Tag Archives: president

National Punctuation Day 2010

So how does one celebrate National Punctuation Day? The holiday#39;s website offers a few suggestions: – Read a newspaper and circle all of the punctuation errors you find (or think you find, but aren’t sure) with a red pen. – Take a leisurely stroll, paying close attention to store signs with incorrectly punctuated words. – Visit a bookstore and purchase a copy of Strunk White’s The Elements of Style. – Congratulate yourself on becoming a better written communicator. Can#39;t wait to cele

Read this article:
National Punctuation Day 2010

ABC’s Walters Disputes Charges of Racism Against Ground Zero Mosque & Illegal Immigration Opponents

Catching up on an item from the Thursday, September 9, The View on ABC, Barbara Walters was at odds with her co-hosts over the issue of whether racism was the primary motivation of the Arizona illegal immigration law as well as opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. Whoopi Goldberg raised the question of whether “there may be an undercurrent of racism in the USA that’s building up,” leading co-host Sherri Shepherd to assert that “you certainly hear racism a lot more, I think, than you ever heard it.” Walters soon jumped in to voice dissent: I think that we’re kind of mixing things up. When you say there’s more racism now, oh, there’s so much less racism than 20 years ago or 50 years ago. … There is racism in this country. That’s not new. There is racism against the President. That’s not new. But I disagree with putting the mosque and the Arizona laws. I think the Arizona laws have to do with losing jobs and people coming across the border to get those jobs. After Goldberg responded, “Then why don’t they say that?” Walters continued: Please let me just finish. It is what they say. It is what they say. And the drug wars right across the border. If you had Canadians – and this doesn’t happen – and they were all coming and taking jobs and there were drug wars- She soon added, “I don’t think it’s because they are Mexican or because they’re brown. … And I don’t think the mosque is because Muslims have a darker skin. That’s fear of terrorism. I don’t think we can mix everything up and say it’s all racism.” Walters and Goldberg soon resumed their back-and-forth: WALTERS: But we’ve also had things about learning another language in school and whether languages should be taught in Spanish. What I’m saying is, of course there is racism, but I don’t think you can take everything that’s happening in this country and say, well- GOLDBERG: If you are targeting, if you are talking about Mexicans coming and taking your jobs, say that. Don’t say “illegal immigrants” when that’s not what you mean because people come from Canada and people come from England and people come from Africa, all over, and their- WALTERS: But they’re not coming en masse. GOLDBERG: -visas go away, but you know what. If you are going after illegal immigrants, then you have to go after all illegal immigrants, not just the brown ones. A bit later, they added: WALTERS: All I’m saying is that, we’re agreeing that there is racism. But I’m just saying that there are other things. The mosque has to do with terrorism. It’s not just the, I know, we disagree. It’s not just the color. I don’t think that you can just do a blanket. GOLDBERG: I think it feels that way. It feels that way, and that’s the question I’m posing. It feels that way. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, September 9, The View on ABC: WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Do you guys think there may be an undercurrent of racism in the USA that’s building up? Because, now, particularly against brown people? Because we have the Arizona immigration law, the Ground Zero mosque controversy, burn-the-Koran day and the hammering that folks seem to be taking. I can’t think of the woman’s name and it’s probably better, but she was screaming the “N” word all over her Web site. SEVERAL PANEL MEMBERS SAY: Dr. Laura Schlessinger. GOLDBERG: Yeah, so does it feel to you that there’s a little tension or am I just being kooky? SHERRI SHEPHERD: You know, I don’t know if it’s that because we now have an African-American President, all of this stuff that has always been simmering underneath the surface, has bubbled up. Because you certainly hear racism a lot more, I think, than you ever heard it. And so, it just seems like it’s now bubbling up, and, I don’t know, it seems like there’s just something going on- JOY BEHAR: Well, it’s disguised, isn’t it? I mean, as far as President Obama is concerned, some people still say he’s a Muslim, that they don’t believe he’s really American. SHEPHERD: They want to see his birth certificate. BEHAR: Those are kind of like code words for, you know, we don’t trust the other. He’s the other. ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Well, there are fringe groups like that regardless of who’s President. But especially now, it does seem ironic because we have our first black President, yet all this stuff is coming up. And so you have to wonder why, especially since Obama did receive a large portion of what they call the white vote, you know, so it seems disheartening that this is happening. And it does seem like, you know, the word “tolerance” gets spread around, you know, you can be tolerant, but- BEHAR: He got a large portion of the white vote. But this is a small group of people that are pushing this type of agenda that is not American. HASSELBECK: It’s no secret that (INAUDIBLE) have prejudice and it’s disgusting and it’s ugly and it’s there. And it’s been and for some reason now it’s maybe just being uncovered again. BARBARA WALTERS: (INAUDIBLE) I just say something? Okay, because I think that we’re kind of mixing things up. When you say there’s more racism now, oh, there’s so much less racism than 20 years ago or 50 years ago. SHEPHERD: I think maybe overt. Yeah, I think it was a lot of overt, I don’t know, you and I disagree on that. WALTERS: Could I say something? There is racism in this country. That’s not new. There is racism against the President. That’s not new. But I disagree with putting the mosque and the Arizona laws. I think the Arizona laws have to do with losing jobs and people coming across the border to get those jobs. GOLDBERG: Then why don’t they say that? SHEPHERD: Barbara, when you- WALTERS: Please let me just finish. It is what they say. It is what they say. And the drug wars right across the border. If you had Canadians – and this doesn’t happen – and they were all coming and taking jobs and there were drug wars- GOLDBERG: What jobs are they taking? WALTERS: -you would find very much- They are taking, if you look, the reason (INAUDIBLE) HASSELBECK: The jobs that, frankly, no one wants. WALTERS: That’s right, but I don’t think it’s because they are Mexican or because they’re brown. I know you differ- (GOLDBERG SAYS SOMETHING INAUDIBLE) WALTERS: But let me just finish. GOLDBERG: Sorry, Barbara. Sorry. WALTERS: And I don’t think the mosque is because Muslims have a darker skin. That’s fear of terrorism. I don’t think we can mix everything up and say it’s all racism. SHEPHERD: When Jan Brewer signed into law, you know, a law that prohibits the children in school from having their ethnic studies, African-American studies, Mexican-American studies, and you’re prohibiting people from learning about their country and it’s targeting minorities, it certainly seems like it’s not because somebody is taking their jobs. WALTERS: But we’ve also had things about learning another language in school and whether languages should be taught in Spanish. What I’m saying is, of course there is racism, but I don’t think you can take everything that’s happening in this country and say, well- GOLDBERG: If you are targeting, if you are talking about Mexicans coming and taking your jobs, say that. Don’t say “illegal immigrants” when that’s not what you mean because people come from Canada and people come from England and people come from Africa, all over, and their- WALTERS: But they’re not coming en masse. GOLDBERG: -visas go away, but you know what. If you are going after illegal immigrants, then you have to go after all illegal immigrants, not just the brown ones. (AUDIENCE APPLAUSE) HASSELBECK: I agree with that. I absolutely think that it’s powerful, and I think, you know, we can’t spend millions and millions of dollars protecting borders in other nations if we cannot even control our own, and I do think that- GOLDBERG: I totally get you. I get you what you’re saying. WALTERS: All I’m saying is that, we’re agreeing that there is racism. But I’m just saying that there are other things. The mosque has to do with terrorism. It’s not just the, I know, we disagree. It’s not just the color. I don’t think that you can just do a blanket. GOLDBERG: I think it feels that way. It feels that way, and that’s the question I’m posing. It feels that way. HASSELBECK: I’d be asking that question if I were brown or black. I mean, I can totally understand how there is that sentiment. I can totally understand how there is that worry, and I think it’s legitimate. BEHAR: Do you lump the mosque in with Mexico? GOLDBERG: I do. Because, you know, I feel very strongly that you cannot take an entire religion and make it responsible for the kooky people because you can’t, because you have, you know, we don’t want to do that with the Catholic religion. We don’t want to take that religion and say, well, everybody is this, or the Christians or anybody else. BEHAR: If the attack on 9/11 was done by Christians, would they not allow a church? GOLDBERG: Well, that is a good question. That’s a very good question. BEHAR: (INAUDIBLE) but it’s a valid question to ask because, if the answer is yes, then you have a point. HASSELBECK: The Catholic Church right now could never afford that property, so that would answer that question.

