Tag Archives: politics

For Second Day in Row, NY Times Blames Right-Leaning French Prez for Soccer Team’s Travails

For the second day in a row, French President Nicolas Sarkozy shared the blame for France’s surprising loss in the opening round of soccer’s World Cup — in a story in the New York Times’s news section. Jere Longman’s Wednesday front-page story transmitted rants from Socialist Party opponents of the right-leaning, Bush-supporting Sarkozy, accusing him of being “President Bling Bling” and promoting a national “selfishness” that seeped into the players’ psyches. On Thursday, reporter Steven Erlanger handled sticky issues of race, patriotism and football failure in ” Racial Undertones Emerge in Reactions to France’s Exit From the World Cup, ” and also relayed criticism of Sarkozy, just the way the Times did during Sarkozy’s successful 2007 presidential campaign. While most politicians have talked carefully of values and patriotism, rather than immigration and race, some legislators blasted the players as “scum,” “little troublemakers” and “guys with chickpeas in their heads instead of a brain,” according to news reports. Fadela Amara, the junior minister for the racially charged suburbs who was born to Algerian parents, warned on Tuesday that the reaction to the team’s loss had become racially charged. “There is a tendency to ethnicize what has happened,” she told a gathering of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s governing party, according to news reports. “Everyone condemns the lower-class neighborhoods. People doubt that those of immigrant backgrounds are capable of respecting the nation.” She criticized Mr. Sarkozy’s handling of a debate on “national identity,” warning that “all democrats and all republicans will be lost” in this ethnically tinged criticism about Les Bleus, the French team. “We’re building a highway for the National Front,” she said, in a reference to the far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim party founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. Erlanger linked Sarkozy to the French “far right,” including the controvesrial, nationalist Le Pen family: The racial makeup of the French team has long been an issue on the far right, even in a country where all the French are “citizens” and are supposed to have equal rights. Of the 22-man squad, 13 are men of color, with two born in French territories. …. On Tuesday, Mr. Le Pen said that “the myth of antiracism is a sacred myth in France.” He added, apparently with no irony, that he hated politicians who turned the national soccer team into “a flag of antiracism instead of sport.” Now, the language of Mr. Chatel, the education minister, resonates with the themes of the Le Pens. That reflects, critics say, the general effort of Mr. Sarkozy and his party, over the last few years, to weaken the far right by playing on the same themes of patriotism, nationhood and identity. Elaine Sciolino’s “reporting” on Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 presidential campaign remains some of the most obnoxiously biased to ever appear in the Times, including this bitter reaction to a Sarkozy campaign speech: “In this election, authority apparently is deemed to be more important than compassion.”

Follow this link:
For Second Day in Row, NY Times Blames Right-Leaning French Prez for Soccer Team’s Travails

NBC: Obama’s ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Moment with McChrystal a Hidden Blessing

On Wednesday’s Today show, NBC’s Chuck Todd touted President Obama’s “swiftness” in dealing with the controversy surrounding General Stanley McChrystal comments in Rolling Stone magazine as a ” commander-in-chief moment ,” and hinted that it was a blessing in disguise, given the executive’s tanking approval ratings. Todd led the 7 am Eastern hour with his report on the President appointing General David Petraeus to replace General McChrystal, who was relieved of command following the Rolling Stone interview. The NBC White House correspondent remarked that with the Petraeus appointment, “the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated.” After playing a clip of Mr. Obama stating that he “won’t tolerate division,” he continued that “the President’s aides don’t expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan.” Later in the report, Todd used his “swiftness” term as he emphasized the apparent good timing of the controversy and detailed the public’s decreasing confidence in the President, according to NBC’s own poll: TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President’s action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability . According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45 percent approve of the job he’s doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he’s firm and decisive in his decision making. That’s down from 63 percent 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49 percent, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That’s down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President’s desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan. An on-screen graphic further described that President Obama’s disapproval rating was at 48%, though the correspondent didn’t specifically mention this statistic. Almost a day earlier, Todd lauded the chief executive just as the Petraeus appointment was being made: “Politically, in this town, it’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President.” The full transcript of Chuck Todd’s report from Thursday’s Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: Let us begin with the change in command in Afghanistan. Chuck Todd is NBC’s chief White House correspondent. Good morning, Chuck. CHUCK TODD: Good morning, Meredith. Well, after a rare swift set of personnel moves by this White House, the President is now back focused on trying to make his complicated Afghanistan strategy work, rather than fixated on who’s going to implement it. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy. TODD (voice-over): With General Petraeus by his side, and General McChrystal headed out a side door, the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated. OBAMA: I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. TODD: The President’s aides don’t expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan. SENATOR CARL LEVIN: I admire him and others that respond to that kind of a call from the President. I don’t think he even had a chance to talk to his wife. SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM: Dave Petraeus is our best hope. If things don’t change, nobody can pull it out in Afghanistan. TODD: But the hearings are expected to re-ignite the very divisive debate among the two parties about the question of a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, scheduled to begin next July. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Whether that is, quote- etched in stone, as the President’s spokesperson, Mr. Gibbs, stated, or whether it will be conditions-based. TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President’s action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45% approve of the job he’s doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he’s firm and decisive in his decision making. That’s down from 63% 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49%, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That’s down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President’s desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan. RETIRED GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY: It does give the President cover and a strategy, and it does buy him time. He’s putting a leader out there that will not be questioned. TODD (live) Today, the focus stays on foreign affairs, as the President meets with the president of another country who’s familiar with a quagmire-like situation in Afghanistan. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits the White House today. The two will hold a joint press conference, and Afghanistan is likely to come up, Matt. MATT LAUER: All right. Chuck Todd at the White House this morning. Chuck, thank you very much.

