Tag Archives: media bias debate

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

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

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

CBS’s Couric Dutifully Parrots Left-wing Center for American Progress Study

“The last day of school shouldn’t mean last call for lunch.” That’s how CBS’s Katie Couric melodramatically concluded her June 25 “Notebook” item on her CBSNews.com Couric & Co. blog. The “Evening News” anchor pointed to a report by the liberal Center for American Progress — without, of course, noting the group’s leftward bent — that found “that nearly 20 million children get free or reduced-price lunch at school. But only one in six of them will receive subsidized meals this summer.” Couric concluded from this that “[n]early one in four children is at risk for hunger” over the summer and called “essential” a bill before Congress to “improve access to summer meals.” Of course nowhere in her Notebook item did Couric weigh whether this might be a matter better left to state and local governments — especially when the federal government is drowning in red ink — or better yet, to parents themselves. After all, schools provide lunches and breakfasts during the school year for the sake of convenience of students and their parents, not because government has the moral responsibility to feed children. That’s obviously the job of parents and their failure to adequately do so is grounds for the involvement of local child protective services. Parental responsibility and restrained spending of taxpayer dollars are not high on Couric’s list of concerns, apparently. That’s a page from my notebook. 

See the article here:
CBS’s Couric Dutifully Parrots Left-wing Center for American Progress Study

Breaking: Federal Judge Blocks Obama Admin Moratorium (Brave NAE Experts Score a Win)

Via the Associated Press (link may be dynamic and subject to change):  A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill. The White House says President Barack Obama’s administration will appeal. Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium. This later paragraph from the breaking news report explains why I believe Ken Salazar’s dissenting experts may have influenced the judge’s outlook on the case: Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger. Feldman’s take seems to mirror the language of the dissenters. Investors Business Daily editorialized on Salazar’s moratorium imposition travesty on June 10 : Experts brought together by the Obama administration to review offshore drilling safety were asked to review recommendations in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. They did not give their blessing to the six-month drilling moratorium announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and have accused him of deliberately appending their report to make it seem like they did. According to the New Orleans Times Picayune, Salazar’s May 27 report to the president said the seven experts “peer reviewed” his recommendations, including a six-month ban on drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. The experts say the report they reviewed suggested stopping only new drilling in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. The reviewers for Salazar’s report were provided by the National Academy of Engineering. Their joint letter says that while they agreed with the report’s various safety recommendations, “we do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors.” One panelist, Bob Bea of the University of California, Berkeley, said in an e-mail: “Moratorium was not a part of the … report we consulted-advised-reviewed.” The academy’s Ken Arnold was less subtle, saying: “The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions.” The panelists simply oppose the announced moratorium. “A blanket moratorium is not the answer,” the letter says. “It will not measurably reduce risk further, and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy, which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do.” Neither do we, and frankly we’re tired of the deliberate manipulation of facts and truth in the name of protecting the environment … Even the Associated Press finally broke down and covered the dissenters’ outcries yesterday, while still somewhat concealing the full scope of their objections: The scientists, who had consulted with Salazar on a May 27 report on drilling safety, said the Interior Department falsely implied that they had agreed to a “blanket moratorium” that they actually opposed. The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy. A spokeswoman for Salazar said the May 27 report was not intended to imply that all experts from the National Academy of Engineering had agreed to the moratorium. “By listing the members of the NAE that peer-reviewed the 22 safety recommendations contained in the report, we didn’t mean to imply that they also agreed with the moratorium on deep-water drilling,” said spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff. Sure, Kendra. Though it’s only one step, it may very well be that thanks to the stink raised by the NAE experts and outlets like the Wall Street Journal, IBD, and many center-right blogs, the nation might start getting the energy sector of its economy back in gear. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

See the original post:
Breaking: Federal Judge Blocks Obama Admin Moratorium (Brave NAE Experts Score a Win)

Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

No general should criticize his or her commander, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal is no exception. But the mainstream media is primarily concerned with the political fallout of McChrystal’s apparent insubordination as revealed by a piece in Rolling Stone . They are not concerned with whether his critiques are accurate, in stark contrast to other military officers’ critiques of war policy under the Bush administration. During Bush’s tenure, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy. None were scrutinized as McChrystal, pictured right, has been in the hours since Rolling Stone released its article. The most prominent active duty general to earn the media’s affection was Gen. Eric Shinseki, current Secretary of Veterans Affairs (to the media’s delight ). He insisted in 2003 that, contrary to Defense Department policy, the United States would need to send “hundreds of thousands” of troops to Iraq during the initial invasion. The media ate it up. “Top generals, including Eric Shinseki,” wrote the Boston Globe in 2004, “fault Pentagon leadership for not heeding their advice to deploy more ground forces before the invasion or to prepare adequately for the aftermath.” After Shinseki’s repudiation of official military policy prompted rebukes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the New York Times dubbed those rebukes “unusual” and went on to bemoan the fact that Shinseki “has not had more influence on the war planning and the allocation of forces,” in the words of another Army general. The Times also devoted a piece to active duty personnel’s criticisms of Rumsfeld and the Iraqi war effort generally. The article read, Long-simmering tensions between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the Iraqi battlefield that the Pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it… One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. “He wanted to fight this war on the cheap,” the colonel said. “He got what he wanted.”… Underlying the strains between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army, which began at the beginning of Mr. Rumsfeld’s tenure, are questions that challenge not only the Rumsfeld design for this war but also his broader approach to transforming the military. Instead of going on to examine the apparent problems with a military chain of command in which policymakers are criticized, the Times, the Globe, and many other media outlets used critiques from officers both named and anonymous to question the effectiveness and wisdom of American military policy. McChrystal’s statements could spur some discussion on whether President Obama is really up to the task in Afghanistan–the general is certainly is not the first to suggest it. Yet the media focus has been almost entirely trained on the general himself and on the supposed danger of a dysfunctional chain of command and a general who questions the president’s orders. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter today explained, in the words of his headline, ” Why Military Code Demands McChrystal’s Resignation .” “The most important issue at hand in the furor over Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s acerbic comments in Rolling Stone,” wrote Alter, “is the central one in a democracy: civilian control over the military.” Got it? The question is not whether McChrystal’s critiques of the administration could shine some light on an ineffective war effort or misguided military policies. No, unlike military criticism of Bush war policy, McChrystal’s comments spur discussion of the intricacies of a civilian-controlled military, not the specific policies employed by the civilian government and their consequences on the battlefield. Time’s Joe Klein applauded Mike Huckabee in 2007 for saying he “would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice.” But now Klein is far more concerned with the ” military tradition and practice ” violated by generals who speak out against their commanders than he is with the ongoing war effort. McChrystal was of course out of line. But media liberals who are only distraught at potential insubordination when the subordinate does not aid their political goals in speaking out are commentators whose opinions must be taken with a few grains of salt.

See the original post here:
Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