Link:
ABC’s Walters Disputes Charges of Racism Against Ground Zero Mosque & Illegal Immigration Opponents

CNN/US President Jon Klein Fired

Jonathan Klein is out as the president of CNN/US. According to TVNewser, Klein is being replaced by HLN chief Ken Jautz. Although it hasn’t been confirmed, the website FTVLive is reporting Klein was fired. Klein, who got the position in 2004, was given a four-year extension in 2007. With CNN’s ratings in the dumps, and decisions like giving disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer a show with Kathleen Parker, one has to wonder why it took so long. Of course, if this news is true, it will be interesting to see whether any of Klein’s recent moves will be reversed. Stay tuned. *****Update: CNN has now confirmed . The Associated Press is reporting he was fired and didn’t come to work today: The timing, however, is odd. Klein just remade CNN’s prime-time lineup with an 8 p.m. show starring former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, which debuts next week, and announced Piers Morgan as the replacement to Larry King.  Maybe it’s not odd at all. Maybe those pathetic decisions are the reason.

Read the rest here:
CNN/US President Jon Klein Fired

New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

On Sunday, the season premiere of 60 Minutes will include an anticipated Scott Pelley report on the Ground Zero mosque. Will the story be pro-mosque, just like President Obama? The first clips displayed softballs of sympathy , that it should be seen as “a hub of culture, a hub of coexistence, a hub of bringing people together.” To underline the overwhelming sympathetic tilt of this program in the Obama era — especially all the Steve Kroft hope-and-change goo before the 2008 election — the MRC has a new special report called “Syrupy Minutes.” Here’s my executive summary:  In the last five years, CBS’s 60 Minutes has become infamous for letting its left-wing ardor get way ahead of its journalistic mission. Dan Rather destroyed his own reputation in 2004 with a 60 Minutes II “expose” of President Bush’s incomplete Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard which relied on falsified documents. A CBS-appointed panel found “myopic zeal” in Rather’s professional demise, but no one would admit a political bias. For more than 40 years, CBS has boasted of 60 Minutes as a hard-hitting news show, a weekly story of investigative gumshoes digging up dirt and accusing major business and government leaders of committing dastardly deeds against the public interest. But the history of 60 Minutes isn’t filled to the brim with brutal investigations. It has a much softer, syrupy side, and it isn’t just reserved for movie stars or rock musicians. When it comes to champions of liberalism and even the radical left, the CBS News program has rolled out a red carpet, asking softball questions and lionizing their policy stands and programs – whether they were actually “achievements” or disasters. On September 19, a week before the new season officially began, CBS’s Lesley Stahl promoted the latest book of Jimmy Carter, and insisted that Carter was a bigger success than most presidents, including Ronald Reagan: “But when all is said and done, and many will be surprised to hear this: Jimmy Carter got more of his programs passed than Reagan and Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2.” Carter’s utter failure to end the Iranian hostage standoff and crushing inflation and unemployment rates were somehow irrelevant to history. Stahl also gushed to Carter: “A lot of critics of yours, when you were President, say that you’ve been a fantastic ex-President. You hear that all the time.” She said this even as she reminded viewers that Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council telling them they should oppose the first President Bush on the need for the Gulf War. In studying 60 Minutes broadcasts from January 1, 2006 through the September 2010 season premiere, Media Research Center analysts have found a very biased pattern of soft interviews and promotional language for the American left: — Liberals were featured more than twice as often than conservatives, and were four times more likely to be awarded easygoing interviews. Since 2006, 60 Minutes has aired 35 interviews with liberal leaders and celebrities versus 17 with conservatives. Twenty-four of the 35 interviews with liberals (69 percent) were friendly and unchallenging. Only five of the 17 conservative segments (29 percent) were soft – and one unchallenged conservative was hammering Sarah Palin as utterly unqualified for national office.. — Barack Obama was a major beneficiary of 60 Minutes admiration. CBS has devoted hours of air time to the promotion of Barack Obama – five interviews before the election, and six after it, all reported by Steve Kroft. Of the 49 Kroft questions in the first four CBS interviews (before the financial crisis hit), 42 were personal or horse-race questions. Only seven focused on issues – five on foreign policy, and two on trade – with no real focus on any domestic issues. Kroft never focused a question on Obama scandals, or his record in the Illinois legislature. Even issue questions were soft and open-ended. Kroft’s interviews were even made into a DVD for nostalgic Obama supporters, Obama All Access . — Other candidates for president were not granted the same red carpet as Obama. The contrast was striking to Scott Pelley’s 2008 bailout interview with John McCain: “But why would you let the Wall Street executives sail away on their yachts and leave this on the American taxpayer?” Mike Wallace’s interview with Mitt Romney in 2007 was sharply personal, demanding to know if the Republican candidate had premarital sex with his wife and asking his five sons why none of them had ever joined the military. — Liberal journalists and celebrities were also celebrated, and conservative celebrities were hounded. Morley Safer championed Stephen Colbert for satirizing conservative talk show hosts and their “wildly inaccurate, but patriotic and combative noise…With all of their excesses, it was only a matter of time before someone came along to skewer them. Well, the eagle has landed.” Safer also felt the pain of actor Alec Baldwin having to deal with “conservative junkyard dogs like Sean Hannity.” But Mike Wallace confronted Bill O’Reilly: “You are addicted to the power, you are addicted to the money, you are addicted to the fact that ‘I am Bill O’Reilly, and everybody knows it.'” A review of the recent output of 60 Minutes should cause media historians to restrain themselves before declaring that this program is a hallmark of hard-hitting journalism, without a political axe to grind. They either carry an axe or a shoe-shine kit.

