Tag Archives: liberal

Gannons to the Left of Me: Bill Press Asks a Pro-Obama, Anti-Beck Question at White House Briefing

In 2005, NBC and MSNBC and CNN were up in arms that conservative “Jeff Gannon” was allowed into the White House briefing room by Team Bush to ask “questions other reporters considered softballs.” Up until now, liberal talk-radio hosts like Ed Schultz have been seated in the front row of Obama press conferences, but they didn’t ask softball questions. On Thursday, it happened. Liberal radio host Bill Press asked press secretary Robert Gibbs to denounce Glenn Beck’s attacks on the president’s “committed Christianity.” BILL PRESS: Robert, over the last four days, Glenn Beck has criticized the president for believing in liberation theology, which he calls a Marxist form of Christianity. Two questions, Does the president, in your knowledge, even know what liberation theology is? ROBERT GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that. I will say this, Bill, um, a crude paraphrasing of an old quote, and that is, people are entitled to their own opinion, as ill-informed as it may be, but they’re not entitled to their own facts. The president is a committed, mainstream Christian. I don’t, I have no evidence that would guide me, as to what [whether?] Glenn Beck would have any genuine knowledge as to what the president does and does not believe. PRESS: So this Marxist form of Christianity? GIBBS: Again, I can only imagine where Mr. Beck conjured that from. The double-ignorance of this exchange is impressive. How can Bill Press suggest that Barack Obama is ignorant about anything? They’re defending Obama now by suggesting he’s uninformed about progressive strains of Christianity? For his part, Gibbs is stonewalling athletically to assert there’s no evidence that any Obama opponent could assemble to assert Obama’s church of two decades, Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago, embraced “black liberation theology” and its leading light, James Cone. In defending Obama, the liberal magazine The Christian Century acknowledged: There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Video of the Meet Bill Press exchange is supportively offered at a Hillary Clinton-founded media pressure group .

Originally posted here:
Gannons to the Left of Me: Bill Press Asks a Pro-Obama, Anti-Beck Question at White House Briefing

Will Media Try to Get the U.S. Out of Afghanistan Now?

Read the original post:
Will Media Try to Get the U.S. Out of Afghanistan Now?

HuffPo Climate Hysterics: BP Spill, Cap & Trade ‘Missed Opportunity’ is ‘Point of No Return’

With any luck, we’re going to be seeing a lot more commentary like Jim Garrison’s Aug. 31 Huffington Post piece . What’s positive about it isn’t the apocalyptic hysteria of his descriptions of “climate shock,” entertaining as they are. Rather, it’s his lamentation that President Obama, Al Gore and the global warming industry missed the perfect opportunity to dismantle the U.S. economy and severely curtail human freedom.