While Networks Ignore Obama Golf Outing, CNN Humorist Gets Story Right

CNN correspondent Jeanne Moos has a penchant for quirky, off-beat reporting, but what happens when the eccentric newswoman gives a more accurate picture of important events than the serious journalists? While media outlets relentlessly denounced BP CEO Tony Hayward for taking Saturday off to participate in a yacht race, they mostly glossed over or completely ignored President Barack Obama’s Saturday golf outing with Vice President Joe Biden. It was left to CNN’s resident humorist to connect the dots. “It’s the yachting versus golf smack down, round one,” declared Moos. “BP’s CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race…CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf, compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency.” Moos’s evenhanded coverage of Obama’s and Hayward’s weekend misadventures contrasted markedly with reports filed by network news correspondents. ABC’s Sharyn Alfonsi covered the outrage surrounding Hayward’s yachting, but ignored criticism of Obama’s golfing. CBS anchor Charles Osgood parroted White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s derision of Hayward, but failed to present an Obama critic. The grown-up journalists might have selfishly ignored Obama’s 39th round of golf since taking office, but as Moos reported, at least the children shared both sides of the story. “My mom doesn’t take breaks like every two months,” proclaimed one child. “You don’t really need to take a break every two months to go see a yacht race.” “President Obama? I’m not sure he should actually be golfing right now,” argued another. The transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN American Morning 6/22/10 6:54 a.m. KIRAN CHETRY, co-host: 54 Minutes past the hour. Time now for the most news in the morning with Jeanne. BP’s CEO did manage to find cleaner waters over the weekend and many said it was a major PR fail for the company. JOHN ROBERTS, co-host: But many critics are saying that the president can’t say anything about it until he puts down the golf clubs. Here’s Jeanne. JEANNE MOOS, CNN correspondent: It’s the yachting versus golf smack down, round one. BP’s CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race. JOY BEHAR, co-host of “The View”: How dare he just take off. Sen. RICHARD SHELBY (R-Ala): The height of stupidity. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: How do you spell fool? MOOS: But before you could spell it – BP’s CEO – President Obama’s golfing came under attack. DANA PERINO, former George W. Bush press secretary: Almost five hours on the golf course with Biden. ELIZABETH HASSELBECK, co-host of “The View”: And it shouldn’t have been eight times between the spill and now. MOOS: Actually, seven times. CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf, compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency, including some that got into a Michael Moore film. Former President GEORGE W. BUSH: Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive. MOOS: And while some equate president Obama’s golf to Tony Hayward’s yachting – two different men, two different jobs, one management style – the president’s defenders note a big difference. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That’s the thing, he didn’t create that mess that is there. What do they want the man to do? Put a wetsuit on and go down and fix that pipe? MOOS: Meanwhile, Politico pondered the really important question, why is Tony Hayward’s yacht names “Bob”? Wondering if it has anything to do with the Bill Murray movie, “What About Bob?” Sailor so scared he has to be lashed to the mast. Now Tony Hayward is being lashed. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I really think it was a disgrace. MOOS: On the other hand, surprisingly it was the first day off he’s had in two months. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I really don’t care. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Too bad. Look what he did. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Every day of his life is a day off. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I think he’s probably due for a little down time. MOOS: But downtime on the water can be a downer. Remember when presidential candidate John Kerry went wind surfing and it ended up in an attack ad. ANNOUNCER: Whichever way the wind blows. MOOS: BP’s CEO is being mocked in an animation by a Taiwanese tabloid website. He sits on the beach sending out a drink to a guy drowning in oil, from the mouths of babes. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: My mom doesn’t take breaks like every two months. You don’t really need to take a break every two months to go see a yacht race. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: In the two hours it takes to golf or to go yachting, another 1,000 to 10,000 tons of oil could leak out. UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: President Obama? I’m not sure he should actually be golfing right now. MOOS: Just plug the darn hole, Mr. president. Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

See the article here:
While Networks Ignore Obama Golf Outing, CNN Humorist Gets Story Right

