Tag Archives: democratic

CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In a report on Friday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent John Blackstone described the fallout of a decision by California Judge Vaughn Walker to lift his stay on gay marriages after overturning Proposition 8: “Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day.” A headline on screen declared: “Save the Date.”   Blackstone explained how gay couples were still upset that the stay would not be lifted until August 18: “Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet….Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.” Finally taking note of critics of the initial Proposition 8 ruling and the lifting of the stay, Blackstone remarked: “The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue.” The only sound bite of a critic was that of Maggie Gallagher from the National Organization for Marriage: “The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010.” Blackstone then concluded his report this way: “Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week.” He made no mention of the majority of Californians also being opposed. Following Blackstone’s report, co-host Harry Smith spoke with liberal George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley about the issue. While Turley described the judge’s decision as “very controversial,” he also made sure to tell viewers where he stood: “I actually support same-sex marriage.” Smith was puzzled by the delay in allowing gay marriage: “Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’?” Turley replied: “Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing….This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.” Later, Turley assured his fellow gay marriage supporters that allowing Judge Walker’s decision to be appealed would “add legitimacy to his opinion.”                              Here is a full transcript of the August 13 segment: 7:00AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Save the date. A California judge says same-sex couples will have to wait one more week to get married, allowing for an appeal to move forward. We’ll tell you why this could end up going all the way to the Supreme Court.         7:01AM SEGMENT HARRY SMITH: We begin with the court room battle over California’s same-sex marriage ban, the federal judge that threw that ban out now says that same-sex weddings can be held next week, unless higher courts get involved. CBS News correspondent John Blackstone has the story. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Save the Date; Judge Delays Same-Sex Weddings to Allow Appeal] JOHN BLACKSTONE: Inside San Francisco City Hall dozens of same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses, anticipating their wedding day. Outside, a crowd gathered. The judge, who last week ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, said he is lifting the stay he placed on that decision. Same-sex marriage in California has been on a roller coaster, sometimes legal, sometimes not. Despite a celebration here, these advocates know this may be just a temporary opening. And it turned out it wasn’t opened yet. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The good news is the stay is lifted. The bad news is the judge has said it’s lifted next Wednesday. CROWD: Aww. BLACKSTONE: Among the disappointed couples was one of those who filed the lawsuit challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. JEFF ZARRILLO: We’re hopeful that we will be able to get married and we’ll be able to announce wedding plans as soon as possible. BLACKSTONE: The delay gives opponents time to appeal and a political issue. MAGGIE GALLAGHER [NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE]: The extreme nature of this decision is, in fact, going to impact the elections in 2010. BLACKSTONE: Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but in California, where there were 18,000 such marriages two years ago, plenty of wedding plans are now being made for next week. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco. SMITH: And joining us now from Washington is George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. Good morning, sir. JONATHAN TURLEY: Hi, Harry. SMITH: Why would the judge leave – well, open the window and then say, ‘okay, we’re going to close the window until next Wednesday’? TURLEY: Well, he’s actually doing a very standard and responsible thing. What he’s doing is he’s giving the court of appeals a short period of time to review his decision and decide whether they want to impose a stay. Most federal judges will do that. In fact, if he didn’t do that, it’d be viewed as a little bit odd, if not aggressive towards the court of appeals. What he’s saying is, ‘look, I’m one judge. This is a controversial decision. And for the people on the other side of this debate, they should be entitled to make their argument to the court of appeals.’ SMITH: So what is the likelihood, then, a court of appeals would get involved in this by Wednesday? TURLEY: Well, they’re going to have to. I mean, they’re going to have to take a look at whether they want to impose a stay. And’s it’s going to be tempting for some of those judges. You know, this did overturn a majority of people who voted on the proposition. It’s a very controversial decision. Some judges might be inclined to say, ‘You know what? Let’s go ahead and stay this until other judges have looked at it.’ But what Judge Walker said in this opinion was I don’t see the irreparable harm being done to people by allowing people to get married. SMITH: Right. TURLEY: And he gave a very strong opinion saying, I don’t think this should be stayed by the Ninth Circuit. SMITH: If you are a proponent of same-sex marriage, how should you interpret this? TURLEY: I would encourage my friends on that side – and I actually support same-sex marriage – but I would encourage people on the side of same-sex marriage to understand that they benefit, in some regards, with – from Judge Walker’s move. He’s going to add legitimacy to his opinion. It’s not going to be just one judge. It’s important for this to be reviewed, to satisfy all parties that it’s not just one judge making his own decision, but that it’s going to be other judges making independent decisions of their own. SMITH: Right. Since this thing came down people have said this is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Do you agree? TURLEY: Well, you know, as you know, you’ve been around a long time, it’s dangerous to predict when the court will accept something. They have actually avoided the same-sex marriage issue in the past, but if any case has a chance, it would be this one. By my count, there seems to be four justices on both sides of this issue, if you’re going to make an early prediction. And as usual, Justice Kennedy’s right in the middle. But Kennedy has been very sympathetic towards gay rights in the past. So, it would be a very interesting issue to go before this court at this time. SMITH: Jonathan Turley, we sure do appreciate your expertise this morning. Thank you very much. TURLEY: Thanks, Harry. SMITH: Alright, you bet.

