Tag Archives: labeling

CNN: GOP ‘Very Far to the Right’; Guest Laments McCain’s Rightward Lean

On Tuesday’s AC360, CNN’s John Roberts labeled Republican candidates who have Tea Party support ” very far to the right ,” and specifically referred to Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott as an ” ultraconservative .” Guest John Avlon also bemoaned John McCain’s tack to the right during the primary campaign, and slammed how the senator has been called a “RINO” by many conservatives. Roberts, who was filling in for anchor Anderson Cooper, along with Avlon, CNN liberal contributor Roland Martin and Red State’s Erick Erickson, discussed Tuesday’s primary results from several states for two segments during the first half hour of the 10 pm Eastern hour. Eighteen minutes into the hour, the CNN anchor asked TheDailyBeast.com senior political columnist, “[CNN anchor] John King laid it out there, that it’s going to be a challenging year, to say the least, for Democrats. Some people predicting that this will be equal to, if not worse, than 1994. What do you think?” Avlon replied that the GOP was in “reasonable striking distance” of winning control of the House of Representatives, and later added that “the question is, are the candidates the Republicans have been putting forward in these primaries, some of the more polarizing play-to-the-base candidates, are they going to be Kryptonite when it comes to independent voters and folks in the center? That’s really where this battle is going to be won or lost.” Moments later, Roberts asked Erickson about Avlon’s analysis and included his “right” label: ROBERTS: Erick Erickson, speak to what John Avlon was talking to us about. Some of these candidates who are very far to the right , the one- many of the ones who are backed by the Tea Party- are they going to be Kryptonite come November? The anchor brought back Avlon for a second panel discussion, this time with Republican and former Representative Susan Molinari and Democrat Lisa Caputo, a former press secretary for Hillary Clinton. Roberts raised the issue of the Republican gubernatorial primary in Florida with Molinari 46 minutes into the hour: ROBERTS: When it comes to Rick Scott, who ran as an ultraconservative against Bill McCollum, does he now have to run slightly to the center, if he wants to win in November? Put it this way: the campaign- the Rick Scott campaign is reaching out to CNN, to say, ‘Hey, do you want to have him on tomorrow?’ Four minutes later, Roberts broached the issue of McCain’s lurch to the right during the primary race in Arizona against J. D. Hayworth, which ultimately led to Avlon’s lament of the whole electoral battle between the two: ROBERTS: Well, you heard a lot of that- maverick, maverick, maverick, maverick- 2002, his book, ‘Worth the Fighting For,’ said that it was the ‘education of an American maverick.’ But now, John McCain saying, ‘I’m not a maverick. I never said I was a maverick.’ (laughs) And Susan Molinari, I’m wondering how could he say that?      MOLINARI: Well- you know, times change- (both Molinari and Roberts laugh) politics change, and the situation changed. The situation in Arizona, as he explained it- you know, changed, and the President- you know, by his lawsuit in Arizona, I think really kind of raised the ante. Look, John McCain is a smart politician, and he didn’t do what a lot of other politicians did, which is to assume that, because he was the party nominee for president, that he didn’t have to work hard. And he had sort of the gift which we always think is- you know, a terrible thing of a later primary, to see that some of his incumbent colleagues and others in the House might have taken their election and their reelection in primaries for granted. And so- you know, he ran a smart race. He spent a lot of money, and he did what he needs to do to, presumably, return to the United States Senate. ROBERTS: But John Avlon, it’s almost classic John McCain, where he says, ‘I never said I was a maverick,’ and then you play the audio tape, and you say, ‘Well, with all due respect, Senator, I think you did.’ AVLON: Yeah. No, that’s just a dumb thing for him to have said, (Roberts laughs) and it’s sort of indefensible, because it’s such a core part of his identify, not just one imposed upon him, but one he accepted. And it’s dumb, because this was- this was actually a great year for someone to stress their independence- for someone to stress- the John McCain who the American people have come to know and respect, somebody who was standing up against fiscal irresponsibility when Republicans were spending like drunken sailors. He stood up against his own party. That should be a message that’s perfect for this year, and perfect for the Tea Party. The fact that he was independent should be a strength, but being primaried from the right, people kept saying that maverick was code for independent. So we’ve got to get some clarity right now. The Tea Party folks who say that the number one issue is spending- John McCain should be always a hero to them, and the fact that he’s considered a RINO by some speaks to the sickness in our politics and a problem in the Republican Party right now. ROBERTS: One more quick comment from you, and then we’ve got to go to John King, Lisa. He doesn’t really have to- if John McCain wins the primary, he doesn’t have to worry about the general election. I think he won with 75 percent last time. CAPUTO: Likely not, but what he has to worry about is what’s the public perception of John McCain? ROBERTS: Yeah- CAPUTO: What’s his legacy? Which John McCain are we talking about? Are we talking about the maverick, or are we talking about the Reagan Republican? Who are we talking about? During two July 2009 appearances, Avlon picked “wingnuts of the week” from the right and the left, and was much more critical of his right-wing selections . He also labeled CPAC 2010’s “saving freedom” theme as “a little extreme” during two segments on February 18 and 19 .

