Tag Archives: president-obama

Kagan Hearings, Day 1: Evening Newscasts Downplay; NBC Offers Just 24 Seconds

All three network evening newscasts on Monday downplayed the start of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, with NBC Nightly News squeezing in just 24 seconds for Kagan at the tail end of a story about the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor the 2nd Amendment. For their part, CBS and ABC offered full stories outlining Kagan’s first day before the Judiciary committee after packages devoted to the gun rights’ ruling. Only CBS’s Jan Crawford suggested the hearings were more than a ritual leading to Kagan’s inevitable confirmation: “When President Obama nominated her in May, her confirmation was considered a sure bet. But Republicans are emboldened by what they see as a weakened president and sense that support for Kagan in the country has dropped.” Both Crawford and ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl included Republican criticisms of Kagan’s lack of experience and the hostility to the military she displayed at the Harvard Law School. As for NBC, they mentioned none of those issues, and only included a brief soundbite of Kagan promising to be “impartial.” Here’s the entirety of NBC’s brief discussion of Monday’s hearing: PETE WILLIAMS: This was the last day on the bench for John Paul Stevens after 34 1/2 years. He told the court, “If I’ve overstayed my welcome it’s because this is such a unique and wonderful job.” In tribute, many in the courtroom wore bowties, his neck wear of choice. And across the street the Senate began confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, nominated to replace him. ELENA KAGAN: I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law. PETE WILLIAMS: And the senators begin asking their questions tomorrow. Brian: BRIAN WILLIAMS: Pete Williams with all the news from the Supreme Court in Washington tonight. Pete, thanks. Compare and contrast that with ABC’s World News (transcribed by MRC intern Rachel Burnett) and the CBS Evening News (anchored by Harry Smith from the Gulf Coast): # ABC World News: DIANE SAWYER, after discussion of Steven’s last day on the bench: And, speaking of Justice Stevens, that other drama playing out nearby was the new nominee for the court, Elena Kagan. Walking into the arena to be questioned about her qualifications to replace him, qualifications of the job, and John Karl is on Capitol Hill tonight. Jon? JON KARL: Diane, right from the start, it was crystal clear that Kagan faces a Senate deeply divided over her nomination, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting her and Republicans, for the most part, on the attack. After weeks of the silence imposed on all Supreme Court nominees, Elena Kagan at last had a chance to speak, promising that if confirmed – ELENA KAGAN: I will work hard, and I will do my best to consider every case impartially. KARL: Kagan once criticized past nominees for turning hearings into ‘a vapid and hollow charade’ by refusing to say anything specific. But now, as the nominee, she stuck to generalities. KAGAN: The court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people. KARL: Kagan had to sit through more than three hours of opening statements, trying to keep a poker face. But it didn’t work. Just watch her expression as Republicans call her a political partisan, or when Democrats praise her real-world experience. SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER: She is the right person at the right time. KARL: The top Republican on the committee suggested she is unqualified. SENATOR SESSIONS: Miss Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years. KARL: And condemned her decision as Dean of Harvard Law school to ban the military from the campus career office. SESSIONS: Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas. KARL: But Republican Lindsey Graham said he believes Kagan is qualified and offered her some advice: SENATOR GRAHAM: Good luck. Be as candid as possible. And it’s okay to disagree with us up here. KARL: There will be some fireworks tomorrow as the Senators get a chance to question Kagan. But Democrats are even more confident she will be confirmed than they were with the Sotomayor nomination last year, and that she may actually get fewer votes, Diane, because all but a handful of Republicans are already poised to oppose her nomination. # CBS Evening News: HARRY SMITH: It didn’t take long for today’s gun decision to come up at Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing in the Senate. She’s been nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Let’s go back now to Jan Crawford. Jan? JAN CRAWFORD: Harry, Elena Kagan has spent the past two months getting ready for these hearings, but it was just a matter of minutes before the ranking Republican brought up today’s gun ruling. SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): The personal right of every American to own a gun hangs by a single vote. CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan sat stoically while Sessions and other Republicans began describing her as a liberal activist. But after hours of opening statements, she was sworn in – ELENA KAGAN: I do. CRAWFORD: – and finally answered back. KAGAN: I will do by best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law. CRAWFORD: When President Obama nominated her in May, her confirmation was considered a sure bet. But Republicans are emboldened by what they see as a weakened president and sense that support for Kagan in the country has dropped. Today, they outlined their attack. They seized on her lack of judicial and courtroom experience. SESSIONS: Miss Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years. CRAWFORD: And her decision while Dean at Harvard Law School to limit military recruiting because of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy. SENATOR JON KYL (R-AZ): A surprising number of things in her relatively thin body of work do raise substantive concerns. CRAWFORD: The battle lines drawn, Democrats painted a starkly different picture. They praised Kagan’s intellect and took shots at the conservative Roberts’ court. SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Things are looking good for your confirmation. CRAWFORD: The Republican worry is that Kagan could serve a generation on a court that often divides 5-4 on key social issues. Harry? SMITH: Jan Crawford, thanks for all your help tonight.

