Tag Archives: voters

Jane Lynch Scores Supporting Actress Award At Emmys

‘Glee’ creator Ryan Murphy also takes home some hardware, for Best Direction of a Comedy. By Jocelyn Vena Jane Lynch accepts Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy at 2010 Emmy Awards Photo: Kevin Winter/ Getty Images Jane Lynch won’t be throwing any slushees in the faces of Emmy voters this year. The woman who weekly terrorizes the kids of “Glee” as Sue Sylvester took home the statue for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy on Sunday night and seamlessly combined humor and true surprise in her acceptance speech. “Thank you so much,” she told the crowd from the stage, clutching her Emmy in a one-shoulder purple dress. “This is outlandish!” Lynch went on to thank her family and “Glee” co-stars in true Lynch-ian fashion. “I want to thank my parents on the South Side of Chicago for raising us to the sounds of musical theater and being so unintentionally hilarious,” she said in her speech. “I love being an actor. I love being an ensemble.” Later, recalling the calming spirituality of Buddhism, she joked, “Although I am not Buddhist, they do seem like a very calm people.” She had the audience in stitches when she said actors “have no choice or any marketable skills. I have to thank my lord and creator [‘Glee’ mastermind] Ryan Murphy for creating this role of a lifetime and the cast who are so young and fresh-faced, and when I’m not seething with jealousy, I’m so proud of you. And I love you my wife Laura and my little girl, Haden.” Later on, Murphy also snatched up a prize for Best Direction of a Comedy. In his speech, he shared with the room why he was inspired to make the show: “Thank you so much. I’m so shocked. I would like to thank Fox … Tom Ford for the tux, my beautiful cast, whom I love so much. ‘Glee’ is about the importance of arts education, so I would like to dedicate this to all my teachers who taught me to sing and finger-paint.” What did you think of Lynch’s win and acceptance speech? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Continue reading here:
Jane Lynch Scores Supporting Actress Award At Emmys

Bank Sues Levi Johnston — What’s In Your Wallet?

Filed under: Levi Johnston , Celebrity Justice Political hopeful Levi Johnston is gonna have fun explaining this one to the voters — dude has been sued for allegedly pulling the ol’ stifferoo on a 4-figure credit card bill. Capitol One Bank just filed legal papers in Alaska, in which they claim Levi… Read more

Continued here:
Bank Sues Levi Johnston — What’s In Your Wallet?

Spitzer Boosters at Boston Globe Hail Client #9 Show As Sign of CNN’s Stand for ‘Traditional News Values’

Why is The Boston Globe sucking up to CNN? In an unsigned staff editorial on Tuesday , the Globe warned TV critics to “back off” CNN for hiring “fresher voices” like Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced ex-Governor of New York and pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker. They strangely claimed that somehow Spitzer won’t be partisan, but he will be “candid” — like in his political career?? He’s “forever marred” by his transactional sex, but also a superior host because of it?  Yes, Spitzer will forever be marred by his use of prostitutes, but the demise of his political career has freed him up to be far more candid than the average moonlighting politico. Parker, a voice of common-sense conservatism, is notable for her willingness to break with the GOP herd; in 2008, she wrote that Sarah Palin lacked important qualifications for national office. Another Crossfire this won’t be: Spitzer and Parker will probably be unpredictable and sometimes contrarian. They might even agree on some things — an entirely welcome development. Throwing ideological chum to the partisan masses will always draw ratings, but it rarely leaves viewers better informed. Anyone who thinks Client #9 isn’t going to be a partisan Democrat isn’t watching his recent TV appearances, attacking the GOP as the “party of nihilism.” But the Globe mourns how Fox News and MSNBC are ruining the political culture, while CNN is a PBS-style oasis by comparison: The fate of CNN is of more than casual interest, because it is the lone holdout on cable news promising in-depth reporting and non-ideological analysis. Its rivals, Fox and MSNBC, have chosen to preach to the converted, fueling a culture of outrage and denunciation. Their effects on American political dialogue have been widely noted, and widely condemned. CNN is the best hope for a revival of traditional news values on cable . This is a weird stance coming from the Boston Globe, better known for partisanship that traditional objectivity. Please recall Brent Baker on the April 2009 column by Peter S. Canellos, the paper’s Washington bureau chief, titled ‘ In a Stroke of Brilliance, Obama Defies Easy Caricature .’ A year ago, Baker found an article lamenting anti-Obamacare protesters in “ Foes’ decibels replace debate on healthcare: Protesters’ yells at meetings frustrate Democrats’ push .” Reporter Lisa Wangsness rued: “This summer, the Rockwellian ideal of neighbors gathering to discuss community issues in a neighborly way is gone, replaced by quarrelsome masses hollering questions downloaded from activist websites”. The Globe also loves ABC’s new choice of Christiane Amanpour and her new America-bashing internationalist version of “This Week” on Sunday mornings:  Broadcast TV is far less culpable for the coarsening of public dialogue, but like all media, it has some ingrained bad habits of its own. The broadcast equivalent of the highly ideological cable host is the super-inside political reporter — someone who betrays no opinions but reliably relates the Beltway consensus. It’s a useful perspective, but a limited, almost willfully stunted one.Thus, it was a breath of fresh air to see Christiane Amanpour, the legendary foreign correspondent, move into the anchor chair of ABC’s “This Week,’’ single-handedly broadening the perspective of the Sunday-morning interview shows. Of course, she, too, was swatted down by some capital critics, led by Tom Shales of The Washington Post, for lacking the proper political chops. Spitzer, Parker, and Amanpour represent a legitimate attempt by TV news executives to sell substance and offer fresh perspectives. More than just ratings are riding on their success.

