Tag Archives: president

CBS Continues to Defend Obama Vacation Time With Bush Comparison

Following a report on Saturday’s CBS Evening News , in which White House correspondent Chip Reid defended President Obama’s Maine vacation with a comparison to President Bush’s vacation time, Monday’s Early Show took the same approach as correspondent Michelle Miller reported: But it’s not just where and when presidents travel, it’s how often. Ronald Reagan took 349 vacation days at his California ranch during his eight years in office. In his first year and a half as President, George W. Bush vacationed 96 days. Over that same time period, President Obama has taken 36 days. On Saturday, Reid had similarly noted: “Whatever criticism there may be of the President’s vacation choices, he’s spent 33 days on vacation in his first 18 months. His predecessor, Bush W. Bush, spent 96 in the same period.” When Obama vacationed on Martha’ Vineyard in August of 2009 , Reid highlighted how it helped the local economy: “One thing that’s going to give a huge boost to the economy is all the Obama paraphernalia…t-shirts, it’s baseball caps and magnets and coffee mugs and glasses. And restaurants are selling the ‘Baracko Taco.’ Bars are selling ‘Ale to the Chief.’ And all of it is selling like crazy.” In the Monday Early Show report, Miller cited liberal presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, who further defended Obama’s decision to vacation in Maine, rather along the tourist-starved Gulf coast: “Sure, people might wish that Obama had gone to the Gulf, but had he gone to the Gulf, now people would have said he was going there for politics.” Goodwin went on to declare: “I think presidential vacations are essential. It allows a President to relax, to replenish his energies, to think. Something they sometimes can’t do enough of in Washington.” At that point, Miller observed: “Despite any criticism, presidential vacations leave indelible images.” Goodwin chimed in: “JFK sailing is forever in our mind, that rugged JFK.” Miller concluded: “Only time will tell how President Obama’s hike in his dress shoes will compare with President Nixon’s similar walk on the beach.” Following Miller’s report, fill-in co-hosts Jeff Glor and Erica Hill shared their thoughts on the presidential vacation controversy. Glor sympathized: “I mean, the camera’s always on….I mean even when he’s there, they’re there following from spot to spot. So, you’re never really off that job.” Hill agreed: “No, no. And that kind of comes with the territory.” Glor then remarked on the First Family’s choice of getaways: “And not quite as hot there. Only high 80s, I think.” Hill added: “Oh, it’s so relaxing. Plus that nice breeze off of the Atlantic, it’s fine.”    Here is a full transcript of the Early Show’s July 19 report: 7:17AM TEASE ERICA HILL: Plus, why the first family is under fire for enjoying a little R&R. [FOOTAGE OF OBAMA EATING ICE CREAM] HILL: The ice cream gets you every time. 7:30AM TEASE HILL: Speaking of vacations, the first family spent a fun-filled weekend in Maine, a little mini vacation, but their time in the sun is stirring up plenty of controversy. So we’ll take a closer look at that as well. 7:46AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: President Obama catching a little more flack from critics this morning. But not for his policies this time, it’s for taking a family vacation in Maine. CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports. MICHELLE MILLER: The First Family returned to the White House Sunday from a weekend vacation, a getaway that included hiking, boating, and eating ice cream in quaint Bar Harbor, Maine. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: First Family’s Maine Event; President’s Getaway Draws Criticism] UNDENTIFIED WOMAN [BAR HARBOR ICE CREAM SHOP]: I think everybody needs a weekend off to recharge and get some ice cream. MILLER: Given the ongoing crisis in the Gulf, the President’s weekend escape received a good share of criticism. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN [PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN]: Sure, people might wish that Obama had gone to the Gulf, but had he gone to the Gulf, now people would have said, he was going there for politics. MILLER: Questioning presidential vacations is a time-honored tradition. The Clintons frequently sailed off of Martha’s Vineyard. But after polling the public, they switched to middle-America-friendly Wyoming. George Bush senior took heat for golfing in Kennebunkport, Maine as troops were deployed to the Persian Gulf for the Iraq war. But it’s not just where and when presidents travel, it’s how often. Ronald Reagan took 349 vacation days at his California ranch during his eight years in office. In his first year and a half as President, George W. Bush vacationed 96 days. Over that same time period, President Obama has taken 36 days. GOODWIN: I think presidential vacations are essential. It allows a President to relax, to replenish his energies, to think. Something they sometimes can’t do enough of in Washington. MILLER: Despite any criticism, presidential vacations leave indelible images. GOODWIN: JFK sailing is forever in our mind, that rugged JFK. MILLER: Only time will tell how President Obama’s hike in his dress shoes will compare with President Nixon’s similar walk on the beach. Michelle Miller, CBS News, New York. HILL: That may be the strangest thing, taking a hike in dress shoes. Out of all of this, all the criticism aside, it’s not very comfortable. You could slip very easily. JEFF GLOR: But there’s the thing, I mean, the camera’s always on. HILL: Always there. GLOR: I mean even when he’s there, they’re there following from spot to spot. So, you’re never really off that job. HILL: No, no. And that kind of comes with the territory, which- GLOR: Which he knew that. HILL: Which everybody – which everybody knows going in. GLOR: They all knew that. HILL: It’s true. GLOR: And not quite as hot there. Only high 80s, I think. HILL: Oh, it’s so relaxing. Plus that nice breeze off of the Atlantic, it’s fine. GLOR: Yes, with dress shoes.

