We noted earlier that the news crew at ABC dashed to post a bulletin about how right-wing talker Sean Hannity hated Obama's Muslim speech today. Because at ABC, Hannity's important and insightful.
A couple hours later here's how the Note summed up the reaction to Obama's speech:
The instant reaction from Sean Hannity, to ABC's Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America": "This is an extension of what has become an apology tour, that America is an arrogant country," Hannity said.
"There are a lot of questions about what his real motivations are here, but it seemed like a political speech to me."
The instant reaction from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, per ABC's Jake Tapper: It was a "wonderful speech," she said. "He set forth a clear challenge to us and all in the world who share [our] hope for peace and security. . . . Now we have to get to work to translate that into concrete action."
At ABC News, Sean Hannity's reaction to a foreign policy speech is on par with the reaction of the United States' Secretary of State.
Behold your liberal media at work.
As in the chron below from Tuesday's Sotomayor report: "GINGRICH REGRETS CALLING HER "RACIST"
Yes, in his online post Gingrich did walk back his "racist" claim, but he never expressed any kind of regret for calling the Supreme Court nominee a racist. In fact, Gingrich seemed to go out of his way not to apologize for making the incendiary, personal attack. Yet there was CNN yesterday, rushing to tell viewers that Gingrich had apologized; that he had expressed "regret."
UPDATE: ABC's The Note also claimed that Gingrich offered up an "apology." I could probably find three dozen more examples of flat-out false reporting like that. Why? Because the Beltway press wants to tell a certain tale, even if it's not true.
From Coulter's June 3 syndicated column:
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion - which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life - and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller - only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
If we've confirmed anything this week about the GOP Noise Machine it's that its members' heads pretty much explode at the mere mention of Islam or Muslims in the context of the Obama president. It simply releases the inner loon in all the right-wing players. Unhinged barely begins to describe their mostly comical/hysterical reactions.
We saw it when Obama pointed out to a reporter this week that the United States played home to lots of Muslims, and we've seen the raging undercurrent throughout its collective meltdown over the president's trip to the Middle East.
The sheer xenophobia though, and the blatant disdain for all things Islamic and Arabic, doesn't get much more transparent that this kooky blog post at the Weekly Standard in response to Obama's two-syllable response to the king of Saudi Arabia: "Shukrun," which is Arabic for thank you.
Do we even have to tell you where this spooky Arabic discussion immediately went? From the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, under the conspiratorial headline "Does Obama Speak Arabic?":
Obama has said before that he speaks "barely passable Spanish" and "a smattering of Swahili," as well as some Bahasa from his youth in Indonesia. But Obama has at other times denied speaking a foreign language, saying in July of last year, "I don't speak a foreign language. It's embarrassing!"...One wonders if the president hasn't been concealing some greater fluency with the language of the Koran. "
Goldfarb does his best to raise doubts about whether or not Obama secretly speaks Arabic, noting that while in Saudi Arabia he spoke "a little" Arabic.
To recap, Obama uttered "shukrun" in public, but at the Arab-hating Weekly Standard that set off all kinds of alarms bells.
Now, if Goldfarb can just locate Obama's real birth certificate...
UPDATE: Ben Smith at Politico also pretended Obama's "shukrun" was a big deal; that perhaps we're seeing the real Obama now that he's off the campaign trail:
And the remarks before his meeting with King Abdullah, distributed just now by the White House, offer one more thing he wouldn't have done on the trail: Say 'thank you' in Arabic.
Right, because how many Arab heads of state did Obama meet with while campaigning for president in 2008? Oh yeah, none.
From a June 4 op-ed in The Washington Post by Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York:
Let's face it: Bill O'Reilly is not only aware of his power and his reach, he's damn proud of them.
So I went on his show, time and again, even though many other progressives discouraged me. I went because I know what O'Reilly knows: It's the most-watched show, and I thought it was imperative that his audience also hear our viewpoint.
I also know that when you have a bully pulpit, you need to be held accountable for what you preach.
O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.
You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.
O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.
Perfectly capturing the mindset of our 'liberal media', which treats right-wing hate radio hosts as being deeply insightful and important, ABC's The Note posts this news bulletin:
ABC News' Rick Klein reports: Conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity today called President Obama's speech in Cairo part of "an apology tour" that conveys a sense that America has been "arrogant."
BTW, The Note offered no context, rebuttal or fact-checking in its Hannity report. It was just Stenography 101.
UPDATED: See more, here.
From a prepared statement issued by New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin to TPM Media:
Boy did I touch the third rail! My off-handed comment was admittedly flip. I apologize for that. It was meant to provoke a conversation.
I did not mean to suggest that there are literally no successful companies that employ union workers. Of course there are! Your readers have provided a good list (though I might quibble with some of the names.)
I made the unscripted comment with my financial columnist hat on in the context of the problems at GM. That's what the discussion was about on the program. And when you look at some of the once great iconic American industries that have faltered -- automobiles, airlines, steel, apparel, etc -- there is a fair question worth asking about whether those industries were helped or hurt by their unions. But let's leave that debate for another day.
The press continues to give conservatives a free ride with their attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor by failing to point out that the conservative opposition to her nomination has virtually nothing to do with her legal opinions. The conservative movement is now unleashing a general interest smear campaign, while the press remains mum and pretends it's still about the law.
The latest Politico installment comes from this article:
Lindsey Graham: Sotomayor has 'character' problem
The South Carolina Republican senator indicated today he will likely not vote for Sotomayor's confirmation. Why? Because of her "ideology," because of her "temperament," and because of her "character." Note what Graham did not address in his very public attack on Sotomayor: her legal writings. (At least Politico made no reference to it in the article.)
For decades the ground rules for Supreme Court nominations were simple. If the party out of power thought the nominee was not sufficiently qualified for the Supreme Court, that the nominee did not have enough experience or was not being forthcoming about his/her judicial philosophy, than some members opposed the nominee.
With Sotomayor, conservatives aren't even bothering to question her legal resume or her legal writings. They're simply attacking her "character," and the press doesn't say boo.