Tag Archives: politics

Crime Pays: CNN Hires Prostitute-Plying Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Star in Debate Show with Kathleen Parker

The rumors were true. CNN is without shame. They are hiring disgraced Democrat Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the hypocritical “Sheriff of Wall Street” who hired high-priced hookers, as a talk-show host. Spitzer’s co-host will be pseudo-conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who won the Pulitzer Prize for being a conservative-basher . CNN’s press release said “she describes herself as a ‘rational’ conservative.” That’s a nice way to endear her to the “irrational” conservatives who might have considered watching this show. It’s set up to be Liberal Lion vs. ‘Rational’ Lamb. Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S., the man who canceled the long-running left-right show “Crossfire” after Jon Stewart lamented they needed to “stop, stop, stop, stop, hurting America,” has reinvented the format as just the latest liberal-media attempt to rehabilitate Spitzer’s career. Klein said in a statement: “Eliot and Kathleen are beholden to no vested interest – in fact, quite the opposite: they are renowned for taking on the most powerful targets and most important causes.” They’re actually spinning this “unbeholden” Spitzer as a moralist and guardian of the public interest. CNN’s press release suggested that little prostitution thing is hardly a disqualification for such a “well-respected political mind.” They even re-used the ridiculous “Sheriff” moniker: Spitzer, a Democrat who resigned as governor in March 2008 after acknowledging visiting a prostitute, is a well respected political mind and a take-no-prisoners prosecutor who has been often referred to as the “Sheriff of Wall Street.” Parker was required by her new job to kiss Spitzer’s ring: “I’m thrilled by the opportunity to discuss the issues that matter to me — and that aren’t heard often enough on television — in a conversation with one of the nation’s most brilliant, fearless and original thinkers. With Eliot Spitzer as my co-host, Wall Street and Main Street will finally meet. It can’t possibly be boring.” Last year, Parker also felt pain for Spitzer in a column knocking David Letterman for his nasty Sarah Palin joke (ever the balancer): Everyone knows by now that Letterman made fun of the Palin family’s trip to New York last week. He quipped that Palin’s daughter got “knocked up” by Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez during the seventh inning. Unable to stop his slide into the gutter, he said the hardest part of the visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter. How will this show cover the next politican sex scandal? Or are they hoping CNN will be the “hot corner” on those stories now?  James Poniewozik at Time has the first boos from the media establishment:  The first is not that Spitzer has been chosen despite his sex scandal. It’s that he seemingly was chosen, at least in part, because of the scandal: that is, because of the short-term blast of notoriety and buzz that he will bring with him. Now, for all I know, CNN genuinely sees special and distinctive broadcasting talent in Spitzer, but if they do, it’s eluded me in his long recent history as commentator and guest-host on CNN and MSNBC, where—to my ears, anyway—he comes off grating and supercilious. If he didn’t come with the name and the headlines, I have a hard time believing he’d been chosen on the basis of ability alone. (As for Parker, I’m not familiar enough to say whether she’s a good choice or not, though her résumé is strong enough. But I do have to guess that—call me cynical—given Spitzer’s history it would have been hard for CNN to even consider pairing him with a man. Not that the underrepresentation of men in cable news is exactly a problem, but the idea that pairing Spitzer with a woman makes his choice any better is just icky.)

Excerpt from:
Crime Pays: CNN Hires Prostitute-Plying Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Star in Debate Show with Kathleen Parker

Schultz Steamed Beck ‘Allowed’ On Airwaves

Jonah Goldberg might want to file this one away for his sequel to Liberal Fascism . . . On his MSNBC show this evening, Ed Schultz sputtered that it’s “pathetic” that Glenn Beck is “on the airwaves in this country” and “allowed” to express his opposition to public schools and support for home-schooling and vouchers. Schultz aired a clip in which Beck had this to say . . . GLENN BECK: The problem in America is we’re being indoctrinated from dawn until dusk, every single day, seven days a week. We’re being indoctrinated by Washington, we’re being indoctrinated by our unions, we’re being indoctrinated in our schools, we’re being indoctrinated in the media. We’re being indoctrinated!  What are you even talking about? You’re darn right we should abolish public schools. Here’s Schultz, in the course of commenting . . . ED SCHULTZ: This guy’s dangerous!  He’s a huge supporter of home-schooling and private-school vouchers. And this is an admission that he really does want two Americas. And I think it’s pathetic that somebody’s on the airwaves in this country that’s allowed to say this kind of garbage. It’s against the foundation of this country and everything that this country has stood for when it comes to opportunity in education. And he wants to take that away? Say Ed, why not advocate the establishment, say, of the House Un-American Media Activities Committee? How about a new Obama czar, empowered to determine which pundits are permitted on the air, and what they’re “allowed” to say?  

