Tag Archives: democratic

REVIEW: In HBO’s ‘For Neda’ the Symbol of Iran’s Green Revolution Comes to Vivid Life

The HBO documentary For Neda , directed by Antony Thomas and narrated by famed Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo , first aired on HBO in the United States on June 14 but went viral in Iran on June 1, well before the regime even knew about it . In an HBO interview , Mr. Thomas stated that the goal of the film was to look beyond Neda Agha-Soltan as the most prominent symbol of the Green Revolution and into the soul of whom Neda was as a human being. To that end, Mr. Thomas and crew succeeded brilliantly. The emotional rollercoaster ride one undergoes while traversing Neda Soltan’s short but eventful life in For Neda ranges from the tender and sublime to black despair and furious outrage. At times, For Neda also induces in the viewer an unnerving sense of paranoia. Throughout much of the film, the regime is the evil villain unseen on the screen but whose ominous presence is most keenly felt. The rather ordinary but highly illicit home interview sessions in Iran with Neda’s family and others engender a dark foreboding to the point you almost expect regime jackboots to bust down the doors at any moment. The rest of For Neda is also fraught with many palpable dangers that make the fictional James Bond’s seem trite by comparison. In For Neda , we know that the consequences of regime discovery and reprisal are as perilous, real and horrifying as it gets. For those reasons and many others, Neda’s family refused to talk to the media for the longest time. After Neda’s death last June 20, the regime forcibly moved the family to prevent their home in Tehran from becoming a Green rallying point (which it had in fact become), then thoroughly silenced them. Yet after much coaxing online, Neda’s family finally (and fearlessly) agreed to a live interview in their home to tell Neda’s life story. The man chosen to travel to Iran to secretly interview Neda’s family and capture it all on video for HBO was Saeed Kamali Dehghan , a courageous 24-year-old Iranian expatriate and editorial contributor to the UK Guardian. What Mr. Dehghan lacked in formal journalism experience he would make up for with great human insight, derring-do and balls of titanium. He would need all of those qualities for this trip. The slightest slip-up, careless act or suspicion-inducing look could lead him straight to Evin prison and all that entails . Fortunately, Mr. Dehghan succeeded in entering Iran undetected and completing his lonely and dangerous mission. For that, we all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. The video he smuggled from the homes and hearts of Neda’s mother, father, sister and brother is extraordinarily captivating and poignant. It reveals to us, layer by layer, the story of whom Neda Soltan was as a living person and kindred human spirit. Perhaps the most amazing aspect of Neda’s life, as revealed in For Neda, was how closely it mirrored those of most ordinary young American women. Rebellious at a very young age, Neda refused to wear the chadar in elementary school, which is required of all female students in the Islamic Republic. Even more amazingly, l’enfant terrible Neda won her fight. She would do battle with the chadar and other female clothing restrictions throughout her all-too-short life, one of many rebellions Neda would conduct against the repressive and misogynist Islamist legal codes in Iran. Neda Soltan’s subversion of thought also extended to literature. From Wuthering Heights to The Last Temptation of Christ , Neda’s widely varying and mostly illegal collection of books reveals a most curious and searching young mind that wanted to know and experience all the best that humanity had to offer, most of which was and is forbidden in the Islamic Republic. Perhaps the most poignant moment of all in For Neda is when her mother recalls the day Neda was fatally shot by a basiji sniper in the streets of Tehran. In phone call after phone call, Neda ignored her mother’s pleadings to come home. During her last call prior to her death, Neda had told her mother how dangerous the streets were becoming and promised that she would at last return home. The rest is now history in a revolution that continues to unfold before our eyes. Its ending is still unwritten, but is eyed by the Greens and the diaspora with great hopes for a free and democratic Iran. Were such a revolution of freedom to succeed, it would not only transform Iran itself beyond measure but the world at large, given the Islamic Republic’s larger-than-life place in it today. In summation, For Neda is one of the most compelling, moving and gut-wrenching documentaries I have ever seen. The film succeeds wildly in projecting the entire scope of the Green cause through one of its earliest, youngest and most defiant revolutionaries, and in the most human and personal of terms. Here is perhaps the ultimate insight into Neda’s persona as revealed in the film. On Election Night last year, Neda smelled a rat and refused to cast a vote when she found only Ahmadinejad observers were allowed at the polls. Yet despite the fact Neda did not vote herself, the news that the election was most likely fraudulent compelled her back out onto the streets to speak up for family and friends whose votes had been stolen. That courageous, selfless and defiant act, one which would ultimately cost Neda her life, captures the essence of Neda’s spirit, the spirit of the HBO documentary that bears her name, and the spirit of the Green Revolution itself. Crossposted at Big Hollywood .

