Tag Archives: liberal

WaPo’s Stevens-Arroyo Calls for Catholics to ‘Embrace a Redistribution of Wealth’

The Washington Post’s really should consider renaming Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s column in its “On Faith” blog. “Catholic America” should be “Liberal Democrat Catholic America,” just for the sake of truth in advertising. On June 23, left-wing hack Stevens-Arroyo again injected his politics into the ostensibly religious column. In “ Common good v corp. profits ,” he actually wrote that Catholics should “embrace a redistribution of wealth.” The column sought to explain how Catholics and others should view Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling overturning the Obama moratorium on off-shore drilling. Why, the reader may ask, should this event have Catholic significance, beyond the fact that a liberal writer whose column has “Catholic” in the title was upset about it? It doesn’t. But Stevens-Arroyo gamely offered that, “There may not be a ‘Catholic’ position about the immediate politics of off-shore drilling, but there is an on-going Catholic approach to resolving the competing interests.” Not surprisingly, that approach vindicates the left. To Stevens-Arroyo, the issue came down to “common good,” which led him to make this puzzling statement: “While we have considerable freedom about our personal political choices in the application of principles, Catholics in America are bound to embrace a redistribution of wealth, even if it goes contrary to ranting from groups like the Tea Party or Wall Street.” He never explained where exactly it states Catholics are bound to encourage the government to confiscate legally earned private property to give it to whomever it deems more worthy. Catholics are bound to assist others through charity, not compulsory redistribution. This isn’t the first time Stevens-Arroyo has conflated socialism with faith. Last year he declared that “ the most Catholic ” part of Ted Kennedy’s funeral was the senator’s grandchildren pleading for nationalized health care. But, not content being an arbiter of what is Catholic and what isn’t, Stevens-Arroyo set himself up as a law scholar, hypothesizing that the “Reagan-appointed judge” Feldman’s ruling could be seen as the work of an “activist court.” He ranted that, “a judge is supposed to be limited to matters of constitutionality — and not to impose his jobs’ policy. There can be no doubt that a presidential moratorium falls within the powers of the White House, so stopping this legitimate executive order on questions about its consequences constitutes activism.” Even the Associated Press explained that the moratorium was overturned because the “Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium.” Stevens-Arroyo has a history of being unable to hide his liberal viewpoints. Just last March he claimed that Fox New’s Glenn Beck was using “the same strategy of the Hitler Youth and the Polish Communist Party … ” In December he also attempted to compare Ft. Hood shooter Hidal Hassan to World War 1 hero Alvin York and General Patton.

See the original post:
WaPo’s Stevens-Arroyo Calls for Catholics to ‘Embrace a Redistribution of Wealth’

Stossel Argues Gun Control Increases Crime, ‘I Was Once as Clueless as Senator Schumer’

