Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1878)
Is Justice Breyer Really Dumb About Tools?

A classic form of media bias is this: if someone the liberal media considers to be a dummy (Sarah Palin, or for an older example, Dan Quayle) says something that suggests serious confusion, it's a big gaffe story sent directly to the desks of Leno and Letterman. But if we put the same words in the mouth of say, a liberal Supreme Court justice the media considers a genius, then no one blinks. At National Review's Bench Memos, Matthew Franck offered an example:

Continue reading …
Fifty Years On – The JFK Inaugural – January 20, 1961

enlarge Credit: Life Magazine JFK – January 20, 1961 – gazing at the New Frontier. Click here to view this media Fifty years ago this day (in case you haven’t already heard about it), John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as the 35th President of The United States. From my liner notes on the Great Speeches Of The 20th Century Box: “He was the youngest President. He came at a time when the Cold War had reached a fevered pitch. He spoke of “new frontiers” and the renewed faith in the American Dream. When John Fitzgerald Kennedy took the oath of office that, brisk, snow-dusted January morning in 1961, he captured the imagination of the youth of America. Kennedy spoke of the commitment to change, the possibilities of a world in peace, the idea that we shouldn’t ask what our country should do for us, rather what we should do for our country. It was the beginning of a time we would come to know as Camelot.”

Continue reading …

As pointed out by one of the victims, this is hardly a typical sentence. But things being what they are, it’s remarkable that this police officer was convicted at all. Imagine just how bad it had to be: (AP) CHICAGO – A decorated former police officer whose name has become synonymous with police brutality in the city was sentenced Friday to 4½ years in federal prison for lying about the torture of suspects. Dozens of suspects — almost all of them black men — have claimed for decades that Jon Burge and his officers electrically shocked, suffocated and beat them into confessing to crimes ranging from armed robbery to murder. After the hearing, several victims and their supporters said the sentence wasn’t nearly stiff enough. “It’s outrageous,” said Mark Clements, who claims Burge’s officers tortured him into giving a false confession in 1981 when he was 16. Tears ran down his faced and his voice rose in anger. “It’s not justice.” Standing nearby, community activist Fred Hampton Jr. echoed the outrage, saying the white officer’s sentence was disproportionately low compared to what others receive for lesser crimes. “People in our community get more time than this for fist fights,” said Hampton, whose father was a Black Panther leader killed by police before the Burge era.

Continue reading …
Michele Bachmann gets out and tests the waters for her ‘presidential’ run

Click here to view this media So Michele Bachmann was out in Iowa sniffing around this week, and she says she was “encouraged” by the results. And yes, she really is running : “The Iowa trip is part of a bigger picture. There’s a national story line here,” said Bachmann communications director Doug Sachtleben, virtually begging for national media coverage. That kind of talk is usually a bank shot. … However, even in an increasingly crowded GOP field, mumbling about running for president in this age of 24-hour news cycles can attract much publicity for potential candidates, unless you’re Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. And much publicity can attract crowds and, oh, by the way, much money. Especially if you appear to ride a rising tide of popularity and empowerment for successful conservative females. Over at Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show yesterday, the “Power Panel” chewed it over — and largely reached the same conclusion. Indeed, what seems likely is that Bachmann actually is running for vice-president — she wants to position herself as part of a Palin-Bachmann 2012 ticket — or potentially as Romney-Bachmann ticket. One can always dream, can’t they?