Read more:
CNN: GOP ‘Very Far to the Right’; Guest Laments McCain’s Rightward Lean

Shirley Sherrod Rejects Return to USDA; Media Rejects Reporting Relevant Info

The theater of the Sherrods continues. Earlier today, Shirley Sherrod, who, according to the current version of ruling class wisdom, was prematurely evacuated from the USDA by Director Tom Vilsack, decided not to accept an offer to return to the agency. Instead, according to Politico’s Matt Negrin , “she hasn’t accepted the department’s offer to work there again, but that she wants ‘some type of relationship’ with it later.” We wouldn’t closure or anything, would we? Five weeks or so have intervened since Andrew Breitbart posted a video excerpt of Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP event. (It should be noted USAactionnews.com actually posted the video earlier; though their link has been taken down, their original July 15 tweet is here .) In that time, the establishment press has either seriously downplayed or totally ignored the several important items relating to the background and outlook of Ms. Sherrod and her husband Charles. The earliest discovery was Shirley Sherrod was appointed to her position as Georgia Director of Rural Development on July 25, 2009. That appointment came mere days after her former co-op farm New Communities, Inc. (NCI) ” won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack .” This settlement included “$150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering.” How odd, to say the least, for a victorious plaintiff to end up working for the losing defendant. Then, about a week after Breitbart’s video drop, another video surfaced , this time of Charles. Delivering the keynote address at a “race and law conference” at the University of Virginia School of Law, Sherrod his audience: (To young African-Americans in the audience) “Please find a way, find a way that we can trust each other. So that our monies can work for our total liberation. … Our labor and our monies and our contracts usually end up in white folks’ hands and pockets. When will we trust our own?” “… we must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black.” Charming. Finally, there were the shocking accusations by black activist and Cal State professor Ron Wilkins at Counterpunch that during at least the late 1960s and early 1970s, NCI “under-paid, mistreated and fired black laborers–many of them less than 16 years of age–in the same fields of southwest Georgia where their ancestors suffered under chattel slavery.” Wilkins cited tangible, same-time evidence that NCI was struck by the United Farm Workers. An article in a September 28, 1974 UFW publication (“Children Farm Workers Strike Black Co-op”) leveled the following accusations directly at Charles Sherrod (the first word in the original is “through,” which is erroneous): Though several of the cooperative’s funding organization’s are pressuring Charles Sherrod, the farm’s manager, to reach a settlement with the strikers, he remains unwilling to negotiate. With so few scabs left in New Community’s (sic) fields, the UFW first strike in the southeast area (outside of Florida) may bring the first of many UFW contracts to these fields that were once harvested by slave labor. NCI employed scab labor, and somehow that’s not worth reporting. Uh-huh. Wilkins makes it clear that Shirley Sherrod was also heavily involved in NCI’s operations: “Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc. store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field.” For this, the Sherrods and NCI deserved $13 million? As of about 3 PM Eastern Time, a Google News search on “Sherrod Vilsack” (not in quotes; sorted in date order) returned 290 items (search results saved at my host for future reference). A search on “Sherrod Vilsack Wilkins” (not in quotes; sorted in date order) returned one result ( also saved ) — my August 3 Washington Examiner blog post about NCI’s alleged worker exploitation. Update: As of 6:20 p.m., the search results ( sherrod vilsack ; sherrod vilsack wilkins ) were virtually identical. If the non-coverage of the items raised above continues, this journalistic dereliction of duty will end up at or near the top of the list of the most disgraceful establishment press cover-ups I’ve ever seen. I’d love to be proven wrong. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View post:
Shirley Sherrod Rejects Return to USDA; Media Rejects Reporting Relevant Info

CNN’s Toobin: Judge’s Ruling a ‘Major Setback For Stem Cell Research’

