Tag Archives: Obama

MSNBC: ‘New Jobless Claims Decline By Over 200,000’

Recovery summer just keeps getting better and better.  News outlets such as MSNBC.com announce “New jobless claims drop sharply.”  Although the unadjusted data reflect an actual increase, the media are reporting a seasonally adjusted drop of 21,000 in jobless claims.   But that wasn’t good enough for MSNBC. While broadcasting an Obama speech during Andrea Mitchell Reports, the screen crawl reported “NEW JOBLESS CLAIMS DECLINE BY OVER 200,000.” OK, mistakes happen.  But my guess is that if the error reflected poorly on the Obama administration, someone would have caught the error pronto.  An hour later, MSNBC Live anchored by Tamron Hall was still featuring the same mistake.         

View original post here:
MSNBC: ‘New Jobless Claims Decline By Over 200,000’

Morning Shows Devote 48 Minutes to Lindsay Lohan, a Scant 20 Seconds to Appointment of Controversial Doctor

Over the span of two days, the network morning shows have given just 20 seconds of coverage to the recess appointment of Donald Berwick, a pro-rationing doctor who will run Medicare. In contrast, Good Morning America, Today and Early Show devoted 48 minutes of coverage to every detail of Lindsay Lohan’s sentencing. On Wednesday and Thursday’s GMA, ABC hosts discussed Lohan for 14 minutes. CBS’s Early Show managed 12 minutes to the important topic. Both programs had no mention of Berwick, who once told an audience in Great Britain, “Please, don’t put your faith in market forces.” NBC’s Today, so far, has been the only morning show to mention Berwick at all. On Wednesday, news reader Lester Holt explained: President Obama is expected to appoint his choice to oversee Medicare and Medicaid today, while Congress is in recess. This means Dr. Donald Berwick won’t have to undergo Senate confirmation hearings. Republicans had wanted to question the Harvard professor and healthcare policy expert about comments he made on rationing medical care. However, this 20 second brief hardly explains Berwick’s comments, including this statement, also in Britain: “I hope you realize and affirm how badly you need–how badly the world needs–an example at scale of a health care system that is universal, accessible, excellent and free at the point of care–a health system that, at its core is like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.” However, Today also allotted the most time to the Lohan story: 24 minutes over two days. For more, see coverage at CNSNews.com . Also see a blog by the MRC’s Geoff Dickens for more on the lack of coverage .

Read the original:
Morning Shows Devote 48 Minutes to Lindsay Lohan, a Scant 20 Seconds to Appointment of Controversial Doctor

Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

Are you happy with the job that the Obama administration and the Democrats are doing? If so, then vote for Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate because Chris Matthews happily proclaimed that Crist is going to be the new star in the Democrat caucus. However, if you are dissatisfied with the direction this nation is going and want to change it, then Marco Rubio will be your choice which is why your humble correspondent won’t be a bit surprised to see this video of Matthews making his proclamation about Crist on Morning Joe end up as a Rubio campaign commercial. Here is a transcript of Matthews delivering his kiss of death product endorsement of Charlie Crist: Charlie Crist is going to be the new star of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. He’s going to be a major player in the Democratic Party down the road. He’ll be a moderate Democrat somewhere in the middle. I think he’s very shrewd and nimble. This sudden Matthews infatuation with Charlie Crist stands in sharp contrast with his attitude back in May when he was sharply critical of the Florida governor’s performance on Meet The Press where he played coy by avoiding a direct answer about which party he would caucus with and for whom he would vote for Majority Leader of the Senate as you can see in the video below: Here is a transcript of Matthews’ disgust with Crist at that time: …I used to sort of like Charlie Crist but he’s off-base on that. You have to join a party caucus before you can vote for leader. He can’t decide which leader he’s going to vote for because he’s not even voting. He must join a caucus then you get to vote for which person leads that caucus. That’s how it’s done. He doesn’t seem to know that or he rejects knowing it. What do you think? Is he just ignorant or is he playing a game here? So what changed in the past couple of months to cause Matthews to move from disgust with Charlie Crist to developing a “strange new respect” for the Florida governor? Most likely it was the realization by Matthews and fellow liberals that the likely Democrat nominees, Kendrick Meek or billionaire Jeff Greene, have little or no chance of winning the general election in November. Therefore the best chance of promoting the liberal agenda in the Senate would be to back Charlie Crist running as an independent who was too liberal to win the Republican nomination. And Marco Rubio should thank Matthews for that wonderful future campaign commercial clip reminding Florida voters (many of whom still mistakenly think of Crist as a Republican) that Charlie is a Democrat.

