Vocal Minority

Liberal Media Bias: MRC's Notable Quotables of 2009 Are Here!

They gushed like lovestruck schoolgirls over an unaccomplished, incompetent, and immature new president.

They downplayed said president’s motley crew of tax-cheating White House appointments and communism-endorsing czars.

They perpetuated his flawed conception of the United States as—that is, until he fixes it—an arrogant, racist, imperialist, wealth-stealing, pollution-spewing, Islam-oppressing, terrorist-torturing, saber-rattling threat to world security.

They covered his every trip abroad as if a rock star’s world tour.

They bolstered the administration’s image by unquestioningly parroting their excuses for their failed, disastrous policies.

They dutifully cheerled for every piece of legislation coming out of the Democrat White House and Congress, expressing virtually no concern their constitutionality, legality, or popularity with the American people.

They explained away opposition to said legislation by Republicans and the general public as bitter partisanship, talk-radio-fomented anger, militia-initiated anti-government hatred, and good ol’ fashioned American racism.

They treated Tea Parties and town halls as disturbing uprisings of perpetually angry, white supremicist, gun-toting militia types merely having a temper tantrum after losing an election to a black man.

With blatant disregard for fact-checking, source verification, journalistic professionalism and objectivity, they painted Sarah Palin as an intolerant, extremist, moronic country bumpkin.

With blatant disregard for fact-checking, source verification, journalistic professionalism and objectivity, they painted Rush Limbaugh as a woman-hating, violence-inciting racist.

They fixated on the scandals or indiscretions of conservative/Republican politician no matter how miniscule.

They downplayed the scandals or indiscretions of liberal/Democrat politician no matter how enormous.

They treated the infrequent crimes of conservatives/Christians as an indication of some dangerous pattern inherent in conservativism/Christianity.

They minimized the recurrent crimes of radical Islamists by warning us against the temptation of treating them as an indication of some dangerous pattern inherent in radical Islam.

They covered the deaths of famous conservatives/Republicans in a “Ding-dong the Wicked Witch is dead” sort of way.

They covered the deaths of famous liberals/Democrats in a “The heavens are weeping for this devastating loss to mankind” sort of way.

They helped perpetuate the man-made global warming climate change hoax by ignoring, dismissing, or criticizing opposing scientists and their data.

They helped perpetuate said hoax by ignoring or downplaying the leaked emails revealing the deliberate manipulation and deletion of inconvenient data.

Who are they? They are ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCPBSNPR, a.k.a. the mainstream media.

The year 2009 was sure busy for these protectors of Truth. For that reason, I am thankful to the Media Research Center and their 48 judges for selecting the most outrageous media quotes of 2009. Below are my personal favorites from this 18-page compilation. As was the case last year, my favorites don’t include statements made by commentators like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Joy Behar, and Rachel Maddow. As revolting as their statements are, I feel MRC does a slight disservice by conflating opinion-makers with news anchors or reporters. There are ample examples of pervasive left-wing bias offered this year by the Katie Courics, Bob Schieffers, Jack Caffertys, and Andrea Mitchells of the media world.

The Coronation of the Messiah Award for Fawning Inaugural Coverage

“What a day it was. It may take days or years to really absorb the significance of what happened to America today....When he [Barack Obama] finally emerged, he seemed, even in this throng, so solitary, somber, perhaps already feeling the weight of the world, even before he was transformed into the leader of the free world....The mass flickering of cell phone cameras on the Mall seemed like stars shining back at him.”
— NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on the January 20 Nightly News.

Master of His Domain Award for Obama Puffery

“The legislative achievements have been stupendous — the $789 billion stimulus bill, the budget plan that is still being hammered out (and may, ultimately, include the next landmark safety-net program, universal health insurance). There has also been a cascade of new policies to address the financial crisis — massive interventions in the housing and credit markets, a market-based plan to buy the toxic assets that many banks have on their books, a plan to bail out the auto industry and a strict new regulatory regime proposed for Wall Street. Obama has also completely overhauled foreign policy, from Cuba to Afghanistan. ‘In a way, Obama’s 100 days is even more dramatic than Roosevelt’s,’ says Elaine Kamarck of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. ‘Roosevelt only had to deal with a domestic crisis. Obama has had to overhaul foreign policy as well, including two wars. And that’s really the secret of why this has seemed so spectacular.’”
— Time’s Joe Klein in the magazine’s May 4 cover story on Barack Obama’s first 100 days as President.

“It didn’t take long for Barack Obama — for all his youth and inexperience — to get acclimated to his new role as the calming leader of a country in crisis....Rookie jitters? Far from it....For the past three months, Obama has spoken in firm, yet soothing tones. Sometimes he has used a just-folks approach to identify with economically struggling citizens. He has displayed wonkish tendencies, too, appearing much like the college instructor he once was while discussing the intricacies of the economic collapse. He has engaged in witty banter, teasing lawmakers, staffers, journalists and citizens alike. He has struck a statesmanlike stance, calling for a renewed partnership between the United States and its allies....”
— AP Washington correspondent Liz Sidoti in an April 25 dispatch, “Obama quickly, confidently adapts to presidency.”

The Crush Rush Award for Loathing Limbaugh

“Limbaugh’s perceived racist diatribes are too many to name but here’s a sampling: He once declared that [words on screen] ‘Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark,’ said Limbaugh.”
— CNN’s Rick Sanchez promoting a made-up quote on the 3pm ET hour of Newsroom, October 12.

Damn Those Conservatives Award

Host Dylan Ratigan: “Some Republicans and conservatives celebrating Obama’s failed attempt to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. Down with Chicago! Contessa Brewer has the latest.”
News anchor Contessa Brewer: “Can you imagine this, that some people actually went as far as to cheer?”
Ratigan: “Sure. I mean, there are people that are actually trying to derail health care in order to take down Obama, even if it means half the country dies.”

— Exchange on MSNBC’s 9am ET Morning Meeting, October 5.

The Poison Tea Pot Award for Smearing the Anti-Obama Rabble

“You know, … this is a party for Obama bashers. I have to say that this is not entirely representative of everybody in America....It’s anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can’t really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I’ll toss it back to you.”
— Correspondent Susan Roesgen during live coverage of the tea party protests, CNN Newsroom, April 15.

“They’ve waved signs likening President Obama to Hitler and the devil; raised questions about whether he was really born in this country; falsely accused him of planning to set up death panels; decried his speech to students as indoctrination; and called him everything from a ‘fascist’ to a ‘socialist’ to a ‘communist.’ ...And all that was before Mr. Obama’s speech was interrupted by a representative who once fought to keep the Confederate flag waving over the South Carolina state house. Add it all up, and some prominent Obama supporters are now saying that it paints a picture of an opposition driven, in part, by a refusal to accept a black President.”
— ABC’s Dan Harris on World News, September 15.

