Obama chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax, even though our own attorney argued that it was and SCOTUS ruled that it was.
Chris Wallace leads along the poor schmuck nicely, forcing the guy to basically say “Our own solicitor general argued that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is a tax, and SCOTUS agreed…but hey, lawyers say all kinds of crazy things that aren’t true, so don’t read anything into it!” Um…yeah.
Early morning beverage warning, because that Maddow
dude “gal” is really huffing some primo fumes. Quote:
“Yeah. That’s exactly right. We are not, we, there may be liberals on TV at MSNBC, but the network is not operating with a political objective. Whereas Fox is operating with a political objective to elect Republican candidates, and particularly, to elect Republican candidates Roger Ailes likes. I think Roger Ailes is a really good TV executive, but their operation is essentially a political operation to elect Republicans.”
As Ace says about Maddow (and this warrants a beverage warning, too):
I’ll have what she’s having (vagina).
I don’t even know if both of Maddow’s viewers at MSDNC believe that.
References to leg tingles and hair dye? Oh yes, my friends!
Well played, Neil. Well played, indeed.
I don’t know how to break it to you morons at MM, but Merriam-Webster just called to say that “public” and “government-run” are one and the same. Sorry ’bout that.
Rumor has it that the Media Morons crowd will now protest equating “horse” with “equine” and “cow” with “bovine”. Then again, anything these imbeciles report is no more than “bovine feces”.
Well, at least the MSM doesn’t play rhetorical favorites. Oh, wait…
NPR: National Politically-correct Radio.
By now, most of you know the deal with NPR firing their correspondent Juan Williams for having the temerity to speak the truth on the left’s favorite target, Fox News. He said something that the left and NPR (pardon the redundancy) took out of context, namely that he pays closer attention to Muslim-looking passengers on an airplane. If you look at the full context of what he was saying, he was trying to show that such profiling was irrational, even when done by himself. I don’t think it is irrational, but whatever. Williams spent the rest of the time disagreeing with O’Reilly, who didn’t think such profiling was irrational.
Anywho, NPR canned Williams. The CEO, Vivian Schiller, wouldn’t return Williams’ calls or anything. However, Schiller did find time out of her busy taxpayer-(over)funded schedule to suggest Williams was a bigoted nutjob:
NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller is defending the firing of news analyst Juan Williams after his comments on the Fox News Channel, saying his feelings about Muslims are between him and “his psychiatrist or his publicist.”
I guess had Williams said that he wanted God to give a Republican Senator and/or his grandchildren AIDS like the still-employed-by-NPR Nina Totenberg (who, by the way, goes on MSNBC shows to do editorializing), then he’d still have a job at NPR.
So, to recap: Williams says something rational that National Pinko Radio bigwigs found objectionable, and he was forced out; the CEO says something that was unquestionably (and admittedly) outrageous, and she gets to keep her plush gig. Hypocrisy: not just for breakfast anymore.
By the way, Version One of NPR’s firing: No, it wasn’t his Muslim comments that got him fired, but was because he was opining (which undermines the “credibility” that NPR thinks they have when it comes to “objectivity”). Version Two of NPR’s firing: He “stepped over the line” with his comments…you know, the ones that didn’t contribute to his firing (see Version One)? Version Three: All of the above, including the outrageous comments that didn’t contribute to his firing but, now that you mention it, actually did contribute to his firing (and we were lying in Version One).
Cries from the right are now mounting to defund NPR (Huckabee, Newt, Palin, etc.). It’s clear that NPR should not be forced to be funded in any way by the fruits of labor of the producers in this country. Let Soros or Hollyweird or whomever fund that leftist propaganda outfit. In the meantime, since Williams has now been hired by Fox News, at least he can be exposed to more listeners and viewers than he would with NPR…although I’m sure both of NPR’s listeners will miss him.
Oh, waiter? Could I please get a double-order of Awesome, with a heaping helping of Awesome sauce?
CNN continued what has become a precipitous decline in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010, with its main hosts losing almost half their viewers in a year.
The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.
Here’s the kicker, and please be sure to put down your beverage before reading this:
CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.
So sayeth the New York Friggin’ Times!
