From a January 10 NewsBusters post:
Less than a year ago, ABC global-warmist weatherman Sam Champion was warning people against moving to Florida because of the supposed danger of disastrous sea-level rises due to global warming. Maybe Sam was on to something-but for the diametrically opposite reason . . .
Check out the Weather Channel's forecast for the town of "Frostproof, Florida" for tonight: 22 degrees-a full 10 degrees below freezing. Yikes! Maybe Sam's right: a mistake to move to Florida because the climate is . . . just too darn cold.
Hey Algore: we want our global warming, and we want it now. Has anyone noticed near the MSM attention to the weather trends that might be derived from the current cold snap compared to the hysteria they exhibited when temps get above normal?
PS: here in my hometown of Ithaca, NY, it was below zero this morning. Not unusual, but the mercury hasn't gotten above freezing in going on three weeks.
How else would you explain the newspaper's decision to go A1 with the blip-of-a-story about Harry's Reid Saturday apology for "for once predicting that Barack Obama could become the country's first black president because he was "light-skinned" and had "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." The quotes are reported in a new book about the 2008 campaign.
I say "blip" because Reid quickly apologized and Obama just as quickly accepted the apology, "without question." That's it. That's the extent of the story. (The WashPost wisely put the Reid story on A3.) The Times article contained no indication there would be any further political fall out. Meaning, no fellow Democrats criticized Reid, nor did any African-American leaders.
So yeah, please explain to me how this is A1 material. I realize the Times piece claimed that the old Reid quotes had "set off something of a political furor for Mr. Reid." But the newspaper completely failed to detail or prove that any kind of "furor" had actually been set off.
And BTW, I loved the fact that the Times blew the Reid story out of proportion on the same A1 today that included a lengthy tribute to Fox News chief Roger Ailes, and how powerful and savvy and super-smart he is.
I just wish the Times newsroom would stop being so darn liberal!
UPDATED: I see the GOP is trying to score political points by attacking Reid for his comments. It's interesting that the GOP didn't really mount an offensive until after the Times put the story on A1.
Greg Sargent gets a comment from Jay Carney, Vice President Biden's communications director, about a new book's claims that Biden and President Obama had a strained relationship:
We aren't going to comment on rehashed rumors about the campaign. But I can say that if the authors were concerned with accuracy they might have checked their reporting with people on the Vice President's staff. They did not. I can also say that the President and Vice President have worked together very closely and successfully this past year.
It's worth keeping in mind that the book in question is co-authored by Mark Halperin, an editor-at-large at Time magazine -- where he worked with Carney, who served as Time's Washington bureau chief before going to work for Biden.
Also worth keeping in mind: concern for accuracy is not among Halperin's strong points:
Halperin says (repeatedly) that President Obama was the one who failed to seek bipartisan agreement. That is the exact opposite of what happened. This is not a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of clear facts. The Republican proposal consisted entirely of tax cuts. That happened. It's a fact. The Democratic stimulus package included a mix of tax cuts and spending. That happened. It's a fact. When Mark Halperin says it was Obama and the Democrats who refused to seek bipartisan agreement, he is demonstrating that he is either so woefully uninformed about basic facts or so blatantly dishonest that, in either case, he cannot be taken seriously.
If you were a reporter, and you were typing up RNC chairman Michael Steele's call for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's resignation over a racially-insensitive remark, would you maybe find room to mention that just a few days ago, Steele used the phrase "honest injun"?
If so, that's another difference between you and the good folks at The Politico.
Politico quotes Steele blasting Reid for having an "old mindset" and "using language ... That harkens back to the 1950s." That might have been a good place to insert a line about Steele's use of "honest injun," don't you think?
Incredibly, Politico's write-up of Steele's call for Reid's resignation includes this passage:
"When Democrats get caught saying racist things, an apology is enough," Steele said on "Meet the Press."
"There has to be a consequence here if the standard is the one that was set in 2002 by Trent Lott."
Even while quoting Michael Steele claiming a pro-Democrat double-standard when it comes to racially-insensitive language, Politico doesn't mention Steele's own insensitive comment, which is less than a week old.