George Stephanopoulos Zeroes-In on Meghan McCain’s Spat With Palins

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos interviewed media darling and nominal Republican Meghan McCain on Tuesday’s Good Morning America and devoted the bulk of the segment to her love-hate relationship with Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol. Stephanopoulos devoted so much time to the Palin issue that McCain interjected, “For the record, my book is not just about Sarah and Bristol.” The anchor gushingly endorsed the McCain daughter’s new book, “Dirty Sexy Politics,” at the beginning of the interview, which aired 42 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour: ” It is savvy, it is saucy, and it’s just what you’d expect from the first daughter of a presidential candidate ever fired by her father’s campaign .” He then labeled his guest a “fun writer” and first asked about her “firing,” in which she actually sent away from the main stops of her father’s presidential campaign and did a bus tour in the battleground state of Ohio. After four questions on her “firing,” Stephanopoulos raised the issue of Mrs. Palin with McCain. She put all of her answers in the context of herself and her experiences, while the ABC anchor pressed her on the former governor of Alaska, with two negative follow-up questions about Palin and two neutral: STEPHANOPOULOS: Since the campaign, you had said you didn’t want to talk about Sarah Palin. But you write about her quite a bit in the book. You say there were a lot of things you like about Sarah Palin, but you also point out that she snubbed your Mom’s efforts to reach out to the Palins, that she wasn’t much of a team player. You believe- you talk about doubts you had at the end where you thought she actually hurt the campaign. ” MCCAIN: Yes, but I do clearly state at the end that we did not lose because of her, and I’m speaking out now because I do have conflicting feelings about her. I mean, she brought so much momentum and enthusiasm to the campaign. I mean, you saw the crowds double, and you saw a lot more women coming to rallies- STEPHANOPOULOS: But you also write that she brought- quote, ‘drama, stress, complications, panic, and loads of uncertainty.’ MCCAIN: (laughs) It’s true. I mean, a lot of things happen, but I think that’s how campaigns are in general, no matter who comes, and- you know, I respect her, as a feminist or Republican feminist, and going out there and working for women, especially Republican women. It’s no secret that I’m more socially liberal than she is, but I’m here to say that two different kinds of Republican women can work together for the same cause. STEPHANOPOULOS: And you talked about this moment in the campaign where you’re being interviewed, and you almost got tongue-tied when you were asked about Sarah Palin. You said you had doubts about her. What are the doubts? MCCAIN: It was a reflection on me, because she was so celebrated in the Republican Party, and it’s- again, no secret that I’m so unlike her, and I thought, how am I ever going to fit in? How am I ever going to do this? And it’s still something that I struggle with today because people so see me as sort of this rebel and this new Republican, which I take pride in, but a lot of, sort of, older Republicans seem to have a problem placing me. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you say there’s room in the party for both of you, but you want a Republican to win in 2012- you say that as well. Could she be your candidate? MCCAIN: Anyone could be my candidate at this point. I really don’t like these hypothetical questions, but I think that so many candidates are doing or- you know, people that could be running right now, are making very smart moves. I think Mitt Romney is doing a lot of smart things right now. I think it’s going to be a very interesting election, no matter what happens (unintelligible)- STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you vote for her? MCCAIN: It depends [on] the situation. You know, I’d have to hear more on what happens in the primaries. As you’re well aware, anything can happen in the primaries, and I would have to see. It was when Stephanopoulos brought up McCain’s spat with Bristol Palin over teen abstinence and teen pregnancy that the liberal Republican replied with her “my book is not just about Sarah and Bristol” line and added, “a lot of fun stories.” The anchor replied, “I want to ask you about one of those stories in a second. But first, you say that at that point, the campaign seemed to be glamorizing teen pregnancy, that the campaign really wanted to suggest that a pro-life message was more important than the message of how to avoid teen pregnancy to begin with? ” McCain answered, in part, “I have a sister who is almost exactly- my little sister Bridget is almost exactly Bristol’s age, and I just know that I want teens in this country to be aware of what can happen when you have sex. You can die from sex in this era, and not necessarily- I just think that the pro-abstinence complete campaign isn’t necessarily the most effective one.” Stephanopoulos concluded the interview by asking his guest about another of her “fun stories” involving a visit to the White House where she was apparently “dis-invited” from a lunch at the White House with Laura Bush and her daughter Jenna. The anchor repeated his endorsement of McCain’s book at the very end of the interview: “Meghan McCain, it is a terrific book, it’s a fun book, it’s a revealing book about life in politics as well .” ABC has promoted Ms. McCain’s liberal flavor of Republicanism in the past with her appearance as a guest host on The View, where she slammed conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham , and profiled her support of same-sex “marriage” on World News .

See more here:
George Stephanopoulos Zeroes-In on Meghan McCain’s Spat With Palins