More:
CBS ‘Early Show’: Nearly Five Minutes on Gay Marriage Ruling, One Sentence to Critics

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Of 351 Reports on Outrageous Bell, Calif. Salaries, Only One Mentions Employees Are Democrats

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In late July, NB Contributing Editor Tom Blumer busted the Associated Press for neglecting to mention the party affiliations of scandal-plagued officials in Bell, California. The AP piece was one of hundreds of reports on the scandal. Of those hundreds, one solitary report mentioned party labels for the five officials. Can you guess which party they belong to? I’ll bet you can. The only news outlet that mentioned the officials were Democrats was the Orange County Register. And even that paper noted the absence of party labels only in response to reader complaints. “Our readers noticed one part of the story has been left out by virtually all media sources,” the paper’s editorial board wrote. “All five council members are members of the Democratic Party.” The most prominent of the officials in question, former Bell city manager Robert Rizzo, resigned after it came to light that he was making $1.5 million per year – in a town with a per capita income languishing at about half the national average. Ann Coulter noticed the amazing absence of party labels in virtually any news coverage of the scandal. She called this blatant instance of media bias “the greatest party-affiliation cover-up since the media tried to portray Gary Condit as a Republican.” According to my own Nexis search, there have been 351 stories run by newspapers, wire services, and television news outlets. Though 350 of those 351 stories neglected to mention Rizzo’s party, many went out of their way to label California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who’s also running for governor, a Democrat. Forty-one stories mentioned Brown’s party affiliation, but not Rizzo’s. Brown is investigating the lavish salaries in Bell, and his tough talk has made for some good populist campaign soundbites. Journalists have been more than happy to call him a Democrat, while leaving Rizzo and his colleagues’ party affiliations unmentioned. Only the noble, populist warriors are Democrats. The reprobate, quasi-corrupt city managers of a destitute neighborhood in Los Angeles have no party affiliation. In the fantasy realm of politically-neutral media, the Democrat label would be played up by the media, for reasons that Ace explains : When a Republican is caught in a sex scandal, his party affiliation is extremely relevant because the Republican Party stands broadly for family values and sexual restraint, so party affiliation is very relevant, as it shows hypocrisy, that is, it tends to undermine the public image of the party…. Now, what happens when a Republican is caught in a money scandal? Well, that’s not really hypocrisy, really, as Republicans have the reputation of being into dirty filthy money. But in that case — in the case of a money scandal — the media says noting the Republican’s affiliation is relevant because it reinforces widely-held public opinion about the party… If the Republican Party is supposedly money-grubbing and only cares about big business and corporate interest, then the Democratic party is, supposedly, the party that cares about the little guy, that stands stubbornly against monied interests in favor of Joe Six Pack. Is it not the case, therefore, that if hypocrisy dictates that party affiliation is intensely relevant as regards a sex scandal involving a Republican, then hypocrisy should dictate that in a scandal involving a Democrat taking money from big business that the Democrat’s party affiliation should be similarly intensely relevant? And yet, the media continues to report such stories without granting party labels to the villains. But the hero in the MSM narrative – AG Brown – earns a party label, as he upholds the “Democrat-as-friend of the little guy” narrative. By shifting the focus of party label onto him, the media avoid the hypocrisy angle Ace elaborates, and can go on neglecting to give party label to Rizzo and his cohorts. It’s all very circular. In fairness, it is true that candidates for city board in Los Angeles do not list their party affiliations on the ballot. But does that absolve news outlets from doing a bit of, you know, reporting? Even the OC Register, which noted the lack of party labels in the course of a lukewarm defense of its own sins, claimed: On balance, though, party affiliations of elected officials should be noted and easily accessible so voters can make informed decisions about who they elect to public office. Voter registration is public information, but it currently is somewhat difficult to obtain – you need to contact a county’s registrar of voters in person or by phone and provide a full name and city. That brings us to Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, who was quick yesterday to make political hay out of the Bell scandal, declaring he was starting an investigation. He was identified in most news stories as a Democrat. Does that make him a white hat while the Bell officials, whose party affiliations were unreported, become the black hats – from another party? Readers should know both.

Continued here:
Of 351 Reports on Outrageous Bell, Calif. Salaries, Only One Mentions Employees Are Democrats

