Headline of the day, “AP’s media bias” edition
Yes, this is the actual AP headline:
Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?
Read the intro:
By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press – Sat, May 19, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth.
ObaMao’s big government borrow-and-spend policies have been crap, with no positive results and a plethora of negative results. So Americans elect the GOP to control the House, as their way of expressing displeasure with (among other things) B.O.’s and the Dems’ way of dealing with the economy. So when the Republican House - again, elected by the people to stop Obamanomics - decides to stop the runaway borrow-and-spend Greece-like policies…they’re trying to sabotage the economy?
Um, yeah. They’re trying to sabotage something that hasn’t friggin’ worked in nearly four years, and the AP treats it as though it’s a given that Obamanomics works and those mean ol’ Republicans are trying to “sabotage the economy” just to hurt Obama. Because Obama’s economic policies couldn’t possibly harm Obama…nope, it’s those economy-sabotaging Republicans!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Romney to reporter: Can we talk about economic issues, you know, the stuff that matters this year?
Video clip here (can’t embed it). The magic comes around the 2:15 mark, when an exasperated Romney asks the reporter (who is droning on about gay marriage, in-state tuition for kids of criminal aliens, medical marijuana) if there are any “issues of significance” she’d like to discuss.
See, though, she’s just telegraphing the left’s and the MSM’s (pardon the redundancy) intention: get the ADHD public focused on shiny objects to distract them from the colossal failure of Oba-Mao’s government-controlled central planning economic policies. Sure, jobs have hemorrhaged since he took over, more people have abandoned looking for work, gas prices have more than doubled, foreclosures have spiked, and…oooo, look, gay marriage/medical dope/dog on a car roof!
Time magazine helpfully edits Obama campaign ad to remove unflattering quote that was uttered, add flattering quote that wasn’t uttered
Obama is running a commercial with B.J. Clinton (Billy Jeff…William Jefferson…you perverts!) talking about B.O. ordering the hit on Bin Laden. Details at Boortz’ site. Here is the original, unedited transcript of BJ’s comment in the ad:
“That’s one thing George Bush said that was right: the President is the Decider-in-Chief. Nobody can make that decision for you. Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they’d been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible for him. But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’ He took the harder and more honorable path, and one that produced, in my opinion, the best result.”
So Bubba opines that had the raid gone awry, the fallout would have been disastrous…for Obama! Yeah, screw the SEALs and the country, the real issue would have been Obama’s re-election chances! Way to keep your eyes on the prize (and off of the interns), BJ!
Well, Time magazine had an article, by former Newsweak hack Jon Meacham, with a slightly different (but highly significant) quote from Bubba:
“That’s one thing George Bush said that was right: the President is the Decider-in-Chief. Nobody can make that decision for you. Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they’d been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible (???? – CL). But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’ He took the harder and more honorable path, and one that produced, in my opinion, the more honorable and best result.”
Notice how the quote was totally altered to remove the pesky and problematic “for him” part, and how “honorable” was added a second time, despite the fact that Bubba never used it the second time. Isn’t the purpose of the quote to, oh I dunno, quote something that someone actually said?
Nope…no liberal media bias!
NYT clears NYT of allegations of bias
This is a joke…right?
The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”
I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites. Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by collateral factors — for example, political views that creep into nonpolitical coverage.
Nope, we’ve been right down the middle, no favoritism on our part. How do we know? Because we just checked ourselves. And as luck would have it, we’re clean. So there.
So nope…no liberal media bias!
Obama ate dogs
By now, many of you know that the Romneys are catching hell over the way they transported the family Irish setter nearly 30 years ago on family vacations, namely on the roof of the car. Ann Romney says the dog enjoyed it, and considering my dog darned near steps all over my passengers to stick his head out the window, I can see that. Would I put my dog on the roof? No, probably not. But if the dog didn’t die, didn’t suffer, and it happened three decades ago, then I don’t give a wet fart on a dry January Monday how they transported their dog.
But the MSM cares. They do not want any talk about the sky high unemployment, the exploding deficit, our crippling debt, hemorrhaging of jobs, skyrocketed fuel prices, unconstitutional power grabs…but instead, Mitt Romney’s dog from the 1980′s.
OK, you hacks. You wanna go there? You really wanna go on the “who loves dogs?” track. Fine. Let’s go there. I’ll stipulate that Obama loves dogs more…especially with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp! From the Daily Caller:
Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago.