Continue reading …
Stephen Moore Gets His Ass Handed to Him on Health Care Reform on Real Time

Click here to view this media In the wake of Keith Olbermann’s departure from MSNBC, I at least was able to take a little solace watching the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore getting his ass handed to him on Real Time over the health-care law and insurance company mandates by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, former Reagan adviser David Stockman and Bill Maher. Moore, of course, defended the hypocritical Republicans who thought a mandate was a great idea until a Democrat proposed it and gave us more of the “government takeover of health care” lie, which Rachel, thankfully, shot down. I really don’t know why Bill Maher thinks having Moore on as a guest contributes much to his show because the man strikes me as being as dumb as a box of rocks — but who knows, maybe he’s some genius and I’m just not seeing it. Whether he’s just not that smart or crazy like a fox with his lies, what he does is lie. I don’t understand how that adds to any kind of dialogue that moves our country to a place where we’re solving our problems for the working class, whether some might consider it entertaining or not. Stephen Moore had nothing to add to this discussion other than hyperbole and lying GOP/Rupert Murdoch talking points. The insurance mandates he’s claiming are unconstitutional are something Republicans loved before a Democrat proposed them. And those high deductible plans he’s touting just mean a lot of people don’t get treatment when they’re sick because they can’t afford it. As Rachel recommended, we need to actually have a “government takeover” of our health insurance programs and Medicare for all and we’d be a lot better off. Moore would prefer to keep lining the insurance companies’ pockets instead.

Continue reading …
TV Critic: Keith Olbermann Should Go To Fox News

It's been less that 24 hours since Keith Olbermann's abrupt departure from MSNBC, and folks are all atwitter with predictions about where he'll end up. TV critic Tim Goodman's suggestion that the former “Countdown” host should go to Fox News is destined to anger people on both sides of the aisle: Yes, it sounds insane (for both sides). But think about it. Every other lightweight “liberal” that Fox tries to toss on the air to make things “fair and balanced” has no real gravitas. Olbermann? When it comes to television, he is the voice of the left. There’s your balance (screw fair – nobody with a brain that hasn’t been pickled by Kool-Aid believes that nonsense). Can you image what kind of ratings Death Star would be created if he joined Fox News? It would turn MSNBC to dust and leave CNN so much further behind in the ratings that it would be battling BET for numbers. It would also allow Roger Ailes to lord it over every liberal in this country and he might swallow whatever pride he has about Olbermann to have that kind of club at his disposal. And – wait for it – it would be the most audacious reach across the aisle in television history. The left would have to actually tune their television to Fox News to find Olbermann. And the right would have to suffer through all those promos for his show – like sizzle reel Kryptonite – before settling in on Bill O’Reilly . A nation heals. And, seriously, who wouldn’t want to watch O’Reilly and Olbermann toss to each other every night? It would be a sneer and snark fest for the ages. Although this wouldn't surprise me, I'd be very sad to see it happen. In my view as a media analyst, Keith Olbermann represents all that is wrong in journalism today. He makes a hobby out of distorting the truth, and when that's not good enough to further his agenda, he just flat out lies. Him battling with folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Greta Van Susteren would be fabulous theater as it drove Fox's ratings, but it would also drag down that network's credibility. MSNBC is a laughing stock because of this arrogant, egotistical blowhard, and has become more so as a result of similarly vitriolic additions to its prime time lineup. Let's hope Roger Ailes recognizes this and doesn't take Goodman's advice. Readers are encouraged to review Goodman's nine other recommendations for Olbermann (h/t Hot Air ).

