Monday, April 19, 2010
Fwd: National Security Update - "Emergency Response: Are We Prepared?"
Issue in Depth:
Emergency Response: Are We Prepared?
The damage resulting from the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the destruction of Hurricane Katrina demonstrate the United States' vulnerability to both man-made and natural disasters. While it is necessary for the U.S. to disrupt terrorist attacks early in the planning process, it must also have effective disaster response forces and procedures to prepare for a possible attack from chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Of course, little can be done to prevent a natural disaster, and mitigating the damage is the only option. Given the variety of threats to the American homeland, it is necessary to examine U.S. preparedness for potential disasters. The "federalization of disasters" is a concerning trend that spreads the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) too thin and weakens local emergency-response teams needed for isolated disasters. To strengthen our homeland security, the U.S. must have effective local emergency-response teams and a federal force capable of responding effectively to grand-scale catastrophes when necessary. See the following research in this week's Issue in Depth to see how the U.S. should prepare for the full range of threats to the homeland.
Latest Research:The Heritage Foundation: Federalizing Disasters Weakens FEMA--and Hurts Americans Hit by Catastrophes
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been responding to almost any natural disaster around the country, be it a contained three-county flood, or a catastrophe of near-epic proportions like Hurricane Katrina. As a result, many states and localities have trimmed their own emergency-response budgets, often leaving them ill prepared to handle even rain- or snowstorms without federal assistance. This leaves FEMA stretched far too thin and ill prepared to respond to grand-scale catastrophes.The Heritage Foundation: Quadrennial Defense Review's Homeland Defense Realignment Leaves U.S. Less Prepared
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is intended to be a delineation of long-term defense strategy and force structure for the U.S. military. In this year's review, the Pentagon recommended cutting the number of military forces prepared to respond to a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) attack by downsizing U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) forces and shifting remaining personnel to the 10 regions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This recommendation, however, would leave the U.S. shortchanged in the event of a high-impact disaster.The Heritage Foundation: Time for an EMP Recognition Day
On March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan gave a famous speech where he outlined his plans for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), aimed at protecting America from a nuclear missile attack using land- and sea-based missile defense systems.The Heritage Foundation: The Nuclear Posture Review's Missing Objective: Defending the U.S. and Its Allies Against Strategic Attack
The chief flaw of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Posture Review is that it fails to make a clear commitment to defend the U.S. and its allies. However, if Congress is willing to press the Administration, it can correct many of these weaknesses, resulting in a stronger U.S. nuclear posture and serving important nonproliferation and arms control objectives.More Blogs:
The Foundry: Prepared for Disaster?
The Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which outlines future threats to the United States, recommends cutting the number of military forces prepared to respond to a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against America.The Foundry: Who is Going to Pay for FEMA?
Looks like Mother Nature didn't get the message about the budget crises in most of the states. So, she twice dumped a bunch of snow on the Midwest and East that required states, cities, and counties to plow – in between frantic calls to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for reinforcements.Morning Bell: Maintaining Our Dominant Military
At the close of this week's nuclear summit, President Barack Obama told a press conference: "Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them."
More Events: April 28, 2010, 10:30 AM
Location: Washington, DC
The Heritage Foundation: China and Cyber Security
Following the incident between China and Google, concern is growing regarding the PRC's threat to cyber security. Please join us as our panel provides us with a better understanding of what kinds of incidents are occurring, how likely the Chinese are indeed responsible, and what can be done about it.
April 26, 2010, 2:15 PM
Location: Washington, DC
American Enterprise Institute: The Christmas Day Attack: What Have We Learned? How Do We Move Forward?
U.S. senator Susan Collins will discuss the current state of U.S. counterterrorism policy as our panel discusses the implications of the Christmas Day terror plot.The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400
Fwd: MRC Alert: 'Watch Your Words,' ABC Advances Clinton's Charge Anti-Obama Rhetoric 'Could Lead to Violent Acts'
Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Monday April 19, 2010 @ 09:56 AM EDT1. 'Watch Your Words,' ABC Advances Clinton's Charge Anti-Obama Rhetoric 'Could Lead to Violent Acts'
"Watch your words," fill-in ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas scolded in teasing Friday's World News, as she trumpeted: "Former President Clinton warns harsh anti-government talk could lead to violent acts, like the Oklahoma City bombing." Introducing the subsequent story, Vargas identified talk radio and Tea Party participants as the culprits: "There is a lot of attention tonight on comments made by former President Bill Clinton, who has weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to Tea Party rallies. He warns that sometimes firing people up with caustic comments can have unintended and dire consequences."
2. Todd: Crist for President?; Remnick Reveals ObamaCare Passed to Gain New Democratic Voters
Friday follies. Two quotes from journalists worth noting made on Friday night shows. On MSNBC's Hardball, NBC's Chuck Todd forwarded the notion that if Florida Governor Charlie Crist drops out of the Republican primary - where polls put him way behind conservative Marco Rubio - and wins the Senate seat as an independent, "he becomes the most powerful Senator in the United States Senate" and "he becomes, probably, the viable third party candidate in the middle in the country" for President in 2012. A few hours later on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, David Remnick, author of the new book, 'The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,' outed the real liberal agenda behind ObamaCare as he predicted that instead of being an "albatross" that will hurt Democrats at the ballot box in November, all those new beneficiaries will be grateful and vote Democratic.
3. MSNBC Anchor Touts Journalist Who Compared Palin to Larry the Cable Guy: 'It Is a Good Line'
MSNBC's Peter Alexander on Friday eagerly agreed with a journalist who attacked Sarah Palin as "Larry the Cable Guy, minus the class and intelligence." Talking to Cathy Areu, contributing editor of the Washington Post magazine, Alexander gushed, "It's a good line."
4. Newsweek Slams 'Hate' from 'Antigovernment Extremists,' Links to Beck and Palin
Newsweek's cover touted a story on "Hate on the Right." In fact the word "HATE" takes up half a page, white letters on a black background, with the subhead "Antigovernment extremists are on the rise – and on the march." The magazine connects the hate to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and includes a timeline of past assassinations.
