Tag Archives: politics

Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?

There’s one big problem with the presentation of “ The Party, In Exile ,” Pamela Paul’s snobby but interesting front-page Sunday Styles section piece on so-called conservatism in exile. As Karol Sheinin noted on her Twitter feed  — it doesn’t feature many actual conservatives. The caption under John Cuneo’s illustration made the disparity clear: “Insiders On The Outside: Members of the conservative intellectual elite at a party include, clockwise from left, David Frum, Michael Oren, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, Laura Ingraham and Kathleen Parker.” Of those six names, only one (Laura Ingraham) would be unanimously waved in to a garden party strictly for “conservatives.” The prolific, peripatetic, atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, is a long-time socialist who allied with conservatives on the Iraq War and some other issues (Paul noted he is a member “of the disenchanted left”). Former Bush speechwriter David Frum’s main interest of late is lamenting the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker is an inconsistent conservative ally at best. Ayaan Hirsi Ali — in whose name the party was held — may qualify as conservative in some respects. Yet the brave feminist apostate from Islam, who currently works with the American Enterprise Institute, has only been in America for four years after being forced to flee Holland. Michael Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Otherwise, the ambience at this intimate cocktail and buffet in honor of the Somalian-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a woman who faced death threats even before she wrote a film that led to the murder of its director, Theo van Gogh — was one of ease. Wearing a Michelle Obama-esque sleeveless emerald dress and sipping wine, Ms. Hirsi Ali, who has spent recent weeks traveling to Britain, Denmark and her former country of refuge, the Netherlands, while on tour for her new book “Nomad,” warmly met guests as they circled in admiration. “Nice to see you,” total strangers said upon introduction, as if fearing the failure to recognize someone possibly met on a previous occasion. Or perhaps in certain Washington circles people assume they already know everyone else. Either way, here at the stately Wesley Heights home of the former Bush speechwriter, David (“axis of evil”) Frum, and his wife, the writer Ms. Frum, nearly everyone did. Far from the typical New York book party, this was more a bunkering of the conservative intellectual elite, a group that domineered its way through the Bush years but is now sidelined, a somewhat baffled shadow of its former blustery self. Whither the conservative establishment in today’s bilious political landscape? Certainly the typical Tea Party denizen, with his “I Wanna Party Like It’s 1773” T-shirt and “You Lie!” trucker hat, would seem out of place on the Frums’ well-tended grounds, nibbling chicken skewers and mini-B.L.T.’s. In the presence of Ms. Hirsi Ali, at least, there was a sense of shared purpose. Paul addressed the controversies surrounding Frum, who “lost his salaried post at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, in March, after calling the passage of health care legislation the Republican party’s ‘Waterloo.'” Also present was The Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, prom-girl pretty and winner of a Pulitzer this spring for “gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead her to unpredictable conclusions,” including a rebuke of Sarah Palin. “Like all the best conservatives, I started off as a liberal,” she trilled. In a similar display of the intellectual right’s discomfort with Wasilla-brand populism, Ms. Frum mocked a speech by Ms. Palin in April on The Huffington Post. (“There was not a single memorable line, not a single new political idea, not a single proffered solution beyond the cliché.”) And lending a poignant immediacy to the rejiggered state of affairs was the Republican Senator Robert Bennett, ousted last month in the Utah primary for his votes on health care and Wall Street reform. A certain kind of nomad, all. If you can get past the knee-jerk “ick, Palin!” snobbery and mockery of the Tea Party movement, the latter half of Paul’s party piece contained some interesting anecdotes about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Islamist turned crusader for women and her shunning by her supposed liberal allies. Paul, to her credit, illuminated an issue Times Watch has discussed — the prickly response from the liberal media to Hirsi Ali’s crusade for women’s rights and against Islam: Not surprisingly, though she favors both gay and abortion rights, Ms. Hirsi Ali has alienated what might otherwise be fellow liberal travelers in her crusade against religious oppression. In The New Yorker, Pankaj Mishra dismissed Ms. Hirsi Ali’s “simple oppositions” and “growing familiarity with right-wing touchstones.” The Los Angeles Times called “Nomad,” which is dedicated to the former president of A.E.I., an “anti-Islamic screed” and “a tough jeremiad to read.” The historian Timothy Garton Ash and the Dutch-born academic Ian Buruma have both written dismissively of Ms. Hirsi Ali to the point that the N.Y.U. professor Paul Berman devoted much of his new book, “The Flight of the Intellectuals,” to mounting a defense. The Times review of Berman’s tome is here.