Originally posted here:
New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday offered up Democratic talking points as he discussed a new set of Republican promises, should the GOP win Congress. The skeptical host interviewed Representative Paul Ryan and repeated, “You heard the President. He said this is the exact same agenda as Republicans had before he came to office. How is it different?” In a tease for the segment, he spun, ” Republicans unveil their plan for America: Cutting taxes and repealing health care .” It may seem like a small distinction but Republicans oppose the new law, not the concept of Americans having health care. Stephanopoulos repeatedly grilled the GOP Congressman: “…The two central items in the agenda, are extending the tax cuts passed under President Bush. Repealing the health care law by President Obama. Those are going to cost at least $4 trillion over the next ten years. And your- your pledge doesn’t spell out anything close to paying for that $4 trillion.” He followed up by pressing, “But, you say a path to balance. But, you do concede that you do not have a plan to balance the budget. And you don’t pay for the tax cuts that you are extending?” Yet, when Stephanopoulos interviewed Barack Obama for 16 minutes on September 9 , he included several softball questions, such as this empathetic example on the minister who threatened to burn a Koran on 9/11: “I wonder what this must feel like from behind your desk. You’re President of the United States. You have to deal with the fallout. And here’s a pastor who’s got 30 followers in his church. Does it make you feel helpless or angry?” A transcript of the September 23 segment, which aired at 7:06am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s turn now to one of the architects of the Republican agenda, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a ranking Republican on the House budget committee. Good morning, Congressman. REP. PAUL RYAN: Hey, good morning, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard the President. He said this is the exact same agenda as Republicans had before he came to office. How is it different? RYAN: Well, first of all, cutting spending, creating jobs and putting the policy of economic growth in place, and cleaning up the way Congress works is not only standing in stark contrast to this Congress and this President. But, actually, George, it stands a bit in stark contrast to way Republicans conducted ourselves a decade ago. We need to own up to the fact that when we were in the majority, we spent too much money. We lost our way. We have got to get that back. We are not here offering a plan to reinvent America. We are trying to reclaim our country by rededicating ourselves to the timeless principles that made us exceptional. These are the basic building blocks to get us on the right track. The first steps to get this country on the right track. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet, Congressman, the two central items in the agenda, are extending the tax cuts passed under President Bush. Repealing the health care law by President Obama. Those are going to cost at least $4 trillion over the next ten years. And your- your pledge doesn’t spell out anything close to paying for that $4 trillion. RYAN: We’d put 1.3 trillion in cuts right there as well. But the President is also proposing $3 trillion of those $3.7 trillion in tax cuts be extended. So, it’s not as if the President and the Democrats aren’t saying extend some of them. We’re saying- STEPHANOPOULOS: But, how are you going to pay for the $4 trillion, if you’re going to reduce the spending? RYAN: Well, I brought a budget to the floor that reduced $4.8 trillion in spending, which would have more than compensated for these tax cuts. The point is, George, raising taxes on successful, small businesses, which these tax increases would hit 50 percent of all small business income, 70 percent of our