Tag Archives: polls

Bozell Column: The Real Radio Hatemongers

Posted on August 25, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Last week, Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced on CNN that she was hanging up her headphones at the end of the year. If she could not exercise her freedom of speech, she said, she was not interested in the job. Watchdogs on the left had pounced on a conversation she had with a black woman in which she proclaimed something that everyone with cable TV knows is true. The N-word is acceptable vernacular for black comedians on HBO, but it’s not something you can ever, ever say if you’re not black. While making this point, Dr. Laura purposely said the N-word repeatedly during this proclamation, and that was all the Left needed to start contacting sponsors, suggesting they shouldn’t want their products associated with this viciously racist talk show. It didn’t matter that even liberal editorialists in The Washington Post declared that there was nothing at all racist in what the doctor said. The Left had found their to chance to silence her, and they pounced. All they needed to do was distort the context completely, and they did so masterfully. The hypocrites.  Leftists say outrageous things on the radio routinely, things they truly mean, too, and those remarks never see the light of day on ABC, CBS, and NBC. Talking about the N-word is wrong but wishing death on political enemies is okay when the rhetorical bombs are dropped on conservatives. The Media Research Center has a new report chronicling who the real radio hatemongers are. Start with Ed Schultz, perpetually out of control on MSNBC. On June 16, 2009, Joe Scarborough asked Schultz if he felt Dick Cheney hoped Americans would die in a terrorist attack so it would benefit Republicans. “Absolutely, absolutely,” said Schultz. “I think Dick Cheney is all about seeing this country go conservative on a hard-right wing and I think he’ll do anything to get it there.” On the radio on August 11, 2009, Schultz spewed: “Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” This might be what they call projection coming from Schultz, since he begged for Cheney to die. “Lord, take him to the Promised Land,” he proclaimed on May 11, 2009. Or take Montel Williams, the former TV talk show host who had a brief tenure on Air America radio before it imploded. On July 21, 2009, he explained what conservatives had planned for uninsured Americans: “When they show up at the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!…Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” Reporters scream in protest over anyone calling Obama a socialist but they don’t find anything scandalous in vicious lies like these. Randi Rhodes aired a February 2008 radio skit where she bizarrely imagined the Mitt Romney campaign saying they would go on a shooting rampage and commit mass suicide if John McCain won the GOP nomination. She had one Republican claim: “As a true Republican, I’m prepared to poison my own children if John McCain is the nominee.” Left-wing radio hosts even blame their conservative counterparts for 9/11. I’m not kidding. Mike Malloy shouted at his opponents on January 19, 2010: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” Has any conservative ever said anything remotely similar to this? He also claimed on April 19, 2010 that Beck and Limbaugh rejoiced over the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995: “This is what Beck and Limbaugh and the rest of these right-wing freaks want to see happen again. And again. And again. Endlessly.” Perhaps Malloy is granted an exception because he sounds clinically insane. He has claimed Rep. Michele Bachmann “would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps.” He has claimed Cheney “must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby.” He has claimed that the mild-mannered Fred Barnes “is beyond crazy. I’m sure he eats children’s arms or legs for afternoon snacks.” Then consider this: Mike Malloy was a news writer for CNN for years. Ed Schultz was awarded a platform on MSNBC for his hatred. Those supposed guardians of civility in our liberal media are not bowing their heads in embarrassment. They are nodding their heads in agreement. 