Anywho, CNN isn’t going to change anything with their prime-time viewing. What’s that about the definition of insanity?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? What is this socialist tool talkin about? Quoth The One in his interview with FNC:
OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.
BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?
OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though. Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that. (CROSS TALK) OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe. Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don’t make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those.
First of all, it’s a friggin’ lie that “we have removed” the special provisions like the Cornhusker Kickback and Gator Aid. They were vote buyoffs to get the Senate to pass ObamaCare, which it did…and now that very Senate bill is sitting in the House’s lap! Now while B.O.’s proposal may have been to eliminate those vote buyoffs, that’s irrelevant, because his bill isn’t the one that the House is considering to cram down our throats.
Now, on to the part where I make fun of this Mensa scholar…
If he was talking about Haiti instead of Hawaii, then how in the Sam Hill does passing ObamaCare or using Landrieu’s vote buyoff help the people of Haiti? I mean, unless Haiti is one of those 57 states I didn’t know about, this does jack squat for them.
If, however, he actually meant his “birth state” (and no, I’m not referring to Kenya, which I think is not the 57th state…yet), then Gateway Pundit finds a slight problem with his statement:
Seriously…what in the blue Hades is this guy talking about???
Also, as Gateway Pundit mentions, B.O. said in this interview that “that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help.” Yet another damnable lie. Texas and Mississippi were states that were both affected by hurricanes (i.e. “natural catastrophes”) and declared to be major disaster areas…yet neither were covered by this provision of which he speaks. The provision refers to one state and one state alone: Louisiana. And why not? Louisiana was the only state along the Gulf coast who had a Senator ripe for a buyoff. Sens. Cornyn and Hutchison (TX), as well as Wicker and Cochran (MS) were firm opponents on ObamaCare. But not Landrieu.
Anywho, do you ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, our President doesn’t exactly adhere to the truth very often?
UPDATE (03/18/2010 – 2:30 PM): Reader C-Note (lurks, doesn’t comment) sent me an e-mail reminding me of the 2006 earthquake in Hawaii that registered a 6.7 on the Richter scale. Since I’m not Dan Rather, I’m not going to pretend I’m not wrong. However, if that’s what B.O. was talking about, he’s either wrong or lying about the Louisiana Purchase covering Hawaii. See, the LA Purchase’s language says that a state where “every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act” qualifies. Not every county in HI received federal assistance, so the LA Purchase does not cover HI.
Bubba’s former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, is teaching impressionable young minds at Berserkeley how the GOP won both chambers of Congress in 1994:
Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge.
That’s a pretty neat trick…considering that Fox News didn’t start until October of 1996. For those of you on the left, that’s two years after the Republicans won Congress.
But see, that’s just further proof as to how diabolical Fox News is. Yessirree, FNC was actually able to start up in 1996, teleport back two years prior so as to give unflattering coverage to Democrats, then warp back to 1996. All undetected. Just like Timecop, except Jean-Claude Van Damme’s character is played by Sean Hannity. That’s just scary genius right there.
For those of you on the left, the prior paragraph was an example of sarcasm.
Has anyone checked the forecast in Hell today? Details:
Today the White House stepped up its attack on Fox News, announcing that the network would no longer be able to conduct interviews with officials as a member of the Press Pool. The Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC organized by the White House Correspondents Association. Its membership is not subject to oversight by the government.
Before an interview with “Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg, the administration announced that Fox News would be banned from the press pool. This marks the first time in history that an administration had attempted to ban an entire network from the press pool.
To their credit, the other networks objected. They told the White House that if Fox were banned, none of the other networks would participate. The White House relented, but in an apparent act of petulant retaliation, it restricted each network to a two-minute interview instead of the standard five.
That’s right: ABC, CNN, and others actually threatened to boycott the interview if Fox was not allowed to participate. So while B.O. and his bunch may not see FNC as anything more than an extension of talk radio, FNC’s brethren in the MSM apparently don’t see it that way.
Allah has a theory, and I suspect it’s dead-on accurate:
The other networks deserve the praise they’re getting for standing up to the Baby-in-Chief, but if they had acquiesced in this freezeout, a precedent would have been set that would have been eagerly used by future Republican presidents to close them off too. And don’t think they weren’t all keenly aware of it.