5. MSNBC Touts Bizarre Vanity Fair Piece on Republicans Costing Taxpayers Money by Opposing Spending
MSNBC's Monica Novotny on Friday highlighted a dubious Vanity Fair piece lamenting the "cost" of the Republican Party opposing Barack Obama's agenda. The News Live host talked to writers Duff McDonald and Peter Keating about their contention that the "party of no" has cost taxpayers $1.34 billion.
6. HBO Sports Documentary Blames Reagan for Racial Tension that Scarred Larry Bird
Catching up with an HBO sports documentary which ran several times in March: 'Magic & Bird: A Courtship of Rivals,' painted Boston Celtics basketball star Larry Bird as the victim of a racist national milieu exacerbated by President Ronald Reagan - a formulation which relied on the expert assessment of a journalist who a few years ago contended that if only Senator Ted Kennedy hadn't killed her, he "would have brought comfort...in her old age" to Mary Jo Kopechne. Over video zooming in on Reagan at his Oval Office desk, HBO's narrator intoned: "But as Magic enjoyed his image as a crossover star, it was Bird, the one-time great white hope, who had further emerged as the polarizing racial figure due in part to that era's increasingly conservative political climate."
'Watch Your Words,' ABC Advances Clinton's Charge Anti-Obama Rhetoric 'Could Lead to Violent Acts'
"Watch your words," fill-in ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas scolded in teasing Friday's World News, as she trumpeted: "Former President Clinton warns harsh anti-government talk could lead to violent acts, like the Oklahoma City bombing."
Introducing the subsequent story, Vargas identified talk radio and Tea Party participants as the culprits:
There is a lot of attention tonight on comments made by former President Bill Clinton, who has weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to Tea Party rallies. He warns that sometimes firing people up with caustic comments can have unintended and dire consequences.
Jake Tapper, who will interview Clinton for Sunday's This Week, delivered a less inflammatory report. He began: "Commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing today, former President Bill Clinton cautioned Americans to be mindful of their rhetoric," but also noted how "Rush Limbaugh said if there's a future Oklahoma City bombing, it's Clinton's fault." Limbaugh argued in a soundbite: "With this comment, you have just set the stage for violence in this country. Any future acts of violence are on your shoulders, Mr. Clinton."
Flashback: "SPECIAL PURVEYORS OF HATE & DIVISION ISSUE" of the MRC's May 8, 1995 edition of Notable Quotables, which started with: "Oklahoma City: Conservative Talk Radio's Fault?"
From the MRC's TimesWatch site on Friday: "Hulse Lets Clinton Smear Tea Party Protests as Lighting Fuse for Next Oklahoma City Bombing."
This wasn't the first time a network newscast jumped to promote the effort by a former Democratic President to discredit critics of President Obama. Last September, "NBC Trumpets Carter's Racism Charges," recounted:
Next night: "NBC: 'Blunt' Carter 'Prompted Us to Reexamine Our Assumptions About Race'"NBC anchor Brian Williams touted how "former President Carter spoke up and spoke out about" the supposed racism. Williams alleged "a certain number of signs and images at last weekend's big tea party march in Washington and at other recent events have featured racial and other violent themes and President Carter today said he is extremely worried by it."
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Todd: Crist for President?; Remnick Reveals ObamaCare Passed to Gain New Democratic Voters
Friday follies. Before the weekend ends, two quotes from journalists worth noting made on Friday night shows:
♦ On MSNBC's Hardball, NBC's Chuck Todd forwarded the notion that if Florida Governor Charlie Crist drops out of the Republican primary -- where polls put him way behind conservative Marco Rubio -- and wins the Senate seat as an independent, "he becomes the most powerful Senator in the United States Senate" and "he becomes, probably, the viable third party candidate in the middle in the country" for President in 2012.
♦ A few hours later on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, David Remnick, author of the new book, 'The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,' outed the real liberal agenda behind ObamaCare as he predicted that instead of being an "albatross" that will hurt Democrats at the ballot box in November, all those new beneficiaries will be grateful and vote Democratic:
When you add 30 million people to the rolls of getting health care, access to health care, seems to me a huge gain and the potential widening of the base for the Democratic Party among a lot of people who might not necessarily vote before. So, I don't think you're going to see a repeat of 1994 come this fall.Of course, few of those 30 million will have any better access to health care by this November than they had before the bill passed.
Todd, Political Director for NBC News, on the April 16 Hardball:
Remnick, Editor of The New Yorker magazine and former Washington Post reporter, on HBO:If Crist got elected as the independent Senator from the state of Florida, he becomes the most powerful Senator in the United States Senate and then, suddenly, you know, all this baggage of political opportunism is gone and instead he becomes, probably, the viable third party candidate in the middle in the country.
We heard during the health care debate that the Republican Party was going to take the health care bill and tie it around the Democratic Party's neck like an albatross, it was going to lead to catastrophic losses come November in the mid-term elections. I'm not so sure that's true. When you add 30 million people to the rolls of getting health care, access to health care, seems to me a huge gain and the potential widening of the base for the Democratic Party among a lot of people who might not necessarily vote before. So, I don't think you're going to see a repeat of 1994 come this fall.From April 5, "NBC Nightly News: Mohammad Ali, Walt Whitman, Annie Oakley and Now...Barack Obama," recounted:
NBC News is certainly enthralled with David Remnick's new book, 'The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama.' After giving him a guest slot on Meet the Press and an interview on Monday's Today show, NBC Nightly News on Monday showcased Remnick in an "In His Own Words" segment to expound on his admiration for Obama's racial identity journey, starting with how Obama follows in the tradition of Annie Oakley:
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.There are a lot of American characters no matter what the field who make themselves, who create themselves out of what's in the cultural air. It's an American thing, whether it's Mohammad Ali or Walt Whitman or Annie Oakley. And Barack Obama is somebody who grew up in Honolulu and had to learn how to be African-American in the absence of African-Americans. Racial identity is a drama that Obama had to undergo long after he had become comfortable with his own identity.