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

FNC Notices Americans More Positive Toward Tea Party Than Toward Pelosi or Reid

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In FNC’s “Grapevine” segment Thursday night, Shannon Bream highlighted a finding in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which NBC’s Chuck Todd failed to point out in emphasizing the public’s disgust with Democrats, Republicans and the Tea Party. Bream observed:  A new poll suggests Americans have more positive feelings for the Tea Party movement than for either of the Democratic leaders in Congress. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey finds 30 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement, compared to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 21 percent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 11 percent. The evening before, on Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News, Todd declared: “It’s an unhappy America” where “the Democrats hit a record high in their negative rating – 44 percent” while “the Republicans are doing even worse – 46 percent of the country has a negative view of the Republican Party” and “even the Tea Party – which has actually enjoyed a little bit of a renaissance over the last six months – 34 percent now have a negative view. Just 30 percent have a positive view.” The next morning (Thursday) on the Today show, Todd repeated: “Democrats hit an all-new high in their negative rating. Republicans have even a higher negative rating. The Tea Party, which had enjoyed a positive rating for awhile, now they have a negative rating.” More in Geoffrey Dickens’ post: “ NBC’s Todd Proclaims If GOP Wins in November It’s Still ‘A Bad Election Night for All of Washington .” More of Todd’s poll summary on the August 11 NBC Nightly News, transcript provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth for Todd’s look at evaluations of the parties: CHUCK TODD: It’s an unhappy America. Look, they don’t like the Democrats. The Democrats hit a record high in their negative rating – 44 percent. Just 33 percent have a positive rating on them. The Republicans are doing even worse – 46 percent of the country has a negative view of the Republican Party; 24 percent has a positive view. Even the Tea Party – which has actually enjoyed a little bit of a renaissance over the last six months – 34 percent now have a negative view. Just 30 percent have a positive view. What does this mean for the fall campaign? Right now, voters are sort of in a hold-your-nose moment. They’re sort of split decision – 43 percent want Democrats to keep control; 42 percent want Republicans to take control. But, among voters who have the highest interest in the November elections, this is where Republicans have a potential big advantage – 50 percent of high-interest voters want Republicans to take control of Congress, and just 39 percent would like to see the Democrats keep control. But, again, it’s an unhappy America. And this election, right now, could turn out being a hold-your-nose election when you go into that ballot box. Bream’s “Grapevine” item on the August 12 Special Report with Bret Baier where she was filling in for Baier: A new poll suggests Americans have more positive feelings for the Tea Party movement than for either of the Democratic leaders in Congress. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey finds 30 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement, compared to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 21 percent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s 11 percent. 33 percent of those surveyed have had a positive attitude toward the Democratic Party compared to just 24 percent for Republicans. Congress’ overall job score even worse: 21 percent approved compared to a whopping 72 percent who disapprove.

Originally posted here:
FNC Notices Americans More Positive Toward Tea Party Than Toward Pelosi or Reid

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Civil War’ Apparently Only a Problem for GOP Squabbling

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

There’s a phrase that has been conspicuously absent the media’s coverage of the recent flap between White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and those he dubbed the “professional left”: civil war. In contrast, media coverage of Republican infighting consistently pushes the term. Gibbs is under fire from the left for sharply criticizing liberal critics of President Obama saying that “they need to be drug-tested” and “will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.” His comments have drawn heated criticism from the left. Democratic firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson, Fla., wants “Bozo the Spokesman” fired . Prominent activist and blogger Jane Hamsher claimed Obama is “having trouble across the board” with liberals. Lefties at the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground were frantic. Yet almost no “civil war” labels from the media, in contrast to coverage of other instances of intra-party squabbling. The ouster of Dede Scozzafava in the special election in New York’s 23rd District earned the “civil war” label 23 times from major media players, according to a Nexis search. The GOP “civil war” was invariably painted as a “Stalinist” (to use Frank Rich’s term) purge of moderates from the party in favor of more conservative, Tea Party-backed candidates. Of course all it was was run-of-the-mill intra-party politics. There was no purge – it was just Republican voters choosing the more conservative candidate in a year when conservatives’ electoral prospects seem bright. Or, as liberal Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman put it, “I`ve been a little skeptical of this Republican ‘civil war’ story. I mean, all major parties have conflicts and fissures within them.” Don’t tell that to Rich. Or George Stephanopoulos, Wolf Blitzer Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Donna Brazile, Roland Martin, David Gergen, or John King. They all labeled Scozzafava’s ouster a sign of a Republican “civil war”. Of course none of these A-list media personalities have used the term in reference to the battle currently ongoing between the White House and the Democratic base. And this is a fight that is not part of the squabbling that takes place whenever two candidates of the same party vie for a nomination. Gibbs’s comments represent an ideological chasm between the governing left and the liberal commentariat. The latter believe that the White House has elevated pragmatism above principle, while the White HOuse believes its far-left critics are too divorced from political reality. That is a more meaningful split than political differences among two candidates for office. Consider what Congressman Grayson had to say about Gibbs: No, I don’t think he should resign. I think he should be fired. He’s done a miserable job. People I know, refer to him as Bozo the Spokesman. He’s not conveying the value of the President’s strategies, or his plans or his programs. He’s doing a miserable job, it’s that simple. He’s so far in over his head he’d have to reach up to touch his shoes…. If I wanted Fox talking points I’d change the channel to Fox, not listen to the White House. He needs to get his head on straight and do his job… He’s doing a miserable job because his heart isn’t in it. He belongs on Fox. Not as the White House spokesman. The folks at major liberal blogs were more than a bit upset as well. Consider this excerpt from far-left blogger Glenn Greenwald: You may think that the reason you’re dissatisfied with the Obama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies: that they’ve done so little about crisis-level unemployment, foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White House’s apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because the President has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he’s failed to fulfill — or affirmatively broken — promises ranging from transparency to gay rights. But Robert Gibbs — in one of the most petulant, self-pitying outbursts seen from a top political official in recent memory, half derived from a paranoid Richard Nixon rant and the other half from a Sean Hannity/Sarah Palin caricature of The Far Left — is here to tell you that the real reason you’re dissatisfied with the President is because you’re a fringe, ideological, Leftist extremist ingrate who needs drug counseling. Or this entry from Daily Kos’s Jesse LaGreca AKA MinistryofTruth: Turns out calling me “F$#^ing retarded” or “On Drugs” doesn’t make me FIRED UP, it makes me think you think I’m an asshole, and that doesn’t exactly win my vote, now does it?… The fact is, Mr. Gibbs, If you’re trying to convince us NOT TO VOTE FOR YOU in 2010 or 2012, Mission Accomplished! And if not, and you are this inept at messaging, maybe it’s time you stepped down from your post, Mr. Gibbs. Or these comments from deranged users at the Democratic Underground: they absolutely never learn and this should tell you the temperature of the white house, the ease with which they say things like this. Obama is no liberal, no leftie, he has contempt for us to allow this culture of thought to exist. and what a masterstroke of timing, to say something like this to an already apparently tepid base before elections. bravo, you b*st*rds. *you* should be drug tested. the folks that helped get them elected, they want to insult. Two words come to mind one starts with an “F” and the next one starts with a “Y”. Dump Gibbs and bring back Van Jones There is clearly a battle going in inside the Democratic Party between pragmatists and ideologues. But despite the relatively high level of media coverage if Gibbs’s events, the apocalyptic “civil war” rhetoric the media touted so often with regard to Republican infighting is noticeably absent. Yet again, the media are avoiding proclaiming dire straits for Democrats, despite deep divisions within that party.