jobs come from small businesses. It is not a good idea in this economy, to raise these kind of taxes. Even some of the President’s own economic advisers are suggesting, we should not have tax increases occur in January. What- The problem we have right now is jobs, George. We need the economy growing. We need job creations. Taxing capital gains, taxing dividends taxing small businesses will hurt us from creating jobs. Mark Zandi, Peter Orszag. Even some of the President’s own advisors are suggesting that. So, we’re saying, not only keep taxes low, but focus on spending. Cut spending. Control spending. Get the budget on the path to balance. We will begin with that. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, you say a path to balance. But, you do concede that you do not have a plan to balance the budget. And you don’t pay for the tax cuts that you are extending? RYAN: Well, we can pay for the tax cuts. I have provided budgets that do that in the past. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, the rest of the Republicans aren’t signing on to it? RYAN: No. That’s the road map which is quite different. What I’m saying is we have a plan to get this country back on track. We want to cut and control spending. The deficit is such a mess right now. It’s going to take time to balance the budget. But, what is the current government doing? Their making it worse. The President has added a budget that doubles our debt in five years. And triples it in ten years. We want to go in a different direction. So, we don’t want to balance the budget by raising taxes. We want to balance a budget by controlling spending. ‘Cause, after all, that’s the real source of our problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: You also talk about cleaning up Congress. You’re taking some heat, some surprising heat from conservatives. Erick Erickson of RedState.com says- hits you were not taking on earmarks, for not banning earmarks. He says “The lack of an earmarks ban is terrible. Cutting off the gateway drug to big government is important.” Your response? RYAN: I agree. We’ve already banned earmarks. That’s already in the Republican platform. STEPHANOPOULOS: Only for your conference. Not for the House overall. RYAN: Republicans- We’ve going to continue this earmarks ban. We’ve already done the earmark ban. So, it’s something we’ve already initiated it in our own volition within our own conference. It’s something we’re intending on continuing. That’s why it’s not new pledge. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’ve got the pledge. What will you pledge to pass in the first year, if Republicans take control of the house? RYAN: Right. So, this is something we could pass tomorrow. This is a governing agenda that we’re saying if we got in control of Congress tomorrow, here’s what we would do. And there’s dozens of pieces of legislation here we’re talking about. First of all, the health care bill, we think is a disaster. It’s making the deficit worse. That’s according to the President’s actuary. It’s making health care go up. We would replace this health care law with consumer-directed health care that actually gets affordable health care to everybody, regardless of preexisting condition. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that is number one. Okay, Congressman- RYAN: We would cut spending, right away. There’s lots of things we would do. We would rescind TARP. We would rescind unspent stimulus. We would do a federal hiring freeze. That can get you 1.3 trillion in spending cuts. And we would prevent these massive tax increases from hitting our economy January 1st so that we can keep job creation going. We’re trying to remove uncertainty so the economy can grow. There’s a big uncertainty problem. Businesses aren’t hiring because of all this government uncertainty. We want to address that. STEPHANOPOULOS: Big agenda for January 1st. Thank you very much, Congressman.