Link:
Schultz Steamed Beck ‘Allowed’ On Airwaves

Newsweek Blogger: Tea Party Coverage Isn’t Harsh Enough

Newsweek blogger Ben Adler thinks the national media are giving the Tea Parties gentle treatment. “Unfortunately,” Adler wrote in a June 21 post , “what appear to be false notions of objectivity – or perhaps a lack of interest in policy – is preventing that coverage from illuminating what the movement actually represents and what it would do if empowered.” Adler complained that a recent Associated Press article, ” Enraged to Engaged: Tea partiers explain why ,” failed to examine the ideology of the demonstrators in the grassroots conservative movement. “The piece examines how and why a variety of individuals became involved in the Tea Party movement without once asking what precisely the platform consists of,” Adler said, leading one to wonder if he even read the article. The 2,300-word “stemwinder,” as Adler called it, written by reporter Pauline Arrillaga, presented various segments of Tea Party ideology on five separate occasions. In the third paragraph, Arrillaga notes that the purpose of the Tea Party-affiliated Lincoln Club in Yucca Valley, Calif., is “to promote educate and advance conservative principles of fiscal responsibility small limited government, free enterprise, the rule of law, private property rights, and the preservation and protection of individual liberty.” Eric Odom, widely regarded as a founder of the Tea Party movement, told Arrillaga said the group’s purpose was, “to make sure that we’re represented by people who are looking out for our rights and upholding the Constitution… And if they don’t, to make sure we have an infrastructure to really take them out rather than have these thugs that are in there for 30, 40 years.” As Adler put it, Tea Partiers are “vehemently opposed” to raising taxes. “But when it comes to specifics, suddenly every program seems worthier than when demonized in the collective abstract. Which politician wants to cut spending on Homeland Security? Education for students with special needs? (Surely not Sarah Palin!),” Adler said in a reference to Palin’s son, Trig, who was born with Down syndrome. Adler complained that the AP would dare characterized Tea Party demonstrators as “concerned Americans trying to find their voices, and a way to channel their disgust.” He suggested they aren’t motivated by love of country or concern for the future, but by ignorance. Arrillaga’s article refuted the notion that Tea Party activists are “ignorant,” however. Bill Warner, Lincoln Club member, ran his own engineering firm for three decades. Hildy Angius is currently running the Republican Woman’s Club, and is a staunch Tea Party Activist. She is an ex-PR agent with a degree from New York State Albany. Eric Odom started the Tea Party movement fresh out of college. Tea Partiers come from all walks of life and have diverse academic backgrounds. Adler also predictable recycled a tired media-drive stereotype that Tea Party members are racist. He suggested they are too dumb to realize they’re racist. “Might it be possible that the Tea Partiers who profess no racial motivation are, let’s say, not entirely aware of their own visceral motivations? I’m sure if you asked the Southern voters who switched to Republican voting habits why they did so, many would say race had nothing to do with it. But why should journalists take that at face value?” Adler said. Adler’s assertion that the media have been soft on the Tea Parties might come as a surprise to anyone who’s paid attention to media coverage of Tea Parties. From the very first demonstrations in April 2009, reporters have attacked Tea Party members . According to a Media Research Center study , the media at first tried to ignore the demonstrations, but quickly moved into attack mode, portraying Tea Party protestors as extremists. Just last week, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews aired a “documentary” about the Tea Party portraying its members as racists, terrorists and conspiracy theorists. 