Original post:
Meet the Conservative Intellectual Elite: Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Christopher Hitchens?

ABC Focuses Oil Spill Blame on BP and Coast Guard, Not Obama; CBS Gives President ‘C’ for Response

On Thursday’s Good Morning America on ABC, co-host George Stephanopoulos laid blame on BP and Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen for mishandling the Gulf oil spill response but depicted the Obama administration as having done everything it could. In contrast, on the CBS Early Show, guests from both sides of the aisle gave the President a ‘C’ grade for his response.   At the top of Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos described how BP CEO Tony Hayward would be facing a “public execution” in Thursday’s congressional hearings and how Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak promised to “slice and dice” Hayward. In a report that followed, correspondent Jonathan Karl furthered the theme of courageous Democrats standing up to the big oil villain: “Tony Hayward may be the most hated man in America. And he’s heading right into a buzz saw of congressional outrage. In his prepared testimony, Hayward declares, ‘I am deeply sorry.’ But the chairman of the committee says that’s not enough.” A clip of Democratic committee chairman Henry Waxman was played. Minutes later, Stephanopoulos interviewed Louisiana Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser and wondered: “…with everything the President and BP announced this week, do you think this is on the right track now?” After Nungesser expressed doubt about local fisherman being reimbursed for financial losses and a lack of organization in the response, Stephanopoulos deflected any criticism away from President Obama and suggested another target: “The White House has approved the building of berms, they’ve sent the boom down there, Admiral Allen is on the scene every day. Are you saying he is not giving you the help you need? And do you think he should keep his job?” Nungesser replied: “I don’t know if it’s Admiral Allen. I don’t know if the chain of command. Something’s not working.” Stephanopoulos pressed further: “So how does it get done? Is Admiral Allen the right man for the job right now?” The headline on-screen during the segment read: “Desperation On the Gulf; Residents Want More Action.” Meanwhile, on the Early Show, co-host Harry Smith invited Republican strategist Dan Bartlett and Democratic strategist Rob Zimmerman to grade President Obama’s handling of the disaster. Bartlett replied: “Well I think, Harry, anything above maybe a C-minus would be difficult to score.” Smith joked: ” ‘Gentleman’s C,’ we’ve heard that before.” Zimmerman actually graded on the same curve: “Harry, I’d have to agree with Dan. I’d give him a C on this, a C at this point.” Unlike the more generic ABC headline, the on-screen headline on CBS read: “Disaster in the Gulf: Day 59; What’s Next Step for Obama Administration?” Barlett later questioned the wisdom of the White House using the crisis to push controversial cap-and-trade energy legislation. Smith agreed with that concern, asking Zimmerman: “…you have to confess….At the end of the speech he says, ‘Well now it’s time for us to think about energy policy and this is a perfect, perfect jumping-off point,’ was that, as you watched, were you thinking, ‘Boy that’s a good idea,’ or were you thinking, ‘Not now, not now!'”   Zimmerman argued: “But unless we, in fact, put in place an aggressive energy policy, we run the risk of this tragedy happening all over again.” Smith agreed: “That goes without saying.” However, he reiterated: “But from a political standpoint, it’s not as if he’s saying, ‘Okay, I’ve solved all the problems, I have got the bully pulpit, I’ve got the momentum. Now’s the time to jump on this.'” On Tuesday, while the Early Show and NBC’s Today challenged White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the administration’s response, former Democratic strategist Stephanopoulos lobbed softballs to the Obama staff member. 

Read more from the original source:
ABC Focuses Oil Spill Blame on BP and Coast Guard, Not Obama; CBS Gives President ‘C’ for Response