See original here:
Spitzer Boosters at Boston Globe Hail Client #9 Show As Sign of CNN’s Stand for ‘Traditional News Values’

Variety Columnist Accuses FNC of Racial Motivations, Provides Zero Quotes from Actual Programming

Variety Magazine TV critic Brian Lowry – formerly a reporter for NPR and the Los Angeles Times – surely was not a member of JournoList. But he sure writes like he was. Lowry took a page directly out of the Spencer Ackerman Guide to Dubious Racism Accusations in his most recent column , claiming the Fox News Channel caters to racial fear and resentment to sell its brand. Lowry provided no examples to back up his claims. He did not give voice to any opposing views. The only evidence he offered to back up his accusations were quotes from “thoughtful conservative” (read: not-so-conservative conservative) David Frum and liberal Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent. In true JournoLista fashion, Lowry cited Fox’s coverage of the New Black Panther scandal at the Justice Department as evidence of the channel’s attempts to “delegitimize Obama” by stoking racial fears. Just as Ackerman advocated with the Jeremiah Wright scandal, Lowry cried racism in order to avoid any actual discussion of this administration’s strange affinity for racialist radicals – or any of Fox’s actual coverage of the scandal. Networks cater to all kinds of demographics. But overlooked amid recent hand-wringing over racial politics and the separate debate over whether Fox News merited a front-row White House briefing room upgrade is the main ingredient in the channel’s stew: fear. With Barack Obama’s election, Fox has carved out a near-exclusive TV niche, while having plenty of company in radio: catering to those agitated (consciously or otherwise) by having an African-American in the White House. Yet a broader secret of its success — preying upon anxiety in general — hasn’t really changed since the Sept. 11 terror attacks. As the original home of the “news alerts” (which usually aren’t alerting us to breaking news), Fox News under CEO Roger Ailes has been adept at tapping into deep-seated concerns. And in order to powerfully connect with core viewers, it’s not enough to disagree with President Obama’s policies; rather, they must be couched as an existential threat to U.S. society. Lowry goes on to single out Glenn Beck (of course), and to cite a couple of commentators who he apparently considers experts on Fox’s alleged “fear and racism” strategy. Thoughtful conservative commentators have cited the dangers in such overheated rhetoric. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum has become one of the most articulate, writing after passage of healthcare reform, “Conservative talkers on Fox and talkradiohad whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or — more exactly — with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?” Frum added that talk hosts operate “responsibility-free” — playing a different game than Republican politicians, since perpetuating frustration and outrage boosts their ratings… For all the invectives hurled at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in the three-cable-news-network era (which didn’t begin, unbelievably, until halfway through Clinton’s presidency), the most egregious attempts to delegitimize Obama are both distinct and not particularly subtle. The latest theme — illustrated by Fox’s crusade regarding the New Black Panther Party — hinges on fear of racial bias where whites are the aggrieved party. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted, Fox’s eagerness to “drive the media narrative … simply has no equivalent on the left.” Still, the most ruthless liberals — those more committed to partisan advantage than accuracy — have inevitably drawn lessons by observing, and will retaliate whenever Republicans regain power. Since its inception, Fox has emulated the “If it bleeds, it leads” mindset of local news, garnishing its presentation with snazzier graphics and more urgent production values. The canny post-Sept. 11 adaptation has been, “If it scares, it airs.” As mentioned above, David Frum is of course presented as the “even some conservatives don’t like Fox” commentator. And of course Lowry things Frum is “thoughtful” – if he were more conservative, he wouldn’t be deserving of that label. Frum is not given space to criticize Fox because he’s thoughtful. He’s thoughtful because he criticizes Fox. As for Sargent, Lowry readers who don’t know the WaPo blogger are left without any indication of his political leanings. Lowry presented Sargent as a media critic noting what he claims is a simple reality, but did not mention that the blogger is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Fox’s prime time talkers. So Lowry’s only substantiation for his sweeping theories about the root of Fox’s success comes from a left-wing blogger, and a conservative who makes a living ripping on other conservatives. And Lowry has the temerity to criticize Fox’s journalistic practices.