See the original post:
Kagan Hearings, Day 1: Evening Newscasts Downplay; NBC Offers Just 24 Seconds

VIDEO: Media Routinely Used ‘Conservative’ Label on Bush Nominees to Supreme Court; Obama Picks Always ‘Centrist’

When President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, the media did not hesitate to describe both men as “very conservative,” but when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan this year many in the press couldn’t seem to identify any liberal ideology. The Media Research Center has produced a video compilation of examples to further demonstrate the obvious double standard. [Audio available here ] During ABC’s live special coverage of Roberts’s nomination on July 19, 2005, then This Week host and former Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos declared: “This is a very conservative man with a strong paper trail that proves it.” NPR’s Nina Totenberg could hardly contain her urge to label, using the word “conservative” several times during a July 23 appearance on Inside Washington: “John Roberts is a really conservative guy…he’s a conservative Catholic….[President Bush] has given conservatives a hardline conservative.” The same labeling followed Alito’s nomination months later. CBS’s Bob Schieffer opened the October 31 Evening News by proclaiming: “Conservatives wanted a conservative on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled.” Later that evening, on a special 7PM ET hour edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer described: “…there is a new nomination and new controversy. A battle shapes up as the president picks a staunch conservative who could help reshape the U.S. Supreme Court.” Compare those characterizations of Roberts and Alito with how Stephanopoulos introduced Sotomayor to Good Morning America viewers on May 1, 2009: “She’s built up a strong centrist record on the court.” On the May 27 CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric scratched her head when it came to Sotomayor’s political views: “Now pundits usually label judges as either liberal or conservative, but that won’t be easy with Judge Sotomayor.” Meanwhile, Totenberg actually remained consistent, arguing Obama’s nominee was actually on the Right: “…she’s more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps.” With Kagan, on CBS’s April 11 Face the Nation, legal analyst Jan Crawford described the broad support the potential nominee would receive: “…she’s got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard.” On the May 10 Good Morning America, ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer explained how Kagan “is expected to play a role as somewhat of a conciliator, the bridge across the conservative and liberal wings of the Court.” Like Totenberg with Sotomayor, on the May 11 CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez floated the idea that Kagan was conservative: “she may actually shift the Court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens.”      As evidence of Kagan’s staunch liberalism comes out in her confirmation hearings, one wonders if the media will finally be willing to accurately describe her left-wing views.

The rest is here:
VIDEO: Media Routinely Used ‘Conservative’ Label on Bush Nominees to Supreme Court; Obama Picks Always ‘Centrist’

Slow Joe Biden’s Subpar Saturday: Part 2 — The Slippery Growth Assertion

As pathetic as Joe Biden’s thin-skinned “Why do you have to be such a smart-a**” comment to a Milwaukee-area custard shop manager was yesterday (covered at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), it wasn’t even the Vice President’s worst Wisconsin Saturday moment. A far worse moment, in terms of familiarity with the truth, occurred as Biden rewrote history and unilaterally revised economic growth upward in a speech to Democrats in support of Senator Russ Feingold’s reelection. In a CBS News online report by Stephanie Condon that I suspect will not make it to the airwaves Biden was dour and downbeat, while misstating economic reality: Biden: We Can’t Recover All the Jobs Lost Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.” Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost. “We inherited a godawful mess,” he said, adding there was “no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost.” … Biden said today the economy is improving and noted that in the past four quarters, there has been 4 percent growth in the economy. Over the last five months, more than 500,000 private sector jobs were created. I have no idea how Biden arrived at his $3 trillion figure; I’m guessing Ms. Condon doesn’t either. One very minor error: The Vice President’s claim that “more than 500,000 private sector jobs were created” is false, but barely. On a seasonally adjusted basis, it’s 495,000, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The big error: GDP growth has been nowhere near 4% during the past four quarters, no matter how you define “the past four quarters” (compounding was ignored for simplicity’s sake): The 2.5% estimate for 2Q10 is based on the assertion in this Friday Associated Press report that “Economists expect slower growth ahead” from 1Q10’s annualized 2.7%. Biden’s economic growth assertion is nowhere near true no matter how one interprets it. If 2Q10 growth comes in at an annualized 5.5% or higher, readers can come back and crow that Biden was really right. Good luck with that. Stephanie Condon should have known better than to blindly relay Biden’s false assertion. Does anyone else besides me think that she would have checked it out if Dick Cheney had said it instead? Photo at top right is at CBS link via AP. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See more here:
Slow Joe Biden’s Subpar Saturday: Part 2 — The Slippery Growth Assertion