Tea Partiers Boycott MSNBC Advertisers Over ‘Slanderous’ Documentary

Some Tea Party leaders are calling for conservatives to boycott MSNBC’s advertisers, after the network ran a documentary on June 16 that they say unfairly slandered the movement. Two of the Tea Party leaders interviewed in the Chris Matthews-narrated documentary are asking supporters to write, call and fax the offices of Dawn and its parent company Proctor and Gamble and request that they cease giving advertising dollars to Matthews’ “Hardball” program on MSNBC. FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey and Kitchen Table Patriots member Ana Puig jointly called the documentary a “propaganda piece” and urged Tea Party groups around the country to boycott Dawn products. “The program ‘Rise of the New Right’ was low-ball journalism at its worst,” said the Kitchen Table Patriots in a statement released today. “Chris Matthews and his Hardball program slandered the Tea Party movement, and misled the American people by distorting facts about the Tea Party movement, its motivations and its history.” Brendan Steinhauser, a grassroots director at FreedomWorks, noted that other groups like the American Grassroots Coalition, the National Tea Party Federation, Tea Party Nation and Liberty Central have also signed on to the boycott. Critics say that Matthews’ documentary smeared Tea Partiers as “violent,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “racists” by relying heavily on insinuations, heavily edited sound bites, and allegations from left-wing activist groups. The introduction of the video splices back-to-back shots of militia members firing guns with Tea Party protesters holding up signs criticizing President Obama’s policies, as ominous music droned in the background. In one segment, Matthews appeared to insinuate that FreedomWorks leader Armey is supportive of “birthers,” a group of fringe conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. “While not embracing birthers, many conservative leaders refuse to separate from them,” said Matthews in a voiceover that led in to an interview Matthews held with Armey. “Barack Obama’s citizenship, is that a real case or not?” asks Matthews. “There’s a venue for that. Probably in the courts,” Armey replied. But Steinhauser, who organizes FreedomWorks’ national events, says that any suggestion that Armey sympathizes with birthers is “just ridiculous.” “[The documentary] obviously didn’t give his full answer,” said Steinhauser. “At our events we’ve been approached by just about every birther in the book. We kept [birthers] Allan Keyes [and] Orly Taitz as far as possible from our big September 12 event. I told them ‘that’s not who we are – go have your own rally.’ The movement out and out rejects that.” And other facts presented in the documentary don’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. At one point in the video, Mark Potok, a director at the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) warned Matthews’ that “we’ve gone from numbers like, you know, 170 militias to well over 500.” But the SPLC’s most recent report on right-wing groups released in Spring 2010 claimed that it only defines 127 organizations in the U.S. as “militias.” Steinhauser said that getting the message out about the boycott is just the first step in the campaign. “This is just the beginning stages. We’ve got some other things planned down the road in the days and weeks to come,” he said. For further analysis of Matthews’ documentary, see Lachlan Markey’s Newsbusters report .

Original post:
Tea Partiers Boycott MSNBC Advertisers Over ‘Slanderous’ Documentary

Hit From Left Over Obama Criticism, Olbermann Quits Kos

When the vitriol is too much for Keith Olbermann, something is seriously wrong. The MSNBC prime time anchor parted ways with the far-left Web site Daily Kos on Wednesday, citing the site’s apparent unflinching, see-no-evil attitude towards President Obama, and the omnipresence of wild leftist conspiracy theories there. “You want Cheerleaders? Hire the Buffalo Jills,” Olbermann wrote . “You want diaries with conspiracy theories, go nuts. If you want this site the way it was even a year ago, let me know and I’ll be back.” The divorce came after Kossacks relentlessly railed on Olbermann for having the gall to criticize their dear leader for his let-down of a national address on Tuesday. He took to his Twitter account to defend the decision . Olbermann’s explanation apparently did not satisfy the Kossacks, one of whom wrote that Olbermann had “transformed from Edward Murrow wannabe to a clown.” But what really got Olbermann riled up were some of the comments on that post. The one that he chose to highlight accused him and his MSNBC superiors of fabricating their outrage over the president’s address in an attempt to improve ratings. That Keith did not appreciate. And now he’s gone. Are you happy, Kossacks?