Read the original here:
REVIEW: In HBO’s ‘For Neda’ the Symbol of Iran’s Green Revolution Comes to Vivid Life

CBS: Robert Byrd ‘One of the Hardest Working Senators in Modern History’

On Monday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Whit Johnson reported breaking news of the death of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd and proclaimed: “By all accounts, he was one of the hardest working senators in modern history.” Johnson touted Byrd’s “four volume history of the Senate” and described him as the “unequaled master of the Senate rules.” Part of the “hard work” Johnson cited was the massive number of pork barrel projects Byrd secured funding for over his long career: “Byrd said he owed his success to the long suffering people of West Virginia and he returned the favor by steering billions of dollars in federal government projects to the state, dozens of them, named for him.” Johnson noted how “Byrd reveled in his success at bringing home the bacon….His critics called him the king of pork. He called that hog wash.” Another aspect of Byrd’s career that Johnson highlighted was the West Virginia Democrat’s opposition to the Iraq war: “A harsh critic of the war in Iraq, Byrd said opposing the war in 2003 was his most important vote ever.” It was not until the end of his report that Johnson mentioned Byrd’s controversial past on race relations: “His life was not without mistakes. He deeply regretted joining the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and participating in a filibuster against the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later in life, though, he became an advocate of civil rights.” Later, in a news brief in the 8AM ET hour, fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen declared that Byrd was “a master politician, an expert on Senate rules, and unrelenting lobbyist for his home state and a powerful force on Capitol Hill.” Here is a full transcript of Johnson’s June 28 report: 7:00AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Breaking news. The longest serving member of Congress, Senator Robert Byrd, has died. We’ll look back at his remarkable career and tell you how this could impact the balance of power in the Senate. 7:01AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get to the breaking news, of course, out of Washington this morning. The passing of Senator Robert Byrd early this morning. CBS News correspondent Whit Johnson is on Capitol Hill with the very latest. Whit, good morning. WHIT JOHNSON: Erica, good morning. Senator Robert Byrd checked into a hospital late last week. Originally, he was thought to be suffering from heat exhaustion, but doctors found further complications. The longest serving senator in U.S. history passed away this morning at the age of 92. ROBERT BYRD: The United States Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the whole world. JOHNSON: Robert Byrd won nine elections to the U.S. Senate. He was the longest serving senator in American history. He grew up in poverty in the hardscrabble coal fields of West Virginia, where he learned to play the fiddle. For decades he used it to entertain audiences on the campaign trail and even performed at the Grand Ole Opry. By all accounts, he was one of the hardest working senators in modern history. He went to law school at night, receiving his degree at age 45 from President Kennedy. He wrote a four volume history of the Senate, became the unequaled master of the Senate rules and climbed to the top of the ladder, spending 12 years as Democratic leader. Byrd said he owed his success to the long suffering people of West Virginia and he returned the favor by steering billions of dollars in federal government projects to the state, dozens of them, named for him. Byrd reveled in his success at bringing home the bacon. BYRD: Man, you’re looking at big daddy. Big daddy! Rolled up my sleeves, man. JOHNSON: His critics called him the king of pork. He called that hog wash. BYRD: This notion that earmark spending is inherently wasteful spending is flat out wrong. W-r-o-n-g. JOHNSON: A harsh critic of the war in Iraq, Byrd said opposing the war in 2003 was his most important vote ever. BYRD: How long must the best of our nation’s military men and women be taken from their homes to fight this unnecessary war? JOHNSON: His life was not without mistakes. He deeply regretted joining the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and participating in a filibuster against the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later in life, though, he became an advocate of civil rights. His great loves included his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, a Senate, which he so revered he called ‘the temple,’ and the Constitution, a copy of which he always carried in his breast pocket. But above everything else, there was Erma, Byrd’s high school sweetheart and wife of 68 years. She passed away in 2006. Byrd said she was his greatest love of all. Washington is already reacting this morning to Senator Byrd’s death. He’s being remembered for his fighter spirit. Erica. HILL: Whit, thanks. Whit Johnson in Washington this morning.

