Tag Archives: politics

FIFA World Cup 2010 Finals: Netherlands vs Spain

Watch Netherlands vs Spain Football Live Streaming Online , the live event the Final match of 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa. Don’t ever miss this day, July 11, exactly 20:30 local time and the game scheduled in Johannesburg. Stay tuned and feel free to watch this great match between the best teams here online. Don’t miss to watch the live event of 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa live coverage via satellite. A good and exciting game will be played by the two great teams of FIFA World Cup, the Netherlands vs Spain. Watch it and enjoy, who’s gonna be the winner. The final game match is here: Watch FIFA World Cup 2010 Finals Live Stream FIFA World Cup 2010 Finals: Netherlands vs Spain is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Kurtz Mimics Olbermann, Cherry Picks Limbaugh to Make Him Look Racist

Howard Kurtz on Sunday used a Keith Olbermann tactic of selectively editing and cherry picking from a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript to make the conservative talk show host look racist. In a “Reliable Sources” segment dealing with the embattled Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, Kurtz played a highly-edited clip of statements Limbaugh made Tuesday about this issue. Unfortunately, just as MSNBC’s Olbermann did on his “Countdown” program, Kurtz never told his viewers that Limbaugh was referring specifically to comments that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker made on last Sunday’s “This Week” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Now, Rush Limbaugh also loves to stir controversy by design. And this week, he talked about the president and made a bit of news. Let’s take a listen. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: That’s exactly the same thing you could say about Obama. He wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black. Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money, have a lot of money? I said because he’s black. If Obama weren’t black, he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu or he’d be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago. (END AUDIO CLIP) KURTZ: Of course here we are talking about Rush. But did you find those comments to be more than just the usual Limbaugh rhetoric? ROGER SIMON, POLITICO: You mean did I find them to be racist and repugnant? Yes, I found them to be racist and repugnant. KURTZ: Why racist? Can’t a case be made just on part of this that if Obama was a white freshman senator, he wouldn’t have beaten Hillary for the nomination? SIMON: I think anyone who beat Hillary for the nomination had something going for him besides race. And let’s be fair. His race was not going for him. We only said that after he won. He had to win in states where there was almost no black population. If he had lost in Iowa, the first Democratic contest, he would have been through. There are no black people in Iowa. He convinced white people that he really was an agent of change. KURTZ: That’s a good point. Is it, Howard? Let me bring up a better one, like why you didn’t include the context of what Limbaugh said Tuesday. As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, here’s what came IMMEDIATELY BEFORE what Kurtz played for Simon and his viewers: RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Cynthia Tucker, ABC’s This Week, Sunday, roundtable, they discussed Michael Steele. And, by the way, this woman is the editorial director of the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, and she has been for a long, long time. “Cynthia you once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad.” By the way, she can say this because she’s African-American. Here’s what she said. CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course the irony is that he never would have been voted in as chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. LIMBAUGH: Same with Obama. TUCKER: It is very ironic since the Republican — LIMBAUGH: Stop the tape a second. Didn’t you think that was relevant, Howie? Wasn’t it an important piece of information that Limbaugh was specifically talking about what Tucker said concerning Steele and how one could make the same case for Obama? Apparently not, for Kurtz never said one word about what Tucker said last Sunday, nor did he ask his guest if he felt THAT was racist? I wonder why.  To remind readers, this is what Limbaugh was referring to:   JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Cynthia, you once called, let me underline “You” once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad. What’s your take on this? CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason. A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos. So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy.  Unfortunately, Kurtz didn’t think that was relevant. Sadly, this is EXACTLY what Olbermann did on Tuesday thereby making Kurtz on this occasion no better than one of the most despicable people in television news today. As readers are aware, I have a lot of respect for Kurtz, but this was NOT a banner moment for him — not by a long shot.