Can you name the author of this quote?
“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”
Yep, that’s Barack Obama, writing about his childhood with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, from Chapter Two of his bestseller Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
“So what? It was a long time ago,” you say. “He was a lot younger. Customs are different there. He was just doing what his stepfather told him. And hey, you can’t even prove that the dogs were ever left on top of a car, you racist.”
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, libs. Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth. And whenever you bring up the one, we’re going to bring up the other.
It’s no fun when we push back, is it? That’s why it’s so much fun.
You must read the updates and the comments, which are friggin’ hilarious! One to whet the appetite:
Q: What does Obama do when his dog gets stuck?
A: Grabs a toothpick.
Game on, beyotch.
CNN poll a product of “utter fantasy”
This is a great takedown of that CNN poll from yesterday that is wildly different from other recent polls. In the CNN poll, Obama leads Romney 52%-43%. In polls from two and three days before, Romney leads Obama in both, albeit within the margin of error.
Why am I talking about polls at this stage of the game? Simple: media malpractice. Excerpt of the takedown:
…That might not be the biggest problem with the poll, though. Its biggest problem is … math. Reader Raymond O did some math and asked a rather interesting set of questions in an e-mail last night about how CNN did theirs. First, let’s start with the topline results, as reported by CNN: Obama 52%, Romney 43% among registered voters, 53/41 among all respondents. If that’s the case, then the number of respondents in the latter case voting for Obama should be 538, and the number supporting Romney 416.
However, when reading the questions on page 3 of the poll report, that’s not at all what we see:
BASED ON 484 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR OBAMA — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
3. (Asked of Obama voters) Is that more a vote FOR Barack Obama or more a vote AGAINST Mitt
Romney? …BASED ON 476 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
4. (Asked of Romney voters) Is that more a vote FOR Mitt Romney or more a vote AGAINST Barack
Obama?Since the combined total of the two exceeds their count of registered voters in the survey (910), we have to assume this refers to the general-population response. That’s wildly different than the 53/41 split that CNN reports from the poll. In fact, it’s only a 48/47 split for Obama. And given that the poll shows a slightly better result for Romney among registered voters, it’s not difficult to conclude that Romney probably led in that category before CNN’s pollster shifted the results around to this extent.
Read the whole thing…it is fascinating to what lengths CNN is going in order to get their boy re-elected. They refuse to offer the breakdown of respondents the way every other poll does, with number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents polled. The comPost and other fishwraps almost always oversample Democrats by double digits over Republicans for their polls, but at least they show their weighted unrealistic numbers. CNN isn’t going to bother with that. Plus…they’re even ignoring basic rules of math now!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Washington comPost challenges CBS on “Fake but accurate”
Oh, it’s not what you think. You probably thought “challenges” as in “calling CBS out”, didn’t you? Nope. Instead, they’re challenging CBS on trying to bastardize the English language in such a way as to advance their leftist agenda. Details:
“For far too long women have been left behind in Obama’s job market. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is truly unsustainable.”
— Statement by Sharon Day, co-chair of the Republican National Committee, April 6, 2012
In an effort to fight back against Democratic claims of a Republican “war on women,” the Republican National Committee has rolled out a new and startling fact—that under Obama, women have lost seven times as many jobs as men.
So, are the numbers correct? The comPost concludes that the numbers are indeed correct:
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.” (Hey, when was the last time a liberal fishwrap like the comPost chalked up bad numbers under a Republican administration to “coincidence of timing”? – CL)
And the comPost concludes…
If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:
TRUE BUT FALSE
Um…whiskey tango foxtrot? “TRUE BUT FALSE”? Are you bleeping kidding me?
The numbers are true…but the numbers are damaging to Chairman Zero, so the comPost has to polish this turd in the best way they know how. Which is to sodomize English.
Webster just called and asked to be lubricated next time.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
MSNBC edits quote to make Zimmerman look racist
By now, all of you know about the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL, by Hispanic George Zimmerman. Well, the “Lean Forward” network, MSNBC, offered up a news story with a Dowdified quote. Via Big Journalism:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” Zimmerman told a police dispatcher from his car. His father has said that Zimmerman is Hispanic, grew up in a multiracial family, and is not racist.
(Sidebar: quick explanation of “dowdified” here).