Continue reading …

The Power of No

No Comment
The Power of No

Greg Sargent’s analysis of how successful the Republican party’s strategy was at painting Democrats and President Obama with broad strokes of “liberal” last year ignores one part: The abject failure of the press and broadcast media to expose it. I think Sargent has nailed exactly why Republicans were so successful with their strategy in his update to the original post, where he explains more clearly: What McConnell shrewdly recognized is that the public would read the absence of bipartisan cooperation with Obama as a sign of liberal extremism, and would perceive any bipartisan support for his agenda as a sign of moderation, regardless of the policy details. This is exactly what happened. Whe Obama was denied bipartisan support, people worried about liberal overreach. But his bipartisan successes have suddenly persuaded the public that he is more moderate. What Sargent misses in his analysis is this: Their strategy worked because they were taken seriously by the DC press, who has the irritating habit of reporting even the most bizarre behavior as somehow acceptable. McConnell’s strategy worked because he could count on the press pool to give weight to behavior that deserved no weight. Take the town halls, for example. Over and over again we heard about how “angry” people were at these town halls. Anyone paying attention also knew they were full of tea party shills and paid pot-stirrers who weren’t angry as much as they were greedy. Yes, there were people there who had legitimate concerns, but again, those concerns were stirred up by orchestrated propaganda campaigns. The ‘death panel’ claim in the health care reform debate is a shining example. It was launched with tobacco shill Betsy McCaughey’s nonsensical interview with Fred Thompson on July 14, 2009, the same day the House reported out their version of the bill. Concurrent with that interview, a set of specious claims about the House bill were published on a Liberty University website and sent out via email to create an intentional email chain. Senior citizens love email chains, believe them, and pass them on. They counted on that. Within days, the ‘death panel’ claim took hold, along with several others. Sarah Palin then piled on with her version of it, claiming that her Downs Syndrome child would somehow be killed or denied treatment under the House version of the bill. Where was the press in all this? Why, being very “balanced”, of course. Here’s a Fox News panel amplifying the claim: Click here to view this media From Fox, it’s expected. How about ABC News? As mainstream as they come, the kind of news people who pat themselves on the back about not paying attention to Fox News might be likely to watch. Well, in August, 2009 at the height of the town hall/death panel controversy, they reported this : The House bill, H.R. 3200, also includes controversial “end of life care” consultations, which would reimburse doctors for discussing end-of-life arrangements with patients, but which some critics have characterized as “death panels.” See how that works? Some critics? Not “some critics”. OPPONENTS. But never, ever do they say that. They don’t point out that the death panel lie emanated from and was spread by people who opposed the bill. They framed it as random opposition with no real organized center. Over and over they do this. Just look at the reporting this week on the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Never do they look at WHY this is being done, and their reporting actually suggests there might be credible reasons for wanting to repeal it. Why hasn’t one of them asked the questions Democrats have asked this week about why Republicans want us to go back to benefit caps and exclusion for pre-existing conditions? Why haven’t they done in-depth reports on what happens when people are denied insurance for conditions like gingivitis ? By not asking these questions and calling lies outright lies, they enabled Republicans’ goals and message. Greg Sargent pushes that enabling a little farther by giving them a pass and characterizing McConnell/GOP strategy as “brilliant”. I think this stands as another reminder that the strategy of Senate Republicans during the past two years was politically brilliant . As you may recall, Mitch McConnell got a lot of attention last month because he frankly acknowledged that Republicans made a calculated decision to deny Obama bipartisan support for his proposals in service of a grand political objective: “We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.” McConnell’s victory is also our Fourth Estate’s failure. Bonus: Digby and I must be operating on the same wavelength today. Here’s her post on Jon Stewart’s “Big Lie Lie” .

Continue reading …
Colorado’s New Secretary Of State Announces He’s Also Keeping His Old Job. Conflict Much?

enlarge CO Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who blithely ignores even the appearance of conflict. Via the Denver Post. Because, you know, he didn’t even know what the job paid until after the election: Less than two weeks on the job, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler says the $68,500 a year salary doesn’t pay enough. That’s why Gessler, a Republican, says he is going to be moonlighting as a lawyer for his old law firm – a firm known for representing clients on elections and campaign law issues, the very areas Gessler is now charged with policing as secretary of state. Gessler, 45, says he’ll be working about 20 hours a month for the firm, now called Hackstaff Law Group and formerly known as Hackstaff Gessler. The news was first reported by The Denver Business Journal on Friday. Sounds like a real sweetheart , doesn’t he? It’s amazing how Republican elected officials no longer even pretend to avoid the appearance of conflict. And why not? It’s not as if the media won’t let them get away with stunts like this: Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler is no stranger to political controversy. He has represented a long line of conservative advocacy and attack groups and in that role has become the public face of partisan causes. Indeed, his name and the law firm he founded virtually stand for a branch of Colorado politics that seeks to limit government restrictions on and oversight of campaign financing. He has done battle repeatedly with laws the secretary of state is charged to enforce and now he is secretary of state. His election victory put government watchdog groups on high alert. News coming today, a little more than a week since he was sworn into office, that Gessler plans to keep working part-time as an attorney for his former firm even while serving as secretary of state has set conflict-of-interest alarm bells ringing in watchdog offices.