Originally posted here:
Kurtz Mimics Olbermann, Cherry Picks Limbaugh to Make Him Look Racist

Cal: Amanpour Thinks Like Nasr But Too Smart To Tweet It

CNN fired an editor for expressing “a lot” of “respect” for a Hezbollah leader the US had designated a terrorist.  So how has ABC dealt with someone with similar views?  By hiring her and awarding her the prestigious plum of host of This Week. So what’s the difference between Octavia Nasr and Christiane Amanpour?  According to Cal Thomas, little, when it comes to their views.  It’s just that Amanpour is too smart and sophisticated to stick her views on a Tweet. Thomas shared his insight on this weekend’s editon of Fox News Watch. JON SCOTT: A Tweet that cost a reporter her job.  Octavia Nasr was CNN’s senior Middle East editor for 20 years until this week, when learning of the death of a Hezbollah    cleric she decided to share her grief via Twitter, writing there “sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.  One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.”  A giant whom she so respected, designated a terrorist by the US Treasury Department. The Tweet immediately became a center of controversy and CNN fired Ms. Nasr. . . . . CAL THOMAS: The dirty little secret here is that she was simply expressing viewpoints that is widespread not only in the American media but much of the Euro media.  If you watch the BBC, for example, as I frequently do when I’m over there, coverage of the Middle East, it is virtually all one-sided, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel.  Christiane Amanpour holds many of these views as well, I would daresay, but she is smart enough and sophisticated enough not to stick them on a Tweet. Jake Tapper has been drawing widespread praise and solid ratings while serving as This Week guest host.  Is ABC sure it wants to hand the reins over to someone with Amanpour’s ample baggage?

Continued here:
Cal: Amanpour Thinks Like Nasr But Too Smart To Tweet It

MSNBC’s Alleged High Standards for Accuracy Don’t Extend to Ed Schultz’s Radio Show

… Gee, you’d think they would, seeing how Schultz broadcasts both his radio and cable shows from MSNBC studios in New York City. No such luck. Here’s Schultz on his radio show Thursday complaining about Bill O’Reilly’s criticism of MSNBC for the daily frequency of its deceit ( click here for audio) — SCHULTZ: When I was sitting home for a number of years watching Olbermann tell me how bad Fox was, I, OK, I believe it, but now I know it! And I want you to know it! That we don’t go on TV and lie! But this is the game that they play across the street. Schultz then played a clip of O’Reilly talking with Dick Morris and O’Reilly saying that “people on MSNBC lie every day.” Schultz’s response — SCHULTZ:  I just want all of you to know that none of us lie on MSNBC. And if any of us ever were caught lying, we would be out of a job because there’s this thing called NBC News. We couldn’t lie even if we wanted to. We can’t bring on correspondents and then turn around and twist the facts and lie to the people. And I know that, we don’t! But O’Reilly is just trying to indoctrinate his viewers that we’re the evil empire over here and that we lie, he said, every day. And so, who else to ask but a guy who’s lied in the past, Dick Morris! No bigger liar than toe-sucking Dick Morris! After deriding O’Reilly as “an absolute dirtbag,” Schultz condemned O’Reilly for not citing examples of MSNBC lies and made these grandiose claims — SCHULTZ: We don’t ever lie! We can’t lie! We don’t want to lie! … He’s just trying to get those minions who happen to stumble across Fox News to believe everything he says. He’s a hate merchant. He said something that simply is not correct. … Followed by Schultz saying something that simply is not correct, which by Schultz’s illogic makes him a hate merchant — SCHULTZ:  Now, as far as ratings are concerned, you can’t deny the fact that Fox has more viewers than anybody else in the cable news industry. Nobody is denying that. They had a head start. … No, Fox News did not have a “head start” — the network’s inaugural broadcast was in October 1996 (Oct. 7, specifically), three months after MSNBC first went on the air on July 15 1996 . CNN, MSNBC’s other major cable news competitor, launched far earlier, running its first broadcast in June 1980 .  Capping it off, Schultz said this minutes later on Thursday ( audio here )– SCHULTZ: I tell you what, I have never lied on the air. Never. And if I’ve ever made a mistake, I’m ready to correct it. I’ll give Schultz the benefit of a doubt that he’s unwilling to extend to O’Reilly and Morris. Perhaps he was just sloppy that day or more irritable than usual. But if integrity matters to you, Mr. Schultz, here’s your chance to prove it (and I know you read NewsBusters, as you’ve frequently said on your radio show). Set the record straight on that Fox News “head start” error. I’ll be listening. Notice how I’m referring to it as an “error” and not a lie. Must be the “dirtbag” in me.