On Thursday’s Stossel show on FBN, host John Stossel devoted the program to making the case that gun control can increase crime rates and that higher rates of gun ownership tend to decrease crime. Stossel admitted that, even as a libertarian, it took time for him to come around to this truth as he and most in the mainstream media live in the New York City liberal bubble, not cognizant of all the states that have passed concealed carry laws and seen crime decrease. During a segment with Dennis Hannigan of the Brady Campaign, the FBN host observed: “Over the years, more and more states changed their laws to allow concealed carry. The mainstream media and my neighbors are so isolated here in New York City and in Washington, D.C., most of us had no clue that carrying a concealed weapon is already legal in the rest of the country. More places all the time, legal guns, and yet crime does keep dropping.” Stossel concluded the show by recounting Britain’s failed experiment with gun bans, and revealed that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, known for advocating gun control, had declined an invitation to appear on the show to argue his case as the FBN host took a self-deprecating jab at the New York Senator: I was once as clueless as Senator Schumer. Now I admit I was wrong about guns laws. Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. … This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. … Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control. During a segment with University of Chicago Professor John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime – a segment which also included the Brady Campaign’s Hannigan – Stossel recounted: “We have this chart from your book that shows violent crime rates after concealed carry laws passed. Here it is for murder. It’s impressive. After the law passed, crime went down.” Another segment explored the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, and included advocates on both sides of the issue. David Burnett of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus notably contended: “I would point you to two colleges in Colorado. One of them banned guns in 2003. The other one decided they would allow guns. On the campus that allowed guns, the crime dropped like a rock. And on the campus that banned guns, the crime went up.” Stossel then hosted a segment which included Suzanna Hupp, who has lobbied against gun control in response to losing her parents in a mass shooting at a time when it was illegal to carry guns into restaurants in Texas. Also included was Nikki Goeser, whose husband was shot to death in front of her in a Tennessee bar where she was not legally allowed to bring her own gun for self-defense. And Mark Walters of Armed America Radio recounted the time he defended himself from being carjacked by brandishing a weapon to scare off his attacker. The FBN host then moved to a segment focusing on the effort to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban, featuring Chicago resident and plaintiff Otis McDonald. Stossel recounted the case of D.C.’s gun ban that was overturned by the Supreme Court two years ago, and how changes in the law affected crime in the city: “Murder and other gun violence have dropped in D.C. since the Supreme Court overturned the handgun ban. And let’s now go back 35 years to when Washington passed its gun ban. In the years that followed, crime went up compared to other big cities and compared to the rest of America. Fewer guns, more crime.” Stossel concluded the show by recounting Britain’s failed experiment with gun bans, and noted revealed that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, known for advocating gun control, had declined an invitation to appear on the show to argue his case as the FBN host took a self-deprecating jab at the New York Senator: As he concluded the show, Stossel showed a clip of Senator Schumer arguing in favor of gun locks, comparing the concept to put child safety locks on medicine bottles, as the FBN host pointed out the flaw in Schumer’s logic: “Well, Senator Schumer, you don’t suddenly need to open an aspirin bottle for self-defense.” Stossel recounted his show’s unsuccessful offer to allow Schumer to appear on the show, and informed viewers of the effects of strict gun laws in Britain. Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Thursday, June 24, Stossel show on FBN: JOHN STOSSEL: Concealed carry terrifies a lot of people, and many people would be shocked to how many states already allow it. And here, I think, is a really cool map that shows which states already have it. States that have concealed carry laws are colored yellow. This is the law in 1986 – that’s 25 years ago. Over the years, more and more states changed their laws to allow concealed carry. The mainstream media and my neighbors are so isolated here in New York City and in Washington, D.C., most of us had no clue that carrying a concealed weapon is already legal in the rest of the country. More places all the time, legal guns, and yet crime does keep dropping. … STOSSEL: We have this chart from your book that shows violent crime rates after concealed carry laws passed. Here it is for murder. It’s impressive. After the law passed, crime went down. … DAVID BURNETT, STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS: I would point you to two colleges in Colorado. One of them banned guns in 2003. The other one decided they would allow guns. On the campus that allowed guns, the crime dropped like a rock. And on the campus that banned guns, the crime went up. … The college in Colorado, there’s not very many colleges that allow them. The college at Colorado, the sheriff there is a big fan of it, and he went to the college, and he said, “No, do not ban this. This works. Nobody is irresponsible. Everything is good.” … STOSSEL: If you’re an adult in America, do you have the right to own a gun? Thirty-five years ago Washington, D.C. said no. They passed a law that banned handguns. That law was challenged in court, and, two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled the ban was unconstitutional. The mayor was upset. MAYOR ADRIAN FENTY (D-WASHINGTON, D.C.): More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence. STOSSEL: But that didn’t happen. In fact, murder and other gun violence have dropped in D.C. since the Supreme Court overturned the handgun ban. And let’s now go back 35 years to when Washington passed its gun ban. In the years that followed, crime went up compared to other big cities and compared to the rest of America. Fewer guns, more crime. It’s counterintuitive, but it does seem to be true. Gun rights’ supporters were excited when the Supreme Court overturned the Washington law, but that case was not the big one because it just applies to D.C., the federal property. The big case that’s being debated now by the Supreme Court, and next week or maybe even tomorrow the court is expected to announce its decision. The case is called McDonald versus Chicago. If the court sides with McDonald, it would apply the right to bear arms to people in all cities. The lead plaintiff in that lawsuit is Otis McDonald. Here’s an interview done with him by Fox’s Chicago affiliate. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: In the 38 years that you’ve lived here, how many times have you been burglarized? OTIS MCDONALD, CHICAGO RESIDENT: The house three times, the garage twice. STOSSEL: McDonald lives in a Chicago neighborhood that he says has been taken over by gangs and drug dealers. REPORTER: He says he’d feel safer if he had a handgun by his bed, but then he’d be breaking Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban. Why is owning a gun important? MCDONALD: When my life is threatened, I’d like to be able to at least feel that I can protect myself. STOSSEL: Chicago’s lawyer who opposes giving McDonald a gun wouldn’t come on to defend the ban, so, Dennis Hannigan from the Brady Campaign is back to give Chicago’s side. Also with us is the lawyer who argued McDonald’s case before the Supreme Court. But before we go to the lawyers, let’s go to the plaintiffs, 76-year-old Otis McDonald. So, Mr. McDonald, you own a shotgun. Isn’t that enough? You want a handgun, too? MCDONALD: Yes. I own a shotgun for hunting game. STOSSEL: Isn’t that enough? MCDONALD: No. STOSSEL: Why? MCDONALD: I don’t think it would be efficient enough for me to handle in close quarters with a would-be killer or something like that. … STOSSEL: I once wrote a book about myths with the subtitle, “Everything You Know is Wrong.” And that applied to me. It turned out so much of what I and my colleagues in the liberal media thought was true was just wrong. But, of course, I live here in New York City. We have all kinds of silly beliefs. We also have silly politicians who say things like this: SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Let me ask a simple question: If an aspirin bottle can have a safety lock, why not a gun? STOSSEL: Well, Senator Schumer, you don’t suddenly need to open an aspirin bottle for self-defense. There is a difference. We asked the Senator to join us on this program. His office said they’d call us back, but they didn’t. I was once as clueless as Senator Schumer. Now I admit I was wrong about guns laws. Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. When the law passed, Britain seemed to get safer by the minute if you watched as officials made sure cameras were there as 160,000 newly illegal firearms were forked over by law-abiding citizens and sent to be melted down in an incinerator. But the real result? This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. This shouldn’t come as a surprise if you consider just two things. Criminals usually don’t obey laws. That’s why we call them criminals. And gun laws never totally get rid of guns. England’s ban didn’t magically eliminate all British handguns. Officials estimate a quarter million illegal weapons are still in circulation. Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control.

