Tag Archives: political groups

NBC’s Chuck Todd Trumpets Flawed Election Poll, Parrots Democratic Talking Points

NBC Political Director Chuck Todd cherrypicked a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll to dismiss the possibility that Republicans will regain control of Congress in the November election. He did this despite evidence within the same poll that the political landscape in 2010 resembles 1994, when Republicans picked up 54 seats to take control of the House. On the July 13 “Morning Joe,” Todd emphasized the finding that 72 percent of the country has either “just some” or no confidence at all in the ability of congressional Republicans to “make the right decisions for the country’s future.” “This wild card about this election cycle which makes it different from ’06, which makes it different from ’94, is this issue of the public’s view of the Republican Party,” insisted Todd. The poll is misleading for a number of reasons, none of which Todd acknowledged. First, measuring public confidence in President Barack Obama, congressional Democrats, and congressional Republicans, the pollsters grouped respondents who reported “a great deal of confidence” with “a good amount,” and “just some” confidence with “none at all.” This aggregation resulted in a higher percentage of Americans expressing some or no confidence at all in Republicans than in Obama. But grouping “just some” respondents with “none at all” respondents does not make sense because expressing some confidence is much different from expressing “none at all.” If the pollsters had grouped those who reported “a good amount” of confidence with those who reported “just some” confidence, Republicans in Congress would have received 61 percent support, 14 points higher than Obama. Second, Todd’s insinuation that the public preferred congressional Republicans to congressional Democrats in 1994 but not in 2010 contradicts the same poll he cited to advance the argument that Republicans will not maximize their gains in November. As of July 11, 2010, voters prefer congressional Republicans 47 percent and congressional Democrats 46 percent, a negligible difference. By contrast, on August 8, 1994, 49 percent of the public preferred congressional Democrats while only 42 percent of the public preferred congressional Republicans, a seven point edge. In fact, the public preferred congressional Democrats over congressional Democrats in every Washington Post-ABC News poll taken through the November election. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough challenged Todd on the preference issue, asking, “Aren’t these off-year elections really just an opportunity for Americans to vote up or down for the most part on the party in power, the party that’s running Washington?” Todd, seemingly uninterested in demonstrable trends, insisted that the White House and Democrats are capable of turning the election into something other than a referendum on their liberal agenda. An obstinate Todd continued to rain on the GOP’s parade. “Joe, I think it’s the difference between picking up 25 or 30 seats and picking up 40 seats,” he insisted. NBC’s chief political junkie was all too eager to report the results of a poll forecasting sobering prospects for Republicans without scrutinizing the data or researching relevant historical trends. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe July 13, 2010 7:24 A.M. E.S.T. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hey Chuck, let me ask you something. Of course let’s put up the polls really quickly again from the Washington Post and then I’m going to follow it up with some news you say may not as good for Republicans. First of all, let’s look at the polls. Sixty-eight percent of Americans have little confidence in Democrats; Seventy-two percent, Republicans. Of course we talk about 58 percent, Barack Obama. Now let’s go to the four reasons why you say Republicans may not take back the House in the fall. You wrote about this yesterday and it’s very fascinating. You said the favorable ratings the same as the Democrats. And you are exactly right. In fact, in this case it’s even worse for Republicans than Democrats. But I guess the bigger question is – and I want to get Mark’s thoughts on this as well – aren’t these off-year elections really just an opportunity for Americans to vote up or down for the most part on the party in power, the party that’s running Washington? CHUCK TODD, MSNBC political director: Most of the time they are, and for many voters, this will be the case. This wild card about this election cycle which makes it different from ’06, which makes it different from ’94, is this issue of the public’s view of the Republican Party. And the reason you have to sit there and not ignore it is look at what the message the White House is trying to drive. Look at the message that Democratic candidates in congressional races are trying to drive, which is saying, “okay, you may be mad at us, but look at them.” And look, when you already have 70 percent of the public having a negative view, you can sell that story – you have a better chance of selling the story. SCARBOROUGH: Does that work when Democrats – it’s a monopoly though in Washington though. I guess that’s why it’s so much harder to sell. Listen in ’94 the Republicans actually had a plan. We haven’t seen that yet from this group of Republicans. I guess the bigger question, Chuck is, can you beat something with nothing?    TODD: Joe, I think it’s the difference between picking up 25 or 30 seats and picking up 40 seats and 10 seats in the Senate. Do you see what I’m saying? I think the difference between having a good election night and the majority is somehow starting to improve their favorable rating, and starting to go out there and saying, “we have a plan.” And right now they don’t have that and I think that’s what’s keeping them from getting the entire enchilada here. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
NBC’s Chuck Todd Trumpets Flawed Election Poll, Parrots Democratic Talking Points

Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

Advocacy groups have increasingly labelled their opposition as “astroturf,” or corporate-funded fake grassroots, groups in order to demean them and lessen the fact that both sides enjoy some measure of public support. Many of the organizations throwing around accusations of astroturfing, such as the Marxist net neutrality advocacy group Free Press and the liberal ThinkProgress not only engage in astroturf strategies, but are financially supported in ways they decry as astroturf. The media, unsurprisngly, has often chosen to ignore leftist astroturfing and focus on accusations of rightist astroturfing. The Daily Caller reported Wednesday on a pro-neutrality letter circulated around Capitol Hill by Free Press which was a product of the same astroturfing tactics Free Press has decried. The “signatories” of the letter had no recollection of the letter and had no idea they had signed it. One of the signatories, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation wrote to the Federal Communications Comission, The Hill reported , asking to be removed from the list of signatories. Tellingly, a Free Press spokeswoman suggested that they were pressured to do so. Presumably by the Satan-worshipping board of directors of some telecommunications company. Mike Riggs, of The Daily Caller, wrote: “Interestingly, groups like Free Press and NTEN like to publicly denounce letters with questionable signatories. In 2009, Ars Technica pointed to a letter that was supposedly authored by a group of senior citizens who supposedly had written Congress to oppose net neutrality. The group ‘forgot to strip out the “XYZ organization” and replace the text with its own name,’ reports Ars Technica, which caught wind of the letter from Free Press. ‘It’s unclear who was behind the letter, but it certainly looks like evidence of anti-neutrality forces rounding up an odd collection of allies on this issue,’ wrote Ars’ Matthew Lasar.” Free Press has shown a similar indifference to ethics in the past, with campaign director Timothy Karr quick to accuse anyone and everyone who opposes net neutrality of being a corporate tool, much of the time sans any sort of evidence, whatsoever. Michael Turk of Digital Society offered Karr $1,000 for proof that he was an astroturfer. One June 30, The Daily Caller reported that Free Press had outright lied regarding the FCC preventing them from attending closed-door meetings on net neutrality when they had, in fact attended. Similarly, they said they had been invited to attend a Congressional meeting on the issue and then told reporters they had been denied access. The same Daily Caller story pointed out that Free Press is a member of the Open Internet Coalition , a pro-net neutrality group. Amazon, Google, eBay, PayPal, Twitter, Earthlink are members, as are several marketing firms. Not only that, but Free Press’s own lobbying efforts are coordinated by a firm called the Glover Park Group, of which anti-net neutrality company Verizon is also a client. Many of the accusations of astroturfing by telecommunications companies in other blogs and publications ultimately come from Free Press. When PBS’ Media Shift experienced a large number of anti-net neutrality comments, Free Press campaign director Timothy Karr was quick to offer his expertise in throwing around astroturfing accusations for them. Wrote Mark Glaser: “While I have seen a lot of evidence pointing toward certain individuals who post time and again against Net neutrality, I haven’t found a ‘smoking gun’ that proves without a doubt that this campaign is paid for by telecom companies.” So Free Press denounces certain tactics as astroturfing, but when they engage in them, it’s grassroots advocacy. That’s a sharp contrast to the Tea Parties, which were heavily accused of being astroturf last year, by several media outlets. Wrote Julia A. Seymour of the Business & Media Institute: “ABC’s Dan Harris repeated criticism from the left that the tea parties were ‘a product’ of Fox News and lobbyist organizations.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been one of the more visible figures reitterating the charge. Well, as long as Free Press provides the media with “information” and the corporate-funded liberal activists continue to be “grassroots,” there won’t need to be a smoking gun because any center-right organization will be astroturf.

