Tag Archives: Obama

Rep. Weiner’s Anti-Goldline/Beckophobia Crusade Falls Flat

An organization once headed by former Obama administration official Van Jones tried it. Other so-called grassroots organizations have given it a shot. Now Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., with the power of Congress in tow, has taken his best shot to shut Glenn Beck down. But so far it isn’t really working. On Sept. 23, Weiner called a representative from Santa Monica, Calif.-based Goldline to testify before the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee about what he deemed to be the firm’s unfair business practices. However, it just so happens that Goldline sponsors Beck and other conservative media personalities. With congressional hearings, you’d expect the media to be all over this, right? Not exactly, at least thus far. The most attention Weiner’s charade could muster was a segment at the end of MSNBC’s bomb-thrower show, “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.” Olbermann asked Weiner on his Sept. 23 broadcast if Goldline was in cahoots with “willing partners like Glenn Beck,” since anyone who suggests gold be a part of someone’s portfolio is up to no good. “The scare, lie, rip-off cycle that you outlined in your opening remarks – is it any wonder that Goldline seeks and finds willing partners in people like Glenn Beck?” Olbermann asked. According to a spokesman from Goldline, out of the 30 to 40 television advertisements the company runs on a daily basis, only one runs during Glenn Beck’s Fox News Channel programming. In fact, Goldline runs regular advertising on CNBC, the sister network to Olbermann’s MSNBC. But Weiner faulted Beck and others, including “angry radio hosts” for suggesting gold should be a part of someone’s financial portfolio. “You know this is where the angry radio host works hand-in-glove with these sellers,” Weiner said. “You know, you see Glenn Beck say, be careful, the economy’s a mess. Deficits, debts, you better invest in gold. Now let’s go to a word from our sponsor.” But Goldline offers a product that even media financial experts advise people to have in their portfolio. Take CNBC’s Jim Cramer, who on his May 17 program explained why gold is important, not necessarily as an investment to make money, but as a hedge against inflation – a point Weiner refuses to concede. “First off, gold hedges you against the eve-of-destruction pessimists,” Cramer said. “It’s a safe haven that tends to go up when everything else goes down. Second, as the commercial says, ‘Central banks are printing money like mad.’ That’s a great reason to own gold. Third no, matter what happens in keeping with the pessimistic zeitgeist, people are going to say what central banks around world are doing is inflationary. Doesn’t matter that it’s done to counter deflation – gold’s the antidote to the chatter. Fourth, there’s not a lot of gold being found.” Nonetheless, Weiner took a few more shots at Beck, which has been a pattern for the New York congressman on the gold issue . He argued that Beck was abusing the public’s trust, even though Beck was conveying a perfectly legitimate view and speaking on the behalf of a legitimate sponsor. “It got so bad that even Fox News said to Glenn Beck, you can’t be a paid sponsor for these guys anymore, because it was just — the line was getting blurred,” Weiner continued. “Now, that’s Fox News’ problem. That’s Glenn Beck’s problem. I think he does have some responsibility to his viewers. You know, it’s odd of me to be saying this, but I want to stand up for Glenn Beck’s viewers in this case.” And Weiner maintained that the laws he is proposing, which are motivating his witch-hunt, wouldn’t even be applicable to Fox News or Beck. “But the laws that we’re proposing obviously don’t impact Fox News,” he continued. “And Glenn Beck can say and do whatever he wants. But I would hope he takes a step back and looks at our study and looks at the testimony today, and realize that his viewers are middle class people who are struggling. He should not be aiding and abetting a rip off.” That begs the question – why is Weiner bringing up Beck in the first place?