Originally posted here:
Hit From Left Over Obama Criticism, Olbermann Quits Kos

Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

What do Tea Partiers, Truthers, birthers, Birchers, militias, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Barry Goldwater, Joe McCarthy, Father Coughlin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Orly Taitz, and Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh all have in common? Approximately nothing, but don’t tell Chris Matthews. The MSNBC “Hardball” host spent the better part of an hour last night trying to associate all of these characters with one other. Of course he did not provide a shred of evidence beyond, ironically, a McCarthyite notion that all favor smaller government, and are therefore in league, whether they know it or not, to overthrow the government. Together, by Matthews’s account, they comprise or have given rise to the “New Right.” The special was less a history of the Tea Party movement than a history of leftist distortions of the Tea Party movement. As such, it tried — without offering any evidence, mind you — to paint the movement as potentially violent. Hence, after Matthews tried his hardest to link all of these characters, he went on to paint them all as supporting, inciting, or actually committing violence. Matthews trotted out Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center to claim that “one spark” could set the militia movement off into a violent frenzy. But Matthews used the statement not to indict the militias Potok was discussing, but rather as evidence that the Tea Party movement at-large is a violent one. Set aside for a moment the fact that Potok is nothing but a partisan hack with a pathetic track record of predicting violence, the B-roll footage while the thoroughly-discredited Potok was making these predictions was footage of the 9/12 Tea Party rally in Washington. This is what Matthews did throughout the special: splice together clips of militias firing weapons with Tea Party protesters in order to create a mental association between the groups. That there is no evidence whatsoever linking Tea Parties to militia groups, nor incidents of violence occurring at rallies, did not dissuade the former Jimmy Carter staffer. Matthews simply chose the unseemly route of trying to associate the numerous characters in his special without any evidence to back up his claims. The only connection that Matthews managed to legitimately draw between the Tea Party and militia groups — indeed, between any of the long list of characters mentioned above– is their aversion to government intervention in their daily lives. That’s right, in the same segment in which Matthews ragged against the late Joe McCarthy, he associated Tea Parties with the Hutaree Militia because both have a distaste for big government (the latter much stronger than the other, obviously). By Matthews’s logic, every American who has qualms with some element of capitalism is complicit in, and supports, openly or not, radical anarcho-socialist violence perpetrated at the G-8, or any other incident of leftist violence (and there have been many of late). Matthews himself has touted the wonders of the ” social state .” So he must support, or at least acknowledge the justifiability of folks who wish to violently overthrow the government and impose a socialist system. That is the only logical conclusion, if we accept Matthews’s premises. Such hypocrisy is rife in the special: if folks associated with the Tea Party use words like “revolution,” they must be literally advocating violence, whereas when mainstream leftists literally advocate violence , they are not worth mentioning. The special’s rank hypocrisy continues right through Matthews’s final monologue. “Words have consequences,” he states. “You cannot call a president’s policies ‘un-American,’ as Sarah Palin has done,” he claims. Or, Matthews forgot to add, as Salon Editor Joan Walsh and Time columnist Joe Klein have done, the former on Matthews’s show and the latter on another MSNBC program. You can’t “refer to the elected government as a ‘regime'” by Matthews’s account, unless, presumably, you are Chris Matthews or a host of other MSNBC personalities , in which case it is permissible. Given that the special really offered no new insight into the Tea Party movement — just the same cliches the Left has regurgitated since the fall of last year — it is hardly surprising, though worth mentioning, that neither Matthews nor any of his cohorts seem to remember their total lack of concern over the potential for anti-government violence during the Bush administration. A movie depicting the assassination of George W. Bush , the plethora of signs at anti-war rallies calling for his death , the litany of incidents of violence committed by leftist groups in the recent past — none of these things were particularly worrisome for the Left throughout Bush’s term. In all of these ways, the “Rise of the New Right” special was just more of the same.