So, it’s clear that Zimmerman equates “suspicious” with “black”, right? Um…not exactly:
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good, [begin ellipsis] or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic? [end ellipsis]
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
For the record, I think I’ll let the law enforcement folks do their job before I jump to conclusions the way that the majority of black America seems to have done. But this is an example of rotten, corrupt, agenda-driven journalism and I think MSDNC ought to apologize to both of its viewers.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Newt spanks David Gregory over MSM’s obsession with Rush – contraception thingy
Dang it, why does this guy have to have so much baggage?
Even many liberals turning against Obama on his decision to force Catholic institutions to violate their religious tenets in health care coverage
From the Washington comPost:
The White House sought Tuesday to soothe concerns over a controversial birth control rule that has led to Republican attacks and tension among close allies of the administration.
The efforts followed mounting criticism from Catholics and other faith leaders that a new rule requiring certain religious institutions to cover contraception as part of their employee health plans violates their constitutional rights.
And they came as White House officials began hearing complaints from some of their own allies and advisers, who view the rule as a policy mistake that feeds what they see as an unfair charge from Republicans: that President Obama is anti-religion. (Yeah, really! It’s unfair to note that the guy is pro-abortion, thumbs his nose at the church and the Constitution to throw a bone to his moonbat base, etc. … but hey, where would you get the crazy idea that the guy is anti-religion or anything? – CL)
Even Chris Matthews? Dude, when Tingles says his boy’s wrong, that should make the front page of the comPost!
Normally, the Catholic church runs interference for the Democrats. I’m guessing that’s why Chairman Zero shoved this down their throats: he figured they’d stick with him and his party like they always do. Considering they backed ObamaCare in the first place, I’m not sure why they are surprised by this. Unless they thought they could get a waiver just like every other B.O.-friendly organization that also didn’t want to be subject to ObamaCare’s onerous requirements.
NY Times loses $40 million last year
Heh.
It couldn’t be the quality of their newspaper, or lack thereof, now could it? Nah.
Of course, since B.O. is good about doling out money to his constituents, and since Democrats have floated the idea of bailing out friendly fishwraps before, it seems like the Old Gray Hag should go kneel before Chairman Zero and ask for their own bailout. No sense parroting his talking points and polishing his knob for free, right? There’s bills to be paid.
Reuters sees great news in new unemployment numbers; realists, not so much
al-Reuters goes to bat for their boy:
Job growth surges, jobless rate near 3-year low
The economy created jobs at the fastest pace in nine months in January and the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to a near three-year low, giving a boost to President Barack Obama as campaigning heats up ahead of November elections.
Hey, that’s awesome news! Except for the fact that it isn’t:
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. …
Again, when people stop looking for work because the economy sucks way too bad to be producing jobs at the levels needed to perpetuate a recovery, those people simply aren’t counted against the unemployed. A hospital has a certain number of sick people, but when some of those sick people die, you don’t exactly see the hospital celebrating the drop in the number of sick people there, now do you?
Expect more stories like this: Chairman fiddles while the USA smolders, and the MSM is dutifully doing its part in this election year to get ObaMao re-elected.
Andrea Mitchell on Tingles Matthews’ little-watched show: You know, Mitt’s ancestors were illegal aliens, right?
From Mrs. Greenspan’s cakehole:
ANDREA MITCHELL: And looking ahead to the next primary in Florida, 30 percent of the Hispanic community is Cuban-American. That’s a smaller proportion, and so the Hispanic community there is different. And they are less prone to be susceptible to Mitt Romney’s really hard line on immigration, more prone to the Newt Gingrich approach to immigration. The other interesting little fact is about the Mexican Romneys, those looking back at all of those records say that Mitt Romney should look back at the records because the Romneys that came back from Mexico to the United States, they crossed the border illegally.
MSNBC’s Maddow: You know who’s totally unbiased? We are!
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).
Heh.
I don’t even know if both of Maddow’s viewers at MSDNC believe that.
MSM: If only Congress hadn’t authorized civilians to carry guns into national parks, that crazed gunman that shot four people at a party wouldn’t have killed a park ranger
I’ll never understand the logic, or lack thereof, of liberals when it comes to gun control. Let’s set the background:
Mount Rainier National Park remained closed Tuesday following the discovery of the body of the suspected gunman in the fatal shooting of a park ranger that has devastated the close-knit group of park workers.