View post:
Newsweek Blogger: Tea Party Coverage Isn’t Harsh Enough

Robert Redford Blames Cheney for America’s ‘Failed Energy Policy’

Actor Robert Redford lambasted America’s energy plan that he claimed led to the Gulf disaster, laying the responsibility at the feet of former Vice President Cheney. Appearing Monday night on “Anderson Cooper 360,” Redford blamed the Gulf oil spill not only on BP, but also because of the “failed” energy policy that led to this disaster. ‘There’s a lot being said about BP, and there’s a lot of truth that’s finally bubbling up to the surface,” Redford acknowledged. “But what I’m more interested in is – is looking at it from a historical point of view and trying to connect some dots about how we got here.” “Look, I think one of the reasons we’re in this problem is because we have not only a failed energy policy, but we have an energy policy – because of the way it was designed, and who it was designed by, Cheney – it’s sick and it’s dangerous.” Redford, who supports Obama’s drilling moratorium,  mandated that America must shed its current energy policy and adopt a new one. He rebuked the present policy as an unholy alliance of sorts between Congress, the government, and Big Oil. He gave the example of the US Minerals Management Service (MMS) as an example of a government agency that was asleep at the wheel in its oversight of oil companies. “Look, all that stuff has come out, and it’s painfully obvious what’s happened – the corruption that came with MMS as a result of Dick Cheney and how he engineered this whole thing,” he maintained. Redford’s solution? Get rid of former Vice President Dick Cheney – who’s been a private citizen for 17 months now – and his cronies. “You’ve got to get rid of Cheney and every – and all the horses he came in with. You’ve got to get rid of his energy policy. It’s bad for our health. It’s bad for our economy. It’s bad for our future.” A transcript of Anderson Cooper’s interview with Robert Redford, which aired on June 21, at 10:22 p.m. EDT, is as follows: ANDERSON COOPER, host: As you look at BP’s response to this spill, what stands out? I mean — I think, for a lot of people on the ground here, it’s the lack of transparency that we have seen. What surprises you about the way BP has handled this so far? ROBERT REDFORD: Nothing. What I’m kind of interested in here is, you know, there’s a lot being said about BP, and there’s a lot of truth that’s finally bubbling up to the surface. But what I’m more interested in is — is looking at it from a historical point of view and trying to connect some dots about how we got here. And, you know, when you stop and think about BP’s promises and the consequence of the collusion between government, Congress and big oil companies, what you get is what we’ve got: a failed energy policy — a terrible energy policy — that allowed this to happen. And so, I think, I’m interested in seeing if we can get to the public, connect the dots as to how we got here because we — there have been other disasters despite what they’re saying that have happened. COOPER: It’s interesting because — I mean, Senate Republicans told the President last week, look, focus on the oil spill right now, not on an energy bill. They say the President can’t afford any distractions until this is under control. You say the opposite. You say this is the time to focus on an energy bill. REDFORD: Look, I think one of the reasons we’re in this problem is because we have not only a failed energy policy, but we have an energy policy — because of the way it was designed by who it was designed by, Cheney — it’s sick and it’s dangerous. And any energy policy that’s designed behind closed doors with oil, gas and coal companies is bound to end up being a disaster of some sort. So, I think, we need a new energy policy. And I don’t think it’s next week, or next year or even — it’s now. If we miss this opportunity, we’re missing an incredible opportunity. And history will probably tell us that. So, get rid of this energy policy. It’s a disaster. COOPER: Do you think President Obama has shown leadership in that direction? I mean, he talked — he didn’t really give any details last week about what he wants to see in an energy bill. Were you satisfied with what you heard? Or were you looking for more specifics? REDFORD: No, I wasn’t satisfied with what I heard. I’m somewhat sympathetic to what the guy’s dealing with because he had all these other issues that were paramount when this thing came forward. And I don’t think he or the administration was quite prepared. Nor do I think BP was prepared. Nobody was prepared. I think he’s trying to do the best he can, but I think he’s got to do more. And I think if he thinks that he’s going to push something through with any kind of bipartisanship, I think it should be clear by now that there’s so many voices coming at him from the other side — the voices that, for me, is coming out of the Ice Age, you know, that he should forget about that. He better grab this moment. And I think the public is going to have to push him to push Congress. But he better push them. COOPER: Obviously, around here, the drilling moratorium, the deepwater drilling moratorium is hugely unpopular. There are a lot of jobs at stake here, there’s people suing in courts to try to get this thing overturned — although that seems unlikely to happen. We’ll have a ruling probably by tomorrow. You, obviously, I’m guessing, support the moratorium. Why? REDFORD: Well, I support the moratorium, because I think there’s so many disasters that have occurred in the past when we’ve been lied to about the fact that they would not happen. They have happened. Why have they happened? Because of the collusion between government, Congress and the big oil companies. So, I think — look, we’re not going to get rid of oil. I mean, we should accept that. I accept it. I worked in an oilfield as a kid. But I think what we’re asking for now is a new energy policy. And I think that — I’m totally sympathetic to the people in the Gulf who have lost their jobs, their way of life, environmental devastation and so forth. I understand the voices that want to not have a moratorium because they think it’s going to help jobs. But I think the first thing that should happen is that we have got to figure out — first of all, make sure BP pays every dime that’s owed to these people. My heart goes out to the people on the Gulf. And they need to be paid. And Obama has to push them to do it. Second, we’ve got to figure out how it happened. Why did this happen when we were told over and over again it wouldn’t happen? COOPER: And in terms of oversight by the government — I mean, clearly, the government, both under the Bush administration and even under the Obama administration, have not done as much in terms of reforming MMS. I mean, MMS, which has now been renamed today, has essentially, you know, been kind of a lap dog. REDFORD: It has. Look, all that stuff has come out, and it’s painfully obvious what’s happened — the corruption that came with MMS as a result of Dick Cheney and how he engineered this whole thing. You got to get rid of Cheney and every — and all the horses he came in with. You got to get rid of his energy policy. It’s bad for our health. It’s bad for our economy. It’s bad for our future. And I think the administration has to step up, get tough, get quick, and be very clear about what they’re prescribing. I think they have to be very clear about why there should be some moratorium, like should Shell be allowed to drill up in the Alaskan refuge? No, not yet. We got to get some facts in order first. COOPER: Robert Redford, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. REDFORD: You’re welcome.