Probably true. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that the other MSM outlets did this out of the goodness of their hearts.
If the rest of the MSM sits back and giggles like Barney Frank at a Village People concert while Fox gets skewered by Uhhhhhhhbama’s attack dogs, they know that the precedent will be set whereby the Republican who throttles Chairman Zero in 2012 will feel free to give the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC (assuming they’re all still around then) the same treatment. How do you think Olbermoron and Leg Tingle Matthews would like hearing President Romney/Huck/Pawlenty/(fill in name here) say “Well, MSNBC isn’t a real news organization. We’re sorry if this offends both of their viewers!”?
Anywho, this is humiliating for President Training Wheels, and it’s a clear slap across his Marxist face. For this country’s sake and our soldiers’ sakes, let’s pray that he manages the war in Afghanistan better than he ran this ill-conceived war against Fox News.
Let’s see: wasn’t The One and his Kool-Aid drinkers griping about a network that has news and commentary as not being a “legitimate news organization”? Yet for some really weird reason, he has a behind-the-scenes shindig with Maddow and Olbermann. But hey, that Fox News sure is illegit.
And while we’re talking about “legitimate” news organizations, Gwen Ifill (you know, the “unbiased” moderator of presidential debates?), Eugene Robinson of the Washington “skewed poll samples” comPost, and Gloria Borger of the “we’re so legitimate, we fact check anti-Obama SNL skits” network known as CNN were all at this little rendezvous. Borger took her dictaphone along for the ride, and after receiving her talking points (and pat on the head) from her overlord in the White House, she dutifully passed them off into her column entitled: “Republicans snipe instead of offering solutions”!
While on the air, MSNBC’s Mika Brezzezezewzewzsky (or whatever her name is) gets an e-mail “correction” from the White House in the middle of her segment…so naturally, she corrects it post haste and begins parroting the WH talking points with zeal.
But Fox News isn’t a real news organization? Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
As Allahpundit notes:
Needless to say, The One’s entitled to talk to whomever he wants, but playing pattycake with MSNBC’s primetime stars does further raise the question of why Beck and Hannity are problematic “opinion” shows while Olbermann and Maddow aren’t. And yes, that question is entirely rhetorical.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Granted, it doesn’t carry the Murrowesque journalistic integrity such as fact checking an SNL skit, but it will have to do. Details:
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.
“It’s astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming,” Clemente said. “It seems self-serving on their part.“
Even Chairman Zero’s apologists question the wisdom of the tactic:
…David Gergen, who has worked for President Bill Clinton and three Republican presidents, questioned the propriety of the White House declaring war on a news organization.
“It’s a very risky strategy. It’s not one that I would advocate,” Gergen said on CNN. “If you’re going to get very personal against the media, you’re going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you’re going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you’re attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature.”
Nia Malika Henderson, White House correspondent for the Politico newspaper, also questioned the White House offensive against Fox.
“Obama’s only been a boon to their ratings and I don’t understand how this kind of escalation of rhetoric and kind of taking them on, one on one, would do anything other than escalate their ratings even more,” she said.
As for the fact check?
Dunn used an appearance on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” over the weekend to complain about Fox News’ coverage of the Obama presidential campaign a year ago.
As for Dunn’s complaint about Fox News’ coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News’ stories on Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). (In other words, Dunn’s example of a “legitimate news organization” was engaging in some one-sided reporting. But nope…no liberal media bias! – Ed.) The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories — a spread of 59 points.
Oh, well. Since he refuses to see the Taliban as the enemy, he’s got to declare war on someone, right?
Here’s an excerpt from White House communications chief Anita Dunn’s 9-minute tirade against Fox News:
“Let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”
Good point. I mean, it’s not every news outfit that fact checks SNL skits or broadcasts propagandized school kids singing and dancing to a jam praising ObamaCare, now is it?
When he’s not whining like a female dog about his old lady’s moonbattery being examined, Barry O likes to spend his spare time blaming his electile dysfunction on that scourge of liberal existence, Fox News. From McClatchy:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, facing a likely defeat in next Tuesday’s primary election, won’t travel to Kentucky before the voting, but said he hopes to have much more time to win over Kentucky voters before the November general election.