Vintage Santelli – Rips Obama’s Keynesian-ish Policies: Why Does My Share Have to Pay for California’s Teachers?

This is one of those “I told you so” moments conservatives should really be out publicizing: The $787-billion stimulus passed early 2009 – it’s not working. And on CNBC’s June 25 broadcast of “The Call,” CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli explained that all government spending is not created equal, and President Obama’s so-called stimulus spending was for government payrolls and not the infrastructure improvement is was sold to be . “Well, you know, it’s all about, in my opinion, definition and choice,” Santelli said. “Definition, I don’t disagree with our guest, Richard [DeKaser, president of Woodley Park Research ], about stimulus, but I haven’t seen any stimulus. I’ve seen a lot of spending. And in terms of choice, austerity isn’t something people are going to volunteer for. The creditors are going to force it on them. I think these issues are much different than we’re selling them. You know, we don’t have a new Hoover Dam. We don’t have a new electric grid. We paid a bunch of salaries and benefits and extension benefits, unemployment with a lot of that money that you save jobs because you paid teachers because states couldn’t afford it I don’t think any of that really falls under a definition of stimulus.” “The Call” co-host Larry Kudlow offered a more technical analysis of this Keynesian economic policy implemented by the Obama administration. He explained an International Monetary Fund study, analyzed by the Hoover Institute’s John Taylor , shows Keynesian policy doesn’t translate into the most efficient way to jumpstart a lagging economy. “The IMF has done a study that for every dollar of government spending, you only get 70 cents more in GDP, and after year two it goes to zero,” Kudlow said. “Now, I think we’re going to zero. No wonder our borrowing ratios are so high. When are we going to learn that this kind of stimulus isn’t even what Keynes argued for many years ago?” DeKaser, one of the segment’s panelists, argued that 70 cents of GDP growth was better than nothing, which Kudlow questioned. “You borrow a dollar to get 70 cents, and you lose 30 cents?” Kudlow said. “Boy, that sounds like a bad deal, my friend. I wouldn’t want you trading my account. I mean, the whole thing could go deeper into debt.” Santelli argued that even if one subscribes to the 70 cents per dollar economic growth figure theory as a positive, this government didn’t get it right in its approach. “I mean, the notion of stimulus is you want capital in the system, but when you have artificial stimulus, you give capital to the people that aren’t really creating an expansive employment scenario or creating something that’s actually positive for a society,” Santelli said. “What you end up doing is putting capital to businesses that on their own couldn’t get capital and that’s for a reason. The market didn’t allocate it because they didn’t deserve it.” CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman questioned Santelli’s wisdom – that a bailout for certain government employees was good policy. “Rick, why is it artificial to keep teachers in the classroom and cops on the beat and firemen in the firehouses?” Liesman said. “To me that’s not artificial stimulus. That’s just good policy.” But that led to a vintage Santelli rant – why should taxpayers all over the country be held responsible for the woes of a local government brought on by its own irresponsibility. “Because that’s what people pay property taxes for, and if the state of California when the bubble was going on raised boatloads of property taxes, why should the value of somebody’s house make collecting garbage more expensive, running transportation more expensive? It doesn’t. They spent all the money. So, why does my share have to pay for their teachers?”

Read more:
Vintage Santelli – Rips Obama’s Keynesian-ish Policies: Why Does My Share Have to Pay for California’s Teachers?

