Tag Archives: labeling

Governor ‘Moonbeam’ Employs ‘Tea Bagger’ Insult on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’

If former California Gov. Jerry Brown , now once again a candidate for governor of California really wants to be sort of a unifier as he says, he might want to watch how he refers to some of his constituents. On MSNBC’s July 9 “Hardball,” Brown was interviewed by host Chris Matthews and was asked how he could make all the unions in California work together in a political way. (h/t @HayleyMcConnell ) “How do you deal with the kick-butt unions out there?” Matthews said. “They’re really tough. You have the correction officers, you got the police, you got the teachers, the nurses. These are tough, strong well-funded units that are politically cohesive. They took down Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger when he tried to take them down. How do you make them work? How do you get them to serve the public and make reasonable compensation?” Brown wanted to make it clear that they were “all Californians first.” He defended the unions but took a shot at the Tea Party movement by using the “tea bagger” reference, which is a favorite of MSNBC personalities . “First of all you treat them with respect,” Brown replied. “You lay out your agenda, and you get everybody understanding we’re Californians first. We’re not Democrat or Republican or a member of this group or that group. And don’t just say unions are a powerful force. Hey, you know Wall Street destroyed $11 trillion worth of wealth. That’s powerful. No union could do that. Then there’s the tea baggers and the Chamber of Commerce. The key to democracy is leadership what can forge the common purpose. That’s what I feel my entire life has prepared me to take what I learn, work with the diversion conflicting factions and get this common pathway to the future. Seizing the assets of California, which after all is still the eighth wealthiest political entity in the world.”

See the original post:
Governor ‘Moonbeam’ Employs ‘Tea Bagger’ Insult on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’

CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated

On Friday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez attacked conservative economic policy, singling out the right’s support for lower tax rates, and complained that ” we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests …. you would find that at least half…[are] pulling for the rich guy.” Sanchez also belittled conservative talk show hosts: ” Many…don’t even have a college degree .” The anchor led the 3 pm Eastern hour with a rant against ” these guys on talk radio, some of whom make hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars ” and their defense of “the money guys…the super-rich, night in and night out- you know who I’m talking about- you will hear this and you have heard this consistent narrative. We’re being held back by high taxes in this country, high tax rates- cut taxes on the wealthy and, zoom, there it goes. Our economy is going to be back with a vengeance. Get the government off our backs and all our problems in this country are going to be solved.” Sanchez then caricatured the conservative take on the present economic situation and, unsurprising, introduced race into the issue. He also targeted CNBC personality and Tea Party hero Rick Santelli: SANCHEZ: And, by the way, the mess we’re still digging out from: it’s not Wall Street’s fault, not a thing to do with the government turning a blind eye to the high-rolling financial shenanigans of some people on Wall Street. No, not at all. It’s the poor people’s fault, who brought the rest of us to our knees, mostly, by the way- I know you hear this- I know you hear this- mostly minorities, them Hispanics and them blacks who bought the homes that they couldn’t afford. They defaulted on those loans, and then we all went down, by golly. Do you think I’m kidding about this? Look, here’s one of the biggest media darlings of this message . RICK SANTELLI (from MSNBC’s “Hardball”): Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages? SANCHEZ: This guy’s a superstar now. That’s right, superstar: ‘losers.’ Remember that? If you lose your job and you end up defaulting on your mortgage, you are a loser. That was the rant that fueled, in many ways, the Tea Party movement. Quit subsidizing the losers, America. How did the CNN anchor refute Santelli and “these guys on the radio”? He turned to the left-wing New York Times: SANCHEZ: Now, let me show you something else. I want to show you- hey, Rob, are you good there. Where’s the newspaper? I want to bring you in the newspaper that I had here just a moment ago. Here it is. Here’s The New York Times. All right? What’s that say? Can you see it? Biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich. So, who are the losers? Hispanics? Minorities? Black people who bought more home than they could really afford? Once again, let’s look at this. The biggest defaulters on mortgages are the rich…more than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of $1 million are seriously delinquent, okay? Now, let’s look at the rest of us, people like you and me. About one in 12 mortgages below the $1 million mark is delinquent. Who are the losers again? Who are the losers again, Mr. Santelli, or whatever your name is? Okay, the article goes on to say, though it’s hard to prove, the data suggests that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially-draining properties. They’re doing this on purpose. You know what? I don’t want it. I will dump it, just as they would any other sour investment. Fine, but let’s be clear. The rich aren’t paying their mortgages, and at a higher rate than anyone else. Sanchez then set up a straw man of the conservative position on taxes: SANCHEZ: I want to make a point about taxes now. To hear the narrative out there, you would think that we’re the highest taxed nation on the planet, in the history of the planet. You hear it every day on your way home. Just turn on your radio, folks. In fact, there’s another list out there I want to show you, of the top 30 industrial nations in the world. Where do you think the United States ranks? Now, you hear every single day we’re the most taxed country in the world, no question about it. And it’s all these politicians and the government. And where do you think we are? Of all the developed countries in the world, where do you think we are, as far as the tax rate? Where do you think we are? Twenty-sixth- twenty-sixth out of thirty. That’s according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development- twenty-sixth out of thirty. Again, here’s the list. Here’s my highlight marks that I have put right there. You see it.  We are right after- here, I’ll tell you. Who comes before us? Switzerland, Mexico and Australia. Who comes after us? Ireland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and New Zealand. After mouthing the left’s consistent talking point that “the rich have gotten…richer, the poor…poorer,” the anchor brought on Georgia Tech Professor Danny Boston, who agreed that the New York Times statistic “debunks the stereotype” on the economy. Later, Sanchez returned to his tax straw man and bemoaned how so many people hold the economic conservative position: SANCHEZ: We hear we’re the most taxed country in the world. That seems to show that maybe we really aren’t. We’re 26th of the 30 developing [sic] nations. We hear that it was the poor people who bought too many homes that they couldn’t afford. Now, we’ve got a statistic saying, no, that’s not true. In fact, it’s the rich who have been the most delinquent and defaulted on their mortgages. It’s like statistic after statistic seems to- why is it that we in America are so easily led to go against our own interests? Because- and you know what I mean by that. Most of the people who are super rich in this country are- what, 1 percent? Then there’s 99 percent of the rest of us, and yet, if you look at studies politically and sociologically, you would find that at least half of that 99 percent is pulling for the rich guy , and saying- oh, yes, it’s not his fault, it’s our fault. Near the end of the segment, the CNN anchor took a conservative talking point against President Obama and applied it to Professor Boston, as a set up to launch his attack on conservative talk show hosts: SANCHEZ: Well- you know, a lot of the folks who would criticize someone like you- they would criticize you, first of all, because you’re a college professor, which, in their mind, makes you overeducated, and thus, stupid. But is that something that’s frustrating as well, that you know this stuff and can explain it as easily as you just did to us, but yet, t he people who are really leading the charge in this country are the guys on the radio and- many of which don’t even have a college degree . Well, Mr. Sanchez, as you demonstrated yourself, you can have a college degree and still make mistakes about basic geography, such as when you misidentified the Galapagos Islands as Hawaii during CNN’s live coverage of the February 27, 2010 earthquake in Chile.

More here:
CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Conservative Talk Show Hosts are Uneducated

Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

Advocacy groups have increasingly labelled their opposition as “astroturf,” or corporate-funded fake grassroots, groups in order to demean them and lessen the fact that both sides enjoy some measure of public support. Many of the organizations throwing around accusations of astroturfing, such as the Marxist net neutrality advocacy group Free Press and the liberal ThinkProgress not only engage in astroturf strategies, but are financially supported in ways they decry as astroturf. The media, unsurprisngly, has often chosen to ignore leftist astroturfing and focus on accusations of rightist astroturfing. The Daily Caller reported Wednesday on a pro-neutrality letter circulated around Capitol Hill by Free Press which was a product of the same astroturfing tactics Free Press has decried. The “signatories” of the letter had no recollection of the letter and had no idea they had signed it. One of the signatories, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation wrote to the Federal Communications Comission, The Hill reported , asking to be removed from the list of signatories. Tellingly, a Free Press spokeswoman suggested that they were pressured to do so. Presumably by the Satan-worshipping board of directors of some telecommunications company. Mike Riggs, of The Daily Caller, wrote: “Interestingly, groups like Free Press and NTEN like to publicly denounce letters with questionable signatories. In 2009, Ars Technica pointed to a letter that was supposedly authored by a group of senior citizens who supposedly had written Congress to oppose net neutrality. The group ‘forgot to strip out the “XYZ organization” and replace the text with its own name,’ reports Ars Technica, which caught wind of the letter from Free Press. ‘It’s unclear who was behind the letter, but it certainly looks like evidence of anti-neutrality forces rounding up an odd collection of allies on this issue,’ wrote Ars’ Matthew Lasar.” Free Press has shown a similar indifference to ethics in the past, with campaign director Timothy Karr quick to accuse anyone and everyone who opposes net neutrality of being a corporate tool, much of the time sans any sort of evidence, whatsoever. Michael Turk of Digital Society offered Karr $1,000 for proof that he was an astroturfer. One June 30, The Daily Caller reported that Free Press had outright lied regarding the FCC preventing them from attending closed-door meetings on net neutrality when they had, in fact attended. Similarly, they said they had been invited to attend a Congressional meeting on the issue and then told reporters they had been denied access. The same Daily Caller story pointed out that Free Press is a member of the Open Internet Coalition , a pro-net neutrality group. Amazon, Google, eBay, PayPal, Twitter, Earthlink are members, as are several marketing firms. Not only that, but Free Press’s own lobbying efforts are coordinated by a firm called the Glover Park Group, of which anti-net neutrality company Verizon is also a client. Many of the accusations of astroturfing by telecommunications companies in other blogs and publications ultimately come from Free Press. When PBS’ Media Shift experienced a large number of anti-net neutrality comments, Free Press campaign director Timothy Karr was quick to offer his expertise in throwing around astroturfing accusations for them. Wrote Mark Glaser: “While I have seen a lot of evidence pointing toward certain individuals who post time and again against Net neutrality, I haven’t found a ‘smoking gun’ that proves without a doubt that this campaign is paid for by telecom companies.” So Free Press denounces certain tactics as astroturfing, but when they engage in them, it’s grassroots advocacy. That’s a sharp contrast to the Tea Parties, which were heavily accused of being astroturf last year, by several media outlets. Wrote Julia A. Seymour of the Business & Media Institute: “ABC’s Dan Harris repeated criticism from the left that the tea parties were ‘a product’ of Fox News and lobbyist organizations.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been one of the more visible figures reitterating the charge. Well, as long as Free Press provides the media with “information” and the corporate-funded liberal activists continue to be “grassroots,” there won’t need to be a smoking gun because any center-right organization will be astroturf.

Read more:
Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

CNN and CNN.com Omits Firing of Middle East Senior Editor Nasr

Both CNN and CNN.com have punted on the firing of Octavia Nasr, the network’s senior editor of Middle East affairs, after she mourned the death of Islamist cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, “one of Hezbollah’s giants,” to use her own phrase, on Twitter. None of CNN’s on-air programming nor the website has mentioned her “leaving the company” since the news broke on Wednesday afternoon. Mediaite’s Steve Krakauer posted an item on Nasr at 3:38 pm on Wednesday about Nasr which included the text of an internal memo from CNN International’s Senior Vice President Parisa Khosravi which, as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey pointed out , “makes it clear that this was no resignation:” I had a conversation with Octavia this morning and I want to share with you that we have decided that she will be leaving the company. As you know, her tweet over the weekend created a wide reaction. As she has stated in her blog on CNN.com, she fully accepts that she should not have made such a simplistic comment without any context whatsoever. However, at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward. The senior editor acknowledged in the July 6 blog entry on CNN.com that her Tweet was an “error of judgment” on her part, but then continued her eulogy of the deceased Hezbollah spiritual leader: “I used the words ‘respect’ and ‘sad’ because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman’s rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of ‘honor killing.’ He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam.” Nasr did later qualify this by stating that “this does not mean I respected him for what else he did or said. Far from it….Sayyed Fadlallah. Revered across borders yet designated a terrorist. Not the kind of life to be commenting about in a brief tweet. It’s something I deeply regret.” Other than the July 6 blog entry, a search of CNN.com turned up no stories on the controversy over the senior editor’s Tweet, nor her “leaving the company.” In fact, as of 12:40 pm Eastern on Thursday, Nasr’s bio still appears on the website.