More here:
‘Civil War’ Apparently Only a Problem for GOP Squabbling

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

ABC and NBC Refuse to Identify Corrupt Rostenkowski as a Democrat

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Dan Rostenkowski (?-Ill), 1928-2010. Reporting the passing of Dan Rostenkowski, the ABC and NBC anchors on Wednesday night managed to gently note his ignominious departure from public life while also including a humanizing anecdote about his life (NBC: He “went back to live in the same house he grew up in in Chicago’s north side,” ABC: “In 1985, he famously asked Americans fed up with the tax system to write him”), but neither identified him as a Democrat. Nor did any on-screen graphic mark his party. In contrast, filling in as anchor of the CBS Evening News, Erica Hill managed to accurately describe the late Congressman as “a product of Chicago’s Democratic political machine.” Handling the anchor duties on ABC’s World News, George Stephanopoulos, a Democratic House staff member when Rostenkowski was at the zenith of his power, announced: We have a high profile political death to note tonight. Dan Rostenkowski was steeped in Chicago politics from the start. Elected to Congress at the age of 30, he served there 36 years, 13 of them as Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee before a scandal that saw him serve time on fraud charges. In 1985, he famously asked Americans fed up with the tax system to write him. Viewers than saw a clip of Rostenkowski: “Even if you can’t spell Rostenkowski, put down what they used to call my father and grandfather, Rosty. Just address it to R-O-S-T-Y, Washington, DC.” Stephanopoulos finished: “Dan Rostenkowski was 82.” Over on the NBC Nightly News, fill-in anchor Ann Curry read this short item: Dan Rostenkowski, once one of the most powerful lawmakers in Washington, died today. He rose to become Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, but ended up at the center of the House Post Office scandal and was voted out of office in 1994. He spent 15 months in prison, then went back to live in the same house he grew up in in Chicago’s north side. Dan Rostenkowski was 82 years old. The Washington press corps had affection for Rostenkowski and his liberal policies. Here are representative flashbacks to three articles in the MRC’s MediaWatch newsletter: From the June 1994 MediaWatch : Rostenkowski’s Free Ride Media Mourn 17-Count Indictment as Tragedy for the Country Some reporters treated House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski’s 17-count indictment on embezzlement and jury tampering not as an outrage, but as a tragedy. On NBC’s Today May 25, Tim Russert declared: “It’s sad. It’s not something people are gloating over because the fact is, Bryant, Congressman Rostenkowski came here as a political hack from Chicago and turned into a very formidable national legislator.” NBC reporter Lisa Myers added: “It’s a big loss for the President, it’s a big loss for the Congress, and I think it’s a big loss for the country.” On ABC’s Good Morning America the next day, co-host Charles Gibson pleaded the chairman’s case: “What’s involved here is perhaps, what, some $50,000 in stamps and some phantom jobs for friends?…. Here, though, is a guy who passes bills or is shepherding bills worth billions of dollars risking his career for small amounts, or you think, amounts significant enough that there’s real corruption here?” Despite the unfolding of the House Post Office scandal since early 1992 and an ongoing Justice Department investigation of Rostenkowski, reporters have failed to ask him about it. CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer interviewed him twice in 1993. On February 7, he asked only one question: “Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss if I did not ask you… you’ve been investigated by a U.S. Attorney now for I don’t know how many months, can you tell us if you’ve been given any indication if that is about to conclude?” On May 16, he asked nothing about it. Today’s Bryant Gumbel interviewed Rosty twice in 1993, May 17 and August 15. He also asked nothing about the investigation. On the day after Rosty won a primary election in March of this year, Gumbel asked only about the campaign and nothing about the charges. On June 27, 1993, Rostenkowski appeared on Meet the Press, but no one asked about his ethics. The only NBC exception came on the September 28, 1993 Today, when Stone Phillips asked: “You have had your own legal troubles of late, subject of an investigation into the House Post Office scandal. How much of a distraction is that for you and how much will it continue to be?” On May 18, 12 days after the news leaked that prosecutors planned to indict Rostenkowski, Tom Brokaw interviewed him on the NBC Nightly News but failed to ask anything about it. In the more than two years before the indictment leak, the Big Three networks aired only 22 stories on Rostenkowski’s possible crimes. In the first two months of 1988, the Big Three networks did 26 stories on Ed Meese’s connection to an Iraqi pipeline deal. Meese was never indicted. From the August 1995 MediaWatch : A Tale of Two Schieffers Worrying About Rosty, Not Newt On February 7, 1993, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation. A very apologetic Bob Schieffer waited until the end of the interview to slip in a tepid question about an ongoing ethics investigation: “I’d be remiss if I did not ask you, your office has been investigated, you’ve been investigated by a U.S. Attorney now for I don’t know how many months. Can you tell us if you’ve been given any indication if that is about to conclude and do you feel in any way if that’s going to impede your authority to work on these economic problems?” On the July 9, 1995 Face the Nation, Schieffer and U.S. News & World Report Senior Writer Gloria Borger fired four questions at Speaker Newt Gingrich about his ethics. This year Schieffer lacked the “when can we get on with business” tone. While he was concerned that a long investigation into Rostenkowski may have impeded his authority, with Gingrich it smelled of a cover-up: “Maybe this sounds as an odd question, but, you know, until the ethics committee announced on Friday that they were indeed going to call you and Rupert Murdoch, there had been charges, most of them from Democrats, that the whole thing was being, been dragged out. That the ethics committee had taken no testimony under oath, that they had subpoenaed no documents. Eric Engberg of CBS had reported that they hadn’t even gotten a briefing from any relevant agencies. Do you think the ethics committee has been dragging its feet on this? And would you like to tell them to speed up to at least clear up all of this?”      From the May 1996 MediaWatch : Rosty Dearest On April 9, former Illinois Congressman and Ways and Means Committee boss Dan Rostenkowski pled guilty to two felony counts of corruption while in Congress. The night of and morning after the plea, the Big Three networks read anchor-briefs on his conviction. Time, U.S. News and World Report, and Newsweek also kept the conviction to tiny one- or two-paragraph blurbs in their April 22 editions (although  Newsweek broke the plea story the week before). ABC’s Cokie Roberts was the only network reporter to address the story. On the April 14 This Week, Roberts hurled a softball to Rosty about his good intentions. She recalled that in 1992 she asked him, “‘Why are you running for re-election when you could just go home and have this money.’ You said ‘I want to get healthcare done, I want to hang that scalp on my wall.’ Here it is four years later, you’ve spent $2 million in legal fees, you’re about to go to jail and health care isn’t done. What are you feeling?”