Read more here:
NBC: Obama’s ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Moment with McChrystal a Hidden Blessing

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

Ed Schultz Tries to Blame McChrystal, Appointed by Obama, on Bush

Far-left MSNBC ranter Ed Schultz just can’t let facts get in the way of his rank partisanship and liberal propagandizing. His latest whopper, that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was “another problem [President Obama] inherited from the Bush administration,” was blatantly untrue, and just earned him a ” pants on fire ” rating from Politifact.com. Politifact, which has busted up other untruths propagated by media liberals, noted a valuable lesson for liberals and Democrats: “not everything can be blamed on President Bush.” Indeed. Not only did President Obama not “inherit” McChrystal’s command from the previous administration, he “effectively sacked the general in charge to create a vacancy that he then proceeded to fill with McChrystal as his fix-it man,” notes Politifact. We applaud the folks at Politifact for checking Schultz’s inane rantings. Welcome to our world!

More here:
Ed Schultz Tries to Blame McChrystal, Appointed by Obama, on Bush

Scarborough Justifies Decision Not to Talk about Gore Sexual Allegation on ‘Morning Joe’; Calls Topic ‘Unfair’

It’s already been documented that the media have, at least initially, ignored the allegation the global warming alarmist-in-chief and former Vice President Al Gore faced a sexual assault charge in 2006. But why? Although not know for its enlightening commentary, ABC’s June 24 broadcast of “The View” offered an answer for that question. Subbing a moderator for the show’s panel was MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough, who explained their decision to ignore it was based on “insufficient evidence” despite the police report documenting the allegation. “This is an interesting story,” Scarborough said. “A 2006 police report surfaced of a masseuse claiming former Vice President Al Gore repeatedly attempted, quote, ‘unwanted sexual contact with her during a hotel room massage which lasted for three hours.’ Detectives found insufficient evidence to support the allegations, which leads to my question first, Joy. Should we be talking about it at all? This was in The Oregonian. We decided this morning not to talk about it on ‘Morning Joe’ because there was insufficient evidence. The Oregonian picked it up, then the National Enquirer. Everybody’s going to be talking about it. Should we?” Panelist Joy Behar, who also hosts a HLN primetime show said she suspected there was more to Al Gore’s marital problems than was initially let on. “I’ve been saying all along, though that there is something more to the breakup,” Behar said. “This is the ‘Tipper’ of the iceberg because I think that in fact the guy has a history now. I’m beginning to believe it.” But that wasn’t fair to Gore, who now apparently has a friend in Joe Scarborough. He disagreed with Behar’s assertion. “But we don’t know that,” Scarborough protested. “We’re piling on.” A little later, Scarborough labeled the entire story – that a former sitting vice president would be the subject of such “unfair” media scrutiny. “Let’s get back to Al Gore,” Scarborough said. “Really quickly though, I want to get back to what I think is the unfairness to Al Gore because those of us in New York know that there was a rumor on the front page of the New York Post last week – an unfounded, but a rumor that everybody in New York talked about. Now we’ve got another story out there in The Oregonian. Where there’s smoke, there’s not always fire.” Behar relented and conceded there was a degree of unfairness. “It’s not really fair to the guy,” Behar said. “I’m a comedian. I’m going to go for the joke no matter who it is. It’s not fair.”