Read more:
Rep. Weiner’s Anti-Goldline/Beckophobia Crusade Falls Flat

Uranium Rush Prompts Grand Canyon Fears

A new “gold rush” is under way in the American West, but this time the prospectors are out for another metal: uranium. The Grand Canyon region in the US state of Arizona holds one of the nation's largest concentrations of high grade uranium, the fuel for nuclear power. As global demand for nuclear power has increased so has interest in the metal and, across the south-west, companies are seeking permission to restart uranium mining. In the US, President Barack Obama has called for an increase in nuclear power to help reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. The US government is currently weighing the costs and benefits of mining, with Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva proposing a ban on mining near the Grand Canyon. But with the increase in uranium exploration come concerns about the future of the Grand Canyon, a Unesco World Heritage Site and one of America's foremost natural wonders. And Native American populations living near uranium mines fear exploration could contaminate their drinking water. For now, the sole active uranium mine near the Grand Canyon's northern rim is run by Denison Mines Corporation, a Canadian firm. The Arizona 1 mine employs 30 miners, and the firm says it goes to great lengths to protect them in the hazardous environment. Among other precautions, large fans pump clean air into the mine and suck out most of the radioactive radon gas, while workers spray water across the site to keep down potentially harmful dust. The firm also says past accidents were swiftly and effectively cleaned up. ****************************************!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On a recent trip into the mine, none of the miners wore masks, and their hands and face were caked with uranium ore. “It washes off,” miner Cody Behuden, 28, told the BBC while licking his ore-caked lips. Vice-president of US operations Harold Roberts said the miners were under no danger from ingesting uranium. *************************************** added by: toyotabedzrock

New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

On Sunday, the season premiere of 60 Minutes will include an anticipated Scott Pelley report on the Ground Zero mosque. Will the story be pro-mosque, just like President Obama? The first clips displayed softballs of sympathy , that it should be seen as “a hub of culture, a hub of coexistence, a hub of bringing people together.” To underline the overwhelming sympathetic tilt of this program in the Obama era — especially all the Steve Kroft hope-and-change goo before the 2008 election — the MRC has a new special report called “Syrupy Minutes.” Here’s my executive summary:  In the last five years, CBS’s 60 Minutes has become infamous for letting its left-wing ardor get way ahead of its journalistic mission. Dan Rather destroyed his own reputation in 2004 with a 60 Minutes II “expose” of President Bush’s incomplete Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard which relied on falsified documents. A CBS-appointed panel found “myopic zeal” in Rather’s professional demise, but no one would admit a political bias. For more than 40 years, CBS has boasted of 60 Minutes as a hard-hitting news show, a weekly story of investigative gumshoes digging up dirt and accusing major business and government leaders of committing dastardly deeds against the public interest. But the history of 60 Minutes isn’t filled to the brim with brutal investigations. It has a much softer, syrupy side, and it isn’t just reserved for movie stars or rock musicians. When it comes to champions of liberalism and even the radical left, the CBS News program has rolled out a red carpet, asking softball questions and lionizing their policy stands and