More:
Bozell Column: The Real Radio Hatemongers

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

Posted on August 25, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In late July, a Government Accountability Office report circulated which analyzed stimulus funding being spent by the Department of Energy.  The main gist of that report involved the cost of each job being generated by the stimulus bill – a staggering $194,000.  Tucked away in that report was a phrase that was new to most of us, a way to calculate jobs through a term called ‘lives touched’. Last week it was confirmed that some departments being funded by the stimulus are indeed using the metric ‘lives touched’ – a regression from the absurd ‘jobs saved or created’, which was already a step down from the incalculable ‘jobs created’. A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains: “Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act. Essentially, the Obama administration had figured out another way to inflate job numbers to better fit their claims of success.  And yet, the media has remained largely silent on this matter.  Even as Vice-President Biden released a report on the Recovery Act yesterday, with a specific focus on the Department of Energy and job creation. Below is an outline of how the administration and the DOE are collaborating to inflate their numbers by measuring the number of ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus bill. In their remarks , Vice-President Biden and DOE Secretary Chu reference job creation several times (emphasis mine throughout). Biden:   “… the Recovery Act’s $100 billion investment in innovation is not only transforming the economy and creating new jobs … Chu:  “…these breakthroughs are helping create tens of thousands of new jobs …” Biden:  “We’re planting the seeds of innovation, but private companies and the nation’s top researchers are helping them grow, launching entire new industries, transforming our economy and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the process.” The Biden report being cited, The Recovery Act: Transforming the American Economy Through Innovation , references several companies that have generated jobs through the Recovery Act.  Each footnote in the report explains that the job estimates are from a company’s own reports, which is the norm for reporting job results through the recovery website. Referring back to the CH2M company, we know that their reports include a directive to use numbers which estimate ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus.  We not only know this from the spokesperson’s explanation of the metric above, but by the reporting instructions provided to subcontractors which defines the phrase as “(the) total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a … contract.” One hour of work and your life has been touched.  Additionally, the instructions state that, “The lives touched headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts.  The total headcount will never decrease.” In other words, a temporary, part-time, or seasonal worker can come into a project, work no more than one hour on said project, and that person will continue to appear in the headcount with each report.  They will not be removed upon their departure from the project. The DOE themselves have also confirmed this metric.  Spokesman Cameron Hardy explains: “Lives touched” represents the cumulative number of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers that have been employed with EM Recovery Act funds at some point since the start of the program in April 2009.  As of June 30, 2010, the lives touched number is more than 24,000 and we have 10,500 full-time Recovery Act workers, working across the DOE Complex. The metric, according to the DOE, was developed by the Office of Environmental Management “to capture all workers that have been employed under the Recovery Act.”  But why the need to capture all workers, when some may have only worked a mere hour on a project, or who have only supported a project in some manner?  Simply put, to inflate the numbers. The GAO report claims that calculations from the DOE “ranged from about 5,700 jobs to 20,200, depending on the methodology used.”   What is the harm in providing an overall headcount, as long as it remains separate from official job reports?  Well, it turns out that they can’t seem to keep things separate. When these numbers are presented publicly and then parroted through the mainstream media who have clearly not done their homework, as was the case with yesterday’s Biden report, the result is deceit.  The administration provided job estimates while failing to provide any context or explanation as to how the numbers were derived. An example of this can be seen in an April News Flash provided by the Office of Environmental Management.  The chart on the right tallies up the total headcount or ‘lives touched’ as 20,249.  A statement on the left claims that “EM Recovery Act funding has employed over 20,000 workers on stimulus projects in 12 states.”  Which is it, employed or touched? A contract award summary for the National Opinion Research Center speaks volumes of the disparity.  In their ‘description of jobs created’ section, they explain how the numbers are derived: “…the total headcount, (the number of ‘lives touched’ or, the number of people who have labor hours funded by stimulus funds, not distinguishing between part-time and full-time, or the length of the job, as of June 30th is a combined total of 480 staff members hired/retained as of the end of the quarter.” The summary then goes on to explain that only 2 of the 480 jobs being discussed were newly created positions.  Two jobs, but a grand total of 480 are being reported.  That’s a markup up of 24,000%. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. It’s all part of the overall deception, however.  The White House continues to throw out random numbers in their quest to convince the public that their behemoth stimulus bill is saving jobs at a massive rate.  Whether it is created, saved, funded, or touched, the Obama administration’s smoke and mirrors tactics continue.  Perhaps that will change.  Perhaps the American people will see right through these lies. Perhaps the polls in November will clearly demonstrate how many lives are being touched by the stimulus bill – in a negative way. Crossposted at The Mental Recession

