enlarge Even in 1951 people were sick of hearing about it . Click here to view this media News on this day in 1951 was mostly about the economy, partly about wage and price controls and pretty much all about the Korean War and what was going on, or not going on. In this broadcast of Edward R. Murrow And The News from January 25, 1951, Murrow lays it out how the public was feeling: Edward R.Murrow: “In this reporters opinion, there has been considerable time for clear thinking. It has been just about two months since General MacArthur, announcing the arrival of massive Chinese formations in Korea said ‘the United Nations forces now face a totally new war’. Generally, a new war involves a new policy and some change in grand strategy. If there has been any change in policy or grand strategy it has escaped our notice. There mere labeling of China as an aggressor, even if we’re able to bring that off at the U.N. isn’t a policy, it’s a gesture. Meanwhile, we have the testimony of General Marshall that we require replacements at the rate of 15,000 a month for Korea. It is important to understand that this does not mean reinforcements. It means 15,000 bodies to replace those who have, in one way or another been consumed by the fires of war. We have at the same time increasing evidence in public opinion surveys and in the mail to Congressmen that the American public believes that we should get out of Korea. It is also clear beyond doubt that the majority of the free world will not participate in effective steps to repulse Chinese aggression in Korea. I have seen this whole situation no better put than by Walter Lippman in his column of today where he says; ‘our people feel that it is intolerable that American soldiers should be suffering in a war which can no longer be won, which can no longer achieve the aims for which it was begun yet, a war which was undertaken, not for a national purpose but for a principle. They feel, continues Mr. Lippman, naturally and rightly that there is something decisive that should be done about it all. What the decisive something is, they do not know. They cannot be expected to know. They have a right to expect their government to tell them what it is. Their government tells them nothing. Day after day the casualties continue and the young men are called up to replace them’. That’s the end of the quotation from Walter Lippman’s column of today. Two months ago we were confronted with what General MacArthur called a ‘wholly new war’. The record does not show that we’ve expounded or adopted new strategy or new policy. Mister Truman says today, obviously this is no time for rash or unwise action. This is a time for clear thinking and firmness. Admirable sentiments with which most of us would agree. But two months of firmness and clear thinking ought to produce, perhaps not a solution, but at least a new policy to meet a new situation. We cannot fight todays wars with tomorrows weapons. And we cannot pursue in a new war the old policies.” And some things just never change.
Continue reading …The problem of piracy in the Gulf of Aden might be receiving less attention in the media these days, but it has not gone away. In fact, hostage-taking is up, from 350 people in captivity in September to 750 today. Ransoms are a million-dollar business for pirates, who are also…
Continue reading …Big milestone in Michael Vick’s comeback: He’s landed his first national endorsement deal since the dog-fighting scandal that landed him in jail. The Eagles quarterback will be the spokesman for Unequal Technologies, a maker of sporting equipment—including the rib protection he wore this season, notes Yahoo Sports . The company…
Continue reading …During coverage of President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night, all three broadcast networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, managed to compare the tone of the speech to that of Ronald Reagan. Reporters and pundits uniformly praised the supposed optimism of Obama. [ Audio available here ] On CBS, Evening News anchor Katie Couric touted how political analyst Jeff Greenfield thought it was “down right Reaganesque” and that “some” have argued “this could be his Reagan moment.” Greenfield himself declared: “He kept talking about winning the future and that was always a big theme about Reagan….the constant reiteration of optimism….he was clearly striking rhetorical notes that reminded me of Mr. Reagan.” View video below Meanwhile, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams noted how “The President [is] very sensitive lately, highly bothered by any kind of defeatism…that's part of what he went after tonight.” Correspondent Andrea Mitchell chimed in: “That's exactly what he was trying to get after and I think he was trying to invoke the optimism, the can-do spirit that brings to mind Ronald Reagan in these settings.” As Brent Baker earlier reported on NewsBusters, ABC This Week host Christiane Amanpour proclaimed that Obama's address was “full of sunny optimism, very Reaganesque, on and on about American exceptionalism in many, many instances and full of Kennedyesque encouragement to break a new frontier. That Sputnik moment was remarkable.” Later in the CBS coverage, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer reiterated the Reagan comparison: “[Obama's] Reagan moment was when he made that speech in Tucson. But I think he kind of built on that tonight. I thought this speech was something of an extension of that speech.” Greenfield replied: “I think you're totally right.” It got to the point where even Couric wanted to move on to talk about the substance of the speech: “I don't mean to rain on your parade in terms of how eloquent this speech was, but really, realistically, [political analyst] John Dickerson, let me ask you, while these guys are kvelling over the President. I mean, how long will this last?” [According to Merriam-Webster.com , 'kvelling' is a Yiddish term meaning: "to be extraordinarily proud." In fact, this is the example of the word's usage that is provided: "Proud grandparents who kvell over every thing that their precious little darlings do."]