Visit link:
CBS: Robert Byrd ‘One of the Hardest Working Senators in Modern History’

Five Out of Five Lib Journalists Agree: Obama’s Big Government Push Helps Dems in ’10!

On the syndicated Chris Matthews show over the weekend, Chris Matthews praised Barack Obama’s “legislative success” in getting all sorts of overbearing, big government laws passed and asked his panel to rate if those wins in Congress will lead to victory for the Democratic Party in the fall. Just before closing his show Matthews posed the following big question to HDNet’s Dan Rather, the BBC’s Katty Kay, CNN’s Gloria Borger and the Politico’s John Harris: “Will the President’s legislative success with the stimulus, with health care, with Wall Street reform and maybe even an energy bill be a net positive or negative for his party this fall?” The following are their individual responses as aired on the June 27 Chris Matthews Show: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Welcome back. This week another big feather in Barack Obama’s cap – Wall Street reform. Which brings us to our big question. Will the President’s legislative success with the stimulus, with health care, with Wall Street reform and maybe even an energy bill be a net positive or negative for his party this fall? Dan Rather? DAN RATHER, HDNET: Slight positive. MATTHEWS: Katty? KATTY KAY, BBC: Net positive. MATTHEWS: Gloria? GLORIA BORGER, CNN: I’m with Dan, slight positive. JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: Positive. Takes away the Jimmy Carter ineffectual argument. MATTHEWS: Wow! Slight positive. Maybe just solid positive.

More here:
Five Out of Five Lib Journalists Agree: Obama’s Big Government Push Helps Dems in ’10!