Read the original:
Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

Posted on August 25, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

I have no idea what is going to happen in the November congressional elections, but it seems the polls — for what they’re worth — predict a huge Republican win. It may or may not happen, I just don’t know, but if it does and the aisles of Congress are littered with Democrats who will be kicked out in the New Year, will they feel they don’t have anything to lose and try to pass the remainder of their socialistic agenda before they’re forced to leave. And if lame duck Democrats try to do this will the Republicans and remaining Democrats who will return have the guts and the honor to block them? Will they let cap and trade, card check and all the other catastrophic crap they have proposed be passed? America has not even begun to feel the lash of Obama’s whip from the legislation his sycophants have already passed. The cost of health care insurance is already going up in anticipation of the restrictions Obamacare will put on insurance companies. The federal unemployment numbers continue to hover right around 10% and there’s no telling what the actual numbers are. The economy is headed for the pits and you could run out of ink trying to add all the zeros to the national debt. How much more can this nation take? We may well find out with a lame duck Congress, a room full of ticked off losers who want to show the country that they’ll still have their way although the very programs they would be passing into law are what got them kicked out of office to start with. But let’s just get something straight; just because somebody has an “R” after their name doesn’t mean they are the kind of conservatives it will take to undo some of the damage Obama and the Democrats have done. Remember some of them were bitter disappointments voting for bills they knew their constituents were against and some of them sold out for favors only them and Obama’s operatives know about. I don’t claim to know what it will take to bring America out this morass we’re in but there are a few common sense factors that are tried and true. The old Democrat mantra, “tax cuts for the rich” is misleading it’s not the rich they’re hurting when they raise taxes. The rich people are going to get along just fine. They’ll just hang on to their money instead of investing it in businesses to create more jobs. The card check proposal is nothing short of ridiculous. What business is it of anybody’s how somebody casts their vote for union leadership or anything else for that matter? This just opens someone up for intimidation and ostracizing and subverts the very heart of the Democratic process. Nobody even knows how the health care fiasco will play out, even those in Congress who sold out the people who voted them in to pass it. But there’s something I can guarantee you; the cost of health care will go up instead of going down as Obama said it would. In fact it’s going way up. If nothing else, the new bureaucracies it will take to administer and enforce it will see to that. Obama is insincere in really wanting to do something to bring down the cost of health care as no meaningful bill could possible leave out tort reform. If we’re not going to let our troops win the war in Afghanistan, we should just write off that part of the world and bring them home. Why keep dribbling American lives down the drain in a country where most of the people don’t want us there to start with. The only way we’ll ever destroy the Taliban is to accept tremendous collateral damage to the civilian population and evidently we’re never going to do that so why stay? A year or so after we pull the troops out of Iraq that country will go right back to what it was except this time the mullahs in Iran will be calling the shots. The most dangerous and powerful enemy in that part of the world is Iran; they export terrorism and arm our enemies. Until something meaningful is done about them our efforts in that part of the world are meaningless and any victory is temporary. Playing politics with the energy production in this country is going to play out to be a stupid and horribly costly mistake because one day. Sooner than later, the oil from the Persian Gulf will suddenly stop coming to this country. We should be drilling in ANWR, and the shale deposits in our western states and bring these sources on line before this catastrophe happens. I agree that we should be pursuing alternative energy sources for all we’re worth, but let’s face it… We’ve been pursuing them for years and are not anywhere near the point that we can depend on them. Let’s go for it, make an all out effort to harness wind and water, create fuel cells, build nuclear plants, discover non-food supply sources of ethanol. But in the meantime, we’re going to need petroleum and we’re not going to get it by the feeble and superficial gestures the federal government is making. You want alternative energy? Make it profitable for the private sector. Get out of their way and it will happen. A government that sues a state for keeping the law and turns a blind eye to sanctuary cities for breaking it is seriously out of balance and needs to have its priorities adjusted. Let’s hope that will happen in November.

See more here:
The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

NBC’s Chuck Todd Projects ‘Democrats Are In Deep, Deep Trouble’