NBC’s Todd Defends Obama ‘Twitters’ Gaffe: ‘Written Incorrectly in His Prepared Remarks’

On NBC’s Today on Friday, White House correspondent Chuck Todd preemptively dismissed any criticism of President Obama referring to “Twitters” during a joint press conference with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev on Thursday: “It turns out he didn’t misstate it. It was written incorrectly in his prepared remarks.” During Todd’s report, a clip was played of Obama noting how in a visit to California’s Silicon Valley, Medvedev went to “visit the headquarter of Twitters.” Obama simply placed an ‘s’ after the wrong word. Rather than let the minor gaffe stand, at the conclusion of the report, Todd made to sure to explain the typographical error to viewers: “You did not mishear. The President did say the word ‘Twitters,’ plural.” Despite Obama’s inability to correct the remarks off the cuff, Todd solely blamed a White House staffer for the mistake: “A speechwriter falling on his sword on that one.”                              Todd quickly changed the subject to a similar gaffe made by President Bush: “…it did bring back memories of President Bush one time referring to those ‘internets.'” The media was certainly never quick to come to Bush’s defense after a verbal misstep.   In his report, Todd observed how Obama got a “diplomatic head-start” on the upcoming G-20 economic summit in Canada by meeting with Medvedev and how “…the President treated Medvedev to cheeseburgers at one of the President’s favorite burger spots in northern Virginia.” Here is a full transcript of Todd’s June 25 report: 7:07AM MATT LAUER: President Obama will be keeping an eye on what’s happening in the Gulf today from Toronto. He’s heading there this morning to join a host of world leaders at the G-20 summit. NBC’s chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd is there as well. Chuck, good morning to you. CHUCK TODD: Well, good morning, Matt. The President is scheduled to arrive here later this morning. He’s going to have a new Wall Street reform deal in his back pocket. It’s something he’s going to try to use to convince these other nations from around the world to do similar action. On Thursday he met with an important G-20 ally, the Russian president. Believe it or not, it’s the seventh time these two have met face-to-face. Security here at the G-20 meeting is tight. The Canadian government has spent more than any other host country ever to try to make sure world leaders are safe. Heading into the important economic summit, the President got a diplomatic head-start by meeting with one of America’s most touchy allies, Russia, and its president, Dimitri Medvedev. BARACK OBAMA: America’s most significant national security interests and priorities could be advanced most effectively through cooperation, not an adversarial relationship, with Russia. TODD: And yet, despite the global economic concerns and the presence of the Russian president- UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Does the change in command in Afghanistan- TODD: A reporter’s first question brought the President back to the issue that’s dogged him all week, Afghanistan. OBAMA: I am confident we’ve got a team in place that can execute it. TODD: The President promised no more personnel changes after Wednesday’s dramatic firing of General Stanley McChrystal and the President made sure to leave himself wiggle room on the question of whether the U.S. will actually go through with its plans to draw down troops in July, 2011. OBAMA: We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us. We said as we begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government is taking on more and more responsibility. TODD: Medvedev was asked if he had any advice for the President, given Russia’s long and costly war in Afghanistan. DIMITRI MEDVEDEV: But I try not to give pieces of advice that can’t be fulfilled. TODD: But Defense Secretary Robert Gates did have words of advice. ROBERT GATES: No one, be they adversaries or friends, or especially our troops, should misinterpret these personnel changes as a slackening of this government’s commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. OBAMA: Visit the headquarter of Twitters. TODD: On a lighter note, President Obama noted President Medvedev opened a Twitter account and joked it was a 21st sentry substitute for the old Cold War hotline. OBAMA: I have one as well, so we may be able to finally throw away those red phones that have been sitting around for so long. TODD: Earlier in the day, the President treated Medvedev to cheeseburgers at one of the President’s favorite burger spots in northern Virginia. MEDVEDEV: Probably it’s not quite healthy but it’s very tasty and you can feel the spirit of America. TODD: Alright. You did not mishear. The President did say the word ‘Twitters,’ plural. It turns out he didn’t misstate it. It was written incorrectly in his prepared remarks. A speechwriter falling on his sword on that one. But it did bring back memories of President Bush one time referring to those ‘internets.’ Matt. LAUER: Alright, Chuck Todd, thank you very much. He’s in Toronto this morning.