Read more:
Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State

Over the weekend, Dave Weigel resigned as WaPo’s house chronicler of conservatives after revelations of his antipathy toward the people he was covering. Tonight brings us the spectacle of Ross Douthat, an ostensibly conservative columnist at the New York Times.  Appearing on MSNBC’s Ed Schultz show, Douthat proffered precisely zero criticism of anyone or anything liberal.  But he did manage to mock Mike Huckabee as “passive-aggressive.”  For good measure, Douthat suggested that “right-wing” people who question Barack Obama’s place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union. The Nation’s Chris Hayes subbed for Schultz tonight, and he didn’t have to strain to elicit criticism of conservatives from Douthat.  After playing a clip of Huckabee stating the apparent fact that he polls better than other Republicans against Obama, Douthat opined. View video here . ROSS DOUTHAT:  I think that’s classically Huckabee. It’s sort of charmingly passive-aggressive. In the clip, Huckabee criticized no one.  What’s “passive-aggressive” about observing that one’s leading in some polls? Later, Hayes invited Douthat to riff off a poll that showed 24% of Americans don’t think Pres. Obama was born in the U.S. DOUHAT: There are two ways to read it, right?  Clearly on the one hand it’s illustrative of a certain kind of paranoia among many Americans, right-wing Americans about Barack Obama. On the other hand, I really think you can overstate the importance of these polls.  There are polls every year that show 42% of Americans believe in UFOs.   HAYES: Also disturbing! DOUTHAT: Also disturbing. But I also wonder, if you took that 21% [sic] and polled them and said what percentage know that being born outside the US — HAYES: Disqualifies — DOUTHAT: Is a disqualification for the presidency. Or if you polled them and said, what percentage know that Hawaii is actually a state?  That sounds like a joke, but– that sounds like a joke — Douthat was interrupted, but his point was clear.  Right-wingers: too thick to realize that Hawaii’s a state. Ross sounds like the quintessential NYT/MSNBC “conservative”: one most interested in ingratiating himself with his liberal masters.

See the original post here:
‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State

Name That Party: Again-Indicted Kwame Kilpatrick Still Not Tagged as a Dem as AP Appears to Cover His Tracks