Posted on August 24, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

If Democrats weren’t nervous about November’s midterm elections yet, they could soon be, especially when you consider that even their allies in the liberal media are starting to forecast doom for them, as NBC’s Chuck Todd did on Tuesday’s Today show, going as far to predict “Democrats are in deep, deep trouble.” Todd, appearing in the 7am half hour of this morning’s Today show explained to viewers that ” The Tea Party has provided an enthusiasm boost to the Republican Party,” however he reminded Democrats that they still had “six weeks to turn this around” but then added that “if they don’t, they are headed for an historical defeat in November.” Interestingly though Todd and his NBC colleague Kelly O’Donnell, in her set up piece, didn’t exactly paint a big Republican win as a defeat for liberals, as they couldn’t even bring themselves to attach that label to any Democrats running in 2010. While Todd and O’Donnell used the “conservative” label a total of four times between them, neither of them used the “liberal” label even when they discussed Florida Representative Kendrick Meek who has a lifetime ACU rating of 7 and a lifetime ADA rating of 92 percent.  The following O’Donnell set-up piece and Todd segment were aired on the August 24 Today show: ANN CURRY: Now to politics. Voters are heading to the polls in five states today headlined by primaries in Florida and Arizona that pit the political establishment against Washington outsiders. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell is in Phoenix this morning, with details on this. Kelly, good morning. [On screen headline: “Primary Day, Incumbents Battle Outsiders In November Preview”] KELLY O’DONNELL: Good morning, Ann. That’s right. From Phoenix to Florida to Fairbanks voters are deciding some of the most talked about races this year. They include well-known incumbents and some very interesting outsiders and including is John McCain, who will start right here. He has spent more than $20 million in campaign cash and some of that was left over from his presidential run in 2008. Senator John McCain says he has something to prove. JOHN MCCAIN TO VOTER: Thank you very much. O’DONNELL: Going for a fifth term in this anti-incumbent year. (Begin ad clip) MCCAIN: I appreciate your support. I ask for your vote. (End clip) O’DONNELL: Means fighting off a conservative challenger and that requires fighting against Barack Obama once again. MCCAIN: I’m running against his policies and what he and his administration have done to this country, but at the same time I’m running for Arizona. I’m running for jobs. I’m running for keeping people in their homes. J.D. HAYWORTH: I’d really be honored to have your support in the primary. O’DONNELL: Opponent J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman, accuses McCain of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. HAYWORTH: This is really true. O’DONNELL: McCain exposed a 2007 TV show where Hayworth was a pitch man on how to get free government money, hardly the Tea Party conservatism he talks about today. HAYWORTH: Even if they have some concerns about me and even shocking for me to feel that my personality may rub people the wrong way, the fact is they know I will vote against amnesty. O’DONNELL: Turning to Florida’s crowded senate race, Democrats are caught in a class struggle. KENDRICK MEEK: I’m the true candidate for the middle class. O’DONNELL: Miami Congressman Kendrick Meek has moved from long shot to leader in the polls up against self-made billionaire Jeff Greene, who’s glitzy social life gets him attention. The winning Florida Democrat will be in a three-man race in November against Tea Party conservative Marco Rubio and Governor Charlie Crist, who quit the Republican Party to run as an independent. And there’s a cold snap in Alaska’s Republican Senate primary. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hi, Senator. How are you? O’DONNELL: Incumbent Lisa Murkowski. LISA MURKOWSKI: I’m not working for the party. I’m working for Alaska. O’DONNELL: And Sarah Palin is working against Murkowski with a Facebook page endorsement of challenger Joe Miller. Palin writes, “Alaskans can trust Joe to not shed his conservative antlers in D.C.” And there’s some history there. Palin defeated Senator Lisa Murkowski’s father when Palin became governor. So there’s been a long rivalry there. And of course it all ties back here. Palin, of course, was here in the spring trying to help out her former running mate, at a time when he looked very vulnerable as one of the incumbents who was being targeted this year. But a lot has changed. Today McCain is the frontrunner with a double-digit lead. Ann? ANN CURRY: Alright Kelly O’Donnell this morning. Kelly thanks. Chuck Todd is NBC’s political director and the chief White House correspondent for NBC News. Chuck, good morning. CHUCK TODD: Good morning, Ann. CURRY: We just heard from Kelly that John McCain is ahead, at least according to the polls, by double digits. But he had to spend like $20 million while his opponent spent just about $3 million. So what does that tell us about what’s going on in Arizona, Chuck? TODD: Well look, John McCain had to do this the old-fashioned way in politics, he’s winning ugly. The $20 million was necessary. He always had about 35 to 40 percent of the Republican conservative electorate down there that wasn’t crazy about him, was upset about him on immigration, on taxes, on a number of issues. And so McCain had to disqualify J.D. Hayworth. And here is what we found out, Ann. As upset as voters are these days about Washington politicians, infomercial hucksters are even worse and that’s what McCain did. He completely disqualified J.D. Hayworth. The big question, Ann, that a lot of people in Washington have is, which John McCain comes back to Washington? Is it this new consistent conservative and is a consistent thorn in the side of President Obama or is it the guy from the early part of this decade who was unpredictable and he didn’t know which side of the aisle he’d come down on a different issue? CURRY: Let’s, let’s talk, move on to Florida. Why should the whole country be paying attention to what’s happening there? TODD: Well look this Democratic Senate primary, it’s kind of nuts, it’s kind of this, but a Kendrick Meek win, by the Miami congressman, means the Democratic establishment cannot flee the Democratic nominee there. They can’t go over to Charlie Crist. And the big picture is this. Florida held up the country on who was gonna be president in 2000. Because we don’t know which way Charlie Crist is gonna vote, if he’s gonna be with the Democrats or the Republicans, on election night if he wins – and there’s no guarantee he’s gonna win, this is gonna be a nutty three-way race, maybe the best campaign in this state since Claude Pepper lost because his sister was a thespian. But what we won’t know is whether, is whether, who’s gonna control the Senate? Charlie Crist could hold that up for weeks. CURRY: On the question of who is gonna control the Senate and actually Washington, are incumbents as weak as we thought they were going to be, Chuck? And what, what is what you’re looking at in terms of these races telling us about the true party of the Tea Party, true power of the Tea Party? TODD: Well look, here’s, here’s what we know. Look incumbents are not getting defeated in these primaries at a clip that a lot of people expected. There’s been a few high-profile exceptions. But the bigger picture is this. Democrats are in deep, deep trouble. The Tea Party has provided an enthusiasm boost to the Republican Party. They are as excited about voting as the Republicans have been since 1994. Democrats have about six weeks to turn this around because if they don’t, they are headed for an historical defeat in November. Losses that could not just include control of the House but also the Senate with or without this, the, what happens with Charlie Crist in Florida. It is that bad right now for Democrats, Ann. CURRY: Alright, on that note we’ve got leave it. Chuck Todd, always a pleasure. Thanks. TODD: You got it.