NPR Twice Promoted David Weigel as Chronicler of Conservative Extremism

The idea that Washington Post writer David Weigel was supposed to be a conservative — and not merely someone reporting on the conservative movement — was clearly not based on a review of Weigel’s output. Weigel didn’t just deconstruct conservatives for the Post, but was also presented twice recently by National Public Radio as a wise man assessing the fringiness of conservatives. Last October , they wanted to know how strange Fox News was, and whether they could be blamed for Tea Party protests. Weigel called their influence “massive.” Weigel typically suggested Fox and Glenn Beck were not “realistic” in painting President Obama as connected to ACORN and the SEIU. On NPR’s Fresh Air on February 23 , before he joined the Post, Weigel reported on CPAC and the Tea Party and embraced host Terry Gross’s idea that conservatives shouldn’t be big fans of government-enhancing Dick Cheney:  GROSS: So if the conservative movement is glad that Bush isn’t around anymore, and if they think that he embraced big government, why was Dick Cheney such a rock star at CPAC? I mean, if anything, Cheney is the person most responsible for the expansion of the powers of the executive branch. WEIGEL: Well… GROSS: And Cheney was the person who – was the architect in a – one of the architects of the war in Iraq, which was certainly government getting us into a very long war, a war that many people think was not only fought on false premises but many people believe has been very destructive both to America and Iraq. So why did he get such the rousing welcome that he did, if in many ways he represented the expansion of government’s power? WEIGEL: That’s an excellent point, it’s just that he represents a specific kind of government expansion, the expansion of the national security state and the expansion of America’s role in spreading democracy around the world with military action. Those are very popular with conservatives, and that’s a dispute. CPAC was pretty convivial this year, but the dispute that existed there was between more Ron Paul-type activists who think America should pull back from engagement in the world and wiretapping and all these debates that are hot right now, and the more traditional conservatives, who think anything that the president needs to kill terrorists is justifiable . So that’s why he was cheered. Cheney was a surprise guest who was introduced by his daughter, Liz Cheney, who has become a pretty successful pundit, basically making that argument, arguing sometimes against reality that everything Barack Obama does is aiding terrorists and making America less safe. That got huge cheers. Weigel also talked about how CPAC organizers were downplaying a presidential straw poll that Ron Paul won, and the idea that Weigel’s libertarian doesn’t come through in this segment: WEIGEL: But conservatives were united in trying to diminish this result, because they don’t want their image to the American people to be a septuagenarian politician who bangs on about the need to pull – you know, to close down American bases and speaks at meetings of the John Birch Society. I mean, it was accidentally very revealing of how far right the party has gotten. GROSS: Do you mean that Paul’s victory is representative of how far right the party has gotten? WEIGEL: Oh, yeah, this is an unscientific straw poll that was conducted, but they’ve all been unscientific straw polls, and they usually don’t end with this very libertarian – and libertarian is a term that gets tossed around a lot. Paul specifically is one of these guys who thinks we just really need to roll back the federal government to at least what it was like before 1912, before the progressive movement. Actually, I correct myself: before Teddy Roosevelt. Weigel also suggested the Tea Party movement weren’t Dick Armey’s puppets, but they didn’t know which bills to oppose until Armey told them:  GROSS: The Tea Party movement wants to be something new and different and have some impact on the Republican Party. But one of the chief funders of parts of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey, through his organization Freedom Works. And Dick Armey is really, you know, a voice of the past. I mean he was one of the – he was a Republican leader during the Clinton administration and goes back before that. Like, when was he in Congress? WEIGEL: He was elected in 1984 and he left on his own volition in 2002. I mean he was in no danger of being defeated. He just retired to become, like a lot of former congressmen, a lobbyist with some political interests. GROSS: Okay. So what are his interests in funding the Tea Party movement? WEIGEL: One thing Armey would say is that he doesnt fund the Tea Party movement. He loves to contrast what they see as union thugs and ACORN putting Democratic rallies together with Tea Party people gassing up their cars and driving to Washington for his rallies. There’s some dishonesty there. (Laughter) I mean Freedom Works is always on the scene. It helps set these things up. It’s got full-time activists who help get permits. And I mean I’ve been to a couple of events at Freedom Works’ office where theyll have huge, you know, nice buffet spreads and things like that for Tea Party activists and conservative bloggers to meet and strategize. But it’s not a ton of money they’re spending. He has figured out that the very libertarian beliefs he’s had for a long time, which he always thought had some sort of, you know, if not a majority support, some huge support in the country he just couldnt locate, well, that support’s been located. So he is happily steering these guys and giving them candidates they can support and giving them policies they can support. I mean Tea Party activists are not – do not come to these rallies with a set of political goals. They generally believe the things I’ve been talking about – about the Constitution, about how Obama’s trying to wreck it. But for them to come out against a bill or believe that that bill contains a provision that’s going to kill their grandmothers, something like that, that is coming from people like Armey, who have these interests – have lobbying interests in some respects, who want that message to get out there. And that’s what you see. I mean I dont – I really don’t think that conservative activists at the top like Armey have been puppeteering this movement. I mean they’re right, it was – it did spring out of some part of the American map in reaction to Obama’s policies. But they are telling it what it should stand for as much as Fox News is informing them what Obama is doing that they should be opposing.