Spread the Wealth Award for Socialist Sermonizing

“Why not just nationalize the banks?...People are angry. There’s so much taxpayer money going into the banks. Why shouldn’t the government — why shouldn’t you just fire the executives who wrecked these banks in the first place and tanked the world’s financial system in the process?”
— ABC’s Terry Moran interviewing President Obama for Nightline, February 10.

“In Britain, a government takeover of a bank last year helped to temporarily calm fears in the financial markets there. Nationalization may have a psychological impact as well, and Uncle Sam wrapping his arms around failing banks in this country might provide a big dose of confidence for the American consumer.”
— Katie Couric on the February 19 CBS Evening News, talking about the Obama administration possibly taking over American banks.

Long Live Camelot Award for Lionizing Ted Kennedy

“Mary Jo wasn’t a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan....We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history....[One wonders what] Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded. Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”
— Discover magazine deputy web editor Melissa Lafsky, who formerly worked on the New York Times’s Freakonomics blog, writing at the Huffington Post, August 27.

“America mourns the lion of the Senate....There is, of course, no royal family in this country. The Kennedys, perhaps, the closest we’ve ever had....For nearly half a century in the Senate, Ted Kennedy spoke for people who had no voice — the poor and the disabled, children and the elderly.”
— Anchor Katie Couric kicking off the August 26 CBS Evening News.

The Half-Baked Alaska Award for Pummeling Palin

CNN’s Jack Cafferty: “Here’s the question: ‘Would you rather listen to a speech by Sarah Palin or a speech by Newt Gingrich?’ Go to CNN — or would you rather just stick needles in your eyes? [Over loud laughter off-camera from a man other than Cafferty, presumably Blitzer] Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile and you can post a comment on my blog. I forgot about the third option.”
Anchor Wolf Blitzer: “What do you think, Jack? You want to listen to Palin or Gingrich deliver a speech?”
Cafferty: “I’m not interested in listening to either one of them.”

— Exchange on CNN’s The Situation Room, June 9, talking about Palin and Gingrich’s appearance at a Republican fundraiser the previous evening.

“She’s been an astronaut and a rock star. Pop icons Beyonce and Shakira. She’s won American Idol too. She’s even run for President twice. [Over footage of Sarah Palin] Some would argue she also ran for Vice President in 2008.”
— ABC’s David Wright in a retrospective marking the 50th anniversary of Barbie for Nightline, February 16.

“She’s a joke. I mean, I just can’t take her seriously....The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it’ll never happen. Republican primary voters just are not going to elect a talk show host.”
— New York Times columnist David Brooks talking about Sarah Palin on ABC’s This Week, November 15.

The Un-Fairness Doctrine Award for Slamming Media Conservatives

“Let me be precise here: Fox News peddles a fair amount of hateful crap. Some of it borders on sedition. Much of it is flat out untrue. But I don’t understand why the White House would give such poisonous helium balloons as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity the opportunity for still greater spasms of selfinflation by declaring war on Fox....The best antidote to their garbage is elegant, intelligent governance.”
— Time’s Joe Klein on the magazine’s “Swampland” blog, October 23.

“[Robert] Novak titled his 2007 memoir, The Prince of Darkness, and he was indeed a very dark force in cable TV news contributing mightily to the toxic culture of confrontation, belligerence and polarization that so defines cable TV and American political discourse today. There is no way to be nice about his impact on cable TV during its formative years....I am talking about Novak’s sneering TV persona and the role it played in reaching back to the dark political style of the 1950s Richard Nixon — and leading us to the polarized, angry space that cable TV and the conversation of American politics now inhabits.”
— Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik August 18 on his “Z on TV” blog, two hours after news broke of Novak’s passing.

“Was there a tone in this country that was actually started with the election of our first black president that is bringing the crazies out of the woodwork, and are they being motivated to move by right-wing pronouncements, like he’s dangerous, he’s a socialist, he’s a Muslim, and he isn’t even a U.S. citizen? This is what we hear on some TV and radio outlets, which, by the way, according to our Constitution, they are entitled to what they believe and even propagate.”
— CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez setting up a segment suggesting “hateful talk” can be blamed for the Holocaust museum shooting, June 11.

Let Us Fluff Your Pillow Award for Obsequious Obama Interviews

“You’re so confident, Mr. President, and so focused. Is your confidence ever shaken? Do you ever wake up and say, ‘Damn, this is hard. Damn, I’m not going to get the things done I want to get done, and it’s just too politicized to really get accomplished the big things I want to accomplish’?”
— CBS’s Katie Couric in an exchange with Obama shown on The Early Show, July 22.

“It seems to me that there is a sort of meanness that’s settled over our political dialogue. It started this summer at these town hall meetings....President Carter is now saying that he thinks it’s racial. Nancy Pelosi says it could be dangerous. What do you think it’s all about?”
— CBS’s Bob Schieffer to President Obama on Face the Nation, September 20.

“House Speaker Pelosi worried about the opposition, the tone of it, perhaps leading to violence as it did in the ’70s. There’s more recent examples of anti-government violence — occurring even in the mid-’90s. Do you worry about that?”
— David Gregory to Obama on NBC’s Meet the Press, September 20.

Barry’s Big Brain Award for Journalists Bedazzled by Obama’s Brilliance

“I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office. I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he’s got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way.”
— ABC Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran to Media Bistro’s Steve Krakauer in a February 20 “Morning Media Menu” podcast.

The Audacity of Dopes Award for Wackiest Analysis of the Year

“We have an FBI, and we’re not prejudiced against somebody who’s worked at the FBI. It’s an honorable place to work. And the KGB, I think, was an honorable place to work. It gave people in the former Soviet Union, a communist country, an opportunity to do something important and worthwhile.”
— CNN founder Ted Turner on Meet the Press, November 30, 2008.

“Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”
— New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in a September 9 column, “Our One Party Democracy.”

The Obamagasm Award for Seeing Coolness In Everything Obama Does

Correspondent John Harwood: “He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him....He swatted his hand and he said, ‘I got the sucker.’ He threw it onto the ground. It was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment.”...
MSNBC anchor David Shuster: “Amazing...An amazing interview....It never fails — great weather, rainbows, incredible speeches, and three-point basket. A fly and he nails it. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.”

— Exchange on MSNBC after Harwood’s CNBC interview with President Obama concluded, June 16.

“Between workouts during his Hawaii vacation this week, he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions. The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”
— Washington Post reporter Eli Saslow in a December 25, 2008 front-page story about Obama’s vacation fitness regimen.