Here is the original post:
NBC’s Chuck Todd Projects ‘Democrats Are In Deep, Deep Trouble’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

On Page One, N.Y. Times Plays Up Sharron Angle’s ‘Awkward Retreats’ from ‘Hardline Positions’

Posted on August 19, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Following in the footsteps of The Washington Post , Wednesday’s New York Times put Sharron Angle on the front page, pushing strongly on Harry Reid’s notion that her extremism and ineptitude are working in Reid’s favor. Reporter Adam Nagourney played up Republican pessimism:  Since Ms. Angle won, her campaign has been rocked by a series of politically intemperate remarks and awkward efforts to retreat from hard-line positions she has embraced in the past, like phasing out Social Security. There have also been a staff shake-up and run-ins with Nevada journalists, including one in which a television reporter chased her through a parking lot trying to get her to answer a question. Republicans in this state are concerned that what had once seemed a relatively easy victory is suddenly in doubt, with signs that Ms. Angle’s campaign is scrambling to regroup. “Reid had no chance to win before,” said Danny Tarkanian, one of the Republicans who lost to Ms. Angle. “He has a shot to win now. He could still lose, but I have to say he is favored.” Nagourney does not suggest “Landslide Harry” is a terrific candidate. He makes it clear that the Democrats need an anti-Angle vote to win:  If Mr. Reid is doing better than he once was, it is still relative; he is a politician in deep trouble. A Mason-Dixon poll last week found that 51 percent of Nevadans held an unfavorable opinion of him, a toxic number for an incumbent. That poll found Mr. Reid and Ms. Angle in an effective tie. “I’ll say this about Angle: I still think when we get to the end, it’s still going to be about Harry Reid and whether Nevada voters want to get rid of him and send a message to Washington,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon. “They may still hold their nose and vote for Sharron Angle even if they don’t agree with a lot of things that she says and does.” Mr. Reid’s advisers made clear that the only way they could win was to make Ms. Angle so distasteful to Nevada voters that they would vote for Mr. Reid or someone else — it is possible here to vote for “none of the above” — or stay home. “I’m not discounting her,” Mr. Reid said. “In the spite of the work we’ve done, people need to understand more about her. There are some unusual stands she has.” But Nagourney’s story makes no serious attempt to understand the “why” of Reid’s unpopularity — particularly as Reid wants to note the other candidate’s hardline ideological stands and gaffes. Nagourney avoids Reid’s list, like Reid declaring it should be impossible to be both Hispanic and Republican — the Times continues to avoid that gaffe completely. There’s no mention of Reid’s gaffes about how Obama won election because he was a “light-skinned black” with “no Negro dialect.” There’s no mention of Reid claiming the war in Iraq was “lost” and the surge accomplished nothing.  It’s too bad that the Times didn’t offer more of his interview with Angle in the paper, like this exchange in the transcript they posted : NAGOURNEY: do you think President Obama represents the values of this country, in your view? ANGLE: President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi represent what mainstream America is rejecting about Washington, D.C. And that is this out of touch with the people. When Harry Reid was asked to do town halls, for instance, on Obamacare, he refused. Now people want to talk about these things. They want to talk to their representatives about it. And certainly there was a mainstream reaction, a majority reaction, against Obamacare, and yet they passed it anyway. That portrait of hardline ideology doesn’t match the liberal-media storyline — even if it explains a Republican advantage at the polls.

Read more:
On Page One, N.Y. Times Plays Up Sharron Angle’s ‘Awkward Retreats’ from ‘Hardline Positions’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Open Thread: ‘Will Barack Obama Be a One-term President?’

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

“Yes, he might last that long,” Politico’s Roger Simon states in response to his own question. Honest to goodness, the man just does not get it. He might be forced to pull a Palin and resign before his first term is over. He could go off and write his memoirs and build his presidential library. (Both would be half-size, of course.) I am not saying Obama is not smart; he is as smart as a whip. I am just saying he does not understand what savvy first-term presidents need to understand: You have to stay on message, follow the polls, listen to your advisers (who are writing the message and taking the polls) and realize that when it comes to doing what is right versus doing what is expedient, you do what is expedient so that you can get reelected and do what is right in the second term. If at all possible. And it will help your legacy. And not endanger the election of others in your party. And not hurt the brand. Or upset people too much. Do you concur with that assessment, or is Simon being too cynical? Remember to give some examples to back up your point.