The rest is here:
CBS Continues to Defend Obama Vacation Time With Bush Comparison

Matthews to Tea Party: Tear Down Those Racist Signs and Then I’ll Believe You!

Chris Matthews, on Monday’s Hardball, actually reported on two different Tea Party organizations condemning Mark Williams, of Tea Party Express, for penning a racially charged satire, however Matthews wasn’t impressed, as he questioned the sincerity of the Tea Party movement’s commitment to fighting discrimination, and demanded that they do more to remove “racist signs at the next Tea Party rally.” After reciting some of Williams’ “fictional letter” the Hardball host then noted that both the National Tea Party Federation and the Tea Party Nation chastised Williams, but Matthews wasn’t buying it as he commanded tea partiers at the next rally to “Reach over, grab the [racist] sign and tear it out of the guy’s hands, then I’ll believe you.” The following was aired during the Sideshow segment of the July 19 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Next the Tea Party reaches its tipping point. It started when Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams wrote a fictional letter in defense of slavery to President Abraham Lincoln. Quote, these are his words, quote: “We coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to the whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much of us to ask of us colored people.” Well that’s, Williams called that satire, the leaders of the National Tea Party Federation called it trouble. Yesterday they expelled Williams. The sentiment continued today. The Tea Party Nation, the group that hosted the big party convention down in Nashville has just put out a statement saying they have quote, “zero tolerance, a zero tolerance policy against racism and they will ban any members who show themselves to be racist.” Okay I’m gonna wait to see just one of those Tea Party people pull down one of those racist signs at the next Tea Party rally. I’m just waiting. Reach over, grab the sign and tear it out of the guy’s hands, then I’ll believe you.

See the original post here:
Matthews to Tea Party: Tear Down Those Racist Signs and Then I’ll Believe You!

BREAKING NEWS: BP Announces Oil Spilling Into Gulf Has Been Stopped By The Cap..