MSNBC Anchor Touts Journalist Who Compared Palin to Larry the Cable Guy: 'It Is a Good Line'
MSNBC's Peter Alexander on Friday eagerly agreed with a journalist who attacked Sarah Palin as "Larry the Cable Guy, minus the class and intelligence." Talking to Cathy Areu, contributing editor of the Washington Post magazine, Alexander gushed, "It's a good line." [Audio available here.]
As first reported on NewsBusters, Areu slammed the former Alaskan governor on CNN, Wednesday. Playing to MSNBC's left-wing audience, an onscreen graphic playfully asked, "Palin the Cable Gal?"
After explaining that Bill O'Reilly asked Areu to come on his show and defend her remarks, Alexander sympathized, "Areu said thanks but no thanks to Fox. Saying she wanted to appear right here on MSNBC. We don't blame her."
The Washington Post journalist clearly had good reason to feel comfortable on MSNBC. Alexander obviously shared her elitist attitude. He offered this gratuitous aside about the town that Palin was a mayor of: "Having been to Wasilla, Alaska, Wasilla, Alaska doesn't look like a lot of the nice places around this country, admittedly. It leaves a lot to be desired, some would say."
And when Areu made rambling, confusing attacks on Palin, Alexander didn't ask her to clarify. Consider this comment:
AREU: [Palin is] your next door neighbor. Not your boss. But she is your boss. I mean, when someone gets promoted, usually the co-workers chatter. And they talk. And she's no longer part of the team. She's okay. She's part of the team.What does that mean? Alexander didn't ask.
A transcript of the MSNBC segment, which aired at 3:38pm EDT on April 16, follows:
PETER ALEXANDER: What happens when you criticize Sarah Palin? You're about to find out. Cathy Areu is the publisher of Catalina magazine. She appeared on another network, Wednesday, and was asked to comment on the former vice presidential candidate. And here's what she said.—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
CATHY AREU: Sarah Palin could do no wrong for so many people. I mean, she is a female Larry the Cable Guy, minus the class and intelligence.
MSNBC GRAPHIC: Palin the Cable Gal?
ALEXANDER: Those comments, calling her a female Larry the Cable Guy resulted in some angry reaction on conservative blogs and an invitation from Fox News to appear with Bill O'Reilly to defend her remarks. Areu said thanks but no thanks to Fox. Saying she wanted to appear right here on MSNBC. We don't blame her. So, here she is. Cathy Areu is owner and publisher of Catalina magazine and a contributing editor with the Washington Post magazine. She was also named one of the most influence women in New York City by the Oxygen Network.
AREU: Thanks for having me.
ALEXANDER: So, were you surprised by the reaction to this on the web and elsewhere?
AREU: What I said was that her supporters would support her no matter what. And I was right. They will. I said, no matter if she makes $12 million since July they'll think she's a Walmart mom. And she's not a Walmart mom.
ALEXANDER: So, if she's not a Walmart mom, how do you define Sarah Palin? Who is Sarah Palin?
AREU: She's Larry the cable guy minus the class and intelligence.
ALEXANDER: So, expand on that, if you will.
AREU: I thought it was a good line. But, it's true.
ALEXANDER: It's a good line. So, let's go behind it. She's clearly having an impact, raising dollars for the tea party and for the Republican candidates.
AREU: But, she's a Larry the Cable Guy. She's your next door neighbor. Not your boss. But she is your boss. I mean, when someone gets promoted, usually the co-workers chatter. And they talk. And she's no longer part of the team. She's okay. She's part of the team.
ALEXANDER: Aren't a lot of Republicans and others going to say right now, well, the problem is that the people in Congress and folks in the White House, they look like they belong as bosses and they are not one of us. And we need someone who's one of us running the country?
AREU: But, she's not. That's the whole point. If she made $12 million since July, she's clearly not one of us. Not a Walmart mom. She doesn't go to Walmart. She doesn't have to wait in lines. She flies first class. She rides in a limo. She wears Chanel lipstick. The lipstick that goes on a pig is now Chanel.
ALEXANDER: True. Fair enough. But, agreed. Having been to Wasilla, Alaska, Wasilla, Alaska doesn't look like a lot of the nice places around this country, admittedly. It leaves a lot to be desired, some would say. It is-
AREU: Population 6,000. Right?
ALEXANDER: Right. Agreed. You were invited to appear on Showbiz Tonight because they knew your opinions about Sarah Palin. How did that come to be?
AREU: They asked if I was fired up about the subject and I certainly am.. As a female small business owner, I definitely am. I mean, she's someone who says she doesn't read. When Katie Couric asked, "Do you read," she didn't know what she said. I'm a magazine publisher. I write for the Washington Post magazine and I'm offended when someone says they doesn't read.
ALEXANDER: Was that questioning fair? Was Katie Couric's line of questioning fair? Republicans have said- Sarah Palin said it's not okay.
AREU: What do you read? She didn't know because she didn't write it on her hand. Had she written it on her hand, she would have known what she reads.
ALEXANDER: Fair enough.
AREU: Thank you.
ALEXANDER: Do you think this sense of outrage from the right has been real or would you say it's manufactured at this point, to what you said?
AREU: Oh, my god! It is so real. I've gotten voice mails. I've gotten e-mail. They are nasty. They are ugly. Someone told me I am dumber than a box of rocks. I think that's rude.
ALEXANDER: Fair enough. Fair enough. I think the Republicans are not content with what you said.
AREU: But, I think they feel that. I think they really believe I'm dumber than a box of rocks. I mean, they really believe it. Her supporters will support her no matter what. She's made $12 million. She doesn't need your help. She's okay. Don't worry.
Newsweek Slams 'Hate' from 'Antigovernment Extremists,' Links to Beck and Palin
The April 19 Newsweek cover that's shamelessly selling the "remarkable" tale of our economic recovery also promises a story on "Hate on the Right." In fact the word "HATE" takes up half a page, white letters on a black background, with the subhead "Antigovernment extremists are on the rise – and on the march."