On Monday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin used dire language to describe a federal judge’s decision which struck down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research: “The bottom line is this is a major setback for stem cell research and for the Obama administration ….it will certainly cut way back on federal funding.” Anchor Suzanne Malveaux labeled it a ” potential wedge issue .” Malveaux led the 5 pm Eastern hour with the “breaking news” about Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision, who issued a preliminary injunction against federal funding for the life-destroying research. The anchor brought in Toobin and asked, “What does this mean today?” Toobin immediately gave his “major setback” assessment and described the grounds on which Judge Lamberth gave in his 15-page opinion. The CNN senior legal analyst, like many in the media, omitted that embryonic stem cell research isn’t the only field when it comes to stem cell research. The federal government has actually spent much more on adult stem cell research. According to a July 18, 2008 report by PBS , the NIH “spent $200 million funding non-embryonic stem cell research, and only $38 million on embryonic stem cells.” Less than a month ago, on August 2, the Associated Press actually highlighted the successes of adult stem cell research. Toobin used similarly dire language later in the report: “To be sure, the Obama administration will appeal this ruling to the D.C. Circuit, and it may well be overturned. This case has already been to the appeals court once. But if it stands up, it will certainly cut way back on federal funding for stem cell research .” But he also refreshingly noted that ” this is yet another battleground, broadly defined, of the abortion struggle in America, because, ultimately, that’s what stem cell research and the fight over embryos has really come down to .” Malveaux concluded the report with her “wedge issue” label of the controversial research. The full transcript of Suzanne Malveaux and Jeffrey Toobin’s segment from Monday’s Situation Room: MALVEAUX: Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is now on hold- a U.S. District Court judge here in Washington issuing a preliminary injunction a short while ago. In the ruling, the judge says the research involves the destruction of human embryos, against the will of Congress. Now, this comes over a year after President Obama signed an executive order repealing Bush-era limits on federal tax dollars to study embryonic stem cells. Many Americans see that research as key to finding cures for spinal cord injuries, cancer, Parkinson’s- other diseases. I want to bring in our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who is on the phone, to help us explain what this means.  Now, Jeffrey, in covering President Bush for all of those years, one of the things he was dead-set against was allowing for these federal dollars to be used for embryonic stem cell research. What he proposed was a compromise, saying- look, no more new funding- just allow the funding for 21 existing lines. President Obama reversed that, and now, we have the courts involved in this. What does this mean today? TOOBIN: Well, the bottom line is this is a major setback for stem cell research and for the Obama administration, because what the judge said was, that in 1996, while President Clinton was in office, Congress passed a law that said there could not be any use of federal money for research where embryos are destroyed. Both President Bush and President Obama worked within the framework because the president, unilaterally, can’t overturn a law. By expanding the opportunities for federal funding of research, as President Obama did shortly after he was elected, Judge Royce Lamberth, the judge in Washington, today said he- President Obama- violated that 1996 law. He tried to basically say that that law didn’t count any more, and the president can’t unilaterally overturn an act of Congress, and that’s why the judge suspended the Obama rule today. MALVEAUX: So, Jeff, what does this mean, in terms of projects that have already been funded? Do they continue, or do they stop, or does this mean that there’s just not additional funding for new projects? How does this work today? TOOBIN: Well, as usual, those questions will mean more work for lawyers, because Judge Lamberth’s 15-page opinion does not really deal with all the details of how this will play out in the real world. To be sure, the Obama administration will appeal this ruling to the D.C. Circuit, and it may well be overturned. This case has already been to the appeals court once. But if it stands up, it will certainly cut way back on federal funding for stem cell research, and it is not clear, from Judge Lamberth’s order, what happens to those projects that are under way as we speak. MALVEAUX: And Jeff, just real quick here, what is the next step in the legal process? Where does this go? TOOBIN: Well, the Obama administration, I assume, will go D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ask for a stay of this ruling while it’s appealed, but the anti-abortion/pro-life forces who were behind this lawsuit, among others, will certainly oppose that, and this is yet another battleground, broadly defined, of the abortion struggle in America, because, ultimately, that’s what stem cell research and the fight over embryos has really come down to. MALVEAUX: Okay, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much. Again, another potential wedge issue that may weigh-in in the midterm elections- this decision coming down today, just earlier this afternoon. 

Read the original post:
CNN’s Toobin: Judge’s Ruling a ‘Major Setback For Stem Cell Research’

