Jack Cafferty gave CNN’s coverage of the Iowa caucuses his special touch this afternoon:

(more…)

December has been an incredibly busy month for Operation Fast and Furious. It all started with Mr. Holder’s outburst to The Daily Caller. Then the DOJ dumped over 1400 pages of documents on Congress on Friday, December 3rd, which the MSM ignored or buried, but The New York Times quickly spun it in Mr. Holder’s favor. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS shows us documents proving the ATF was using Fast and Furious to get stricter gun laws and the following day Mr. Holder testifies in front of Congress. Then Fast and Furious was brought up in the debate!

Now Mr. Holder and the DOJ are starting to unravel. Mr. Holder’s interview with The New York Times where he called us in the media racist. Last night the DOJ released a statement trying to explain that Mr. Holder didn’t use the race card. Anyone with a 1st grade reading comprehension knows Mr. Holder did call us racist. But the most telling thing to me at least is the Old Media has not reported on this statement. I’ve been surfing their websites all afternoon and evening and cannot find anything. I would think The New York Times would be more than happy to publish it, but nothing from them. They were so quick to make Mr. Holder the victim (even putting the article on page A1 of the Sunday edition!) you’d think they’d publish the DOJ statement! You know, gain more sympathy for Mr. Holder. Nothing. Complete silence.

Something interesting happened. On Tuesday CNN’s Jack Cafferty brought it up on his blog and The Situation Room. Not only did he mention Operation Fast and Furious, but he asked if this would be Obama’s Watergate. Mr. Cafferty’s blog is very neutral, too, on the operation. I’m incredibly impressed.

(more…)

This qualifies as a Credit Where It’s Due and a Soundbite For The Day. Kudos to CNN’s Jack Cafferty for his reporting.

(more…)

Three finger snap.

(more…)

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann broke from his self-described pattern of not offering commentary, and called for an end to the media’s self-imposed editorial silence concerning the U.S. government’s response to a terrible natural disaster.

Okay, it was a different disaster during a different administration. But did you hear what he said? A week into the Hurricane Katrina recovery he declared that,

But now, at last, it has stopped getting exponentially worse…and having given our leaders what we now know is the week or so they need to get their acts together, that period of editorial silence I mentioned should come to an end.

As the chaos of recovery efforts in and around New Orleans became the big story, old media commentators fired barrages of harsh rhetoric toward President Bush and members of his administration directly involved with disaster relief. Never mind what part of that criticism was justified, and what part was driven by political preferences. It was a blend. (more…)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs faced pointed questions from two reporters during a briefing on Wednesday regarding President Obama’s about-face on transparency in the health care bill debate. A sampling:

Reporter: During the campaign, the president on numerous occasions said words to the effect of, quoting one, “All of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public.” Do you agree that the president is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

Watching Gibbs dodge and weave with answers varying from “we covered this yesterday” to “the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible”  is at once nauseating and fascinating. Not only did he not answer the question — what, be honest and lose his job? — but his deameanor implied that answering such questions is beneath his dignity and not worthy of the time. I’ve noticed this on more than one occasion.

Certainly it’s the press secretary’s job to make his boss look good – but it’s a reporter’s job to play devil’s advocate. Why did only two reporters in the room press Gibbs on the transparency issue? George W. Bush was constantly criticized for being too secretive – and yet here we have a direct promise of transparency being broken, and only a couple of reporters dare to ask why. Perhaps they’re worried about being denied access if they ask questions that are too probing, as happened during the campaign. (more…)