Continue reading …
Bill Maher: ObamaCare Individual Mandate Same As Having to Buy Car Insurance

Bill Maher on Friday once again demonstrated how little he knows about politics and current events. In a discussion about House Republicans voting last week to repeal ObamaCare, the “Real Time” host said that law's individual mandate is constitutional because states require people to own car insurance (video follows with transcript and commentary): DAVID STOCKMAN: Republicans have had numerous bad ideas over the last couple of decades, and that’s one of them. BILL MAHER, HOST: Why was that a bad idea? I mean, the personal mandate, it was a, it was a, I'll tell you why it was a Republican… STEVE MOORE, WALL STREET JOURNAL: The government can't require you to buy health insurance. It’s not constitutional. There’s nothing in the Constitution that has the government forcing you to buy something. Should they force you to buy, you know… MAHER: Car insurance? They do. MOORE: Yeah, but they can't force you to buy a car, right? MAHER: No, that’s not the same thing a car and car insurance. Those are two different things. They can force you to buy car insurance that puts you in, okay. Set that aside. That's right: a car and car insurance aren't the same thing, and states can only force you to buy one if you own and intend to drive the other. As such, states that have this law don't force people to buy car insurance. Instead, since driving is a privilege and not a right, most states require car owners to purchase liability insurance that protects other people from damages caused by the at-fault driver. However, states do not require drivers to have what's called collision and comprehensive insurance. Such policies cover damages to one's own vehicle and property. This makes the auto insurance requirement a benefit of others and not the actual insured. By contrast, health insurance is exclusively a benefit to the buyer of it. This makes it far different than automobile liability insurance. Sadly, like so many liberal media members, Maher doesn't understand these distinctions. Isn't it great that he gets to share his tremendously uninformed views with the masses once a week on a nationally televised cable show?

Continue reading …

State Of Our Union

No Comment

What is the state of the union when a madman can come within a whisker of assassinating a member of Congress? When his rantings and ravings and drug use don’t stop him from getting a high-capacity magazine? When a sophomore in high school can show up to school with a gun in his backpack , and accidentally shoot two of his classmates? I’m not sure, but I know I’d really like to hear President Obama address this during his SOTU address–without platitudes, but with an actual plan of action. One which might include demanding that the Senate confirm his nominee to run the ATF forthwith , fixing gaps in government databases of mental health and criminal records, requiring states to share data on those who have been deemed mentally unfit, questioning the intelligence of selling high-capacity magazines to just anyone, allowing concealed carry without a permit, as Arizona and two other states do, wondering whether those with firearms should just be able to meander up next to their member of Congress, and closing loopholes that allow the crazed and criminal to get guns at gun shows while firmly ensconced on terrorist watch lists. Because anything less than this would tell me that he is to the right of such known Progressives as Dick Cheney , Sen. Tom Coburn , Sen. Dick Lugar and Rep. Peter King . Not to mention A-rated NRA supporter Harry Reid and former RNC Communications Director Cliff May . Oh yeah, it would also mean he is FAR to the Right of that key element in our democracy known as the American People: “Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns,” said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey. “But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible.” Some findings from the poll results, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post: — 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns. — 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns. — 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database. — 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from. ——- Closing the so-called “terror gap” has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times. The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed — some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added. But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported “prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.” Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can “do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them.” This folks, is about whether we want democracy by ballot or intimidation by bullet. It goes to the very heart of who we are and want to be, and it is most certainly an issue of National Security–or security for our democracy. Lets hope President Obama does the right thing.

Continue reading …