‘Ground Zero’ or ‘ground zero’? AP, NYT Long Ago Opted for Lower Case

File this under “Fascinating Things You Learn When Researching Other Things.” The Associated Press’s infamous memo huffing and puffing about how it will henceforth describe the 13-story mosque/community center/kumbaya center that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would like to have built on a site two blocks away from where the World Trade Center Towers once stood opened with this sentence: We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. Obviously the publicly announced editorial decision was news, but how about the lack of uppercase letters in “Ground Zero”? It turns out that both the AP and the New York Times routinely do not capitalize “Ground Zero,” making them grammar outliers. Here was one grammarian’s take on the matter in 2007 (bolded in final sentence is mine): Today’s topic is capitalizing tricky nouns like Ground Zero, Internet, and Earth. Ground Zero Since we’re coming up on September 11th, I was thinking about Ground Zero, and I realized that sometimes I see the words ground zero capitalized and sometimes I don’t. Back in 2001, it seemed as if the name Ground Zero got assigned to the site of the World Trade Center in New York almost immediately. Traditionally, ground zero means the site of a nuclear explosion, and sometimes it is used to refer to the site of a more general explosion or an area where rapid change has taken place. In those general instances, ground zero would be a common noun and wouldn’t be capitalized. On the other hand, although there are a few dissenters, most notably the New York Times, most people agree that Ground Zero is the name of the specific site of the former World Trade Center, and therefore it’s a proper noun that needs to be capitalized when it is used in that way . Besides the Times, the AP is not in the grammarian’s roster of “most people” who correctly capitalize “Ground Zero” as a specific place in Lower Manhattan. Perhaps they would prefer to be described at “the nyt and the ap.” This past Monday, referring back to something he wrote in 2002, the guy who runs TestyCopyEditors.com remined readers he doesn’t like the use of the term “Ground Zero” in uppercase or lowercase: “Ground zero” has a long history as a cliché but was occasionally useful in its original sense, meaning the point at which a nuclear explosion is triggered. To apply the term to the World Trade Center is to be needlessly vague about the nature of the attack. It also makes the term useless in its original sense, particularly in reference to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Ngasaki, Japan, in 1945. That’s interesting. Maybe the term’s use first became popular in the establishment press once it was coined as a convenient shortcut to avoid using the the “T-word,” as in “the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” or even to describe what occurred as “attacks” at all. If it was a strategy, it didn’t work out particularly well. Virtually everyone knows that “Ground Zero” in a story about New York City is where the terrorist attacks occurred. Here is a collection of current raw headlines found at the wire service’s main site at 5:20 p.m. in a search on “Ground Zero” (not in quotes, but capitalized): I count eight headlined instances of lowercase use of Ground Zero (the AP uses sentence case for its headlines). With the exception of one link to a multimedia item (“Plans for Ground Zero”) and links to two videos (“Obama backs mosque near Ground Zero” and “Obama Supports ‘right’ for Ground Zero Mosque”), “Ground Zero” is in lowercase format at all relevant underlying AP items listed above. So determined is the AP to keep “Ground Zero” in lowercase format that it revised the words in two paragraphs it directly quoted from a Rochester New Democrat and Chronicle editorial . The relevant paragraphs originally read as follows: The controversy over building a community center and mosque near Ground Zero cuts so deeply to the core of this country’s founding that President Barack Obama was right to weigh in. … That’s the rub. Many Americans view Ground Zero as hallowed ground, and building a mosque nearby seems beyond insensitive. In a roundup of editorials on various topics, the AP de-capitalized both uses of the term. This after-the-fact revision of another publication’s work seems to reflect a grim resolve that goes beyond the normal policing of grammar. If so, what’s the source? You’ll have to excuse me for believing that business arrangements similar to those  described here four years ago might have influenced the AP’s original decision-making process: Arab states have for decades paid substantial sums for control over content and other news-management privileges that I daresay would be refused at any price (with the mere request being treated as an earth-shaking scandal) if asked for by representatives of any Western country. Say it ain’t so, AP. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post:
‘Ground Zero’ or ‘ground zero’? AP, NYT Long Ago Opted for Lower Case

MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

On Monday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to defend President Obama’s Friday statement defending the planned mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Brzezinski cooed that the President ” did the right thing by saying what he said ” and Scarborough labeled the remark “uncontroversial” and later stated the controversy over the mosque was a ” wedge issue ” . As NewsBusters’ Noel Shepard reported , the former Florida congressman turned MSNBC anchor blasted Newt Gingrich for his barrage against the President for his defense of the mosque. Earlier in the broadcast, just after the top of the 7 am Eastern hour, Brzezinski related her personal anecdote about discussing the issue over her recent vacation, and went right into her “right thing” defense of the President’s stance. Scarborough replied to this by berating Gingrich, in an early preview of his later attack: SCARBOROUGH: David Ignatius, talking about the mosque on ‘This Week’- BRZEZINSKI: Actually, that’s a fascinating issue. We talked about it over the weekend, and, certainly, on vacation, it was much the dinner table conversation. I thought the President actually did the right thing by saying what he said , but- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: The President’s getting pounded. I ‘ve got a quote I’m going to read in a little bit when David’s here- from Newt Gingrich, a guy I know, a guy I worked with, a guy who I always considered to be one of the brighter guys – BRZEZINSKI: Yeah- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: But, my gosh, this quote is stunning, and I would say, stunning and irresponsible and – BRZEZINSKI:  It’s over the top . SCARBOROUGH: He’s not alone. Minutes later, the two MSNBC anchors brought on Ignatius to discuss the controversy. Scarborough read one of Gingrich’s attacks on Obama, and included his “non-controversial” label of the President’s statement on the mosque, as he asked the editor to respond to the former House Speaker. When Ignatius expressed his disagreement with this label, the former congressman erupted with a sharp retort. The editor replied with liberal platitude about how the Republicans needed to take care, as the world was watching: SCARBOROUGH: Let me read you what Newt Gingrich said and you tell me what kind of impact this has across the globe: a former speaker, somebody whose name many people across the world know. Gingrich said this, according to The New York Times- quote, ‘There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and inaccurate.’ Do you care to respond about the level of heat that this non-controversial statement that the President said on Friday night has generated? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, you couldn’t really call it a non-controversial statement because- here we are still talking about it , but I do think that kind of- SCARBOROUGH: Well, no, no, no- I’m just saying, though- I mean, David, he said this, though: Muslims have a right to worship as they choose . IGNATIUS: Yup. I understand- BRZEZINSKI: It shouldn’t be controversial .              SCARBOROUGH: It should not be – IGNATIUS: I understand. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. I’m sorry- go ahead. We have a delay. IGNATIUS: You know, it seems to me that this rhetoric about pandering to radical Muslims really is inappropriate. I do think Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, have to be careful when they speak to the world about us, about- and by that, I mean our political debate . The Washington Post editor went on to echo his earlier praise of the President’s stance on Sunday’s This Week on ABC . As he lauded Obama, Brzezinski took the time to express her agreement with him: IGNATIUS: What I found striking about the President’s comments on Friday night was he knew that this was going to be unpopular. The polls showing two-thirds of Americans disagreed with the essence of what he was about to say were already out. If you look carefully at the Friday night statement, he said we have to be sensitive to the feelings of people in lower Manhattan. This is hallowed ground, but even so, this is America, and we have to live by America’s rules, and he stated- I thought, the rules that we live under here, in terms of freedom- you buy a piece of property, you have a right to put up a mosque or whatever you want on it. And I thought it was, in that sense, a courageous statement by the President – BRZEZINSKI: Mmhmm- me too – IGNATIUS: It was a kind of leadership, frankly, I’d like to see more from him. I’d like to see more of that, not less. I was a little troubled by all of the nuance back-in filling that followed the next day, but I think it’s okay for our president to say things that people disagree with. He just needs to continue the dialogue. He needs to explain to Americans, this is the kind of country we are . He’s got a lot of support; he’s got Mayor Bloomberg; he’s got- you know, many of the prominent legislators up there who are going to stand behind him- not Peter King, maybe, but an awful lot of other people. So I didn’t think it was- you know, Obama’s mistake, and I think the attacks on him really paint us in a bad light around the world- I have to say that. Later in the hour, Scarborough actually went on the offense against not only Gingrich and the opponents of the NYC mosque in general, but also President Obama himself for his recent “demagoguing” of the Social Security issue. His co-anchor, however, couldn’t help herself to continue her praise of the executive: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from August 14, 2010 weekly address): Some Republicans leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They are pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen, not while I’m president. I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble what you got with Social Security on Wall Street, because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for- all you’ve earned- at risk. SCARBOROUGH: Oh, boy (laughs). BRZEZINSKI: I’m glad. SCARBOROUGH: Not exactly a weekend for political courage on either side . BRZEZINSKI: Oh, come on! SCARBOROUGH: You have the Republicans demagoguing the mosque issue and you’ve got Barack Obama demagoguing Social Security . It’s almost like- BRZEZINSKI: What!? He’s protecting us. It’s nice . SCARBOROUGH: Yeah- protect us, please, from those bad Republicans who want to destroy Social Security! You know, Mark Halperin and I have been having this conversation for some time. And I said, will Barack Obama really allow the Democrats to demagogue on Social Security, even though he says he wants to save it? And he said- well, he will until after the election, and then it will come to Republicans. Saturday, he sent me a press release and as I- whoops! Okay, I guess he is kind of jumping into the water himself- BRZEZINSKI: Well- SCARBOROUGH: This is the oldest, most cynical trick in the book – BRZEZINSKI: You are cynical. SCARBOROUGH: Especially when Social Security is dying. Social Security is running out of money, along with Medicare. Every economist that’s not a political hack will tell you the entitlements pose the greatest long-term economic risk to us, and Barack Obama decided to use his radio address this weekend to demagogue Social Security. It is shameless. It is shameless, every bit as shameless domestically- because this is the big issue- as Republicans demagoguing the mosque is in foreign affairs . BRZEZINSKI: So cynical! Over an hour later, near the end of the 8 am Eastern hour, as the two anchors discussed the mosque, among other issues, with Matt Lewis of Politics Daily and Republican political advisor Mark McKinnon, Scarborough used his “wedge issue” label to describe the controversy and referenced his earlier attack on both Obama and Gingrich: SCARBOROUGH [to Lewis]: Hey, Matt, this morning, we- I attacked Republicans for demagoguing the mosque issue- so I’ll get hate e-mails all day from right-wing nuts. And then, I attacked Democrats for attacking Social Security shamelessly, like they do, so I’ll get hate e-mails from left-wing nuts all day . When you posted a blog- as a conservative taking on both sides- what was the response? MATT LEWIS: Well- you know, the funny thing, Joe, is that both sides think that I was dead-on when I talked about the opponent- SCARBOROUGH: Of course- LEWIS: But that I was really wrong and overreached. There are a few blogs out about me today. I’ll just give you a couple headlines. One is called, ‘Civil discourse is overrated.’ One is called, Conservative blogger Matt Lewis ducks the fight.’ And one is called, ‘Matt Lewis proves he is a girl: g-u-r-l.’ [Scarborough laughs] So that will give you an idea. I think I’m starting to feel the Joe Scarborough love there. SCARBOROUGH Yeah. Well, here’s what I found that is so disappointing is that- it’s disappointing that all these symbolic issues- all these wedge issues take a backseat to the real issues- whether you’re going to stand up to balance the budget; whether you’re going to stand up to cut taxes; whether you’re going to stand up to show restraint in foreign policy- actual ideas don’t matter for a lot of these freaks. It is where you stand on these red-hot issues.