More:
Stossel Argues Gun Control Increases Crime, ‘I Was Once as Clueless as Senator Schumer’

USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

Don’t be surprised if you open up the June 24 USA Today and find pom poms in the ‘Money’ section. Reporters-turned-cheerleaders Paul Wiseman, Jayne O’Donnell and Christine Dugas wrote a glowing 38-paragraph story about the proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). The story even included a section called “keys to a new agency’s success” with quotes from “experts” at a wide variety of government agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration. USA Today’s story began by praising the creation of the EPA in 1970 and the way it hit the ground running by ordered city mayors to clean up their water. They included 10 “expert” voices in favor of government agencies (proposed or current) many of whom were former regulators, against only three voices of opposition – all politicians. “It’s exciting to think about building an agency that could make a real contribution, a real difference in the lives of millions of families,’ Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren told USA Today. Warren “proposed the consumer financial regulator in 2007 and is considered a top candidate to be the agency’s first director,” according to the story. The paper barely mentioned Warren’s pro-regulation history which included compensation limits for large corporations. Warren also chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel that babysits companies bailed out by TARP funds. Only three paragraphs were devoted to opposition to the new government agency. Critics were labeled by USA Today as “Republican” or “financial industry lobbyists.” No economists or academics who oppose additional regulation were consulted. Some of the “keys to success” USA Today offered were “hiring motivated career staffers with diverse talents who will outlast political appointees at the top of the organization” and “making a big splash early on to establish your credibility.” However, William Galston of the liberal Brookings Institute feared that the BCFP would “get their knuckles rapped” if they go to far. “If they make a mistake, it will more likely be on the side of excess. They will go too far and get their knuckles rapped, but I don’t expect them to be asleep at the switch like (BP regulator Minerals Management Service) was,” Galston said. Of course the article failed to mention the past ineffectiveness of government regulators and didn’t mention any details of the Democrat-sponsored “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” other than the proposed BCFP. John Berlau, director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Business & Media Institute the entire bill will have more negative effects on consumers than positive ones. “It will set up a nanny state with unintended consequences,” Berlau said. “You’re punishing the many because of a few stupid people and the costs will just be passed on to consumers.” Brian Johnson, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, also criticized the proposal telling BMI that the bill is “one of the first steps towards nationalizing the banking system.” “The BCFP is one of the worst things in this bill,” Johnson said. “They’re operating with a fat budget and can monitor personal transactions and map out grids with purchasing patterns.” This isn’t the first time the media has pulled out its pom poms for liberal reforms or increased financial regulation . Perhaps next time the reporters will save their act for a football halftime show as opposed to a major newspaper. Like this article?   Sign up   for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