programs – whether they were actually “achievements” or disasters. On September 19, a week before the new season officially began, CBS’s Lesley Stahl promoted the latest book of Jimmy Carter, and insisted that Carter was a bigger success than most presidents, including Ronald Reagan: “But when all is said and done, and many will be surprised to hear this: Jimmy Carter got more of his programs passed than Reagan and Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2.” Carter’s utter failure to end the Iranian hostage standoff and crushing inflation and unemployment rates were somehow irrelevant to history. Stahl also gushed to Carter: “A lot of critics of yours, when you were President, say that you’ve been a fantastic ex-President. You hear that all the time.” She said this even as she reminded viewers that Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council telling them they should oppose the first President Bush on the need for the Gulf War. In studying 60 Minutes broadcasts from January 1, 2006 through the September 2010 season premiere, Media Research Center analysts have found a very biased pattern of soft interviews and promotional language for the American left: — Liberals were featured more than twice as often than conservatives, and were four times more likely to be awarded easygoing interviews. Since 2006, 60 Minutes has aired 35 interviews with liberal leaders and celebrities versus 17 with conservatives. Twenty-four of the 35 interviews with liberals (69 percent) were friendly and unchallenging. Only five of the 17 conservative segments (29 percent) were soft – and one unchallenged conservative was hammering Sarah Palin as utterly unqualified for national office.. — Barack Obama was a major beneficiary of 60 Minutes admiration. CBS has devoted hours of air time to the promotion of Barack Obama – five interviews before the election, and six after it, all reported by Steve Kroft. Of the 49 Kroft questions in the first four CBS interviews (before the financial crisis hit), 42 were personal or horse-race questions. Only seven focused on issues – five on foreign policy, and two on trade – with no real focus on any domestic issues. Kroft never focused a question on Obama scandals, or his record in the Illinois legislature. Even issue questions were soft and open-ended. Kroft’s interviews were even made into a DVD for nostalgic Obama supporters, Obama All Access . — Other candidates for president were not granted the same red carpet as Obama. The contrast was striking to Scott Pelley’s 2008 bailout interview with John McCain: “But why would you let the Wall Street executives sail away on their yachts and leave this on the American taxpayer?” Mike Wallace’s interview with Mitt Romney in 2007 was sharply personal, demanding to know if the Republican candidate had premarital sex with his wife and asking his five sons why none of them had ever joined the military. — Liberal journalists and celebrities were also celebrated, and conservative celebrities were hounded. Morley Safer championed Stephen Colbert for satirizing conservative talk show hosts and their “wildly inaccurate, but patriotic and combative noise…With all of their excesses, it was only a matter of time before someone came along to skewer them. Well, the eagle has landed.” Safer also felt the pain of actor Alec Baldwin having to deal with “conservative junkyard dogs like Sean Hannity.” But Mike Wallace confronted Bill O’Reilly: “You are addicted to the power, you are addicted to the money, you are addicted to the fact that ‘I am Bill O’Reilly, and everybody knows it.'” A review of the recent output of 60 Minutes should cause media historians to restrain themselves before declaring that this program is a hallmark of hard-hitting journalism, without a political axe to grind. They either carry an axe or a shoe-shine kit.