The rest is here:
Variety Columnist Accuses FNC of Racial Motivations, Provides Zero Quotes from Actual Programming

ABC’s Cokie Roberts Defends Michelle Obama’s Spanish Vacation: ‘What Real Difference Does It Make?’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos and Cokie Roberts on Monday downplayed the potential bad PR Michelle Obama might suffer for taking a Spanish vacation costing a quarter million dollars during bad economic times. Roberts justified, ” But in the grand scheme of things, what real difference does it make? I would guess that Sasha is probably learning some Spanish. ” Continuing to spin the First Lady’s vacation, she argued, ” We need Spain to be stronger economically than it is in the Euro zone. I mean, you can make the case if you really need to.” Co-host George Stephanopoulos searched for reassurance that the visit wouldn’t have negative ramifications: But you don’t think it’s going to be that big a deal? They just fade the heat and move on.” Yet, when Laura Bush introduced new White House china just prior to leaving the White House in January 2009 , co-host Robin Roberts called it a “brewing brouhaha.” Reporter Ann Compton worried, “So, why is Laura Bush introducing new Bush china two weeks before they move out?” In a segment airing just before the conversation between Roberts and Stephanopoulos, reporter Yunji did hit some tough facts: “The bad PR comes at a time when the White House could use good news. We learned Friday that the economy lost 131,000 jobs last month. The President’s approval rating is at 41 percent, his lowest ever.” She also noted, “This girls’ getaway wasn’t cheap. These hotel rooms run from $400 to nearly $7,000 a night. The White House says the Obamas paid their own way, but their security is covered by American taxpayers.” De Nies’ report on Monday was in contrast to her piece on Friday . For that segment, she lauded the ‘luxurious’ vacation and made no mention of possible controversy. A transcript of the August 9 segment, which aired at 7:17am EDT, follows: STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. And for more on this, we’re joined by our friend Cokie Roberts in Washington. And, Cokie, thanks for coming in this morning. You heard Yunji saying the White House hopes is hoping this is going to blow over. But, they probably could have seen this criticism coming. COKIE ROBERTS: Sure they could have. And they probably did and decided to go anyway. You know, politically, it was not a smart move. But in the grand scheme of things, what real difference does it make? I would guess that Sasha is probably learning some Spanish. Maybe she learned Spanish on her trip. You know, the fact is, Spain could use help, too. We need Spain to be stronger economically than it is in the Euro zone. I mean, you can make the case if you really need to. STEPHANOPOULOS: But you don’t think it’s going to be that big a deal? They just fade the heat and move on. And it does seem that that sentiment did take hold. ROBERTS: I think that’s exactly right. Look, the President’s in trouble with the voters because of the economy. And whatever the First Lady does is not going to make any difference one way or the other. And, you know, she did go with her child. It was not like a Jackie O trip, you know, where she was sort of wiling away her time on a yacht. STEPHANOPOULOS: Aristotle Onassis’ yacht. That’s exactly right. And it does come- the irony, it comes at a time when the First Lady actually has very high approval ratings in great demand on the campaign trail. The Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, says “I’d rather have her than the President.” ROBERTS: Well, because she’s not responsible for the economy so she doesn’t take the same heat. And that’s traditionally true for first ladies. She’s very much in the path of other first ladies who have come before her. And people like these women because they do go out and do good. And have causes that everybody can get behind. STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, Congress is out for the summer, but there’s another big primary tomorrow in Colorado, which is kind of interesting because it’s a classic case, and both Republican and Democratic side, establishment candidates facing a real challenge from the outsiders. ROBERTS: Right. Michael Bennet, the sitting senator, one of the several appointed senators in trouble this year in an election bid is backed by the White House. The President calls him a breath of fresh air in Washington, a city full of hot air. But his opponent, Andrew Romanoff, is backed by Bill Clinton. And, so you’ve got a real battle of endorsements going on there. And on the Republican side, you have Ken Buck, who is a Tea Party candidate, against former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton who has John McCain behind her. And the governor of Arizona, the controversial governor of Arizona, behind her. But, she’s having a lot of trouble from Ken Buck who says, at least he doesn’t wear high-heels. How that goes with voters, I don’t know. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not a bad line. We’ll see if it’s another day for outsiders. Cokie Roberts, thanks very much.