Continued here:
USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

CNN Fails to Label Liberal Group Poised to Sue McDonald’s Over ‘Happy Meal’ Toys

As NewsBusters sister company CNSNews.com reported , the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a liberal consumer advocacy group, is threatening to sue the McDonald’s Corporation for “unfair and deceptive” marketing practices unless the fast food company stops giving away toys in its “Happy Meals.” CNN’s “American Morning” on June 23 covered the story half-jokingly, but failed to identify the liberal tilt of organization. Co-host Kiran Chetry reported: “The Center for Science in the Public Interest is delivering a warning to McDonald’s about toys being used to make “Happy Meals” more appetizing to kids. They say “Happy Meals” are unhealthy.” Making no effort to apply an appropriate label to the organization, co-host John Roberts continued: “The group accuses the fast food giant of ‘unfair and deceptive’ marketing practices toward children. McDonald’s, of course, as you could image, rejects the accusations.” On the surface, CNN crafted the impression that CSPI is a quirky but sincere consumer advocacy organization, but underlying the group’s innocuous veneer are liberal activists willing to inject partisan politics into consumer safety.                   Referring to the Bush administration, CSPI Litigation Director Stephen Gardner told CNSNews.com: “Marketers of all kinds in this country, one, were lulled into a sense of true security under the prior administration when the federal agencies did absolutely nothing to protect consumers.” At the end of the segment, both Chetry and Roberts seemed dismissive of the lawsuit, but neither anchor was willing to inform viewers of CSPI’s liberal leanings and history of pushing a public policy diet heavy in government regulation . A transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN American Morning 6/23/10 7:56 a.m. KIRAN CHETRY, co-host: Welcome back to the most news in the morning. The food police have a beef with McyDees. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is delivering a warning to McDonald’s about toys being used to make “Happy Meals” more appetizing to kids. They say “Happy Meals” are unhealthy. JOHN ROBERTS, co-host: Yeah, they’re putting McDonald’s on notice, saying “drop the toys, or we’ll sue you.” The group accuses the fast food giant of “unfair and deceptive” marketing practices toward children. McDonald’s, of course, as you could image, rejects the accusations. CHETRY: They can’t get a break. First they tried to give away the glasses but they had to recall them because of cadmium in the paint on the “Shrek” glasses. ROBERTS: Well that definitely is a bad thing, but the toy? Come on. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
CNN Fails to Label Liberal Group Poised to Sue McDonald’s Over ‘Happy Meal’ Toys

Crime Pays: CNN Hires Prostitute-Plying Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Star in Debate Show with Kathleen Parker