Judith Miller Smacks Down Time and Ellis Henican Over American Islamophobia

Judith Miller on Saturday marvelously smacked down Time magazine and Ellis Henican over the contention that America is Islamophobic. As the discussion on “Fox News Watch” turned to Time’s cover story about the nation’s view of Muslims, Henican said that he attended the protests in New York last week and “there were some views expressed that I think everyone at this table would find a little troubling.” This led Miller to ask, “But, is that America?” She continued, “That’s some people who turned out to protest.” Miller then asked a question that should be posed to every liberal media member accusing Americans of Islamophobica, “Where is there any indication that America as a country is beating up on Muslims or denying them their rights?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  JON SCOTT, HOST: That’s Daisy Khan the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on ABC’s “This Week” responding to questions about this week’s Time cover story “Is America Islamophobic?” That cover sparked dueling protests in New York. It’s being cast as an indication of the growing bitterness and anger surrounding the issue. So much of this, Ellis, I guess revolves around questions that are not being answered about this mosque in New York. People want to know where the money’s coming from. Who’s paying for it? Are there foreign governments involved? Is anybody in the media trying to get to the bottom of that? ELLIS HENICAN, NEWSDAY: Well, yeah, there’s real reporting on it. And, I gotta tell you, Jon, I’m a little slow to make these sweeping answers like, “Yes, America is Islamophobic.” But I covered that hard-hat rally down there, and let me tell you, there were some views expressed that I think everyone at this table would find a little troubling. JUDITH MILLER: But, is that America? HENICAN: Yeah, they have a right to do it. MILLER: That’s not America. That’s some people who turned out to protest. To say that America which has, I mean New York has 100 mosques and the country has 2000. Where, where is there any indication that America as a country is beating up on Muslims or denying them their rights? SCOTT: You think they did that just to sell magazines? MILLER. Yes. SCOTT: Is that a, a cover story that’s going to make for reads? JIM PINKERTON: Shock, shock. S. E. CUPP: Right, I mean just asking the question I think reveals a whole mind set that I think is really problematic. For all of their interest in tolerance and freedom of speech and freedom of religion, the liberal thought police are out in full force to tell you that you cannot have certain opinions… HENICAN: Oh, S. E., come on. CUPP: …that you cannot… HENICAN: Come on. CUPP: …that there is a line in this debate that you can’t have one belief or you are Islamophobic or racist or nativist. I mean, it’s absolutely, it’s intimidating and it’s akin to censorship. HENICAN: No, it’s an absolutely appropriate question. Let me speak as the white guy from Louisiana here. You know, that’s part of what people think out there. There is an audience for wonderful tolerance and there’s an audience for some pretty ugly stuff, too. PINKERTON: But there seems to be audience for curiosity about where the money is coming from as John said. CUPP: Right. PINKERTON: The New York Times reported just offhand on Friday, “Oh, yeah, of course they’ll get $70 Million in tax exempt bonds. Who approves those things? And does anybody investigate before the taxpayers end up chipping in for this mosque? Not surprisingly, Henican ended up being alone on the issue of American Islamophobics. Makes you wonder what the weather is on that island he’s on. 

See original here:
Judith Miller Smacks Down Time and Ellis Henican Over American Islamophobia

Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

It will be “very difficult for Democrats to demonize” George W. Bush “again” during this campaign season, liberal nationally syndicated columnist Mark Shields despaired on Friday’s Inside Washington, because he’s “a circumspect and discreet former President.” Quite unlike, he didn’t say, the often boorish Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Reacting to Vice President Joe Biden’s indictment of the supposed disastrous results from the Bush administration’s economic policies, Shields fretted: The problem for the Democrats is this, that the energizer bunny for the 2006, 2008 campaigns has disappeared because of George W. Bush’s being a circumspect and discreet former President it makes it very difficult for Democrats to demonize him again. He’s become a non-person. He shows up at a ball game once in a while, he greets soldiers coming back. He hasn’t said anything controversial and that makes it a tougher fight for Joe Biden to make. Charles Krauthammer is a regular on the weekly program, so I’ll use that as a hook to highlight his latest column, “ The last refuge of a liberal ,” which includes this well-framed observation: Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking. Krauthammer elaborated: — Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. — Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. — Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. — Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Another great formulation, about how those tricky Tea Party activists weren’t clever enough to fool the liberal media: When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.   ( Inside Washington is a weekly show produced by ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate, which airs it Sunday morning after it runs Friday night on DC’s PBS affiliate, WETA-TV channel 26, and Saturday on local cable’s TBD TV .)