More here:
NBC’s Todd Defends Obama ‘Twitters’ Gaffe: ‘Written Incorrectly in His Prepared Remarks’

Sir Paul Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers – Says of Obama, "I Really Love Him"

Seems the only thing gushing more than the BP oil spill these days is the disaster brewing in Paul McCartney’s mouth.  In an exclusive interview with The Sun , McCartney takes a major swipe at global warming realists, er, deniers, by stating (emphasis mine): “Sadly we need disasters like this to show people. Some people don’t believe in climate warming – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.” Well that’s putting things in perspective.  I’m not sure global warming has been proven to have caused the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion.  Missed that report.  Regardless, it remains unclear how the theory of global warming is in any way similar to the reality of the Holocaust. McCartney goes on to defend President Obama from any and all criticism concerning the Gulf disaster, culminating with the revelation that he “really love(s) him.” Because nobody was really sure where your allegiances lied after the ‘library’ swipe at former President Bush, Paul. McCartney starts with a blanket dismissal of the Obama critics: “I don’t accept the criticism of Barack over the oil spill.” He continues, “If the President of the country you spilled oil in tells you off then you’ve just got to take it or say, ‘I’m really sorry, we’ll clean it up and pay for it all by next week.” Now I ask, why didn’t BP think of that in the first place?  All of these failed attempts and confusion in trying to ‘plug the damn hole’, and all Tony Hayward had to do to make things right was say, “I’m really sorry, we’ll clean it up and pay for it all by next week.” Of his recent visit to the White House, McCartney recalls, “It was such an honour. I’d heard of the prize – it’s the biggest for popular music in the US. When the President gave it to me, I was so touched. I’m a huge Obama supporter. I really love him.” He also gushes, “I think Obama’s doing great. He’s a smart guy.” I’m not sure what it is, but McCartney is clearly smitten with our ‘smart guy’ President.  Perhaps it was his spelling of the University of ‘Sycacuse’ .  Perhaps it was his over-estimation of a tornado death toll by roughly 9,988.  Maybe it was his firm grasp of geography .  Or his love of Sioux City . No word on whether it was true that Sir Paul went on to say, “He had me at 57 states .” Based on these comments it is clear that, as The Sun interview states, McCartney has been spending too much time sitting in “a darkened room lit only by scented candles … to gather his thoughts.” Clearly the gathering isn’t working.  To be fair though, even the Dutch skimmers would have a tough time reigning in those thoughts. – Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net . Please join me on Facebook.   Photo Credit:  AFP/Getty

The rest is here:
Sir Paul Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers – Says of Obama, "I Really Love Him"

Democracy, Yecch: Does NPR Really Want to Slam the ‘Tyranny of Constituency’?

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit mocked the curious turn of phrase National Public Radio Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving used on his Watching Washington blog to defend a recent NPR survey showing dire straits for the Democrats in the fall. Beneath the surface, the NPR poll was all about the tyranny of constituency , the down and dirty of serving the folks back home. House districts (and states’ legislative districts) tend to be intricately drawn demarcations of the folks back home… That’s why the NPR survey, done by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican counterpart Glen Bolger, focused on the 60 Democratic districts likeliest to be lost to Republicans this fall. The NPR survey also included ten marginal GOP districts that Obama won in 2008. What they found in these 70 districts was that respondents favored Republicans over Democrats, 49 to 41, and President Obama drew 40 percent approval and 54 percent disapproval. No wonder NPR-loving liberals were unhappy. Elving’s “tyranny” phrase was a reflection on Joe Barton’s apology to BP:   The NPR poll shows why individual House members wind up being more loyal to their own jigsaw piece of the national puzzle than to the national puzzle itself. Only their own micro-constituency can vote for them (or against them). And at the same time, the pressure on an individual member from a dominant industry or other interest within the district can be irresistible. That’s why Barton, the Texas Republican, thinks not only about suburban Dallas-Fort Worth voters but also about the oil and gas industry, which made him the No. 1 recipient of its campaign fund contributions in the House.  His wider message sounded more Gergenesque: that the “tyranny” of constituency prevents compromise, just as partisan gerrymandering has made elections less competitive and more ideologically polarized.  But the “tyranny” that most offends conservatives is that NPR can take our tax dollars and please their “constituency” of congressional liberals with an aggressive anti-conservative bias (right down to the website’s cartoons ).

Read the original here:
Democracy, Yecch: Does NPR Really Want to Slam the ‘Tyranny of Constituency’?