The park, which sees more than 1.5 million visitors annually, has been off-limits since Margaret Anderson was killed Sunday morning. The body of the man suspected of killing her was found Monday morning by a plane searching the rugged, snowy area.
“We have been through a horrific experience,” said park superintendent Randy King. “We’re going to need a little time to regroup.”
Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, was lying partially submerged in a frigid mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on each side.
…
Authorities think Barnes fled to the park Sunday to hide after an early morning shooting at a New Year’s house party near Seattle that wounded four, two critically.King County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Sgt. Cindi West said Barnes is a suspect in that shooting, as well. West said the shots were fired around 3 a.m. after a dispute over a gun. However, further details, including the vicitms’ identities, were not immediately available.
Parks spokesman Kevin Bacher said: “The speculation is that he may have come up here, specifically for that reason, to get away. The speculation is he threw some stuff in the car and headed up here to hide out.”
So a crazed gunman (Barnes) shoots four people at a New Years Eve party, then flees to Mt. Rainier National Park and kills a park ranger who was part of a roadblock. How does the MSM treat this? Predictably:
The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.
Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.
“The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now,” Wade said.
So let me get this straight:
A mentally disturbed man who didn’t care about gun laws (or any laws) shoots four people at a party, critically wounding two of them. This same lawbreaker retreats to the wilderness to hide out, and when he is stopped by a park ranger, he ignored the law again (you know, the law about killing people and stuff?) and shot and killed the park ranger. But had Congress not authorized law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into national parks to defend themselves against bears and mountain lions, this otherwise lawbreaking gunman would have…um…not taken his gun to the national park on account of it being illegal to do so? Because he would have gotten in big trouble for breaking a gun law, as opposed to commiting homicide? And that fear would have made a mentally ill gunman reconsider his actions?
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
NYT calls for the head of the Attorney General
Wow…who would have thought that the leftist rag would demand the resignation/firing of the Attorney General of the United States? I guess the offense was just that horrible! Excerpt:
It (the administration) has offered up implausible excuses, hidden the most damaging evidence and feigned memory lapses, while hoping that the public’s attention moves on. But this scandal is too important for the public or Congress to move on. This story should not end until Attorney General [redacted - CL] is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired.
Kudos to the NYT for demanding that the integrity of the office of the AG and the Department of Justice be preserved! I guess Operation Fast & Furious, a botched federal government operation which resulted in our government arming Mexican drug lords who, in turn, killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry PLUS 300+ Mexicans, was just so egregious that even the liberal apologists at the Old Gray Hag couldn’t defend USAG Eric Holder over it.
Hmm? What’s that? The NYT column isn’t talking about Holder or Fast & Furious?
Oh, wait. That’s right! My bad. The column was demanding the head of Bush’s AG Alberto Gonzales on a silver platter for the far more disgusting crime of…firing U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the administration.
No, as it turns out, the NYT is allowing Holder and the administration to get their talking points out about Fast & Furious. Naturally and predictably, Holder whips out the race card, and the NYT is more than happy to accommodate Holder.
But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.
Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
From Big Journalism:
Conflating things? How do we “conflate things” when we provide the documents PROVING our points? Plus if we are leaving out things it’s because Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice aren’t providing us with all the details.
…
How about members of the Congressional Black Caucus Mr. Holder and Mr. Savage? As Mr. Boyle and Michelle Fields report the feeling in the caucus is that the congressional investigation is warranted. So do they feel this way because Mr. Holder is an African American? Are they racists against their own race?
To recap: Republican A.G. fires US Attorneys (within his job duty), and the NYT demands he lose his job. But Democrat A.G. arms a Mexican drug cartel and gets over 300 people killed, including federal border patrol agent Brian Terry (whose name the NYT can’t bother themselves to mention), and the NYT yawns disinterestedly and allows unfounded accusations of racism and sensationalism to go unchecked. Because proof is racist, or something.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Obama: Only a couple of presidents have done more good than I have
His douchebaggery merges with his narcissism. Money quote (video at link):
In his latest interview with CBS News’s Steve Kroft, President Obama said “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.” CBS edited the statement out of the televised version of the interview.
How helpful of CBS! They create proof where there is none if it advances their agenda (see Memogate 2004). They erase proof if it advances their agenda (this is but one of a bazillion instances). Nope…no liberal media bias!
What an a-hole! This country needs this egomaniac out of office ASAP so our republic can begin to heal from his and his party’s moonbattery-induced damage.