See original here:
Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

Media Nearly Silent as ObamaCare Proponents Drop Deficit, Cost Savings Claims

It has now been five days since Politico’s Ben Smith published a powerpoint presentation created by an amalgamation of powerful left wing interest groups, conceding that two of the central arguments for passing ObamaCare – that it will lower the deficit and will reduce health care costs – have failed. For a group of organizations integral to the passage of the law, that was a stunning admission. And yet, the mainstream press is nearly silent on the issue. Searches on Nexis and Google News reveal no coverage from the major television networks, the cable news channels (with the exception of Fox), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, NPR, PBS, or Newsweek. To their credit, Time Magazine and the Washington Post published a blog post each on the revelation. Even while discussing ObamaCare and its potential effects on the deficit and health care costs, some media outlets managed to avoid any mention of a fact Democrats now seem to be conceding: “the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed,” as Smith notes. The powerpoint, created by an umbrella organization called the Herndon Alliance – which includes left-wing power brokers such as the SEIU, MoveOn, La Raza, and the Center for American Progress – specifically instructs those still trying to sell ObamaCare to the American public to avoid claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficits.” Of course those paying attention already knew that. Even the White House’s own Medicare Actuary has acknowledged that ObamaCare will increase, not reduce, the amount the nation spends on health care over the law’s first 10 years. Optimistic projections beyond the 10 year window “may be unrealistic,” the Actuary stated ( pdf ). Not only will the bill raise the amount the nation as a whole spends on health care, it will also raise individual Americans’ insurance premiums, according to the Congressional Budget Office . Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin concurred with that assessment . Neither will the law reduce the federal deficit. Once one strips away all of the accounting tricks and budgetary gimmicks, one finds, in the words of the New York Times’s Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.” So the liberal organization’s admission that controlling costs and trimming the deficits are rhetorical dead ends when it comes to selling ObamaCare is hardly a surprise. To say otherwise would contradict the facts, and Americans are not stupid. The group also recommended that ObamaCare’s remaining proponents stop trying to sell the law as an undeniable success. Instead, the presentation suggests they tell skeptical voters that “The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work to improve it.” (Emphasis in the original.) Byron York explains the significance of Herdon’s recommendations: It’s a stunning about-face for a party that saw national health care as its signature accomplishment. “This is the first time we’ve seen from Democrats that they clearly understand they have a serious problem in terms of selling this legislation,” says Republican pollster David Winston. The reluctance to defend Obamacare as a cost-cutter and deficit-reducer is particularly telling. Wasn’t that the No. 1 reason for passing the bill in the first place? “This legislation will … lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” President Obama said when he signed the bill into law on March 23. Now, Democrats are throwing that argument out the window… The story might be even worse than that for Democrats. Everyone knows the public’s top issue is the economy. It has been since before Obama took office. So when the president and Democratic congressional leadership devoted a year to passing national health care, Republicans charged they were ignoring the public’s wishes. Now, when Democrats admit that Obamacare won’t cut costs or reduce deficits, they open themselves up to a more serious charge: they spent a year working on something that will actually cost jobs and make things worse. The liberal interest group coalition’s recommendations speak volumes about the political and policy failures of the administration and the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. And yet virtually all major media players are silent on the admission. Democrats are making a key shift in strategy in their efforts to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, but if you get your news from most of the nation’s major news outlets, you are most likely unaware of that fact, or its implications for the policy.

Here is the original post:
Media Nearly Silent as ObamaCare Proponents Drop Deficit, Cost Savings Claims

Henican On Mosque: Pundits Shouldn’t Be As ‘Ignorant’ As Other Americans

Talk about your teachable moments, the Ground Zero mosque controversy has taught us in just what contempt many in the liberal media hold their fellow Americans. As I noted here , last week on MSNBC, Cenk Uygur accused Americans who oppose the mosque of being “ignorant.”  This weekend on Fox News Watch, Ellis Henican also used the i-word, saying that when it comes to the mosque, pundits shouldn’t be as “ignorant” as other Americans. Jim Pinkerton pounced, pointing out the condescension of which Henican had convicted himself. Henican had opened the mosque segment by saying that those such as himself who live in lower Manhattan are more receptive to the mosque than people who live farther away, speculating that in Idaho are 99% against it. Later came this exchange . . . JIM PINKERTON: This whole exercise, for the media, let’s just focus on the pundit sector.  It’s been a chance for them to demonstrate their moral superiority over the average American by taking this “enlightened,” multi-cultural position. ELLIS HENICAN: At the risk, Jim, of sounding enlightened, it is not the role of us in the punditocracy to be as quickly as ignorant as the least ignorant [sic, presumably meant “most ignorant”] member of the public. There are some complex principles here that don’t get played out easily in a left-right angry exchange on cable television, and I think frankly we have some responsibility to remember what those principles are. PINKERTON: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant has just convicted himself. HENICAN: Of enlightenment! I plead guilty as charged, sir.     Note: This week’s News Watch was quite the treasure trove.  Brad Wilmouth earlier noted the shout-out Pinkerton gave Tim Graham for his observation of the way the New York Times buried the news of the Justic Department’s dropping of its investigation of Tom DeLay, and Noel Sheppard reported the way Rich Lowry aced  Henican regarding the liberal media’s coverage of the Iraq war.