View post:
Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

Lady Gaga Overtakes Obama On Facebook: Fans Weigh In!

‘Her outfits are sexy and she’s just crazy,’ Gaga’s fan explain about her Facebook popularity. By MTV News Staff Lady Gaga Photo: Derek Storm/ Splash News NEW YORK — It goes without saying that Lady Gaga’s little monsters are as devoted to her as she is to them. So when news broke that Gaga had surpassed President Barack Obama in her number of Facebook followers , it really wasn’t a surprise to the Little Monsters MTV News spoke with after her opening night show at Madison Square Garden in New York. “Lady Gaga definitely passed Obama with the number of fans on Facebook cause she’s awesome,” Cathy said. “Her outfits are sexy and she’s just crazy.” Laura proudly flaunted her membership to the Mother Monster fan club proclaiming, “I’m a fan of her Facebook page. I’m one of the 10 million — really!” And it seems a key to the success of beating out the president on Facebook is the fact that Gaga isn’t a politician. “When you get into politics things get very, very sketchy and I think that’s why she managed to gain more fans than he did,” Frankie explained. “Cause as risqu

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Hectors Netanyahu, Saddles Israel With Responsibility for Peace

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday repeatedly berated Benjamin Netanyahu as to what the Israeli Prime Minister will do for the peace process. Focusing almost entirely on Israel, while excluding the U.S. and the Palestinians, he hectored, “What are you prepared to do? More security autonomy for the Palestinians on the West Bank? Prisoner releases?” Stephanopoulos did highlight the contrast between April’s frosty meeting with President Obama and a more friendly visit at the White House, Tuesday. In the tease for the show, he wondered, “President Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister all smiles at the White House. But, is the friendship as solid as they claim?” Yet, the former Democratic operative failed to ask a single question as to what Obama could do to make the relationship stronger. Instead, he seemed to suggest that since this meeting went better, the burden was now on the Israelis side: “And I guess you couldn’t have asked for a warmer reception from President Obama yesterday. There was the private meeting in the Oval Office. Pretty effusive displays of friendship from the President and the First Lady to your wife, Sara.” Stephanopoulos then pressed as to “what’s going to come” of the visit. He dismissed, “One analyst said, this is a false con. Suggesting that you can’t or won’t deliver what President Obama is calling for in the peace process. So, what concrete steps are you prepared to take?” Although the morning show host did note Obama snubs from the April meeting, such as when the President kept Netanyahu waiting for hours while he ate dinner, he asked no questions on the subject and didn’t ask if this offended the Prime Minister. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:13am EDT, follows: 7am tease GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama and Israel’s Prime Minister all smiles at the White House. But, is the friendship as solid as they claim? Will it create progress towards peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu joins us live in a GMA exclusive. 7:13 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn now to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu He met with President Obama at the White House Tuesday, after a series of disagreements and diplomatic gaffes, plunged U.S./Israeli relations into their chilliest period in years. The last time they met in April, there were no public photographs. And President Obama kept the Prime Minister waiting for hours while he ate dinner. Not yesterday. It was smiles all around. And here for his first interview since the meeting is the Isreali Prime Minister. Good morning, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you for joining us today. PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Good morning. STEPHANOPOULOS: And I guess you couldn’t have asked for a warmer reception from President Obama yesterday. There was the private meeting in the Oval Office. Pretty effusive displays of friendship from the President and the First Lady to your wife, Sara. But, I guess the big question, is what’s going to come of it? One analyst said, this is a false con. Suggesting that you can’t or won’t deliver what President Obama is calling for in the peace process. So, what concrete steps are you prepared to take? NETANYAHU: I think it was a warm reception. First of all, it was very warm in Washington. Still is. Even for that climate, an unusually warm reception. And my wife and I appreciated it. And the state of Israel appreciates it. We’ve had disagreements. It’s natural between two allies. But in recent weeks and months, we’ve come closer and closer together on a number of important things. How to open up Gaza for civilian traffic and keep the arms blockade. How to make sure to clarify to the world that America’s policy regarding the NPT, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, that policy, stands firm in the way that it’s always