Continue reading …ABC’s Christiane Amanpour hailed President Obama’s State of the Union address as “very Reaganesque,” but in October, holding herself up as some kind of protector of Reagan’s legacy, she discovered “a long and venerable tradition of conservatism in this country” exemplified by Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley and “all of that sort of intellectual conservatism,” yet now, she feigned distress, “people are looking at the Tea Party and saying this is not conservatism as we knew it but it's extreme.” Asked for her “take” on Obama’s address, Amanpour trumpeted his “Sputnik moment” as “remarkable,” heralding Wednesday night on ABC: Well, full of sunny optimism, very Reaganesque , on and on about American exceptionalism in many, many instances and full of Kennedyesque encouragement to break a new frontier. That Sputnik moment was remarkable, of course harking back to 1957 when the Soviet Union put the first un-manned satellite in space and started the space race and really launched a whole new era of technological, scientific and all sort of progress and the President calling for more of that here. (Two MRC colleagues tweeted Amanpour’s “Reaganesque” characterization here and here .) Back on the October 17 This Week , she argued: There's been a long and venerable tradition of conservatism in this country. You can go back at least to Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, all of that sort of intellectual conservatism that lasted about 30 years, and people are saying that right now, it's really gone to the extreme. People are looking at the Tea Party and saying this is not conservatism as we knew it but it's extreme. — Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …Last week I wrote a post entitled: The Media should ignore Michelle Bachmann’s SOTU cry for attention speech Tuesday, but they won’t. SInce I’ve been monitoring the media over the past six years I could predict that the MSM would jump on the chance to give the Tea Party some free publicity, and CNN has done just that . Michele Bachmann — means that it’s worth staying tuned in after Obama finishes. (CNN announced plans Monday night to carry the Ryan and Bachmann’s speeches in their entirety!) The minority party response has been a bit of a mixed blessing in recent times — think Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in 2009 — and Ryan is the latest rising star to take on the challenge. His task is made even more difficult by the fact that Bachmann will be giving a response of her own — one likely to highlight the divide that remains between the GOP establishment and the tea party crowd. It’s a near-certainty that Bachmann’s speech will get more attention than Ryan’s; how does the GOP establishment respond to that reality (if at all)? When Cillizza says Bachmann’s speech will get more attention than Ryan’s is really an indication that many MSMers constantly need chaos and competing narratives in their world. Paul Ryan’s speech just isn’t juicy enough. Here’s a question: Would CNN have covered Alan Grayson if he’d have given a progressive rebuttal speech after Kathleen Sebelius delivered the Democratic party-sanctioned one? Some in the GOP are upset with this decision. Greg Sargent: Here’s an interesting twist on Michele Bachmann’s plan to offer her own Tea Party-flavored response to Obama’s State of the Union speech: It turns out GOP aides are annoyed with CNN for agreeing to air her speech in its entirety. Originally, Bachmann’s response was going to be available for viewing only on the Internet. But CNN has announced that her speech will be shown in full in addition to broadcasting the speech from GOP Rep. Paul Ryan, who was picked for the official response by the Republican leadership. GOP aides are unhappy with the decision, because it risks making the opposition look conflicted — as if the two are trying to upstage one another — muddling GOP efforts to offer a unified response. “CNN is basically inventing a conflict that doesn’t really exist,” a GOP aide emails. “It’s not responsible journalism.” To the GOP, it’s not responsible journalism because it makes them look like a party in disarray. To me it’s not responsible because it’s unwarranted and unnecessary coverage of a publicity hound from a news network that should know better. Atrios writes: Simple Answers To Simple Questions Steve asks: I’m really not sure what to make of this. In fact, I’m a little surprised CNN would agree to this, just as a matter of fairness — viewers will hear one speech from a Democrat, followed by a speech by a far-right Republican, and then followed by another speech by a far-right Republican? If a liberal Dem announced this morning that he/she is delivering some remarks reflecting on the SOTU tonight, would that also be aired on CNN’s national airwaves in its entirety? No. Oh, by the way, Weigel adds that CNN has been in cahoots with the Tea Party already: I’d just point out that the CNN has a longstanding romance with the Tea Party Express, the PAC that’s putting on the Bachmann speech. Later this year, the network and the PAC (and potentially other Tea Party groups) are co-sponsoring a presidential debate between Republican candidates. So, not shocking at all for the network to promote this and then claim a higher purpose. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions. Indeed. CNN wasn’t as much a 24/7 Tea Party promotional channel as Fox News was, but it gave it plenty of free pub. This is just more of the same craven behavior that drives everyone to different news channel.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media You could just about hear the heart attacks happening at Fox News — home of Republican nativists’ favorite rallying cry: ‘We have to secure the border before we can have immigration reform!’ — the other morning last week when documentary filmmaker Roy Germano — whose last movie, The Other Side of Immigration, is a must-see for anyone serious about the subject — came on to discuss a little clip he made recently. The clip, which he put up on YouTube , shows two American girls easily climbing over the border fence that Minutement, authorities and right-wing talk-show blowhards all seem to believe will keep out illegal immigrants. Obviously someone booked it at Fox because they thought it would demonstrate what a lousy job the Obama administration is doing on border security. But the clip itself actually made clear that the whole concept of using a fence to control immigration is a joke. As Germano put it: “I thought it revealed that the fence is quite absurd, it’s not doing the job it’s supposed to do, it’s a waste of money, and it also has a lot of unintended consequences.” And then he offered his thoughts on how to really make the borders secure — and as he explained, the only way we’re going to be able to do that is by having a rational system of immigration, instead of the outdated, xenophobic system we currently have in place. This, of course, is when the heart attacks started happening: GERMANO: If we are really serious about our border security, I think it’s in our interest to be monitoring and regulating the immigration flow that is inevitable. There is a multi-million-dollar — hundreds of million-dollar — industry out there of human smugglers that will try to smuggle people in. They will build tunnels under the fence, they will get people over the fence. So we should be investing in an immigration system that actually gives people the opportunity to enter the country legally. The typical Mexican has almost no way of entering the U.S. legally. So we should be expanding the number of visas we offer so that employers can hire the workers they need to meet the labor demand in our country. SCOTT: All right, y-you have just lit up our chat room, I’m sure, because there are lots of unemployed people in this country who would like to have jobs, and they say, ‘Why are we letting people in where there’s so much unemployment in America?’ GERMANO: But there are certain sectors of the economy where it’s the old, you know, ‘immigrants do jobs that Americans don’t want to do.’ I go to western New York state a lot and I visit family farms who have had ads in papers for 20 years and have never had a native-born speaker respond to that ad. And they depend on immigrant labor. But our H2A visa program, which is the farm worker visa program, only has less than 70,000 visas for 800,000 to 1.2 million jobs that need to be filled on our family farm. We’ve discussed this point quite a bit too. The only problem is that Americans are not only in denial about the numbers of unskilled-labor jobs their economy produces, but the willingness and ability of native-born Americans to actually fill them. Here’s the original YouTube clip from Germano:
Continue reading …Chris Matthews has a seemingly endless list of obsessions. Along with Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann the MSNBC host is fascinated by trains, especially fast ones, and on Monday night's Hardball he called on Barack Obama, in his State of the Union Address, to push for high speed rail as a solution to America's economic woes. Matthews complained that in the area of “fast railroads” the French, Italians, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are “so far ahead of us” and then implored: “Is this president really gonna shove that throttle forward tomorrow night and say 'Let's join the world in getting around?'” This isn't the first time Matthews has looked enviously at other countries and their faster trains as an inspiration for creating jobs in America, as back in 2009 he whined to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter: “The Europeans seem to have fast trains that go 300 miles and hour and we're chugging along with Amtrak and Acela and we're still flying around short distances…Why can't this federal government use the power of the, the workforce we have out there, put 'em all to work and build a train system in this country of fast rail so we can – and this sounds so pathetic – catch up to Europe and Japan! Why don't we do that?! Catch up to the other major countries!” On Monday night, MSNBC political analyst stoked Matthews' most recent high speed rail rant by claiming GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's opposition to more stimulus spending was “at odds with 200 years of American history” and even Abraham Lincoln before concluding: “Right now it seems like the Republican Party doesn't really believe in investing in