It snowed in Moscow -- Moscow, mind you, not Havana -- and so National Review's Greg Pollowitz was compelled to make a crack about global warming:
I can only assume conservative journalists are compelled to take some sort of oath never to let facts or science get in the way of a bad joke.
UPDATE: A reminder:
Bill Hemmer, the anchor of Fox News' America's Newsroom, claims in a TVNewser interview that Fox News' "opinion" programs don't bleed into his "news" program:
TVNEWSER: The evening opinion hosts get a lot of press and a lot of attention ... I'm kind of wondering, do you think that there's any sort of effect on the news reporters and anchors?
HEMMER: I hope not. You wonder if some of that bleeds over into other areas. In our case, it does not. On our broadcast, with Martha MacCallum and me, we shoot it down the middle at 9am and for the next several hours after that.
From the Media Matters archive of America's Newsroom:
And finally, a picture example of America's Newsroom shooting "it down the middle":
Fellow Fox "straight news" anchor Jon Scott -- when he's not cut and pasting GOP research as own or repeating fake stories that have already been retracted -- has also defended the integrity of the channel's news hours.
UPDATE: Seriously, where would anyone get the idea that the "opinion" shows bleed into the "news" programs?
(3/13/09; 1/12/09; 2/2/09; 3/13/09; 6/9/09)
Is anybody on the far-right end of the Internets going to stick up for poor Andrew Breitbart now that it's been revealed that he and his ACORN pals, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, perpetrated a hoax by suggesting O'Keefe was dressed as an outlandish pimp during his undercover ACORN sting last summer?
Usually, regardless of the facts, the right-wing blogosphere will defend any online ally. Since Media Matters helped draw the curtain back on the story, it's been mostly crickets from GOP bloggers. (And that includes Breitbart's own sites, which have not bothered to mount any kind of defense.) Not even Breitbart's gay-bashing buddy Jim Hoft, at the often fact-free Gateway Pundit site, has bothered to try to defend the pimp hoax.
And let me tell you, as a conservative you know you're in trouble when even Gateway Pundit won't make stuff up on your behalf.
UPDATED: Alas, good ole Patterico, last seen failing miserably to fact-check my work, has weighed in with a defense of Breitbart. Actually, that's not true. Patterico makes virtually no attempt to defend Breitbart. He does, however, try to defend Hannah Giles.
But, as has becomes his custom, Patterico's very, very angry effort is a complete mess. (He attacks me for writing something I didn't write. Genius!) In fact, it's already been debunked by his own readers.
But hey, at least Patterico tried, which is more than I can say for the rest of the right-wing blogosphere.
Want to see a neat trick?
As we've documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The "nuclear option" was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.
Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation - notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren't quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly "dirty" process when they used it to pass President Bush's tax cuts. Multiple times.
To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.
Here's how the trick works:
Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:"Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." You can probably guess where this is going.
In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the "nuclear option" in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.
This is absurd.
The Democrats in the video are railing against the "nuclear option" as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video "laughable" and "unbelievable." I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.
To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of "deficits" to mean "freedom," then put together a reel of conservatives attacking "freedom."
It would be about as honest.
Yesterday, I noted that former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, in his current gig as a columnist for the Washington Post, crossed the line between making an argument and arguing dishonestly. Today, another Bush-speechwriter-turned-Post-columnist, Michael Gerson, followed in Thiessen's footsteps.
a reconciliation strategy would both insult House and Senate Republicans and motivate them for future fights. The minority would not only be defeated on health reform but its rights would be permanently diminished -- a development that would certainly be turned against Democrats when they lose their majority.
But Gerson includes no explanation of how the use of reconciliation would "insult" Republicans, much less how it would cause the rights of the minority to be "permanently diminished."
This is because there can be no such explanation. See, reconciliation has been used in the past, by Democrats and by Republicans. It has been used for health care. It has been used for health care by Republicans to enact the agenda of a Republican president for whom Michael Gerson worked at the time.
Let me say that again: Reconciliation was used to enact changes to health care laws when Michael Gerson was writing speeches for President George W. Bush. For Gerson to now assert that using reconciliation to pass changes to health care laws would "insult" congressional Republicans and diminish their rights is simply not honest.