See more here:
NPR Twice Promoted David Weigel as Chronicler of Conservative Extremism

Breaking: WaPo’s David Weigel Resigns After More Conservative-bashing Emails Disclosed

Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel resigned today after a host of offensive e-mails surfaced revealing his disdain for much of the right – the beat he was charged with covering. Fishbowl DC, which published a number of those emails yesterday, confirmed the resignation with the Post just after noon. Yesterday I reported on leaked emails from Weigel to a listserve of liberal journalists bashing conservatives and conservatism – you know, the people Weigel is supposed to be covering. As bad as those email were, a plethora of messages from Weigel published in the Daily Caller take the conservative-bashing to a whole new level. The new emails also demonstrated that yesterday’s quasi-apology from Weigel was really not as sincere as he claimed. He said that he made some of his most offensive remarks at the end of a bad day. But these new emails show that there was really nothing unique about them, and that offensive remarks about conservatives really were nothing new or uncommon. Many of the misguided statements were clearly made in jest – “I hope he fails,” Weigel said of Rush Limbaugh after the radio host was hospitalized with chest pains, a reference to Limbaugh’s hope that Obama’s agenda would fail. But other bouts of name calling – ragging on the “outbursts of racism” from “amoral blowhard” Newt Gingrich, for instance – were obviously not jokes. The Daily Caller revealed some quite stunning statements from the JournoList in its piece today: “Honestly, it’s been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?” Weigel lamented in one February email. In other posts, Weigel describes conservatives as using the media to “violently, angrily divide America.” According to Weigel, their motives include “racism” and protecting “white privilege,” and for some of the top conservatives in D.C., a nihilistic thirst for power. “There’s also the fact that neither the pundits, nor possibly the Republicans, will be punished for their crazy outbursts of racism. Newt Gingrich is an amoral blowhard who resigned in disgrace, and Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite who was drummed out of the movement by William F. Buckley. Both are now polluting my inbox and TV with their bellowing and minority-bashing. They’re never going to go away or be deprived of their soapboxes,” Weigel wrote. Of Matt Drudge, Weigel remarked,  “It’s really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree.”… Republicans? “Ratf–king [Obama] on every bill.” Palin? Tried to “ratf–k” a moderate Republican in a contentious primary in New York. Limbaugh? Used “ratf–king tactics” in urging Republican activists to vote for Hillary Clinton in open primaries after Obama had all but beat her for the Democratic nomination. Weigel continued to defend these outbursts, as he did when contacted by the Daily Caller. “My reporting, I think, stands for itself,” he said. “I’ve always been of the belief that you could have opinions and could report anyway… people aren’t usually asked to stand or fall on everything they’ve said in private.” First, there’s the issue of whether anything said on a 400-member email list can really be considered “private.” “There’s no such thing as off-the-record with 400 people,” Nation columnist Eric Alterman told Politico . But the real issues are, first, whether such mean-spirited jabs demonstrate a disdain for many conservatives that precludes Weigel from covering them fairly (he did label gay marriage opponents “bigots,” after all), and second, whether the Post feels it is appropriate to have someone hostile to the right covering conservatism, while a through-and-through liberal in Ezra Klein covers the left. The Post signaled that it did not consider Weigel’s comments to be a serious problem. It seems that attitude has changed. Managing Editor Raju Narisetti told Politico that “Dave’s apology to readers reflects he understands, in calmer hindsight, the need to exercise good judgment at all times and of not throwing stones, especially when operating from inside an echo-filled glass house that is modern-day digital journalism.” He added that it was “time to move on.”