! http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/15/2010-07-15_bp_announces_no_m… http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us/16spill.html/ BP Says That Oil Flow Has Stopped as Cap Is Tested NEW ORLEANS — Oil stopped gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for the first time in nearly three months, as BP began testing the cap atop its stricken well, a critical step toward sealing the well permanently. This Land: From an Oyster in the Gulf, a Domino Effect (July 16, 2010) Times Topic: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill (2010) Reuters “I am very excited that there’s no oil in the Gulf of Mexico,” Kent Wells, a senior vice president for BP, said about the flow during a teleconference on Thursday, “but we just started the test and I don’t want to create a false sense of excitement.” Oil stopped flowing at 2:25 p.m. local time, Mr. Wells said, when engineers closed the choke line, the final seal of the well. Engineers and scientists will now examine the results of the tests every six hours to determine the pressure levels. The view one mile beneath the gulf on BP’s continuous live video feed was conspicuously calm, devoid of the clouds of crude oil that had been billowing since the disaster first occurred in April. Despite the long-anticipated moment, officials involved in the spill effort, including President Obama, were quick to downplay the development as a temporary measure. “I think it is a positive sign, we’re still in the testing phase and I’ll have more to say about it tomorrow,” President Obama said in response to a shouted question at the conclusion of a news conference devoted entirely to the passage of the financial regulatory bill. “We’re encouraged by this development, but this isn’t over,” Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is overseeing the federal response to the spill, said in a statement on Thursday. “It remains likely that we will return to the containment process using this new stacking cap connected to the risers to attempt to collect up to 80,000 barrels of oil per day until the relief well is completed.” Earlier on Thursday, the national incident commander, Thad W. Allen, said that closing the well off using the containment cap would only be an interim measure, and that the company must still complete the relief wells it is working on in order to seal the well for good. The test commenced after two days of delays while BP fixed a leak in the equipment that engineers discovered on Wednesday night. Engineers replaced equipment on the tight-sealing cap that has been placed at the top of well, 5,000 feet under water, said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of the company. The equipment, part of a choke line that was the last valve to be closed before the pressure test could begin. BP said that its three-ram capping stack was closed, “effectively shutting in the well and all sub-sea containment systems.” Live feeds of video images from the undersea well clearly showed that the release of oil had had been completely halted. Mr. Allen, clarified the role of the cap in his news conference on Thursday morning, saying that this mechanism was never meant to be the ultimate solution to closing the well. Mr. Allen called it a “precursor” to containment, making it possible for the gushing crude to be captured through four different systems that together can keep up with the estimated rate of flow, which the government now puts at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day. If all goes well, it may also be used to seal the well completely for brief periods. “I don’t want to reverse the priorities here, because the priority was to contain and stop the flow of oil,” he said, “but the design of the cap itself, if we can withstand the pressures and the well bore stays intact, presents the opportunity to shut the well in, which will give us the ability to abandon the site in a hurricane, so it’s a two-for if we can do it.” The test involves closing all the valves on the new cap, which was installed earlier in the week, to increase pressure in the well so that BP can assess its condition over the length of the well bore, which extends 13,000 feet below the seabed. Mr. Allen likened the process to putting a thumb over the end of a running garden hose. If the pressure does not rise as a result, that means there is a leak somewhere. In the case of the well, if the resulting pressure is high, that means the well bore is intact, he said. “We have been slowly using mechanisms to close off the hose,” Mr. Allen said. With those mechanisms all but closed off by Thursday morning, BP prepared to start watching the pressure readings. If all goes well and the pressure remains high, the test will continue for 48 hours. But even then, the oil will not be completely stopped, Mr. Allen said, as BP evaluates the test results with seismic readings beneath the sea. added by: keithponder

Luke Russert Touts Financial Bill as ‘Huge Victory’ for Dems, Fulfills Obama’s Promise of ‘Change’

Reporting Thursday from Capitol Hill, MSNBC congressional correspondent Luke Russert touted a likely win for Senate Democrats on the Financial Reform Bill, saying it would be a “huge victory.” “Obviously, [President Obama] ran on the slogan ‘Change you can believe in,’ with health care reform and financial regulatory reform,” Russert commented, thus tying the passage of the financial reform bill with success of Obama’s message of “change.” Using the 60-38 result of the Senate vote in favor of cloture, Luke Russert said the final vote would come late Thursday afternoon, probably resulting in a Democrat victory for financial reform, thus accomplishing a task President Obama began last year. Russert, however, had a bit of trouble identifying two of the major players in the financial crisis. Republicans, he reported, said the bill wasn’t “going far enough in terms of reforming Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac , two facets of the government they say were very much responsible for that meltdown in 2008.” The transcript of Russert’s segment, which aired on July 15 at 12:04 p.m. EDT, is as follows: CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: Luke, here we’ve seen more than a year of political wrangling, and it looks like this bill will cross the finish line. LUKE RUSSERT, MSNBC congressional correspondent: It absolutely will indeed, according to sources from the Democratic side, Contessa. The first procedural vote just happened in the past hour, 60-38 Republicans, three of which – Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins from Maine – joined with 57 Democrats to bring forth cloture. That’s the first procedural matter here. Then we will have a final vote this Thursday afternoon and most likely deliver President Obama a huge victory that he set out to do last year. Obviously he ran on the slogan “Change you can believe in,” with healthcare reform and this financial regulatory reform. The administration and the Democratic Party feels they’ve accomplished two amazing things. It’s going to be interesting to see how much the Democrats will pump this out in terms of their messaging for the next month heading into the August recess. They obviously are going to try to frame it as they’re standing with Main Street, while Republicans stand with Wall Street. Republicans have been very harsh on this bill, saying that it’s way too much government regulation, and will restrict lending at a time when people desperately need lending from small community banks. They also say it’s not going far enough in terms of reforming Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac , two facets of the government they say were very much responsible for that meltdown in 2008, September of that year, Contessa.