Visit link:
Robert Redford Blames Cheney for America’s ‘Failed Energy Policy’

Obama’s Leadership Deficit

Editor’s Note : The following originally appeared at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood . Appearing on CNN with Anderson Cooper, film director Spike Lee implored President Obama to infuse his handling of the Gulf oil spill with more emotion. Demonstrating the astute analysis we have come to expect from the director, Lee implored Obama to “one time, go off.” Perhaps he is of the same mind as Bill Maher, that the authentic black man is one who is always armed and resorts to violence and loud-talking when things do not go his way. (Note to self: On the way home from the liquor store, I must pick up my Glock from the gun shop.) Both Lee and Maher seem to share the opinion of a great many progressives that emotion is the same as leadership and that problems are most easily solved by decree. It is no mistake that following criticism by Lee and others, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was declaring to the media that he had “seen rage from him [President Obama].” Apparently, when Obama gets angry, he clinches his jaw. Soon after the Gibbs press conference, the President showed up in Louisiana, walked the beach in shirt sleeves and then, with clenched jaw, he spoke of growing up in a culture where the water was sacred. The administration meant this to be a demonstration of leadership. However, in some quarters, this is also known as street theatre. Still seeking to enhance his “street cred,” the president then appeared on morning television, lowered his pants down below his buttocks, flashed his gold teeth, and announced that he was looking for some tail to kick. In the meantime, the oil continues to gush from the well and the resulting slick is now the size of a small state. As it turns out, sending the attorney general to Louisiana and ordering BP to “plug the damn hole” and then “going off” on national television didn’t solve the problem. If the poll numbers are to be believed, it would also appear that Americans are not impressed with how much booty a president can kick, especially if it is not accompanied by decisive action, which actually addresses the problem. Over the course of the last two months, the president has had several opportunities to take bold and determined action–to be a leader. He has dithered instead. A few of the missed opportunities: Fire-booms that were supposed to be a part of any oil-spill response were missing in action. When they were finally located there were too few to do much good. In the event of a major spill, federal responders had pre-approval to begin burning oil. They waited more than a week before doing a test-burn and then stopped. Experts have suggested that had the burning begun right away, 90% of the oil could have been burned away before it spread. Thirteen countries have offered the United States the advantage of their technical skills. To date, the Obama administration has declined to take advantage of all of this experience and expertise. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers delayed the building of protective sand-berms until they could study the issue. The administration finally approved six berms, but only agreed to pay for one of them. Government officials say they want to first see if they work. Of course, by that time building more berms won’t do any good. Two months into the crisis, Admiral Thad Allen, the U.S. official in charge of the Gulf of Mexico crisis, (or is he?), is still talking about asking Congress for a waiver of the Jones Act, which would allow foreign vessels involved in the crisis to operate in American waters. However, that may not do much good. Louisiana boat owners who have volunteered to aid in clean-up efforts are complaining that bureaucratic red-tape is keeping them out of the water. On a positive note, the president did create another government commission. Leadership of the statesman variety–as opposed to the shirtsleeves and furrowed-brow-look-of-concern variety–would have the president with a large pair of scissors cutting through the red tape. A leader scours the private sector for the most knowledgeable folks he can find and asks for their help. He gets on the phone with our allies and says, “Yes! Please send me your experts!” He says to the governors of the Gulf States, “Tell me what you need.” Leadership is putting aside political agendas and mobilizing the power of the executive office in order to solve an immediate crisis. Leadership doesn’t always need big speeches or street corner bravado. Leadership can be quiet; it can be cool and determined. But if it isn’t focused and it isn’t active, it ain’t worth the price of admission to a “Spike Lee Joint.”