Originally posted here:
New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

AP-GfK Poll Report Concentrates on Voters’ Emotions, Avoids Dem-Unfriendly Findings

So what’s more important: The fact that independents are as “upset” as Republicans, or that Americans’ disapproval of how President Obama is handling the economy is at an all-time high? Here’s another priority-related question: Is it more important that “independents and Republicans were half as likely as Democrats to be inspired and less prone to be hopeful, excited and proud,” or that Republicans are now more trusted than Democrats in handling the economy, representing a 10-point swing (from -5% to +5%) in just three months? If you’re the Associated Press’s Alan Fram and Jennifer Agiesta reporting on your own poll — an AP-GfK poll found in full at this link (click on “September 8th – September 13th 2010 – AP-GfK Poll Topline” when you get there) — you would apparently say that the first alternatives in each question are more important, even though terms like “upset,” hopeful,” excited,” and “proud” are subjective, and the items that trigger these emotions will vary widely among survey respondents. Why, if I didn’t know better (I think I do), I’d say that Agiesta and Fram filtered out the worst of the bad news for Democrats in favor of the touchy-feely stuff. Here are several paragraphs from the AP pair’s report : AP-GfK Poll: Independents as upset as Republicans More bad news for Democrats clinging to control of Congress: Independent voters are nearly as grumpy as Republicans about politics this year. In an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, 58 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said politics is making them angry, compared with 31 percent of Democrats who said so. About 7 in 10 independents and Republicans were disgusted, compared with 4 in 10 Democrats, and independents and Republicans were likelier than Democrats to be disappointed, depressed and frustrated. As for positive emotions, independents and Republicans were half as likely as Democrats to be inspired and less prone to be hopeful, excited and proud. The figures are the latest cautionary note for Democrats, who face a Nov. 2 Election Day in which the sluggish economy and President Barack Obama’s tepid popularity give Republicans a strong chance to capture control of the House and perhaps the Senate. They also help explain why independents, who can be pivotal in many congressional races, prefer their GOP candidate over the Democrat by 52 percent to 36 percent – which grows to 62 percent to 29 percent among independents considered likeliest to vote. Well, I guess we should give the two reporters credit for finally getting to something substantive at the end of the fourth paragraph — by which time a number of readers will have tired of the focus on emotions. Now let’s look at some of the meat Fram and Agiesta chose to ignore. By a margin of 58-42, respondents disapproved of how President Obama is handling the economy: As you can see, that’s up from a virtual tie just six months ago. By that same 58-42 margin, respondents disapproved of the president’s handling of unemployment, an 18-point swing from six months ago: Perhaps most damning, the majority of those polled who say that Obama “understands the problems of ordinary Americans” is the narrowest ever, and miles lower than it was at the beginning of the year: My guess, based on the timing presented as to when the question has been asked, is that AP-GfK was hoping for a better September result than they got. After inexplicably narrowing in August, respondents’ net unfavorable impression of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 23 points: This would seem to explain why congressional candidates are running away from her . Voters should remember that ” Dems Deserve No Distance ” from Pelosi, Obama, or Harry Reid if they are up for reelection and voted for one of the following: the failed stimulus plan, cap and trade, or ObamaCare. Finally, Republicans have gained the upper hand in respondents’ trust on handling the economy for the first time since Obama has been president: Each one of the five findings I presented is far more important than the deep dive the poll took into nebulous emotions. Readers will surely find several others that would also qualify as more important if they go to the complete poll. Tellingly in my view, the poll presents no prior information on respondents’ emotions other than for “happy.” I believe that the September poll was the first time most emotion-related questions were asked — which is further evidence that the AP and GfK were looking for any kind of polling “news” that would give them an excuse for not delivering the data readers have a right to expect. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the rest here:
AP-GfK Poll Report Concentrates on Voters’ Emotions, Avoids Dem-Unfriendly Findings

Libertarians fight to break cycle of battered gay voter syndrome

Like abused spouses who keep returning to their aggressors, gay voters keep handing their votes to the Democrats who abuse them. The Libertarian Party (LP) wants to break this self-destructive behavior and offers LGBT voters a better alternative. LP Chairman Mark Hinkle said, “Exit polls indicate that Democrats get over 70% of LGBT votes in federal elections. Those voters must really love the Democrats' rhetoric, because they certainly aren't seeing any action. “President Obama and the Democrats had almost a year of complete control of the federal government: the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. They could have repealed 'don't ask don't tell.' They could have gotten rid of the Defense of Marriage Act. But they didn't do either of those things. That's a complete and total betrayal of all the promises they made to gay and lesbian voters for years. “After a carefully orchestrated failure in the Senate, the Democrats are now blaming Republicans for blocking the repeal of 'don't ask don't tell.' Of course, three Democrats just voted against it too, including Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid claims he voted for procedural reasons, but the whole situation seems calculated to look like they're trying to help, while making sure they don't actually help.” Unlike the Democratic and Republican Parties, the Libertarian Party believes that gays and lesbians deserve equal treatment under the law. LP Executive Director Wes Benedict added, “The Libertarian Party neither supports nor opposes gay relationships. Libertarians are black, white, young, old, straight, gay, Christian, atheist, yuppie, hippie, rich, poor, greedy, generous, eccentric and just plain average. Though their backgrounds and lifestyles are diverse, they are united on the principle of minimum government and maximum freedom.” The LP Platform states: “1.3 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.” The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 170 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections. For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website. http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-fight-to-break-cycle-of-batte… added by: shanklinmike