More here:
George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

New York Times Reporter Kevin Sack Issues White House Press Releases for Obama-Care

The first wave of Obama-care goes into effect today, and New York Times health-care reporter Kevin Sack celebrated with a series of propaganda-style articles for the front of the National section, topped by ” For Many Families, Health Care Relief Begins Today .” (As did higher costs and denied coverage, but the Times didn’t get into that.) The Times’s headline reads more like an Obama administration press release than an actual instance of journalism, and Sack’s reference (in a news story) to the “Darwinian insurance system” doesn’t inspire confidence in his objectivity. Sometimes lost in the partisan clamor about the new health care law is the profound relief it is expected to bring to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been stricken first by disease and then by a Darwinian insurance system. On Thursday, the six-month anniversary of the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a number of its most central consumer protections take effect, just in time for the midterm elections. Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, which the White House said could enable 72,000 uninsured to gain coverage. Insurers also will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies. After Sack allowed a single middle paragraph for dissent from House Republicans, and a brief mention that Democrats had managed to defer “the pain of tax increases and penalties until after the election,” he indulged in more leftist boosting of the program’s alleged popularity, or at least “many of the provisions.” Sack conveniently bypasses the findings of recent New York Times/CBS News polls that find most respondents disapprove of the plan. Polls have found that many of the provisions taking effect Thursday are popular, tugging at a national sense of fairness and feeding off distrust of health insurers . They bear particular appeal for the 14 million people who must buy policies on the individual market rather than through employers and are thus at the mercy of the industry. And they land on the heels of a government report showing that the recession drove the number of uninsured Americans to 50.7 million in 2009, up 10 percent in a year. Three other brief profiles on the same page were headlined as if the Obama administration were free-lancing as copy editors. “Chronically Ill, and Covered,” “Cap Lifts, and So Do Spirits,” and “24, and Back in the Fold.” (Insurers must offer coverage to “children” (?) under their parents’ plan until they turn 26.) The Washington Examiner has an alternative view in an editorial: ” Obamacare is even worse than critics thought .” A couple of the editorial’s bullet points: Obamacare won’t decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare’s actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care. Obamacare will increase insurance premiums — in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients’ children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare’s mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama’s only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

Read the original:
New York Times Reporter Kevin Sack Issues White House Press Releases for Obama-Care

David Gregory Admires Jon Stewart’s ‘Serious’ Work ‘A Lot,’ Laments Helen Thomas ‘Lost Her Way’ With Polemics

NBC Meet the Press host David Gregory spoke on Tuesday at the City Club in Seattle, Washington, and John Hamer of the Washington News Council reported on Gregory’s remarks, which he found pretty bland. He found some spice in Gregory’s answers to audience questions.  On Jon Stewart’s “sanity” rally on Halloween weekend: “He’s a comedian, but he’s also got a point of view. I think what they do is serious. It’s not a joke.” However, “They are part of the media polarization.” As for Stewart: “He asks tough questions. He does a great job. I admire him a lot.” On suddenly retired columnist (and former UPI reporter) Helen Thomas: I think Helen lost her way. I don’t know when that happened..I thought she was miscast as the ‘dean of the press corps.’ She was a polemicist. Her views in the press corps were well known.” Left unsaid (at least from this report): None of the star White House reporters ever questioned the “Helen the Dean” legend, including Gregory. They underlined it. They only abandoned that position once she lashed out at the rabbi that Jews should “get the hell out” of Israel and “go home” to Germany. There’s more: The blogosphere, naturally, is weighed down with a whole lot of er, excrement: “I like to see what the Zeitgeist is in that community, but even with millions of people it’s a limited community. It can be an echo chamber. It can be partisan in one way or another..Is there some good reporting that goes on? Of course. But there’s also a whole lot of crap. It’s not a monolith.” The Tea Party, and sigh, its racist elements: It’s a “populist, conservative, small-government, anti-Washington [D.C.] movement,” upset with “bailouts” and “too much deficit spending.” Also: “And a real antipathy toward Obama that in some cases is racism.” (Hamer said, “Easy to say. Any clear evidence?”) Obama not “big enough” to get advice from Dubya: “Certainly President Obama is not as popular as he would like to be – or as he was expected to be.” Gregory said Rahm Emanuel told Obama that he “had to get close to Bill Clinton,” and Obama did that. “President Obama is not going to be big enough to call on President Bush all that often.” As for his own job, Gregory was asked if he missed the White House front-row seat. He called Meet the Press “is the ultimate front row. This is the ultimate job..We try to set the agenda. We try to move the story forward. We try to make news – and we do.” He said the show’s mission is accountability, relevance, constructive engagement, thoughtful discussion. It’s a place to ‘put it all together.'” But, he lamented: “There ought to be more outlets where we’re really listening to each other, not waiting to pounce. We don’t have enough intellectual spontaneity. I like to see people really wrestling with issues.”  Like many “mainstream” media types, Gregory sang the Scarborough song about too much divisiveness in politics: “We’ve always been polarized,” and that is “compounded by a media culture that has become increasingly polarized..I just don’t feel like constructive engagement with the other side is something that’s celebrated anymore..There’s a big political center in this country but we tend to write them off.” Replied Hamer: “This from the ‘firebrand in the front row’ whose current show delights in conflict?”