Continued here:
MSNBC’s Alleged High Standards for Accuracy Don’t Extend to Ed Schultz’s Radio Show

Biden Tells Leno He Wanted To Send Rush Limbaugh to Russia in Spy Swap

Vice President Joe Biden on Friday told Jay Leno that he wanted to send Rush Limbaugh to Russia as part of last week’s spy swap. As a special guest of the “Tonight Show,” Biden was asked why we traded ten of their spies for four of ours.  “Well, we got back four really good ones,” joked Biden. Leno then showed a picture of Anna Chapman and asked, “Do we have any spies that hot?” Biden stammered, “Let me make it clear, it wasn’t my idea to send her back…I thought maybe they’d take Rush Limbaugh or something” (video follows with transcript and commentary, relevant section at 0:55):  JAY LENO, HOST: I want to ask about this Russian spy swap. We traded ten for four. Now, I know our math skills are not as good as they should be, but that doesn’t seem fair. Why, why did we trade ten for four? VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, we got back four really good ones. LENO: Yeah. [ Laughter ] BIDEN: And the ten, they’ve been here a long time, but they hadn’t done much. LENO: Are they just sort of like moles, they just sort of plant people here and say, “See what you can find out?” Or do they come with a specific mission, “You’re going to go work for Lockheed” or “You’re going to work for…” BIDEN: The former. LENO: Yeah. Okay. Now, show him, this Russian woman here, let me ask you something. And you would know this, Mr. Vice President. Do we have any spies that hot? [ Laughter ] BIDEN: Let me make it clear, it wasn’t my idea to send her back. [ Laughter ] Wasn’t mine. [ Cheers and applause ] I wanted, anyway. [ Laughter ] I thought maybe they’d take Rush Limbaugh or something. LENO: There you go. BIDEN: You know what I mean? That would have been a good — a good move. This would be a great joke if it didn’t have such underlying truth to it. After all, the way this administration has treated its adversaries in the media, you think they would ship all their detractors to foreign lands if they could. 

Read the original:
Biden Tells Leno He Wanted To Send Rush Limbaugh to Russia in Spy Swap

‘The Lottery’ Exposes Truth About Public Schools

The children eager to attend Harlem Success Academies don’t care about partisan politics or ideological turf wars. They just want the best education possible. “ The Lottery ,” a new documentary by Madeleine Sackler, showcases families desperate for an alternative to the New York Public School system. The film, playing an exclusive engagement through July 15 at the Starz FilmCenter in Denver , follows four such families who enter a lottery system so their children can attend a prestigious charter school. Strip away the interpersonal dynamics and you’ll find a full-throated argument on behalf of charter schools. And those who think only Republicans support school choice measures will be surprised to see a large  number of Democrats eager to give charter schools a try. It’s an alternately fascinating and maddening film experience, and Sackler delivers the material with an elegant touch. It’s also a must-see for parents with school-age children – or just taxpayers saddened at the thought of children not reaching their potential. The families included here put a human face on the issue, but the film would be better served if we got to know them a little better. The quick glimpses at their lives – and dreams – tell us just enough about the stakes at play. Sackler intersperses sobering statistics throughout her film, showing how the charter schools in question offers a major upgrade from the status quo. But the film’s twin highlights come when Eva Moskowitz, the articulate founder of Harlem Success Academies, takes on her critics at two public forums. Viewers may lunge for their blood pressure meds as union lackeys play fast and loose with the facts, and double down on the race card, in order to defend a broken system. “The Lottery” is the second recent documentary to slam teachers unions. “The Cartel” examined New Jersey’s disgraceful public school system, blaming unions for much of the waste and horrific grades. “Waiting for Superman,” another documentary trumpeting the need for educational reform, will be released this fall. It’s hardly an accident. Parents are fed up with the sorry state of modern education and see school choice as a possible way out. And documentary filmmakers are following suit. “The Lottery” doesn’t traffic in the bait-and-switch stylings of a Michael Moore opus, but it’s still a one-sided affair. It isn’t entirely Sackler’s fault. The director recently told this critic she tried – and tried – to include union backers in the film for an entire year. But those sources refused to participate. Still, more neutral education experts might have added context to the arguments on display. And while Moskowitz is an ideal spokeswoman for the charter system, she’s given too much screen time given her intimate connection to the school in question. “The Lottery” is the kind of film that could very well change some stubborn hearts and minds. Political ideology – and knee-jerk sympathies – fall aside when you see families crying in relief as their names are plucked from “The Lottery.” Crossposted at Big Hollywood