The rumors were true. CNN is without shame. They are hiring disgraced Democrat Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the hypocritical “Sheriff of Wall Street” who hired high-priced hookers, as a talk-show host. Spitzer’s co-host will be pseudo-conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who won the Pulitzer Prize for being a conservative-basher . CNN’s press release said “she describes herself as a ‘rational’ conservative.” That’s a nice way to endear her to the “irrational” conservatives who might have considered watching this show. It’s set up to be Liberal Lion vs. ‘Rational’ Lamb. Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S., the man who canceled the long-running left-right show “Crossfire” after Jon Stewart lamented they needed to “stop, stop, stop, stop, hurting America,” has reinvented the format as just the latest liberal-media attempt to rehabilitate Spitzer’s career. Klein said in a statement: “Eliot and Kathleen are beholden to no vested interest – in fact, quite the opposite: they are renowned for taking on the most powerful targets and most important causes.” They’re actually spinning this “unbeholden” Spitzer as a moralist and guardian of the public interest. CNN’s press release suggested that little prostitution thing is hardly a disqualification for such a “well-respected political mind.” They even re-used the ridiculous “Sheriff” moniker: Spitzer, a Democrat who resigned as governor in March 2008 after acknowledging visiting a prostitute, is a well respected political mind and a take-no-prisoners prosecutor who has been often referred to as the “Sheriff of Wall Street.” Parker was required by her new job to kiss Spitzer’s ring: “I’m thrilled by the opportunity to discuss the issues that matter to me — and that aren’t heard often enough on television — in a conversation with one of the nation’s most brilliant, fearless and original thinkers. With Eliot Spitzer as my co-host, Wall Street and Main Street will finally meet. It can’t possibly be boring.” Last year, Parker also felt pain for Spitzer in a column knocking David Letterman for his nasty Sarah Palin joke (ever the balancer): Everyone knows by now that Letterman made fun of the Palin family’s trip to New York last week. He quipped that Palin’s daughter got “knocked up” by Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez during the seventh inning. Unable to stop his slide into the gutter, he said the hardest part of the visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter. How will this show cover the next politican sex scandal? Or are they hoping CNN will be the “hot corner” on those stories now?  James Poniewozik at Time has the first boos from the media establishment:  The first is not that Spitzer has been chosen despite his sex scandal. It’s that he seemingly was chosen, at least in part, because of the scandal: that is, because of the short-term blast of notoriety and buzz that he will bring with him. Now, for all I know, CNN genuinely sees special and distinctive broadcasting talent in Spitzer, but if they do, it’s eluded me in his long recent history as commentator and guest-host on CNN and MSNBC, where—to my ears, anyway—he comes off grating and supercilious. If he didn’t come with the name and the headlines, I have a hard time believing he’d been chosen on the basis of ability alone. (As for Parker, I’m not familiar enough to say whether she’s a good choice or not, though her résumé is strong enough. But I do have to guess that—call me cynical—given Spitzer’s history it would have been hard for CNN to even consider pairing him with a man. Not that the underrepresentation of men in cable news is exactly a problem, but the idea that pairing Spitzer with a woman makes his choice any better is just icky.)

Excerpt from:
Crime Pays: CNN Hires Prostitute-Plying Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Star in Debate Show with Kathleen Parker

Zoinks! CNN, USA Today Shocked Kids Prefer Cartoon-Endorsed Products

It didn’t take Velma, Shaggy or Scooby to uncover this mystery. In a June 21 study published in the medical journal Pediatrics, researchers from Yale University “discovered” that food products with characters on them affect children’s taste preferences, which may explain why food companies have been advertising with cartoons since at least the 1960’s . CNN.com and USA Today used the study to promote advertising restrictions and victimize consumers: “Characters from TV and movies have appeared on food products for years, but until now little research has been done to examine how they influence children’s food choices,” Sarah Klein wrote on CNN.com. Additionally, Klein chose to present the data from the study that best reflected her cause: “Fifty percent of children say that food from a package decorated with a cartoon celebrity such as Shrek tastes better than the same exact food from a plain package, according to a new study.” While 50 percent is significant, this means that 50 percent of the children in the study either did not notice a taste difference or found the other package to taste better. Not to be outdone, USA Today quoted media favorite Margo Wootan of the liberal Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), who claimed that parents and children are “outgunned” by the food companies: “Parents are outgunned by the food industry, which has market research, cartoon characters and slick ads,” Wootan said. “We don’t have Shrek, SpongeBob and the Disney princesses to get our kids to eat the foods that we want them to eat.'” While children may be attracted to products with character labels, the media are attracted to CSPI’s Big Government approach to food, whether it’s cereal or school lunches . At the very least, CNN and USA Today are consistent with the media trend of failing to hold parents accountable, and even if they do mention parents, they’re usually portrayed as victims of the corporations.  

Visit link:
Zoinks! CNN, USA Today Shocked Kids Prefer Cartoon-Endorsed Products

Sally Quinn: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden Should Switch Jobs