Matthews-Mitchell Admit: Military Doesn’t Trust Obama’s Political Advisers

Of all the revelations in Bob Woodwards’s new book , this could be the most devastating . . . On this evening’s Hardball, Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell admited that the military people in the Obama administration don’t trust Pres. Obama’s political advisers. That raises grave concerns for America’s security.  In purely political terms, consider the implications given that among Americans, by far the most trusted institution is . . . the military. View video here . ANDREA MITCHELL: This is a new president who had no relationship with the military. And what does come through loud and clear from this book is the distrust and the long knives that were out between the civilian side, the political aides, the former campaign aides, and the military brass . . . National Security Adviser Jim Jones is very clear that he feels ostracized, that he didn’t have access to the president on the president’s first European trip. He had to go to the president and complain. CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well is it true they don’t like each other?  Just bottom line here: is it true the military guys don’t trust the White House political people and the other way around?  Your thoughts first, Andrea, on that one. MITCHELL: I think that is true.  And I think in particular that Jim Jones, a Marine general, retired Marine general, feels very much at odds with some of the civilians on the national security team and is about to leave. I think that’s the next big announcement we’re going to have from the White House, is the shake-up on the foreign policy/national security team that mirrors what’s happened so far on the economic team.

See original here:
Matthews-Mitchell Admit: Military Doesn’t Trust Obama’s Political Advisers

NBC to Interview Obama Monday, Show It Across NBCU Networks, from USA to to Bravo to Syfy

As part of their “Education Nation” summit, NBC is granting a half-hour Matt Lauer interview on education to President Obama in the 8 am hour of Today on Monday. But that’s not the half of it: TV Newser reports the chat “will be roadblocked across various NBCU Networks including MSNBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, Oxygen, Chiller, Sleuth, UNI HD and Universal Sports.” Please start your “Obama on Syfy” jokes now. We haven’t seen this kind of all-out NBC-networks promotion for a politician since Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts in 2007. This is the second NBC-U forum for Obama in days, coming right after a cozy CNBC hour-long session with John Harwood and disappointed Obama backers. 

Read more:
NBC to Interview Obama Monday, Show It Across NBCU Networks, from USA to to Bravo to Syfy

Don’t Tell Me – It’s Just More of the Same

Bryan Safi is a writer for infoMania and the host of “That's Gay.” Remember how Mean Old Man McCain threatened to block movement to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and we were all like, “um…you’re stupid”? And then remember how last night we waited to see if Sarah Palin would show up on DWTS to cheer on her little star who’s famous for not using a condom? One of those two things didn’t happen.

‘Dancing With The Stars’ Cast Most A-List Ever? Experts Weigh In!

Huge ratings and big stars like the Situation have made ‘DWTS’ a ‘go-to TV show,’ says one pop-culture expert. By Jocelyn Vena “Dancing with the Stars” cast Photo: ABC With names as recognizable as the Situation, David Hasselhoff, Audrina Patridge, Michael Bolton and “Brady Brunch” vet Florence Henderson, the 11th season of “Dancing With the Stars” is shaping up to be one of the most pop-culturally relevant in the show’s five-year history. And experts contend that the show, which premiered on Monday night, now has enough clout to book not only celebrities with a legitimate footnote in pop-culture history but also stars at the peak of their careers. “Well, I think it’s just the nature of the beast, both the show and reality TV in general, that they are bigger now than they were when ‘Dancing With the Stars’ started,” said TVGuide.com staff editor Joyce Eng, explaining why this season packs so much star power. “Two of [the contestants] are reality stars. I don’t think it’s that surprising for them to do another reality show, especially for the Sitch, capitalizing on his fame now.” David Caplan, an entertainment journalist who has worked at celebrity magazines including People and Star, had another explanation, saying that the show has gone beyond camp value and is now considered by many to be legitimate work. ” ‘Dancing With the Stars’ has established itself as a go-to TV show,” he said. “It has incredible ratings, and by doing this show it allows a lot of people to expand their platform. You go on ‘Dancing With the Stars’ and you generate so much more press. For instance, some celebrity weekly will do a ‘How Bristol Palin Got in Shape’ story.” So how did it happen? Well, Caplan said, each new season added to a snowball effect. “It started off small,” he added, “and then progressed each season as more relevant people realized, ‘This is good for my career.’ ” Eng added, “As for other big names [besides Audrina and the Situation], the show has pursued certain people for years, and I think it’s entirely possible that some stars were skeptical, tentative about signing on in the earlier seasons,” she said. “But now that the show has blown up or friends/ old co-stars have gone on [ cough ] the Hoff [ cough ], ‘90210’ people, they’ve joined.” Brad Witter, a reporter at US Weekly, noted that season 11’s contestants have the celebrity factor that makes them appealing to viewers — and the tabloids. “In the past, ‘Dancing With the Stars’ got the reputation that it’s for washed-up people, but as the seasons have gone on, it’s gotten more popular, and the ratings are huge,” Witter explained. “A lot of people that are on this season are people that have been in the spotlight up until now and are still running in our magazine. This season, it’s people that America already cares about and are invested in.” What did you think of the “DWTS” premiere episode? Tell us in the comments! Related Photos Other MTV Stars Who Should Be On ‘Dancing With The Stars’ ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Season 11 Cast Revealed!