Read the original here:
Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

You know why President Obama’s Gulf Coast oil spill address from the Oval Office failed so miserably on Tuesday? It went over too many heads. At least that’s what the folks at CNN.com believe. Maybe that’s why the so-called geniuses at MSNBC didn’t like it – it went over Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Howard Fineman’s heads! Even more absurd in this piece  by the CNN Wire Staff is that it completely ignored how Obama’s speech patterns when he addresses the nation are at a lower grade level than those of George W. Bush (h/t Lachlan Markay): Tuesday night’s speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture. Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence “added some difficulty for his target audience,” Payack said. At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said. Obama’s nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 “Yes, we can” victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said. Got that? The supposedly smartest president in history on Tuesday night was speaking at less than a 10th-grade level. But that was TOO complicated for the television audience to understand. This genius is FAR MORE effective when he speaks like a 7th-grader! Yet George W. Bush was an idiot, right? Apparently not according to an analysis published at Smart Politics on January 29, 2009, after Obama’s first State of the Union address: Text of Obama’s Address has a readability score for an average 8th grader – two grades lower than George W. Bush’s Addresses and the historical average for modern presidents.  Shhh. Wait. It gets MUCH better:  Unlike the criticisms hurled at his predecessor, however, few have ever charged that the President, a former senior lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has written or spoken too simplistically or catered his words to the lowest common denominator. However, a Smart Politics analysis of nearly 70 oral State of the Union Addresses since the mid-1930s finds the text of Obama’s speech on Wednesday evening to have one of the lowest scores on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test ever recorded by a U.S. President. The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores. Smart Politics ran the Flesch-Kincaid test on each of the last 68 State of the Union Addresses that were delivered orally by presidents before a Joint Session of Congress since Franklin Roosevelt. Excluded from analysis were five written addresses (Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower in 1961, Nixon in 1973, and Carter in 1981) and two addresses that were delivered orally, but not by the President himself (Roosevelt in 1945, Eisenhower in 1956). Prior to FDR, most, but not all, such Addresses were delivered in writing. Obama’s Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of 8.8 for his first State of the Union Address was the fourth lowest score since FDR’s first Address in 1934. What this means is that Obama wrote and delivered a speech that incorporated shorter sentences, with those sentences containing shorter words, than nearly every such Presidential Address in the modern era.   Remember: he’s supposedly the smartest president in history! So now see how he compares to the so-called idiot he replaced:  As such, the speech by ‘the professor’ stands in contrast to his predecessor, ‘the cowboy,’ George W. Bush, who was frequently skewered by the left and late-night talk show hosts for his public speaking abilities, his intelligence, and his misuse of the English language. Bush averaged a Flesch-Kincaid score of 10.4 across his seven State of the Union Addresses – or nearly two full grades higher than Obama’s speech. Bush’s speeches also averaged 2.4 more words per sentence than Obama, at 19.0. In other words, the text of George W. Bush’s speeches are expected to be understandable (in written form) by an average sophomore in high school, whereas Obama’s speech should be understandable by a junior high school student. Interestingly, George W. Bush’s 10.4 Flesch-Kincaid score was also higher than several of his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan (10.3), Bill Clinton (9.5), and his father George H.W. Bush (8.6). Still, it is, at the very least, interesting that ‘the professor’ should write and deliver a speech that has a readability level two grades lower than those crafted and delivered by ‘the cowboy.’ Interesting indeed. Yet despite speaking to the nation at a higher grade level than Obama does — and did on Tuesday! — Dubya was certainly never “accused” of being too professorial. Facts really are a stupid thing as are the depths liberal media members will sink to explain why this president is failing so miserably.

See the original post:
Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

Open Thread: A Striking Image

Rasmussen has a number of interesting findings , but this image sums it all up well: The poll was also taken before the President’s disastrous Gulf spill address. Thoughts?

Read more here:
Open Thread: A Striking Image

Shill Baby Shill: Rachel Maddow’s Oily Misdirection From Democrats Supporting Offshore Drilling