Jon Stewart: Media ‘Kind of Suck’ for Getting Scooped by Rolling Stone

Comedian Jon Stewart Wednesday pointed out an inconvenient truth about this week’s General Stanley McChrystal incident: the media “kind of suck” for getting scooped by Rolling Stone magazine. As “The Daily Show” host addressed the day’s events involving the General and President Obama, he showed clips of various press members expressing disgust that Rolling Stone would get such access to McChrystal and staff. These included CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper as well as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. After the final clip of CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr asking, “What on earth was he thinking giving an interview to Rolling Stone,” Stewart quipped, “At approximately 11:04 Eastern Standard Time, the American news media finally realized they kind of suck” (video follows with more highlights and commentary): Stewart next showed some real investigative reporting at CNN: Rick Sanchez talking about his kids having a party in his basement. The Comedy Central star derided, “I’m not sure the unfiltered, over the top musings of the Commanding General undermining the now nine year mission in Afghanistan is quite analogous to your kids hanging out in the basement lighting farts.” No, but it does tell us the state of today’s television news media. As NewsBusters has been reporting since its inception, there isn’t a lot of real investigative journalism going on in our nation anymore, especially if it could be harmful to Democrats. Traditional media were totally scooped by the National Enquirer concerning former Sen. John Edwards’ affair. Just this week news outlets were also bested by the Enquirer’s report concerning former Vice President Al Gore making unwanted sexual advances on a masseuse in 2006. As it pertains to Obama, NewsBusters has chronicled for years stories the mainstream media ignored during the campaign and since his inauguration that would have been embarrassing as well as politically damaging to him and his administration. As such, it shouldn’t be at all surprising to anyone that a news outlet outside the mainstream logged this report concerning McChrystal, as most Americans have known for quite some time the media “kind of suck.” 

Read more here:
Jon Stewart: Media ‘Kind of Suck’ for Getting Scooped by Rolling Stone

USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

Don’t be surprised if you open up the June 24 USA Today and find pom poms in the ‘Money’ section. Reporters-turned-cheerleaders Paul Wiseman, Jayne O’Donnell and Christine Dugas wrote a glowing 38-paragraph story about the proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). The story even included a section called “keys to a new agency’s success” with quotes from “experts” at a wide variety of government agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration. USA Today’s story began by praising the creation of the EPA in 1970 and the way it hit the ground running by ordered city mayors to clean up their water. They included 10 “expert” voices in favor of government agencies (proposed or current) many of whom were former regulators, against only three voices of opposition – all politicians. “It’s exciting to think about building an agency that could make a real contribution, a real difference in the lives of millions of families,’ Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren told USA Today. Warren “proposed the consumer financial regulator in 2007 and is considered a top candidate to be the agency’s first director,” according to the story. The paper barely mentioned Warren’s pro-regulation history which included compensation limits for large corporations. Warren also chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel that babysits companies bailed out by TARP funds. Only three paragraphs were devoted to opposition to the new government agency. Critics were labeled by USA Today as “Republican” or “financial industry lobbyists.” No economists or academics who oppose additional regulation were consulted. Some of the “keys to success” USA Today offered were “hiring motivated career staffers with diverse talents who will outlast political appointees at the top of the organization” and “making a big splash early on to establish your credibility.” However, William Galston of the liberal Brookings Institute feared that the BCFP would “get their knuckles rapped” if they go to far. “If they make a mistake, it will more likely be on the side of excess. They will go too far and get their knuckles rapped, but I don’t expect them to be asleep at the switch like (BP regulator Minerals Management Service) was,” Galston said. Of course the article failed to mention the past ineffectiveness of government regulators and didn’t mention any details of the Democrat-sponsored “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” other than the proposed BCFP. John Berlau, director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Business & Media Institute the entire bill will have more negative effects on consumers than positive ones. “It will set up a nanny state with unintended consequences,” Berlau said. “You’re punishing the many because of a few stupid people and the costs will just be passed on to consumers.” Brian Johnson, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, also criticized the proposal telling BMI that the bill is “one of the first steps towards nationalizing the banking system.” “The BCFP is one of the worst things in this bill,” Johnson said. “They’re operating with a fat budget and can monitor personal transactions and map out grids with purchasing patterns.” This isn’t the first time the media has pulled out its pom poms for liberal reforms or increased financial regulation . Perhaps next time the reporters will save their act for a football halftime show as opposed to a major newspaper. Like this article?   Sign up   for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

Continued here:
USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

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

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

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