Read more here:
Luke Russert Touts Financial Bill as ‘Huge Victory’ for Dems, Fulfills Obama’s Promise of ‘Change’

Van Jones: ‘Higher Energy Costs Are Unavoidable’

The left continues to try to renovate Van Jones’ reputation. Jones, the former green jobs czar who disappeared from the White House in a late-night resignation after it was revealed he had signed a 9/11 Truther petition, is one of the headliners at the Hamptons Institute gathering of lefties this weekend. Jones joins liberal financier George Soros and Craigslist founder Craig Newmark for “a weekend summer symposium gathering some of the greatest minds in the arts, the economy, and the media” this coming weekend. To prep for the event, Jones was interviewed by New Deal 2.0 and he responded predictably – touting massive government spending on eco-goodies and a higher cost for energy. According to Jones, “Higher energy costs are unavoidable in all future scenarios.” He tried to spin that cost as minor as long as America acts now, claiming it would be “the equivalent of a postage stamp a day for each American.” It sounds a lot worse after you do the math and come up with $50 billion. He doesn’t stop at spending $50 billion though. “Government needs to do two things: put a price on carbon and invest heavily in new technologies.” Then the numbers get higher. “The President’s recovery package (so-called “stimulus” package) put $80 billion on the table for investment; that was a good start. Dramatically more is necessary.” So how much is “dramatically more” than $80 billion? After the $787 billion stimulus bill, most Americans would believe anything. Of course, Jones loves hyperbole like the other climate change prophets. “If we do nothing, the ensuing climate catastrophe will wreck our economy – including wreaking havoc on our food production systems. All credible scientists agree on this point.” The event is sponsored by the Roosevelt Institute, which describes itself as “carrying forward the legacy, values, and spirit of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.” It “hopes to contribute to bold, progressive change over a generation.” Some other highlights from the Van Jones interview include: “[T]he government should also directly employ people to do things like coastal restoration, land restoration, reforestation and similar programs that absorb carbon and protect America’s beauty.” Jones called for at least a doubling of renewable energy from its current 10 percent level. “We need to aim high – in the area of 20-25 percent – to create the urgent demand for new technologies, manufacturing plants and green jobs.”

See the original post:
Van Jones: ‘Higher Energy Costs Are Unavoidable’

Is All This ‘Conservatives Are Racist’ Talk Designed to Save Dems in November?