Tea Partiers Boycott MSNBC Advertisers Over ‘Slanderous’ Documentary

Some Tea Party leaders are calling for conservatives to boycott MSNBC’s advertisers, after the network ran a documentary on June 16 that they say unfairly slandered the movement. Two of the Tea Party leaders interviewed in the Chris Matthews-narrated documentary are asking supporters to write, call and fax the offices of Dawn and its parent company Proctor and Gamble and request that they cease giving advertising dollars to Matthews’ “Hardball” program on MSNBC. FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey and Kitchen Table Patriots member Ana Puig jointly called the documentary a “propaganda piece” and urged Tea Party groups around the country to boycott Dawn products. “The program ‘Rise of the New Right’ was low-ball journalism at its worst,” said the Kitchen Table Patriots in a statement released today. “Chris Matthews and his Hardball program slandered the Tea Party movement, and misled the American people by distorting facts about the Tea Party movement, its motivations and its history.” Brendan Steinhauser, a grassroots director at FreedomWorks, noted that other groups like the American Grassroots Coalition, the National Tea Party Federation, Tea Party Nation and Liberty Central have also signed on to the boycott. Critics say that Matthews’ documentary smeared Tea Partiers as “violent,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “racists” by relying heavily on insinuations, heavily edited sound bites, and allegations from left-wing activist groups. The introduction of the video splices back-to-back shots of militia members firing guns with Tea Party protesters holding up signs criticizing President Obama’s policies, as ominous music droned in the background. In one segment, Matthews appeared to insinuate that FreedomWorks leader Armey is supportive of “birthers,” a group of fringe conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. “While not embracing birthers, many conservative leaders refuse to separate from them,” said Matthews in a voiceover that led in to an interview Matthews held with Armey. “Barack Obama’s citizenship, is that a real case or not?” asks Matthews. “There’s a venue for that. Probably in the courts,” Armey replied. But Steinhauser, who organizes FreedomWorks’ national events, says that any suggestion that Armey sympathizes with birthers is “just ridiculous.” “[The documentary] obviously didn’t give his full answer,” said Steinhauser. “At our events we’ve been approached by just about every birther in the book. We kept [birthers] Allan Keyes [and] Orly Taitz as far as possible from our big September 12 event. I told them ‘that’s not who we are – go have your own rally.’ The movement out and out rejects that.” And other facts presented in the documentary don’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. At one point in the video, Mark Potok, a director at the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) warned Matthews’ that “we’ve gone from numbers like, you know, 170 militias to well over 500.” But the SPLC’s most recent report on right-wing groups released in Spring 2010 claimed that it only defines 127 organizations in the U.S. as “militias.” Steinhauser said that getting the message out about the boycott is just the first step in the campaign. “This is just the beginning stages. We’ve got some other things planned down the road in the days and weeks to come,” he said. For further analysis of Matthews’ documentary, see Lachlan Markey’s Newsbusters report .

Original post:
Tea Partiers Boycott MSNBC Advertisers Over ‘Slanderous’ Documentary

MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

In a satellite interview with Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) held shortly before 1 p.m. EDT today, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer criticized Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) for denouncing the president pushing BP to agree to a $20-billion escrow account for oil spill damages as a “shakedown”: So, there’s Joe Barton calling the $20 billion in escrow a shakedown, and as you point out, there are people in your district who have lost their livelihoods! They wonder how they can feed their families! But yesterday, Brewer’s MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz used similar language to voice his giddy approval of President Obama’s maneuvering : President Obama! You are the dude! The president takes the heads of BP behind closed doors, shakes them down for $20 billion, and gets an apology.  President Obama went behind closed doors today with Tony Hayward and the other suits from BP and informed them it’s time to pay.  If you go by today’s results, you’d have to say the President of the United States hit it out of the park. In his own way the President of the United States took on a multinational [corporation] shook ’em down for $20 billion for the American people. President Obama got more out of BP than the Congress ever has. The day before that, just two hours before President Obama’s Oval Office address, Schultz told viewers he hoped the president would sound “like a dictator” and would rhetorically speaking, press his “boot on the neck of BP tonight.”

See the original post here:
MSNBC’s Brewer Annoyed at Barton’s ‘Shakedown’ Reference, But Colleague Ed Schultz Used It With Pride

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

Chris Matthews Claims Tea Party is ‘McCarthyite,’ Sees Federal Government as an ‘Occupying Force’