Michelle, the Media Belle Award

Correspondent Dawna Friesen: “Her husband is, of course, the big star of the show, but this is Michelle Obama’s first foray on to the global stage as First Lady. And you can bet that her every move, her every fashion decision will be dissected and analyzed, especially when the couple go to meet the Queen. But she’s got a lot of good will on her side. … Ask the British about Michelle Obama, and you’ll hear a lot of what you hear in the States.”
Woman on the street: “Oh, I think she’s really cool. She’s got a lot of really good styles. It makes a change from politicians’ wives to look good.”
Man on the street: “She looks supportive and that’s what a man needs in life.”
Second man: “I have been totally stunned at the awesome nature of Michelle Obama.”...
Friesen: “Then there’s those arms, the envy of a lot of British women....”
— NBC’s Today, March 31.

“In 1961, when Jacqueline Kennedy came to Europe, she enchanted even the crustiest of world leaders, and she’s remained a tough act to follow for every First Lady since. But Michelle Obama looks more than equal to the task of impressing and delighting even the grandest of them....To be honest, most Europeans were going to like whoever replaced President Bush. But there’s no doubt Michelle and her husband have an extra je ne sais quoi.”
— CBS’s Elizabeth Palmer on The Early Show, March 31.

Media Hero Award

“I’m honored to be joined today by the Godfather of Green, the King of Conservation: Former Vice President Al Gore.”
— Katie Couric opening her November 2 “@KatieCouric” CBSNews.com webcast.

“The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man: Al Gore’s New Plan for the Planet.”
— Cover of the November 9 Newsweek.

“This woman has a life story that you couldn’t make up! I mean, you know, she’s born in the public projects, in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, a single-parent household, she goes to a Catholic school, she gets scholarships to the best schools in the country, Princeton and Yale, she overcomes all that while dealing with diabetes all her life, and she is Hispanic....This was the political advisor’s dream candidate.”
— CBS’s Bob Schieffer during live coverage of Obama’s selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, May 26.

Not enough for you? Then visit my post on MRC's 2008 Notable Quotables here.

Ten People/Things from 2009 That Need to Fade Away

On this glorious brisk Christmas morning, Loud Lion so graciously pounded this installment of the (quasi-)Weekly Roar. (He kind of had to; we’re at the sitting at the same table right across from each other.)

What I want this Holiday Season

‘Tis the season to make lists, lists of the best, lists of the worst, lists of lists.

Speaking of which, I happen to be reading my local newspaper, the New York Daily News, and they had a list of the years worst parents, and in this list was the liberals’ newest and favorite punching bag, Sarah Palin.

Now, how did Sarah Palin get this wonderful distinction along side such upstanding parental units like, “Balloon Dad”, “OctoMom” and John & Kate? Well, it seems in an interview Levi Johnston said he “overheard” Sarah Palin call her Downs Syndrome child Trig, her retarded baby. Firstly, anyone who has watches Sarah Palin with her children, or read her book could tell that this is absurd. Anyone with a sense of a brain can tell that Levi Johnston is a publicity hound, looking for an extension of his 15 minutes of fame.

Well, my list of the year is people who need to fade away. So, congrats Mr. Johnston, you like your child’s grandmother, are on a List for 2009.

Second on my list, and number one in my heart is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. What can we say that can convey my utter contempt for a woman who is so willing to strip citizens of their freedom that she is willing to throw the nation under the bus?

Third, because they go hand in hand, is Senator Harry Reid. A nation that loudly screams that they do not want government control health care, yet he pushes it through anyway.

Fourth would be President Obama. When over 40% of people polled say they would rather have President George W. Bush back as president over President Obama, well, you know that I am not the only one who has Barry on their list.

Fifth, is the not-so-distinguished Senator from Minnesota. The rules of the Senate are that you have 10 minutes to speak, and that you are allowed additional time if asked for and granted by the President of the Senate. Well, Stuart Smalley was President Pro Tem one day while Senator Lieberman was speaking on the floor. His 10 minutes were up, and Stuart informed him of this, and as right, Senator Lieberman asked for additional time to finish up. Stewie refused him.

In the history of the United States a Senator has never been refused extra time to finish … NEVER.

Sixth would be television personalities of MSNBC. I could list them and make them #6 through #10 and list plenty of reasons why they need to go away. But you know what? Why give them the satisfaction of listing the reasons and continuing to talk about them? So, just like their ratings show, we will just ignore them.

Seventh would be John and Kate, just because they are on every bad thing of 2009 list.

Eighth is Albert Gore, Jr. His refusal to admit that maybe Global Warming might not be what he has been screaming about shows his limited vision of the world we all live in. Admitting that pushing the Global Warming and carbon offest is beneficial to his bottom line would go far in peoples view on Fat Albert and his pushing a radical view.

Ninth, is the Yankees … cause everyone except Yankee fans hates the Yankees.

Tenth is 2009, because we could list many, many, many reasons why 2009 sucked.

Here is to the end of 2009 and the bright hopeful future of 2010. May you and your family experience all the joy and prosperity needed to weather the upcoming liberal storms.

Joe Lieberman Is Either a Good Jew, Bad Jew, or Just Plain Stupid ...

... according to this piece in the left-leaning Politics Daily [h/t reader and occasional guest blogger Loud Lion]. It is a piece trying to determine whether Joe Lieberman’s position on government-run health (s)care makes him a “good Jew,” a “bad Jew,” or someone who’s just not that smart (you know: like a conservative). Columnist David Gibson just can’t understand what makes Lieberman tick, considering most Jews he seems to know and all the Jews he quotes in his article are in support the unconstitutional liberty-sapping and life-destroying piece of legislation.

Here are some of the “gems” from this piece.

Just like his foes, Lieberman sees his opposition as grounded in Jewish ethics, arguing that the health care proposals on the table would hurt America and would not help those who need it—although, as The Washington Post reported, his varying explanations of his varying positions have left various observers scratching their heads over his real reasons.

Gibson, I believe, is insinuating here that Lieberman’s opposition to the legislation currently on the table has a more nefarious explanation, e.g., being bought off by “Big Insurance.” Stay classy, David.

Whatever the motives, Lieberman is so committed to his political views and his religious traditions that he walked more than four miles to Capitol Hill from his Georgetown synagogue on a recent frigid Saturday to take part in a rare weekend health care debate—one of just two dozen or so times during his senate career that he has made that trek on the Sabbath, when strictly observant Jews do not drive. "I have a responsibility to my constituents, really to my conscience, to be here on something as important as healthcare reform," he told The Hill.

Such high-minded talk grates on many Jewish leaders,

What a BS phrase. Does Gibson think liberal politicians don’t make high-minded talk that grates on people? (Our own president does every time he opens his lying trap.)

who see passing health care reform as integral to the Jewish principal of tikkun olam, or repairing the world, which undergirds much of Judaism's longstanding tradition of social and political activism, mainly of the liberal variety.