See the original post:
Open Thread: ‘Will Barack Obama Be a One-term President?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reporters Visiting WH for Off-the-Record Visit Work For Pubs That Demanded Transparency During Bush 43

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

File the news in this report filed late yesterday afternoon by Michael Calderone and John Cook at Yahoo’s Upshot Blog under “D” for Double Standards: White House reporters mum on Obama lunch, even as papers back transparency White House reporters are keeping quiet about an off-the-record lunch today with President Obama — even those at news organizations who’ve advocated in the past for the White House to release the names of visitors. But the identities of the lunch’s attendees won’t remain secret forever: Their names will eventually appear on the White House’s periodically updated public database of visitor logs. … The Obama White House began posting the logs in order to settle a lawsuit, begun under the Bush administration, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which sought the Secret Service’s White House visitor logs under the Freedom of Information Act. … And guess who filed briefs supporting that argument? Virtually every newspaper that covers the White House. The Washington Post filed an amicus brief in in February 2008 arguing that the names of White House visitors should be released, and it was joined by the Associated Press, Reuters, the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones, USA Today, the Hearst Corporation, the New York Daily News, the Newspaper Guild, the Society of Professional Journalists, and a host of other news outlets. It’s unclear, of course, whether reporters for any of those newspapers attended the lunch — because none of them will say. Calderone found out anyway, and in a post early this afternoon , told us who was there: Ben Feller (Associated Press), Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler (Wall Street Journal), Michael Shear and Scott Wilson (Washington Post), Caren Bohan (Reuters), David Jackson (USA Today), Carol Lee (Politico), Peter Nicholas (Tribune Co.), Margaret Talev (McClatchy) and Julianna Goldman (Bloomberg). Several reporters on this list gave “no comments” to The Upshot on Thursday. The New York Times was invited but did not attend. White House reporter Peter Baker told The Upshot that the paper “politely declined because we’d like very much to talk on the record.” Readers here likely have memories of certain of the above reporters going out of their way to protect Barack Obama or to bash Bush 43. The appearance of Weisman’s name reminded me of an absolutely pathetic massage job he did when he was at the Washington Post . In August 2005, as seen here , Weisman turned what had been an upbeat item about July’s unemployment report by another Post reporter (“Job Growth Strongest in 3 Months”) into a co-written hit piece on Bush (“Economic News Isn’t Helping Bush; Job Growth Up Sharply in July, but Polls Show Dissatisfaction”). Here were most of the report’s three opening paragraphs: U.S. job growth jumped last month and the unemployment rate held steady … the government reported yesterday, the latest economic data to show the economy picking up steam. Yet President Bush’s economic approval ratings remain low, weighed down by anger over Iraq and concerns about lackluster wage increases and stubbornly high gasoline prices. “I feel the economy is just not as good as it should be,” said Adam Judis, 40, a Pasadena, Calif., computer consultant and political independent. “We’re spending too many lives, resources and money on Iraq. There has to be a point where we say we can’t help everybody. We need to help ourselves.” My reax at the time : The Post feels it’s their duty to massage the news for their print subscribers. They just couldn’t let the story go to print without throwing cold water on it, so they found one guy to change the subject to Iraq, and then presented poll results to “prove” that Bush really isn’t handling the economy well (even though the objective evidence says his administration is). This is a clearly conscious, obvious, and disgraceful effort to turn good news into bad news. You may be wondering what the economic news was that left Weisman unimpressed because of Iraq, gas prices, and supposedly flat wages: In July 2005 , the economy added 207,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate was 5%. Yeah, that bad (/sarc). Watch what Weisman writes at the WSJ warily. It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to keep an special eye on each of the lunch’s attendees for the next few months. One other thought: Things are pretty bad in journalism when the security-leak sieve known as the New York Times leads the way in ethics by choosing not to participate in the off-the-record luncheon. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more here:
Reporters Visiting WH for Off-the-Record Visit Work For Pubs That Demanded Transparency During Bush 43

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Only CBS Reports on Salary Gap Between Public and Private Employees