Read this article:
ABC’s Cokie Roberts Defends Michelle Obama’s Spanish Vacation: ‘What Real Difference Does It Make?’

Rachel Maddow Edits ‘Factor’ Video to Make Bill O’Reilly Look Racist

Rachel Maddow on Friday highly-edited a video from the previous evening’s “O’Reilly Factor” in order to make the Fox News host look racist. For some background, Bill O’Reilly wrote a syndicated column Friday in which he chastized Maddow and David Letterman for “without a shred of evidence” claiming on CBS’s “Late Show” Tuesday that FNC intentionally runs stories about “scary black people” in order to frighten white folks into voting for conservatives. Maddow responded by calling this “bullpucky,” and presented video “evidence” from “Factor” programs to prove that this indeed is what Fox does. Unfortunately, in the most damning clip, Maddow’s minions conveniently edited out that O’Reilly was referring to a recent Gallup poll about how blacks and whites have differing views of President Obama. Ironically, this came moments after Maddow scolded O’Reilly for airing the edited version of former USDA official Shirley Sherrod on his July 19 program (videos follow with transcripts and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: This time, the case against me is in his nationally syndicated column which I`m sure is read by millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of people. The headline is, quote, “Only far-left loons scared of Fox News.” Guess who the loon is? Yes. Talking about me on David Letterman`s show this week, Mr. O`Reilly says, quote, “Speaking with far-left MSNBC news commentator, Rachel Maddow on his program, Dave listened as she put forth the preposterous theory that wants to frighten white Americans by reporting negatively about black Americans.” “In the past, paranoid, dishonest rants like that would have been dismissed as fringe-speak. But not anymore. Without a shred of evidence, a guest on Letterman`s “Late Show,” which by the way, gets trounced in the ratings by Fox News Channel every night, defines an entire news organization as a racist enterprise and Letterman goes along.” Mr. O`Reilly`s repeated insistence that must be right because Fox has high ratings is a many-splendored thing particularly because this week – if you believe Mr. O`Reilly, this week means we`re all wrong and only sharksploitation(ph) is right. But there is something else going on here that isn`t just an ad populum fallacy about ratings or an ad hominem collateral swipe at the lovely creature that is the loon. It is something stupid, something stupid enough that it doesn`t even get dressed up in Latin phrasing. It`s him saying that there`s no evidence to back up my claim that Fox News consistently runs stories it says are news, but that nobody else really covers, stories that are ginned-up, exaggerated, caricatured, in some cases, just flat-out made-up scare stories designed to make white people feel afraid of black people, designed to make it seem like black people, or in some cases, immigrants are threatening white people and taking what is rightfully theirs. You may not like that diagnosis of what Fox has been up to, but to say there`s no evidence, not a shred of evidence, as he said, that`s bullpucky. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: Speaking at an NAACP event in March, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying something very disturbing. Seems a white farmer in Georgia had requested government assistance from Ms. Sherrod. Wow. Well, that is simply unacceptable and Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Of course, the Shirley Sherrod story ended up being exposed as total bullpucky, manufactured by nifty video editing. Mr. O`Reilly had to apologize for that statement. But it`s not like the Shirley Sherrod story stands alone. Readers are encouraged to remember her comment “exposed as total bullpucky, manufactured by nifty video editing.” Also, if this was an example of Fox trying to scare white people, why did O’Reilly apologize the next day? Not every member of the news media that broadcast the original Sherrod video clip issued an on air apology like O’Reilly, but I digress: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: The collapse of ACORN – that is the subject of this evening`s “Talking Points Memo.” Here`s the latest scandal. You`re not going to believe it. Because federal authorities have not done much policing of ACORN, two private citizens, James O`Keefe and Hannah Giles, launch an undercover sting investigation themselves. The two pose as a prostitute and a pimp and asked a number of ACORN officials to help them get housing for a prostitution enterprise. The latest sting was in California, where an ACORN employee engaged the young woman posing as a prostitute. ACORN is a tax-exempt organization that should immediately lose that status. And Attorney General Holder should begin an intense investigation. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Of course, the ACORN story ended up being exposed as total bullpucky, too, also manufactured by nifty video editing. Remember after the California attorney general looked into the full tapes and then arrested all those ACORN folks for those crimes that Bill O`Reilly showed them committing on tape? Yes, you don`t remember that? Me, neither, because it never happened. Bullpucky again. But still, very scary. Readers are encouraged to once again remember Maddow’s phrase here “total bullpucky, too, also manufactured by nifty video editing.” Secondly, that the far-left Jerry Brown chose not to prosecute ACORN employees by no means invalidates the corruption that was exposed at this organization or vindicates it. A Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat President have still not lifted the government ban on ACORN funding. Beyond this, the notion that O’Reilly reporting this matter was racially motivated is in itself racist. But Maddow and her ilk seem to miss this irony when they point such fingers at others: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: A guy like Van Jones who is a friend of the president, and he comes in and he`s a hardcore Marxist. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not a hardcore Marxist. O`REILLY: He is. He admits it. All I keep hearing is from people like Eugene Robinson who traffics in racism every time you turn around. Once again, the idea that reporting on Van Jones was to scare white people is pathetic. Are all reports concerning black people involved in wrong-doing racist? As such, this was another tremendously weak point by Maddow in no way proving O’Reilly was trying to scare white people. But here’s the best part: O’REILLY: White Americans don`t like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It`s simple. White Americans fear government control. They don`t want the feds telling them what to do and they don`t want a bankrupt nation. For decades, African-Americans have supported a bigger federal government so it can impose social justice. The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Black people want white people`s money. They want to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts. But remember, Mr. O`Reilly says there is not a shred of evidence that Fox News hypes stories about scary black people taking white people`s stuff. I am not interested in playing cable news insult ping pong with Mr. O`Reilly. But as much as he keeps insisting that I`m no one worth arguing with, that I`m an uber-leftist – he called me that in his column, and a loon twice now. And a slightly larger percentage of one percent of the population watches his show than the proportion of one percent of the population that watches my show, for all he complains about how unimportant I am, my criticism scares white people on purpose to politically benefit conservatives, damn the consequences for the country, that criticism appears to have struck a nerve over at Fox. It appears to have gotten under Mr. O`Reilly`s skin. Good. Well, not so fast, Rach, for why didn’t you provide the full context of that last report by O’Reilly? Here is the unedited “Talking Points Memo” from Thursday. Notice just how much different this really is from the highly-edited version Maddow dishonestly showed her viewers: O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Black and white Americans differ over President Obama. That is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo”. A new Gallup poll says 88 percent of African-Americans continue to support President Obama, but just 38 percent of white Americans feel the president is doing a good job. That is a 50 point differential in the president’s job approval rating, which is stunning. So what is going on? Let’s take the white situation first. According to the polls, most white Americans don’t like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It’s simple. White Americans fear government control. They don’t want the Feds telling them what to do. And they don’t want a bankrupt nation. That attitude was on display in Missouri this week when 71 percent of the voters approved a state statute blocking the federal government from forcing them to buy health insurance. 71 percent said no to that. Since Obamacare is the centerpiece of the president’s domestic strategy so far, you can see he’s in some trouble. But black America has a totally different view. For decades, African- Americans have supported a bigger federal government, so it can impose social justice. A vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts, and to provide better education and health care at government expense. So the African-American voter generally loves what President Obama is doing. As for Hispanic-Americans, 54 percent now support Mr. Obama but that is down nine points since April. The social justice component is there as well. There’s no question that there are now two Americas. The minority community continues to believe that society is not completely fair to them. And they want a huge government apparatus to change that. And while the white community may sympathize with the minority situation, they apparently believe that more harm than good is being done to the country with the cost of social justice programs. My own belief is that President Obama is well intentioned, but if the wild spending continues, this country will be gravely damaged. As far as social justice is concerned, strict oversight on fair rules, but not the imposition of expensive entitlements is the answer. The USA is the strongest country on earth because of self reliance and the industry of honest, hard working people, who don’t want to be told how to live. Independence and self-reliance is what has made this country great, powerful and generous. And that’s the Memo. As such, O’Reilly was commenting about a Gallup survey just released Tuesday with the title, “Blacks and Whites Continue to Differ Sharply on Obama.” By the end of his “Memo,” he was even crediting Obama with being “well intentioned.” Sound “scary” to you? As for Gallup, here’s what it reported: President Obama’s job approval rating averaged 88% among blacks and 38% among whites in July, a 50-percentage-point difference that has been consistent in recent months but is much larger than in the initial months of the Obama presidency. Obama’s job approval ratings among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in July are all at their lowest levels to date, although the overwhelming majority of blacks still approve. Maybe Maddow should call the Gallup folks racist, too. Regardless, Maddow and her minions completely removed this context from the video they edited thereby dramatically altering what O’Reilly said.  Isn’t that just as bad as what the anonymous person that sent the excerpted Sherrod video to Andrew Breitbart did? Maybe more importantly, isn’t this actually worse than what Fox and every other news outlet did with the Sherrod video, for none of them were involved in the editing. In Maddow’s case, her own staff edited out major portions of O’Reilly’s opening remarks on Thursday completely changing the meaning of his words. This MSNBC host should certainly not be pointing fingers at others for bullpucky manufactured by nifty video editing when she and her staff are doing the very same thing.  With this in mind, maybe Maddow on Monday should play the entire video for her audience and apologize to O’Reilly. Readers are advised to not hold their breath. 