Unless, like Lieberman apparently, you consider bankrupting the country three generations down the road for a 2000-page piece of socialism that’s going to worsen the quality, and duration of life for all Americans, while at the same time empowering an unstoppable capitalism-hating Democrat bureaucracy that will enslave every citizen not to be a good example of tikkun olam.

Other factors are at play as well: Jews are immigrants whose history of persecution and constant exile have made them especially sensitive to the plight of the marginalized, and as a minority they know that liberal social policies that protect the weak from the strong can help them, too;

Bzzzzzt. Sorry, Mr. Gibson, no. For 40+ years minorities have been conned into believing that liberal social policies protect the weak from the strong. What liberal social policies really do, as more and more people have woken up, is create a government-dependent slave class and very powerful rich Democrat politicians.

Jews also tend to be better educated and wealthier than most Americans, both markers of socially progressive views. (And something that makes the fierce band of neo-con Jews like Norman Podhoretz, author of the recent "Why Are Jews Liberal," even more furious than Lieberman's liberal critics.)

That’s rich; Gibson is calling right-leaning Jews of the Podhoretz school “fierce” and “furious.” Funny, I never witnessed such fierceness and fury. But when you’re a liberal writing for a liberal rag, why back up statements with facts? Just demonize your ideological opponent knowing your readers will buy it and move on. Notice it’s always right-wingers that are “fierce” and “furious” and “angry” and “violent”?

I wouldn’t call this piece anti-Semitic, but I still can’t help but wonder how liberals would react if some conservative publication criticized a Jewish public official in this disrespectful way.

Quotes of Note: El Rushbo on Media Obsession with Tiger Woods

"It's amazing to me how the State-controlled media is totally absorbed in the Tiger Woods story, but they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the John Edwards story. ... Could we say that the media is racist on this?"

- El Rushbo, December 9, 2009

Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: NYT Book Review Compares Palin to Hitler; NYT Readers Consider Her Worse

Look who’s Hitler-fixated …

As I posted yesterday, Frank Rich called the tea party movement “Hitler-fixated.” Rich was presumably referring to one tea party where one person was photographed holding one sign of a swastika with a slash through it. Based on this one instance, the New York Times’ resident genius makes this sweeping generalization. 

Naturally, Rich was either willingly or unwittingly ignorant of the fact that for eight stright years virtually no anti-Bush rally occurred that was not festooned with dozens of Bush-Hitler references. Nancy Pelosi, who imagined swastikaaaas at summertime town halls, was apparently ignorant of this too.

But if Rich was really looking for a group that is truly Hitler-fixated, he needn’t have stepped outside his own building. Today’s Times has—believe it or not—a review of Sarah Palin’s memoir. Except, while the review of the book’s contents is more or less ideologically neutral, here is how reviewer Stanley Fish decides to begin the column. Lachlan Markay at NewsBusters explains:

Fish introduces his review with a humorous anecdote poking fun at some of the more deranged Palin-haters: Upon asking a customer service representative in a Manhattan bookstore where he could find “Going Rogue,” the employee “looked at me as if I had requested a copy of ‘Mein Kampf’ signed in blood by the author, and directed me to the nearest Barnes and Noble, where, presumably, readers of dubious taste and sensibility could find what they wanted.”

Gee, you know, when a book reviewer compares—in a shrewdly indirect fashion—a publication to “Mein Kampf” and potential readers of this publication of having “dubious taste and sensibility,” I just wanna run right out and buy a truck load of ‘em, don’t you?

But it wasn’t only Fish who found the “Going Rogue”=”Mein Kampf” comparison accurate. Markay provides some online comments from those oh-so-tolerant readers of the oh-so-tolerant NY Times:

• I agree....American fiction is fun to read. And I like your allusion to “Mein Kampf”. It works well here. But at least he wrote his own material.

• ...If you liked this autobiography, you must have really loved “Mein Kampf.” I think both authors were about equally honest and ambitious, though Hitler was much more knowledgeable and articulate.

• Sarah Palin is no one to be admired, no matter how resilient, she is to be feared. More precisely, America’s habit of being fooled by mountebanks like Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin, who preach phony religious piety and jingoistic patriotism, is what we should fear. Honestly, I’m amazed that you were able to hold down your lunch after reading pap such as you describe, let alone recommend that we all have a taste. Unbelievable.

• Biography, auto or not, be damned. I share the horror of your bright young bookstore employee.

Of course, we can safely assume that none of these commentors read a single sentence of Sarah Palin’s book, nor do they plan to. Isn’t it just easier validating the loathsome comparison of the author with Hitler—or, worse, considering her even worse than Hitler because he was more “knowledgeable,” “articulate,” and “at least he wrote his own material.”

Now, as someone who is actually currently reading Sarah Palin’s book, I find it utterly impossible to conclude that a book which celebrates liberty and American values; shows respect for human life, regardless of race, gender, or physical handicaps; and endorses hard work, the acquisition of personal property and income, and the opportunities afforded by the free-market capitalist system = Mein Kampf.

On the other hand, how is it that a book which denounces American liberty and values, and instead espousing centralized State control over people’s lives; foments cynicism and distrust toward one particular racial group; and rejects economic freedom, foments hate against “the rich” (read: Jews), and promotes State control over property and income does not = Mein Kampf?

Because the above paragraph accurately describes both memoirs of Barack Hussein Obama. And you can be assured that the writers of the above online comments own one, if not both, of them.

But remember: It’s the right that’s intolerant, hateful, and ignorant.

Liberal Media Bias: Malkin and Others Hit Back on Kristof's NYT Pro-ObamaCare "News" Piece

Earlier this week I posted how Michelle Malkin totally blew apart an emotionally-charged NY Times article by Nicholas Kristof called "Are We Going to Let John Die?". It was about a young man from Oregon who was expected to die from an illness because he couldn't afford the health care. Kristof also had an accompanying NY Times blog post called, "The Human Toll of Our Health Care System."

The article was such a fallacious piece of excrement from beginning to end, that by the end of the day not only conservo-pundits like Malkin deconstructing it, but the NY Times was bombarded by emails from readers, including doctors and other health care professionals. Here's Malkin's post on that.

Today Kristof responded to his detractors in the intellectually honest and professional fashion we all expect from the "newspaper of record" (NOT). Michelle takes apart this follow-up as well. Enjoy.

I think Nicholas Kristof deserves the Walter Duranty Award for the week.

Liberal Media Bias: Reuters' Costly and Unpopular Editorializing

>This morning Drudge linked to this Reuters photo of a West Point cadet reading the book “Kill bin Laden” while waiting for President Hope&Change’s speech to begin. While the picture is amusing and provocative, it’s hard to tell if the joke was on Obama, or on the war effort itself. But when you read the caption, the question is answered. Here’s the screen shot of it at Yahoo! News:

“Costly and unpopular”? (And eight years. Don’t forget: eight years.)