View original post here:
‘The Lottery’ Exposes Truth About Public Schools

Family Guy’s ‘Down Syndrome Girl’ Song Gets Emmy Nod

“Down Syndrome Girl,” the unfunny and offensive Family Guy song poking fun at a female character with special needs, has been nominated for an Emmy Award in the category of Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics. The Feb. 14 Family Guy episode, which the song appeared in, sparked outrage after its premiere – most notably from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who has a son with Down syndrome. At one point in the episode, the character with Down syndrome said that her mom was “the former governor of Alaska,” a clear reference to Palin and her son, Trig. Palin quickly criticized the show for the distasteful jab at her son. “[W]hy make it tougher on the special needs community? When is enough enough? When are we going to be willing to say some things just aren’t really funny?” she said on Feb. 16. In the aftermath, many celebrities stood in agreement with Palin, including talk show host Joy Behar, the Daily Show’s Mo Rocca and comedian Jessica Kirson. But now the song is being nominated for an Emmy award, facing off against the much more tasteful musical numbers, “Nothing Suits Me Like a Suit” from “How I Met Your Mother,” and Saturday Night Live’s “Shy Ronnie.” New York magazine noted that the Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics award has been “gaining a reputation as Emmy’s quiet nod to First Amendment rights.” Last year, the Justin Timberlake-Andy Samberg collaboration “Motherlover” won the award, and in 2007 the same two artists won for the song “Dick in a Box.” While both are fairly offensive in content, the lyrics are actually funny – and stop short of mocking people with disabilities. But many people argued that the lyrics of “Down Syndrome Girl” went too far. These are some lines from the song, as transcribed by the MRC’s Noel Sheppard: And though her pretty face may seem a special person’s wettest dream. You must impress that ultra-boomin’, all consumin’, poorly-groomin’, Down Syndrome girl. You want to take that little whore and spin her on the dancing floor. My boy between the two of us we’ll get her on the shorty bus and then you’re gonna take it on a whirl. Now go impress that super-thrilling, wish-fulfilling, YooHoo-spilling, ultra-swinging, boner-bringing, gayly-singing, dingalinging, stupefying, fortifying, as of Monday shoe lace-tying, stimulating, titillating, kitty-cat impersonating, mega-rocking, pillow talking, just a little crooked walking, poorly-pouting, poopie-sprouting, for some reason always shouting, fascinating, captivating, happiness and joy-creating, Down Syndrome girl. The Down syndrome episode wasn’t the first time the Family Guy’s offensive content generated controversy. The program’s creators also aired a show that staged “Terri Schiavo: The Musical” and another episode mocking Jewish people called “When You Wish Upon a Weinstein” that was banned from TV.

Read the original:
Family Guy’s ‘Down Syndrome Girl’ Song Gets Emmy Nod

For AP, Angry Conservative Are ‘Demagogues,’ But Obama’s ‘Sharp Tone Is Justified’