He also blamed Fox News for disseminating “rumors” about him and said that that and e-mails filled with misinformation that have been “systematically” dispersed have hurt him in Kentucky.
“What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country,” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known — not only because of her time in the White House with her husband — but also coming from a nearby state of Arkansas.”
“Part of it is because there have been these e-mails that have been sent out very systematically, presumably by various political opponents, although I don’t know who,” he said. “And there are a lot of voters who get their news from Fox News. Fox has been pumping up rumors about my religious beliefs or my patriotism or what have you since the beginning of the campaign.” …
A ”nearby state of Arkansas”? I don’t know how to break this to you, Magellan, but Illinois is a helluva lot closer to KY than AR is. I now understand why he mentioned 57 states: his knowledge of American geography sucks!
What a puss! Could he be losing in KY because they DO know about him and don’t like him much? Why, no…it MUST be that bogeyman of Rupert Murdoch’s that is brainwashing the rubes of Kentucky! There’s no other explanation as to why ANYONE would reject the Obamessiah!
File this under “WTF?”, OK? From NewsMax:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Terry McAuliffe called the media’s coverage of the Democratic presidential race “the most biased” ever — and praised conservative Fox News for its “responsible” reporting.
Appearing on “Fox and Friends” on Tuesday, the former Democratic National Committee chairman was asked by host Steve Doocy “what percentage of the mainstream media is in the tank for Barack Obama?”
McAuliffe answered: “Oh, 90 percent. I mean, from day one. It is what it is. We’re not complaining. We have to deal with the hand we’re dealt…
“Every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they have ever seen in a presidential campaign. Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it.”
He added: “I have said this — Fox has been one of the most responsible in this presidential campaign. I have said that all along.”
Did any of you think you would ever see the day where the Clintons and their surrogates (a) complained about media bias against them, and (b) sang the praises of Fox News? The former makes me laugh louder than Hilldawg’s forced cackles, but the latter makes me wonder what the Clintonistas are up to.
In related news, Hell freezes over.
Not that their faux pas was that far off. Observe the yellow oval:
Angelina Jolie’s true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.
Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called “A Mighty Heart.”
But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.
Ironically, Wednesday night’s premiere of the excellent Michael Winterbottom-directed film was meant to support an organization called Reporters Without Borders. Jolie, however, did everything she could to clamp down on the press and control it.
Reporters from most major media outlets balked Wednesday when they were presented with an agreement drawn up by Jolie’s Hollywood lawyer Robert Offer. The contract closely dictated the terms of all interviews.
Reporters were asked to agree to “not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave.”
The agreement also required that “the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. In no event may Interviewer or Media Outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story. … The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”
If that wasn’t enough, Jolie also requires that if any of these things happen, “the tape of the interview will not be released to Interviewer.” Such a violation, the signatory thus agrees, would “cause Jolie irreparable harm” and make it possible for her to sue the interviewer and seek a restraining order.
I am told that USA Today and the Associated Press were among those that canceled interviews, and eventually Jolie scotched all print interviews when she heard the reaction.
“I wouldn’t sign it,” a reporter for a major outlet said. “Who does she think she is?”
A call to Offer was apparently one that could be refused. He didn’t return calls. An associate, Lindsay Strasberg, said, before hanging up: “You’re a reporter? I can’t talk to reporters. Goodbye.”
So much for reporters without borders.
Yeah, so much. Also, add Brangelina to the already long list of Hollyweirdos who sidle up to dictators:
After Shiloh was born, Jolie and Pitt gave a news conference, but limited it only to Namibian journalists. No reporters from neighboring countries were allowed.
The couple sat on the dais with Sam Nujoma, Namibia’s first president, aka dictator, who ruled for 15 years.
In 2002, Nujoma abruptly appointed himself minister of information and broadcasting. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Nujoma has routinely attacked reporters from his country calling them “unpatriotic” and “the enemy.”
During the time Pitt and Jolie were in the country, a former photographer for the Namibian, the daily newspaper, was arrested twice for trying to get a picture of the couple.
South African John Liebenberg was arrested on municipal property during the Jolie-Pitt stay and pronounced guilty of trespassing. His passport and camera equipment were confiscated as well.