Holder goes after TX voter ID law, turns blind eye to ID rules in other arenas
There’s this…
The Obama administration on Tuesday will wade into the increasingly divisive national debate over new voting laws in several states that could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008. …
With the presidential campaign heating up, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will deliver a speech Tuesday expressing concerns about the voter-identification laws, along with a Texas redistricting plan before the Supreme Court that fails to take into account the state’s burgeoning Hispanic population, he said in an interview Monday.
Holder will speak at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Libary and Museum in Austin, Tex., which honors the president who shepherded the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. …
When it comes to voting fraud, some conservatives have long argued that it is a serious problem, although others say the number of such cases is relatively low. Studies of the issue have reached different conclusions on the extent of the problem.
“You constantly hear about voter fraud . . . but you don’t see huge amounts of vote fraud out there,’’ Holder said.
…as opposed to this:
You’re not seeing things.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com, citing OpenSecrets.org). Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, who will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow supporting the rejection of voter-ID laws and, according to the Texas GOP, “NAACP plans to involve the United Nations on (sic) US elections,” abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo identification to the polls.
Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union’s elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?
Doug Ross’s reaction: “Needle on Hypocrisy-Meter Breaks Off.”
At some point during all these years of covering the voter-ID issue, you would think that someone in the press, much of which is unionized (specifically the Associated Press, which has the credit for the photo above), would have noted that unions at least occasionally and likely far more than occasionally require that members present a photo ID to be able to cast their ballots. Nope. How typically irresponsible.
Translation: Requiring picture ID in order to receive Social Security, Medicare, welfare, a library card, a driver’s license. are totally cool, and requiring picture ID to vote in certain (i.e. union) elections is only sensible. But requiring picture ID for the most sacred act of our republic is racist. Or something.
Night and Day, “How the MSM reports unemployment numbers when presidents of different parties are running for re-election” edition
The Right Sphere has the MSM dead to rights on this one. Night…
Take a look at these headlines:
The President’s Jobless Recovery
Frustrated Job Seekers Cause Jobless Rate To Drop
Economy Adds Few New Jobs
Low Jobless Rate Reflects Lost Hope
US Jobless Rate Drops But For Wrong ReasonsRecent headlines regarding the drop in the unemployment rate from 9% to 8.6% right?
Wrong.
Those are headlines from January 2004, when the jobless rate dropped to 5.7% and when President Bush was just starting a re-election campaign.
…and day…
Here are headlines from Friday’s job numbers:
Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% Raising Hopes
Jobless Rate Drop Could Boost Obama
Obama Gets Economic Indicator He Can Crow About
Good News On Job Front For Obama
Jobless Rate Lowest In 2.5 Years
The jobless rate in November fell 0.4%…because 300,000 unemployed gave up and dropped out of the job search market! The unemployment rate doesn’t count these people.
Let’s say I ask four girls out on a date, and all four tell me to drop dead. Let’s say I do this every week, and the results are always the same. I’ve got a 100% failure record. But let’s say that one of these girls finally gets tired of me asking her out, so she stops answering her phone and simply ignores me. Oh, joy! I just got a 25% reduction in the “uninterested in Crush” rate, because she’s not turning me down anymore! Sure, she is still uninterested, but I’m just not gonna count her anymore, because she gave up answering me.
That’s what the unemployment numbers are doing. Sure, they still are unemployed, but because they’re not even going to bother looking anymore, we can stop counting them as unemployed. Friggin’ brilliant.
As for the reporting? Nope…no liberal media bias!
Newt to Occupiers: “Get a bath, get a job!” MSNBC host: How DARE you, Newt!
Both viewers of Mike Brzertdvasewdsmsdwrfsfsfnski (or whatever the heck her name is) couldn’t agree more. From Newsbusters (video clip at link):
Shades of “Special Comment”! In a rant worthy of Keith Olbermann at the height of his Miss Precious Perfect histrionics, Mika Brezinski began today’s Morning Joe by tearing into Newt Gingrich for his recent suggestion that Occupy protestors should “get a job, right after you take a bath.”
It wasn’t merely Mika’s words: “arrogant, disgusting, sickened.” So strongly ran Brzezinski’s rage that more than once her voice quavered and she seemed on some sort of emotional brink. Video after the jump.