See the rest here:
David Gregory Admires Jon Stewart’s ‘Serious’ Work ‘A Lot,’ Laments Helen Thomas ‘Lost Her Way’ With Polemics

Wal-Mart Senior VP Chokes Up Talking Sustainability (Video)

Curveballs aplenty at the special session “Market-based Solutions for Protecting the Environment” at the 2010 Clinton Global Initiative. The panel, which included Matt Kistler, the Senior Vice President of Marketing Wal-Mart, Dr. Sanjayan and the lead scientist for the Nature Conservancy, convened to discuss how business can address issues like water shortages and climate change, and turn a profit in the process. The biggest surprise came at the end of the session, when Kistler teared up discussing the vast scope pursuing sustainability and addressing climate change presents. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original post:
Wal-Mart Senior VP Chokes Up Talking Sustainability (Video)

CNN’s Tuchman Hints O’Donnell is a Totalitarian Due to Anti-Media Remark

CNN’s Gary Tuchman blasted Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on Tuesday’s AC360, suggesting that the Republican was like the leader of a totalitarian regime, after she dared to say that the media should be left out of certain campaign events: ” I think, for most Americans, that gives you a little chill. When we go to places like Cuba and Iran and North Korea and China, we’re often kept out ” . Anchor Anderson Cooper led the 10 pm Eastern hour of his program with the latest on O’Donnell’s candidacy, particularly her interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity the previous hour. Tuchman, who was reporting live from Wilmington, Delaware, raised the issue of her finances, and after reporting on two recent local events which the Republican attended, went into his lamentation over her stab at the media: TUCHMAN: One final thing we should mention is that, during this program, she said that the media was pushing and shoving at that particular event. I will tell you- I have been covering politics for almost 30 years, and it was nothing out of the ordinary. They were coming up to her. That’s what happens with any high-profile political campaign. And she also mentioned that, perhaps, it would be good if the media was kept out of certain events. And frankly, I think, for most Americans, that gives you a little chill. When we go to places like Cuba and Iran and North Korea and China, we’re often kept out. The media is kept out. There’s no free reporting, and it’s just something that we really don’t like to hear in the United States of America- to keep the media out . Here we have the CNN correspondent attacking a candidate who hold no office at the moment, when highest officeholder in the country, President Obama, and his Democratic allies in Congress, teamed up to break his campaign promise to “broadcast health care negotiations on C-SPAN.” Even Tuchman’s own colleague, Jack Cafferty, attacked Obama and the congressional leaders for their lack of transparency during a January 6, 2010 commentary . One wonders if he would have held those politicians to the same standard he’s holding O’Donnell. Just under two minutes later, Cooper raised the Senate candidate’s slam on the media with guest Erick Erickson. The conservative called out Tuchman for his remark: COOPER: I get the hatred of the media and stuff and stuff , but to hear a major candidate for U.S. Senate saying like- well, you know, they’re hurting my campaign by asking me questions, and they’re taking pictures of my dad on the lawn- I’m certainly sympathetic to that. ERICKSON: Right. COOPER: Someone’s family shouldn’t be bothered and stuff. But if she actually made herself available to the media, rather than run away and refuse to ask questions – ERICKSON: You know, Anderson- COOPER: I mean, it just seems odd . ERICKSON: Frankly, that’s the issue there. She doesn’t care about the national media, and she doesn’t really need to. It’s kind of the Rand Paul strategy in Kentucky. He’s raising a lot of money. He’s up on the air in Kentucky. He’s now 20 points ahead- although, admittedly, she’s behind. But they’re focused on local media, and the national media attacks- to have Gary bring up the point about Christine saying maybe there’s some events that the media shouldn’t go to, and then jumping to this is like in China and Korea and Cuba- I mean, when you hear- conservatives hear that, they’re thinking, obviously, this is biased, whether it is or not. I mean, she’s playing to her base, and the media’s just helping her .

Continue reading here:
CNN’s Tuchman Hints O’Donnell is a Totalitarian Due to Anti-Media Remark

Will Jon Stewart’s Oct. 30 Rally on the National Mall Hurt the Dems on Election Day?

Originally posted here:
Will Jon Stewart’s Oct. 30 Rally on the National Mall Hurt the Dems on Election Day?