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

While ABC and NBC ignored a Monday USA Today report that found a significant gap in compensation between public and private sector employees, on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Sharyl Attkisson provided a full story: “While many Americans have suffered pay cuts or job losses, one group is bucking the trend – federal workers.” Attkisson described how the “analysis finds that federal employees have gotten bigger pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years straight.” She cited numbers from the report: “Federal salaries have grown 33% faster than inflation. Their pay and benefits average $123,000, up 37% since 2000. Private workers average $61,000, up just 8.8% over the same time.” In addition, Attkisson included a sound bite from Cato Institute budget analyst Tad Dehaven: “So you have Wall Street, you have big oil, and now you have federal civilians.” She went to note: “And the bonuses are flowing. CBS News has learned your tax dollars funded $95.8 million in airport security TSA bonuses last year. A $35,000 bonus to the head of the agency.” In concluding her report, Attkisson gave the public sector perspective: “Defenders of federal salaries say they reflect the higher skills and education often required for their jobs and many are paid more because they’ve stuck with their jobs so long.” She added: “President Obama has ordered a freeze on bonuses for 3,000 political appointees and is asking for the smallest pay hike in more than a decade for 2 million other federal workers, 1.4%.” Given that the poor economy, government spending, and the deficit are key issues in the midterm elections, it’s interesting that neither ABC or NBC deemed a story about overpaid government workers to be worthy of coverage. Here is a full transcript of Attkisson’s August 10 report: 6:39PM ET KATIE COURIC: For those fortunate enough to have a job in this tough economy, there’s a growing gap in salary between government employees and those who work in the private sector. More on that now from Sharyl Attkisson. SHARYL ATTKISSON: While many Americans have suffered pay cuts or job losses, one group is bucking the trend – federal workers. A USA Today analysis finds that federal employees have gotten bigger pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years straight. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It made me think, man, I should be a federal employee. ATTKISSON: Federal salaries have grown 33% faster than inflation. Their pay and benefits average $123,000, up 37% since 2000. Private workers average $61,000, up just 8.8% over the same time. TAD DEHAVEN [BUDGET ANALYST, CATO INSTITUTE]: So you have Wall Street, you have big oil, and now you have federal civilians. ATTKISSON: And the bonuses are flowing. CBS News has learned your tax dollars funded $95.8 million in airport security TSA bonuses last year. A $35,000 bonus to the head of the agency. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They’re really overpaid. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now everything should be – should be a freeze across the board until we really get the economy back up and running. ATTKISSON: Federal employees see things differently. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I definitely don’t think I’m being paid too much. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think I’m paid a fair wage, definitely. ATTKISSON: Defenders of federal salaries say they reflect the higher skills and education often required for their jobs and many are paid more because they’ve stuck with their jobs so long. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I’ve been working for the government 21 years. ATTKISSON: President Obama has ordered a freeze on bonuses for 3,000 political appointees and is asking for the smallest pay hike in more than a decade for 2 million other federal workers, 1.4%. Katie? COURIC: Sharyl Attkisson. Sharyl, thank you very much.

Read this article:
Only CBS Reports on Salary Gap Between Public and Private Employees

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AP White House Reporter Loven Jumps to Liberal Democratic Political PR/Lobbying Shop

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Jennifer Loven, an 18-year AP veteran and the wire service’s chief White House correspondent, has decided to put her communications talents to work for The Glover Park Group , a “strategic communications firm” founded in 2001 by a bunch of Clinton and Gore staffers, most prominently Joe Lockhart, who found themselves unemployed after the 2000 election. She’ll be “Managing Director in its Public Affairs practice,” a Thursday press release from the Glover Park Group, plugged by Politico’s Mike Allen , announced. She’s the second President in a row of the White House Correspondents’ Association to leave journalism for a left-wing, or at least left-leaning, lobbying outfit. In June, Bloomberg’s White House reporter, Ed Chen, formerly of the Los Angeles Times, jumped to the Natural Resources Defense Council as Federal Communications Director. (My complete Obama-journalism revolving door list .) Loven held the WHCA position for 2008-2009 and was succeeded by Chen. Amongst the clients touted on the Glover Park Group’s Web site: American Civil Liberties Union, Alliance for Climate Protection, Campaign for Women’s Lives, Better World Campaign and the Center for Interfaith Action on Global Poverty. They also list some corporate clients, but no conservative activist groups. The firm’s leaders include a who’s who of ex-Clinton and Gore operatives, such as “Founding Partner and Managing Director” Joe Lockhart , “the former chief spokesman and senior adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1998-2000” who “served as Senior Advisor to Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid.” Earlier, he toiled as “Deputy Press Secretary for the 1988 Dukakis-Bentsen campaign, and Assistant Press Secretary for the 1984 Mondale-Ferraro campaign.” In between all that, he put in stints as “Assignment Editor at ABC News and Deputy Assignment Manager for CNN in Washington.” Another “Founding Partner and Managing Director,” Carter Eskew , “was Chief Strategist for the Gore 2000 presidential campaign, leading the message and creative team that helped Vice President Gore win every primary and caucus, secure the nomination, then make up a 20 point deficit in the polls to a victory in the popular vote.” Susan Brophy , “Managing Director,” from 1993-1998 was “Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, where she developed, implemented and directed legislative strategy with the White House, administration and Congress in support of President Clinton’s policy priorities.” Loven’s husband, by the way, is a liberal environmental activist. A 2009 National Review “Media Blog” post provided an excerpt from this bio for him: Roger Ballentine is the President of Green Strategies Inc., where he advises and represents businesses, associations, government agencies and non-profit entities on domestic and international public policy issues and business strategies, focusing on energy, conservation and environmental matters. Roger is also a Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington D.C. where he works to develop cutting edge, third way approaches to public policy challenges in the areas of energy and the environment. He also served as Senior Advisor to the Kerry-Edwards Campaign on energy and environmental matters. Roger previously was a senior member of the White House staff, serving President Bill Clinton as Chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force and Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Initiatives. Prior to being named Deputy Assistant to the President, Mr. Ballentine was Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, where he focused on energy and environment issues. … He and his wife, journalist Jennifer Loven, reside in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Excerpt from:
AP White House Reporter Loven Jumps to Liberal Democratic Political PR/Lobbying Shop