Read this article:
Breaking: WaPo’s David Weigel Resigns After More Conservative-bashing Emails Disclosed

Open Thread: House Passes DISCLOSE Act

Yesterday, by a vote of 219-206, the House passed a bill meant to counter the landmark SCOTUS decision in January overturning limits on corporate and union political expenditures. [T]he restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government garunteed billions directly as a result of the TARP funding — UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns. Further, under the DISCLOSE Act if a company has more than $7 million in government contracts, it has no right to political speech. But public sector unions can spend millions of recycled tax dollars campaigning for Democrats, no problem. All this will likely do is make business spend more money on lobbyists rather than campaigns. Of course, campaign spending is much more transparent than lobbying, but when it comes to the DISCLOSE act, clean elections and free speech seem to be secondary considerations to getting Democrats elected. House Minotiry Leader John Boehner said the bill “shreds our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.” Do you think that’s hyperbole?

Here is the original post:
Open Thread: House Passes DISCLOSE Act

Hopeydopeyontheropey: Confidence Waning in Obama

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that American voters sure are looking for change – from Obama: Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure. Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years. …Some 30% in the poll said they ‘do not really relate’ to Mr. Obama. Only 8% said that at the beginning of his presidency. Fewer than half give him positive marks when asked if he is ‘honest and straightforward.'’ And 49% rate him positively when asked if he has ‘strong leadership qualities,'’ down from 70% when Mr. Obama took office and a drop of 8 points since January. Just 40% rate him positively on his ‘ability to handle a crisis,’ an 11-point drop since January. Half disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the oil spill, including one in four Democrats. …'The results show ‘a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate,’ said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. 'The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats.' Yup, it’s that hopeychangey thingy, I guess. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6102139/hopeydopeyontheropey.thtml added by: crystalman

Newsweek Wonders if Utah Republicans Will ‘Play Dirty’ by Voting for Leftist in Dem Primary

Liberals in the media frequently paint conservatives and Tea Party activists as pushing the GOP too far to the right to be electable in general elections. But the same complaint isn’t repeated on an endless loop when it comes to leftist activists challenging more centrist Democratic incumbents in primary contests. In fact, in some of those occasions, the media find a way to cast aspersions on Republicans. Take, for instance, a June 22 story on Newsweek.com, the headline for which posed the question, “Will Utah Republicans Play Dirty Today?” Writer McKay Coppins explained how one Republican state lawmaker had suggested that the party faithful in the state’s 2nd Congressional District should take advantage of the Democrats’ open primary system to cast votes for Claudia Wright, a liberal insurgent challenging Rep. Jim Matheson (D), rather than weighing in on the GOP primary contest. Although he noted that historically such tactical voting hasn’t been successful and that state Republican officials have officially “denounced the plan,” Coppins explained that the local media have become fixated on the notion and at least one radio host has described the crossover voting idea as “sleazy”: [F]or a while, it looked like a real possibility. An anonymously created Web site called “Conservatives for Claudia” has attracted thousands of page views, and Matheson himself has spent $800,000 this primary season to warn supporters that the party-crashing threat is real. And even though Republican officials (including, eventually, Wimmer) denounced the plan, it has continued to draw attention from the local press, with popular radio talk show host Doug Wright devoting significant air time to the idea. (He called it “sleazy.”) Republicans still might get their wish, though. A recent poll places Matheson 19 points ahead of Wright, but midterm primaries in Utah have historically garnered low turnouts, and early voting this year has been exceptionally unimpressive . With a passionate left-wing base, Wright could be poised for an upset in the primary – giving Republicans exactly what they hoped for.

View post:
Newsweek Wonders if Utah Republicans Will ‘Play Dirty’ by Voting for Leftist in Dem Primary

WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

The Washington Post ran a story slamming pollster Scott Rasmussen on Thursday on the front page of the Style section. Political reporter Jason Horowitz earnestly channeled the Democratic spin from the story’s beginning: ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Here is a fun fact for those in the political polling orthodoxy who liken Scott Rasmussen to a conjurer of Republican-friendly numbers: He works above a paranormal bookstore crowded with Ouija boards and psychics on the Jersey Shore. Here’s the fact they find less amusing: From his unlikely outpost, Rasmussen has become a driving force in American politics. Democrats surely dislike how Rasmussen’s polls (like this week’s showing Harry Reid losing by 11 points) affect the optimism of their donors and activists. But are his numbers accurate? The Post wanted its readers to know this guy Rasmussen was a scary conservative: he played guitar in a band in high school in Massachusetts called “Rebel’s Confederacy” (racist?!) and he quotes the Bible: He graduated from DePauw University and moved to Charlotte. There he married, started a family and became a devout Methodist. He is given to quoting Scripture, including the principle: “Let every man be quick to listen, but slow to speak, and slow to anger.” (James 1:19.) In the mid-1990s, Rasmussen had discovered the business model of automated polling, and folks he polled heard a recording of his wife reading poll questions. In 1998, heavy traffic crashed his site when Rush Limbaugh unexpectedly told listeners to visit. Two years later, in August 2000, Bill O’Reilly invited him onto his show. He wrote columns for the conservative site WorldNetDaily in 2000. In 2001, he wrote a book advocating the privatization of Social Security. But are his numbers accurate? The pull quote in the story as it continued on page C-9 attacked his professionalism for his newer methods: “The firm manages to violate nearly everything I was taught what a good survey should do.” — Mark Blumenthal, a founder of Pollster.com, speaking about Rasmussen Reports Then there’s this hilarious attack from Daily Kos veteran Nate Silver, soon, a new hire of the New York Times: He “faults Rasmussen for polling only likely voters, which reduces the pool to ‘political junkies.'” Adds Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center in agreement: “It paints a picture of an electorate that is potentially madder than it really is…And potentially more conservative than it really is.” Would it be wiser for a political candidate to focus on wooing unlikely voters? Jason Horowitz is dishonest for suggesting it’s Rasmussen versus the professionals — and not disclosing that Mark Blumenthal is identified correctly in others stories as a “Democratic pollster,” and not disclosing Nate Silver came from the hard-left Daily Kos, and not even hinting that the Pew Research Center is deeply invested in a series of liberal causes, and whose newest poll (also out Thursday) coos that “The president gets an enthusiastic thumbs up from the world (with the notable exception of the U.S.) for how he has handled the economic crisis.” They can even admit Rasmussen’s critics are liberals in the headline on C-9: “For some, pollster Rasmussen is a minus man.” For some? GOP pollster Ed Goeas, identified as a “Republican pollster,” defends Rasmussen but suggests he take on a Democrat to “balance his analysis” (or to please The Washington Post?) Rasmussen has a “conservative constituency” of Fox, The Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, adds pollster John Zogby insists. No one in the Post is going to suggest that perhaps a pollster for The Washington Post or The New York Times is a “liberal constituency.” How transparently odd. Just like the liberal media elite on a daily basis. For them, the playing field cannot be described as conservative professionals vs. liberal professionals — it’s upstart conservative peasants with pitchforks versus the established objective professionals who define the standards for everyone. Of course, Horowitz left out of his Rasmussen profile his latest poll showing how angry the public is with the media , that two-thirds of respondents are angry and say reporters slant the news to favor candidates they want to win. Instead, we get leftists dismissing Rasmussen numbers as “sorcery” that leads to conservative media bias:   Rasmussen said he is simply a “scorekeeper,” but his spike in clout has sharpened skepticism about how he tracks the dip in Democratic fortunes. Frustrated liberals suspect sorcery. Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos blog, has accused the pollster of “setting the narrative that Democrats are doomed” with numbers that fuel hours of Republican-boosting on talk radio and cable. Pardon conservatives if they might find it laughable that Markos Moulitsas as a polling professional, considering he concocts smear polls of “self-identified Republicans.” But are Rasmussen’s numbers accurate? The caption beneath Rasmussen’s picture brings the disturbing news for liberals: “Scott Rasmussen’s polling detected the groundswell for Scott Brown, who won the special election in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, earlier than most competitors.” That’s what has them worried about his ability to be a “driving force.”