See more here:
Henican On Mosque: Pundits Shouldn’t Be As ‘Ignorant’ As Other Americans

IS GOVT SEIZING CONTROL?

Look at various aspects of American life and asks a simple question: Who is in control? The individual or the government? Where liberals have already had their way, government is in control. Where liberals are still moving to advance their agenda, their success would mean an increase in government intrusion into the lives of individuals. As they attempt to move the country on a trajectory toward greater government control of our lives, liberals are also pushing the country away from two great constants consistently advocated by the Founding Fathers: the principles of limited government chartered in the Constitution and the natural moral law enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The greatest fiscal danger the nation faces as a result of the liberal agenda is the coming crisis of the welfare state. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's analysis of Treasury Department figures, the federal government now faces $61.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That astounding number is comprised of the federal debt plus the cost of entitlements — such as Medicare and Social Security benefits — promised to people now alive that is not covered by the revenue the current tax structure is expected to yield. This $61.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities, by the way, equals $200,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States — not counting embryos. Where is the government going to find that kind of cash? The Control Freaks know where to look for it: Wherever you put your money. added by: ahiguy

WaPo’s Frank Ahrens Suggests Krugman, Kudlow as Potential Romer Replacements

Paul Krugman and Larry Kudlow – not exactly two guys you would associate with one another. However, they are two media figures Washington Post columnist Frank Ahrens thinks should be candidates for the same job. In his Aug. 15 column , Ahrens wrote about some of the people that should replace outgoing chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer. He named several candidates including Pepsi’s Indra Nooyi, James Sinegal, co-founder and chief executive of Costco, and Ford chief executive Alan Mulally. But he also named New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and CNBC’s “Kudlow Report” host Larry Kudlow . In his case for Krugman, Ahrens wondered that since Krugman can talk the talk, can he walk the walk as well. “Outside the academic world, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is best known for his New York Times columns arguing that the $787 billion, debt-busting stimulus bill was not enough, so even moderate Democrats — not to mention conservatives — might lose their minds with this pick. But maybe it’s time for Krugman to put his money where his mouth is,” Ahrens wrote. “You think government needs to spend more to get us out of this funk? Okay, Paul. Here’s the key to the car.”  In the case of Larry Kudlow, Ahrens wrote the CNBC host would be a wise choice because he can communicate economic policies clearly. “You might laugh at this one, but CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration before going to Wall Street to make his millions and subsequently flame out like a booze-and-drug-fueled Icarus, a low period he has discussed openly,” Ahrens wrote. “But Americans believe in second chances, and Kudlow’s been one-day-at-a-timing it for more than a decade. There is no more articulate spokesman for supply-side economics and tax-cut job creation. Yet, not even his legendary selection of suits and ties will likely win him admirers in the Obama White House.” Ahrens also appeared on CNBC’s “Street Signs” with Erin Burnett on Aug. 16 to argue for his suggestions, including making the case for Kudlow. Albeit unlikely, Ahrens says idea isn’t as crazy as one might think. “Larry Kudlow, great American,” Ahrens said. “I know you’re going to laugh or some of the viewers may laugh. But, look, the guy has been in this position before in previous administrations. He’s been on Wall Street. He knows about how to talk to folks in government. He knows about how the private markets work. And there’s no really more eloquent spokesman for supply-side job creation through tax cuts. Listen, you can know all you want about policy, but if you can’t explain yourself to the President, then that’s a real key thing, a real key element of this job. To get the President’s ear, you have to be able to explain yourself. It’s sort of fun, but it’s not as crazy as you might think.”

Continue reading here:
WaPo’s Frank Ahrens Suggests Krugman, Kudlow as Potential Romer Replacements