stood. All of this was clarified in the course of these discussions. But the main thing, George, that came out of these very good discussions I had with the President is that we want to advance peace. And the simplest way to advance peace is to put aside all the grievances and all the preconditions and all the excuses that have been put up to prevent me and President Abbas of the Palestinian authority from sitting down. I say I’m ready to sit down with him in Jerusalem, in Ramallah, that’s ten minutes away from my office, to discuss peace without preconditions. And if we do it, we can defy the world. STEPHANOPOULOS: I know that’s your position, Mr. Prime Minister. But even yesterday, you did say you were prepared to take concrete steps to advance this process. You know the Palestinians need to see that. What are you prepared to do? More security autonomy for the Palestinians on the West Bank? Prisoner releases? Are you willing to extend the settlement freeze past its deadline of September? NETANYAHU: Well, we’ve done a lot of bit in relaxing hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints that’s facilitated the West Bank economic boom. I’ve talked about my vision of peace about a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. We adopted a moratorium seven months ago for the Palestinians to enter the talks. They haven’t so far done that. I think all these things, in word and deed, show that we are interested in launching this peace forward. Now, rather than pile up more preconditions, even though there are more things we’re prepared to do. STEPHANOPOULOS: What are they? NETANYAHU: The important thing is the Palestinians- Additional easing of movements. Some questions of economic projects. There are quite a few. And the point is, we’re prepared to do them. But what we want to see, finally, is one thing. We want President Abbas to grasp my hand, get into a room, shake it, sit down and negotiate a final settlement of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Believe me, George, it’s hard. The risks for us, for me, also for my country, will have to have very strong security arrangements so that the areas that we vacate do not turn into Iranian strongholds for firing rockets, sending terrorists against us. That’s happened before in Lebanon and in Gaza. So, we have some very clear requirements. The Palestinians will have very clear requirements. The only way that is going to mesh together is if we sit down together, so we can live in peace and security, side-by-side, together. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about extending- How about establishing the settlement freeze? The President said yesterday he hopes there will be progress in the peace talks for the freeze to be extended past September. What exactly do you need to see from the Palestinians in order to extend that settlement freeze past the deadline in September? NETANYAHU: We discussed the concrete steps that need to be taken in the next few days, literally in the next few days and weeks to finally begin direct negotiations for peace. I think once we get there, realities may change. But I think the most important reality is that we don’t stick on, as we negotiate our historic peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, we don’t stick on requirements and grievances. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re open to extending the freeze? NETANYAHU: I’m open to beginning peace negotiations now. And that’s what I want to do. And by the way, I’ve been open for the last year and a quarter. I think we wasted a lot of time with these kinds of excuses, preconditions. All sorts of things that are packed in the way of a simple action. You know you’ve seen these pictures of peace conferences that are- let’s put it in the Middle East as a peace tent. We’re sitting in the tent. We’re waiting for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to sit on the other side, across the table, in the tent. And the Palestinians say, we won’t even enter the tent before the tent or the one before that tent, as well. I said, just fold the tents, get into the main arena. Engage in negotiations. Let’s not waste our energies on ancillary things, on minor things. Let’s try to absolve the issues of security, territory, refugees, water. These are huge issues. I think, I’m confident, that I- I’m convinced that our security needs are met, I think I can bring the peace that the majority of the people of Israel will support. And what we’d really like to see is the Palestinians understand that we expect them to end the conflict. That the state that they will receive will not be a platform for additional conflicts against Israel. But an end to the conflict with solid security arrangements. STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m afraid that’s all the time we have, Mr. Prime Minister. I’m sorry for that. But, thank you for joining us this morning. NETANYAHU: Well, don’t be so skeptical. Raise your hopes. It’s summer time. We can perform miracles.

Read more:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Hectors Netanyahu, Saddles Israel With Responsibility for Peace

Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy’s Replacement to Loom Large in 2012 Presidential Election