the future…it's really a problem for the future of the country.” The following is the relevant exchange was aired on the January 24 edition of Hardball: JONATHAN ALTER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Mitch McConnell teed it up correctly. He said Democrats call it investment, Republican call it wasteful liberal spending. The problem with McConnell's position is that he's at odds with 200 years of American history. We're starting with Alexander Hamilton, through Henry Clay. Abraham Lincoln – his big thing was internal improvements. Building railroads, canals. That's infrastructure. Right now it seems like the Republican Party doesn't really believe in investing in the future in these capital programs and it's really a problem for the future of the country. CHRIS MATTHEWS: It's so awful. They are so awful. Look I'm gonna say this. They are so awful and the Democrats are just as bad. Because look if they hadn't built the railroads this country wouldn't be, there wouldn't have been a Manifest Destiny without the rails. If Ike hadn't built, with a Democratic Congress, a highway there wouldn't be a 95 going to Florida. They're wouldn't be a 70 and 80 crossing the country. You wouldn't be able to see the America and the U.S.A. – you wouldn't be able – in your Chevrolet. It wouldn't happen. We would be riding around in county roads trying to figure out how to get from here to there in some crappy little road somewhere. And today we have superhighways. Eisenhower did that. I just wonder why we don't have what the French have, fast railroads. We don't have anything like that, the Italians have them. Not knocking the Italians but they are so far ahead of us, I was just over there. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, all have fast rail, they all have infrastructure and we're diddling around here [John] Heilemann. Is this president really gonna shove that, that throttle, forward tomorrow night and say “Let's join the world in getting around?” Are we gonna catch up? —Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Michele Bachmann’s one-hour speech at an Iowans for Tax Relief event has so many highlights I can’t even decide which ones to share with you, but there are three that stood out for me. This is certainly a preview of what a Bachmann candidacy would look like. Imagine being in the hall of mirrors with the echoing voice repeating nonsense over and over, louder and louder. No matter where you turn it follows you. That’s Bachmann’s speech. Some general observations first. Note the Sarah Palin haircut. It’s eerily similar to the 2008 Palin look. Also, she has been well-coached and this speech was crafted carefully. It’s not an off-the-cuff effort. It was professionally written and crafted to have populist appeal and reach into populist anger, a la Richard Nixon. Many, many times she pivots back to the claim that she is not one of the “Washington elite”, and is “just like YOU.” Now, on to specifics. I. The Biography True to form for potential candidates for President, Bachmann begins with her biography and her Norwegian ancestors who migrated to the United States in the 1840′s. That’s the video at the top of this post. In Bachmann’s narrative, she claims her ancestors left Norway because the government wouldn’t permit an accumulation of wealth, and because the land they had was barren. Scarce farmland is certainly cited as a reason for Norwegian emigration by historians. Inheritance restrictions aside, Norway also limited voters to a small subset of elites, which made the United States a more attractive place to be. And so, we come to contradiction #1 in Bachmann’s world view. This is the one where she loudly proclaims that her ancestors did not come to this country for handouts, welfare and socialized medicine, but for mere opportunity. Oh, and free land. Yes, the free land had much to do with it. So they didn’t come here for handouts, but they came with their hand out for that free land. And eventually, for the farm subsidies that came with farming in the Midwest during the 20th century. The Bachmann family farm received $252,000 between 1995 and 2006 in farm subsidies, which I think might qualify as a “handout”. Click here to view this media II. History Rewrite: Mashing up the Mayflower Compact, Slavery, and Founding Fathers This is probably one of the most significant parts of her speech. Not because any of it is accurate or particularly true, but because it’s carefully crafted to send a very high-pitched dogwhistle to every bigot on the planet. Bachmann begins by rewriting history. Having brought her ancestors over from Norway and into the Midwest via the Dakotas, they have now come to settle in Iowa, where she declares with enthusiasm and aplomb that it “didn’t matter that they spoke different languages, were different colors, came from different countries, they were ‘all the same.’” I’d like to see her tell that to Chinese immigrants of that time with a straight face. In what might be one of the more bizarre linkups, she draws upon the Mayflower Compact as a “founding principle”, referring to it many times as a “covenant”. Of course, the Mayflower Compact included this language: …constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony , unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. That ‘general good’ clause lands in our Constitution as the “general welfare” clause. Tut, tut, Michele. You might be a socialist. Even as Bachmann romanticizes the ‘wonder’ of that period in our history, she manages to weave the slavery theme into her tapestry, and in such a bizarre way. First she claims that our founding fathers fought slavery ‘to the death’, citing John Quincy Adams’ opposition to it. Of course, she forgets to tell her audience that John Quincy Adams was a one-term president because he faced rock-solid opposition to his ideas, including abolishing slavery. But, he was a Republican in the traditional sense of the word, and that was really where she was going with it. Her conclusion is really the most significant, where she claims we are a “self-correcting nation” and ending slavery was a “self-correcting act.” In this segment, she never mentions that the end to slavery came via a bloody civil war that isn’t over to this day , nor did she bother to mention that it was ended by the sweep of a Presidential proclamation — a unilateral act which bypassed Congress. For Bachmann, the battlegrounds are different, but the war rages on. She ties all of this up in a bow with the claim that the 2010 midterm elections were a major step forward on the path to self-correction now, too, because that’s what self-correcting nations do. Although the parallels were more subtle, this was a call to “take our nation back,” a call she amplifies in the final clip. III. Kill ObamaCare; Repeal the President Click here to view this media Now we finally come to the heart of the matter, the reason for Bachmann’s presence before these people. This is the linchpin of any possible candidacy, and she’s playing it here for the choir and the crowd. Her statements on the House floor during the Affordable Care Act repeal vote were no accident. She said ” repeal the President ” then, and she said it again here. They are absolutely intentional. Here’s my translation of the “repeal the President” call. Repeal is defined as “abolition of law”. Putting it in her context, it is yet another way to de-legitimize Barack Obama’s presidency. Instead of calling for a challenge, or to take the Presidency back in 2012, calling for a repeal of the President suggests it was wrong for him to be President at all. It is subtle, intentional, and full of even louder, shriller dog whistle. It is, in effect, a call for a coup d’etat. She isn’t calling for an election. She’s calling for an impeachment, an abolition . You really have to listen to her say this. The sequence is important. “Kill ObamaCare. Repeal the President.” Interesting too that she says this MUST be done in 2012. She’s right, because by 2016, it will be fully in effect and enough people will be benefitting to make it stick. By 2016, Bachmann will be claiming credit for it because she’ll have no other choice. IV. It’s a mistake to write Bachmann off as a wingnut We do so at our own peril. She may be previewing her own candidacy, or she may be previewing Sarah Palin’s. One thing is sure: Their message will be identical. Rick Perlstein wrote this at the end of his wonderful book Nixonland : “What Richard Nixon left behind was the very terms of our national self-image: a notion that there are two kinds of Americans. On the one side, the “Silent Majority.” The “nonshouters.” The middle-class, middle American, suburban, exurban, and rural coalition who call themselves, now, “Values voters,” “people of faith,” “patriots,” or even, simply, “Republicans” — and who feel themselves condescended to by snobby opinion-making elites, and who rage about un-Americans, anti-Christians, amoralists, aliens. On the other side are the “liberals,” the “cosmopolitans,” the “intellectuals,” the “professionals” — “Democrats,” who say they see shouting in opposition to injustice as a higher form of patriotism. Or say “live and let live.” Who believe that to have “values” has more to do with a willingness to extend aid to the downtrodden than where, or if, you happen to worship — but who look down on the first category as unwitting dupes of feckless elites who exploit sentimental pieties to aggrandize their wealth, start wars, ruin lives. Both populations — to speak in ideal types — are equally, essentially, tragically American. And both have learned to consider the other not quite American at all. The argument over Richard Nixon, pro and con, gave us the language for this war.” He concludes with this: Do Americans not hate each other enough to fantasize about killing one another, in cold blood, over political and cultural disagreements? It would be hard to argue they do not. How did Nixonland end? It has not ended yet. Bachmann’s speech was the next chapter in the war. She delivered it this time, and to those of us who have paid attention to history, it sounds like nothing more than bizarre, wingnutty nonsense. But it has clear signals to those with ears to hear, and it’s worth paying attention to how they respond. There will be no excuse for being caught off-guard this time around, like we were with the town halls. The signals are there, the strategy clear. Bachmann is building her own Nixonland and inviting all to join her.
Continue reading …