View original post here:
MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

WaPo Runs Entire Story of Leftist Praise for Suspected Wiki-Leaker ‘Hero’ — With No Liberal Labels

On Saturday, The Washington Post devoted an entire article to left-wing praise and Facebook fan pages for Private Bradley Manning, suspected of the shocking leak of more than 90,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan. The headline was “Army analyst linked to WikiLeaks hailed as antiwar hero .”  Washington Post reporter Michael W. Savage (not that other Michael Savage) began: “For antiwar campaigners from Seattle to Iceland, a new name has become a byword for anti-establishment heroism : Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.” In the entire story, there is no liberal or leftist label used, and there is no conservative counterpoint quoted.  There are only “grass roots activists” offering praises to the audacity of Manning: The breach has elicited a furious reaction from national security officials, who say it has compromised the safety of U.S.-led forces and their Afghan allies. Yet, since his arrest in the spring, Manning has become an instant folk hero to thousands of grass-roots activists around the world, some of whom are likening the disclosure to the unauthorized release of the Pentagon Papers or the anonymous tips that helped uncover the Watergate scandal. Mike Gogulski, a U.S. citizen living in Slovakia, honored Manning as a “charismatic young whistleblower” linked to the “story of the decade,” and his group drew no label: The group co-coordinating Gogulski’s campaign, Courage to Resist, has developed a line of Manning memorabilia, replete with images of the boyish-looking private. There are “Save Bradley Manning!” badges, posters and T-shirts. The products’ tagline: “Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime.” Their other motto is “Supporting the troops who refuse to fight!” They are clearly on the radical left, but the Post just calls them “peace campaigners” and other positive-sounding labels. The Savage story ended this way: Plans are being drawn up for an international day of solidarity . Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Britain’s Stop the War Coalition, said that whoever disclosed the classified material to WikiLeaks had done the public a favor. Although Manning has not been charged in connection with the more than 90,000 documents leaked to WikiLeaks, he has been charged in the disclosure of U.S. combat video footage showing a helicopter attack that killed several civilians in Iraq. Burgin said Manning should “be on a par” with Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw a shoe at George W. Bush during a Baghdad news conference in 2008. Peace campaigners hope that Manning’s rising profile will spur interest in their cause. “It is like the story of the boy who cried out that the emperor was wearing no clothes,” said Gerry Condon, president of Seattle’s branch of Veterans for Peace and a member of the Bradley Manning Support Network. “He’s really becoming a focus that could help revive what has been a somewhat weakened antiwar movement.” Daniel Ellsberg, who was imprisoned for leaking the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, said he felt “great identification” with Manning. “He’s a hero to me,” he said. “I haven’t seen someone make an unauthorized disclosure on this scale, that would lead to serious charges, for 40 years. It seems he believed, as I did, the stakes involved justified that kind of risk.”

Visit link:
WaPo Runs Entire Story of Leftist Praise for Suspected Wiki-Leaker ‘Hero’ — With No Liberal Labels

Time Wrings Hands Over Question, ‘Can a Child Be Tried for Jihadist Crimes?’