Does anyone see “Opinion” anywhere in this sheet shot? No, this is a news page. Yeah, that’s objective reporting for you. Almost a year after he’s been out of office, they’re still going after Bush. Keep it classy, Reuters.

Actually, this is not the first time Reuters used this oh-so-objective turn of phrase. Here’s a report from November 25:

U.S. will be out of Afghanistan by 2017: White House
Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:02pm 
By Ross Colvin and Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will not be in Afghanistan eight years from now, the White House said on Wednesday, as President Barack Obamaprepared to explain to Americans next week why he is expanding the war effort.

After months of deliberation and fending off Republican charges that he was dithering on Afghanistan while violence there surged, Obama will address the nation on Tuesday on the way forward in the costly and unpopular eight-year war.

Woop, there it is again. In a news story.

This would be opposed to the … “inexpensive and popular” stimulus bill?
Or the “inexpensive and popular” government-run health (s)care bill?
Or the “inexpensive and popular” c(r)ap-and-tax bill?

Because, despite the actual costliness and popularity of the war in Afghanistan, I doubt that’s how Reuters describes these Obama policies which are significantly more costly and unpopular.

Besides, I thought everyone one the Left—including the media—considered Afghanistan the necessary war. Wasn’t the leftist mantra: “Iraq = bad; Afghanistan = good”? It’s frustrating enough keeping up with politically-motivated result-oriented leftists in general, let alone leftists in the media.)

Does anyone see “Opinion” anywhere in this sheet shot? No, this is a news page. Yeah, that’s objective reporting for you. Almost a year after he’s been out of office, they’re still going after Bush. Keep it classy, Reuters.

Actually, this is not the first time Reuters used this oh-so-objective turn of phrase. Here’s a report from November 25:

U.S. will be out of Afghanistan by 2017: White House
Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:02pm
By Ross Colvin and Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will not be in Afghanistan eight years from now, the White House said on Wednesday, as President Barack Obamaprepared to explain to Americans next week why he is expanding the war effort.

After months of deliberation and fending off Republican charges that he was dithering on Afghanistan while violence there surged, Obama will address the nation on Tuesday on the way forward in the costly and unpopular eight-year war.

Woop, there it is again. In a news story.

This would be opposed to the … “inexpensive and popular” stimulus bill?
Or the “inexpensive and popular” government-run health (s)care bill?
Or the “inexpensive and popular” c(r)ap-and-tax bill?

Because, despite the actual costliness and popularity of the war in Afghanistan, I doubt that’s how Reuters describes these Obama policies which are significantly more costly and unpopular.

Besides, I thought everyone one the Left—including the media—considered Afghanistan the necessary war. Wasn’t the leftist mantra: “Iraq = bad; Afghanistan = good”? It’s frustrating enough keeping up with politically-motivated result-oriented leftists in general, let alone leftists in the media.

Nope, no liberal media bias here!

Listen & Learn: El Rushbo - Despite ClimateGate, the AGW Drumbeat Goes On! (11/30/09)

Among the gems of brilliancy from these 20 minutes are:

This is not a conspiracy, folks. This is a cabal! This is a cabal of thugs masquerading as scientists to advance a worldwide leftist agenda.

*     *     *     *     *

It is an attack on capitalism, it is an attack on freedom, and it is ongoing -- and it's not just happening in the global warming movement. It's happening in the Obama health care movement. It's happening in the cap-and-trade movement. It's happening in the card check movement. It's happening in the amnesty-for-illegals movement. Everything the left does should be seen as an attack on freedom.

*     *     *     *     *

I knew it was political because I know liberals. I know liberals hate capitalism and consider it an enemy. So how best to win if you’re a liberal? Destroy capitalism, ergo, man-made global warming. And look at the headlines just today: “Western Civilization, Western Lifestyles Unsustainable.” “Only 10% of the World’s Population will Survive Global Warming.” “Global Warming is Causing Conflict and War in Africa.” No, it’s not. It’s something called poverty. Get ‘em running water, get ‘em electricity, and get ‘em DDT. Get rid of dictators and Africa will join the league of First World nations in time. But if you’re going to deny Africa DDT, if you’re going to deny Africa the right to develop, if you’re going to deny Africa running water and electricity, then you’re always going to have a Third World country with a few exceptions on the continent. It’s called poverty. Poverty results from liberalism. Poverty results from socialism. The problem with poverty around the world is there hasn’t been enough distribution of capitalism.

*     *     *     *     *

You cannot say, “Rush, that sounds a little extreme. I just don’t want to think that there are people living in this country that would do this.” You’re voting for them. It happens. It’s happening right under your nose. It’s called Obamacare. It’s called health insurance reform. It’s called cap and trade. It’s called TARP. It’s called the stimulus bill. This president has spent three-and-a-half trillion dollars in his first year in office and it ain’t over. That is a record. It’s three-and-a-half trillion dollars we do not have. It is designed to bankrupt this country and to allow Obama to join the rest of the leftists around the world and raise taxes on everybody in this country, income taxes and every other kind of tax, the purpose of which is twofold: to fund an ever-growing government, but more importantly, to prevent the creation of wealth, to provide a roadblock to the creation of wealth.

The more that is taxed from you, the less disposable income you have to invest and to live on the less likely you are to assume and acquire wealth. That’s for the elitists to have and they’re going to get their wealth by taking yours and mine and everybody else’s. And they’re going to do it under the guise of saving the planet or creating jobs or reforming health care or reducing greenhouse gases or saving the financial institutions or saving the banks or making sure nobody defaults on their mortgage or making sure nobody has to pay on their mortgage. Whatever it is, everything going on right now is an assault on you and your family, your children, and their grandchildren, your grandchildren and their effort to acquire individual wealth. When that happens, fewer and fewer people own property, and the ownership of private property is as fundamental to freedom as is the First Amendment to our Constitution. All ten amendments are under assault. The people of this country got hoodwinked and bamboozled and have elected an international socialist who has no particular desire or love or appreciation for American exceptionalism, and he’s marching through with all the weapons at his disposal: ACORN, a Democrat majority in Congress, a compliant media, and science. The Four Corners of Deceit: Academia, government, science and media.

No wonder El Rushbo is one of the most feared and loathed person by the Left.

[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and any other extraneous talking]

(Download Rush2009-11-30_pt1.mp3 here)

(Download Rush2009-11-30_pt2.mp3 here)

Liberal Media Bias: Kristof's Latest NYT Piece on Health Care - All Emotion, No Balance

There's a reason Michelle Malkin is one of the most feared and loathed women by the left. She comes at them with truth like a vampire slayer with a silver stake. Go get 'em, Michelle!