Chris Matthews definitely took a “hard look” at the Tea Party, on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe,” in anticipation of tonight’s MSNBC documentary “The Rise of the New Right.” Tying the whole Tea Party movement together, the MSNBC “Hardball” host defined it as “McCarthyite,” possessing a “fundamental questioning of authority,” and viewing the federal government as an occupying force. “It believes that this government is verging on tyranny,” Matthews complained, pointing to the movement’s use of the Revolutionary War-era Gadsden flag — “Don’t Tread on Me” — in an ominous light. When asked by Joe Scarborough if he would link members of the Michigan Militia featured in tonight’s documentary (seemingly characterized in the preceding video clip as a radical fringe group), to Tea Party members who have campaigned for Scott Brown and Marco Rubio, Matthews answered that the various groups are all part of one movement. “I’m tying the whole movement together,” he asserted. “Because what you hear is that they all fly the same flag.” Matthews said that the use of the Gadsden flag by Tea Partiers “scared” him. “They are basically looking at the federal government now as an occupying force, basically a foreign occupying force, a tyranny,” he said. “And that justifies a lot of bad behavior, I would say.” “What you hear, Joe, is the fundamental questioning of authority,” Matthews claimed. He also alleged that the movement is pointing to the Second Amendment to justify armed force against the federal government “when the time comes.” Not wanting to be left out of the fun, advertising executive Donny Deutsch, chairman of Deutsch, Inc., threw the race card onto the table. “Chris, along those lines, would the Tea Party be having the same verve if this was not an African-American President?” But Matthews wouldn’t bite. “I don’t know,” he said. “You make those kinds of charges, you get into trouble. I have no idea.” However, Matthews did accuse the movement of being “McCarthyite,” referencing accusations by Dick Armey and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) of Democrats and administration members of being un-American.     The transcript of the interview, which aired on June 16, at 7:45 a.m. EDT, is as follows: WILLIE GEIST: Chris, as far as you can tell, what is the new right? And how influential is it? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, it believes that this government is verging on tyranny. The federal government of the United States, which was honestly elected, is more like a British occupying force of colonial days. They look at it as illegitimate. Many of them believe that Barack Obama is not an American. They believe they need their Second Amendment rights–as Sharon Angle said the other day–to perhaps carry out remedies when they think that Congress is going too far. Very strong on Second Amendment as a way of fighting the federal government, when the time comes; very concerned about the legitimacy of Barack Obama as whether he is an American or not. And, in fact, if you listen to Dick Armey, they wonder whether anybody in the administration has any pro-American attitudes. And Michelle Bachmann would go right through the Democrats in Congress, and have the media investigate them for anti-American attitudes. It’s very much McCarthy-ite, it gets back to the days of questioning other people’s loyalties, and it questions the President’s very legitimacy. And what scared me, if you want to get scared, was the use of the flag from the American Revolution–the Great Gadsden flag from South Carolina, with the coiled rattlesnake. They are basically looking at the federal government now as an occupying force, basically a foreign occupying force, a tyranny. And that justifies a lot of bad behavior, I would say. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Chris, though, you’re not connecting, though, Tea Party members that Mike interviewed in Massachusetts that helped Scott Brown get elected, or Tea Party members that may be supporting Marco Rubio in Florida, or Tea Party members who are supporting other conservative candidates across America–you’re not tying them with members of the Michigan Militia, are you? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yes, I am. I’m tying the whole movement together. Because what you hear is that they all fly the same flag. Certainly there are people that straggle along and show up at meetings of any political party, whether it’s mainstream or French. People show up and join. I’m not talking about the joiners. I’m talking about the leadership people themselves. Listen to Sharon Angle. Listen to Rand Paul. Listen to their basic questioning of federal authority. It’s very fundamental, and their absolute focus on the Second Amendment over and over again–that guy in that militia uniform with his fatigues on said that he speaks very much the same language as the Tea Party people. He says it. If you listen to people like Michelle Bachmann, they question the legitimacy of the government, they question whether it’s a tyranny or not. You got to hear the words tonight, Joe. These people–wait till you hear Dick Armey talking about “There’s nobody in this administration who is pro-American.” I mean they’re saying it. I’m not saying it. JOE SCARBOROUGH: I’ll be watching. I know that the guy in the camouflage said that the Tea Party people tell him that they’re not connected. But are you connecting–let me be more specific. This is fascinating. Are you connecting Rand Paul with these Michigan Militia members that run around with guns, that– CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, I think you have to see the absolute resonance of the sound. What you hear, Joe, is the fundamental questioning of authority. You have people who believe that the federal government–look. Joe, I know you saw those Congress people waving the Gadsden flag off the balcony of the Capitol on the House side. They were waving that revolutionary flag. They were the ones inciting those people to look upon the federal government as a tyranny, as perhaps illegitimate. They’re the ones using the language of revolution. It’s not us. In fact, the documentary, all through it, you hear a very similar voice: this government is not legitimate. 32 percent of the Republican Party now believes that Barack Obama is not an American. And that’s the latest CBS Poll. These are not things that are arguable, Joe, these are facts. DONNY DEUTSCH, Chairman, Deutsch, Inc.: Chris, along those lines, would the Tea Party be having the same verve if this was not an African-American President? CHRIS MATTHEWS: I don’t know. I think–I don’t know. That’s something you got to get into people’s souls, and you make those kind of charges, you get into trouble. I have no idea. I do think that– DONNY DEUTSCH: I’m not making charges. I’m asking a question. I just want (Garbled) CHRIS MATTHEWS: I think the fact that so many of the people are–Orelly Tates is out there with the birther movement, which has very much been part of this, saying that the guy’s not an American, that he should be out of office because he was born in Kenya. Challenging that–Alan Keyes, those kinds of people. All those voices are out there on the Right. 