Follow this link:
ABC and NBC Refuse to Identify Corrupt Rostenkowski as a Democrat

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Scarborough to Rep. Weiner on 9/11 Responders Controversy: ‘You’re Not Going to Demagogue This Issue!’

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Love him or hate him as a “conservative,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough just showed he hasn’t been completely brainwashed at his network. On his Aug. 11 program, Scarborough demonstrated just how thin the veil is over the parlor tricks going on with in the U.S. House of Representatives controlled by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi. At the center of this was the back-and-forth between Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., over Sept. 11 responders compensation legislation. Their disagreement has been well documented dating back to Weiner’s late-July outburst on the House floor accusing House Republicans of playing politics with this legislation. The two had one more dust-up on Fox News a day later , but since then it has been a he-said, he-said situation. Weiner alleges this was a non-controversial bill that should have been passed easily with a two-thirds vote. King argues the Democratic House leadership could have offered it up and it would have passed with a simple majority. But there were some issues with offering the bill up under normal House procedure with the Hispanic Caucus. Video and Partial Transcript Below Fold According to MSNBC congressional correspondent Luke Russert, it was Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., who said the Hispanic Caucus would walk away from the legislation if Republicans were allowed to offer amendments, which would force an up-or-down vote on whether or not illegal immigrants would be eligible for these benefits. Highlight starts about five minutes into the clip below. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy “Nydia Velázquez of New York echoed her thoughts to the leadership according to my sources that the Latino Caucus, Hispanic Caucus would walk if this motion, if this language was not in the original bill,” Russert explained. “Thus, in the motion to recommit the Republicans would bring up the illegal immigration language, it would have forced a lot of Blue Dog Democrats, a lot of moderates to have to take a very difficult immigration vote.” After Russert offered his explanation, the debate deteriorated between Scarborough and Weiner: WEINER: Do you have any idea hoe mind-numbingly tedious this sounds to most Americans? SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no – you’re not going to demagogue this issue. You demagogued it before. The fact of the matter is this – WEINER: Dial it down, buddy. SCARBOROUGH: Whoa, Anthony Weiner is telling me to relax. WEINER: Just relax, joe. SCARBOROUGH: No, because you know you are nailed. You came on my show and demagogued.