Link:
Obama’s Leadership Deficit

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

Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

No general should criticize his or her commander, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal is no exception. But the mainstream media is primarily concerned with the political fallout of McChrystal’s apparent insubordination as revealed by a piece in Rolling Stone . They are not concerned with whether his critiques are accurate, in stark contrast to other military officers’ critiques of war policy under the Bush administration. During Bush’s tenure, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy. None were scrutinized as McChrystal, pictured right, has been in the hours since Rolling Stone released its article. The most prominent active duty general to earn the media’s affection was Gen. Eric Shinseki, current Secretary of Veterans Affairs (to the media’s delight ). He insisted in 2003 that, contrary to Defense Department policy, the United States would need to send “hundreds of thousands” of troops to Iraq during the initial invasion. The media ate it up. “Top generals, including Eric Shinseki,” wrote the Boston Globe in 2004, “fault Pentagon leadership for not heeding their advice to deploy more ground forces before the invasion or to prepare adequately for the aftermath.” After Shinseki’s repudiation of official military policy prompted rebukes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the New York Times dubbed those rebukes “unusual” and went on to bemoan the fact that Shinseki “has not had more influence on the war planning and the allocation of forces,” in the words of another Army general. The Times also devoted a piece to active duty personnel’s criticisms of Rumsfeld and the Iraqi war effort generally. The article read, Long-simmering tensions between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the Iraqi battlefield that the Pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it… One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. “He wanted to fight this war on the cheap,” the colonel said. “He got what he wanted.”… Underlying the strains between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army, which began at the beginning of Mr. Rumsfeld’s tenure, are questions that challenge not only the Rumsfeld design for this war but also his broader approach to transforming the military. Instead of going on to examine the apparent problems with a military chain of command in which policymakers are criticized, the Times, the Globe, and many other media outlets used critiques from officers both named and anonymous to question the effectiveness and wisdom of American military policy. McChrystal’s statements could spur some discussion on whether President Obama is really up to the task in Afghanistan–the general is certainly is not the first to suggest it. Yet the media focus has been almost entirely trained on the general himself and on the supposed danger of a dysfunctional chain of command and a general who questions the president’s orders. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter today explained, in the words of his headline, ” Why Military Code Demands McChrystal’s Resignation .” “The most important issue at hand in the furor over Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s acerbic comments in Rolling Stone,” wrote Alter, “is the central one in a democracy: civilian control over the military.” Got it? The question is not whether McChrystal’s critiques of the administration could shine some light on an ineffective war effort or misguided military policies. No, unlike military criticism of Bush war policy, McChrystal’s comments spur discussion of the intricacies of a civilian-controlled military, not the specific policies employed by the civilian government and their consequences on the battlefield. Time’s Joe Klein applauded Mike Huckabee in 2007 for saying he “would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice.” But now Klein is far more concerned with the ” military tradition and practice ” violated by generals who speak out against their commanders than he is with the ongoing war effort. McChrystal was of course out of line. But media liberals who are only distraught at potential insubordination when the subordinate does not aid their political goals in speaking out are commentators whose opinions must be taken with a few grains of salt.

See the original post here:
Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

FIFA World Cup 2010: Germany vs Serbia Live Stream

Watch Germany vs Serbia Football Live Streaming Online , the live event of your favorite Football Soccer Team of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa soccer match between Germany and Serbia on their great match in Group D this June 18, exactly 13:30 local time and the game scheduled in Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth. 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 Germany vs Serbia. Watch it and enjoy, who’s gonna be the winner. FIFA World Cup 2010: Germany vs Serbia Live Stream FIFA World Cup 2010: Germany vs Serbia Live Stream is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Goooooooooaaaal!…Goal…goal…

Maybe he just doesn’t understand the object of the game.