Treatment of the press is so bad in Namibia, in fact, that an organization called the National Society for Human Rights was formed several years ago to protect reporters’ rights.
The NSHR, which is usually busy with more important matters, issued a statement on April 24 strongly condemning the deportation of foreign journalists from Namibia who wanted to cover the Pitt-Jolie visit.
“As the principal human rights monitoring and advocacy organization in this country, we strongly repudiate this unprecedented and blatant violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media,” the statement read.
It’s a little unclear how Mariane Pearl, whom Jolie plays in “A Mighty Heart,” feels about her portrayer’s position on freedom of press for some, but not all. On Wednesday, I spoke to Jeff Julliard, the editorial director of Reporters Without Borders in Paris.
“Paparazzi should be allowed to do their job,” he said, adding that he condemned Jolie’s banning of FOX News and actions taken on her behalf in Namibia.
Does this bimbo NOT see the irony of her actions, or does she simply not care? If the former, that speaks ill of her intelligence. If the latter, she should abandon all pretense that “freedom of the press” is important to her.
Excellent column by George Will illustrating how totalitarian and condescending the left truly is. Excerpts follow (though read the whole thing, as it’s not long but is very informative):
Some illiberal liberals are trying to restore the luridly misnamed Fairness Doctrine, which until 1987 required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of time to presenting fairly each side of a controversial issue. The government was empowered to decide how many sides there were, how much time was reasonable and what was fair.
By trying to again empower the government to regulate broadcasting, illiberals reveal their lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and their disdain for consumer sovereignty—and hence for the public.
The illiberals’ transparent, and often proclaimed, objective is to silence talk radio. Liberals strenuously and unsuccessfully attempted to compete in that medium—witness the anemia of their Air America. Talk radio barely existed in 1980, when there were fewer than 100 talk shows nationwide. The Fairness Doctrine was scrapped in 1987, and today more than 1,400 stations are entirely devoted to talk formats. Conservatives dominate talk radio—although no more thoroughly than liberals dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media.
(Examples of historical abuse of the Fairness Doctrine here.)…
Bill Ruder, a member of Kennedy’s subcabinet, said: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” The Nixon administration frequently threatened the three networks and individual stations with expensive license challenges under the Fairness Doctrine. (See? Bipartisan abuse. – Ed.)
Adam Thierer, writing in the City Journal, notes that today’s “media cornucopia” has made America “as information-rich as any society in history.” In addition to the Internet’s uncountable sources of information, there are 14,000 radio stations—twice as many as in 1970—and satellite radio has nearly 14 million subscribers. Eighty-seven percent of households have either cable or satellite television with more than 500 channels to choose from. There are more than 19,000 magazines (up more than 5,000 since 1993). Thierer says, consider a black lesbian feminist who hunts and likes country music:
“Would the ‘mainstream media’ of 25 years ago represented any of her interests? Unlikely. Today, though, this woman can program her TiVo to record her favorite shows on Black Entertainment Television, Logo (a gay/lesbian-oriented cable channel), Oxygen (female-targeted programming), the Outdoor Life Network and Country Music Television.”
Some of today’s illiberals say that media abundance, not scarcity, justifies the Fairness Doctrine: Americans, the poor dears, are bewildered by too many choices. And the plenitude of information sources disperses “the national campfire,” the cozy communitarian experience of the good old days (for liberals), when everyone gathered around—and was dependent on—ABC, NBC and CBS.
“I believe we need to re-regulate the media,” says Howard Dean. Such illiberals argue that the paucity of liberal successes in today’s radio competition—and the success of Fox News—somehow represent “market failure.” That is the regularly recurring, all-purpose rationale for government intervention in markets. Market failure is defined as consumers’ not buying what liberals are selling.
Then again, markets aren’t exactly the left’s cup of tea. That whole “supply and demand” thingy elicits a deer-in-headlights look from the vast majority of leftards.
As I’ve asserted and demonstrated on many occasions, liberals think that you are too stupid to run your own lives and that you need their brilliance (which, of course, you’re too stupid to recognize or appreciate) to get you through your menial lives.