The Associated Press gave voice to a Repuiblican Congressman today to bemoan what he sees as “poisonous ‘demagoguery'” from the usual suspects, including, by the AP’s own account, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., who lost in a primary for the GOP nomination last month, went so far as to claim that heated political rhetoric is “dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni.” The AP did not feel the need to qualify this absurd statement (and it is absurd, given that a few years ago Sunni and Shia tribes in Iraq were “systematically trying to assassinate moderates”). And while the AP now feels the need to unquestionably parrot claims that conservatives are dividing the nation into potentially murderous political sects, just last year it ran an article headlined “Obama spokesman says sharp tone is justified.” By the AP’s unquestioning accounts, heated conservative rhetoric is dangerous, but heated liberal rhetoric is necceary for the health of the nation. Wrote the AP in Febrauary of last year:     President Barack Obama’s spokesman is defending the sharper tone Obama is taking to push his economic stimulus plan through Congress.     Obama sharpened his rhetoric while addressing House Democrats in Virginia on Thursday. He appeared to be sending a message to Republicans as he warned against turning back to the policies of the last eight years and insisted that voters chose a new course in November.     Spokesman Robert Gibbs says Obama is simply “fighting on behalf of” the 3.6 million Americans who’ve lost jobs since the start of the recession. Contrast that tone — understanding of, even laudatory towards the President’s claims — with the mood of its piece on Inglis:     While not naming names, 12-year incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis suggested in interviews with The Associated Press that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits…     Inglis said voters eventually will discover that you’re “preying on their fears” and turn away…     Inglis said the rhetoric also distracts from the real problems that politicians should be trying to resolve, such as budget deficits and energy security.     “It’s a real concern, because I think what we’re doing is dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni,” he said, referring to the two predominant Islamic denominations that have feuded for centuries. “It’s very difficult to come together to find solutions.” So conservatives using harsh language is “preying” on the fears of Americans, distracts from the issues, and has the potential to turn political foes into something resembling warring religious clans. Meanwhile, President Obama’s use of harsh language is “fighting on behalf” of the unemployed and channeling the will of the public and anyone who says otherwise is trying to “[turn] back to the policies of the” Bush administration. Got it. Thanks, AP.

More:
For AP, Angry Conservative Are ‘Demagogues,’ But Obama’s ‘Sharp Tone Is Justified’

Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

President Obama’s recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick – a controversial advocate of socialized medicine and of the rationing of health care, particularly for the elderly – as head of the Medicare program – (a decision criticized even by some Democrats) – has so far received no attention on ABC’s World News or the CBS Evening News, while the NBC Nightly News devoted only 38 seconds to the President’s controversial move on Thursday’s show, barely touching on the nature of Berwick’s beliefs and their possible implications for the elderly. CNN’s The Situation Room devoted a full story to the appointment on Wednesday, but did little better in informing viewers of Berwick’s beliefs. By contrast, FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on Wednesday relayed to viewers that Berwick has not only advocated the type of socialized medicine that currently limits access to health care in Britain – favoring a non-free market system based on wealth redistribution – but he has also spoken in favor of further limiting access to some health care procedures for the elderly. FNC correspondent Jim Angle quoted Berwick as contending that “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane, must, must redistribute wealth.” The FNC correspondent further filled in viewers: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Angle also touched on Berwick’s admiration for Britain’s infamous national health care system: JIM ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. On the NBC Nightly News Thursday anchor Brian Williams devoted 38 seconds to the topic and noted that “One top Democrat called the recess appointment ‘troubling,’” but barely touched on Berwick’s beliefs as Williams briefly relayed that “Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.” On Wednesday’s The Situation Room on CNN, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced his show’s report noting that “Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this.” Like NBC’s Williams, CNN correspondent Dan only barely touched on Berwick’s support for “rationing” wihtout delving into its implications for the availability of health care, especially for the elderly: “Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care.” Below are transcripts of the relevant portions of the Wednesday, July 7, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, the same day’s The Situation Room on CNN, and the Thursday, July 8, NBC Nightly News : #From the July 7 Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC: SHANNON BREAM: Good evening. I’m Shannon Bream in tonight for Bret Baier. There is outrage in some quarters tonight because of President Obama’s use of a recess appointment to install his controversial pick to run Medicare and Medicaid. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle tells us why the reaction to Dr. Donald Berwick is so emotional. JIM ANGLE: Donald Berwick will run the largest insurance program in the country because Medicare and Medicaid cover 100 million Americans and spend some $800 billion. But Berwick has said some things that are definitely not part of the administration’s pitch on health care . “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane,” he said, “must, must redistribute wealth.” Republicans suspect President Obama didn’t want a confirmation hearing where such statements were bound to come up and think that’s why the President waited 17 months to nominate anyone. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He didn’t want somebody to have to answer questions of members of Congress during the whole debate on health care this year. DAVID WINSTON, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: And his entire testimony is going to reinforce all the negative aspects of the bill. And that’s why they didn’t want him up there. They just pulled the plug on the hearings. ANGLE: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Some elderly do prepare advanced directives should they become incapacitated, but critics say Berwick seemed to be saying something else. WINSTON: He made it kind of sound like those decisions would be made by government bureaucrats and not the individuals. ANGLE: And any talk of rationing care has enormous political implications. WINSTON: What American people hear is this. Those people who have health care give up some of it to those people who don’t. And so the quality of their health care is going to get worse. ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. BARRASSO: He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. ANGLE: The White House argues Berwick is just one of 189 nominees waiting for confirmation. ROBERT GIBBS: The President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. ANGLE: And Gibbs notes that two Republicans who once held the same post have more positive views. GIBBS: The last two people who have run CMS for the Bush administration both strongly supported Dr. Berwick’s appointment. ANGLE: Recess appointments have been used with frequency by presidents of both parties. President Clinton made 139. President George W. Bush 171. President Obama has made 18 so far. Dr. Berwick will now hold his position until the end of 2011, but if he wants to stay, he’ll still have to face Senate confirmation. #From the July 7 The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: The White House is defending the President’s decision to sidestep Congress to install his choice to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this. Republicans, I should say, are fuming. Even the top Democrat, though, says he is troubled by the move. Let’s bring in our White House correspondent Dan Lothian. Dan, why did the White House go ahead with what’s called this recess appointment? DAN LOTHIAN: Well, Wolf, the President really thought it was important to move forward on this position because this is the person who plays a key role in implementing the new health care law. Now, all presidents obviously have the right to make these recess appointments, but they’re always quite controversial. And Republicans, as you pointed out, are criticizing the President, saying that he’s circumventing the American people, it’s an insult to the American people. Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care . Robert Gibbs’ White House spokesman saying that he doesn’t believe that’s the case. But what’s also interesting about this controversy, as you pointed out, that also some top Democrats are criticizing the President . Senator Max Baucus – chairman of the Senate Finance Committee – saying he is troubled that rather than going through the standard nomination process the President has decided to go down this route. The bottom line for the White House here is that they decided to move forward because they believe that Congress has been throwing up a lot of road blocks. ROBERT GIBBS: I think it’s the type of politics that demonstrates just how badly broken the appointments process is, and the President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. In this case, because the appointments process is clearly broken, he did so through a recess appointment. LOTHIAN: Republicans also saying here that the White House simply did not want to have a confirmation hearing because they did not want to have some tough questions asked. By the way, this appointment lasts until the end of 2011, Wolf. BLITZER: If there had been a confirmation hearing, a formal confirmation hearing and testimony and all of that, does the White House believe he would have been confirmed? LOTHIAN: Very good question, and Robert Gibbs was asked that today at the briefing. He says, yes, they believe that he would have been confirmed, but I’ll tell you there are some key Republicans who had been looking to put up some road blocks during that hearing, so it’s unclear hether or not there would have been enough votes there to get him through the Senate. BLITZER: Very sensitive and controversial issue. Thanks very much, Dan Lothian, for that. #From the July 8 NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: In this country, a new political skirmish in Washington over health care. It’s about an appointment President Obama made while Congress was out for the July Fourth break – a so-called recess appointment – naming Harvard professor Dr. Donald Berwick to manage Medicare and Medicaid, skipping the usual Senate confirmation process. Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic. One top Democrat called the recess appointment “troubling,” but the administration fired back, saying this was one of many appointments being blocked by the Senate. Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.

Visit link:
Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

Open Thread: Arizona Guilty of Enforcing the Law

There are, contrary to popular belief, a number of states with immigration laws similar to Arizona’s. They are not, of course, being sued by the Justice Department. Why ? California is NOT being sued by the Federal Government for it’s law regarding illegal immigration and law enforcement cooperation with detaining suspects who may be illegal aliens. California’s law forbids ANY entity from interfering with the enforcement of this law, but California does not enforce this law, instead Los Angeles is boycotting Arizona and the Obama administration is spending million in taxpayer dollars to tell a court that States cannot enforce Federal laws, despite Federal laws that urge and seek local and state cooperation. Why isn’t California being sued? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE- California has no intention of enforcing this law while Arizona does. What’s your reaction?

Read the rest here:
Open Thread: Arizona Guilty of Enforcing the Law