Go here to see the original:
WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

Beck Highlights the Sharp Contrast of Two NBC Universal Products – CNBC and MSNBC Reactions over BP Oil Spill

The media reaction to the Obama administration’s handling of the BP Gulf oil spill crisis has been a mixed bag. But it hasn’t been good. Some are arguing President Barack Obama has gone too far and overstepped his legal authority and some are arguing he hasn’t gone far enough with the “boot on the throat” mentality. And on his June 17 Fox News Channel program, Glenn Beck played three separate examples of these differences you normally wouldn’t associate with one another – CNBC’s Matt Nesto, liberal flame-thrower and comedian Rosie O’Donnell and MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. “Even the people at NBC are noticing maybe something is not right,” Beck said. Beck was referring to comments made by Nesto on CNBC’s June 16 “Closing Bell,” which Nesto emphasized his concerned over the President’s action. “I’m very troubled by the fact that the President has again created his own sense of a legal system,” Nesto said. “It’s not his job to create laws. It’s his job to enforce laws.” And Beck noted that Nesto had an understanding of constitutional authority in that regard. “OK, it’s not his job to create laws but to enforce them,” Beck said. “Yes, that’s if you understand the Constitution. CNBC is noticing something is wrong.” Beck’s next example clearly doesn’t. O’Donnell, who has a radio show now, had a different take on how the office of the presidency should exercise its authority as it pertains to BP. “But the President couldn’t get these things to happen unless those who want fundamental transformation are starting to create those conditions where the President can do what he knows is right,” he continued. “We’ve already seen it. Rosie O’Donnell is calling for the government just to seize BP.” He played comments from O’Donnell’s radio show earlier this month . “Seize their assets today,” O’Donnell said. “Take over the country, I don’t care. Issue an executive order. Say, BP, guess what? Call it socialism, call it communism, call it anything you want. Let’s watch Rush Limbaugh explode on TV when he talks. Seize the assets, take over…” And along that same line, Beck pointed out how a particular MSNBC host wanted Obama to go dictatorial on the embattled oil giant. “MSNBC is the same network who said that I was crazy for saying that we are heading down a road that the world has been down before: a big government road that could eventually lead to a dictator — maybe this president, maybe not, maybe the next one or the one after that,” Beck said. “It doesn’t matter. Progressivism will always end in complete control. But listen now to MSNBC and one of their hosts.” Beck played two clips from MSNBC’s June 15 “The Ed Show,” which host Ed Schultz on two separate occasions called for the President to come down harsh on BP. “Mr. President, I want to see the boot on the neck of BP tonight. I want to see some finger-pointing, whether it’s in your personality or not,” Schultz said. “And it’s OK tonight to act kind of like a dictator and call the shots, say, and this is the way it’s going to be.” In the second clip, Schultz had made the suggestion to far-left Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. “Don’t you think this is a moment where President Obama has to make sure that he lets everybody know that he’s calling the shots?” Schultz said. “In almost in words of maybe a dictator that this is the way we’re going to do it.” And to this, Beck noted the double standard – how MSNBC will criticize him for accusing Obama of acting like a dictator versus MSNBC actually calling on him to act like a dictator. “They’re calling — he went more — they’re calling for him to actually be a dictator or acts like a dictator. No thank you. No thank you,” Beck said. “I get in hot water for showing how we are expanding government so much that if a wrong guy gets in, we will have a dictator. But MSNBC can literally demand that the president start being a dictator and there’s nothing.” The Fox News host accused of MSNBC of trying to create an environment which the White House could exercise more control. “And everyone is saying that the president is in trouble because he’s lost MSNBC, the ‘thrill up the leg’ network – yes, yes, yes,” Beck said. “It’s almost like they are creating the condition to force him to do the things that he knows are right.”

Excerpt from:
Beck Highlights the Sharp Contrast of Two NBC Universal Products – CNBC and MSNBC Reactions over BP Oil Spill