As you probably know by now, the charges against the Duke lacrosse players have been dropped. This was one of the more egregious cases of prosecutorial misconduct I’ve ever seen, and that sorry #ss district attorney, Mike Naifong, needs to be held liable for wrecking the names and reputations of these innocent young men. Watch Fox News Channel’s Shepherd Smith get medieval in his outrage.
In the NY Times, they observe that the state Attorney General charged with cleaning up Nifong’s mess is a man named Roy Cooper, who is “a Democrat running for re-election next year.” Conspicuous by its absence is Nifong’s party affiliation. Three guesses as to what it is, and the first two guesses don’t count. In other words, the good guy is a Democrat and the bad guy is…um…uh…of unknown party. Nope…no liberal media bias!
Also, a leftist pointy-headed pseudo-intellectual biology prof at Duke isn’t convinced of the young men’s innocence, DNA results and debunked lies be damned. As Ace wryly notes: “Gives me all sorts of confidence in that ‘scientific consensus’ on ‘global warming’ knowing tenured elite-university biologists don’t quite understand DNA.” Ouch. Cut her some slack, Ace. She’s not the only one still holding onto the belief that despite every shred of evidence to the contrary, the boys are guilty.
Ace also really nails this one out of the park:
Oh, sure, maybe they didn’t “rape” a girl. But you know — they were blasting Ben Folds’ cover of Bitches Ain’t Shit a couple of nights, while, eyewtinesses reports say, they were drinking beer despite being two years below the legal drinking age!
So, you know, who’s really to blame here? They were asking for it. Look at how they behaved. They were dressing like hooligans with their caps all backwards ‘n shit, shakin’ their little tight white asses; they were almost begging to be raped by the legal system and Duke University.
From Opinion Journal:
In the battle for control of the Democratic Party, the George Soros-MoveOn.org crowd is used to getting its way. So it’s revealing to watch the consternation in those precincts to the Congressional Black Caucus decision to co-sponsor a pair of Presidential primary debates this year with Fox News.
Liberal activists are livid, to say the least, with one anti-Fox pressure group condemning the Black Caucus for “dancing with the devil.” Color of Change, a coalition of black online activists, says the collaboration promulgates “bigoted, hate-filled worldviews.” Markos Moulitsas, the DailyKos front man, calls the CBC “corrupt and compromised” for “doing Fox’s bidding.” His implication is that Black Caucus Members have somehow been bought off, though there is no evidence to support the slur. This is to say nothing of some of the more vicious blog chatter, much of it carrying racial connotations.
All of this induced Howard Dean’s Democratic National Committee to announce last week that it won’t “sanction” the CBC debates. John Edwards also repeated his profiles-in-courage act by announcing that he won’t participate in the CBC-Fox debate. This follows last month’s pander when he, the Nevada Democratic Party and Nevada Senator Harry Reid knelt before MoveOn.org demands that another scheduled primary debate co-hosted by Fox be called off. And yesterday Barack Obama bowed to the mob by declaring he also won’t attend; so much for the Senator’s promise to change the tenor of our politics.
The Internet vigilantes would like to drum Fox News out of polite society, but it’s clear from the Black Caucus episode that this isn’t really about Fox. This is about who runs the Democratic Party. Ever since they came close to nominating Howard Dean for President in 2004, left-wing Web activists have tried to punish any Democrat who dares to step out of line. They tried to run Joe Lieberman out of the Party for his views on Iraq, and they want to banish California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher because she’s voted for free trade agreements.
The pitchfork carriers now want to tell elected Democratic officials which journalists they can appear in public with. Messrs. Edwards and Obama are bowing to those orders because they’ve decided they can only defeat Hillary Clinton by running to her left. Of course if by some miracle one of them wins the nomination, he’ll be known as the candidate from MoveOn.org in the general election too. Republicans will have fun with that one.
Yes, but as incompetent as the GOP is these days, I don’t have any faith in their ability to parlay that alliance between the Dem nominee and their moonbat masters into electoral victory. Continuing:
The Black Caucus has a different agenda, which is to win elections and hold the Democratic majority in Congress. A spokesman for the CBC Institute, which organizes these educational functions, says the goal is to reach the “broadest audience possible.” This seems sensible enough, especially because Fox’s market research shows that more than half its audience is Democrats and independents.