Read more:
Rachel Maddow Edits ‘Factor’ Video to Make Bill O’Reilly Look Racist

Rosie O’Donnell Admits She Got Married in S.F. Merely As Act of ‘Defiance’ Against Bush

Rosie O’Donnell was in the news this week when she signed to do another TV talk show on the forthcoming Oprah cable network. But she’s still serving up leftist political goodies on her satellite radio show. Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer found her declaring her “wedding” ceremony in San Francisco to former girlfriend Kelli Carpenter was a political protest stunt: George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married. Okay, first of all, on February 24, 2004 , President Bush didn’t call “an all-station news conference.” He made a rather routine statement (not a press conference) in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. And he didn’t say it was “horribly for the safety of America” that gays would marry. He did say the people had voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage, and some activist judges in Massachusetts and city officials in San Francisco were overturning the will of the people of California. But to Rosie, everything she hears is exaggerated into hate, even as Bush called for civility and calm. She was making it sound like the Nazis were rounding people up: It was like an act of… defiance … If you’re gonna count up everybody who you think is not of value and round ’em all up and slap a pink triangle on ’em… I just felt like I wanted to be counted amongst the people who [some] were saying were unworthy and not allowed to have the same rights as everyone else. …If you’re a straight person and [same-sex marriage] offends you, call me and tell me why, [but] don’t say because marriage is traditionally between a man and woman, because, frankly, that’s such an old and tired line. Now, for a dose of reality, here’s how Bush began his statement : Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14. Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. And here’s how he ended: The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. America’s a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency. Thank you very much. Kindness and good will and decency — not to mention accuracy — aren’t qualities Rosie O’Donnell demonstrates once she starts talking about conservatives on the radio.