There are lies, damned lies and statistics, so the saying goes. Add Rachel Maddow’s lies of omission to the list. Maddow is doing her best to shield MSNBC viewers from awkward facts about political support for offshore drilling. Here’s how she began her show on Monday, with an announcement from July 2008 by then-President George W. Bush —  BUSH: For years my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. … One of the most important steps we can take to expand American oil production is to increase access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, or what’s called the OCS. … Today I’ve issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. MADDOW: That was President George W. Bush in July 2008 lifting the presidential ban on offshore oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. It was a presidential ban that had been first put in place by President Bush’s dad in 1990 after the big Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. Here was why Bush the second said he was lifting the drilling ban of Bush the first — BUSH: New advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. MADDOW: See, the technology is so safe now there’s no need to worry about oil spills any more. Now as I mentioned, President George W. Bush here was rescinding the presidential drilling ban that his father had put in place after the Exxon Valdez disaster. He was sort of trying to box Congress in, into repealing Congress’s drilling ban as well. Congress’s ban was even older than the presidential ban. Congress’s ban had been put in place starting in the early 1980s. BUSH: With this action, the executive branch’s restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the US Congress. … But Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s.  Maddow’s misdirection begins here — MADDOW: Well, why had Congress done that? Why had Congress restricted offshore drilling since the early 1980s? Ah, because of this. (Footage shown of Ixtoc oil spill) The Ixtoc oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. It blew up in 1979. They did not cap it until well into 1980. It released an estimated 140 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In trying to figure out what to do about that, Congress decided to put a moratorium on drilling in hundreds of thousands of acres of federal waters. Sorry, no more drilling. Did you see what just happened, people?! After a huge spill like that, you can see how politicians at the time maybe might want to stop and reassess things for a while. After the big Ixtoc disaster, that’s what Congress did. After the big Exxon Valdez disaster, that’s what the first President Bush did. And after the most recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf, that’s what President Obama has done, implementing a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling.  Moratoriums on drilling are what we have done in the past to respond to big oil disasters. The idea, presumably, is that we’re going to make drilling safer before we allow it to expand again. And even though President Bush touted that supposed improved safety back in 2008 when he was lifting the presidential moratorium, we no longer have to take anyone’s sober assurances about things like that. That issue has now been factually, conclusively settled. Notice what Maddow does — Bush the younger is depicted as an irresponsible outlier, running against the grain in comparison to three other parties: Congress imposing its moratorium in the early 1980s, Bush senior issuing his presidential ban in 1990, and Obama ordering a six-month moratorium after the BP spill. What Maddow couldn’t bring herself to acknowledge in the excerpt quoted above, nor in the entirety of the opening segment on Monday ( linked here ), is that Congress — and a Democrat-led Congress at that — ended the offshore drilling moratorium in September 2008, two months after the younger Bush’s announcement. Nor could Maddow bear to divulge the equally awkward fact that Obama came around to Bush’s enthusiasm for offshore drilling — weeks before the deadly Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20. This deceitful whitewashing, however, pales compared to the shabbiness from Maddow last night while reporting on five oil company CEOs testifying before a House Energy subcommittee (second part of embedded video) — MADDOW: For oil industry executives, even the biggest accidental blowout ever, 140 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, even Ixtoc, even that is apparently not a big deal when they think about their own industry. It’s not part of what they’ve learned about oil and oil companies and drilling. It’s not something that they talk about, it’s not a term they’re familiar with, it’s apparently, if you’re the head of an oil company, if you’re the CEO of an oil company, it’s apparently something you’ve never even heard of before. Footage is then shown from that day’s subcommittee hearing attended by executives from BP America, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips, and this question from Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. — WHITFIELD: I was reading an article about a well referred to as I-X-T-O-C 1, which I think was back in 1978 or ’79. … Are any of you familiar with the history of that particular well blowing in the Gulf? Any of you aware of the facts of that? Whereupon audio from the footage is silenced, a BP America executive begins to answer but cannot be heard, and Maddow makes this bizarre claim — MADDOW:  Yeah, we didn’t edit that to take away the sound. That’s them, they just, blank stares all around. Except for the man I just censored to keep you from hearing him speak. Except for that. When Maddow does things like this, is her rule of thumb — What Would Mao Do? Where Maddow sees blank stares, I see noncommittal responses from four oil executives to an exercise in Kabuki theater guilt by association. (For those interested in what BP America chairman Lamar McKay had to say, here is a link to C-SPAN’S coverage of the hearing; go to 1:30:52 in the clip . C-SPAN helpfully keeps the audio intact for the entire segment).

See more here:
Shill Baby Shill: Rachel Maddow’s Oily Misdirection From Democrats Supporting Offshore Drilling

