergency workers, who say he is exploiting the tragedy. Nevertheless, Mr. Lazio is pushing ahead with the strategy, even breaking what has been, until now, something of an unwritten rule of politics in New York: never to use images of Sept. 11 in campaign advertisements. The Times drug up an incident from 10 years ago to make Lazio into some kind of anti-Muslim campaigner: This is not the first time that Mr. Lazio has thrust Islam into a political campaign. In his 2000 bid for the United States Senate, Mr. Lazio attacked his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for raising money from a Muslim group, some of whose members had defended the radical Islamic group Hamas. Mrs. Clinton eventually returned the donations. But in the waning days of the campaign, Mr. Lazio’s supporters in the State Republican Party made a telephone calls to voters that linked Mrs. Clinton’s donors to the terrorism attack on an American warship in Yemen, angering many voters, who considered the tactic over the top. Also on Monday, reporter Michael Grynbaum covered the fiery protest and counter-protest that took place Sunday near ground zero over the proposed mosque: ” Proposed Muslim Center Draws Protesters on Both Sides of the Issue .” Although a front-page photo featured firemen and hard-hat construction workers protesting the mosque, only one firefighter made it into the story, quoted three paragraphs from the end. The Times has been very supportive of the health needs of September 11 first responders like the firefighters and police and has attacked Republicans for allegedly short-changing them. Why would the Times downplay their concerns now? Instead, Grynbaum led with a flattering anecdote about a tolerance martyr attacked by an angry, red-cheeked mosque opponent. Around noon on Sunday, Michael Rose, a medical student from Brooklyn, approached some of the hundreds of protesters who had gathered near ground zero to rally against a mosque and Islamic center planned for the neighborhood. Mr. Rose, 27, carried a handwritten sign in favor of the mosque — “Religious tolerance is what makes America great,” it read — and his presence caused a stir. An argument broke out, punctuated by angry fingers pointed in the student’s face. One man, his cheeks red, leaned in and hissed that if the police were not present, Mr. Rose would be in danger. Before any threats could be carried out, the police intervened, dragged Mr. Rose away from the crowd and insisted that he return to the separate area, one block away, where supporters of the project had been asked to stand. Minutes later, as Mr. Rose was still shaking off the encounter, he turned to find the red-cheeked man back at his side. The man had followed the student up the street, and the two now stared at each other for a tense moment. Then the man stuck out a hand and, in a terse voice, said, “I’m sorry.” “You have a right,” he told Mr. Rose. (He would not give his name.) “I am sorry for what I said to you. I disagree with you completely, but you have a right.” Here’s a tidbit about firefighter opposition that was picked up by the New York Post but ignored in the Times on Monday: Opponents of the project began with a 9 a.m. motorcycle ride, led by several firefighters, to Ground Zero and then proceeded to an 11 a.m. rally around the corner from the Park Place site of the planned 13-story mosque and community center.

Read more:
New York Times Faults Gov. Candidate Rick Lazio for Mosque Opposition, Downplays Firefighter Protests

New Yorker Publishes Hit Piece Demonizing Koch Brothers for Thought Crime of Supporting Conservative Causes

The Tea Parties are driving the liberals crazy. They charged that Tea Partiers were racists but that pretty much backfired on them when they were unable to collect on the $100,000 Breitbart prize offered for any video evidence of racial epithets that were supposedly hurled at congressmen on March 20 at the Capitol. Now it seems that they have gone back to the Nancy Pelosi charge of accusing the grassroots Tea Party of being an “astroturf” organization. And who is suposedly financing them? According to a New Yorker hit piece article written by Jane Mayer , much of the money is coming from businessmen brothers, Charles and David Koch. Of course, any article complaining about businessmen contributing to conservative causes will have a big elephant in the room in the form of George Soros who pours hundreds of millions into the far left movement. And that elephant is so large that even Mayer can’t ignore it. So what to do? Why, portray Soros as saintly. So start plucking your harps as you read the hilarious money quote Mayer employs to explain away this hypocritical matter by presenting the “benevolent” Soros floating upon his heavenly cloud: Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.” A big tell as to where Mayer is coming from is presented at the get go in a photo caption that states: “David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes .” Much of the information for Mayer’s article comes from the “non-partisan” group, Center for Public Integrity. And how do we know it is non-partisan? Because Jane Mayer says so. Unfortunately for Mayers’ assertion, even a most basic Web search reveals Center for Public Integrity to be a left-wing group which is funded by the aforementioned George Soros. What is most laughable about the charge by Mayer about the Tea Party movement being funded by the Koch brothers is that there is really nothing much to fund. It takes almost no money to hold Tea Party rallies. How much has to be spent to post on Facebook that there will be a Tea Party rally taking place in, say, Sunrise, Florida at the northeast corner of University and Oakland Park Blvd. on a certain date? Pretty much the only costs consists of minor gas fare to get there and small expenditures on signs and flags paid by the participants themselves. No big league funding necessary but that hasn’t stopped Mayer from making the ridiculous charge of big money being poured into the Tea Party movement.  Other charges made by the transparently devious Mayer are that the Koch brothers don’t (EEK!) blindly buy into the Global Warming mythology. Bottom line is that all the Koch Brothers are really “guilty” of is that they support conservative (along with vast charitable) causes. In an alternative universe where those brothers were supporting liberal causes there would be no Jane Mayer hit piece on them. 

More:
New Yorker Publishes Hit Piece Demonizing Koch Brothers for Thought Crime of Supporting Conservative Causes