Read the rest here:
Scarborough to Rep. Weiner on 9/11 Responders Controversy: ‘You’re Not Going to Demagogue This Issue!’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

CBS: Charlie Rangel Made ‘Emotional and Raw Defense’ on House Floor

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In a sympathetic story devoid of critics on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Wyatt Andrews described Congressman Charles Rangel’s rant over being charged with numerous ethics violations this way: “In an emotional and raw defense against 13 ethics charges, Charles Rangel mixed small doses of contrition…into a speech of political defiance.” Andrews’s report featured only sound bites of Rangel’s speech that afternoon on the House floor, no critics of the New York Congressman from either party were included. Andrews did explain that Rangel was in “serious trouble” and detailed the charges: “Rangel is charged with not reporting his income on a beach villa in the Dominican Republic, his taxable gains on a condo in Florida. Not reporting several large investment accounts and with raising money for his Rangel Center at the City College in New York from dozens of companies needing favors from his committee.” Continuing to report on Rangel’s bombastic address, Andrews observed: “…this was real-world drama. A man who had clawed his way to the peak of political power now shocked to find himself deserted by so many friends.” Andrews concluded: “Many Democrats…hoped that Rangel would actually take one for the team and quit before his ethics problem became their election issue. But Rangel called that kind of thinking unfair to him and even asked at one point in his speech, ‘what about me?'” Here is a full transcript of the August 10 segment: 6:34PM ET KATIE COURIC: Now to another 40-year veteran of Capitol Hill, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York forced out as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and now facing a House ethics trial and possible expulsion. Wyatt Andrews tells us Rangel took to the floor of the House today to defend himself. CHARLES RANGEL: Are you going to expel me from this body? WYATT ANDREWS: In an emotional and raw defense against 13 ethics charges, Charles Rangel mixed small doses of contrition- RANGEL: I apologize for any embarrassment that I’ve caused. ANDREWS: -into a speech of political defiance. RANGEL: Fire your best shot in getting rid of me. ANDREWS: And to any Democrat, starting with the President, who hoped that Rangel would resign to avoid an embarrassing ethics trial just before the election: RANGEL: Don’t leave me swinging in the wind until November. I deserve and demand the right to be heard. ANDREWS: Rangel said he wants a trial and isn’t going anywhere. RANGEL: Hey, if I was you, I may want me to go away, too. I am not going away! I am here! ANDREWS: But he is also in serious trouble. Rangel is charged with not reporting his income on a beach villa in the Dominican Republic, his taxable gains on a condo in Florida. Not reporting several large investment accounts and with raising money for his Rangel Center at the City College in New York from dozens of companies needing favors from his committee. RANGEL: I apologize. ANDREWS: Despite his apology for breaking House rules, he minimized most of the charges as technical. RANGEL: There has to be a penalty for grabbing the wrong stationery. ANDREWS: But not criminal. RANGEL: It may be stupid, it may be negligent, but it’s not corrupt. ANDREWS: On the House floor itself, this was real-world drama. A man who had clawed his way to the peak of political power now shocked to find himself deserted by so many friends. RANGEL: But for God’s sake, just don’t believe that I don’t have feelings, that I don’t have pride. ANDREWS: Many Democrats who are facing tough reelection campaigns thought that – hoped that Rangel would actually take one for the team and quit before his ethics problem became their election issue. But Rangel called that kind of thinking unfair to him and even asked at one point in his speech, ‘what about me?’ Katie. COURIC: Wyatt Andrews on Capitol Hill. Wyatt, thank you.

See original here:
CBS: Charlie Rangel Made ‘Emotional and Raw Defense’ on House Floor