See the rest here:
Rosie O’Donnell Admits She Got Married in S.F. Merely As Act of ‘Defiance’ Against Bush

CNN: ‘Will Bush-bashing Help Democrats Win Over Weary Voters?’

On Friday, CNN prominently featured an article at the front page of its website with the headline,”Can Bush-bashing Help Sway Voters?” (pictured right). Click on that link , and the reader was treated to an even more inflammatory title: Will Bush-bashing Help Democrats Win Over Weary Voters? Not surprisingly, the article was just as defamatory to America’s 43rd President: While he’s not on the ballot, George W. Bush is still vital to the midterm election as far as the nation’s top Democrat is concerned. President Obama has made a point recently to invoke Bush’s name in what many say is a calculated effort to remind voters of the previous administration’s economic policies, which Democrats argue led to the worst recession in modern history. Author Ed Hornick next used some polls to validate Obama’s strategy: A Quinnipiac University poll, taken July 13-19, asked 2,181 registered voters: “Who do you blame more for the current condition of the U.S. economy: former President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama?” Fifty-three percent said Bush; 25 percent said Obama; 21 percent said either neither, both or unsure. Perhaps the most stark example of why Bush’s name is now a part of Obama’s stump speech comes from a poll by the Benenson Strategy Group, the president’s chief polling firm. The poll was taken for Third Way, a moderate think tank. Let’s be a tad more specific about the last pollsters. The New York Times in January referred to BSG as “a Democratic polling firm.” As for Third Way, it refers to itself at its website as “the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.” That makes it moderate for progressives not moderate! Even more telling: “Three of our former chairs now serve in the senior ranks of the Obama administration: Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Under-Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher.” As such, to support his point concerning why Bush-bashing is a good strategy for Obama and the Democrats this election, Hornick referenced a study by a Democratic pollster and a progressive think-tank with three former chairmembers now working for the White House! With this in mind, readers shouldn’t be at all surprised with their findings:  Conducted June 19-22 of 1,100 likely voters, the poll found that Bush’s economic principles are “almost universally rejected” by a large margin — and merely bringing up Bush’s name causes a swing in attitudes. When respondents were asked whether they would prefer a candidate who “will stick with President Barack Obama’s economic policies” or “one who will return to President George W. Bush’s economic policies,” the result was a 15-point advantage for the Obama approach. “President Bush is the key here,” said Sean Gibbons of Third Way. “If you enter President Bush’s name into the equation and ask people when they’re making a choice at the polls between going forward with President Obama’s economic agenda or voting for a candidate who will pursue similar economic ideas as President Bush, Obama runs the table by 49 points. That is extraordinary.” Obama and his Party should feel very comfortable in using this strategy, as they clearly have CNN on their side.

See the article here:
CNN: ‘Will Bush-bashing Help Democrats Win Over Weary Voters?’

Flashback 2008: CNN’s Roberts Declares ‘Rev. Wright-Free Zone’ During Obama Interview