See the article here:
Scarborough Justifies Decision Not to Talk about Gore Sexual Allegation on ‘Morning Joe’; Calls Topic ‘Unfair’

MRC Study: Media Blackout of Supreme Court ‘Battle’

When President Obama picked Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the broadcast networks referred to the upcoming Senate confirmation process as “contentious” a “meat grinder” and a “battle,” warning Kagan was “in for a fight.” But a Media Research Center analysis of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in the six weeks since Kagan was nominated shows the broadcast networks have failed to cover the “fight,” and have ignored most of the controversies that could lead to suspenseful hearings next week. MRC analysts found that the broadcast network evening newscasts aired just eleven stories about Kagan since her May 10 nomination (six on CBS, three on ABC and two on NBC), plus another three brief items read by the anchor. All but one of those stories appeared during the first week after Kagan’s selection; only the CBS Evening News , in a June 3 report, has bothered to cover any of the thousands of pages of Kagan documents released in recent weeks. Both CNN and FNC provided substantially more coverage of Kagan during their 6pm ET news programs (10 full stories on CNN’s The Situation Room , 11 on FNC’s Special Report ) and offered in-depth coverage of Kagan controversies that the broadcast networks glossed over. The NBC Nightly News hasn’t mentioned Kagan since she met with senators on May 12; ABC’s World News hasn’t said a word about Kagan since May 16. For its part, the CBS Evening News aired one item on Kagan on June 3 aimed at bolstering the nominee against complaints from the Left that she isn’t liberal enough: CBS’s JAN CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that some on the left have worried she’s too moderate….But documents buried in Thurgood Marshall’s papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion. Crawford did acknowledge Kagan’s overt liberalism might wind up hurting her nomination: “While that may encourage liberals, it’s going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her.” But neither CBS nor the other broadcast networks offered a follow-up, even as thousands of documents from Kagan’s stint in the Clinton White House were revealed. Networks Trumpeted Opposition to Roberts and Alito The networks’ disinterested approach to this year’s Supreme Court “battle” is at odds with how they covered the run-up to the hearings of the last two Republican nominees, when ABC, CBS and NBC all ran multiple stories in the weeks before each set of hearings began. On the July 26, 2005 World News Tonight , one week after President Bush picked John Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor, ABC correspondent (and future Obama spokeswoman) Linda Douglass highlighted Democratic demands for additional documents: “Democrats want Roberts’ more recent memos when he was crafting legal opinions for the first Bush administration. Republicans complain the Democrats are simply searching for reasons to oppose him.” The August 4, 2005 CBS Evening News amplified the Left’s criticisms of Roberts, including a soundbite from “Alliance for Justice” chief Nan Aron, who hysterically claimed material released up to that point “raises red flags about his commitment to civil rights, women’s rights, laws that have been in place for decades.” On November 14, 2005, nearly two weeks after Sam Alito’s selection, all three networks jumped on the release of a memo on abortion Alito had written twenty years earlier. NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams breathlessly wondered, “Is it a bombshell?” Reporter Williams conveyed liberal activists’ ire: “Women’s rights groups today pounced on the document, calling it proof that Judge Alito would restrict access to abortion” This time around, these same networks have failed to grant as much as a soundbite to any representative of a conservative group to talk about Kagan over the past six weeks. And the networks have aired no stories conveying GOP complaints about the need for additional Kagan documents from the National Archives or Clinton library. As for controversies, both CNN and the Fox News Channel have offered detailed reports about topics that the broadcast networks have either ignored or downplayed: ■ Kagan’s Princeton papers: CNN and FNC discussed Kagan’s senior thesis on the demise of the Socialist Party in the early 1900s, which she labeled “sad.” FNC’s Shannon Bream and CNN’s Lisa Sylvester both included soundbites from experts suggesting, in the words of Sylvester, that “it’s hard to conclude she herself is a socialist, more of a historian documenting a political movement.” But only FNC’s Bream noted Kagan’s op-ed for The Daily Princetonian , where she openly described herself a “liberal” and wailed about the “anonymous but moral majority-backed avengers of innocent life.” Bream added how “Kagan also said she looked forward to a time when a, quote, ‘more leftist left will once again come to the fore.’” ABC, CBS and NBC coverage of Kagan’s Princeton writings? Zero. ■ Openness to Regulating Political Speech: Both CNN and FNC explored Kagan’s handling of the Citizens United case as Solicitor General. Even though Kagan lost the 5-4 decision, the President had cited that case as an example of her commitment to fighting “special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.” On Special Report , Fox correspondent Major Garrett included a quote from Citizen United’s David Bossie saying Kagan offered “a fundamentally flawed view of the First Amendment, and I think it disqualifies her from the high court.” But CNN’s Kate Bolduan stuck to a positive recounting of Kagan’s style, saying her oral argument showed “she is light on her feet,” “clearly an intellectual” with “quick wit and personality.” As for the networks, ABC’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Jan Crawford on May 10 made passing references to the case, but none of the broadcast networks explored the details of that case or suggested Kagan’s legal arguments showed a hostility to free speech. ■ Kagan’s ban on military recruitment. As Dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan blocked the U.S. military from using the school’s Office of Career Services because of the ban on open homosexuals serving in the armed forces, a policy Kagan said she “abhorred.” CNN’s Lisa Sylvester offered an in-depth story on May 11, followed by a debate between Lawrence Korb from the liberal Center for American Progress and conservative Frank Gaffney. FNC offered its own story on May 11, quoting two conservative critics of Kagan vs. White House chief of staff David Axelrod and a gay veteran who supported Kagan’s stance. As for the broadcast networks, ABC and NBC limited themselves to a couple of sentences referencing the controversy on the day Kagan was picked. CBS also mentioned the matter on  May 10, with additional coverage on the May 16 Evening News . Reporter Jan Crawford’s tone was sympathetic: “Kagan, like many law school officials, opposed having military recruiters on campus….” In the past, when liberal organizations chose to do “battle” with a Republican appointee to the Court, the networks chronicled the effort and showcased the complaints of left-wing groups. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, these same networks seem decidedly uncurious about the confirmation “fight” over Elena Kagan.