Pictures illustrating the article strangely connect Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin with 1930's socialists. The caption read: "Huey Long castigated the rich and Father Coughlin denounced Jews in the 1930s. Today, the microphones belong to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin." (Beck's previous impassioned rebuttal of the comparison to Coughlin is ignored.) This would not be the first time Newsweek's imagined "right wing" Coughlin as an Obama foil.
Evan Thomas and Eve Conant utilize the usual liberal experts – Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who unloads his usual line about militias "roaring back," and historian Alan Brinkley, who opines that "the current surge of fear and loathing toward Obama is 'scary,' he says. 'There's a big dose of race behind the real crazies, the ones who take their guns to public meetings. I can't see this happening if McCain were president.'"
Most of this Brinkley quote is also highlighted in large red letters.
For graphic emphasis, Newsweek also listed a historical timeline of assassinations and bombings, including Oklahoma City and in 1970, "The Weathermen."
This raises the question: if it's fair to somehow associate Beck and Palin with 1930s left-wing ranters, how did Newsweek treat the much more factual connection between Barack Obama and Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers, or Obama's membership for two decades in the church of Jeremiah Wright? Unsurprisingly, those connections were downplayed, and Obama was "disappointed" by being failed by these associates.
On April 18, 2008, an early item on Ayers in Newsweek was helpfully headlined: "Obama: Can't 'Swift Boat' Me."
On May 12, the same Eve Conant who exposed "Hate on the Right" thought Rev. Wright had sadly failed Newsweek's hero:
Wright had been a friend and mentor. Obama had said before that he couldn't cut him off; but after this bitter performance, how could he not sever his ties? "It was a circus," says the senior Obama aide. "Not only was Wright repeating things that were objectionable, but he was also impugning Barack's sincerity."On May 19, Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller was even stronger, insisting that Wright had attempted to kill Obama rhetorically in "a public murder-suicide attempt," never casting a wary thought about Obama or the "scary" hatred in the hearts of Wright's followers:
All was well, or at least stable, until Wright's public murder-suicide attempt, in which he used rhetoric to assassinate the character of his most famous congregant and reveal the ugliest side of his own….In the meantime, the only image most people have of Trinity is its incomprehensible senior pastor. Those who imagine that the Democratic nominee was converted to Christ by a left-wing hatemonger need to paint in their minds a fuller picture: a young man, intellectual and searching, in prayer at Trinity and awash in the music.For the September 1 issue, in the warmup for the Obama-nominating convention in Denver, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham even found Lincoln in Obama's masterful separation from his longtime spiritual guide:
When Wright's "God Damn America" clips emerged earlier this year, Obama's friend Jim Wallis sent him a note of condolence. Late one night, Wallis received an e-mail in reply, something like: "God has his purposes." "I was quite astounded," says Wallis, the left-leaning evangelical writer, activist and founder of Sojourners. "Here's a 46-year-old, which for me at 59 seems young, and he says something like that. This is not what politicians think and do. Politicians want always to be predictive and controlling."It all reminds me of Newsweek's Howard Fineman, slyly associating Republicans with Timothy McVeigh on May 8, 1995: "the Oklahoma bombing has illuminated a dark landscape much farther afield: a radical fringe of militant gun owners, 'hate radio' talk-show hosts, and religious cultists. Their numbers are small -- and their GOP ties tenuous at best. But their fervor is influential at the grass roots Republicans call their own."
Obama's reply to Wallis reflected a kind of Lincoln-esque fatalism. It is a sad but inescapable fact of life that people--in Obama's case, people close to you--often fail you. Wright, obviously, was far from the first man to disappoint Obama.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
MSNBC Touts Bizarre Vanity Fair Piece on Republicans Costing Taxpayers Money by Opposing Spending
MSNBC's Monica Novotny on Friday highlighted a dubious Vanity Fair piece lamenting the "cost" of the Republican Party opposing Barack Obama's agenda. The News Live host talked to writers Duff McDonald and Peter Keating about their contention that the "party of no" has cost taxpayers $1.34 billion.
Apparently, the GOP and various conservative organizations total this much by not supporting health care or the stimulus. Never mentioned in the article or during the segment is the fact that Obama's spending on those two items alone will end up costing taxpayers $3.3 trillion, 2500 times the amount of the expensive Republicans.
During the segment, Keating snidely remarked, "And, you know, Republican offices need heat and light and water and sewage. People are showing up just to say no and we're paying for it!" Earlier in the piece, Novotny played along and complained, "So, for that [the price of the GOP], we've got nothing?"
Lost on the Vanity Fair journalists (and the host) was the fact that parties in opposition obstruct. Their job is to make the case for a viable alternative. When George W. Bush was President, MSNBC was practically the network of opposition.
One of the odder accounting totals in the article is that Keating and McDonald add in the price of conservative think tanks:
THINK TANKS: Didn't think taxpayers were footing the bill for think tanks? Think again. Because most "policy institutes" enjoy tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the federal government loses about 35 cents in taxes for every dollar given to conservative policy institutes. Here we've included revenues lost because of donations to five of the largest conservative think tanks—the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute. Sure, they've come up with some interesting ideas. When Republicans enact any of them, you can take this item off our list.On News Live, McDonald confusingly explained, "Well, that's why we added in think tanks and said the cost of taxpayers to funding conservative think tanks has been almost $80 million. If some of those ideas do get enacted, we're totally happy to remove that number from our total."
G.O.P. total: $79.4 million.
So, conservative organizations cost money to taxpayers because they oppose massive new spending from the Democrats? The logic is certainly hard to follow.
A transcript of the April 16 segment, which aired at 10:24am EDT, follows:
MONICA NOVOTNY: As the midterm elections are approaching, there's one Republican motto that's being carried above the rest.—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
SARAH PALIN: There is no shame in being the party of no. Or better said by the good governor of this state. He said, "Party of no? Nah. We're the party of hell no."
NOVOTNY: Being the party of no carries not only a political cost but, also, a financial one, it turns out. In a Vanity Fair web exclusive, writers Duff McDonald and Peter Keating break down the numbers and take a look at what they call the most expensive word in American political history. Duff and Peter, great to see you both. So, you broke down the numbers, and it's kind of educating. We've got some full screens up. I'm going to run through a few of them. Congressional salaries, $47.9 million. That's the GOP share of total salaries in Congress. And you started this one when, back in January of '09?
DUFF MCDONALD (Vanity Fair): Yeah, the beginning of the 111th conference.
NOVOTNY: You've got staffer expenses, $231.3 million. The total taxpayer cost, essentially, you guys say, of the party of no, is $132 billion thus far. So, you're saying for $132 billion we've got nothing?
MCDONALD: $1.32 Billion.
NOVOTNY: $1.32 billion. So, for that we've got nothing?
MCDONALD: Well, you know, the evidence is there for you to see. Like- Obstructionism, as we said, can be a good political strategy. But, what is its product? Its product is nothing. It's no.
NOVOTNY: Initially, the obstructionist strategy seemed to be working. Right? I mean, we saw some victories. And, certainly Senator Brown could be the poster child of that. So, initially they would say this really worked for us.
PETER KEATING: Well, sure, it may be working. But, whether or not it's working, the effect of the Republicans saying "No, no, no," is, essentially, we argue, no different than if they stayed home. If they didn't show up, all the no votes would either win or they would lose. But, taxpayers would save money on all the salaries and benefits. And, you know, Republican offices need heat and light and water and sewage. People are showing up just to say no and we're paying for it!
NOVOTNY: Okay, but you will have, certainly, Republicans who- if I had Republicans, GOP pundits or, or lawmakers themselves standing up here would say we have not been doing nothing. We're not the party of no. We came up with our own health care plan. We presented back it in May of 2009. I think they called it patients choice. So, they've been presenting different options. The President just, before they signed the health care bill into law, was saying "I want to bring in some of the GOP ideas." So, they would say we're earning our money?
MCDONALD: Well, that's why we added in think tanks and said the cost of taxpayers to funding conservative think tanks has been almost $80 million. If some of those ideas do get enacted, we're totally happy to remove that number from our total.
KEATING: Yeah, I mean, here's the other thing, there's more than 10,000 people working for the House of Representatives as staff.
NOVOTNY: On both sides.
KEATING: Right, for everybody, right. But the question is, does it take that many thousands of staff members to come up with Mitch McConnell's talking points which everybody repeats every day, every week?
NOVOTNY: Meanwhile, you've got Newt Gingrich. He says he wants the GOP to be the party of yes, the man of the Contract With America. And now we're hearing some rumblings that there may be a new Contract with America being formed. Although, we heard yesterday, Luke Russert, MSNBC's Luke Russert was reporting maybe they are going to call it a blueprint. There's some GOP leaders who are saying we don't want everything specifically in print we want to achieve. So, maybe we'll just call it a blueprint. Do they need to be specific if they want to be this party of no?
KEATING: Well, I think it depends on whether or not they think it's worth it to nationalize the elections. In 1994, all the pundits in the House and the Senate would be decided state by state. But, they came out with a contract- I want to say contract on -- but it's actually a Contract For America. And they had a big national victory. But, then, you know, the thing is that most people don't realize, most of the contract never actually got enacted. So if they come forward with specific proposals, maybe they will get some through and passed into law.
HBO Sports Documentary Blames Reagan for Racial Tension that Scarred Larry Bird
Catching up with an HBO sports documentary which ran several times in March: 'Magic & Bird: A Courtship of Rivals,' painted Boston Celtics basketball star Larry Bird as the victim of a racist national milieu exacerbated by President Ronald Reagan -- a formulation which relied on the expert assessment of a journalist who a few years ago contended that if only Senator Ted Kennedy hadn't killed her, he "would have brought comfort...in her old age" to Mary Jo Kopechne. Over video zooming in on Reagan at his Oval Office desk, HBO's narrator intoned:
But as Magic enjoyed his image as a crossover star, it was Bird, the one-time great white hope, who had further emerged as the polarizing racial figure due in part to that era's increasingly conservative political climate.Then, the Boston Globe's Charles Pierce argued "the triumph of the movement" that supposedly "rolled back" civil rights "took place in the 1980s" and that caused "sublimated frustration" amongst black Americans "and I think one of the ways it got sublimated was into basketball" with Bird catching those "lingering resentments." On screen as Pierce spoke, this New York Times headline:
STUDY SAYS BLACKS HAVE LOST GROUND
Finds Reagan's Policies Have Hurt the Poor and Imperil Emerging Middle Class
Followed by a Washington Post headline: "56% Say President Is a Racist."
AUDIO: MP3 clip.
Hat tip to the persistent Tony Cocco, a Bay Stater who alerted us to the slam on Reagan and followed up with a reminder after he saw the documentary air again.
Pierce is infamous for his 2003 Globe Magazine tribute to Ted Kennedy in which he ludicrously postulated: "If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."
Also, from a few months ago: "Nine Days Before Election, Boston Globe's Pierce Ridiculed Notion Brown Could Win."
From the HBO documentary:
ARSENIO HALL: Has the "N" word ever been used by a white person to describe Ervin? I doubt it.— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
NARRATOR: But as Magic enjoyed his image as a crossover star, it was Bird, the one-time great white hope, who had further emerged as the polarizing racial figure due in part to that era's increasingly conservative political climate. [on screen: zoom in on Reagan]CHARLES PIERCE, BOSTON GLOBE: The rolling back, institutionally, of the achievements of the civil rights movement were going on apace from about 1975 on, but the triumph of the movement that rolled them back took place in the 1980s. And I think there was people who were very aware in the black community of what was going on, and I think there was a lot of sublimated frustration. And I think one of the ways it got sublimated was into basketball. And I think Larry, through no fault of his own, was the receptacle within which the lingering resentments somehow floated.
Fwd: Morning Bell: There is Nothing Conservative About This President
04/19/2010
There is Nothing Conservative About This President
According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century. Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut writes in today's Wall Street Journal: "A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office." Last March, by 54% to 37%, more people said it was a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy. Now, by 51% to 40%, a majority of Americans say they want less government control.
President Obama has always tried to cast himself as a centrist. During the 2008 campaign, he promised Americans he would cut their taxes, expand the military, and enact "a net spending cut" for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government; these are core conservative beliefs. Unfortunately, President Obama has completely abandoned them by raising taxes on lower-income Americans, cutting defense spending, and enacting a $862 billion failed stimulus.
And we haven't even mentioned the President's health care plan yet. With polls showing that the President's health care plan has only gotten less popular since it became law, the White House has been desperate to portray their plan in as centrist a light as possible. So on March 30th, President Obama told "Today" show host Matt Lauer that "a lot of ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation." Heritage Center for Health Policy Studies director Robert Moffit responds in today's Washington Post:
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Fwd: News Alert: Gates Says U.S. Lacks Strategy to Curb Iran's Nuclear Drive
Gates Says U.S. Lacks Strategy to Curb Iran's Nuclear Drive
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret
three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the
United States does not have an effective long-range policy
for dealing with Iran's steady progress toward nuclear
capability, according to government officials familiar with
the document.
Several officials said the memo touched off an intense effort
inside the Pentagon, the White House and the intelligence
agencies to develop new options for President Obama. They
include a revised set of military alternatives, still under
development, to be considered should diplomacy and sanctions
fail to force Iran to change course.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na
-----
Now get New York Times breaking news alerts sent to your mobile phone.
Sign up by texting NEWSALERTS to 698698 (NYTNYT).
-----
About This E-Mail
You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
alerts from NYTimes.com.
To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines
or other newsletters, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/email
NYTimes.com
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Friday, April 16, 2010
Fwd: Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates
Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times
Wednesday April 14, 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT
Krugman the Global Warming Prophet Howls: 'Utter Catastrophe' Possible
Paul Krugman, once an economist, then a left-wing talking-points purveyor, and now an expert climatologist: "Sea levels would rise, with the impact intensified by those storms: coastal flooding, already a major source of natural disasters, would become much more frequent and severe. And there might be drastic changes in the climate of some regions as ocean currents shift. It's always worth bearing in mind that London is at the same latitude as Labrador; without the Gulf Stream, Western Europe would be barely habitable."
Reid's Liberal Amnesty Promise Makes It to Print - But His Reversal Only Makes It Online
Julia Preston's celebration of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's promise to push for amnesty for illegals "this year" made Sunday's print edition. Yet Reid's reversal three days later was relegated to nytimes.com.
Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates on Those That Do
The NYT's voice on fiscal policy wants higher taxes on everyone but most importantly, the rich: "The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups." He also called higher taxes on the rich "an American tradition."
Krugman the Global Warming Prophet Howls: 'Utter Catastrophe' Possible
"Building A Green Economy," columnist Paul Krugman's cover story for the Times Sunday Magazine, is meant to reassure Times readers that despite "the relentless campaign to discredit" global warming doomsayers, they are in fact correct. The good news, from his perspective, is that we can indeed afford to combat "climate change," with higher taxes and regulation.
Krugman warned that if we take no action, in the form of regulations and higher taxes, then by the year 2100 "sea levels would rise" and "coastal flooding, already a major source of natural disasters, would become much more frequent and severe." The modern-day Jeremiah howled that "utter catastrophe does look like a realistic possibility."
If you listen to climate scientists -- and despite the relentless campaign to discredit their work, you should -- it is long past time to do something about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If we continue with business as usual, they say, we are facing a rise in global temperatures that will be little short of apocalyptic. And to avoid that apocalypse, we have to wean our economy from the use of fossil fuels, coal above all.
But is it possible to make drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions without destroying our economy?
Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change -- one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them -- can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades.
Krugman, in his usual pompous manner, presents as fact what is just liberal conjecture, especially "if you look at the evidence the right way" (?)
This is an article on climate economics, not climate science. But before we get to the economics, it's worth establishing three things about the state of the scientific debate.
The first is that the planet is indeed warming. Weather fluctuates, and as a consequence it's easy enough to point to an unusually warm year in the recent past, note that it's cooler now and claim, "See, the planet is getting cooler, not warmer!" But if you look at the evidence the right way -- taking averages over periods long enough to smooth out the fluctuations -- the upward trend is unmistakable: each successive decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the one before.
Second, climate models predicted this well in advance, even getting the magnitude of the temperature rise roughly right. While it's relatively easy to cook up an analysis that matches known data, it is much harder to create a model that accurately forecasts the future. So the fact that climate modelers more than 20 years ago successfully predicted the subsequent global warming gives them enormous credibility.
Yet that's not the conclusion you might draw from the many media reports that have focused on matters like hacked e-mail and climate scientists' talking about a "trick" to "hide" an anomalous decline in one data series or expressing their wish to see papers by climate skeptics kept out of research reviews. The truth, however, is that the supposed scandals evaporate on closer examination, revealing only that climate researchers are human beings, too. Yes, scientists try to make their results stand out, but no data were suppressed. Yes, scientists dislike it when work that they think deliberately obfuscates the issues gets published. What else is new? Nothing suggests that there should not continue to be strong support for climate research.
And this brings me to my third point: models based on this research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let's be clear. We're not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we're talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades.
Krugman warned that climate models were getting more pessimistic (never mind that those same models failed to predict the earth's current cooling trend):
At this point, the projections of climate change, assuming we continue business as usual, cluster around an estimate that average temperatures will be about 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher in 2100 than they were in 2000. That's a lot -- equivalent to the difference in average temperatures between New York and central Mississippi. Such a huge change would have to be highly disruptive. And the troubles would not stop there: temperatures would continue to rise.
Furthermore, changes in average temperature will by no means be the whole story. Precipitation patterns will change, with some regions getting much wetter and others much drier. Many modelers also predict more intense storms. Sea levels would rise, with the impact intensified by those storms: coastal flooding, already a major source of natural disasters, would become much more frequent and severe. And there might be drastic changes in the climate of some regions as ocean currents shift. It's always worth bearing in mind that London is at the same latitude as Labrador; without the Gulf Stream, Western Europe would be barely habitable.
Krugman turned up the volume:
You might think that this uncertainty weakens the case for action, but it actually strengthens it. As Harvard's Martin Weitzman has argued in several influential papers, if there is a significant chance of utter catastrophe, that chance -- rather than what is most likely to happen -- should dominate cost-benefit calculations. And utter catastrophe does look like a realistic possibility, even if it is not the most likely outcome.
Weitzman argues -- and I agree -- that this risk of catastrophe, rather than the details of cost-benefit calculations, makes the most powerful case for strong climate policy. Current projections of global warming in the absence of action are just too close to the kinds of numbers associated with doomsday scenarios. It would be irresponsible -- it's tempting to say criminally irresponsible -- not to step back from what could all too easily turn out to be the edge of a cliff.Reid's Liberal Amnesty Promise Makes It to Print - But His Reversal Only Makes It Online
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed one of the Times pet issues over the weekend -- amnesty for illegal immigrants -- it got big play in the print edition. But when he reversed himself just three days later, it was nowhere to be found in print, only online.
Congressional reporter Carl Hulse "Caucus" post on Tuesday afternoon, "Reid Hits Pause Button on Immigration," found the embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backing away from the very amnesty push he promised in a rally before 6,000 cheering supporters, mostly immigrants, in Las Vegas on Saturday.
According to a Times report, Reid told the cheering crowd: "We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now....We need to do this this year."
Just three days later, Reid said never mind. From Hulse's Tuesday online filing, which didn't make the Wednesday print edition of the Times:
Senator Harry Reid retreated today from having the Senate move quickly on immigration law changes, saying any overhaul would have to wait.
"We won't get to immigration reform this work period," Mr. Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, told reporters after the private weekly luncheon of Democratic senators.
Over the weekend, Mr. Reid raised the hopes of immigration advocates by suggesting at a rally in Las Vegas that he was ready to put immigration on the legislative front burner now that health care legislation was out of the way and Congress was returning from a two-week break.
"We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now," he said in a speech to more than 6,000 people, mostly immigrants.
While Hulse's story didn't make the print edition, Julia Preston's original Sunday piece on Reid pushing one of the Times pet issues -- amnesty for illegal immigrants -- took up the top half of page A21 in the Sunday paper, a 980-word story including two large photos from Saturday's Las Vegas rally: "From Senate Majority Leader, a Promise to Take Up Immigration Overhaul."
Reid certainly didn't hedge in his fiery speech:
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, told an exuberant crowd at an immigration rally Saturday in Las Vegas that Congress would start work on an immigration overhaul as soon as lawmakers return this week from a recess.So Reid's push of a liberal pet issue was worthy of big play in the print edition. Yet when he reversed himself three days later, it was relegated to a post at nytimes.com.
"We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now," he said in a speech to more than 6,000 people, mostly immigrants, gathered downtown.
"We need to do this this year," Mr. Reid said, drawing cheers from the crowd, which included many Latinos. "We cannot wait."
Mr. Reid surprised immigrants and advocates with his direct commitment to moving forward with legislation on the volatile issue, with the Senate already divided by the passage of a health care overhaul. Also, as a result of Justice John Paul Stevens's announcement last week that he would retire, the Obama administration and the Senate will have to focus this summer on winning confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.
You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates on Those That Do
In his Wednesday Business Day column, David Leonhardt, the Times' conscience on economic matters, defended the current skewed tax system, in which almost half of U.S. households paid no income taxes last year, and even argued that those now paying the highest rates should be paying even more: "Behind The 47% Talking Point."
Leonhardt never addressed the underlying point of conservative opposition: The free-rider problem, as half of households pay nothing for services that (theoretically) benefit them all, like public education and national defense. Citizens with no "skin in the game," safe in the assumption they will never have to pay federal taxes, have little practical incentive to oppose programs that will lead to higher taxes, like Obama-care.
Forty-seven percent.
That's the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.
Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.
....
The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.
Leonhardt eventually admitted that "The 47 percent number is not wrong," but claimed the figure is misleading, because that 47 percent do pay other kinds of federal taxes, like payroll taxes, and he dismissed the argument that those should be excluded from the discussion since they pay for benefits on the back end. To defend the figure, Leonhardt unwittingly demonstrated Social Security and Medicare are a lousy deal for people with the bad luck to die before age 70.
I realize that it's possible to argue that payroll taxes should be excluded from the discussion because they pay for benefits -- Social Security and Medicare -- that people receive on the back end. But that argument doesn't seem very persuasive.Why? People do not receive benefits equal to the payroll taxes they paid. Those who die at age 70 will receive much less in Social Security and Medicare than they paid in taxes. Those who die at 95 will probably get much more.
Does this mean that African-American males, whose life expectancy is slightly less than 70 years, should oppose Social Security and Medicare as a raw deal?
Leonhardt vaguely raised another conservative point, only to dismiss its importance, and called higher taxes on "the wealthy" the American way of life:
There is no question that the wealthy pay a higher overall tax rate than any other group. That is an American tradition. But there is also no question that their tax rates have fallen more than any other group's over the last three decades. The only reason they are paying more taxes than in the past is that their pretax incomes have risen so rapidly -- which hardly seems a great rationale for a further tax cut.CNN's Christine Romans got more specific on the April 8 edition of "American Morning," emphasizing "Ten percent of earners pay 73 percent of all the federal income tax revenue."
Leonhardt claimed not to see a principled argument against the current progressive tax system, arguing that opposition was just self-interest on the part of conservative talk show hosts:
So why are those radio and television talk show hosts spending so much time arguing that today's wealthy are unfairly burdened? Well, it's hard not to notice that the talk show hosts themselves tend to be among the very wealthy.You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.