Quite possibly the crappiest NYTimes column for Obamacare ever

Nick Kristof is the recipient of not one, but two Pulitzer Prizes for journalism. He has traveled the world, writes critically acclaimed books, and counts Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie among his glamorous friends. He is also the author of what may quite possibly be the crappiest New York Times column for Obamacare ever.

It is subtly titled, “Are We Going to Let John Die?” and is dripping with the emotional and policy intelligence of your average Democratic Underground commenter. Kristof tells the sad story of John Brodniak, 23, a sawmill worker from Yamhill County, Oregon. Kristof reports that Brodniak has been diagnosed with cavernous hemangioma.

Read the rest here.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes: Palin "Going Rogue" Edition (11/20/09)

In all honesty, I was initially not planning to buy Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. It’s a personal trait of mine not to favor biographies or autobiographies/memoirs. I prefer books on political philosophy or events, rather than on an individual person. That’s just me. (One exception: Clarence Thomas’ autobiography My Grandfather's Son; Loved it!)

But I want the leftocracy—with the notable exception of Oprah Winfrey—to know that their continued bashing of this woman compelled me to purchase her book yesterday, and I am reading it with delight.

As the left continues to pound this woman and her new book, rather than do objective reporting, here are some retorts from the right:

Nov. 20, 2009 | National Review Online
Palinophobes Hate First, Ask Questions Later
By Jonah Goldberg

Slate magazine is just one of the countless media outlets convulsing with St. Vitus’ Dance over that demonic succubus Sarah Palin. In its reader forum, The Fray, one supposed Palinophobe took dead aim at the former Alaska governor’s writing chops, excerpting the following sentence from her book:

“The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn’t work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.”

Other readers pounced like wolf-sized Dobermans on an intruder. One guffawed, “That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest. It could have a chance at winning a (sic) honorable mention, at any rate.”

But soon, the original contributor confessed: “I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It’s taken from the first paragraph of ‘Dreams From My Father,’ written by Barack Obama.” [Whoops!]

Nov. 20, 2009 | Jewish World Review
Sally Quinn on Sarah Palin — Versus Reality
By David Limbaugh

… Of all the screeds I’ve read, I don’t think any are snarkier than The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn’s “On Faith” blog post “Sarah Palin’s ‘rogue’ Christianity.”

Do we need further proof of the secular orientation of our dominant media culture than the fact that Quinn, an avowed atheist, pens the Post’s “On Faith” blog? That would be like featuring a column by Fidel Castro on free enterprise and individual liberties. …

Quinn says: “Sarah Palin writes that one summer at Bible Camp she ‘put my life in my creator’s hands and trust Him as I sought my life’s path.’ For Palin, this grand divine plan was ‘a natural progression.’ She writes. And later, ‘I don’t believe in coincidences.’“

Quinn — convinced she has exposed Palin as confused, conflicted and acutely hypocritical — volleys a series of rhetorical questions designed to reveal Palin’s apparent inconsistency in believing that G0d is in complete control (“I don’t believe in coincidences”) and yet he allows or causes terrible things to happen to people.

Here’s a sampling of Quinn’s ill-informed, sneering arrogance: “Did G0d plan for her to become Governor of Alaska. If so, did G0d plan for her to step down. … Did G0d plan for her to have a huge wardrobe? Then why did she apologize for it? ... Did G0d plan for her daughter Bristol to get pregnant while she was a teenager? Why was she then not thrilled.”

Perhaps Quinn wouldn’t be so smug if she were to do the slightest bit of thinking or reading about the concepts of G0d’s sovereignty and free will — ideas that have challenged the finest minds for 2,000 years and contributed to denominational differences within evangelical Christianity. Has Quinn studied Calvin, Wesley, Luther or any other past or present theologian on these issues? …

Quinn is exercised at Palin for supposedly settling scores in her book and allegedly failing to exhibit the Christian qualities of “love, generosity, mercy and forgiveness.” But it’s my informed guess that Quinn’s contempt for Palin has nothing to do with these false charges or Palin’s alleged hypocrisy or even her theology but is rooted in Palin’s conservative ideology.

November 20, 2009 | Town Hall
Palin-Hating 101
by S. E. Cupp

… Newsweek, in advance of Palin’s book release, obviously went for subtlety. Their headline read, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She’s bad news for the GOP—and everybody else, too.” [As opposed to non-problems like the America-hating Barack Obama and his America-hating wife who adorned the cover of Newsweek several times since 2007; or the charlatan Al Gore, whose climate alarmism has made him filthy rich while threatening the prosperity of our nation] Accompanying it was a photo of her in running shorts used in a June 2009 Runner’s World spread. Newsweek’s message was clear: You are not to take this woman seriously. Never mind that Runner’s Week [sic] told me that the photos from that shoot are still under a one-year embargo, and that Newsweek ran the photo without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission. No biggie. [Typically, when you’re a liberal in the process of a conservative to smear, no rules apply, not morally and not legally. Stay classy, Newsweek.]

On “Hardball,” Chris Matthews, who’s still recovering from that bizarre bout of restless leg syndrome that suddenly befell him last year, actually had the audacity to say of the attention Palin is getting for her book release, “I’ve never seen hype like this.” Apparently, the overwrought sensationalism of the Denver Democratic National Convention, where Obama stood amidst faux White House columns, under fireworks, next to Sheryl Crow and Will.i.am—or “Hype and Change 2008”—is but a distant memory to Matthews.

In another segment, on another night, Matthews and MSNBC reporter Norah O’Donnell decided that the crowd at a Palin book signing was, well, too white. “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing. In other words, white vs. other people,” said Matthews, ever the sociology scholar.

The leftwing media has long tried to ascribe a scary nativism to Palin, who best described the phenomenon during her recent Oprah interview, when she said that Katie Couric had looked at her like she was part of some kind of nomadic tribe from Alaska. Asking her what she read was like asking her if she read. [If Couric et al. actually read Palin’s book, as I am currently doing, they will find out that Palin was raised on poetry. But, unlike elitist liberals, she doesn’t need to impress anyone by quoting any.]

Others have tried to carefully feign disinterest in the hopes that, much like the flu, disinterest is contagious. The Washington Post published a book review by Ana Marie Cox, in which she smugly “confesses” she didn’t have time to read the entire book, “It’s terrible, I know, but if I didn’t read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.” In that one sentence, we know that Cox’s time constraints excuse wasn’t the issue. She simply wanted to be able to write in a book review that Palin’s book didn’t make her to-do list. Her anti-review review is fine for Cox, but what’s the Washington Post’s excuse for publishing it?

Others still have tried to dismiss Palin as some would-be celebrity, who—how dare she?!—had the gumption and considerable bad taste to write a book. And promote it. (Irony alert: Al Gore has his own television network.) …

But we don’t see the liberal press fretting over President Obama’s penchant for self-promotion. They coo when he goes on Letterman to talk about all the cool stuff that happens when you’re president—during a recession and a war. And they applaud his Nobel Peace Prize, for which he was nominated after just 12 days in office. And they rally around his embarrassing Olympic bid, which actually argued that the IOC should choose Chicago so that he and Michelle could stop and see the fam while in their old neighborhood. Obama’s “me, me, me, me, me, me, me” aria is fine. But Palin’s plain-speaking and honest stab at defending herself against her seething critics is schlocky showboating and shameless self-promotion. Please. …

Have a blessed day!

Pop Science Quiz

OK, kiddies, time play an old favorite. Here’s a picture of the planet Earth:

 

So far so good.

Now look at this photoshopped version and find six things that are scientifically wrong/untenable:

 

Answers:

1.The hurricane off the coast of Florida is spinning in the wrong direction. Hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere (like all low pressure storms) go counterclockwise.

2. The hurricane off of South America is almost on the equator, an impossibility for hurricanes.

Notice that there are four hurricanes on the map simultaneously? But despite the climate scare-mongers, the frequency and strength of hurricanes have been decreasing over the past few years and are currently at a 30-year low.

3. All of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is removed, but snow cover over Canada and Alaska remains.

4. The middle part of the Greenland ice sheet, the thickest part, is gone. Ice remains around the edges, where it's the thinnest.

5. Cuba is totally underwater, which would require a sea level rise of over 6,000 feet. This would mean the U.S. all the way up to Denver should be submerged as well.

6. Panama is underwater too, another impossibility given its height above sea level in comparison to other land masses not submerged.

I Hate the Media says:

For Panama to disappear beneath the waves would require sea levels to rise more than 11,400 feet (slightly more than the 14-inches anticipated by the IPCC report).

That sea level rise would leave only five towns in the entire world above water – Namache Bazaar, Nepal at 11,482 feet; Potosi, Bolivia at 13,420 feet; El Alto, Bolivia at 13,615 feet, Lhasa Tibet at 12,200 feet; and La Rinoconada, Peru at 16,728 feet. Denver, the Mile High City, would be a mile under water.

If, say, a middle school science student turned in this picture of the Earth to describe what the planet would look like due to man-made global warming climate change, he would get a freakin’ F for FAIL.

Too bad that picture is the cover of Al Gore’s new book, “Our Choice.”

And to think, just a couple weeks ago Newsweek called the Goracle the “thinking man’s thinking man.” Which makes both Gore and Newsweek pathetic.

Earlier this week, eleven crack “journalists” at the Associated Press combed Sarah Palin’s new book, only to discover six lies in 432 pages. Here we have on Al Gore’s new book six lies on the cover alone. Hey, AP, fact-check this!

Other posts on the Goracle’s latest photoshop adventure: Prison Planet; Dvorak Uncensored, Moonbattery

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Louis Farrakhan on the Ft. Hood Massacre

Jim at Gateway Pundit reports on an interview with “Nation of Islam” Leader Louis Farrakhan, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on November 6. In it, Farrakhan blames the Ft. Hood massacre on the foreign policy of George W. Bush and on the climate of anti-Muslim sentiment fostered by Jews and Christians alike during his administration. Take it away, Calypso Louie:

As you know, since 9/11, in America and in other parts of the world, those anti-Islamic forces have stepped up their efforts to make Muslims… to cause the Muslims to be looked at as uncivilized, savage, or wicked people. This is an attempt by anti-Islamic forces, and some members of the Jewish community, and some members of the Christian community, who have united to condemn Islam …

It is because, my dear brothers and sisters, Islam was making so much progress in the United States that those anti-Islamic forces are trying to stem the tide of the progress of Islam. …

When there are Muslims who love America, and who join the armed forces to protect America, and to serve the interests of America, and then America, unfortunately, under the falsehoods of the George. W. Bush administration, launches attacks against Iraq and against Afghanistan, and now, those soldiers are killing Muslims… So when they go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the kind of hatred that is built up in the American forces, when they call the Muslims “ragheads” and “desert niggers,” and then, in the Abu Ghureib prison, Muslim women were raped, and Muslim men were sodomized …

All this affects Muslims serving in the army. So when you are being insulted by your superior officers or by your fellow soldiers, at some point, a person might break. Unfortunately, I believe this is what happened to Captain Nidhal Hassan.

Isn’t is amazing when it’s hard to tell when a hateful anti-American rant is being delivered by the leader of the Nation of Islam or by an MSNBC commentator?

Speaking of which, my initial reaction to these statements (other than disgust) was to ask: Hey, ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCNYTLATWaPo: Will any of you be reporting on this, actual, hate speech (as opposed from the fake hate speech by Rush Limbaugh et al., which is basically any speech that doesn’t echo the liberal template)? Or will you dutifully sweep it under the rug since the speaker is a close personal friend of President Hope&Change’s pastor of 20+ years?

And then I realized: This interview was from November 6. It’s now November 18, and this is the first time I’m hearing about it.

Should I be surprised?

El Rushbo and Fox News Must Be Reading My Blog

Over the weekend, when I posted on how AP sicced a team of “journalists” to fact-check Sarah Palin’s new autobiography—only to find six “lies” in 432 pages. I then noted that neither they nor the mainstream media bothered to fact-check Bill and Hillary Clinton’s memoirs, and certainly didn’t fact-check Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

Well, lo and behold - On Monday’s show, Rush says:

Hey, AP, I got an idea for you. Assign those same 11 reporters to Algore’s book and see how many facts you can find, not errors. What is his stupid book, Earth in the Balance? No, no, that was the preview. What’s the book or slide show out there? … Don’t look it up. I don’t care. But whatever the current book is on global warming, they made the slide show out of and so forth and that little movie that the kids in school were required to watch, assign the same 11 reporters to that book and find out how many facts you can find!

OK, OK, I’ll give Rush a pass for following me on this story. My post was from Saturday and his next show wasn’t until Monday.

In any case, it cracked me up that he couldn’t recall the title An Inconvenient Truth. But then I thought, Rush is a smart guy; he has to remember the name. He was just irking the Goracle and his worshippers, I think.

And then yesterday, Fox News.com had this:

November 17, 2009
AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book ‘Fact Check’
by Robert Shaffer, FOXNews.com

Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the Associated Press' treatment of Palin's book seems an unprecedented move at the wire service …

When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.

The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin's motives for writing "Going Rogue: An American Life," stating as fact that the book "has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto."

Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled "Really? Still Making Things Up?"