UPDATE: Rather than challenging Steele's assertion of a double-standard by pointing out his own comments, Politico echoes it on their front page:
UPDATE 2: Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza does the same thing:
Steele calls on Reid to resign
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) should resign from office after acknowledging that he had described President Obama as "light skinned" and possessing no "Negro dialect" in a conversation with reporters.
"There is this standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own," said Steele in an interview with "Fox News Sunday. "But if it comes from anyone else, it is racism."
Like Politico, Cillizza doesn't bother to mention Steele's own controversial comment, made less than a week ago.
UPDATE 3: During Steele's appearance on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked him about the "honest injun" comment. That's right -- Politico and Cillizza offered less scrutiny of RNC chairman Michael Steele than did Fox News.
To date, the answer continues to be "no."
The Beltway press still refuses to raise questions about Palin's decision to attend the first annual Tea Party convention in Nashville next month and share the stage with a fringe radical like Joseph Farah, who is an avowed gay and Muslim-hating extremist, and whose wingnut publication, WND, remains obsessed with the loony, and thoroughly debunked, conspiracy claim that Obama was not born in America.
Naturally, Farah and WND are thrilled by the upcoming Palin appearance and are trumpeting the "Palin-Farah ticket." And typically when high-profile politicians align themselves with fringe radicals, media unpleasantness ensures. But so far, it's crickets from the press.
Just look at this lengthy Politico article headlined, "Palin's tea party raises eyebrows." It completely ignores the thorny question of Palin teaming up with a loon like Farah. For Politico, that issue's a non-starter. But trust me, if a very high-profile Democrat ever agreed to share a platform with the left-wing radical equivalent of Farah (if that person even existed), all hell would break loose in the press.
Another week, another WSJ column from Noonan harping on how unpopular Obama is. This, of course, from a women who worked as a Ronald Reagan's speechwriter and who knows fully well how in his second year in office Reagan bottomed out with a dismal 35% approval rating. But Noonan now plays wistfully dumb about the past and pretends that Obama's 50-ish approval ratings is cause for grave concern. It's deeply troubling.
Worse, this week Noonan just makes stuff up [emphasis added]:
A president in those circumstances must use all the goodwill he's built up over the months and years to get through that moment and survive doing what he thinks is right. Mr. Obama acts as if he doesn't know this. He hasn't built up popularity to use on a rainy day. If he had, he'd be getting through the Christmas plot drama better than he is.
That's part of an extended Noonan riff on Obama's popularity, so I'm assuming that Noonan's suggesting Obama's took a hit in the polls after the attempted terror attack from Christmas Day. That's what the "better than he is" means.
Well guess what? According to Gallup, Obama's job approval rating hasn't budged since Christmas Day. Which means that despite all the GOP Noise Machine caterwauling and its unprecedented attempted to immediately score political points off an attempted terror attack, the American public don't seem to be buying the blame game.
The truth is, despite the constant media chatter about Obama's supposedly falling approval numbers, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll, the president's rating has remained essentially unchanged since mid-August. Meaning, there has been no huge downward movement in the polls in recent weeks or months. But boy, the press sure loves to push that imaginary claim.
UPDATED: I chuckled when i read this Noonan passage:
If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you with a certain . . . not disdain but patience, as if you don't understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice.
Raise your hand if you think Noonan made this up. Meaning, raise your hand if you don't believe that Noonan, a professional partisan and dependable dispenser of GOP talking points, spends any time talking to "Obama staffers."
Yeah, me neither.
In a January 8 Politico article, Kenneth Vogel writes:
No one has been less forgiving than Glenn Beck when it comes to Democrats with tax problems. Not just the well-known ones like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, but less serious ones such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, whose husband only recently paid off $6,400 in tax liens on his auto repair business, and Nancy Killefer, who withdrew her nomination to be White House chief performance officer, citing a $946.69 tax lien on her Washington home.
Their tax issues are just one indicator of "a culture of corruption among some of the left," Beck declared just last month in a segment on his hugely popular Fox News television show, in which he branded Geithner, Killefer, Solis and a handful of other Obama nominees "tax cheats," whom he wouldn't trust "with my children, let alone my children's future."
Mocking the excuses offered by the nominees, Beck sarcastically intoned "Oh, the tax thing, it was an accident. It was my husband's fault. I didn't do it, he did it. I didn't mean to do it. I was just working hard for the people."