Joe Scarborough Defends Obama’s Speech, Gives Soft Interview to Axelrod

MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews felt a “thrill” up his leg when Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. Keith Olbermann’s leftist bias was great enough to merit a Saturday Night Live parody of his show “Countdown With Keith Olbermann.” And yet both trashed President Obama’s Oval Office speech on Tuesday. “Maybe I missed something. I thought it was a great speech if you’ve been on another planet for the last 57 days,” Olbermann remarked. Matthews said that he didn’t “sense executive command.” But Joe Scarborough, who has repeatedly thrown his support behind President Obama’s handling of the crisis, thought the speech “struck all the right notes,” and was in disbelief on his morning show over the media’s general distaste for the speech. Scarborough then hosted David Axelrod for an interview that can only be described as a barrage of softballs. “I just wonder if this is a season, that, no matter what the President’s doing, he is going to get hit by both sides right now?” Scarborough asked Axelrod, senior advisor to President Obama. “He gives a speech that you guys thought struck all the right notes, as did we,” he said to Axelrod. “Gets hammered. What’s the next step? What is the knitting process? What do you do now?” Donny Deutsch, advertising executive and chairman of Deutsch, Inc., chimed in later to pledge his affection for Obama’s speech. “I thought it was a great speech, by the way,” he assured Axelrod. “I don’t know what I would have done different.” He then decided to give the administration some advice, in the form of a question. “If I was in your inner circle, I would say the 20 minutes today with BP is the opportunity,” he told Axelrod. “There is a clear bad guy here. With everything that goes wrong in the world, we need the perp-walk. I would say he can’t spank them hard enough.” Axelrod delivered his answer. But Deutsch wasn’t satisfied. “David, even your answer to me was very methodical. I want to see anger in your eyes. That’s what the American public wants.” The overall interview lasted eight minutes. The segments including Joe Scarborough and Donny Deutsch are included below. The transcripts of the segments, which aired June 16 at 7:21a.m. and 7:26a.m., EDT, are as follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: David, I just wondered–you’ve been in politics a long time. This happens to every politician. I just wonder if this is a season, that, no matter what the President’s doing, he is going to get hit by both sides right now. DAVID AXELROD: Yeah, I think that that’s probably true, Joe. And you know, one of the things that we’ve learned over a long period of time through a very long campaign and in this building, is that you just got to stick to your knitting. You got to keep doing your work, you got to keep moving forward. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Keep your head down, yeah, keep your head down. So what does the president do? He follows up on a speech. He follows up, as I was saying last bloc, on the very successful Gulf Coast tour where a lot of conservatives were very pleased with the President, liked what he was doing. He gives a speech that you guys thought struck all the right notes, as did we. Gets hammered. What’s the next step? What is the knitting process? What do you do now? DAVID AXELROD: Well, first of all, I think as to the speech, I think he imparted the information that needed to be imparted to the American people about where we are, what we are going to do to make the people in the Gulf whole and hold BP accountable, how we are going to clean this thing up and how we are going to deal with the problems that led to it. And he made a strong pitch for a new energy policy. It was an important presentation. In terms of what we’re–I mean, we have a meeting with BP today to deal with the issue of claims and putting money in an escrow account so that–independently administered–so that people have some confidence that they can–down there who have been hurt by this–that they can get some recompense for the money that they’ve lost. We’re going to  talk to them about some of the containment strategies, and what we need to do to make that–to accelerate that process. Obviously, he’s going to follow up with members of the senate on the Energy–on the Energy bill. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Okay. DAVID AXELROD: So we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. And then there’s the day-to-day work of trying to intercept this oil and protect the coast and protect the people as best that we can. (…) (7:26 a.m. EDT) DONNY DEUTSCH, chairman of Deutsch, Inc.: David, you know, I’m one of the–I thought it was a great speech, by the way. I don’t know what I would have done different. If I was whispering in your ear, and tell me if you’d say ‘Donny, I agree with you’– DAVID AXELROD: You are whispering in my ear! DONNY DEUTSCH: If I was in your inner circle, I would say the 20 minutes today with BP is the opportunity. There is a clear bad guy here. With everything that goes wrong in the world, we need the perp-walk. I would say he can’t spank them enough. Wherever you’re going to kick them–he’s going to kick ass–kick harder. I’d say, “David, tell them to do that.” What would your response be to that? DAVID AXELROD: Well my response is we have one mission, and one mission–and that mission is to make sure that the people of the Gulf are made whole, that BP pays every dime they owe, that this–that there’s an independent administrator to make sure that that happens, that they do everything they need to to collect as much oil as they can. And it’ll be clear, I think, to them and to the country that that is–that that is not a negotiable–those are not negotiable issues. DONNY DEUTSCH: David, even your answer to me was very methodical. I want to see anger in your eyes. That’s what the American public wants. (Crosstalk) DONNY DEUTSCH: Everything you said is right. It’s like, “There’s a bad guy out there. There’s a bad–there’s somebody with a black hat out there. This oil company– (Crosstalk) DAVID AXELROD: You’re a–I know you’re not just a creative genius but you’re a great businessman. And you understand that the best way to express yourself is to take from the company what they owe and put it away, and make sure that people are taken care of. That is–you know, that is much more important, I think, to the people of the Gulf than sort of contrived expressions. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Kicking ass. DAVID AXELROD: I think that everybody down there–everybody down there who met with the President understood his sense of connection, his sense of advocacy. But they weren’t asking him to get angry, they were asking him to get results. They were asking him to get the money from BP that they are owed, and to restore the Gulf.