I don’t recall another Supreme Court justice announcing that the timing of her or his retirement hinged on who was president, even though we all know this is the undercurrent, barring mitigating circumstances. But Justice Anthony Kennedy has said it out loud, telling his inner circle he doesn’t want President Barack Obama to be The One. Thanks surely in part to Obama’s big mouth, as explained below, Kennedy’s replacement will loom large as a rallying cry for both parties in the 2012 presidential election. It appears the next president will choose the next SC vote that could either overturn or continue to uphold Roe v. Wade . And not withstanding the 2008 election, it is the Republican Party that usually gathers more steam/$$ from such a prospect/threat. As an aside, Senate Republicans should take this development into consideration and show themselves worthy of voter support for what will be the mother of all SC nomination battles. It is not too late to pick themselves up off the floor, where they have been New York Daily News , July 6… … Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least 3 more years – through the end of Obama’s 1st term, sources said…. That means Kennedy will be around to provide a 5th vote for the court’s conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice. Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan , has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court’s 4 rock-ribbed conservative justices . Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech. Obama… was so angry that he took the unusual step of blasting the decision in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address, with Kennedy and five other justices looking on…. With the retirement of fellow Stanford graduate Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, Kennedy has inherited O’Connor’s mantle as the court’s swing vote. His voting pattern suggests he’s actually become a far more reliable vote for the conservatives.  In a piece entitled, “The fury of an idiot scorned,” Red State Insider at

Follow this link:
Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy’s Replacement to Loom Large in 2012 Presidential Election

Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. — Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence. Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn’t include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented. The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law. Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration. The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don’t belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down. Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit. So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story: Although the lawsuit cites potential “detention and harassment” of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, “we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that’s something that we would take action on.”  Shh! Let’s not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

The rest is here:
Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

NY Times Loses Its Distaste for Religion As Houston Churches Push Amnesty for Illegals

Last Friday, the New York Times continued its front-page hammering of Pope Benedict as sharing the blame for the scandalous child sex abuse cases brought against priests. On Tuesday, the Times led with a story on the alleged scandal of the United States giving tax breaks for donations to strengthen Jewish settlements in the West Bank that Obama doesn’t approve of. So when the paper suddenly starts showing deference to religion in politics, it’s a giveaway that a plea in aid of an unlabeled liberal cause will soon follow. The Times continues to push for amnesty for illegal immigration by providing gross overexposure to pro-illegal immigrant protests and marches that function as press releases for the pro-amnesty position. On Monday, Texas-based reporter James McKinley Jr. brought in “an unusual display of ecumenical solidarity.” ” Many Churches, One Plea — Houston’s Clergy United to Urge Support for Immigration Reform .” McKinley lets a minister ramble in Marxist fashion: The Rev. John W. Bowie knows it is hard to sell the people in his neighborhood on the idea that they should support changing immigration laws to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. His church lies in one of the oldest black settlements in the city, where unemployment is high and many people see immigrants as competitors for jobs. Yet there he was in the pulpit at True Light Missionary Baptist Church on the Fourth of July, with a full choir behind him, urging his flock to support an overhaul of immigration laws that “lets the undocumented come out of the shadows.” “All 13 colonies were made up of illegal aliens because they had not gotten permission from the residents here, who were the Indians,” he said. “Then a few years later, they brought us here and made us illegal, too. These immigrants, we immigrants, have built the greatest nation in the world, coming from everywhere, all over, because, you see, nobody owns this world except God.” All over Houston, in an unusual display of ecumenical solidarity on an explosive issue, scores of pastors, priests, rabbis and ministers used their sermons on Independence Day to promote the cause of fixing a broken immigration system. The coordinated effort was part of a broad-based campaign begun in January by an interfaith group, the Metropolitan Organization, to lobby Congress to pass an immigration overhaul package this year. The group has collected 12,000 signatures to be sent to lawmakers and has organized workshops to persuade churchgoers to support their effort. McKinley didn’t find any “liberals” on the pro-amnesty side, but managed to identify opponents of immigration “reform” as “conservative” and “right-wing.” Many clergy members say they face an uphill battle with their congregations, some of which tend to be conservative on social issues and regard immigrants without visas as lawbreakers. Their effort has also drawn fire from right-wing talk radio hosts.  McKinley also piled on the “right-wing politicians” and “conservative” labels in a slanted May story on the Texas governor’s race that will pit sitting Gov. Rick Perry against Democrat Bill White.