So what to make, then, of the fact that Beck has had his own minor tax problems over the past few years?
Vogel goes on to write that Beck's production company, Mercury Radio Arts, "has at times struggled to keep up with the heightened tax and filing demands accompanying his success."
In October 2007, New York City issued a tax warrant against Mercury Radio Arts, indicating that the company had been penalized $10,927.49 for overdue 2006 general corporation taxes, and still owed $7,111.03, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.
The source with knowledge of the situation explained the issue "arose during the process of the company's transition from Philadelphia to New York" in 2006 - after Beck began hosting a daily news and commentary television show on CNN's Headline News - and was "immediately addressed." Two weeks after the warrant was issued, New York City released it, indicating in a filing obtained by POLITICO that the debt was satisfied.
The source said Mercury's relocation also resulted in confusion over the company's unemployment insurance, culminating in the New York State Workers Compensation Board in July 2007 issuing a judgment obtained by POLITICO assessing an $8,250 fine against Mercury for failure to carry workers' compensation insurance from March 31, 2006 through February 25, 2007.
But, less than three months later, the board issued a notice indicating that the "judgment has been fully satisfied." And board spokesman Brian Keegan explained that the board rescinded the penalty after determining that Mercury had carried the appropriate insurance since it began doing business in New York in 2005 and that Mercury's insurance carrier had merely failed to submit proof of coverage to the board.
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his January 8 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Politico's front page:
UPDATE: The Politico article describes how both Democrats and Republicans are approaching potential Congressional hearings about the Christmas day attempt to bring down a plane. But Politico described only the Democrats as "plot[ting]"; no such loaded phrasing was attached to the GOP.
WorldNetDaily has not taken Glenn Beck's mocking of birthers well -- birtherism, after all, has been WND's raison d'etre for a good year and a half.
WND's first response was a "news" article that aimed to set him straight on what birthers believe (with an accompanying opt-in poll headlined "Arguing With Idiot"), insisting that birthers "reflect a far greater diversity of opinion than is assumed by Beck's characterization." This was followed by an article by Jerome Corsi insisting that, contrary to Beck's idea that birthers believe "a wild conspiracy in which Obama's parents, knowing he would someday be president, 'preemptively' collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii," the real truth is that "the birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii."
Note the word "might" in there. That's a major clue that WND's birther conspiracy hinges on what might be the truth -- that shadowy area where conspiracy theorists like Corsi do their work -- not what actually is the truth.
Corsi also repeats the claim that "even the Hawaii state government refused to accept a short-form COLB [certification of live birth] as proof of a Hawaiian birth required for eligibility in state programs," citing as an example the state's Home Lands program. But given that the Home Lands program is open only to people of "native Hawaiian" ancestry -- something Obama has never claimed to be -- the question of whether Obama's COLB is sufficient proof for it is irrelevant.
WND then brought in the heavy artillery -- Alan Keyes.
In his January 8 column (yes, he's a regular WND columnist), Keyes questioned Beck's constitutional bona fides, claiming that "he apparently fails to appreciate the real issue raised by the controversy over Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency" and that he "simply parrots the mad-stream media's malicious caricature of the eligibility issue." Keyes also claims that Beck's words "carry overtones of the notion that the Constitution is a 'living document,' to be shaped and reshaped in light of the trendy preoccupations and priorities of the moment." (Actually, the opposite is true -- Beck has touted a book claiming that the "living Constitution" idea "is so alien to the constitutionalism of the American Founders.")
All this is targeted, by the way, at someone who just a week earlier received honorable mention in WND's "person of the year" competition.
While we're as entertained by intramural battles over conspiracy theories as much as the next person, it's important to note that Beck has previously had no problem embracing claims propagated by WND.
Chief among them is the conspiracy theory that Obama wants to create a "civilian national security force" that would serve as a personal army -- a WND favorite. There's also the false claim that Anita Dunn asserted she controlled the media while communications chief for Obama's presidential campaign, as well as the witch hunt against Van Jones (WND has touted how Beck "picked up WND's reporting" on Jones).
Just because Beck is trying to distance himself from the birthers doesn't mean he's keeping the crazies at WND at arm's length. As soon as one or the other forwards a new smear that fits their mutual goal of taking down the Obama administration, it will be dutifully echoed, and they will be BFFs once again.