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During a discussion of the upcoming midterm elections on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill asked Republican strategist Kevin Madden: “…when you look at this from the Republican perspective… there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right…is this race Republicans to lose, and if so, what do they have to do to hold on to it?” Hill picked up the “extreme right” label from her other guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, who had just ranted: “I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is….what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off.” Madden responded to Hill by pointing to the left-wing agenda of the Democrats: “…independent voters…they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda….it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda.” Instead of challenging Acker on the Democrats “very left of center agenda,” Hill gently wondered: “What about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing?” Acker reasserted her previous point: “…the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.” Hill moved on, pressing Madden on Republican policy proposals: “Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President…that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas….are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough?” Madden replied: “…the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives….we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction.” Here is a full transcript of the August 9 discussion: 7:08AM ET ERICA HILL: Joining us now is Republican strategist Kevin Madden, also in Washington this morning, and from Los Angeles, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker. We’re going to get a closer look at what both sides need to do in these upcoming elections from the both of you this morning. Tanya, I want to start with you. as we just heard this two-point message here, don’t go back and things would be even worse were the Democrats not in charge. Is that enough for voters at this point or does there need to be a little alteration, perhaps, of the message? TANYA ACKER: Well, I think the Democrats have to focus on getting that message out very clearly in the first instance. Because look, I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is. I mean, you’re talking about candidates who want to do things like take the country back to a time before Social Security, who want to really overturn a lot of the things that – reforms that the country’s really behind. So I think the Repub – what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off. HILL: Kevin, when you – when you look at this from the Republican perspective- KEVIN MADDEN: Mm-Hm. HILL: -there are some of those messages, there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right, as Tanya mentioned, but essentially is this – is this race Republicans to lose and if so what do they have to do to hold on to it? MADDEN: Well, look, to Tanya’s point and to your question, I think that this race is really going to be won – I think this – these elections, these midterm elections are really going to be decided in the middle. And right now those independent voters that were a big part of the Democrats’ successful coalition by – of winning in 2008, they’ve abandoned the – the White House, and they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda. So I think where Republicans feel we have an opportunity is talking to those voters and persuading them that the Democrats have taken the country in the wrong direction. The country’s on the wrong track. That we’re spending too much money, deficits are going too high, and that we can do a better job. And right now we – we have to go out there and talk about a proactive agenda, but it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda. HILL: It’s interesting because in some ways it sounds like 2008 all over again. You talk about the moderates, there was so much talk about moderates and independents, of course, during the 2008 elections, which worked out well for the Democrats, Tanya. This time around, I know you said they need to alter the message perhaps a little bit, but what about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing? ACKER: I think that right now – I mean, look we’re seeing that the President is not – is having some troubles in the polls. He’s certainly polling lower than he has at any time during his presidency, and which is not unusual for any President at this point in his term. But I think that where we’re really seeing President Obama be effective is in – is in fundraising. And in order for Democrats to get the message out there, there’s no question that they’re going to need a lot of money. Because again, as Kevin pointed out, and as you pointed out, the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.                  HILL: Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President in Bill’s package, that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas. I know that you – you disagree with that. MADDEN: I disagree with that, yes. HILL: But are they presenting – are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough? MADDEN: Yes, I – I do believe so. Look, when John Boehner handed the – the gavel to Nancy Pelosi in 2008, he said – 2006 – he said, look, we are going to be an opposition party but we are going to disagree with you on substance. And if you look at the health care debate, you look at the stimulus debate. Republicans presented the American public alternatives. They presented a vision for what they would do, where they would take the country in a different direction. And I think in large part that’s going to be where you can win in the arguments in 2010. Is that we can say, look, the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives. The entire – during this entire debate, that said we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction. HILL: Well, everyone will be trying to get their messages out, especially as we ramp up with three months to go. Tanya Acker, Kevin Madden, always good to have your insight with us. MADDEN: Great to be with you. ACKER: Good to see you. CHRIS WRAGGE: Safe to say it’s going to be an interesting November. HILL: I think we can say that, yes.

Read the original here:
CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boy Scouts Boo Obama! Freedom of Expression? Definately… Disrespectful? Maybe…But with the Effervescence of Amusement

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Rather than attend the Boy Scout Jamboree, marking the organization’s 100th anniversary, President Obama broke with tradition and opted for an appearance on ABC’s The View, as well as to serve as the headline attraction at several Democratic fundraisers. Obama, instead, sent a taped video message to the Scouts, which was not well received. In a Rick Santelli moment, one person can be heard yelling at Obama’s image: “I hope you're watching this!” Read my previous article on Obama’s historic snub to the Boy Scouts: http://www.examiner.com/x-21818-Virginia-Beach-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d28-… Watch the video below as the snubbed Scouts let Obama know how they feel… http://www.examiner.com/x-21818-Virginia-Beach-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m8d8-W… added by: congoboy

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Special NB Bonus: Notable Quotables that Couldn’t Fit Into the Regular August 9 Edition