Read the original post:
NY Times Loses Its Distaste for Religion As Houston Churches Push Amnesty for Illegals

Decline of Larry King, Rise of TV ‘Cretins and Crackpots’ Is Blamed on the Blogosphere

The decline and fall of Larry King Live on CNN is depressing Washington Post TV writer Tom Shales , who lamented on Tuesday that “Larry King’s show got to be an increasingly lonely outpost of humane civility in a mephitic menagerie of hotheads, saber rattlers, cretins and crackpots.” “Mephitic” is a ten-dollar word for “sulfurous stench.” Shales predicted: “What we’ll probably see more of in the weeks and months of remodeling ahead is more of that carping, contentious talk that thrives on competitors Fox News and MSNBC, where personalities like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann (arguably two sides of the same coin) hold forth.”  He blamed all this on…the blogosphere: What has brought on the wave of harshness and calumny that saturates public conversation in the 21st century — so far? The Internet, with its mob rule and forums open to every conceivable variety of nut, has arguably been a principal cause, elevating trash speech to the level of published commentary just because there’s room for it — here, there, everywhere. Maybe Larry Kings cannot thrive or even survive in a world where the norms for discourse are rage, vehemence and character assassination. King wanted to be liked, not feared; admired, not loathed. The veteran broadcaster has no apologies to make, either. For 25 years, he made a radio format work on television, and certainly without being another pretty face. The ugliness might lie ahead, especially if CNN tries to out-shout the boors and demagogues representative of Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Not that every person who helms a talk show on these networks is guilty of coarsening the conversation. But the big noises, the most prominent personalities, seem also to be the most shrill and hostile. They set the standard, substandard though it may be. Shales even recirculated the unproven, never-found-on-video claims of Tea Party protesters yelling the N-word at black Members of Congress on Capitol Hill during the ObamaCare debate: And what happens on television invariably affects — and sometimes infects — American life, manners and mores. In March, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) was shocked to be jeered and vilified by anti-health-care-reform demonstrators on Capitol Hill who used the most vile of racial epithets when screaming at him. “It surprised me,” Lewis said afterward, “that people are so mean, and we can’t engage in a civil dialogue and debate.” If he’d watched more cable TV, Lewis might not have been quite so surprised.

See more here:
Decline of Larry King, Rise of TV ‘Cretins and Crackpots’ Is Blamed on the Blogosphere

WaPo Art Critic Slams Norman Rockwell as Lacking ‘Courage’

Artist Norman Rockwell’s thought crime seems to be that he wasn’t a kneejerk liberal. And for that, he has earned an angry leftwing rant from Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik who claimed that Rockwell lacked “courage” for not glorifying leftwing causes. Rockwell’s “Four Freedoms” series? It disgusts Gopnik because it “doesn’t invoke a communist printing his pamphlets or an atheist on a soapbox.” So if Gopnik can’t stand the popular Norman Rockwell, just what kind of art does he like? You can find out below the fold but a warning: please be sure you are not consuming liquids while viewing an example of Gopnik art or you risk spewing it over your computer monitor when you burst out laughing. However, before we take a look at Gopniks laughable taste in art, let us join him in mid-rant as he tells us how much he absolutely hates Norman Rockwell: Norman Rockwell is often championed as the great painter of American virtues. Yet the one virtue most nearly absent from his work is courage. He doesn’t challenge any of us, or himself, to think new thoughts or try new acts or look with fresh eyes. From the docile realism of his style to the received ideas of his subjects, Rockwell reliably keeps us right in the middle of our comfort zone.  And here is more of Gopnik leaving the sanity zone: Rockwell’s greatest sin as an artist is simple: His is an art of unending cliché. The reason we so easily “recognize ourselves” in his paintings is because they reflect the standard image we already know. His stories resonate so strongly because they are the stories we’ve told ourselves a thousand times.  …America isn’t about Rockwell’s one-note image of it — or anyone else’s. This country is about a game-changing guarantee that equal room will be made for Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics and even, dare I say it, for metrosexual half-Canadian art critics with a fondness for offal, spinets and kilts. Speaking of offal, here is an example of the kind of art Gopnik likes:  That’s right. A smudgy piece of ugly printing is considered great art by Gopnik. Of course, to Gopnik art is all about politics even to the extent of the need for affirmative action art. Here he is analyzing art quotas of works that appeared in the Obama White House: They seem to redress past imbalances in the nation’s sense of its own art….But there are still only six works by women, vs. 41 by men. And there are no works at all by Latinos. (A work by the deceased Cuban American artist Félix González-Torres would have filled the gap perfectly, and added a nod to the country’s gay culture. The Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum has one that could have been borrowed.) Bottom line: it is politics, not really art that has Gopnik so upset at Norman Rockwell. And compared to what he considers good art, those velvet paintings that used to be sold at gas stations look like masterpieces.

Read the rest here:
WaPo Art Critic Slams Norman Rockwell as Lacking ‘Courage’