Follow this link:
Joe Scarborough Defends Obama’s Speech, Gives Soft Interview to Axelrod

Doing the Job Media Won’t Do: Fact-checking Obama’s Gulf Spill Address

Plenty of prominent media figures were upset with President Obama over his substandard address to the nation last night ( full text ). While most are distraught, none seem to be doing what should be the essential journalistic task of the day: pointing out all of the factual misstatements the president made. So, in absence of a serious attempt at fact-checking from the legacy media, let us undertake some of our own. In all, the president misrepresented the federal government’s–and especially his cabinet’s–role in creating the conditions that led to the spill, the state of the nation’s oil reserves, and his own administration’s involvement with BP. Futhermore, his transition from discussing the Gulf spill to advocating “clean energy” legislation was a huge logical leap, and one that necessarily misrepresents the problems the nation faces with regard to energy. The latter was perhaps the president’s most subtle sleight of hand. He claimed the Gulf spill is “the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.” Now, if the president had stated the spill is a reminder that the nation needs to get off of oil–that disasters like this are an unfortunate, if rare consequence of harvesting crude oil–he would have had a point. But that is not what he said. He claimed the disaster underscores the need for “clean” energy, which presumably does not include coal, the dirtiest of them all. But the Gulf spill has no bearing on coal energy. Also intended to promote the “clean energy” cause was Obama’s misleading statement that “Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America.” In fact, as the Heritage Foundation notes , China “will account for nearly 45% of oil demand growth in the next five years, receives 70% of its energy from coal already, and is projected to nearly triple coal capacity by 2030.” Say what you will about clean energy or coal, but the president’s advocacy of his own energy agenda despite the facts was as obvious as it was unseemly. Moving forward, Obama also misrepresented the state of the oil industry itself. He claimed that Americans “consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” “This howler,” writes John Hinderaker at Power Line, “is a favorite canard of Democratic politicians”:  As is so often the case, they are relying on the public’s ignorance. Most people don’t realize that in the U.S., oil isn’t counted as part of our “reserves” unless it is legally available for drilling. Thus, ANWR, to take one of many examples, isn’t counted toward the total “reserves.” The U.S. government could cause our reserves to skyrocket overnight by opening new areas, on land and in shallow water, to drilling. But the U.S. is the only country in the world that has deliberately chosen not to develop its own energy resources. No one else is that dumb. So the reason oil companies drill a mile beneath the water is not that there are not ample supplies of crude in other parts of the United States, but rather that the federal government does not permit drilling in so many of those areas. According to Kiplinger Magazine (by way of the American Thinker ), “untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.” Not surprisingly, the misdeeds of the oil industry were, of course, a frequent refrain in the president’s speech. But he also misrepresented that industry’s culpability by claiming “time and again, the path forward [to further regulation] has been blocked…by oil industry lobbyists.” What the president conveniently neglected to mention, however, was that BP has been an advocate of most of his energy agenda. As the Examiner’s Tim Carney reminds us : BP “has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels… BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas. Though the company left USCAP, it did not stop lobbying for cap and trade, and later “signed off” on Senate cap and trade legislation as well as explicitly lobbied for a higher gas tax. So Obama’s insistence the oil industry has opposed relevant regulations tooth and nail is less than accurate. While Obama was placing as much unearned blame at industry’s feet as possible, he was also sidestepping his own administration’s complicity in the crisis. He stated towards the beginning of his speech: A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe –- that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. That obviously was not the case in the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. Well, perhaps he should ask his cabinet members–you know, the ones he just put in charge of the new commission investigating the incident. On March 31 in a speech at Andrews Air Force Base, he told the nation that Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and climate czar Carol Browner had assured him that additional Gulf Coast drilling would be safe. But the president of course did not put the blame at their feet. In fact, as Byron York noted : [I]n this moment of crisis, Obama is relying on the same team that earlier gave him “the assurance that [offshore drilling] would be absolutely safe” — advice that he now openly says was wrong. And what is the “green team” telling him now? That it is impossible to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf. Politico’s Mike Allen channels West Wing thought this way: The Gulf gusher is a battle we can’t win. So we had to make this tragedy about something bigger than the liveshot of spewing oil. So having surrendered on the challenge of stopping the oil, Obama tried to redirect the public’s attention away from the spill and onto the political debate over a cap-and-trade bill. The short version of the strategy: Give up and change the subject. Like everything else Obama has tried so far in the Gulf crisis, it won’t work. Indeed. 

See the original post:
Doing the Job Media Won’t Do: Fact-checking Obama’s Gulf Spill Address