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Too much bias, not enough space. Collecting quotes for the latest edition of MRC’s bi-weekly Notable Quotables , I found more outrageous liberal eruptions than could fit into the normal newsletter. So, just for NewsBusters readers, here are a dozen worthy quotes that just couldn’t squeeze into the regular issue: ■ Confusing Tired Liberal Cliches with Economic Strategy “Let’s let the entire slew of Bush tax cuts retire. That would take us back to Clinton-era rates, when the American economy had its strongest growth years in three decades and the budget was balanced for the first time in four decades. If the economy still needs a bit more stimulus, fine, extend unemployment benefits for another year. Give some aid to the states. Those are temporary measures, and the money will get spent. Unemployment benefits work because they go to people who are living from paycheck to paycheck. They spend the money….This massive change actually requires that Congress do nothing. Let the tax cuts expire. A do-nothing Congress will have done something truly important for the country’s future.” — Newsweek international editor Fareed Zakaria hosting CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS , August 1. ■ Fox News: “Whipping Up White Hysteria” “Also for weeks Fox News and its friends have been whipping up white hysteria over allegations that members of the New Black Panther Party, two of them, intimidated voters in Philadelphia two years ago. The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to investigate the case and now all seven Senate Republicans on the U.S. Judiciary committee of the Senate want the Justice Department investigated itself. Is this yet another example of a rightist strategy to stir up racial resentment among whites by portraying whites as victims of black rule in this country?” — MSNBC host Chris Matthews on Hardball , July 27. ■ Ann Hits Joe from the Left: “How Long Can We Pay for This War?” “The House on Tuesday night agreed to fund a surge in Afghanistan — $33 billion for 30,000 additional troops. But, boy, was there some reluctance. We’ve got Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern saying, quote, ‘We’re told we can’t extend unemployment or pay to keep cops on the beat or teachers in the classroom but we’re asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation building in Afghanistan. I think we need to do more nation building here at home.’ How long can we keep paying for this war?” — NBC’s Ann Curry to Vice President Joe Biden on Today , July 29. ■ Don’t Confuse Us MSNBCers With “Journalists With an Agenda” “I am offended the right is using this as a sledgehammer against those of us who don’t practice activist journalism. Journolist was pretty offensive. Those of us who are mainstream journalists got mixed in with journalists with an agenda. Those folks who thought they were improving journalism are destroying the credibility of journalism. This has kept me up nights. I try to be fair. It’s very depressing.” — NBC White House correspondent and MSNBC daytime host Chuck Todd, as quoted by The Politico ’s Roger Simon in a July 28 article . ■ Andrew Breitbart: Just a “Smash-Mouth” “Smear Artist” “Andrew Breitbart was not an unknown. He is a notorious smear artist and practitioner of what’s sometimes called smash-mouth politics. And they [the Obama White House] should’ve realized that any kind of allegation that he made needed to be checked out very carefully before anybody acted upon it.” — Newsweek ’s Jonathan Alter on NPR’s All Things Considered , July 21. ■ Democratic Corruption or Ethics Committee Racism? “Are the ethics police on the Hill color-blind? If so, just how do you explain what’s happening to the Congressional Black Caucus? The latest on the [Charles] Rangel and Maxine Waters investigations….” “Coming up here, are black lawmakers being singled out by the ethics watchdogs on Capitol Hill? New charges of racial bias….” — NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell teasing an upcoming segment on her 1pm ET MSNBC A ndrea Mitchell Reports , August 2. “Some are openly questioning why two high profile African-American House members are coming under such tough scrutiny…..[to Al Sharpton] Do you think that black members are being targeted unfairly by the ethics committee?” — CNN anchor Don Lemon on the 6pm ET Newsroom , August 1. ■ “One Brave Soldier” vs. Obama’s Nazi-esque “War Machine” Host Larry King: “What’s your reaction to the WikiLeaks, the Afghan War documents?” Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore: “I think that we have this war machine that was built on a lie a number of years ago — incredible lies — that have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars. And one brave soldier by the name of Bradley Manning decided that the truth had to be told. And he said that he was willing to do it regardless of the consequences — and he essentially followed the Nuremberg principles which is when you see something going on like this, when you see war crimes being committed, when you see lies being told in order to bring a country to war, you have to speak out against it. You can’t just line up and be a good German and do what you’re told to do.” — Exchange on CNN’s Larry King Live , July 27. ■ CNN Host Slams Fox as “Not a News Organization” Host Rick Sanchez: “Well, I understand the Associated Press. I even understand Bloomberg, but don’t have you to be a news organization to get that seat?” White House correspondent Ed Henry: “Oh! Are you saying Fox is not a news organization?” Sanchez: “Yeah. I’m just wondering.” — CNN’s Rick’s List , August 2, discussing the White House Correspondents Association decision to move the Fox News correspondent to the front row of the White House briefing room. ■ Crazy Beck vs. Limbaugh the Faker   “I sort of dig on Glenn Beck. He reminds me of certain people you encounter in big cities. You know, the ones wearing robes, sandals, and signs proclaiming that the world is going to end because American men are eating too much red meat and American women are wearing their pants too tight. He’s crazy but — like those urban nutcakes — he actually seems to believe what he’s saying I can get behind that. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, gives me the creeps. He sounds saner than Beck (well, marginally), but there’s absolutely no conviction in that sonorous, slightly flabby voice….He says what his listeners want to hear, but when it comes to actual convictions, I’m always reminded of what Gertrude Stein said about her hometown of Oakland: ‘There isn’t any there there.’” — Novelist Stephen King in his “The Pop of King” column in the August 6 issue of Entertainment Weekly . ■ Expecting “Tough” and “Real” Questions from The View “I would be willing to bet you that he [President Obama] might get tougher questions asked of him on The View than he would at a White House press conference….More real. More where we live….They ask pertinent questions. But I think the questions that will be asked of him on The View might resonate more with the way people live in this country.” — MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle on Morning Joe , July 27. vs . Co-host Joy Behar: “Do you know that Lindsey Lohan is in jail?…Does Mel Gibson need anger management?…Should Snooki run as mayor of Wasilla?” Co-host Sherri Shepherd: “Mr. President, do you Tweet?”… Co-host Whoopi Goldberg: “What’s the first couple of songs on your iPod?”… Co-host Barbara Walters: “Were you invited to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding?” — Actual questions posed to Obama on The View , July 29. To see which quotes made the August 9 edition, click here .

Visit link:
Special NB Bonus: Notable Quotables that Couldn’t Fit Into the Regular August 9 Edition

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,