See the article here:
MRC Study: Media Blackout of Supreme Court ‘Battle’

87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his. This comes in response to last month’s highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction. A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures. Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry — something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure — very few American media outlets bothered to report the news. Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers ): Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber – the letter argues that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship. “[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass,” the senators wrote. “They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted,” the letter adds. The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel. According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House. Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States. No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press. Why might that be? For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here . Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn’t sign the letter are. Stay tuned. 

View original post here:
87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum

Will Petraeus Do a Better Job in Afghanistan Than McChrystal?

Link:
Will Petraeus Do a Better Job in Afghanistan Than McChrystal?

Networks Snoozing on Hoyer Suggesting Dems Won’t Vote to Continue Bush Tax Cuts for Middle Class

Between the ongoing Gulf oil spill and the McChrystal row, this story is bound to get put on the back burner, but it still deserves attention by the broadcast and cable news media. Yesterday I wrote about the Washington Post burying its story on House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer saying that congressional Democrats were not wedded to President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledge to not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 per year. Asked about those remarks at yesterday’s White House press briefing , Robert Gibbs said he had not seen the comments and would “be happy to look at and try to get a response after this [briefing].” Hours later, The Hill newspaper’s Alexander Bolton filed a story that noted it’s not just Hoyer who’s staking out this position : Democrats are looking at the possibility of raising taxes on families below the $250,000-a-year threshold promised by President Barack Obama during the election. The majority party on Capitol Hill does not feel bound by that pledge, saying the threshold for tax hikes will depend on several factors, such as the revenue differences between setting the threshold at $200,000 and setting it at $250,000. “You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.” Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, concurred, saying, “I don’t think there’s any magic in the number, whether it’s $250,000, $200,000 or $225,000. “The larger question is whether we’ll be able to extend the tax cuts for middle-income folks,” Dorgan said. “The answer, I expect, would be yes, but we don’t quite know how it all fits in the larger picture.” It’s certainly a compelling news story in a midterm election year. Thus far, however, the broadcast network morning shows and evening newscasts have ignored the story.

Read more from the original source:
Networks Snoozing on Hoyer Suggesting Dems Won’t Vote to Continue Bush Tax Cuts for Middle Class

Why Hasn’t Racism Been Blamed For Obama’s Poor Response to the Oil Spill?

When Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans in 2005, numerous media members blamed racism for President Bush’s supposedly poor response to the disaster. According to LexisNexis, there were almost 1,000 reports in the nine weeks following the storm’s passage through the Gulf of Mexico that tied racism to the government’s post-hurricane strategy. Five years later, as oil slams the same region and polls show the public actually more unhappy with the response to this crisis than they were after Katrina hit, no such nefarious connection is being espoused. Why? Consider the media firestorm the following remark by rapper Kanye West set off just a few days after the hurricane hit New Orleans (video follows with transcript and commentary): I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they’re looting. See a white family, it says they’re looking for food. And you know that it’s been five days because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I’ve tried to turn away from the TV, because it’s too hard to watch. I’ve even been shopping before I’ve even given a donation. So now I’m calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help with the set up the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they have given them permission to go down and shoot us…George Bush doesn’t care about black people. Moments after this was uttered on live television, CNN’s Larry King asked guest Jesse Jackson about it: LARRY KING, CNN: Jesse, I understand that Kanye West, a rapper at the NBC telethon tonight, unscripted, said that President Bush, George Bush does not care about black people. Do you have that feeling? JESSE JACKSON: Well, he responded mighty late and mighty slow. There was one response to the tsunami and some years ago to the — a response to the Armenian earthquake crisis, but he came in five days late, with platitudes. And in the case of 9/11, he came in two days later and embraced all those who were involved. There’s a sense of alienation, a sense of distance, and we don’t feel good about it. I hope that there will be renewed commitment, not to just involve Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton, but why not involve people like Congressman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi and Cynthia Cleo Fields (ph) and Senator Bigenfiggis (ph). We… KING: But you don’t… JACKSON: … ought to have a sense of being a part of this, and we’re not. KING: You don’t think he doesn’t care? JACKSON: Well, he does not show it. And that’s the — that’s the rub. And we need to know, we need to have access for dialogue, and we don’t have it. CNN was all over this story doing numerous segments about it in the coming days, but the supposedly most trusted name in news was certainly not alone in advancing this truly disgraceful theory. All three broadcast network news divisions reported this possible connection as did most American newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc. Magazines also did stories about what the disaster said of race relations in this country. The disgusting notion that Bush’s response was due to racism was espoused for years by press members and still is to this very day. Potentially even worse, this assertion helped make Bush a lame duck less than a year into his final term while assisting the Democrats to take back Congress in 2006 as well as the White House in 2008. As a result, this ugly contention will likely be a part of our 43rd President’s legacy unless sane minds in the future fight to counter it.   Yet, no such connection to the government’s pathetic response to the current disaster in the very same region is being made. Why?  Consider that a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found: Just 32 percent say Mr. Obama has a clear plan to deal with the oil leak, while 59 percent (including 64 percent of Gulf coast residents) say he does not. The numbers are not much better among those who watched the president’s Oval Office speech on the spill last week, with 35 percent of that group saying he has a clear plan and 56 percent saying he does not. If Bush was still President, would media blame racism for his lack of a plan? As the answer seems an almost certain “Yes,” why is that?  Regardless of the reason, the press would be dead wrong just as they were about Bush’s response to Katrina. Despite their assertions, whatever the White House did or didn’t do after that hurricane hit had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the race of those effected. That was a disgusting assertion back then that should never have been made or advanced by anyone in our media. BUT, if they were going to make such a connection then, and would if Bush was still in the White House, that they’re not espousing it now despite how absurd it would be makes the way they treated our 43rd President even more reprehensible.   Less so is the lack of curiosity about what is the reason for Obama’s pathetic handling of this crisis. Former New York City major Rudy Giuliani said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” last week that the response to this oil spill would have been swifter and better coordinated if it happened in the Atlantic Ocean and was impacting the East Coast. Assuming he’s right — and I believe he is — why would that be? Should government’s response to a disaster relate to what states are impacted by it? Such does seem to be the case with the current Administration which seemed quite disinterested in the recent devastating floods in Tennessee. Not surprisingly, the press also largely ignored that disaster. So what gives here? Are some people in this country entitled to greater federal assistance in an emergency than others? Aren’t we all Americans, or are some inherently more so? Finally, if folks in the media believe as I do that this response would have been different if the spill was battering East Coast beaches with oil, where are the questions and the investigations into why that is, or is such curiosity only acceptable when a Republican is in the White House?

Go here to see the original:
Why Hasn’t Racism Been Blamed For Obama’s Poor Response to the Oil Spill?