Sally Quinn really wants to be helpful to both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. However, the result of her laughable suggestion that Hillary and Vice-President Biden switch jobs is that it would only highlight the desperate political situation that the current administration has gotten itself into. Here is Sally trying to be helpful with her bizarre recommendation : Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden should switch jobs. Really. Really? Of course this job switch, a first in history for a vice president to switch places with a cabinet member, would be one more indication of Obama trying to pull himself out of the political abyss he finds himself in. That thought seems not to have entered Sally’s mind as she happily chirps on about this scenario which includes a big plug for Hillary: It makes sense for the Democrats, actually. Clinton has done an incredible job as secretary of state. First of all, she has worked harder than anyone should ever be expected to. She has managed to do the impossible: She is the ambassador of the United States to the world, maintaining her credibility while playing the bad guy to President Obama’s good guy, such as with North Korea, Iran and Israel, and still looking good. She has been a true team player. If Clinton is dissatisfied with her role, you would never know it. She has been loyal and supportive to the president and has maintained a good relationship with him and with others in the White House. If she is being left out of the policymaking, or being sent on trips to keep her out of town, she has not shown it. She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life.  Sally sounds more like she is promoting Hillary for sainthood than for the vice-presidency. In fact, Sally believes that the Hillary “magic” would be enough to ward off the “evil” Sarah Palin spell: She is tireless and relentless. Given the combination of votes that she and Obama got in the 2008 primary campaign, they would be a near-unbeatable team. Clinton also appeals to independents, but importantly, she would neutralize the effect of Sarah Palin. Whatever Palin came up with, Hillary could best her — and the Tea Party crowd as well. The Republicans would lose their “year of the woman” argument. And based on experience alone, Hillary is far more qualified to be president than any of the Republicans being considered today, including Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Palin.  And what of Joe Biden? How would he handle what is essentially a demotion? According to Sally, he would happily swallow his pride because he secretly wants to become Secretary of State: True, Joe Biden has been rehabilitated. A recent profile in The Post portrayed him as a successful and intelligent man whose foreign policy advice is valued by the president. The gaffe-prone former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems to have worked out the kinks. Clearly, he is aware that he is no longer an independent voice but, rather, a representative of the president. But Biden has no intention of running for president in six years. His passion is foreign policy. He would have been an ideal choice for secretary of state had he not been Obama’s running mate. And those who know him have said that secretary of state is his dream job.  So welcome to Sally’s World in which a simple job switch would cause the “evil” Republicans to melt away make everything right again for the liberal agenda. Sally saved her best laugh line about this job switch suggestion for the final sentence: Take it seriously.  Oh yes, Sally, we  certainly will… BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Read more:
Sally Quinn: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden Should Switch Jobs

Chuck Todd Rips ‘Unreliable’ Rasmussen, Doesn’t Mind Liberal Polling Firm Even Kos Rejected

Media bias often shows itself in which organizations journalists choose to cite or ignore. A very prevalent form of this bias is selective reporting on polling data–polls that show results friendly to the liberal position like are touted while those that show the opposite are buried. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, pictured right, is the latest reporter to demonstrate such a bias. He took Rasmussen Reports to task on Twitter yesterday, claiming it is “has a horrible track record and us [sic] proven to be unreliable” and is really “[n]ot a serious polling firm.” Todd said he would only report on “numbers from a more reliable pollster.” Apparently one such pollster, in the mind of Todd’s cable network at least, is Research 2000. But R2K was recently rated one of the least reliable major polling firms in existence by liberal statistician Nate Silver. R2K was not even accurate enough for the Daily Kos, which officially dropped the firm on Wednesday. Rasmussen, in contrast, was rated relatively highly in Silver’s study, at 15th out of the 63 firms that have conducted 10 or more polls. R2K came in at a paltry 59th. But R2K’s findings have nonetheless been touted on MSNBC in discussing the Nevada Senate race, the very topic on which Todd refused to even consider Rasmussen’s findings. Of course Todd does not speak for all of MSNBC, but where were his protestations when a colleague used poll data significantly less reliable than the unserious, unreliable Rasmussen, with its “horrible track record”? And if Silver’s numbers are not good enough for Todd, consider Rasmussen’s actual performance in the last three election cycles. Rasmussen’s track record is far from “horrible,” as Todd claims. As Greg Pollowitz notes , he’s consistently one of the more accurate pollsters out there. Here are his results from 2008 , 2006 ( Senate and governors ) and 2004 . Consider the races Nevada: in 2008 Rasmussen’s final poll had Obama over McCain, 55–43. The vote went for Obama, 50–46. (Rasmussen can hardly be accused of skewing Republican there). In the 2006 Nevada governor’s race, the final poll had Gibbons over Titus, 48–44. The election result was Gibbons, 48–46. And in the 2004 presidential race, the final poll had Bush over Kerry, 50–48. The vote tally was Bush, 49–47. One of the digs lately against Rasmussen is that his 2008 polls are showing a Republican house effect that wasn’t there in other years. Nate Silver has what I think is a fair look at Rasmussen and this development.  I assume this is what Chuck Todd is referring to when he calls Rasmussen “unreliable.” The bottom line is we won’t know the answer until November, but if Rasmussen’s past performance is any indication, Harry Reid is in deep trouble. And I think Reid knows it.