Yeah, where does Newt get the crazy idea that these are a bunch of filthy, lice-ridden, flea-ridden, street-crapping losers? Oh, wait…
Gratuitous hippie bashing from Mr. Gingrich warms my heart. I just may vote for this guy yet!
Newt explains to MSM the difference between Tea Party and Occupiers
Short version: Occupiers want to destroy our country, and Tea Party wants to restore our country. Occupiers are violent and destructive, and Tea Partiers are non-violent and constructive. Amen!
Video (about 1:36 long): Newt tells biased media the big difference between Tea Party and Occupiers
MSNBC cast laughs it up about Republican candidates, clams up suddenly when “Solyndra” is mentioned
Boy, that Mika Brewsizinskydinkydo (or whatever the heck her name is) sure is a buzzkill on MSDNC, no? From Newsbusters (video clip at link):
Ever been watching Morning Joe, and wished you could stop the steady stream of liberal blather? Simple. Say the magic word—Solyndra—and watch the gabby guests fall suddenly silent.Today’s show offered a prime example of the phenomenon. For the first ten minutes, the panel had a great old time cackling and crowing on the theme that the Republican presidential field is a mass of morons. They laughed at the mere mention of Herman Cain, likened the GOP field to a vaudeville show, dragged out the shopworn “bar in Star Wars” simile, and called the Republican candidates “jokes,” “clowns” and “stupid.” But then, 13 minutes in, Mika Brzezinski mentioned a story reporting that the Obama admin had suppressed the announcement of layoffs at Solyndra until after the 2010 elections. Despite Mika looking around the table at her guests as she wondered out loud “why this story hasn’t picked up more,” there wasn’t a peep out of the quickly clammed-up crew and Brezinski breezed on to another topic.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Newt humiliates CBS News “moderator” at debate
OK, Newt, you’re making it harder for me to stay mad at you. Especially after a rich exchange like this with Scott Pelley:
Nicely done, sir. Pelley: “That’s not the rule of law!” (said through smug grin). Newt: Um, yeah…it is the rule of law, chump. You might wanna Google rules of law before you start asserting that something is the rule of law when it is, in fact, NOT the rule of law. I think a former Speaker (not named Pelosi) might know a thing or two about the rule of law.
Night and Day, “NYT and filibusters” edition
The Old Gray Hag in 2005 on filibusters, when Democrats were in the minority:
The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes. . . . A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the ‘nuclear option’ in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it’s obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it.
The Old Gray Hag in 2005 on filibusters, when Republicans were in the minority:
Democrats scored a small but significant victory for the cause of progress in the Senate late last week when they voted to prohibit one of the many delaying tactics that keep the chamber tied up in pointless partisan arguments. It was a long way from desperately needed filibuster reform, but it showed that sufficiently frustrated senators can take action to prevent the Senate from being a total dead weight. . . . Fear of ending up in the minority makes majority parties in the Senate avoid sensible rules. But ending the abuse of the chamber’s traditions–ultimately the far more significant abuse of the filibuster–would benefit both parties, and the country as a whole.
Nope…no liberal media bias hypocrisy!
Obama’s plan for jobs and the economy
Here’s what B.O. said about his forthcoming “specific” plan for jobs and economic recovery to NBC’s Brian Williams:
Well, look, we anticipated that the recovery was slowing. The economy is still growing, but it’s not growing as fast as it needs to. I’ve got things right now in–before Congress that we should move immediately, and I’ve said so before I went on vacation and I’ll keep on saying it when I–now that I’m back. We should be passing legislation that helps small businesses get credit, that eliminates capital gains taxes so that they have more incentive to invest right now. There are a whole host of measures that we could take, no single element of which is a magic bullet, but cumulatively could start continuing to build momentum for the recovery.
You know what’s fascinating about this? He said this to Brian Williams on August 29…of last year!
So what does he say to Williams now?
Next week, I will be laying out a series of steps that Congress can take immediately to put more money in the pockets of working families and middle-class families, to make it easier for small businesses to hire people, to put construction crews to work rebuilding our nation’s roads and railways and airports, and all the other measures that can help to grow this economy. These are bipartisan ideas that ought to be the kind of proposals that everybody can get behind, no matter what your political affiliation might be. So my hope and expectation is that we can put country before party and get something done for the American people.