Have you noticed that you can’t swing a dead cat these days without hitting some television host claiming the Tea Party or a conservative is racist? Turn on ABC and there it is. Ditto CBS , CNN , and MSNBC . Can’t get away from it, can you? Think it’s just a coincidence, or could this be a response to President Obama’s plummeting poll numbers and the panic in the liberal media that November could be a realigning election that results in a massive Republican sweep of Congress? Before you answer, consider the following written Wednesday by Gina Loudon, the founder of Buycott Arizona: With no way to win on the issues, Democrats would need some way to energize their base. So in 2010, they began playing the race card as hard as they could. In a very rare move, the president of the United States rushed out to tell the world that he had a racist state that had gone rogue and needed to be punished. Adding to the narrative, Democratic congressional leaders invited a foreign leader to excoriate millions of Americans from the floor of Congress…While assailing white voters in Arizona, the Obama administration got caught in an Orwellian scenario that makes it appear the policy of this Chicago machine administration is that some people really are “more equal” than others.   On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times reported : Democratic strategists looking to stave off major losses in the upcoming midterm election have devised a precise and targeted role for President Obama: recapturing the enthusiasm he generated as a fresh-faced candidate vying to become the nation’s first black president.  This seems crucial for Democrat success, as according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, Republicans are far more energized: Fully 56% of Republican voters say they are more enthusiastic about voting this year than in previous elections – the highest percentage of GOP voters expressing increased enthusiasm about voting in midterms dating back to 1994. While enthusiasm among Democratic voters overall is on par with levels in 2006, fewer liberal Democrats say they are more enthusiastic about voting than did so four years ago (52% then, 37% today). The Republican Party now holds about the same advantage in enthusiasm among its party’s voters that the Democratic Party held in June 2006 and the GOP had late in the 1994 campaign. Moreover, more Republicans than Democrats are now paying close attention to election news (64% vs. 50%). Coincidentally as the Times noted, the President is changing his approach:  More and more, Obama is taking on a partisan tone. He is weaving a story line peopled with villains and heroes, fools and leaders. In a speech Thursday in Las Vegas, he mocked Sen. Harry Reid’s election opponent, Republican Sharron Angle, saying she “favors an approach that’s even more extreme than the Republicans we got in Washington. That’s saying something.”  It sure is saying something: Obama and Company, realizing November looks like a disaster, are beginning to demonize the opposition. And, as midterm elections are often about turnout, the key right now for the Left is to figure out a way to energize those that helped Obama get elected in the first place. The solution: play the race card. Nothing gets the ire up in liberals more than racism.  After all, you might still be unemployed, and this administration may not have brought about all the Hope and Change they campaigned on, but Republicans are all racists. This includes many of their elected officials, their surrogates at Fox News, the radio personalities they love like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and, of course, those awful Teabaggers. The NAACP just put that red letter on THEIR backs, don’t you know? With the strategy in place, all that’s needed is a compliant media stoking the fire of discontent. Just try swinging a dead cat without hitting someone that fits THAT bill. 

Read more:
Is All This ‘Conservatives Are Racist’ Talk Designed to Save Dems in November?

ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf Confused: Why Don’t Americans Support Awesome Dems?

The folks at ABC News are confused. Democrats are passing all this awesome legislation, they posit, so why are Americans acting so hostile and looking to hand Congress to the GOP? The key problems, ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf deduces , are that Democrats simply have not embraced liberalism enough and Americans have failed to perceive just how great the Democratic agenda has been. “The imminent passage of a tough new Wall Street Reform bill,” wrote Wolf, pictured right, on ABC’s website, “will cap off a wildly productive two years for Democrats in Washington – they will have passed two pieces of sweeping legislation and an enormous $800 billion stimulus bill to deal with the ailing economy.” Wolf goes on to wonder why those three pieces of legislation haven’t benefited Democrats’ electoral prospects. Let’s see: 6% of Americans believe the stimulus bill created jobs, a strong majority favors repealing the health care bill, and almost 80% of Americans polled have little or no confidence that the financial reform bill will achieve its stated objectives. Is Wolf still confused? He goes on to write that Democrats’ problems stem from the fact that they just have not embraced liberalism to a great enough degree. “Rather than energize the electoral base that helped put Democrats in control of Congress in 2006 — and President Obama in the White House in 2008,” Wolf writes, “the accomplishments have often frustrated activists, who see compromised ideals and watered-down bills instead of legislative victories.” If this is supposed to be an explanation for Democrats’ poor prospects in November, it falls well short. First of all, the districts where Dems are vulnerable are by and large ones they picked up in 2006 and 2008 from sitting Republicans that couldn’t shake the tarnished Republican name. Now that Bush is a memory, red state Dems need to court moderate Republicans, not cater to the far left. Furthermore, the number of Americans who identify themelves as “conservative” is at its highest point since 1994 , when Republicans walloped Dems in the midterm elections. Forty-nine percent of the nation believes that Democrats are too liberal, up 10 points from 2008. Only 10 percent believe they are too conservative. A shift to the left is not going to be a winning strategy. Wolf continues: While Republicans  have, since President Bush left office, instituted an almost myopic, party-wide focus on spending and debt, Democrats  have struggled to rally behind their versions of health reform and Wall Street  reform. They could barely find enough votes to pass the bills. And despite millions of jobs Democrats say were created by the $862 billon stimulus bill, the unemployment rate remains high, and is not expected to come down any time soon. “I think the public doesn’t quite perceive (the accomplishments) because they don’t see much change in their everyday lives. They’re still having trouble finding work,” said Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Got it? Obama and congressional Democrats have made fantastic accomplishments, but the American people are too dumb, distracted, or removed to perceive it. These three defenses of the Democratic Party in the face of intense public opposition — that they have been politically successful, that they have not embraced the far-left elements of the party, and that Americans are generally unable to perceive just how awesome they are — are tired leftist talking points. And with liberal pundits and politicos parroting them nonstop, is it any wonder Americans are ready for some house (and Senate) cleaning?