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During a discussion of the upcoming midterm elections on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill asked Republican strategist Kevin Madden: “…when you look at this from the Republican perspective… there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right…is this race Republicans to lose, and if so, what do they have to do to hold on to it?” Hill picked up the “extreme right” label from her other guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, who had just ranted: “I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is….what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off.” Madden responded to Hill by pointing to the left-wing agenda of the Democrats: “…independent voters…they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda….it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda.” Instead of challenging Acker on the Democrats “very left of center agenda,” Hill gently wondered: “What about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing?” Acker reasserted her previous point: “…the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.” Hill moved on, pressing Madden on Republican policy proposals: “Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President…that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas….are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough?” Madden replied: “…the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives….we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction.” Here is a full transcript of the August 9 discussion: 7:08AM ET ERICA HILL: Joining us now is Republican strategist Kevin Madden, also in Washington this morning, and from Los Angeles, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker. We’re going to get a closer look at what both sides need to do in these upcoming elections from the both of you this morning. Tanya, I want to start with you. as we just heard this two-point message here, don’t go back and things would be even worse were the Democrats not in charge. Is that enough for voters at this point or does there need to be a little alteration, perhaps, of the message? TANYA ACKER: Well, I think the Democrats have to focus on getting that message out very clearly in the first instance. Because look, I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is. I mean, you’re talking about candidates who want to do things like take the country back to a time before Social Security, who want to really overturn a lot of the things that – reforms that the country’s really behind. So I think the Repub – what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off. HILL: Kevin, when you – when you look at this from the Republican perspective- KEVIN MADDEN: Mm-Hm. HILL: -there are some of those messages, there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right, as Tanya mentioned, but essentially is this – is this race Republicans to lose and if so what do they have to do to hold on to it? MADDEN: Well, look, to Tanya’s point and to your question, I think that this race is really going to be won – I think this – these elections, these midterm elections are really going to be decided in the middle. And right now those independent voters that were a big part of the Democrats’ successful coalition by – of winning in 2008, they’ve abandoned the – the White House, and they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda. So I think where Republicans feel we have an opportunity is talking to those voters and persuading them that the Democrats have taken the country in the wrong direction. The country’s on the wrong track. That we’re spending too much money, deficits are going too high, and that we can do a better job. And right now we – we have to go out there and talk about a proactive agenda, but it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda. HILL: It’s interesting because in some ways it sounds like 2008 all over again. You talk about the moderates, there was so much talk about moderates and independents, of course, during the 2008 elections, which worked out well for the Democrats, Tanya. This time around, I know you said they need to alter the message perhaps a little bit, but what about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing? ACKER: I think that right now – I mean, look we’re seeing that the President is not – is having some troubles in the polls. He’s certainly polling lower than he has at any time during his presidency, and which is not unusual for any President at this point in his term. But I think that where we’re really seeing President Obama be effective is in – is in fundraising. And in order for Democrats to get the message out there, there’s no question that they’re going to need a lot of money. Because again, as Kevin pointed out, and as you pointed out, the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.                  HILL: Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President in Bill’s package, that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas. I know that you – you disagree with that. MADDEN: I disagree with that, yes. HILL: But are they presenting – are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough? MADDEN: Yes, I – I do believe so. Look, when John Boehner handed the – the gavel to Nancy Pelosi in 2008, he said – 2006 – he said, look, we are going to be an opposition party but we are going to disagree with you on substance. And if you look at the health care debate, you look at the stimulus debate. Republicans presented the American public alternatives. They presented a vision for what they would do, where they would take the country in a different direction. And I think in large part that’s going to be where you can win in the arguments in 2010. Is that we can say, look, the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives. The entire – during this entire debate, that said we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction. HILL: Well, everyone will be trying to get their messages out, especially as we ramp up with three months to go. Tanya Acker, Kevin Madden, always good to have your insight with us. MADDEN: Great to be with you. ACKER: Good to see you. CHRIS WRAGGE: Safe to say it’s going to be an interesting November. HILL: I think we can say that, yes.

Read the original here:
CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,