Follow this link:
Chuck Todd Rips ‘Unreliable’ Rasmussen, Doesn’t Mind Liberal Polling Firm Even Kos Rejected

Brosnan Harpoons Obama for Voting "Present" on Whaling

Actor and environmental activisit Pierce Brosnan has taken the cause of whales to heart. He does not want humans to kill them, period. www.SaveTheWhalesNow.org has just released a PSA featuring Brosnan, taking President Obama to task for apparently reneging on a campaign promise to support an International whaling moratorium… (Video after jump)

ABC’s Terry Moran Frets that ‘Republican Reformist’ Schwarzenegger Is Being ‘Squeezed Out’ of GOP

Nightline’s Terry Moran on Wednesday profiled Arnold Schwarzenegger as a “Republican reformist” and never once referred to him as a liberal. Instead, the co-anchor tagged the California Governor as a “lonely figure” in the GOP. Moran sympathized, “When you look at the way the Republican Party is going, here in California and around the country, rise of the tea party, candidates like Rand Paul, do you think there’s still room in the Republican Party for someone like you?” He then prompted, ” Or are you being squeezed out? ” Of course, most Republicans in California and nationwide would say that Schwarzenegger’s embrace of liberalism indicates someone who left the party, rather than being “forced out.” Although Moran noted the Governor’s massive unpopularity (his approval rating hovers around 23 percent), he never really explained why. The host also noted the state’s $19 billion deficit, but not the excessive spending. Instead, Moran spun, ” He sounds pragmatic, though many of his reform efforts have failed .” Throughout his two terms, journalists have often favored Schwarzenegger as an example of the ideal Republican. On November 20, 2006, CNN’s Bill Schneider enthused, “In California, Schwarzenegger carried independent voters handily. He reclaimed the center. Schwarzenegger did two things President Bush has never done. He flatly acknowledged his mistakes, and he changed course.” A transcript of the June 9 segment, which aired at 11:45pm EDT, follows: TERRY MORAN: Arnold Schwarzenegger. He rose from big screen action hero to Republican reformist in charge of governing California. But this real-life script hasn’t exactly enjoyed a Hollywood happy ending. Now he’s staring down his final months in office, and he’s going to end his term on something of a down note. So, what has he learned about politics and what’s next? I spent the day with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. On primary night in California last night, the big political stars of the state took center stage. But the guy who once dominated California politics, who seemed poised a few years back to usher in a new era in the Golden State, like Ronald Reagan before him, he was out of the limelight, strangely muted. These are difficult days for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and for a guy who has lived his life in the limelight, from his championship body building days immortalized in the documentary Pumping Iron, to his Hollywood career, built on indomitable action roles like The Terminator and Conan the Barbarian. [Clips from Schwarzenegger’s movies.] SCHWARZENEGGER: You see capital gains taxes going up. MORAN: The real world of politics has not been easy for California’s Governor, and for all his relentless self-confidence, he knows it. You’ve become a very unpopular governor. SCHWARZENEGGER: You know something, it’s perfectly fine. I understand the mood. I don’t blame the people for being upset about what’s going on. MORAN: What’s going on in California is a colossal grinding fiscal and political crisis with no end in sight. A $19 billion deficit in the state’s budget. A political system in such deep partisan gridlock it makes Washington look almost functional. It’s all a recipe for deep voter disgust. And a lot of that anger is aimed right at Schwarzenegger, who has seen his approval rating collapse to 23 percent, with seven in ten saying they disapprove with the way he’s done his job. But he is determined to keep pushing. We caught up with Schwarzenegger last week aboard the USS Midway Museum in San Diego, where he was unveiling Operation Welcome Home. It’s an ambitious effort to help returning veterans in the state. SCHWARZENEGGER: We want them to move smoothly from the battlefront to the home front. MORAN: The goal? Streamline the sometimes confusing process of coming home. SCHWARZENEGGER: We are saying to the veterans, you don’t have to run around anymore. You don’t have to get the runaround. No, you just go to one place, you call and we will pay attention. MORAN: It’s the kind of program tailor made for Schwarzenegger right now. It’s got bipartisan support. It