The rest is here:
ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf Confused: Why Don’t Americans Support Awesome Dems?

2010 ESPY Awards Honor Kobe, Landon And Lindsey, Spoof LeBron

Host Seth Myers and others skewer sports oddities from James’ special to Paul the octopus. By Kyle Anderson Landon Donovan at the ESPY Awards Photo: Kevin Winter/ Getty Images The worlds of sports, movies, music and television came together under one roof on Wednesday, the quietest sports day of the year, for ESPN’s annual ESPY Awards. Dozens of stars — including Los Angeles Lakers great Kobe Bryant, American World Cup hero Landon Donovan, New Orleans Saints Quarterback Drew Brees and Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn — gathered at the Nokia Theatre in Los Angeles for a night of sports highlights and wacky comedy, orchestrated by host Seth Myers. Bryant, Donovan, Brees and Vonn each won some of the night’s biggest awards. Kobe, fresh off the Lakers’ latest championship and his second Finals MVP, scored the prize for Best NBA Player. Donovan won two trophies, one each for Best MLS Player and Best Moment in Sports (his game-winning goal against Algeria in the World Cup beat out the New Orleans’ Saints Super Bowl victory, Phil Mickelson’s win at the 2009 Masters and Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette’s performance at the Winter Olympics). Brees was voted Best Male Athlete, Best NFL Player and Best Championship Performance, while Vonn took home the prizes for Best Female Athlete and Best Female Olympian. Much of the humor during the evening — provided by the likes of Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Andy Samberg, Tracy Morgan, Zac Efron, Mark Wahlberg and Luke Wilson — was directed at LeBron James (who was also in attendance) and his recent one-hour special, “The Decision,” which ESPN aired last week. “Did it really need to be an hour?” Myers asked. “Somebody time me: ‘Miami.’ How long did that take? A second!” The 2010 FIFA World Cup was also the source of much humor. Ferrell came out for some vuvuzela-related jokes and Samberg appeared on the show as Paul, the German octopus who correctly predicted the winners of a handful of matches. But the highlight of the night was the surprise award given to President Barack Obama. His presence in the building was kept a secret, but he received a standing ovation when he approached the stage to accept his Lifetime Achievement ESPY, given for his “contributions and commitment to American sport.” What was your favorite moment from the 2010 ESPY Awards? Let us know in the comments! Related Photos 2010 ESPY Awards Highlights

See the article here:
2010 ESPY Awards Honor Kobe, Landon And Lindsey, Spoof LeBron

VIDEO: Yes, there is racism in the Tea Party movement

After months of racist incidents and rallies filled with hateful signs disparaging President Obama’s ethnicity and other minorities, the NAACP has passed a resolution officially condemning racism in the Tea Party movement. This morning, Tea Party leader Mark Williams — who has been paid over $20,000 by the Tea Party Express political action committee — attacked the NAACP’s resolution, charging that the NAACP makes “more money off of race than any slave trader ever.” Other Tea Party leaders have criticized the resolution and claimed that there is no racism within their movement. Phillip Dennis, the leader of the Dallas area Tea Party, told Fox News that the Tea Party never focuses “on the pigment of people’s skin.” However, ThinkProgress has produced a short video demonstrating the vile racism that has been exhibited at some Tea Party events: DENNIS: The Tea Party does not focus on the pigment of people’s skin. TEA PARTY ACTIVIST1: He’s too black to be President. TEA PARTY ACTIVIST2: I’m a proud racist, I’m white. TEA PARTY ACTIVIST3: Afro-Leninism! Coming to you on a silver platter, Barack Hussein Obama! TEA PARTY ACTIVIST4: Go home wetbacks! Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/14/tea-party-racism/ added by: unimatrix0