The Associated Press is still failing to tag the currently imprisoned former Detroit Mayor and former beneficiary of President Barack Obama’s high praise Kwame Kilpatrick as a Democrat. I know, same-old, same-old. And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead . But there’s more to this particular chapter in this ongoing “Name That Party” narrative. The wire service kept its near-perfect Kilpatrick non-labeling track record intact in two shorter items and a lengthier treatment of the latest development in Kwame’s calamaties, all published in roughly the past 24 hours. The closest Kwame got to being tagged as a Dem occurred in an otherwise detailed report turned in by Ed White, where he described Kilpatrick’s mother, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, as “D-Mich.).” The link to White’s report doesn’t contain his byline; I’ll explain why later in the post, where I will also suggest that there is reason to believe the AP has attempted to bottle up White’s full report. A six-paragraph story carried at the Toledo Blade last night (HT to Maggie Thurber in an e-mail) described the latest and by far most serious development in this sickening saga: In an indictment filed Wednesday, he’s accused of failing to report at least $640,000 in taxable income between 2003 and 2008, which includes money, private jet flights and personal expenses paid by the (Kilpatrick) Civic Fund. The government says he used the money to pay for yoga and golf lessons, golf clubs, summer camp for his kids, personal travel, moving expenses, as well as “counter-surveillance and anti-bugging equipment.” White’s report goes into further detail and captures much more additional reaction: A taste for premium steaks, shopping at Gucci and a five-bedroom mansion helped send former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to state prison. His latest legal hardship is a federal indictment with allegations of even more reckless spending. … The indictment said donors were misled into believing their money would be used for legal purposes. Adolph Mongo, a political consultant to Kilpatrick in 2005, told The Associated Press he was paid out of the Civic Fund. He described it as being like an ATM. The government alleges Kilpatrick received nearly $200,000 from the fund in 2007 in the form of cash, private jet flights and other personal expenses — an amount that exceeded his annual salary as mayor. His mother, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., said she was devastated by the charges. The ex-mayor’s spokesman, Mike Paul, struck a positive tone, noting the indictment does not allege any bribery schemes after a yearslong investigation at City Hall that has netted ex-councilwoman Monica Conyers and many others. “This investigation puts an end to the ridiculous rumors that the mayor was personally involved with corruption, payoffs and bribes. … Those rumors were hurtful and were lies from the pit of hell!” Paul said in an e-mail. Not so fast, McQuade told AP. “The investigation is continuing. If we find additional charges that we can prove they will be brought,” the prosecutor said. The 13 fraud charges each carry a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison. Judges, however, mostly order concurrent sentences, which means Kilpatrick would not serve the rest of his life behind bars if convicted. … A prominent Detroit pastor, the Rev. Horace Sheffield, said the federal indictment is another chapter in a “sad saga.” “At some point, the Kwame Kilpatrick story needs to end,” he said. “It tarnishes the reputable way his mother has served in Congress. Detroit is more than Kwame Kilpatrick.” Now it gets interesting. I originally found White’s story with his byline at the AP’s main site last night at about midnight. Going there at about 1:30 p.m. ET, here’s what I found in a search on Kilpatrick’s first name : Though one would expect the first item listed to go to the longer story, here is the full text as found at the link (dynamic, and subject to change): Thus, the wire service has flushed roughly 15 paragraphs of details, including the fact that the investigation is still ongoing, down the memory hole, leaving an opening paragraph that reads like an editorial, two paragraphs of facts, and a paragraph of “let it go” sympathy. You’ve got to be kidding me. The “creative” folks at AP continue to invent new forms of journalistic malpractice. Since when does a detailed report about an indicted criminal get sliced by two-thirds or more about 12 hours after the original event? The answer to that question appears to be: “In AP-Land, when Democrats are involved.” I should note that the word “Democrat” does appear at the long version of the story at MLive.com . Not in the story, but after it, in a comment, where reader “MIRef” responds to the Rev. Sheffield’s “let’s move on” sentiment: “At some point, the Kwame Kilpatrick story needs to end,” he said. “It tarnishes the reputable way his mother has served in Congress. Detroit is more than Kwame Kilpatrick.” Anybody else gag over this quote? In reality, Kilpatrick is the perfect living example of Detroit and what happens when Democrats are given unlimited power. No wonder the AP buried the gory details at its main site. It wouldn’t want readers to start thinking that what “MIRef” has written is true. Go here for a rundown of previous NewsBusters posts on establishment media Kilpatrick-is-a-Democrat avoidance. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the rest here:
Name That Party: Again-Indicted Kwame Kilpatrick Still Not Tagged as a Dem as AP Appears to Cover His Tracks

Newsweek Wonders if Utah Republicans Will ‘Play Dirty’ by Voting for Leftist in Dem Primary