See original here:
Chris Matthews Claims Tea Party is ‘McCarthyite,’ Sees Federal Government as an ‘Occupying Force’

Bachmann: Obama Oil Spill Response ‘Dereliction of Leadership’; Media Lowered President’s ‘Level of Accountability’

Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann isn’t exactly known for her reticence on the news of the day. And when it comes to the White House’s handling of the BP oil spill disaster, Bachmann had some harsh words for President Barack Obama. Speaking at the June 25 Bloggers Briefing at the Heritage Foundation , Bachmann pointed out how she thought it was peculiar that all the comments coming out of the White House were geared toward the president specifically and not to the victims of this crisis. “The thing that we’re all focusing on today will be the president’s remarks that he’ll be giving tonight and it looks like an absolute opportunism moment for the president to try and advance the next stage of his legislative agenda,” Bachmann said. “And I think the curious feature in all of this has been: this is a major disaster and yet it seems like every response that has been coming out of the White House has been about the president rather than about the disaster. That is odd to me. That seems extremely odd.” The Minnesota Republican said the hapless reaction to the oil spill event and the administration’s mishandling of the Nashville flood in April that went largely ignored by the President and the media raised questions about the administration’s leadership. “It seems like a dereliction of leadership, especially when you consider what happened in Nashville was also a disaster – an unmitigated disaster for the people down in Nashville,” she said. “Not only has the president not yet visited to highlight the devastation that has happened to businesses and people’s lives there, but he also hasn’t even mentioned Nashville as a disaster. That’s interesting to me, how the White House seems to be picking and choosing between disasters – for whatever reason and I can’t speculate what that reason may be, but for some reason Nashville didn’t make the cut for a presidential visit or a presidential mention.” When asked, Bachmann didn’t sound too hopeful that Congress would exercise its oversight role and hold hearing looking into what she suggested was the federal government’s mishandling of the oil spill response efforts. “I am sure Nancy Pelosi will get on that tomorrow morning and Harry Reid,” she said, to laughter. She characterized the ongoing Gulf disaster as a missed opportunity for the president to untie the country, something that “candidate Obama” seemingly could have done, as opposed to President Obama. “I give the President a lot of credit as candidate Obama,” she continued. “He really did have kind of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to be that transformational president, which I wish he could have been. But unfortunately the last 18 months I think we have seen the ground shake underneath our country because of a lot of policy decisions he’s made but also from a stylistic point of view – the way that he has handled various crises in his presidency – and I don’t think that has engendered confidence.” She also mentioned the White House’s handling of  last month’s flotilla disaster, and she took a shot at the media for not holding Obama as accountable as they held the Bush administration for similar responses. “Look at the blockade situation with Turkey and with Israel,” Bachmann said. “All the wrong signals were sent out of that event in my opinion. And it’s made Israel even more vulnerable than they were before. So for that and a lot of other reasons, I think we really need to give – the White House needs to be held at least to the same level of accountability the previous administration was held to. And I don’t see that media, present company excluded, has necessarily done that.”

Follow this link:
Bachmann: Obama Oil Spill Response ‘Dereliction of Leadership’; Media Lowered President’s ‘Level of Accountability’