“Imagine that,” the post read. “11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing.”

The AP, an organization with over 4,000 employees and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, wouldn't comment on their own reporting for this story.

Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the treatment Palin's book received appears to be something new for the AP. The organization did not review for accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then-Sen. Joe Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton. The AP did more traditional news stories on those books.

Hey, that’s what I wrote! Yeah, I know. It’s a big responsibility being the trend setter. Thanks for reading my blog though, guys. I’ll keep workin’ hard! :)

Liberal Lie #7: Muslims Are at Risk Because of American Intolerance, Cont'd

[Part 1here]

First, a related strip hot off the presses at Diversity Lane:

 

Clay Waters at NewsBusters weighed in yesterday on the media bias on the Ft. Hood shooting vs. "right-wing" terrorism:

NYT Columnists Who Blamed Conservatives for ‘Right-Wing’ Killings Ignoring Fort Hood Massacre

Back in June, liberal columnists at the New York Times lined up to link conservative talkers Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh to James von Brunn, the 88-year-old man who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, and the murder by Scott Roeder of abortionist George Tiller.

Columnists Paul Krugman and Judith Warner both weighed in on June 12.

Krugman’s “The Big Hate” blamed Fox host Bill O’Reilly’s rhetoric (“Tiller the baby killer”) for the Tiller murder, as well as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, for contributing to the dangerously toxic atmosphere.

Warner’s online entry, “The Wages of Hate,” read: “You can't accuse Beck or Limbaugh of inciting violence. But they almost certainly do stoke the flames.”

Frank Rich also blamed O’Reilly for the Tiller murder in his Sunday column, "The Obama Hater's Silent Enablers," two days later.

Bob Herbert came in late, on June 20, referring to the killings as “right-wing, hate-driven attacks” and also blaming “over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association.”

So how did these professional hand-wringers treat another incident of violence, this one even more tragic: A mass killing of 13 people, many of them soldiers, at Fort Hood in Texas by a Muslim Army major shouting “God is great” in Arabic?

They’ve ignored it.

As of November 13, eight days after the Fort Hood murders, neither Rich, Krugman, or Warner have mentioned the massacre, much less Hasan’s radical Islamic beliefs. Only Bob Herbert devoted two sentences to Hasan on Saturday, using the killings as a leaping-off point to talk about post-traumatic stress suffered by veterans home from Iraq and Afghanistan (even though Hasan hasn’t even seen combat).

Yeah. Just … yeah.

Liberal Media Bias: AP Fact-Checks Sarah Palin's Book. What About Al Gore's?

In a few days Sarah Palin’s much-anticipated Going Rogue hits the stores. But this morning Ms. Palin is already meeting some criticism for allegedly false statements. Before the book is even released, a gaggle of Associated Press—yes, Associated Press!—writers took it upon themselves to embark on a fact-checking mission:

FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Sarah Palin's new book reprises familiar claims from the 2008 presidential campaign that haven't become any truer over time.

Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer's dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.

Palin goes adrift, at times, on more contemporary issues, too. She criticizes President Barack Obama for pushing through a bailout package that actually was achieved by his Republican predecessor George W. Bush — a package she seemed to support at the time.

In Palin’s 400+ page memoir Calvin Woodward and his team of assistants found only a handful of questionable statements. This would hardly be a news story were the author of the book not the leftocracy’s the most hated and feared woman.

Now, in theory I have no problem with a news outlet parsing a popular new book and addressing misstatements, exaggerations, and falsehoods. If an author is gilting the lily, they should be called on it.

What I do have a problem with is the apparent enthusiasm with which a news source went after this book. You’d be hard pressed to find the mainstream media so ambitiously fact-check the publication of a liberal/Democrat public figure.

In 2003, Hillary Clinton’s Living History memoir came out. Taxpayer-funded NPR granted her no less than four interviews. In one of them, NPR did not fail to note that Hillary “criticizes the Bush administration for a ‘power grab on so many fronts’ which she calls an attempt to implement a ‘very radical, right-wing agenda.’” (This would be the same NPR which seems not to have a problem with the Obama administration grabbing power on so many friends in order to implement a very radical, left-wing agenda.)

Interestingly, one of the most critical reviews of Hillary’s book came from Maureen Dowd at the NY Times. But Dowd’s complaints were not with any questionable statements, but merely with her writing style and content. No matter. Hillary was vindicated in 2004 when Clyde Haberman skewered Dick Morris in the Times’ review of Rewriting History. The Washington Post was also not very kind with Morris’ 300+ page retort to Hillary’s fantasy memoir.

You have to go across the pond to London’s Independent to find an article questioning the veracity of Living History.

It was actually Bill Clinton’s My Life memoir from June, 2004, that got more criticism by the press, e.g., USA Today. But that didn’t stop the media from ooh-ing and aah-ing over the sales records Clinton was breaking, and it certainly didn’t stop Clinton from being applauded on all the news shows, from Oprah to 60 Minutes. 

The headline on CBS News’ Politics page on June 14, 2004 blared “The Return Of The Comeback Kid” and declared: “Bill Clinton is back.” Instead of critiquing the nearly 1000-page tome, the Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn wondered how much Clinton’s book was going to hurt George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

Again, when Dick Morris and Eileen McGann hit back in December, 2004, with Because He Could, the mainstream media circled the wagons. Chris Suellentrop in the Washington Post mocked the 270-page attempt to set the record straight as an “extended blog entry with a dust jacket.”

And what of the pièce de resistance, the opus d’opus, the king of all books which are loads of B.S. from front cover to back cover: An Inconvenient Truth by Albert Gore, Jr. Five years after the release of this deceptive piece of propaganda and its accompanying movie, the mainstream media is still enamored with Al Gore and his cause.

But the inconvenient truth is there are more lies in one chapter of An Inconvenient Truth than in Sarah Palin’s whole book. This is handily demonstrated, for instance, by Marlo Lewis, Jr. at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose monograph A Skeptic’s Guide to AIT meticulously deconstruct’s Gore’s book page by fallacious page.

If the Associated Press or any mainstream news outlet were anywhere near as ambitious at fact-checking An Inconvenient Truth as they are Going Rogue, Al Gore would be a humiliated has-been and the campaign to fight man-made global warming climate change would be at the top of every list of humanity’s greatest scams.

Get ready for some more Gore-lovin' from the mainstream media; the thinking man's thinking man has a new man-made global warming climate change book out this month. You think Calvin Woodward and the gang at the Associated Press are going to be fact-checking this or any of Gore's books? Sure, and pigs will be flying out of my skinny white butt.

Like I said, in theory I have no problem with—and even welcome—the media conducting a principled analysis on a public figure’s memoir.

But the selective fact-checking crusades are just a little too transparent.