With his August 12 post, “Can a Child be Tried for Jihadist Crimes?” , Time magazine’s Tim McGirk hit the Obama administration from the left on the military tribunal prosecution of jihadist Omar Khadr. Khadr was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was just 15 years old. He’s charged with the murder of a U.S. soldier, a crime he’s already confessed to, although he now claims his confession was coerced. Although 15-year-olds in the United States are frequently tried as adults for murder and although Khadr is in 23 years old now, McGirk presented the case as the potential first conviction of a “child” for war crimes since World War II. What’s more, McGirk presented the case as a potential travesty of justice in an ill-conceived war on terror, a term he dismissively used in quote marks: Khadr’s trial got underway just as another military tribunal sentenced Osama Bin Laden’s former chef and driver, Ibrahim a-Qosi, to 14 years in prison. The first prosecution of a Gitmo prisoner since Obama took office promising to close down an offshore prison that had become a symbol of the Bush Administration’s riding roughshod over the rule of law in the course of its “war on terror”. Have we no decency! Putting poor cooks, chauffeurs, and children in prison and throwing away the key! At no point did McGirk indict al Qaeda terrorists, particularly Khadr’s late father Ahmed Said —  “an imposing, grey-bearded patriarch” who was “a close friend” of bin Laden’s — as monsters for allowing teenagers to join in suicidal jihad against the world’s most advanced military, even as he closed with this familiar critique of U.S. anti-terrorism policy (emphasis mine): Jury selection for Khadr’s trial is supposed to end on Wednesday and the trial will begin immediately afterwards. It is expected to run until mid September. But r egardless of its finding, the trial is unlikely to reflect positively on the Obama Administration in the eyes of many of its allies in the fight against al-Qaeda. Photo of Omar Khadr via Time magazine .

Link:
Time Wrings Hands Over Question, ‘Can a Child Be Tried for Jihadist Crimes?’

CNN’s Moos: Booing Scouts Weren’t ‘Courteous and Kind’ to President Obama

On Tuesday’s American Morning, CNN’s Jeanne Moos picked up on the viral video of Boy Scouts booing President Obama’s taped message to the recent National Jamboree, but got in a light jab at the youth for their behavior: “Booing would seem to go against some of the 12 tenets of Boy Scout Law. A Boy Scout is ‘trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind’- wait a minute, ‘courteous and kind’? ” The correspondent, known for her light reports for the network, concluded the 6 am Eastern hour with “unique take” on the video, as anchor John Roberts put it. Moos noted that “45,000 Scouts were celebrating the 100th anniversary of Scouting” in the United States at the Jamboree, which was held at the U.S. Army’s Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, and that “two months earlier, the White House informed the Scouts that the President had prior commitments.” Moos continued that the “Scouts…booed the President’s message, and this 23-second video made its way on to conservative websites, which slammed the President for forsaking the Boy Scouts to appear on ‘The View.'” She later gave the Obama administration’s explanation for the apparent snub: “The White House says ‘The View’ had nothing to do with it- that the President was already scheduled to be on the road that day.” The CNN correspondent’s jab against the booing culprits, using two of the twelve points of the Scout Law , came near the end of the report. She added that “a statement from the Boy Scouts said the organization does not condone booing.” Moos concluded, “If the President’s watching this, the jamboree returns in four years.” In the past, Moos has hit subjects from both sides of the political spectrum. On the April 30, 2008 edition of American Morning, the correspondent devoted all but six seconds of a two-and-a-half minute report to “granny” supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. Later that year, during the Democratic National Convention, she highlighted the dancing antics of CNN’s liberal pundits . Just over a year ago, on August 4, 2009, Moos devoted an entire segment to the viral Obama as the Joker image . That December, the correspondent also exposed left-wing rage being directed at independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Most recently, during a June 22, 2010 report, she refreshingly spotlighted how the President frequently golfed during the oil leak disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The full transcript of Jeanne Moos’s report from Tuesday’s American Morning: KIRAN CHETRY: Meantime, the Boy Scouts are voicing their displeasure with President Obama, claiming that he passed up an invitation to join their big jamboree to appear on ‘The View.’ JOHN ROBERTS: No one, though, was prepared for just how emotionally the Scouts would react, and here’s Jeanne Moos with her unique take on it. JEANNE MOOS (voice-over): It’s bad enough getting booed, whether you’re busted for dog fighting (crowd boos football player Michael Vick), or competing for Miss Universe- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE ANNOUNCER: USA. (crowd boos) MOOS: But imagine getting booed by the Boy Scouts. (scouts boo as taped message of President Obama plays, from YouTube.com video) And the person they’re booing is the president of the United States. Actually, what they were booing was President Obama sending a taped message, rather than coming in person to the recent Boy Scout jamboree. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Thanks for showing up! MOOS: Some 45,000 Scouts were celebrating the 100th anniversary of Scouting. Two months earlier, the White House informed the Scouts that the President had prior commitments. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: It doesn’t really bother me. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 3: Disappointed but, I mean- busy man. What can you do? MOOS: But just a few days after those interviews- PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Scouts just like you- MOOS: Scouts just like these booed the President’s message, and this 23-second video made its way on to conservative websites, which slammed the President for forsaking the Boy Scouts to appear on ‘The View.’ OBAMA (from ABC’s ‘The View’): Thank you! MOOS: Some figured the booing tape was somehow doctored. (reading from website) ‘I don’t believe for one second that these 23 seconds of film is accurate.’ MOOS (on-camera): Believe it- some Boy Scouts booed.  (holding three fingers up in Scout Sign) Trust me, ‘Scout’s honor.’ MOOS (voice-over): The Boy Scout who shot it wouldn’t do an interview, but he told us that though he didn’t boo, there was a moderate amount of booing going on around him, mostly from Scouts annoyed, not because of the President’s policies, but because he didn’t show up as six previous presidents have. The White House says ‘The View’ had nothing to do with it- that the President was already scheduled to be on the road that day. JON STEWART (from Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”): Look on the bright side. Boy Scouts will finally get their merit badge for crushing disappointment. Look- MOOS (on-camera): Now, on the face of it, booing would seem to go against some of the 12 tenets of Boy Scout Law. MOOS (voice-over): A Boy Scout is ‘trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind’- wait a minute, ‘courteous and kind’? (scouts booing, from YouTube.com video) A statement from the Boy Scouts said the organization does not condone booing. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 4: I hope you’re watching this! MOOS: If the President’s watching this, the jamboree returns in four years. OBAMA (from 2009 Inauguration): I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear- MOOS: That if re-elected, I will try to make it to the next jamboree. OBAMA: So help me God. MOOS: Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.   ROBERTS: Some of the Boy Scouts not too happy about getting a taped message.