Following is a list of criticism of Democrats by Republicans that is included in the Washington Post's article about the GOP's strategy for tomorrow's health care summit:
And here are the Democratic responses to those criticisms the Post included:
Finally, here are the criticisms of Republicans by Democrats that the Post included:
Today's Washington Post flashes back to the mid-1990s with opinion pieces by Haley Barbour and Newt Gingrich:
Gingrich's piece attacks Democratic health care proposals -- no surprise there -- while identifying Gingrich as "the founder of the Center for Health Transformation." But the Post left out an important fact: the Center for Health Transformation is funded by insurance companies, as Media Matters has detailed:
Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation receives annual membership fees from insurance groups. According to the center's website, members pay tiered annual membership fees, providing varying degrees of "[a]ccess to Newt Gingrich on your company's strategy," among other benefits. Insurance groups UnitedHealth Group -- the parent of UnitedHealthcare -- and WellPoint Inc. are listed as "Charter" members; BlueCross BlueShield Association is listed as a "Platinum" member; and the industry's trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans, is listed as a "Premier" member.
UPDATE: in his column today, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz quotes Glenn Greenwald taking the New York Times to task for running an op-ed by Lara M. Dadkhah without disclosing that she works for Booz Allen, a defense contractor that could benefit from Dadkhah's policy proposals. What are the chances that tomorrow Kurtz will note the Washington Post's decision to run a piece by Newt Gingrich attacking Democratic health care reform proposals without noting that he runs an organization funded by insurance companies? One percent? Two? Remember, Kurtz insists he is as "aggressive" toward The Washington Post as he is towards news organizations -- like, say, the New York Times -- that don't pay his salary.
Here's the DC headline:
Presidential approval ratings dip to all-time low as Obama moves to sell health care
Well, that doesn't sound good for Obama. The Daily Caller's proof? Rasmussen (surprise!), and some survey that only polled Iowa independents. No joke:
A new poll from Iowa-based Selzer and Company shows that since November, Obama's approval rating among Iowa independents dropped sharply from 48 to 38 percent — reaching its lowest level yet.
Similarly, Rasmussen Reports' latest release of its nightly automated tracking poll yesterday showed that the number of people who "strongly approve" of the president's performance reached an all-time low of 22 percent, down from a high of 45 at the beginning of his presidency.
Conservatives, as well as mainstream journalists, love to push the idea that Obama's polling numbers are in the tank and that he's fading fast. (I think at this point Peggy Noonan dreams about Obama's supposedly dreadful approval rating.) It's all part of the preferred narrative that the presidency is slipping away from Obama, etc. etc.
But here's the truth about Obama's job approval ratings. If you look at Gallup, the polling gold standard, the president's approval rating has remained essentially unchanged since August. That's right, over the the past six months, Obama's poll numbers have not budged.
But that's not a tale the press wants to tell.
UPDATED: Right on cue comes Rush Limbaugh:
If Mr. Obama hasn't noticed, his approval numbers are in a free fall.
From the February 24 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
From Michael Gerson's February 24 Washington Post column headlined: "Obama's health reform gamble raises questions of judgment":
On health-care reform, the strategy of President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders is psychologically understandable -- as well as delusional.
It is easy to imagine the internal dialogue: "Well, they voted for me, overwhelmingly. I didn't hide my views on this issue; I highlighted them. If they actually knew what was in the plan, they'd support it. If I don't believe in this, I don't believe in anything. Sometimes you just have to lead." But there is a problem with this reasoning: After a year of debate, Democratic leaders -- given every communications advantage and decisive control of every elected branch of government -- have not only lost legislative momentum, they have lost a national argument. Americans have taken every opportunity -- the town hall revolt, increasingly lopsided polling, a series of upset elections culminating in Massachusetts -- to shout their second thoughts. At this point, for Democratic leaders to insist on their current approach is to insist that Americans are not only misinformed but also dimwitted.
And the proposed form of this insistence -- enacting health reform through the quick, dirty shove of the reconciliation process -- would add coercion to arrogance. Majority Leader Harry Reid has declared that "everything is on the table" -- as though Senate Republicans and Democratic moderates were the domestic equivalents of Iran. This is the political context that Democratic leaders have set for their historically "transparent" health summit -- a threat as transparent as a horse's head in a senator's bed.