<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>Media Matters - Tony Blankley</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/tools/syndication/tag_rss/tony_blankley</link>
<description>This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve Media Matters items matching the term: Tony Blankley</description>
<language>en-US</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America</copyright>

<item>
<title>Blankley criticized too little, then too much media scrutiny of Biden&#x27;s Obama remark</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020010</link>
<description>A &#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x3C;em&#x3E; Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; editorial criticized the
media&#x27;s coverage of recent remarks by Sen. Joe Biden, saying they were
&#x22;the focus of the media&#x27;s racial-insensitivity microscope.&#x22; But
less than two days earlier, &#x3C;em&#x3E;Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E;
editorial page editor Tony Blankley had asserted that Biden was &#x22;getting,
more or less, a pass from the mainstream media&#x22; on his comments.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020010</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:58:34 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blankley contended Biden got &#x22;a pass&#x22; from media on story that broke hours earlier</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020004</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200702020004</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:16:56 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blankley falsely claimed entire Contract with America was considered under &#x22;open rules&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050008</link>
<description>On &#x3C;em&#x3E;Hardball&#x3C;/em&#x3E;,
Tony Blankley falsely claimed that Republicans had considered the entire
&#x22;Contract with America&#x22; under &#x22;open rules.&#x22; In fact, several bills related to the Contract with America
were considered under rules that limited the amendments that could be offered.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050008</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:13:46 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Matthews: Gore is &#x22;the Hindenburg&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220002</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220002</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:27:53 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Media&#x27;s latest anti-Hillary narrative: Ruthless Clinton machine to attempt to destroy Obama</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200612190010</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200612190010</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:50:57 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>On MSNBC, Blankley and Jacobus promoted myth of apolitical Bush on Iraq</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150008</link>
<description>On MSNBC, Tony Blankley claimed that President Bush
&#x22;doesn&#x27;t have much of a political view&#x22; of Iraq. &#x22;He
is now looking at the policy ... and he&#x27;s going to decide what to
decide on a policy basis.&#x22; Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus repeated
the claim by Bush supporters that he &#x22;has always been pretty good [at]
not conducting his job based on the polls, even if a lot of the people around
him wanted to.&#x22;

&#x3C;br /&#x3E;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150008</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:49:46 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blankley charge of Clinton vendetta in Gingrich tax probe unsupported by facts</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200612070001</link>
<description>&#x3C;em&#x3E;The Washington Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27; Tony Blankley claimed that an investigation into
Newt Gingrich&#x27;s possible tax violations was the result of the Clintons&#x27; &#x22;policy
of personal destruction.&#x22; In fact, months before the Internal Revenue
Service audit was reported, the House ethics committee voted unanimously to
launch an investigation. The ethics committee ultimately voted
7-1 to recommend that the House impose a fine of $300,000 on Gingrich and reprimand him.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200612070001</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Dec 2006 20:09:44 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Gender stereotypes and discussions of Armani suits dominate media&#x27;s coverage of Speaker-elect Pelosi</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200611210002</link>
<description>Since the Democratic Party won control of both the
House and the Senate, the media have focused on such issues as Pelosi&#x27;s
choice of attire and whether being female will affect her ability to lead. MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer
wondered if Pelosi&#x27;s &#x22;personal feelings [were] getting in the way
of effective leadership&#x22; -- a problem she suggested would not surface in
&#x22;men-run leadership posts&#x22; -- and whether men were &#x22;more
capable of taking personality clashes.&#x22;

&#x3C;br /&#x3E;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200611210002</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:12:02 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defending Allen&#x27;s &#x22;macaca&#x22; remarks, Blankley claimed: &#x22;In Italian ... it means a clown&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200608250001</link>
<description>On &#x3C;em&#x3E;Hardball&#x3C;/em&#x3E;, &#x3C;em&#x3E;The Washington Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27; Tony Blankley stated that the word &#x22;macaca,&#x22; &#x22;[i]n Italian, I&#x27;m told, it means a clown.&#x22; The term was twice used by Sen. George Allen to refer to S.R. Sidarth, a volunteer with the campaign of Allen&#x27;s Democratic Senate challenger Jim Webb.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200608250001</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:48:55 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blankley declared Haditha allegations a &#x22;blood libel ... against the military services and against the country,&#x22; over-reported by &#x22;gleeful media&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200606060003</link>
<description>Tony Blankley said that the reporting of the alleged massacre by U.S. troops of civilians in Haditha &#x22;is already being used by the opponents of the president&#x22; as a &#x22;blood libel,&#x22; a term that has most frequently been used to accuse Jews of murdering non-Jews, especially children, and using their blood to make Passover matzoh, and that &#x22;the over-reporting of it by a gleeful media is more damaging to the country than any other single fact.&#x22;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200606060003</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:17:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blankley claimed &#x22;strong evidence&#x22; of a &#x22;cabal&#x22; of generals retiring in sequence and criticizing Rumsfeld</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200604180006</link>
<description>In his &#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; column, Tony Blankley stated that there is &#x22;strong evidence&#x22; of a secret agreement between active-duty generals to retire in succession and then speak out against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In fact, Blankley&#x27;s only evidence is a &#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington Post&#x3C;/em&#x3E; column by former Clinton ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, who wrote that he expected more generals to speak out. According to Blankley: &#x22;Mr. Holbrook [sic] is at the least very well informed if he is not himself part of this military cabal intended to &#x27;consume ... Donald Rumsfeld.&#x27; &#x22;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200604180006</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:28:05 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blankley: Democrats &#x22;believe in water torture for the president&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200603150007</link>
<description>In a &#x3C;em&#x3E;Washington Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E; column, Tony Blankley claimed that Democrats are using &#x22;the old Chinese water torture&#x22; on President Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance by &#x22;dragging out&#x22; the issue for &#x22;months and months,&#x22; even as those &#x22;same senators ... oppose similar water-related interrogation techniques when used on captured enemy terrorists.&#x22; He added: &#x22;But then I suppose the president is not covered by what [right-wing radio host] Michael Savage calls the Democratic Party&#x27;s &#x27;Terrorist Bill of Rights.&#x27; &#x22;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200603150007</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:55:53 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Without actually viewing polls on impeachment, Blankley &#x22;would guess that something less than 10 percent&#x22; of Americans would support impeachment</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200602020005</link>
<description>After admitting he had not seen any polls on public support for the impeachment of President Bush, &#x3C;em&#x3E;The Washington Times&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27; Tony Blankley nonetheless suggested that &#x22;something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing&#x22; impeachment proceedings brought against Bush. In fact, two recent Zogby polls have found that a majority of Americans think Congress should consider impeaching the president.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200602020005</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:59:39 EST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>