Go here to read the rest:
CNN’s Moos: Booing Scouts Weren’t ‘Courteous and Kind’ to President Obama

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

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

CNN’s Ed Henry Touts Bill Clinton as ‘Best Democratic Politician’

On Wednesday’s American Morning, CNN’s Ed Henry lauded former President Clinton as ” one of the best politicians the Democrats have ever had …in the last quarter century” and touted his apparent credibility over current President Barack Obama. Henry also speculated that if “Al Gore… had used President Clinton more in 2000, he may have been president .” Substitute anchor Drew Griffin brought on the White House correspondent 26 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour to discuss the Obama White House’s intention to “aggressively use the former president on the campaign trail over the next few months. One party official familiar with the plan calls it a- quote, ‘no-brainer.'” During the second half of the segment, Griffin asked, “How can Bill Clinton do it all? I mean, he was picked by President Obama, basically, to rebuild Haiti. Now, they seem to be yanking him off of that and heading him out to the campaign trail, just to save the Democrats in the House in November.” Henry used the “no-brainer” quote from the unnamed Democratic Party official in his answer and immediately proceeded to use his superlatives about Clinton: HENRY: Well, they’re careful here inside the White House to say that they don’t want to yank him off the Haiti job or any of his other important Clinton Foundation work, for example, altogether. They just want him to fit it in, because they say- look, as you noted, it’s a no-brainer . This is one of the best politicians the Democrats have ever had- you know, in the last quarter century . And, as President Obama faces these credibility questions and all these various national polls right now, and as he tries to make this case that there is a real choice between the Democratic message and the Republican message, people inside the White House say there’s no one better at making that case, that contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans, than Bill Clinton . So they want to use him early and often, and they point to what happened in 2000 when Al Gore had trepidation about using Bill Clinton- sort of backfired on him, blew up in his face. If they had used President Clinton more in 2000, he may have been president, Drew . Is Henry forgetting and/or brushing aside Clinton’s own credibility issues, such as his law license in Arkansas being suspended for five years after he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Griffin followed through by asking about the current Democratic occupant of the White House: “You know, I can’t resist, Ed, but what about using President Obama, the current president? He just doesn’t have the clout?” The CNN correspondent acknowledged Obama’s failing poll numbers, but then touted him as still being more or less equal to former President Clinton: HENRY: … Clearly, he’s facing these credibility questions because of all these national polls you’ve been talking about . The ABC one yesterday saying 6 in 10 Americans basically don’t have faith in this president right now to make the right decisions. They’re pushing back on that, obviously, inside the White House , and saying- look, they’re going to send him out on the campaign trail. But there’s certain states like Arkansas where President Obama is just deeply unpopular- lost to John McCain there by double digits. And so, they see it as a one-two punch . President Obama will be out there in some states, Bill Clinton will go to other ones, Drew.

View post:
CNN’s Ed Henry Touts Bill Clinton as ‘Best Democratic Politician’