Media That Accused Fox of Shilling for Bush Yawn at Zuckerman’s Ties to Obama

Days after Mort Zuckerman, the Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News and World Report,  claimed to be close to President Obama’s advisors, the national media have yet to express any interest. Of the few outlets that mentioned it, the White House’s denial was taken as gospel truth, and no more investigation was apparently warranted. What a difference when the sitting president is a Democrat. Under the Bush Administration, the media were obsessed with linking the White House to Fox News in an effort to accuse Republicans of spreading propaganda. Yet now that U.S. News is linked to Obama, suddenly such allegations are quickly dimissed. For a taste of the double standard, observe two different reports from Politico. First is a post on Tuesday concerning Zuckerman: Real Estate and media mogul Mort Zuckerman raised eyebrows all over yesterday with the claim on Fox that he “helped write one of [Obama’s] speeches,” and his subsequent refusal to go into it right now. Among those with reason to be puzzled, a White House source tells me, were Obama’s speechwriters, Jon Favreau and Ben Rhodes. Neither “has ever met or spoken to Mort Zuckerman” and the two have “been closely involved in every speech the President has given since 2005,” said the official. Zuckerman has met President Obama a few times and no doubt encountered other Administration officials, and he could well have suggested a theme to the president or another aide. But the question of what he “helped write”  remains a bit of a mystery. Those three small paragraphs comprise Ben Smith’s entire report. President Obama is denying the story, so that’s just that. Was that kind of trust extended to Republicans under President Bush? Not so much. Here’s Politico giving space to one Matt Stoller in 2007: First, we argued that Fox News is not a news channel, but a propaganda outlet that regularly distorts, spins, and falsifies information. Second, Fox News is heavily influenced or even controlled by the Republican Party itself. As such, we believe that Fox News on the whole functions as a surrogate operation for the GOP. Treating Fox as a legitimate news channel extends the Republican Party’s ability to swift-boat and discredit our candidates. In other words, Fox News is a direct pipeline of misinformation from the GOP leadership into the traditional press. So, we have a self-proclaimed fan of Obama working as Editor-in-Chief of a major newspaper, but Politico isn’t much worried about bias seeping onto his pages. But when Fox News is perceived as being in the tank for Republicans, it’s apparently okay to launch accusations against them. In 2002, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward revealed that Fox News head Roger Ailes had written a letter to President Bush immediately after the attacks on September 11. Woodward portrayed it as improper contact between the White House and the press, but Ailes insisted it was nothing more than an emotional letter from a scared citizen following a terrorist attack. The media jumped all over the controversy with fervor. On November 21 of that year, PBS News Hour filed a report on the scandal, with host Terrence Smith asking bluntly “is that an appropriate role for a journalist,” which set up a nice tee for Woodward to reply “he’s not supposed to do it.” News Hour then provided input from Tucker Carlson: Roger Ailes is the editorial chief of fox news [sic], and this gives the appearance of partisanship. This is sucking up to power. Then CNN’s Arthel Neville: Does that shed new light on, “we report, you decide,” Jack? And of course an expert from Harvard: Mr. Ailes has had a very close relation with a number of Republican presidents. I doubt this is a letter — despite what he said in the Washington Post — I doubt this is a letter that he would have sent to [Democratic President] Bill Clinton. The current reaction to Zuckerman’s claim of advising public officials? Mostly crickets. Salon covered the incident if only to promptly insist “it is safe to say that this is not true” and Zuckerman’s rebuttal was “kind of sad.” A search for Mort Zuckerman on Google News reaps scant results, mostly from blogs, and certainly nothing like the accusations launched against Fox News. Curiously missing is someone to accuse Zuckerman of “sucking up” to Democrats. No one took to the airwaves of PBS to suggest he wouldn’t have offered speechwriting help to a Republican. And no one sat on the air at CNN asking if U.S. News & World Report could be trusted as unbiased news. Any news source that is perceived as being friendly to Republicans is presumed to be a propaganda wing for the GOP. Yet when a well-respected editor openly flaunts his support of a Democrat, the media’s reaction is a collective shrug. Americans will probably never get the truth about exactly how close Zuckerman is to the White House – and that’s the way the media want it.

See the original post:
Media That Accused Fox of Shilling for Bush Yawn at Zuckerman’s Ties to Obama