In other words, this Stuttering Cluster**** Of A Miserable Failure (from SCOAMF.com) has spent the entire last year not giving us a “specific” jobs plan, and now he’s promising to do the exact same thing a year later. If Williams had any journalistic integrity (I know, chuckle away), he would have said “Mr. President, this sounds exactly like what you told me at this time last year. What exactly have you been doing in the 365 days since you told me that? Were you not being truthful then, or were you procrastinating, or did you have a My Cousin Vinny ‘You were serious about dat?’ moment, or what?”
New MSM meme: You know, Perry isn’t nearly as reasonable as…Bush?
I’ve been reading on the blogosphere various predictions that the MSM would begin attacking Rick Perry by trying to show him as less acceptable than their previous target of obsessive hate, George W. Bush. Well, the predictions are beginning to come true.
Enter CNN. The video clip at the link is for a piece they call “Rick Perry is George W. Bush on steroids”. Seriously, that’s what they call it. Their “contributor”, Will Cain, does his best to lay out the case against a man who has been in the race less than two weeks. Ed has a different take than Cain, unsurprisingly:
Besides, if we’re talking about the Left’s idea of Bush on steroids — a unilateralist cowboy who starts wars, as is mentioned in this clip — doesn’t Barack Obama qualify better than Perry after refusing to get Congressional approval for American military action?
CNN, though, needs to pace themselves. They added another “Perry makes us miss Bush” piece, this one courtesy of an anti-Bush columnist.
Let that sink in for a second. The MSM has a strange new respect for a man they spent over eight years demonizing! It’s like that “Bush is evil! OK, scratch that, Bush may have sucked and wanted women, children, and Iraqi goat herders to be be waterboarded, but at least he was more reasonable and temperate than Rick Perry!”
If this is the line of the attack that the MSM is going to run with, then I have officially found my candidate for 2012. Rick Perry is driving the MSM so crazy that they are beclowning themselves by pining away for the good ol’ days of Chimpy McHitlerburton. If the MSM sees Perry as that much of a threat, then he has my backing for sure.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Cokie Roberts discovers the REAL culprit in this credit downgrade saga
Obama? Puh-leeeze! As if the left or the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would ever go that far!
The Tea Party? Nah, the rest of the Dems are riding that train.
Nope, Cokie has uncovered the real source of our nation’s credit angst (via Newsbusters):
This group of people in New York [Standard and Poor’s] is actually talking about more government rather than less government, Congressman. In fact, the reason they like France and Great Britain is because they’re parliamentary systems where the majority gets what it wants no matter what.
And the problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives whether it’s divided government or not. We have divided branches of government under any circumstance.
Un. Friggin’. Believable.
I don’t see why she’s worried about the Constitution, considering that she and her leftist ilk don’t pay attention to it anyway.
AP: The economy sucks because there’s no more federal government stimulus coming
Seriously? Is this a news story or a column by Paul Krugman? Nope, it’s allegedly “news”. Right out of the chute:
Shoppers won’t shop. Companies won’t hire. The government won’t spend on economic stimulus – it’s cutting instead. And the Federal Reserve is reluctant to do anything more.
Without much to invigorate growth, the economy may be in danger of slipping into a stupor like the one Japan has failed to shake off for more than a decade. And Wall Street is spooked.
Note how they set up their position. The economy is in the crapper because…
1. “Shoppers won’t shop”. OK, no one will argue that shoppers refusing to shop keeps the economy depressed.
2. “Companies won’t hire”. OK, no one will argue that the continuing unemployment problem, fueled by companies not hiring, keeps the economy depressed.
3. “The government won’t spend on economic stimulus – it’s cutting instead”. OK, no one will argue that…uh…wait a sec! Actually, based on the fact that the last “economic stimulus” didn’t do a friggin’ thing it advertised, I think I can safely say that most people will question the wisdom of government stimulus.
Then, notice how the second paragraph opens: “Without much to invigorate growth…” The clear implication here is that 1-3 above were all things that would “invigorate growth” if their reverses were true. In other words, we’d see “invigorated growth” if shoppers did shop, if companies would hire, and if the government would spend on economic stimulus. That’s the AP’s position, presented as three equally contributing factors to our current economic condition. But that’s like saying that a passenger plane crashed because the plane ran out of fuel mid-air, the flight crew all passed out, and the plane’s bathroom was out of toilet paper, when the latter had jack squat to do with the crash.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
-
Archives
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (20)
- March 2012 (11)
- February 2012 (17)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