See original here:
CNN and CNN.com Omits Firing of Middle East Senior Editor Nasr

CNN Again Omits Pro-Illegal Immigration Stance of ‘Public Defender’

On Wednesday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Tony Harris omitted the pro-illegal immigration activism of guest Isabel Garcia, just as his colleague Suzanne Malveaux did more than two months earlier . Harris twice referred to Garcia as merely the “deputy public defender in Pima County, Arizona,” and didn’t mention her involvement in the beating and decapitation of a pinata effigy of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The anchor brought on the activist, as well as Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of the state newly-passed anti-illegal immigration law, for two segments starting 10 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour. After asking Senator Pearce’s position on the federal government’s new lawsuit against the enforcement of his law, Harris turned to the public defender: “Isabel, you’ve been patient. Weigh in here.” Garcia (her pro-illegal immigration organization, Coalición de Derechos Humanos, whose website features a logo incorporating the southwestern states into Mexico, was identified on-screen as the “Human Rights Coalition”) immediately went on the offense against Pearce, playing the race/ethnicity card against the Republican politician: GARCIA: This is not about protecting anybody from Arizona. (Pearce laughs) In fact, if Mr. Pearce were responsible, he would, in fact, want to protect us and protect our values in this country. Clearly, this is a supremacy issue. I mean, it’s preposterous that he argued that the federal government doesn’t have the exclusive jurisdiction on this very complicated area of law. Certainly, Arizona cannot simply regulate immigration- and he is trying to regulate immigration. As much as he tries to hide it over and over, he knows full well that they have created a new offense of not having your documents with you. And the issue of racial profiling, that he can just wipe it away so easy- well, it’s because you’re a white person, Mr. Pearce . PEARCE: Oh, what an idiot. GARCIA: You don’t have any qualms about racial profiling at all . You should be concerned about our liberties in this country. You should be concerned about the facts. The facts are that immigrants are an absolute plus to our economy- always have been. That’s why we have 11 million undocumented people here, not because we’re giving give-outs, like you’re saying. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Immigrants contribute much more than they ever take out in health care, in educational costs, in anything. You look at any credible study, Mr. Pearce- which you should, because you’re an elected official- you should have a real body of evidence before you start talking and endanger our entire community and endanger our country. The state senator didn’t get a chance to reply to Garcia’s racially-charged accusation because the anchor then broke for commercials. After the break, Harris asked Pearce, “You acknowledge that it, at some point, becomes a federal issue, and we’re here because the government hasn’t done enough in this area. And I’m curious, are you as angry at Congress- all of Congress- for not enacting new immigration legislation- and that is Republicans, Democrats and independents?” Once Pearce answered, Harris asked Garcia a similar question, but one from the left: “We’ve got a list of 11 Republican senators who voted for immigration reform in 2006 who aren’t doing much in the way of leadership on this issue at all right now….But Democratic leadership on this issue isn’t moving it forward as well. Do you have any anger right now for Speaker Pelosi, Senate Leader Reid? This was supposed to be the year for comprehensive immigration reform .” Near the end of her reply, the pro-illegal immigration activist proffered a conspiracy theory on the issue: GARCIA: Well, really, the responsibility lays not only in all the people you have mentioned, but in previous administrations, from Clinton, to the Bush administration, to the present Obama administration- is their inability to articulate the truth to the American public that we have caused the situation . Mr. Pearce talks about people not following the laws. Let me tell you, Mexicans, specifically, and other immigrants, have followed the rules. You know what the rules have been for 100 years? Come into the country in an unauthorized fashion so you can build our country. Do you really think we’ve got 11 million people that are benefitting so profusely from give-outs? Absolutely not. We depend on these 11 million people to feed us, to clothe us, to house us, and Mr. Pearce should be thanking them rather than demonizing them, because Arizona was selected by the federal government. It was no accident. This is not occurring because the federal government has not acted. It’s the opposite . HARRIS: Okay. Got you. GARCIA: It’s because they funneled everybody through Arizona to elect the likes of Mr. Pearce – HARRIS: Oh my. GARCIA: In order to become a laboratory for everything that’s anti-immigrant . One might be inclined to add Garcia’s out-there theory to the likes of 9/11 “trutherism” and “birtherism,” and all Harris had to say in response was “oh my”? Neither Harris, nor Malveaux during the April 23, 2010 interview, brought up the activist’s participation in a 2008 protest where the pinata effigy of Sheriff Arpaio was beaten and decapitated and where she carried the figure’s head down the street. Only CNN anchor Anderson Cooper fairly questioned the “public defender” on the incident during an October 2009 segment where she appeared with Arpaio .