Liberals in the media frequently paint conservatives and Tea Party activists as pushing the GOP too far to the right to be electable in general elections. But the same complaint isn’t repeated on an endless loop when it comes to leftist activists challenging more centrist Democratic incumbents in primary contests. In fact, in some of those occasions, the media find a way to cast aspersions on Republicans. Take, for instance, a June 22 story on Newsweek.com, the headline for which posed the question, “Will Utah Republicans Play Dirty Today?” Writer McKay Coppins explained how one Republican state lawmaker had suggested that the party faithful in the state’s 2nd Congressional District should take advantage of the Democrats’ open primary system to cast votes for Claudia Wright, a liberal insurgent challenging Rep. Jim Matheson (D), rather than weighing in on the GOP primary contest. Although he noted that historically such tactical voting hasn’t been successful and that state Republican officials have officially “denounced the plan,” Coppins explained that the local media have become fixated on the notion and at least one radio host has described the crossover voting idea as “sleazy”: [F]or a while, it looked like a real possibility. An anonymously created Web site called “Conservatives for Claudia” has attracted thousands of page views, and Matheson himself has spent $800,000 this primary season to warn supporters that the party-crashing threat is real. And even though Republican officials (including, eventually, Wimmer) denounced the plan, it has continued to draw attention from the local press, with popular radio talk show host Doug Wright devoting significant air time to the idea. (He called it “sleazy.”) Republicans still might get their wish, though. A recent poll places Matheson 19 points ahead of Wright, but midterm primaries in Utah have historically garnered low turnouts, and early voting this year has been exceptionally unimpressive . With a passionate left-wing base, Wright could be poised for an upset in the primary – giving Republicans exactly what they hoped for.

View post:
Newsweek Wonders if Utah Republicans Will ‘Play Dirty’ by Voting for Leftist in Dem Primary

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

Religion Blogger Shreds Newsweek’s Take on ‘Saint Sarah’ Palin

“You have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.” That’s how the biblical prophet Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall that heralded the imminent demise of the Babylonian Empire. It could also sum up journalist Sarah Pulliam Bailey’s take on Lisa Miller’s “Saint Sarah” piece in Newsweek (emphases mine): Journalists have long been puzzled over Sarah Palin’s popularity. In November, Newsweek took a stab at the trend with its provocative cover of Palin in running clothes: “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah Palin: How Sarah Palin Hurts the GOP And the Country.” Lisa Miller’s thesis is compelling if it is true, but journalists usually rely on hard facts, polls, maybe interviews with political scientists to prove their points. Unfortunately, Miller’s article contains none of these to support her theory that Palin is somehow the new leader of the Christian Right. Instead, she strings together a bunch of anecdotes and quotes to prove what she thinks is happening.   Pulliam Bailey devoted most of her June 14 Get Religion blog post to fisking Miller’s argument. Here’s just a sample (emphases are the author’s): The story leads with Palin’s classic story of how she decided to give birth to her son Trig. Palin has already overshared: nothing makes a person, let alone a politician, appear more vulnerable, more ordinary, and more unambiguously female than a scene in a bathroom where she pees on a stick. But then she defies a generation of pro-life activists who preached that the life of the fetus is sacred, no matter what an individual woman wants. Is there any indication that Palin doesn’t think the fetus is sacred? Lots of women who chose to give birth give testimonies about their decision-making process. Is she actually defying other activists? Let’s face it: the Trig story is a women’s story, the kind girlfriends share over coffee or in church. It has all the familiar elements of evangelical testimony: tribulation and dread; trust in God; and, finally, great blessings. Many Christian women loathe Palin , Who? Why? of course, and many men love her, Who? Why? but a certain kind of conservative, Bible-believing woman worships her. Who? Is it only Bible-believing women who worship her? And really? Worships her? To a smaller number, she is a prophet, ordained by God for a special role in the cosmic battle against the forces of evil . What forces of evil? Who thinks she was ordained by God? Does this smaller number think the political arena is the cosmic battle? Perhaps the biggest failure on Miller’s part? Pulliam Bailey notes that Miller insisted that Palin has her faults, but the left is partially to blame for her ascent. Its native mistrust of religion, of conservative believers in particular, left the gap that Palin now fills. The GetReligion.org writer then argued that, “Perhaps Miller should have spent more time writing about this part of the story. It would be more compelling to read more about the left’s mistrust of religion that left a gap.” Given Newsweek’s cutesy take on “Saint Sarah,” it was only fitting that an analysis critical of it should end with a biblical allusion. Pulliam Bailey didn’t disappoint with the observation that the financially-struggling magazine is intent on “making Palin in its own image”: If Palin is really leading the religious right, has anyone captured photo evidence of Palin’s flock? The accompanying slideshow , titled “Cult of Palin,” features Palin condoms, porn movies and strip clubs. The slideshow does nothing to back Miller’s thesis about Palin’s new found leadership of the religious right. Maybe that’s because Newsweek is making Palin in its own image.