So much for that “it’s a Republican network” myth. Continuing:
In fact, the caucus went out of its way to be, well, fair and balanced. It is co-sponsoring two primary debates on Fox, one Democratic and one Republican, and is doing the same on CNN. In 2003, the CBC also joined with Fox News on two Democratic debates that came off successfully. (This page has its own weekend show on Fox.)
The CBC deserves credit for not capitulating to ideological intimidation–and for refusing to take orders from affluent and angry liberals who’ve never run for office. Too bad the candidates have weaker knees.
Too bad for the CBC that they’re still seen as chattle by the moonbat plantation owners.
Not surprising that the Silky Pony chickens out. He’s an empty suit with a French poodle’s well-coiffed hair. But for some strange reason, I expected more from Obama. Don’t ask me why, because I haven’t a freakin’ idea. Anywho, from the Politico:
Barack Obama has chosen not to attend September’s Democratic presidential primary debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox News, an aide said, effectively dooming the event.
Obama is the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus running for President, and his decision allows other candidates to skip the debate without facing criticism that they are turning their backs on a leading black institution.
Friday, John Edwards was the first candidate to announce he’d skip the debate. The CBC Institute is hosting one other debate, with CNN in January, in which all candidates are expected to participate.
“CNN seemed like a more appropriate venue,” the aide said, adding that Obama himself had not called CBC leadership or Fox executives to deliver the news. “It was handled at a staff level.”
The aide said that Obama will participate in the six officially-sanctioned Democratic National Committee debates, whose existence provided candidates a measure of cover to drop out of the Fox-sponsored debate.
Now there’s a blow for the leftards who are dim enough to think that Fox News is conservatively biased but CNN is somehow “objective”! If Osamabama wants to debate through a CNN venue, are you stupid enough to think it’s because CNN is “objective”? Sure, OK, whatever.
Oh, well. If Osamabama and the Silky Pony want to talk to a smaller audience, they’re definitely going to the right place. What a couple of chickensh#ts!
UPDATE (04/09/2007 – 6:15 P.M. EST): Hot Air is reporting that Osamaba broke Senate ethics rules by using his Senate office for campaign purposes (he invited his campaign adviser into his Senate office, a big-time no-no). They wonder if he’s backing out of the FNC-CBC-sponsored debate to assuage the nutroots over his Iraq funding comments. If true, he’s more spineless than I even imagined. Plus, it shows just how leftist the supposed “moderate” really is.
Here’s how ABC News titles the story on their homepage regarding the recess appointment of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium (emphasis mine):
Major Donor to ‘Swift Boat’ Smear Ads Is Made an Ambassador
Then in the body of the article…
Kerry and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., led Senate Democrats’ opposition to Fox, who in 2004 contributed $50,000 to the slanderous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which used a series of television ads to undermine Kerry’s combat record.
And in the spirit of Passover…
Despite his grilling by Democrats, Fox, the national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition, refused to apologize for his donation.
As Patterico points out:
Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone meet Beldar’s challenge to name a single specific and material statement of fact by the Swift Boaters that has been fully debunked, or shown to be fully unsubstantiated.
Wouldn’t stating material falsehoods be a critical component of a “slanderous” campaign of “smear ads”?
In fact, as I have previously observed, the media often has a worse track record of inaccuracies on this issue than do the Swifties.
By the way, if you are disqualified from government service because you once gave money to an organization that has engaged in slander and smears, that lets out anyone who ever subscribed to the Los Angeles Times.
Patterico also points out that the original headline, containing the word “Smear” has since been removed (presumably after a public outcry), though the “slanderous” still remains in the “news” story.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
This will no doubt piss off the left. Observe:
The Fox News Channel is the most trusted news source in America, according to a new poll released by the BBC and Reuters that surveyed 10,000 news consumers around the world.
Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News – more than any other news source in the U.S.
Fox News led the broadcast networks by substantial margins, with ABC coming in at 4 percent, NBC – 4 percent and CBS – 3 percent.
Let me guess…the survey only included conservatives? It’s only expected that since it is an international survey, no news outlet would have a majority. However, it’s still funny to see FNC tower over its leftward-tilting competition!
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett