05/17/2010
Did the Federal Government Enable the Gulf Oil Spill?
An "angry" President Barack Obama lashed out at those he feels are responsible for the Gulf oil spill Friday, telling reporters in the Rose Garden: "You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. I will not tolerate any more finger-pointing or irresponsibility." But as CBS News' Chip Reid points out: "Mr. Obama's been president for nearly 16 months. Does he get at least a little piece of the blame?" Pointing to President Obama's staunch defense of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Reid answered his own question: "Not a bit. ... He portrayed his administration as valiantly fighting the good fight against the oil companies from day one. ...So while the president is pointing the finger of blame, he's also working hard to make sure that over time the finger doesn't do a 180."
In the President's mind the federal government apparently can do no wrong. The leading answer to every problem our nation faces is bigger, stronger, and more intrusive government regulations. But a closer look at the facts surrounding the spill shows that it was an already overly oppressive regulatory legal framework, coupled with lax enforcement, that created the mismatched incentives that led to the disaster.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Fwd: Morning Bell: Did the Federal Government Enable the Gulf Oil Spill?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Fwd: Pelosi Calls for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
Today's Headlines Friday, May 14, 2010
Pelosi Calls for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
(CNSNews.com) - "Hopefully, we will be moving toward comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, enforces our laws, protects our workers, honors family unification and has a path to legalization--so that we have certainty in our country and respect for the contributions that newcomers bring to us," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
The Federal Fat Police: Bill Would Require Government to Track Body Mass of American Children
(CNSNews.com) - A bill introduced this month in Congress would put the federal and state governments in the business of tracking how fat, or skinny, American children are. States receiving federal grants provided for in the bill would require all health care providers ito annually track the Body Mass Index of all children ages 2 through 18. The information would end up at the Department of Health and Human Services for analysis.
Holder Won't Say If Justice Dept. Is Investigating Sestak's Claim He Was Offered Administration Job Not to Run Against Specter
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to say if the Justice Department is looking into an allegation by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) that the White House offered him an administration job as an enticement to drop his primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.). After five minutes of evading the question asked by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Holder's final answer was no comment.
Holder Uncertain if Radical Islam Influenced Terrorists
Washington (CNSNews.com) - Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly tried to avoid answering a congressman's question on whether radical Islam was a motivating factor in recent attacks and attempted attacks on U.S. soil. "There are a variety of reasons," Holder kept insisting.
Arizona Religious Leaders Press for 'Pathway to Citizenship,' Say U.S. Has Moral Obligation to Stop Influx of Drugs
(CNSNews.com) - Securing the border is only one aspect of immigration reform. The United States must find 'legal avenues' to deal with people coming into the country illegally as well as those illegal aliens who are already here, the delegation agreed.
U.S. Joins U.N. Initiative Whose Stated Goal Is to Bridge Islam-West Divide
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. has signed on to a U.N. project whose stated aim is to build bridges between Islam and the West, but critics worry it is linked to an agenda that restricts free expression, especially when it comes to media coverage viewed as critical towards Islam. The Alliance of Civilizations is described as a project 'to bridge divides and overcome prejudice, misconceptions, misperceptions.' But critics say joining it will not advance U.S. interests.
Many 'Free' Countries Voted for Libya to Join U.N. Human Rights Council
(CNSNews.com) – Despite appeals by numerous human rights advocacy groups to bar Libya from holding a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, only 33 countries did so in a secret ballot election held on Thursday. In total, Thursday's election at the U.N. General Assembly in New York produced a Human Rights Commission with fewer "free" countries than ever – only 20 of the 47 members. The Obama administration brought the U.S. into the HRC last year.
Americans Who Don't Attend Church Form Base of Obama's Support, Gallup Polling Indicates
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama's overall approval rating stood at 49 percent for the most recent three-day period, and at 50 percent for the week ending May 8, but it would be lower than that if America consisted exclusively of people who attend church with some regularity. Non-church goers form the base of Obama's support, according to Gallup polling data.
CNSNEWS.COM VIDEO
Rachael Ray Backs 'Uniform,' 'Level Playing Ground' for Public School Cafeterias
(CNSNews.com) - 'Some of the public schools I've been to, they're eating baked chicken and dark leafy greens and fresh fruits and vegetables, and then other schools, they don't even have the equipment, or the funds, or the ability to offer any of those products,' celebrity chef Rachel Ray told CNSNews.com.
OTHER CNSNEWS.COM HEADLINES
Consumer Spending Rises for Seventh Straight Month
'Hawala' Money Transfer System Frustrates Anti-Terror Probes
New 'Al-Qaida in Iraq' Chief Vows Blood-Soaked Days
Bangkok Battle: Troops Fire on Rioting Protesters
Transportation Secretary LaHood Checks Out High-Speed Trains in China
Small Business Lobby Joins Challenge to Health Care Law
U.N. Climate Chief Defends Work, Welcomes Review
Chinese Scientists Say Cigarette Butts Protect Steel From Corrosion
'Rising Global Temperatures Cooking Lots of Lizards'
Turkish PM Visits Troubled Greece, Backs Arms Cuts
Donate Today!
Please help CNSNews.com keep bringing you 'The Right News - Right Now!'
Make a contribution to CNSNews.com today. It's fast, simple and secure.
Help CNSNews.com and Donate Today!
NEWSPAPER ROUNDUP:
Customs commissioner neglected to file "nanny" forms on household employees
President Obama's school plan, built around a contest, riles lawmakers
Thousands of non-profits could unwittingly lose tax status
Federal Protective Service agents fan out in D.C. for surprise building inspections
Pelosi: No question that voters are in an 'anti-incumbent' mood
Deficit worries make it tough for Democrats to move on the Medicare 'doc fix'
Swim club in race-bias case is sold at auction
U.S. military testing laser weapons
Attorney General Eric Holder hasn't read Ariz. immigration bill
Obama hugs NY Times reporter
Activists protest Al Gore's honorary degree at University of Tennessee
Thousands sign petition protesting Empire State Building's snub of Mother Teresa
Study finds that effects of low-quality child care last into adolescence
Group worries ban on drilling permits will cost jobs
Rep. Barney Frank battles for transgender workers' rights
Liberal State of Vermont one of just a few trying tax cuts
COMMENTARY
Are Liberals Anti-WASP?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, one was Puerto Rican, and the other five were Jews. If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity? Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North. And not in nearly half a century has a Democratic president nominated a white Protestant or white Catholic man or woman.
Our Busted Deportation System Strikes Again
By Michelle Malkin
Wouldn't it be grand if the Obama administration cared more about policing our borders than about policing our refrigerators? How about fixing our deportation system instead of fixing our junk-food diets? First Lady Michelle Obama argued this week that obesity is a "national security" issue. But her husband allows far greater threats to go unabated.
Operation Overlord II
By Rich Galen
U.S. taxpayers are once again stepping up to bail out Europe. At some point America is going to have to cut Europe loose. We're going off to play with China for the next 150-or-so years.
Jesus, Mohammed, and Comedy Central
By L. Brent Bozell III
It's clear that Mohammed is off limits for the U.S. entertainment industry, and it's just as crystal clear that Jesus Christ remains the juiciest of targets.
Fwd: Morning Bell: Congress' Historic Decision to Ignore Its Basic Duty
05/14/2010
Congress' Historic Decision to Ignore Its Basic Duty
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) once said that the "most basic responsibility of governing is to pass a budget." Yesterday it became clear that Congress has decided to shirk that responsibility, as word broke that the House likely will not pass a budget resolution for the first time since the modern budget process was created in 1974.
That's earthshaking news, especially given the ballooning federal spending, which soared to an $82.69 billion deficit in April, a projected $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010, and even more deficits as far as the eye can see. Like any American's household budget that tracks income and expenses, budget resolutions set a framework for Congress' taxing and spending. But it's a framework that the leadership in the House would rather do without.
The news came from Rep. Hoyer himself, who said "It's difficult to pass budgets in election years because they reflect what the [fiscal] status is." In other words, with November looming on the horizon, the left doesn't want their constituents to realize just how much Congress is spending and how high taxes will go.
Fwd: MRC Alert: As Polls Show Overwhelming Support for Arizona's Law, Nets Focus on 'Uproar' and 'Spreading' Boycotts
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
Friday May 14, 2010 @ 09:07 AM EDT1. As Polls Show Overwhelming Support for Arizona's Law, Nets Focus on 'Uproar' and 'Spreading' Boycotts
The night after two major national polls confirmed overwhelming majorities support Arizona's impending immigration enforcement statute (59 percent per Pew and 64 percent per NBC/WSJ), CBS and ABC promoted the cause of activists in the minority. Both devoted full stories to the "uproar" and "emotional civil war" over the law and moves by a few liberal local government bodies to enact boycotts, only getting late in their stories to those who like the law. The Thursday night stories were pegged to a boycott vote by the Democratic city council of Los Angeles, but CBS's Bill Whitaker and ABC's Barbara Pinto both also played a three-day old clip of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger mocking Arizona and pointed to the cancellation of a trip to Arizona by a suburban Chicago high school's girls basketball team – not to deride adults for using teens to grind a political axe, but to illustrate the supposed depth of opposition to Arizona's law. "The boycott of Arizona is spreading," Katie Couric trumpeted.
2. MSNBC's Ratigan Rants: Military 'Dropping Predator Bombs On Civilians Willy-Nilly'
On Wednesday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan didn't see any point to continuing the war in Afghanistan and slammed military air strikes against terrorist targets as: "kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly." Earlier, Ratigan declared: "the Bush doctrine of fight them there and they won't get us here appears to be continuing to break down as we now default to just predator drone-them-to-death wherever they may be on remote control and an apparent, sort of, nonevent in Afghanistan. It's like a charade."
3. George Stephanopoulos Laments Obama's Inability to Help Democrats
Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos on Thursday appeared frustrated that perceived successes by Barack Obama have failed to help his own party. The former Democratic operative turned journalist interviewed James Carville and complained, "You know, you've seen over the last month health care passes. Jobs are being created. The President has an arms control agreement with the Russians." Stephanopoulos added, "Yet, nothing seems to move these [poll] numbers."
4. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Derides Obama for 'Going Overboard' With 'Pseudo' Kagan Interview
MSNBC reporter Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday actually expressed some journalistic outrage over a White House PR video disguised as an interview, deriding the administration for "crossing a number of lines when it comes to journalism." An irritated Mitchell highlighted a video on the White House website that features Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
As Polls Show Overwhelming Support for Arizona's Law, Nets Focus on 'Uproar' and 'Spreading' Boycotts
The night after two major national polls confirmed overwhelming majorities support Arizona's impending immigration enforcement statute (59 percent per Pew and 64 percent per NBC/WSJ), CBS and ABC promoted the cause of activists in the minority. Both devoted full stories to the "uproar" and "emotional civil war" over the law and moves by a few liberal local government bodies to enact boycotts, only getting late in their stories to those who like the law.
The Thursday night stories were pegged to a boycott vote by the Democratic city council of Los Angeles, but CBS's Bill Whitaker and ABC's Barbara Pinto both also played a three-day old clip of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger mocking Arizona and pointed to the cancellation of a trip to Arizona by a suburban Chicago high school's girls basketball team – not to deride adults for using teens to grind a political axe, but to illustrate the supposed depth of opposition to Arizona's law.
"The boycott of Arizona is spreading," Katie Couric trumpeted before Whitaker touted: "The city of Los Angeles, the latest to react strongly to Arizona's tough new anti-illegal immigration law." He pushed how "a growing number of states and municipalities are boycotting or considering boycotting Arizona," citing how "Highland Park High School in Chicago's suburbs is pulling its champion girls' basketball team from a tournament in Arizona because of the law."
Cuing up Schwarzenegger, Whitaker insisted: "The state has become the butt of jokes." Schwarzenegger, from Monday, on not traveling to Arizona: "But with my accent, I was worried they were going to deport me back to Austria."
Over on ABC, Barbara Pinto announced "Los Angeles now joins San Francisco and St. Paul, Minnesota, banning travel to the state." Standing in front of the Illinois high school, Pinto relayed:
She did at least then a play a clip of a parent wondering: "What does the immigration law have to do with us going to play sports in Arizona?"A list of boycotts costing Arizona an estimated $90 million so far. This heated debate is even playing out here at this suburban Chicago High School, 1,800 miles away. Administrators cancelled the Highland Park girls basketball team's trip to an Arizona tournament amid concerns about the new law.
ABC anchor Diane Sawyer noted the Pew number at the top of the World News story while CBS's Whitaker only got to it deep in his report. Neither mentioned the higher NBC/Wall Street Journal number.
CBS Evening News, Thursday, May 13:
ABC's World News:KATIE COURIC: The uproar continues over Arizona's new immigration law. The commissioner of Major League Baseball today brushed off calls from Latino groups to move next year's All-Star game out of Phoenix. But Bill Whitaker reports, the boycott of Arizona is spreading.
BILL WHITAKER: For every action in nature there's an opposite reaction, so, too, in politics. The city of Los Angeles, the latest to react strongly to Arizona's tough new anti-illegal immigration law. City council voted yesterday to ban city travel to Arizona, ban future contracts with Arizona businesses, and to check whether $58 million in existing contracts can be broken legally.
JOSE HUIZAR, LA CITY COUNCIL: We have to act swiftly and strongly.
WHITAKER: Councilman Jose Huizar's grandfather helped to build LA City Hall as a Mexican guest worker in the 1920s.
JOSE HUIZAR: We fear what Arizona did will continue to spread to other states.
WHITAKER: A growing number of states and municipalities are boycotting or considering boycotting Arizona, pushing the state to repeal the law. Highland Park high school in Chicago's suburbs is pulling its champion girls' basketball team from a tournament in Arizona because of the law. Arizona's tourism board estimates it's losing $90 million to boycotts already. The state has become the butt of jokes.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ON MONDAY: But with my accent, I was worried they were going to deport me back to Austria.
WHITAKER: Still, a majority of Americans, 59 percent according to a Pew poll out this week, support the Arizona law requiring everyone to produce proof of citizenship when asked by police. In fact, 16 states are considering legislation similar to Arizona's. State Senator Russell Pearce wrote the controversial law.
RUSSELL PEARCE: Arizona spend $3 billion a year to educate Medicaid and incarcerate illegal aliens. It is a serious problem.
WHITAKER: And a serious challenge to Arizona's image and pocketbook, but so far Arizona stands willing to pay the price for its actions. Bill Whitaker, CBS News, Los Angeles.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.DIANE SAWYER: Here at home, a new poll shows the majority of Americans, 59 percent, support Arizona's tough law requiring police to check the documentation of anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. But all around the country, a kind of emotional civil war continues. Some people deciding to try to hit Arizona in the pocketbook. Today's developments from Barbara Pinto.
BARBARA PINTO: This is an out and out brawl, a nation choosing sides. California's Governor Schwarzenegger for one.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: I was also going to go and give a commencement speech in Arizona, but with my accent I was worried they would deport me back to Austria.
PINTO: Los Angeles now joins San Francisco and St. Paul, Minnesota, banning travel to the state.
WOMAN: Los Angeles is not going to stand for bigotry, for racism and for attacks on immigrants.
PINTO: A list of boycotts costing Arizona an estimated $90 million so far. This heated debate is even playing out here at this suburban Chicago High School, 1,800 miles away. Administrators cancelled the Highland Park girls basketball team's trip to an Arizona tournament amid concerns about the new law.
MICHAEL EVANS, FATHER OF BASKETBALL PLAYER: What does the immigration law have to do with us going to play sports in Arizona?
PINTO: Arizona is home no nearly a half million illegal immigrants. It's new law pits neighbor against neighbor.
ALEJANDRA CHACON, LEGAL IMMIGRANT: This is not about immigration anymore. This is about the color of our skin, the way we talk, the way we learn.
PINTO: Across town-
DONNA NEILLE: One night, we hear pop, pop, pop.
PINTO: -Donna and Jerry Neille watched the flood of illegal immigrants and crime move into their neighborhood.
DONNA NEILLE: The gangs. You know, that's really what is scary about all of this, it's these gangs. They're vicious. They're violent.
PINTO: And then there's the 700 mile border fence, promised by Congress. Today, only 34 miles are up, nine of them in Arizona, which has a border hundreds of miles long. The issue is so inflamed that John McCain, once a champion for immigrant rights, is scrambling to be identified with that fence.
JOHN McCAIN IN TV AD: And complete the danged fence.
PINTO: Today, religious leaders protested outside his door, in this border battle that is nowhere near an end. Barabara Pinto, ABC News, Highland Park, Illinois.
MSNBC's Ratigan Rants: Military 'Dropping Predator Bombs On Civilians Willy-Nilly'
On Wednesday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan didn't see any point to continuing the war in Afghanistan and slammed military air strikes against terrorist targets as: "kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly." [Audio available here]
Ratigan began a panel discussion on Afghanistan with Democratic strategist David Goodfriend and Republican strategist Brent Littlefield by wondering: "Is there anybody in this administration on either side that can actually justify the American presence in Afghanistan at this point?" Littlefield attempted to explain: "we had the previous president, took the country in there because of the attacks on 9/11." Ratigan was dismissive: "That was almost ten years ago, right? I mean that was a long time ago."
Ratigan moved on to Goodfriend and referenced NBC correspondent Richard Engel's appearance on the show on Tuesday: "He is making the point that the Bush doctrine of fight them there and they won't get us here appears to be continuing to break down as we now default to just predator drone-them-to-death wherever they may be on remote control and an apparent, sort of, nonevent in Afghanistan. It's like a charade." Of course the reliance on predator drone attacks was significantly increased under the Obama administration.
George Stephanopoulos Laments Obama's Inability to Help Democrats
Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos on Thursday appeared frustrated that perceived successes by Barack Obama have failed to help his own party. The former Democratic operative turned journalist interviewed current Democratic operative James Carville and complained, "You know, you've seen over the last month health care passes. Jobs are being created. The President has an arms control agreement with the Russians."
Stephanopoulos added, "Yet, nothing seems to move these [poll] numbers." Back on March 1, 2010, the morning show host was more hopeful.
He repeated liberal talking points about the effect passing health care would have: "...The Democrats in the White House who are pushing for this strategy, pushing for passage, say that once this does pass, the country will get it. Democrats will be unified. They'll get a huge benefit."
On Thursday, Stephanopoulos again cited the White House and seemed to declare Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court a done deal: "But, you know, the White House has this 48-hour rule, saying that the nominations are won and loss in the first 48 hours. Is this one already over?"
How did the then-host of This Week react to the early days of John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court. On the July 24, 2005 edition of the program, he touted Democratic options:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats do have a dilemma here,...You can look at [Roberts] and say, 'You know what? He is well qualified, he is well liked. He's got great credentials. Let's give him a pass so say we were reasonable and fight hard on the next one.' The other philosophy is, 'No, you got to brush him back now to send a message to the White House.'"On the same program, Stephanopoulos did allow that the Roberts pick might be headed towards a "coronation." On Thursday, however, there was no talk of "sending a message" to Obama.
The host did at least acknowledged reality. Talking to Carville and Republican Bay Buchanan, he observed, "But, then you dig into it and say when you just talk to the voters most likely to show up at the polls in November, a huge, huge advantage for the Republicans. 56 for the Republicans. Only 36 for Democrats. James Carville, this is the worst warning sign yet for the Democrats."
A transcript of the May 13 segment, which aired at 7:07am EDT, follows:
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to turn now to politics. As the President's latest nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan made her courtesy calls on Capitol Hill yesterday. A new poll out just this morning shows that the Democratic majority in Congress could be in more jeopardy than ever. Here to debate all that this morning, our dueling strategists, James Carville for the Democrats. Bay Buchanan for the Republicans. Welcome to you both. And let me start out with that poll in the Wall Street Journal. It shows that when voters look ahead to the November midterm election, they're split over whether or not they want Democrats or Republicans to control the Congress. 44 to 44. But, then you dig into it and say when you just talk to the voters most likely to show up at the polls in November, a huge, huge advantage for the Republicans. 56 for the Republicans. Only 36 for Democrats. James Carville, this is the worst warning sign yet for the Democrats.— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
JAMES CARVILLE (ABC News contributor): It's not good. And we've consistently shown that in our Democracy Corp polling. There's some evidence that this gap is starting to tighten slightly. But it's going to have to do more than slightly. In the 2012 election, we would do better. But we have to run this in 2010. And the Democrats need a strategy to re-energize some of their voters. This finding is very consistent and very true with other things that I've seen.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Bay, Karl Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal today that this could be an epic election for the Republicans.
BAY BUCHANAN (Conservative activist): Yeah. I think there is a real problem. I agree with James, no question. But, I'd like to tell you it's all pro-Republican and they want to come our way. But it's really an anti-incumbency, anti-Washington. And that's the Democrats are going to go against what the Democrats have done in the last couple years. And so, Republicans are going to benefit. I'm just hoping that those who do benefit, those Republicans are new, fresh faces and not part of our old establishment. Because America is not interested in bringing back what we gave them for eight years. They want new faces, new energy, new leadership in this country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And, of course, Bay, to prove your point, the republican incumbent in Utah, lost his primary, Bob Bennett over the weekend, to a tea party activist. James Carville, you talk about the Democratic strategy to limit losses. You know, you've seen over the last month health care passes. Jobs are being created. The President has an arms control agreement with the Russians. Yet, nothing seems to move these numbers.
CARVILLE: Well, I think the White House is acutely aware of that. As are other Democratic strategists. I mean, the hope is that job numbers continue to come in at an impressive rate and it starts to. And that's a possibility and one that Democrats have to hold out hope for. And also, that as election day gets closer, that 39 percent of the Democrats are energized as opposed to 56 percent of the Republicans, that that number begins to close. And if that happens, than you can avoid catastrophic losses. But right now, I don't think in fairness, truthfully, you can say the election were held today, we would be faced with that. Democrats would be faced with some staggering losses.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Losing control?
CARVILLE: Oh, yeah. Absolutely possible. If the election were today. But it's not. And the chances that that number closes are much better than it stays open. And the effect of continued job numbers is going to have some effect on the political atmosphere, at least I hope.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's turn-
BUCHANAN: George, George, I think there's a real problem here for Democrats, because what's motivating the voters is this huge debt that we have. This increasing deficit. The incredible unwillingness for Washington to get control over spending. It's outrageous. And people are unnerved by it, as they pull in their belt in communities and states are pulling in theirs. Washington just keeps spending. As if that's the only solution. You can't solve that in the next six months. And I think that's why the voters are going to come to the ballot and say get rid of these guys and bring in somebody who will get control.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's turn to Elena Kagan, the President's nominee for the supreme court. She was making courtesy calls on yesterday. Here she is with Republican Orrin Hatch. Actually, that's-
[Clip of Kagan in Hatch's office]
ELENA KAGAN: It's great to be here. It's a beautiful office.
ORRIN HATCH: You know, there's some nice stuff here. You're going to get mad. There's a Man of the Year for the National Rifle Association. It's a place of art, really.
KAGAN: It's beautiful.
HATCH: It's a handmade flint lock and it's beautiful, beautiful.
KAGAN: It's gorgeous.
[Clip ends]
STEPHANOPOULOS: She's not going to say anything to hurt her chances. But, you know, the White House has this 48-hour rule, saying that the nominations are won and loss in the first 48 hours. Is this one already over?
CARVILLE: This one? Yeah. Barring something that no one's foreseen, I don't think there's a person in the world who would think there's any chance of derailing this nomination. Actually, they might not be too nice to him. They might boo him at some tea party here and there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Bay?
BUCHANAN: There's no question, George, she'll be confirmed, in my opinion. But the key is, I don't understand for the life of me, why when the left has control of the Senate, as they do, that obama would not put up one of the best and the brightest. This woman is not one of the finest, you know, liberal judicial minds in the country. She doesn't have any kind of record. She has the blank slate. And she's like a Harriet Miers with a Harvard twist here. You know? I don't understand why they don't get the best and the brightest and fight for one of their Scalias. But, they don't.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I think you'll find- We're out of time. I think you'll find a lot of Democrats debate that point.
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Derides Obama for 'Going Overboard' With 'Pseudo' Kagan Interview
MSNBC reporter Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday actually expressed some journalistic outrage over a White House PR video disguised as an interview, deriding the administration for "crossing a number of lines when it comes to journalism." An irritated Mitchell highlighted a video on the White House website that features Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. [Audio available here.]
Most other media outlets have ignored this story. Mitchell, however, complained to reporter Kelly O'Donnell: "But, the White House has gone overboard, I think some would suggest, in terms of the control of all of this."
Attacking the "pseudo interview," Mitchell mocked, "Doesn't this seem to you like they are really crossing a number of lines here when it comes to journalism and the proper approach to selling a justice?"
Reporter Kelly O'Donnell explained the video: "It appears like an interview. But, people who are watching it should know that it was produced and done completely by the White House." Emphasizing the point, she repeated, "[Kagan] talks about her work in law school, her love of the law. Things that are certainly glossy and friendly. But it is not an interview."
Mitchell closed by proclaiming, "[The White House video is] certainly a big issue for journalists." But, is it? Who else will cover this?
CBS's Early Show hasn't discussed this latest video, but, on August 3, 2009, touted an earlier Obama PR package. The MRC's Kyle Drennen explained:
At the top of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith touted a White House-produced video: "And your letters to the President...A behind-the-scenes look at how President Obama keeps in touch with everyday Americans." After airing the administration spin, co-host Maggie Rodriguez argued it was "all part of Obama's promise of transparency in the people's White House."A transcript of the February 12 segment, which aired at 1:02pm EDT, follows:
ANDREA MITCHELL: Elena Kagan is making the rounds on Capitol Hill, meeting with key senators. NBC's Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O'Donnell joining us live. Big meetings today. What's the sense, the mood as she has her first meetings with key members of the Judiciary Committee and others?—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
KELLY O'DONNELL: Well, it's getting to know you day, Andrea. Elena Kagan is stopping at leadership. She's had a couple meetings so far. She'll be at this all day, really, until the early evening hours to meet these senators and to get a sense of what they may be wanting to know from her. And, of course, for senators it's a chance to get a sense of who she is as a person, talk about issues that may come up during this process. A lot of it is really an opportunity to just sort of spend a few minutes together in private meetings, not the big public Q and A that will come at the hearing. So, that's sort of where we are right now. From Republicans you're getting a real sense of wanting everything to slow down a bit. They are using words like "thorough" for the process they want to go through. Meaning it will be tough. It will be as intense as they can make it knowing they do not have the numbers to really derail this confirmation. And barring any big surprise, most people believe she will be able to be confirmed. But, between now and then, there's a lot that has to be done. She has a big questionnaire to fill out, which is everything about her public life and even professional life, personal life in terms of financial statements. So, a lot of that is going on now. Today is just a way to simply begin that process. And for us it's a chance to see her interacting with people who will decide if she becomes the 112th justice. Andrea?
MITCHELL: Well, off course as they go through all of this process, nominees have never submitted themselves to interviews. That's been a routine. They don't submit themselves to interviews before they go through confirmation. But, the White House has gone overboard, I think some would suggest, in terms of the control of all of this. They've posted a, a sort of, pseudo interview on their website. And it appears she is speaking in her own words, being interviewed. And it turns out that the interviewer is not a journalist, it's a White House staff member. Doesn't this seem to you like they are really crossing a number of lines here when it comes to journalism and the proper approach to selling a justice?
O'DONNELL: Well, this White House has always tried to sort of leap over reporters to a large extent and photographers as well, to communicate directly with those people who would be in the public who will click on their website and want to learn more about her. It appears like an interview. But, people who are watching it should know that it was produced and done completely by the White House. And that means it will only deal with things that they believe are favorable and contribute to the narrative of who is Elena Kagan? What's her background? She talks about her childhood. She talks about her work in law school, her love of the law. Things that are certainly glossy and friendly. But it is not an interview. And as you point out, typically justices do not do interviews. It's rare. It does happen, but it's rare. And so these behind the scenes meetings are a chance for real questions and answers. And unlike Sonia Sotomayor, who chatted a bit as she walked around the Senate last year, so far Elena Kagan has just said hello. No chance for reporters to interact. And so, that debate of how far does the White House go in its packaging is really a lively one that deals with lots of issues and certainly now with the Supreme Court nominee.
MITCHELL: It's certainly big issues for journalists.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Fwd: MRC Alert: NBC Astonished Poll Finds Most Support Arizona Law and Anti-Terror Profiling; Skip GOP Surge
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 May 13, 2010 @ 09:22 AM EDT1. NBC Astonished Poll Finds Most Support Arizona Law and Anti-Terror Profiling; Skip GOP Surge
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd seemed astonished by how a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll confirmed solid agreement with Arizona's immigration enforcement law – "a whopping 64 percent support the law," Todd marveled, "and we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written" and still, he repeated, "64 percent approve of it." NBC also treated as surprising the majority backing for racial profiling to prevent terrorism, while Todd didn't mention what NBC's polling partner, the Wall Street Journal, found most newsworthy. Lead of the WSJ.com post: "Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's elections."
2. Lead Prosecutor Chris Matthews Pins Blame for Oil Spill on Dick Cheney
Chris Matthews simply can't get Dick Cheney out of his mind. On Tuesday's Hardball, the MSNBC host once again attempted to pin the blame of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the former vice president, as he sinisterly questioned "What role did Dick Cheney play in all of this?" Matthews, going after one of his favorite punching bags, brought on Democratic Congressman John Garamendi and an attorney suing BP, Mike Papantonio, to prosecute his case as he accused Cheney and Halliburton of weakening regulations, which in turn led to the oil spill. Matthews even went as far to liken government in the Bush/Cheney years as reminiscent of "a third world banana republic."
3. On NBC, Vieira Sputters at Laura Ingraham's Charge That Kagan Was 'Anti-Military'
NBC's Today offered a conservative counterpoint on the Elena Kagan nomination on Wednesday: conservative radio talker and author Laura Ingraham. Co-host Meredith Vieira suggested Republicans were hypocrites to suggest Kagan was inexperienced: "The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, has said that her lack of experience to him is troubling. Yet when Harriet Miers was put up for consideration by President Bush five years ago he had no problem with the fact she had never served as a judge. So are Republicans not satisfied with these nominees, their lack of judicial experience only when they're not a Republican nominee?"
4. Under Painting of Lincoln Peering Down at Obama, USA Today Explores Obama's Underappreciated 'Historic' Greatness
"Will doing 'big things' wind up costing Obama?" a Wednesday USA Today front page article worried, accompanied by a photo of contemplative President Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln in a painting peering down at him. The caption: "History book bound?" The subhead for the story by Susan Page and Mimi Hall: "Voters' anxiety clouds his historic successes." The effusive lead presumed Obama deserves credit for great achievements the public has been slow to recognize and the duo later declared: "Historians call Obama's record incomparable." And they meant that as a glowing positive.
5. Network Double Standard: Elena Kagan vs. Samuel Alito
In the 36 hours after President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, network reporters explicitly labeled him "conservative" ten times in their morning and evening newscasts. Over the same period this time, Obama nominee Elena Kagan has been called "liberal" just once, on CBS.
6. CBS's Rodriguez Urges John Kerry to Denounce Offshore Oil Drilling
In an interview with Senator John Kerry on Wednesday's CBS Early Show on the Gulf Coast oil spill, co-host Maggie Rodriguez hit from the left on new energy legislation proposed by the Massachusetts Democrat: "correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?" Kerry responded by pointing out that his bill would "actually restrict the current plan of the President" to expand offshore drilling. Rodriguez pressed further: "Are you saying it does not call for expanded offshore drilling?"
7. CBS Review of Russell Crowe Film: 'Robin Hood Meets Che Guevara'
On CBS's Sunday Morning, correspondent Dean Reynolds described the latest adaptation of the Robin Hood legend by director Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe: "And so here is an evil King John, squeezing his subjects for more taxes....And here is Robin. Not as a thief, but as a revolutionary figure trying to limit the King's power. Robin Hood meets Che Guevara." Reynolds further explained the plot of the new film: "This Robin joins the fight to get the English king to sign the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the document establishing the first rights on which modern democracies are based."
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd seemed astonished by how a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll confirmed solid agreement with Arizona's immigration enforcement law – "a whopping 64 percent support the law," Todd marveled, "and we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written" and still, he repeated, "64 percent approve of it." NBC also treated as surprising the majority backing for racial profiling to prevent terrorism, while Todd didn't mention what NBC's polling partner, the Wall Street Journal, found most newsworthy. Lead of the WSJ.com post:
Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's elections, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.In his limited air time, Todd used the video wall at 30 Rock to highlight the public's belief the government and BP haven't done enough to address the Gulf oil spill, but he didn't note another finding which counters the media's preferences and narrative, that despite the accident, 60 percent support "more drilling for oil off the coast of the United States."
MSNBC.com, however, headlined its poll summary, "Poll: Despite spill, support for oil drilling high"
Brian Williams cued up Todd on profiling, suggesting it has, or at least should have been, a topic of hot debate: "I know after this attempted bombing in Times Square, you asked a question every family has debated about racial profiling." Todd recounted what the survey determined:
On the attitude toward the two parties and the Tea Party movement, Todd conveyed:We did, and we asked it specifically on the issue of: Would you be in favor of racial profiling when it comes to combating terrorism? And guess what: A majority said yes. It's a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless: 51 percent would approve of it; 43 percent disapprove of it. Clearly, this issue of terrorism is something that people, they're willing to give up some of their own personal rights, and they're willing to see some racial profiling, Brian.
Both political parties viewed negatively. The Democrats, 37 percent positive rating, 42 percent negative. Republicans, a lesser positive rating [30%]. But check this out. The Tea Party – it's not an official political party – but there are more people have a positive view [31%] of the Tea Party than of the Republican Party. And fewer people have a negative view of the Tea Party than either of the two major parties [30%].The Wall Street Journal saw a lot more positive for Republicans. From the story posted Wednesday night, presumably what will run in Thursday's newspaper, by Peter Wallsten, Naftali Bendavid and Jean Spencer:
Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's elections, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The findings suggest that public opinion has hardened in advance of the 2010 elections, making it harder for Democrats to translate their legislative successes or a tentatively improving U.S. economy into gains among voters.As noted above, Todd pointed out that on Arizona "we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written." Here's that question, #34:
Republicans have reassembled their coalition by reconnecting with independents, seniors, blue-collar voters, suburban women and small town and rural voters—all of whom had moved away from the party in the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House. Those voter groups now favor GOP control of Congress.
"This data is what it looks like when Republicans assemble what for them is a winning coalition," said GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who conducts the survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart. He said the Republican alliance appeared to be "firmer and more substantial" than earlier in the year....
A big shift is evident among independents, who at this point in the 2006 campaign favored Democratic control of Congress rather than Republican control, 40% to 24%. Now, independents favor the GOP, 38% to 30%.
Suburban women favored Democratic control four years ago by a 24-point margin. Now, they narrowly favor Republicans winning the House. A similar turnaround has happened among voters 65 and older....
The Arizona law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. It requires local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect a person is in the country illegally, making it a crime for them to lack registration documents. Do you support or oppose this law? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE, THEN ASK) And, do you strongly (support/oppose) or just somewhat (support/oppose) this law?(46 percent "strongly support," nearly double the 24 percent who "strongly oppose.")
In fact, the statute requires a prerequisite lawful reason for stopping someone before the law enforcement officer can check their immigration status:
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.PDF of the full results, as posted by MSNBC.com and WSJ.com
The poll rundown provided on the Wednesday, May 12 NBC Nightly News, transcript provided by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth who corrected the closed-captioning against the video:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: We have new numbers tonight, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. And it's a revealing one – everything from politics to oil to racial profiling. Our chief White House correspondent and NBC News political director Chuck Todd is with us here at the board with the numbers. And, Chuck, we asked about a lot of subjects this time.— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
CHUCK TODD: We did. A lot's happened since the last time we went into the field. And let's begin with the oil spill and what folks think of the federal government's response so far. And it's a mixed bag: 45 percent believe the government is not doing enough; 43 percent believe they are doing enough. Of course, BP is the one that a lot of people blame a lot more right now than the federal government.
How about that new immigration law in Arizona? Well, a whopping 64 percent support the law. And we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written – 64 percent approve of it; 34 percent oppose it. But look at this number among Hispanics: It's reversed – 70 percent of Hispanics oppose it; 27 percent support it. It is something that is going to be a political hot potato for probably the next couple of years.
How about the President? Well, look at this. There's sort of a polarizing view of the President these days – 51 percent, a majority, actually now disapprove of his policies. And yet he's still well liked: 69 percent like him personally. So this polarized view, he's sort of Teflon personally, but he's having a hard time selling his agenda.
How's this translating to the political parties? Well, look at that. We know there's an anti-incumbent atmosphere out there. Both political parties viewed negatively. The Democrats, 37 percent positive rating, 42 percent negative. Republicans, a lesser positive rating. But check this out. The Tea Party – it's not an official political party – but there are more people have a positive view of the Tea Party than of the Republican party. And fewer people have a negative view of the Tea Party than either of the two major parties. It's a conservative movement for now, but it is something that seems to be catching on.
So what is this anti-incumbent atmosphere all about? Why is it that everybody is so angry? Well, look at these numbers. We'll start with this. Large majorities, 56 percent, say the country's heading the wrong direction. It's been that way for six months; 58 percent, for instance, believe the stock market is not a fair and open process to them. Look at this one: 75 percent believe that they don't trust anything that comes out of Washington; 81 percent are dissatisfied with the economy. And now you have 83 percent that believe the two-party system has real problems, and a large chunk of those voters would like to see an actual creation of a third party, the largest we've seen yet. And, Brian, this explains why Republican Bob Bennett lost in Utah, a Democratic Congressman lost last night in a primary. We may have two Senators this Tuesday both lose. It's an angry and pessimistic public.
WILLIAMS: And I know after this attempted bombing in Times Square, you asked a question every family has debated about racial profiling.
TODD: We did, and we asked it specifically on the issue of: Would you be in favor of racial profiling when it comes to combating terrorism? And guess what: A majority said yes. It's a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless: 51 percent would approve of it; 43 percent disapprove of it. Clearly, this issue of terrorism is something that people, they're willing to give up some of their own personal rights, and they're willing to see some racial profiling, Brian.
Chris Matthews simply can't get Dick Cheney out of his mind. On Tuesday's Hardball, the MSNBC host once again attempted to pin the blame of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the former vice president, a theory he first broached last week, as he sinisterly questioned "What role did Dick Cheney play in all of this?" Matthews, going after one of his favorite punching bags, brought on Democratic Congressman John Garamendi and an attorney suing BP, Mike Papantonio, to prosecute his case as he accused Cheney and Halliburton of weakening regulations, which in turn led to the oil spill. Matthews even went as far to liken government in the Bush/Cheney years as reminiscent of "a third world banana republic." [audio available here]
MATTHEWS: And I look at this situation, the President of the United States is allowed to have a vice president who in many ways looks more powerful than he does. And Dick Cheney, of his own volition, says, "I'm bringing all the oil industry tycoons into the office with me. Absolute secrecy. We're gonna set energy policy for a democratic country." We're supposed to be a democracy. Yet the policies made in the secrecy of the White House, no press allowed, no records kept. Absolute secrecy. And then we find out that these guys at Halliburton, one of these companies, in fact the company that paid him $34 million into the vice presidency, has gotten their pick of the regulators to regulate Halliburton. How do we stop this?! It seems like a third-world banana republic would do it this way.The following teaser and exchanges were aired on the May 11 Hardball:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews out in Los Angeles. Leading off tonight oil slicks. BP says Transocean and Halliburton did it. Transocean says BP and Halliburton did it. Haliburton says BP and Transocean did it. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. So who did cause the Gulf oil spill and who's going to hold them responsible? Are we talking poltergeist? Who is that enemy below that caused the spill? And what role did Dick Cheney play in all of this?—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
...
MATTHEWS: Let's start with the politics of the oil spill. U.S. Congressman John Garamendi is a Democrat from California. And Michael Papantonio is a lawyer whose firm has filed a class-action lawsuit in three states against the oil companies. I want to start with Mr. Papantonio. Sir, you brought a lawsuit, is there a case to be made here against Dick Cheney, as head of Halliburton?
MIKE PAPANTONIO, ATTORNEY FOR FAMILIES SUING BP: I think, I think it's a systemic problem. Look, influence pattern emerged after Dick Cheney's 100-day meeting that he had behind closed doors with the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Shell, Conoco. Look Congress needs to be asking these questions right now, Chris. Right now, they're not asking the tough questions. What happened in that closed-door meeting? What was discussed, what promises were made? What quid quo pro took place? And why was there this sudden change that took place after that meeting. More importantly, Chris, why is it we can't even get the minutes from that meeting.
MATTHEWS: Okay.
PAPANTONIO: Bobby Kennedy and I had sued this, sued this department to try to get, we can't get them.
MATTHEWS: Well let me help you with this, Mr. Papantonio, since it's your lawsuit. Consider this amicus information. The Vice President got $24 million, I'm sorry, $34 million from Halliburton after he joined the ticket in 2000. He was leaving the company. This wasn't for services, this was what, goodwill? $34 million. Then the two top regulators on MMS who were supposedly responsible for managing the oil industry and making sure there's safety in their own operations, both Halliburton people. So isn't that interesting? What do you make of that? Before we move on. The Halliburton factor here, the Cheney factor. Please answer my question, what role did Dick Cheney play, coming into the vice presidency and two top Halliburton people taking over responsibility for get this, regulating Halliburton?
PAPANTONIO: We know this, we know this Chris, what did happen is the whole, the whole mineral management department changed. New people showed up. New regulations showed up.
MATTHEWS: Halliburton people!
PAPANTONIO: Halliburton. Well, well, here, here it is. Here it is. It goes beyond that. It goes beyond, all you have to do is look at the fact that it wasn't just a meeting where nothing happened for Halliburton. After this meeting, a 300 percent increase took place in their business on things like off-shore drilling. It's about access. It's about access. Clearly about access, Chris.
Look here's, here's where this thing should go. There, there's a statute, it's clear, it's called the Honest Service Fraud statute. It's called 18 U.S. Code 1346. Prosecutors all over America use this statute to put, to put cronies, political cronies in prison for the type of thing that they should be asking questions about right now. It's real simple to follow.
MATTHEWS: Okay.
PAPANTONIO: When there's a government official and a third party that have an agreement and it doesn't look right, we need to investigate...
MATTHEWS: Okay let me, let me go to an office holder-
PAPANTONIO: That's what needs to happen here.
MATTHEWS: -a good government guy. John Garamendi, I 've known you a long time. You're a good government guy. What is the role of Halliburton here? This amazing relationship where the Vice President gets $34 million on his way into the vice presidency, as these regulators are being named and they're being named from the very company they're supposed to be regulating. I don't see how you can trust that kind of a relationship.
GARAMENDI: You can't, we used to say fox guarding the henhouse, now we shave the skunks guarding the henhouse. No doubt about it and it's not just the oil industry. We're talking about a war, we're talking about $1 trillion of American taxpayers' money for an unnecessary war in Iraq. Dick Cheney and the oil boys really screwed up this country to a fare-thee-well.
MATTHEWS: Well they wanted the war too.
...
MATTHEWS: I've talked to people in the oil industry, Congressman Garamendi and they tell me that no mistake is ever new. No accident is ever new. Everything that ever goes wrong has happened before. And when it happened before -- this is just a fact -- they established safety management procedures from making sure it doesn't happen again. They don't want this to happen. Why didn't they follow those procedures in this case so it wouldn't happen, what happened before? They're acting like this is an act of God, all the right-wingers are saying, "Act of God, oh we can't believe it. It's poltergeist! Weird spirits did this! God did this!" But at some point we take responsibility for money-making when money-making goes bad. Your thoughts Congressman. Can we have safe offshore oil drilling or not?
GARAMENDI: I don't think that it'll ever be safe. There's always going to be an inherent danger and when it occurs it's going to be a real troublesome thing because you're in a marine, ocean environment. I have a bill in to ban, permanently, new leases off the west coast of America. We just don't need to go there. We need to shift. We need to shift away from oil. We need to move to the renewable energy policies. As long as we continue to drill we're gonna find ourselves with these kinds of problems. Not every year, not every drill rig but it's going to happen. And when it does, keep this in mind Chris. Last year, within the last 12 months there have been two massive blowouts on offshore oil rigs. One off the west coast of Australia and another one in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not unheard of. In fact it's all too common. So enough already. Move away from our dependance on oil and let's get on with that renewable energy, which everybody says is our future and has to be our future.
...
MATTHEWS: Let me go to the government end of this. Mr. Garamendi, Congressman, congratulations on being a congressman and it's a wonderful opportunity to make law now. And I look at this situation, the President of the United States is allowed to have a vice president who in many ways looks more powerful than he does. And Dick Cheney, of his own volition, says, "I'm bringing all the oil industry tycoons into the office with me. Absolute secrecy. We're gonna set energy policy for a democratic country." We're supposed to be a democracy. Yet the policies made in the secrecy of the White House, no press allowed, no records kept. Absolute secrecy. And then we find out that these guys at Halliburton, one of these companies, in fact the company that paid him $34 million into the vice presidency, has gotten their pick of the regulators to regulate Halliburton. How do we stop this?! It seems like a third-world banana republic would do it this way.
GARAMENDI: Well first of all you better elect the right people We knew when George W. Bush came in that he was an oil man. And we knew that when he chose Cheney that we were in for an oil economy. And we got exactly what the people voted for. You got to be aware that elections matter. They make a big difference. There ought to be laws, in fact there are laws. Congress did it's very best to try to get that information but Executive Privilege was pulled to shield all of that information. Wrongly done. We're gonna have to hammer away at this. And these kinds of problems should not be allowed. It really depends upon who you choose to elect as a president. If you're choosing an insider from the oil industry, you better expect the oil industry is going to call the shots. And they did. But it's only part of the puzzle.
Halliburton has been on the edge of the law, if not an outlaw, for this entire last decade. Take a look at what you just talked about. The establishment of the oil policy. Look what they did in Iraq. There's been extraordinary scandals that involved Halliburton in Iraq. Hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared when it was sent off to Halliburton. There are problems after problems after problems. But it goes back to whose president? Take a look, who does that person serve? Do they serve the interest of the general public, the environment, or do they serve the interests of the oil industry? No doubt about where George Bush was coming from and then when he chose Cheney and Halliburton, hey the dye was cast, the problems were created.
MATTHEWS: Okay thank you very much. I think you put it together. Mr. Papantonio we'll have you back on. I think we have the facts. $34 million bucks in the pocket of Dick Cheney. His regulators and the regulating positions of his own company! Nice deal they got there Dick! Anyway Congressman John Garamendi thank you sir. Thank you Mike Papantonio. Good luck with the suit.
NBC's Today offered a conservative counterpoint on the Elena Kagan nomination on Wednesday: conservative radio talker and author Laura Ingraham. Co-host Meredith Vieira suggested Republicans were hypocrites to suggest Kagan was inexperienced.
The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, has said that her lack of experience to him is troubling. Yet when Harriet Miers was put up for consideration by President Bush five years ago he had no problem with the fact she had never served as a judge. So are Republicans not satisfied with these nominees, their lack of judicial experience only when they're not a Republican nominee? [audio available here]Vieira seemed to be borrowing from the New York Daily News, which tracked down a Sessions statement on Miers from 2005 (but was given no credit by NBC). Vieira didn't seem to consider that the Miers nomination went belly-up, so if Kagan was as qualified as Miers, then perhaps she shouldn't make it to the high court, either. Ingraham answered that Kagan is out of the mainstream:
INGRAHAM: Well I, first of all, I vehemently opposed Harriet Miers for a whole host of reasons. The main thing here is, Barack Obama said he wanted to pick someone who would reflect the values of ordinary Americans. Now all the people watching the Today show across this country, the academic elite, the left wing elite at Harvard University, at Princeton University, they do believe it's okay to kick military recruiters off the Harvard or Princeton campus if, if that was the set of facts. That, that is the mainstream for them but that's not the mainstream for the way most of us value our military, believe in our military and think that they should have access to recruiting students at a place like Harvard, that could serve the country proudly and have served the country proudly over the years. That's not the mainstream and that's not America.Vieira responded in disbelief that Kagan could be classified as "anti-military," and start dragging out the technicalities, that the military wasn't "kicked off campus," just banned from the career office:
VIEIRA: But, Laura in fairness to Kagan, she didn't kick them off the campus.On her radio show later on Wednesday morning, Ingraham revised and extended her remarks. She suggested she could have made her separate-but-equal point another way. If Harvard Law School had decided to deny the NAACP an official space to recruit at their school, would it be criticized as anti-black? If so, how is it not anti-military to ban the military recruiters?
INGRAHAM: Oh, come on.
VIEIRA: She barred them from using the career office for recruiting.
INGRAHAM: Okay, Meredith, remember separate but equal? That was reviled when people were trying to use the separate but equal to say, "Oh as long as black kids are they're, they're taught in a school that, you know, has, is kind of equal to the white kids." That doesn't apply. The military should get preeminent, I think, position at a place like Harvard or any institution.
VIEIRA: Do you believe that she's anti-military Laura? Do you believe she's-
INGRAHAM: I'm sorry?
VIEIRA: Do you believe she's anti-military?
INGRAHAM: I believe that she is of a mindset where individuals believe that it's absolutely okay to diss military recruiters coming on campus. The last time I checked, our military defended the rights of left wing, loopy, [or] conservative, scholars, any one on these campuses to say what ever they want. And to say that somehow they have to be in this other office and they have to play by these other set of rules, when they recruit.
That's just insulting and I think the more people think of that incident, I think the more questions are gonna be raised by, you know, by people that just say, "Look, how is she going to judge on the Court?" If you believe that the Court should be an engine of social, transformational, and radical change, then Elena Kagan is the justice for you.
Now back to where we left off on the Today interview, where it gets a little weird. The Jeff Sessions complaint about Kagan – her very thin record of opinions and writings – then is employed against Ingraham and the Republicans by Vieira:
VIEIRA: You brought up one criticism that you have of her and that raises a problem for the Republicans. She does not have a long history of court opinions or legal briefs. As Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein put it, "There isn't a lot out there to shoot at." Isn't that the biggest problem that Republicans have in dealing with her?Ingraham heard that from former reporter Stuart Taylor on her radio show on Tuesday: he said that if Kagan had failed to ban the military from official buildings over the gay agenda, then she wouldn't have lasted long at Harvard. So then why is Harvard seen as the gold standard of higher education, instead of as a leftist preserve of political correctness? If Harvard won't show respect for the military, why should the country show any respect for Harvard?
INGRAHAM: No I disagree. I think that just because she doesn't have a long paper trail doesn't mean that we don't know who Elena Kagan is. I mean I'm sure she's very affable, she's kind of fun, she's, you know, all those things. Put that aside. Doesn't matter. But we do know-
VIEIRA: She's also very smart, highly educated, considered to be a consensus builder.
INGRAHAM: There are a lot of people who are highly educated who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. I can name about 15 sitting right on this seat. But look the main thing that we know is that she was picked by Barack Obama to be solicitor general. She'd never argued a case before an appellate court. Suddenly she's solicitor general of the United States and she's dean of Harvard Law School. You don't get picked for those things unless people know that you are going to be consistently liberal on major social issues. And that's just the case.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
"Will doing 'big things' wind up costing Obama?" a Wednesday USA Today front page article worried, accompanied by a photo of contemplative President Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln in a painting peering down at him. The caption: "History book bound?" The subhead for the story by Susan Page and Mimi Hall: "Voters' anxiety clouds his historic successes."
The effusive lead presumed Obama deserves credit for great achievements the public has been slow to recognize:
Big problems. Big achievements. Big costs.The duo later declared: "Historians call Obama's record incomparable." And they meant that as a glowing positive. (Larger jpg of the front page headline and photo)
Historians say President Obama's legislative record during a crisis-ridden presidency already puts him in a league with such consequential presidents as Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. But polls show voters aren't totally on board with his achievements, at least not yet, and the White House acknowledges that his victories have carried huge financial and political costs.
"There are always costs in doing big things," Obama told USA Today.
A sidebar featured "Obama's legislative achievements" (hard copy title. In e-Edition: "Achievements for the president."):
- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
- Affordable Health Care for America Act
- The HIRE Act
- Auto companies bailout
- Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
- Omnibus Public Land Management Act
- New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia
- Education overhaul
The May 12 article continued:
Obama's ambitions are on display again this week as he prods the Senate toward passage of the most sweeping financial regulatory change since the aftermath of the Great Depression, a bill that aims to curtail the Wall Street risk-taking that fed the meltdown in 2008. The bill follows a string of laws and regulations that have reshaped the American landscape in fundamental ways: overhauling the health care system, rescuing U.S. automakers, imposing stricter rules on credit card companies, designating more than 2 million acres of public land as protected wilderness, expanding equal-pay protection for women and more.Only after all of that did Page and Hall get to "reaction from the administration's critics" and how "resistance to an expanding government has fueled the conservative 'Tea Party' movement."
"Even if he wasn't African-American, he'd have a considerable entry in the history books," says Princeton professor Fred Greenstein, author of The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says Obama, whose campaign promised big changes after the eight-year tenure of Republican George W. Bush, came into office faced with a crippled economy and two wars. Obama put in place "a set of initiatives and accomplishments that are ... at the scale of the challenges that the country faced," Emanuel said in an interview....
But those people are just confused:
Obama says he understands why many Americans are restless, and why his administration doesn't get more credit.One more bit of gushing:
"There is no doubt there is a mismatch between our accomplishments and the perception, but I think that makes perfect sense because we're going through a very tough time," Obama said in a brief interview. When people are jobless or worried about layoffs, they "aren't interested in abstract comparisons with other presidents."
Historians call Obama's record incomparable.As if that's a good thing. It is, if you are liberal and define success by how much you expand government.
With passage of the $940 billion, 10-year health care bill in March, Obama has pushed through more substantial domestic-policy initiatives in 15 months than most presidents do during their entire tenures, they say.
Earlier:
From November: USA Today Defines Sycophantic Media in Front Page Homage to Obamas— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
From August: USA Today on Obama's Book List: 'Smart' Choices Display His 'Exquisite Taste'
Network Double Standard: Elena Kagan vs. Samuel Alito
As the MRC's Tim Graham documented yesterday, ABC and NBC's morning and evening newscasts have so far refused to tag Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a "liberal," with CBS's Jan Crawford offering the sole ideological label of the nominee on Monday's Evening News: "Her career has put her solidly on the left."
In contrast, all three networks made a major deal out of the last person nominated by a Republican President for a slot on the Court, Justice Samuel Alito. Out of the first 21 stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows after Justice Alito's selection, correspondents conveyed ten explicit "conservative" labels during the first 36 hours of coverage. In contrast, Graham documented just one "liberal" label in 14 Kagan stories during the equivalent time period after her selection.
In Alito's case, the networks began trumpeting ideology from the moment he was picked. Anchor Charles Gibson opened ABC's Special Report announcing Alito's nomination: "He is very conservative. This is a liberal appellate court, but he is the most conservative member on it....The President has picked someone very conservative, but a very accomplished jurist as well."
Over on CBS, correspondent Thalia Assuras began: "Well, this nominee is a conservative that should make conservative Republicans very happy...." After the announcement, correspondent Gloria Borger tweaked: "He may be called 'Scalito' because he's quite conservative, but the conservatives say he is not bombastic like Justice Scalia can sometimes be."
On NBC, Matt Lauer began his network's live coverage: "In just a minute or so, President Bush will nominate conservative appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court." Co-anchor Katie Couric agreed: "Alito is a favorite on the right, and he would replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
Nearly all of the early coverage made Alito's ideology the centerpiece: "This is the candidate conservatives wanted and Democrats feared," ABC's George Stephanopoulos opined on the October 31, 2005 World News Tonight, a few hours after Alito was selected. "Conservatives love him, but some Democrats are already lining up to fight his nomination," NBC's Matt Lauer announced the next morning on Today.
But reporters did more than just note which ideological camps liked and disliked Alito — they saw no problem with affixing the "conservative" label on him themselves:
# ABC World News Tonight, October 31: Anchor Elizabeth Vargas: "He is said to be brilliant and A STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE."—Rich Noyes is Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Reporter Terry Moran: "He quickly established a reputation on the bench as brilliant and deeply CONSERVATIVE."
# CBS Evening News, October 31: Anchor Bob Schieffer: "Conservatives wanted a CONSERVATIVE on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled."
Correspondent John Roberts: "If confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O'Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE direction for years to come."
# NBC Nightly News, October 31: Correspondent Pete Williams: "Alito is considered dependably CONSERVATIVE, though with an independent streak."
Williams, later in the same story: "Perhaps because he and Justice Scalia are both Italian American, Catholic and CONSERVATIVE, he's been nicknamed 'Scalito.'"
# CBS's The Early Show, November 1: Co-host Harry Smith: "A bitter partisan confirmation battle is brewing over President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. We'll speak with members of the Judiciary Committee and take a closer look at the CONSERVATIVE judge."
Reporter Thalia Assuras: "Alito's CONSERVATIVE stance would eliminate the swing vote of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor...."
# NBC's Today, November 1: Co-host Katie Couric: "President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, is known for his solid CONSERVATIVE record and a well-developed sense of humor...."
CBS's Rodriguez Urges John Kerry to Denounce Offshore Oil Drilling
In an interview with Senator John Kerry on Wednesday's CBS Early Show on the Gulf Coast oil spill, co-host Maggie Rodriguez hit from the left on new energy legislation proposed by the Massachusetts Democrat: "correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?"
A CBS News poll flashed on screen showing that only 46% Americans now support offshore oil drilling in the wake of the spill, as opposed to 62% supporting it in 2008. Kerry responded by pointing out that his bill would "actually restrict the current plan of the President" to expand offshore drilling. Rodriguez pressed further: "Are you saying it does not call for expanded offshore drilling?" Kerry reiterated: "I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan."
Kerry began the interview by touting his desire to restrict oil production: "we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel....The importance is now to move to the new economy." Apparently anything short of an all out ban on offshore drilling was not enough for Rodriguez.
Later in the segment, spurred by Rodriguez, Kerry proclaimed: "we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden....it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place."
On the April 1 Early Show, after the Obama administration first outlined a plan to expand offshore drilling, Rodriguez warned: "President Obama's controversial offshore drilling proposal is making big waves. Critics say the risks are obvious, but not the rewards." She later fretted that Obama was enacting the policy "at the risk of alienating his Democratic base."
Here is a full transcript of the interview:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us from Washington, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry, good morning. JOHN KERRY: Good morning to you.—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
RODRIGUEZ: As we've just heard, BP keeps trying, and so far failing, to contain all these oil leaks. How can our government, how can you assure the American people that everything necessary will be done to make sure this doesn't happen again?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Blame Game; Sen. Kerry on Oil Spill Finger-Pointing]
KERRY: Well, it's going to be. We're – Senator Lieberman and I – are introducing legislation today called the American Power Act, which is a major shift in America's energy policy. What this spill in the Gulf tells us, above all, is that we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel.
The importance is now to move to the new economy, the new – the new energy economy, if you will, where we're producing our energy at home. We're producing green energy. We're producing clean energy. Energy which can't ultimately have the kind of problem that we had in the Gulf. But we also, we know we're going to continue to drill for some period of time, so we have to make certain we know exactly what happened in the Gulf, and that we have the ability to prevent that from ever happening again.
Most importantly, we need to get in to the global marketplace and compete with China, with India, with Mexico, Brazil, other countries. America's falling behind. We want America to be number one in clean energy power production. We can reduce pollution, create jobs, and restore our energy independence, and that's the direction we have to move in.
RODRIGUEZ: But Senator Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?
[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC OF CBS NEWS POLL: Increase Offshore Drilling; Now: 46%; 2008: 62%]
KERRY: That's not what we do. We actually restrict the current plan of the President. We give states greater power, and say, over their future, we give them a choice-
RODRIGUEZ: Are you saying it does not-
KERRY: -as to what will happen.
RODRIGUEZ: -call for expanded offshore drilling?
KERRY: I'm saying that it restricts – I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan. That is exactly what I am saying. It gives states greater power to be able to make a choice about what will happen in the future in terms of drilling. And in addition to that, it places a moratorium on current drilling until we know what happened in the Gulf, and then we proceed forward.
But, look, we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden. Americans drive their cars every day. We heat our homes. We do things with this oil. And it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place. The American Power Act, which will move us to a new energy economy, where we're producing clean energy, a broader array of energy options for the country, so we could have clean energy produced in one part of the country, transferred to another part of the country. All of that is going to take time. And we are putting in place the mechanism so we can reduce pollution, clean up our air and our water, create jobs here at home, and increase America's energy independence, thereby strengthening our national security. That's exactly what our bill does today.
RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Senator John Kerry, thank you so much for your time.
KERRY: Thank you.
CBS Review of Russell Crowe Film: 'Robin Hood Meets Che Guevara'
On CBS's Sunday Morning, correspondent Dean Reynolds described the latest adaptation of the Robin Hood legend by director Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe: "And so here is an evil King John, squeezing his subjects for more taxes....And here is Robin. Not as a thief, but as a revolutionary figure trying to limit the King's power. Robin Hood meets Che Guevara." [Audio available here]
Protesting high taxes and wanting to limit government power is the equivalent of a communist revolution? Sounds more like the tea party movement.
After making that bizarre comparison, Reynolds further explained the plot of the new film: "This Robin joins the fight to get the English king to sign the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the document establishing the first rights on which modern democracies are based." Guevara, of course, was the ruthless henchman of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, hardly an advocate for democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)