doesn’t cost much. It’s doable. Because the last thing Schwarzenegger wants to talk about, even think about now, is the end of his career as governor. And this is really a major initiative of what are your last months in office, yeah? SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, it doesn’t matter if it is my last months in office, which it’s not. It’s my last year in office. But you know, this is irrelevant. I mean we continue on until the last. We sprint to the finish line. MORAN: Schwarzenegger, though, is sprinting on his own, a lonely figure on the state’s political landscape, and in the national GOP. When you look at the way the Republican Party is going, here in California and around the country, rise of the tea party, candidates like Rand Paul, do you think there’s still room in the Republican Party for someone like you? Or are you being squeezed out? SCHWARZENEGGER: I don’t feel like I’m getting squeezed out. I feel like I need reforms. It’s not the Republican Party. It’s not the Democratic Party. It’s the system that is wrong. What we want to do is create a system where you get rewarded for compromise, rather than get punished for compromise and rewarded for getting stuck in the ideological corners. CAMPAIGN AD: After Arnold, don’t we deserve a Republican? MORAN: Schwarzenegger was hammered this primary season by Republicans running away from him and Democrats trashing him. But, Arnold Schwarzenegger is far from the only incumbent politician getting trashed these days. [Video of tea partiers.] As President Obama struggles with a stumbling economic recovery and an environmental disaster in the gulf, Arnold sounds like he’s got some sympathy for him. As a governor, how do you rate President Obama and his administration’s response to the oil spill in the gulf? SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I mean, I think that he’s doing everything that he can. And everything that he’s doing to his knowledge. There is no one in the political arena that is an expert it in, so we all rely on experts to tell us, you know, what is the thing to do. MORAN: As the oil continues to gush into the waters of the gulf, Schwarzenegger is blunt about the blame. SCHWARZENEGGER: I think one should not lose sight of one thing. Why do we have this problem? The problem is because we failed as a country to force the oil companies to have a safety device, which, European countries have. What’s the safety feature? What device do you have? Nothing, because they lobbied and Congress voted against it. MORAN: There are people who say that because of the scale of this catastrophe, BP should, essentially, be put out of business. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, you know, that’s all easier said than done. You can’t go just now and say this is the worst company, let’s put them out of business when the fact is that 95 percent of our, you know, energy comes from fossil fuels. I mean it’s, I think, crazy talk. MORAN: He sounds pragmatic, though many of his reform efforts have failed . But yesterday, primary day, a triumph. A Schwarzenegger-backed ballot measure that would do away with party-controlled primaries in favor of open primaries, passed handily. SCHWARZENEGGER: You will see extraordinary change in a direction that California will be going and the kind of decisions that will be made here. MORAN: And then there are programs like Operation Welcome home, something that can get done for returning soldiers like Lance Yonker. LANCE YONKER (RETURNING SOLDER): Plastic surgeon put this ear back on and put my head together with 70 staples. And, you know, I had to learn how to walk again and do all that, and, you know, I’ve seen the worst of it, and Operation Welcome Home and everything that’s going on here has really helped me. MORAN: So, as the race to succeed him revs up, Arnold Schwarzenegger is looking to make a mark where he can. And given the state’s deep and intractable problems, a question, did California terminate the governator? The old body building competitor just won’t have it. SCHWARZENEGGER: You never have the surrender kind of attitude. I remember Munich, trying to break a record, I couldn’t. It was 500 pounds on the bench press. And I tried it many times after that, but the 11th time, I did it. So, people fail in sports, people fail all the time in many other things. That doesn’t mean that you give up. It means that you continue on and you keep saying, “I’ll be back.” That is the important thing. MORAN: He’ll be back. And Schwarzenegger told me he won’t think about what he’ll do next until the day he leaves office.

See the original post here:
ABC’s Terry Moran Frets that ‘Republican Reformist’ Schwarzenegger Is Being ‘Squeezed Out’ of GOP