Click here to support TimesWatch.org!
TW Latest Headlines RSS feed
Fwd: Networks Fail to Report on VAT Tax Since Volcker Call for Tax Increases
Apr 14, 2010
Vol. 6 No. 15
Networks Fail to Report on VAT Tax Since Volcker Call for Tax Increases
As taxpayers rush to beat the IRS deadline, a new tax is rumored to be coming down the road. White House adviser Paul Volcker said on April 6 that value-added taxes are 'not as toxic an idea' as they had been. The networks remained silent, but some online news media praised the consumption tax as 'efficient' and the 'only option.'
If Obama Succeeds, Ignorance Will Have Made it Possible
Class warfare and wealth redistribution rely on slothful ignorance.
Media Declare South Has Risen Again
Journalists, left paint tea partiers, conservatives, party of Lincoln as rebels or even 'terrorist' sympathizers.
You can also find Dan Gainor's commentary on The Fox Forum.
You can also check out BMI's editorial cartoon: Bottom Lines by Glenn Foden.
Follow BMI on Twitter:
@DanGainor
@MattPhilbin
@BizMediaJulia
@JPoor007
Important Note: Many e-mail programs consider newsletter subscriptions as spam. Please add bmi@mail.businessandmedia.org to your safe sender list.
Fwd: MRC Alert: CBS Gives Tea Partiers Top Billing, But Sees 'Inconsistency' in the FNC-Watching, White Gun Owners
A daily compilation edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert items are drawn from daily BiasAlert posts and distributed by the Media Research Center's News Analysis Division, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Thursday April 15, 2010 @ 09:57 AM EDT1. CBS Gives Tea Partiers Top Billing, But Sees 'Inconsistency' in the FNC-Watching, White Gun Owners
"A CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight finds 18 percent of Americans support the movement," Katie Couric announced at the top of Wednesday's CBS Evening News as the newscast provided a surprisingly neutral summary of the findings in the new survey, though reporter Dean Reynolds couldn't resist asserting "there is some inconsistency in the Tea Party viewpoints. For example, for all their anger at what they see as ever-expanding government, 62 percent of them think Medicare and Social Security are worthwhile programs, perhaps because 75 percent of them are over 45." Or, since they aren't anarchists, maybe they've just made judgments about government programs and find many others less worthwhile than ones they've been forced to pay into for their entire adult lives. Reynolds realized "they chafe at critics who characterize the movement as extremist or racist for its opposition to the President," then he recited numbers to show they are mostly male, white, conservative watchers of FNC.2. Maher Insults Palin and Bachmann as MILFs: Morons I'd Like To Forget
Bill Maher and Chris Matthews, on Wednesday's Hardball, denigrated Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as merely "attractive" women with very little smarts with the HBO host even going as far to use a vulgar euphemism to describe them as he claimed: "They're attractive especially to the Republican Party, which is not known as a party that really does well with the opposite sex. Usually they're doughy white men and I think they look on Michele Bachmann and, and Sarah Palin, as you know, M.I.L.Fs and I agree, they're Morons I'd Like to Forget."3. MSNBC's Mike Barnicle Smears John McCain: More Afraid of J.D. Hayworth Than of North Vietnamese
During a discussion of John McCain's drift rightward on Wednesday's Morning Joe, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle smeared the Arizona Senator as more scared of J.D. Hayworth than he was of his Vietnamese torturers. Barnicle mocked, "The ultimate sadness is that, here, in the 21st century, running for re-election, he shows more fear of J.D. Hayworth than he showed toward his captors in North Vietnam."4. Meet Washington Post's Scott Wilson, Obama's Summit News Butler
Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson topped Wednesday's paper with a "news analysis" headlined "On world stage, Obama at ease as seminar leader." The word that came to mind wasn't "analysis." It was "unanimous." Everyone in Wilson's supine story praised Obama's command and personality. It's like Wilson was Obama's news butler at this summit: "'He's in charge, he's chairing the meetings, and this is where his personality plays a big part,' said Pierre Vimont, the French ambassador to the United States, who compared Obama's role during the summit to the way he led the bipartisan health-care meeting at Blair House in February. 'He does it very well,' Vimont continued. 'And he feels very comfortable doing it.'"5. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Touts McVeigh Special, Warns U.S. Is Seeing 'Upswing' in 'Anti-government Extremism'
Liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow appeared on the Daily Show, Tuesday, to promote her new Timothy McVeigh special and to compare, "The dark side of it is that [McVeigh] really did see himself as part of an anti-government movement in the United States...And, right now, I think we are experiencing an upswing again in sort of anti-government extremism."6. NYT's Leonhardt Dismisses How Almost Half Pay No Income Tax, Calls For Higher Rates on Those Who Do
David Leonhardt, the New York Times' voice on fiscal policy wants higher taxes on everyone, but most importantly the rich: "The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups." He also called higher taxes on the rich "an American tradition" and refused to see a principled argument against the current skewed tax system, arguing it was just self-interest on the part of conservative talk show hosts.7. CNN to Advertisers: We're the Only 'Non-Partisan' Cable Network
Stuart Elliott of the New York Times's Media Decoder blog reported on Tuesday that CNN, a network known for its consistent liberal bias, is now incredibly touting itself as "the only credible, nonpartisan voice left" on cable television. Elliott noted that this spin was being pitched by the network at a Tuesday morning event for advertisers at the Time Warner Center in New York City. The New York Times writer highlighted the meeting hosted by CNN executives, and their overall strategy: "In a presentation to advertisers and agencies on Tuesday morning, executives of CNN indicated how they plan to counter the growing ratings of — and buzz about — the rival Fox News Channel: play up their channel's identity as an objective source of news." Elliott quoted Jim Walton, president of CNN Worldwide, as using the "credible, nonpartisan voice" phrase, and tried to put the face on his network's poor ratings during the first quarter of 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)