Read more here:
‘Dancing With The Stars’ Cast Most A-List Ever? Experts Weigh In!

‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Stalled By Senate Vote

Despite Lady Gaga support, bill fails to pass. By Gil Kaufman Photo: Chris Hondros/ Getty Images Despite a last-minute push at a Monday rally in Maine and weeks of very public advocacy from Lady Gaga in favor of repealing the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gay and lesbian soldiers from openly serving in the armed forces, Senate Democrats were unable to get enough votes to begin debate Tuesday (September 21). Gaga rushed to Maine on Monday in an attempt to convince the state’s two swing-vote Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, to support repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But when the vote came to the floor Tuesday to begin debate on the massive defense spending bill, which includes a repeal of the policy, the Democratic majority fell short of the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to debate, losing out 56-43. The organization Gaga worked with to spearhead her two-week campaign to get the discussion started, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, issued a statement following the vote. “Today’s Senate vote was a frustrating blow to repeal this horrible law,” said Army veteran Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN, a national organization dedicated to ending “don’t ask, don’t tell.” “We lost because of the political maneuvering dictated by the mid-term elections. Let’s be clear: Opponents to repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ did not have the votes to strike those provisions from the bill. Instead, they had the votes for delay. Time is the enemy here.” The vote was done in thanks to a filibuster by Republican Senator and Vietnam veteran John McCain, who attempted to block the vote to begin debate on the National Defense Authorization Act over Republican claims that the Democrats were attempting to stifle debate on the bill and not allow the minority party to offer amendments to the massive spending package for the military. President Obama has long promised a repeal of the Clinton-era legislation, and the House has already passed a version of the spending bill that included the reversal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But with the measure stalled in the Senate, hopes of passage have faded significantly. With the midterm elections less than six weeks away and Republicans expected to make gains in both the House and Senate, possibly even taking over leadership of one or both bodies, supporters of repeal were looking at Tuesday’s vote as their last, best chance for passage this year. “We now have no choice but to look to the lame duck session where we’ll have a slim shot,” Sarvis said of the already-packed legislative session following the November midterm elections. “The Senate absolutely must schedule a vote in December when cooler heads and common sense are more likely to prevail once mid-term elections are behind us.” Gaga’s very public efforts helped put the issue on front pages and screens from coast to coast, but CNN reported that both Collins and Snowe said the singer’s appearance at Monday’s rally in Maine had no effect on their crucial votes. Collins, in fact, supported the repeal but told the network she felt she had to stay in line with her colleagues and vote against debate for procedural reasons. Share your thoughts about the vote in the comments. Related Videos Lady Gaga Rallies Against ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Originally posted here:
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Stalled By Senate Vote