Follow this link:
Goooooooooaaaal!…Goal…goal…

WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

The Washington Post ran a story slamming pollster Scott Rasmussen on Thursday on the front page of the Style section. Political reporter Jason Horowitz earnestly channeled the Democratic spin from the story’s beginning: ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Here is a fun fact for those in the political polling orthodoxy who liken Scott Rasmussen to a conjurer of Republican-friendly numbers: He works above a paranormal bookstore crowded with Ouija boards and psychics on the Jersey Shore. Here’s the fact they find less amusing: From his unlikely outpost, Rasmussen has become a driving force in American politics. Democrats surely dislike how Rasmussen’s polls (like this week’s showing Harry Reid losing by 11 points) affect the optimism of their donors and activists. But are his numbers accurate? The Post wanted its readers to know this guy Rasmussen was a scary conservative: he played guitar in a band in high school in Massachusetts called “Rebel’s Confederacy” (racist?!) and he quotes the Bible: He graduated from DePauw University and moved to Charlotte. There he married, started a family and became a devout Methodist. He is given to quoting Scripture, including the principle: “Let every man be quick to listen, but slow to speak, and slow to anger.” (James 1:19.) In the mid-1990s, Rasmussen had discovered the business model of automated polling, and folks he polled heard a recording of his wife reading poll questions. In 1998, heavy traffic crashed his site when Rush Limbaugh unexpectedly told listeners to visit. Two years later, in August 2000, Bill O’Reilly invited him onto his show. He wrote columns for the conservative site WorldNetDaily in 2000. In 2001, he wrote a book advocating the privatization of Social Security. But are his numbers accurate? The pull quote in the story as it continued on page C-9 attacked his professionalism for his newer methods: “The firm manages to violate nearly everything I was taught what a good survey should do.” — Mark Blumenthal, a founder of Pollster.com, speaking about Rasmussen Reports Then there’s this hilarious attack from Daily Kos veteran Nate Silver, soon, a new hire of the New York Times: He “faults Rasmussen for polling only likely voters, which reduces the pool to ‘political junkies.'” Adds Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center in agreement: “It paints a picture of an electorate that is potentially madder than it really is…And potentially more conservative than it really is.” Would it be wiser for a political candidate to focus on wooing unlikely voters? Jason Horowitz is dishonest for suggesting it’s Rasmussen versus the professionals — and not disclosing that Mark Blumenthal is identified correctly in others stories as a “Democratic pollster,” and not disclosing Nate Silver came from the hard-left Daily Kos, and not even hinting that the Pew Research Center is deeply invested in a series of liberal causes, and whose newest poll (also out Thursday) coos that “The president gets an enthusiastic thumbs up from the world (with the notable exception of the U.S.) for how he has handled the economic crisis.” They can even admit Rasmussen’s critics are liberals in the headline on C-9: “For some, pollster Rasmussen is a minus man.” For some? GOP pollster Ed Goeas, identified as a “Republican pollster,” defends Rasmussen but suggests he take on a Democrat to “balance his analysis” (or to please The Washington Post?) Rasmussen has a “conservative constituency” of Fox, The Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, adds pollster John Zogby insists. No one in the Post is going to suggest that perhaps a pollster for The Washington Post or The New York Times is a “liberal constituency.” How transparently odd. Just like the liberal media elite on a daily basis. For them, the playing field cannot be described as conservative professionals vs. liberal professionals — it’s upstart conservative peasants with pitchforks versus the established objective professionals who define the standards for everyone. Of course, Horowitz left out of his Rasmussen profile his latest poll showing how angry the public is with the media , that two-thirds of respondents are angry and say reporters slant the news to favor candidates they want to win. Instead, we get leftists dismissing Rasmussen numbers as “sorcery” that leads to conservative media bias:   Rasmussen said he is simply a “scorekeeper,” but his spike in clout has sharpened skepticism about how he tracks the dip in Democratic fortunes. Frustrated liberals suspect sorcery. Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos blog, has accused the pollster of “setting the narrative that Democrats are doomed” with numbers that fuel hours of Republican-boosting on talk radio and cable. Pardon conservatives if they might find it laughable that Markos Moulitsas as a polling professional, considering he concocts smear polls of “self-identified Republicans.” But are Rasmussen’s numbers accurate? The caption beneath Rasmussen’s picture brings the disturbing news for liberals: “Scott Rasmussen’s polling detected the groundswell for Scott Brown, who won the special election in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, earlier than most competitors.” That’s what has them worried about his ability to be a “driving force.”

Read more here:
WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals