Tag Archives: White House

NPR Laments That Obama’s Pardoned Four Turkeys, But No Human Lawbreakers

National Public Radio often has “news judgment” that coincides with the agenda of liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. So it's not surprising that they greeted Thanksgiving by highlighting that President Obama is nicer to turkeys than to human lawbreakers on Wednesday night's All Things Considered : MARY LOUISE KELLY, substitute anchor: Now, presidents have been pardoning humans for much longer than they've been pardoning turkeys. But as White House correspondent Ari Shapiro reports, with this president, the turkeys are winning so far. ARI SHAPIRO: As of today, President Obama's tally of pardons is as follows: turkeys, four; humans, zero. read more

Visit link:
NPR Laments That Obama’s Pardoned Four Turkeys, But No Human Lawbreakers

Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

I heard Rush mention this Caucus Blog item at the New York Times on his program today. It seems that the Times's Michael Shear is disappointed that Dear Leader is yet again caught up in a “distraction” (“Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Distraction”) It's headlined in the item's browser window as “Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Controversy.” Interesting edit, don't you think? If it's a “controversy,” the President owns it. If it's a “distraction,” well, it's an unfair intrusion. Clever. Shear wrapped it in a narrative whose theme was that “It all felt vaguely familiar.” Well, yeah. What's more than vaguely familiar has been the press's tendency to lament the distractions our supposedly otherwise focused like a laser beam chief executive must endure. On April 9, 2009 (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), I noted that “The words 'Obama' and 'distraction' have both appeared in 2,425 articles in just the past 30 days; excluding duplicates, it's about 450.” In his blog entry, Shear listed many other awful distractions the president has encountered. What's interesting are how many of them escalated because of Obama or people working directly for him: read more

See the article here:
Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

Schultz Sorry About Christie Cracks? Says OK To Call Him ‘Fat Slob,’ Too

Ed Schultz: secret NewsBusters fan? You have to wonder.  This column has twice— here and here —taken the un-svelte Schultz to task for his hypocrisy in making repeated fat jokes at the expense of Chris Christie, culminating in calling the NJ guv a “fat slob.”  On his MSNBC show this evening, an apparently contrite Ed admitted that he too was fat and would understand if others also considered him a “fat slob.” I began to suspect something was afoot early in the show. On the one hand, Schultz launched into yet another long diatribe against Christie.  After taking numerous solo shots at the NJ guv, Schultz brought in a NJ teacher of the year, who was happy to be described as “strongly against Gov. Christie.” The pair proceeded to rake Christie over the coals, paying scant attention to the brutal budgetary problems facing the Garden State that have forced Christie to make reforms. But—in stark contrast with previous shows—the fat jokes had demonstrably disappeared.  And sure enough, in the tease for a subsequent segment, Schultz said “I admit that I’m fat.”  Then came this show-closer . .  . ED SCHULTZ: Before I say “that’s the Ed Show, I’m Ed Schultz” I want to say this: there was a time in my life when I was 263 pounds but I’ve really worked at it and I’m down now to 247. But I want all of you to know that I’m not only fat, I have red hair. And growing up they really picked on red heads where I came from, and I’m not offended by any of you who think I’m a fat slob.

Excerpt from:
Schultz Sorry About Christie Cracks? Says OK To Call Him ‘Fat Slob,’ Too

John King Bashes Obama for Calling Fox ‘Destructive’ and MSNBC ‘Invaluable’

CNN’s John King on Wednesday mocked Barack Obama for calling Fox News a “destructive” force in our society while at practically the same time a White House spokesman was saying MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow provide “an invaluable service” to the country. As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, the President bashed FNC in a just-published interview with Rolling Stone magazine shortly before his Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton was praising MSNBC during a gaggle held on Air Force One. With this in mind, on Wednesday’s “John King USA,” the host surprisingly derided the White House’s inconsistency (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  JOHN KING, HOST: Sometimes you feel sad to be left out of a big debate. This is not one of those sometimes. In an interview with “Rolling Stone,” President Obama voiced the opinion that Fox News is a “destructive” force in our society. On the other hand, the left hand in this case, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the President believes MSNBC commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow provide “an invaluable service” to that same society and democracy. So, according to the President this is “destructive.” King then played clips from “The Glenn Beck Show” and “Hannity.” After they concluded, King said, “And, according to the White House, this is ‘an invaluable service.'” He then showed clips from “The Ed Show” and “Countdown.” After getting some opinions from his panel, he turned to CNN contributor Gloria Borger and asked, “What happened to this? This is the President of the United States, it’s May 1st, it’s the University of Michigan, he’s giving the commencement speech, and Professor Obama is trying to tell Americans of all political persuasions, ‘Listen to each other.'” BARACK OBAMA: For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. After the clip ended, King said to his guests, “I think he’s right. In that commencement speech, he’s right.” Indeed, but as NewsBusters reported at the time, Obama didn’t mean those words. Quite the contrary, what has come out of this White House in the past week is exactly how he feels, and that commencement address in May was just another in a never ending litany of campaign speeches Americans should take with a grain of salt. Somewhat surprisingly, King not only seems to be feeling that way, but he’s also willing to point out the hypocrisy on the air. Bravo, John. Bravo.

Link:
John King Bashes Obama for Calling Fox ‘Destructive’ and MSNBC ‘Invaluable’

Jimmy Carter Talks Tea Party And Masturbation On Daily Show

When Bill Clinton appeared on the Daily Show last week, he kept things all business, giving an intricate discussion of the ways America can fix its economy. His Democratic presidential predecessor however, was there to have fun. Jimmy Carter, promoting his new book White House Diary, was jovial from the beginning, telling Jon Stewart that he was looking forward to the Rally to Restore Sanity. He even joined in on the media’s favorite pastime of the moment; making fun of Christine O’Donnell. Stewart asked Carter if, looking over his old diary entries, he felt hope in the direction the country was going. Carter responded with a quick “no,” citing the polarization of the nation which he partly blamed on Fox News. However, he then made a point of comparing himself as a candidate to the Tea Party of today, saying he “occupied the same position,” that of being a “fresh face” going up against the establishment. Still, though, he made an important differentiation between himself and the movement; he’s never dabbled in witchcraft. If that wasn’t enough, Carter then told Stewart he had “one more confession to make.” Looking the host in the eye, Carter told him that, as a young man, he was not “100% against…” Stewart silenced him before he could finish the sentence. No matter what you feel about Jimmy Carter, how many other 85 year old former presidents are going to go on comedy shows and discuss their personal histories with…being personal? I mean, sure, Rutherford B. Hayes would have if television had been invented (legend has it that the hair on his palms were as bushy as his beard), but that’s about it. So kudos to you, Jimmy Carter! added by: TimALoftis

Matthews-Mitchell Admit: Military Doesn’t Trust Obama’s Political Advisers

Of all the revelations in Bob Woodwards’s new book , this could be the most devastating . . . On this evening’s Hardball, Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell admited that the military people in the Obama administration don’t trust Pres. Obama’s political advisers. That raises grave concerns for America’s security.  In purely political terms, consider the implications given that among Americans, by far the most trusted institution is . . . the military. View video here . ANDREA MITCHELL: This is a new president who had no relationship with the military. And what does come through loud and clear from this book is the distrust and the long knives that were out between the civilian side, the political aides, the former campaign aides, and the military brass . . . National Security Adviser Jim Jones is very clear that he feels ostracized, that he didn’t have access to the president on the president’s first European trip. He had to go to the president and complain. CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well is it true they don’t like each other?  Just bottom line here: is it true the military guys don’t trust the White House political people and the other way around?  Your thoughts first, Andrea, on that one. MITCHELL: I think that is true.  And I think in particular that Jim Jones, a Marine general, retired Marine general, feels very much at odds with some of the civilians on the national security team and is about to leave. I think that’s the next big announcement we’re going to have from the White House, is the shake-up on the foreign policy/national security team that mirrors what’s happened so far on the economic team.

See original here:
Matthews-Mitchell Admit: Military Doesn’t Trust Obama’s Political Advisers

Glenn Greenwald on Iran, Tea Party Candidates, Jon Stewart and Obama’s Assassination Policy

We speak with Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law attorney and the political and legal blogger for Salon.com. Greenwald discusses White House rhetoric toward Iran; Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s planned rallies in Washington, DC; the Obama administration’s assassination policy that includes targeting US citizens; tea party candidates in the November midterm elections; and much more. Video at the link………… http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/21/glenn_greenwald_on_iran_tea_party added by: treewolf39

Schieffer Bashes White House’s ‘Snarky’ Response to Boehner’s Tax Cut Comment

CBS’s Bob Schieffer on Sunday bashed the White House for how it responded to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Oh.) tax cut comment uttered on “Face the Nation” a week ago. As readers are likely aware, Boehner made news – if not friends amongst conservatives! – by telling Schieffer that if the only thing that came out of the House was an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all but folks that make $250,000 or more per year, he would grudgingly support it.  After reading the White House’s official response to Boehner during this Sunday’s final segment – “Time will tell if his actions will be anything but continued support for the failed policies that got us into this mess” – Schieffer scolded, “I can remember when the first move by a president like Lyndon Johnson or maybe a smart aide in the Eisenhower White House would not have been a snarky press release.” “I`m guessing LBJ would have been on the phone to Boehner in five minutes after seeing him on TV saying something like, if you`re serious, why don`t you come over here quietly and we`ll try to work out something good for both of us and the folks out there,” continued Schieffer. “As we saw, no chance it could happen today. And we`re right back to the partisan war” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Finally, House Republican Leader John Boehner did a rare thing on this broadcast last week. He got off the talking points. I asked him about extending the Bush tax cuts that expire this year. Boehner gave me the GOP line: We should extend those cuts for all Americans, rich and poor, Democrats want to extend the cuts only to those making less than $250,000 a year. And when I pressed Boehner, he carefully said that was just bad policy, but if it came down to tax cuts only for the lower and middle income groups or no tax cuts at all, he said, he would reluctantly vote for just the lower and middle income cuts. That was big news all across the country. And it set off a thunder bolt of reaction in both parties. By mid-afternoon the White House acknowledged Boehner`s change in position but added in a written press release: “Time will tell if his actions will be anything but continued support for the failed policies that got us into this mess.” Blame it on a long memory, but I can remember when the first move by a president like Lyndon Johnson or maybe a smart aide in the Eisenhower White House would not have been a snarky press release. I`m guessing LBJ would have been on the phone to Boehner in five minutes after seeing him on TV saying something like, if you`re serious, why don`t you come over here quietly and we`ll try to work out something good for both of us and the folks out there. Call me a romantic, but I believe that might have happened. As we saw, no chance it could happen today. And we`re right back to the partisan war. Too bad really. Nicely done, Bob, but isn’t this possibly another instance of you not being as aware of things going on in Washington, D.C., as you should be? After all, it was only two months ago that Schieffer interviewed Attorney General Eric Holder and not only didn’t ask him about the New Black Panther Party controversy at the Department of Justice, but also admitted to CNN’s Howard Kurtz that he hadn’t heard anything about it.   Regardless of the media’s pathetic echoing of the Democrat talking point that Republicans are the Party of No, GOP members in the House and the Senate have been offering legislative ideas since Obama was inaugurated. Problem is the Party currently controlling Congress and the White House has wanted to implement its policies without any input from Republicans relying instead on their majorities in both chambers. As such, it’s by no means surprising the Obama administration didn’t immediately jump on Boehner’s comments from last Sunday to try to use them as a means of coming to a resolution on this matter. That’s not been this White House’s modus operandi since January 20, 2009, and Schieffer would have known this if he wasn’t accepting the administration’s talking points as the Gospel truth. Why he didn’t this time is anybody’s guess unless like so many folks on the Left he’s beginning to come out from under the Hope and Change ether. Stay tuned. 

The rest is here:
Schieffer Bashes White House’s ‘Snarky’ Response to Boehner’s Tax Cut Comment

NYT: ‘Defeating Tea Party Nominees Imperative to Avoid National Embarrassment’

The panic over a looming conservative takeover of Congress in November is becoming palpable in today’s liberal media. Take Thursday’s editorial in the New York Times for example: For both parties and certainly the broad swath of independent voters, defeating this new crop of Tea Party nominees has become imperative to avoid the sense of national embarrassment from each divisive and offensive utterance, each wacky policy proposal.   Yep. According to the Gray Lady, defeating Tea Party nominees is imperative to avoid national embarrassment.  But that’s just the beginning: [F]or voters of all stripes, Tuesday’s primaries should illuminate the growling face of a new fringe in American politics – and provide the incentive for level-headed voters to become enthusiastic about the midterm election. Republican leaders have to decide if they want the tiny fraction of furious voters who have showed up at the primary polls to steer them into the swamp for years ahead. They have a chance to repudiate the worst of the Tea Party crowd and show that they can govern without appealing to the basest political instincts. So far, they have preferred to greedily capitalize on the nuclear energy in the land without considering its destructive effects. Democrats, especially beleaguered incumbents and the White House, need to counter the toxic message of the Tea Party so voters have an alternative. Not surprisingly, the Times went on to lambaste Delaware’s Republican nominee for Senate Christine O’Donnell and New York’s Republican nominee for governor Carl Paladino. As such, with Obama and the Democrats plummeting in the polls, the unemployment rate at 9.6 percent and likely climbing, and the Party that has been in power for approaching four years having absolutely nothing positive to run on, the Gray Lady has decided to run its own attack ad disguised as an editorial. It sure is going to be an interesting roughly six-plus weeks heading up to Election Day.

See the original post here:
NYT: ‘Defeating Tea Party Nominees Imperative to Avoid National Embarrassment’

One Day After Rev. Jones Hits NBC, David Gregory Said No One Should Give Jones a Platform

Rev. Terry Jones may have announced on Saturday’s Today that he wouldn’t be burning any Korans, but on Sunday Today, NBC Meet the Press host David Gregory was suggesting Jones wasn’t worthy of anyone’s airtime: “I don’t see why this pastor Jones has any sort of forum or any platform that’s worthy of discussion.” Did Gregory lose that debate inside NBC? When asked by anchor Jenna Wolfe about the Koran-burning controversy, Gregory insisted that President Obama’s opposition will have a “big impact,” and yet, when asked if this incident would hurt America abroad, he didn’t think so (after all, Obama has been so effective at that outreach to the Muslim world):  WOLFE: So let’s get right to it. So the president said in that speech in DC yesterday, he said, quote, “We are not and never will be at war with Islam.” Again, a message he’s been trying to convey all week. What kind of impact is that going to have? GREGORY: Well, I think it has a big impact. I think the president at the end of the week was able successfully to wade into this controversy about this Florida pastor, get him to stand down, the Quran will not be burned, and what would have been, you know, a small group of hate-mongers, but nevertheless the fear was it could have much wider international implications. I think it is striking nine years later that our leaders are confronted with anti-Muslim sentiment in the country as a primary legacy of 9/11. Yes, the war on terror is still being fought in a robust way around the world, yet even the president on Friday made the point of saying it cannot dominate America’s foreign policy in the way that it has over the past decade. WOLFE: David, Reverend Terry Jones said yesterday on the show here, he will not burn Qurans not this weekend, not any time in the future, but has the damage already been done, both here and potentially abroad as well? GREGORY: I don’t know that it has. I mean, I think it’s been, you know, a big story here and the issue of anti-Muslim sentiment is one that as Americans we have to confront, that our leadership has to confront , and we are doing that in a very, you know, in a varied set of ways, both here and what’s happening overseas. I think the real concern was the image that could have come from those threats of the actual burning of the holy Quran. That’s something that the administration felt would have actually had a direct impact on our troops fighting in places like Afghanistan. WOLFE: Well, let’s talk about what the White House’s role is here. Terry Jones came here to potentially meet with the imam; as far as we know, there has no meeting that’s been set as of yet. Is it the White House’s responsibility to facilitate a meeting between the two at any point? GREGORY: I can’t see any reason why there should be a meeting between the two. I think one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. I mean, it can be sort of conflated neatly. I don’t see why this pastor Jones has any sort of forum or any platform that’s worthy of discussion. You know, he seems rather ignorant about even what his complaints about Islam are. So I don’t think that’s where the discourse ought to be. If there’s going to be discourse, it would seem to me it would make sense that it happens in New York, as a community that’s dealing with what should go where and how that should move forward. I don’t think the pastor has any role in that, and I certainly don’t think the White House wants to broker anything. Despite this toeing of the liberal line, on the last question from Wolfe, Gregory was not sanguine about Obama’s chances of avoiding a big Republican electoral tide.

View original post here:
One Day After Rev. Jones Hits NBC, David Gregory Said No One Should Give Jones a Platform