See the article here:
CNN Again Omits Pro-Illegal Immigration Stance of ‘Public Defender’

Who Can Ignore and Downplay Democrat’s Racist Statement? The Establishment Media Can

To refresh, as posted at NewsBusters and Eyeblast.tv , Pennsylvania Congressman Paul Kanjorski said the following on Wednesday while he was defending what Investors Business Daily has called “Financial Deform” : We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people — and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about — these are average, good American people. This isn’t too tough to decipher, no matter how many House Democrats try to give him defensive cover — If the people Kanjorski “deal(s) with in my office everyday” are “average, good American people” because “they’re not minorities and they’re not defective,” then those who are minorities and “defective” in some way are not “average, good American people.” Kanjorski uttered an objectively racist (embodying “the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others”) statement. According to this report , Kanjorski is not apologizing. Therefore, one must conclude that the congressman is comfortable with his objectively racist statement. So how is the press handling this? The mostly Democrat-defending establishment press that generally sets the narrative for radio and TV news mostly understands the aforementioned elementary exercise in logic. This explains why Kanjorski’s statement, while occasionally being framed with the usual “Republicans attack poor misunderstood Democrat” approach, is mostly getting ignored. A search at the Associated Press’s main web site on the Congressman’s last name comes up with one seemingly relevant item , an article headlined “McMahon: Wrestling was soap opera.” Yeah, you read that right. But the article is really a collection of four short items and two “Quick Hits.” AP writer Philip Elliott (or perhaps his editors) thought that Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon’s description of her Word Wrestling Entertainment enterprise was more important than Kanjorski’s racist remark, the coverage of which came second. Naturally, Elliott’s item used the “Republicans attack” technique: Republicans criticized Rep. Paul Kanjorski for what they said were remarks suggesting minorities are not “average, good American people.” The 13-term Pennsylvania Democrat vigorously denied the charge, saying Republicans were taking his words out of context to score political points. … A Kanjorski spokeswoman said the congressman was defending people who get government help from those who unfairly criticize them. Sure he was. But in the process, he uttered an objectively racist remark. Alleged “context” is irrelevant. Well, at least the AP has covered it in its own quirky way. The New York Times hasn’t . The Washington Post restricted coverage of Kanjorski’s statement to its “44” blog , and has apparently kept the matter out of its print edition. Matt DeLong’s post is funny, in a reality-denying, sickening sort of way (bolds are mine): A Democratic congressman has found himself the target of conservative criticism after an inartful description of who will be helped by the financial reform bill currently working its way through Congress. The conservative website Human Events reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-Pa.) appeared to say during Wednesday’s financial reform conference committee meeting that the financial overhaul will help “average, good American people” — but not minorities or “the defective.” It’s amazing how often the word “inartful” — which isn’t even a recognized word in the dictionary ( here or here ) — has appeared since candidate Barack Obama and others frequently employed it in 2008 to defend him and others after verbal gaffes and worse utterances. As to DeLong’s use of “appeared” — Matt, stop insulting our intelligence. Finally, it’s also quite predictable to see DeLong tag Human Events (accurately) as “conservative,” while, as Tim Graham at NewsBusters noted earlier this week , magazines like Rolling Stone almost never get the “liberal” or “radical left” tag from the establishment press. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View original post here:
Who Can Ignore and Downplay Democrat’s Racist Statement? The Establishment Media Can

Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

What do Tea Partiers, Truthers, birthers, Birchers, militias, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Barry Goldwater, Joe McCarthy, Father Coughlin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Orly Taitz, and Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh all have in common? Approximately nothing, but don’t tell Chris Matthews. The MSNBC “Hardball” host spent the better part of an hour last night trying to associate all of these characters with one other. Of course he did not provide a shred of evidence beyond, ironically, a McCarthyite notion that all favor smaller government, and are therefore in league, whether they know it or not, to overthrow the government. Together, by Matthews’s account, they comprise or have given rise to the “New Right.” The special was less a history of the Tea Party movement than a history of leftist distortions of the Tea Party movement. As such, it tried — without offering any evidence, mind you — to paint the movement as potentially violent. Hence, after Matthews tried his hardest to link all of these characters, he went on to paint them all as supporting, inciting, or actually committing violence. Matthews trotted out Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center to claim that “one spark” could set the militia movement off into a violent frenzy. But Matthews used the statement not to indict the militias Potok was discussing, but rather as evidence that the Tea Party movement at-large is a violent one. Set aside for a moment the fact that Potok is nothing but a partisan hack with a pathetic track record of predicting violence, the B-roll footage while the thoroughly-discredited Potok was making these predictions was footage of the 9/12 Tea Party rally in Washington. This is what Matthews did throughout the special: splice together clips of militias firing weapons with Tea Party protesters in order to create a mental association between the groups. That there is no evidence whatsoever linking Tea Parties to militia groups, nor incidents of violence occurring at rallies, did not dissuade the former Jimmy Carter staffer. Matthews simply chose the unseemly route of trying to associate the numerous characters in his special without any evidence to back up his claims. The only connection that Matthews managed to legitimately draw between the Tea Party and militia groups — indeed, between any of the long list of characters mentioned above– is their aversion to government intervention in their daily lives. That’s right, in the same segment in which Matthews ragged against the late Joe McCarthy, he associated Tea Parties with the Hutaree Militia because both have a distaste for big government (the latter much stronger than the other, obviously). By Matthews’s logic, every American who has qualms with some element of capitalism is complicit in, and supports, openly or not, radical anarcho-socialist violence perpetrated at the G-8, or any other incident of leftist violence (and there have been many of late). Matthews himself has touted the wonders of the ” social state .” So he must support, or at least acknowledge the justifiability of folks who wish to violently overthrow the government and impose a socialist system. That is the only logical conclusion, if we accept Matthews’s premises. Such hypocrisy is rife in the special: if folks associated with the Tea Party use words like “revolution,” they must be literally advocating violence, whereas when mainstream leftists literally advocate violence , they are not worth mentioning. The special’s rank hypocrisy continues right through Matthews’s final monologue. “Words have consequences,” he states. “You cannot call a president’s policies ‘un-American,’ as Sarah Palin has done,” he claims. Or, Matthews forgot to add, as Salon Editor Joan Walsh and Time columnist Joe Klein have done, the former on Matthews’s show and the latter on another MSNBC program. You can’t “refer to the elected government as a ‘regime'” by Matthews’s account, unless, presumably, you are Chris Matthews or a host of other MSNBC personalities , in which case it is permissible. Given that the special really offered no new insight into the Tea Party movement — just the same cliches the Left has regurgitated since the fall of last year — it is hardly surprising, though worth mentioning, that neither Matthews nor any of his cohorts seem to remember their total lack of concern over the potential for anti-government violence during the Bush administration. A movie depicting the assassination of George W. Bush , the plethora of signs at anti-war rallies calling for his death , the litany of incidents of violence committed by leftist groups in the recent past — none of these things were particularly worrisome for the Left throughout Bush’s term. In all of these ways, the “Rise of the New Right” special was just more of the same.

Read the original here:
Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’

In his June 9 “case study” feature for Time.com, Adam Cohen, formerly of the New York Times editorial board and Time magazine, tackled the question “Are Liberal Judges Really ‘Judicial Activists’?” Cohen’s short answer: yes, but so are conservative judges, and it’s the conservatives on the Supreme Court that have been on an activist kick lately. To bolster his argument, Cohen complained that judges must of necessity make judgment calls about vague elements of U.S. law and the Constitution. You know, vague stuff like, wait for it, the First Amendment (emphases mine): Roberts and the rest of the court’s five-member conservative majority have overturned congressional laws and second-guessed local elected officials as aggressively as any liberal judges. And they have been just as quick to rely on vague constitutional clauses. Earlier this year, in the Citizens United campaign-finance case, the court’s conservatives struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations from spending on federal elections. Once again, they relied on a vaguely worded constitutional guarantee. That “vaguely worded constitutional guarantee” reads as follows: Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. What part of that is vague? Congress has no business abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The amendment says nothing about whose freedom of speech, and congressional attempts to fence in that freedom of speech to individuals alone, and not corporate entities, is a pretty clear violation of the text of the amendment’s prohibition against speech abridgement. Indeed, as the majority in Citizen’s United made clear: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content….The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. Cohen also considers “vague” the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause: In a 2007 case, the conservative majority overturned voluntary racial integration programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. Good idea or bad, the programs were adopted by local officials who had to answer to voters. But the conservative Justices had no problem invoking the vague words of the Equal Protection Clause to strike them down. In that controversy, the two school systems involved were purposefully engineering the racial demography of schools within their districts to correct what was perceived as racial imbalance. In other words, some schools were too white, others too black, in the eyes of policymakers. Whereas Brown v. Board ruled that de jure segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment protections because segregation by law was inherently unequal, liberal proponents of the Seattle and Louisville plans defended the respective school districts’ obsession with the skin color of its school populations.  Here’s how Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes recorded the logic of Chief Justice Roberts in the Court’s opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. : “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a plurality that included Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons.” He added: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  Those crazy conservative justices and their radical activism, upholding the implications of Brown v. Board of Education!

Go here to see the original:
Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’