In the wake of Tuesday’s revelations concerning liberal media members trying to bury the Rev. Jeremiah Wright story in the spring of 2008, one has to wonder how many mainstream organizations played a hand. On May 5 of that year, at the beginning of an interview with Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama, CNN’s John Roberts said ( video available here courtesy Ed Driscoll, relevant section at 3:43): I want to just stipulate at the beginning of this interview, we are declaring a Reverend Wright-free zone today. So, no questions about Reverend Wright. Our viewers want us to move on, so this morning we’re going to move on. As NewsBusters noted at the time, this came eight days after CNN personalities David Gergen, Tony Harris, and Roland Martin had a discussion about why the media should stop talking about Wright (video follows with transcript and commentary): TONY HARRIS: I guess the point I would make, David, is that it seems to me that [presidential] race seems more and more — you look at the results in Pennsylvania — and it looks like more and more there are camps forming here, and that race, whether we speak of it or not, is seemingly finding its way more and more into this [presidential] race. And I was wondering if that was a moment being used — that window being used by Reverend Wright to make that point, which I thought was powerful, that different does not mean deficient. DAVID GERGEN: You know, those are important points to make — he’s not the right person to be making them on behalf of Barack Obama’s campaign. Every time he appears, he just gives legitimacy and a hunger by those who oppose Barack Obama to re-run those tapes, to keep him at the center of controversy, to let this overhang and define Barack Obama, when it has, you know — it has very, very little to do — it’s a very marginal piece of who Barack Obama is and what he stands for. And it takes attention away — we have huge, huge problems facing this country. The candidates are increasingly coming down on opposite sides. We’re having no discussion of that. Instead, we’re off on this sideshow, which is — and I think that, you know, this good preacher, I’m sure he’s a fine man, and if he had taken Bill Moyers on a walking tour of his parish, and shown people the good works that church was doing, you know, how it is helping the hungry, how it is looking after young kids, and the many other good things that church does — that would have been totally appropriate. But to be on this publicity blitz, when we have to listen to his varied views, you know, I think it’s time for him to get off the stage and frankly, for the media, I suggest, to move on. (CROSSTALK) TONY HARRIS: Go ahead, Roland. ROLAND MARTIN: You know, David, when he spoke at the National Press Club today, he actually did that. He talked about all these ministries the church is involved in. I mean, I thought his opening statement — he gave a theological, a sound opening statement. But again, the focus will not be on any of that. The focus will not be on the war, will not be on their HIV/AIDS ministry, will not be [on] any of that. It’s going to be his answer to the AIDS question, it’s going to be his answer towards — talking about Dick Cheney. That’s the problem with that. (CROSSTALK) GERGEN: If this man cares one wit about electing an African-American to the highest office in the land, he should get off the national stage. You know that. HARRIS: Point-blank. MARTIN: I know. I agree. I agree. It just — it did not help at all, and frankly, it’s going to invite more questions, and so now the question is, Reverend Wright — where does he go next? Does he continue? Does he keep talking, because absolutely, people are going to perceive… GERGEN: He should just go away, go back to the pulpit. MARTIN: Well, I tell my radio listeners that every day. HARRIS: One final question for both of you: what does Barack Obama do now in the face of this? (PAUSE) HARRIS: Wow. MARTIN: Well, I know Barack Obama does — I think what Senator Obama does — he keeps moving, he keeps focusing on his message. But also, he interates consistantly, I am running for president. I speak for myself. I am the one advocating these policies. And I am the one who is going to be sitting 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, making the decisions to affect you. That’s what he has to do. He has to make it clear it is not about anyone else out there but me, Barack Obama. HARRIS: David? GERGEN: I also think that Barack Obama would serve himself well if he sat down now for additional interviews with the press that start off pushing off and away from this. He handled himself well on Fox yesterday with Chris Wallace. I think that if he now — in Indiana and North Carolina — were to buy an hour’s worth of time in each media market and sit down in a round-table discussion with the voters from that area, with working people and talk about his hopes and plans, and let them fire away questions for what he’s going to do. And let them just get a chance to know what’s on his mind and what his priorities are, as opposed to this sideshow. HARRIS: Yeah. GERGEN: He needs to have a direct conversation with voters now, not a speech — we all know how marvelous he is in those speeches — but a direct converstation about what his hopes and dreams are, to transform this country, and he needs to that very directly with voters, with working people. HARRIS: David Gergen, thank you. Roland Martin, thank you. Boy, we needed this this morning, just a better handle to put it in a little bit better context. Thank you both. GERGEN: Thank you. MARTIN: Thank you. With what was now reported by the Daily Caller concerning folks on the left-wing JournoList actively trying to squelch all media references to Wright, one has to seriously wonder just how many news outlets participated in this disgusting cover-up. Stay tuned. 

More here:
Flashback 2008: CNN’s Roberts Declares ‘Rev. Wright-Free Zone’ During Obama Interview

Mel Gibson Out at WME as Hate Tapes Released

And for your Friday news dump: Those nasty racist comments Mel Gibson spat over the phone to his ex-girlfriend are officially live. And they’re… angry? In related news, Ari Emanuel has made it officially known that he will not have Gibson on his roster any longer — officially, unofficially or otherwise. Raise your hand if you didn’t see this coming. Hey! I can’t see those hands!

Read the rest here:
Mel Gibson Out at WME as Hate Tapes Released