Continued here:
Religion Blogger Shreds Newsweek’s Take on ‘Saint Sarah’ Palin

Follow-up: AP TV Says Etheridge ‘Mandhandles’ Questioner; Text Coverage Goes Soft

It would appear, based on the graphic tease reproduced at the right and the underlying content, that the folks putting together videos at the Associated Press didn’t get the memo that they should go as soft as possible on North Carolina Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge. Etheridge arguably committed assault ” last week ” when approached on a public street. The description of what occurred and its aftermath at AP video is quite a bit stronger than what is found in AP Reporter Martha Waggoner’s Monday evening text report , as you will see shortly. Despite having over 400 words with which to work, Waggoner also failed to record a comment — or even a “no comment” — from anyone else in the Democratic Party, or to give any indication that she or anyone else at AP tried to contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, any other Democrat in a leadership position, or anyone in the Obama administration. Here’s what the video and accompanying description look like in the AP’s raw video : Now let’s look how Waggoner chose to describe the physical actions that occurred (bolded), and how obsessed she is with the video’s origins: A Democratic congressman apologized Monday after video posted online showed him swatting at the camera , demanding that two men taping him identify themselves and grabbing one of them by the wrist and neck . “I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved,” Rep. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina said in a statement. “No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response.” The video was posted on websites owned by Andrew Breitbart, the conservative Web entrepreneur who also released video of workers for the community organizing group ACORN counseling actors posing as a pimp and prostitute. It shows two men approaching Etheridge with a camera on a Washington street. He swats at the camera and repeatedly asks the men who they are. When they say they are students, he grabs one by the wrist and quickly by the back of the neck before pulling him against his side. … In a telephone interview from London, Breitbart declined to name the students who recorded the video, saying he wanted to protect them. The two do not work for Breitbart and were not paid, he said. A Breitbart employee found the video online, edited it and posted it, he said. A story accompanying the video on a Breitbart website says the video was recorded last week. Etheridge declined to say when the encounter occurred. As was the case with the AP’s unbylined initial report discussed yesterday (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), Waggoner did not go to any legal experts to get their opinion as to whether Etheridge’s actions could be seen as an instance of criminal assault. It’s not an argumentative leap to say that the if a Republican or conservative had committed such an action, the AP and other establishment media outlets would not be leaving the GOP leadership and other party members alone, would be giving the incident far more play than it has received thus far, and would likely be using stronger words to describe the physical aspects of what happened. In fact, a post to follow shortly will discuss a shoving incident from three years ago in which a Republican politician was involved that was deemed to be news at a publication where the Etheridge incident was ignored. Stay tuned. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Originally posted here:
Follow-up: AP TV Says Etheridge ‘Mandhandles’ Questioner; Text Coverage Goes Soft

Journalistic Instincts: In Alleged Etheridge Assault, Who Does AP Want to Talk To?

A sitting congressman allegedly commits assault on a public sidewalk, is caught on video doing so (link is to the related Eyeblast.tv video and blog post), and ” apologizes .” Note that the incident took place ” last week ,” according to the linked BigGovernment.com post, which means that Etheridge didn’t see the need for an apology until the video went viral. So … who does the intrepid Associated Press attempt to go to for comment? The Congressman? Apparently not, as you will see; the AP must see his “apology” as the end of the story. The person whom Etheridge arguably assaulted? Legal experts, who could weigh in on whether the congressman could be arrested and and charged ? House or Democratic Party colleagues? No-no-no. Get a load, in the final paragraph of what will probably end up being a brief initial report , of who the AP believes owes it a comment first and foremost: Yeah, that’s right. Andrew Breitbart. You have to wonder, especially since they felt compelled to bring up the ACORN sting videos, if the folks at AP check under their beds at night for vast right wing conspirators before turning in. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more:
Journalistic Instincts: In Alleged Etheridge Assault, Who Does AP Want to Talk To?