SEARCH

Posts Tagged ‘MSM’

Mary Chastain

Attorney General Eric Holder needs to send Charlie Savage at The New York Times a huge box of chocolates for Valentine’s Day. The NYT is the biggest cheerleader for Mr. Holder and this entire administration.

We all know how well I get along with Mr. Savage. His articles are notorious for being incredibly pro-Holder. This one is no different. Actually, it’s very anti-Darrell Issa. There isn’t anything negative about Mr. Holder or the Democrats on the committee. The more I read it I realize it’s not really about the hearing: It’s almost as if Mr. Savage and the Times used it as an excuse to write an article to prop up Mr. Holder. Mr. Savage completely glosses over anything the Republicans brought up.

First off, Mr. Savage, Operation Fast and Furious was not botched. Katie Pavlich at Townhall wrote about it here. It worked exactly the way it was suppose to. It was not botched. It did not fail. If anything, Operation Fast and Furious worked out the exact way it should.

Mr. Savage is right: The Republicans did rip into Mr. Holder, but for good reason. He forgets to mention the reason why the Republicans are so mad. They gave Mr. Holder and the DOJ a subpoena on October 12, 2011 and the department has given them the bare minimum. The department is stonewalling them. They’re mad because the documents were dumped on a Friday night. Again. Mr. Savage only brings up a quote from Representative Burton about Mr. Holder stonewalling them. He could have talked about Mr. Issa’s opening statement about the DOJ not cooperating.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

Right off the bat C-SPAN should have aired this hearing. There is absolutely no excuse not to air it on TV. Since I had to stream it online I kept my TV on DirecTV News Mix to keep an eye on the news. The only network that had consistent coverage of the testimony was FOX News. I’m not shocked at all. I didn’t see anything about the testimony on the other channels. Jeff Poor from The Daily Caller helped me keep an eye on MSNBC and he didn’t see anything. He said they were hung up on Donald Trump all day. I was informed by a friend on Twitter, Doug Mataconis, that the hearing was discussed on The Situation Room on CNN for about 15 minutes. “Special Report” and The FOX Report both started off with Mr. Holder’s testimony.

Before I continue I noticed some friends on Twitter growing upset that headlines were partisan. The MSM was right: This was a partisan fight and every single Democrat coddled Mr. Holder. The Republicans were the only ones to demand withheld documents and answers from Mr. Holder.

Right after the testimony ended I began searching for coverage of the hearing on Google. First stop was Associated Press. Remember: If the AP doesn’t write anything on Fast & Furious more than likely the rest of the media won’t mention it. Pete Yost did write about the testimony, but hat’s where the excitement ends. Again, he distorts information to favor Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice. Mr. Yost fails to mention the subpoena was issued October 12, 2011. That’s 4 months ago. That is plenty of time to go through the hoops to release the documents. Mr. Yost says, “Though neither side said so, negotiations are almost certain to be the next step.” If you watched the testimony do you honestly think Mr. Issa or Mr. Holder will negotiate? Didn’t think so. Mr. Issa won’t accept anything less than the documents he needs. Then Mr. Yost describes a few dialogues, but doesn’t bother to get down to nitty gritty of the testimony.



(more…)

Mary Chastain

On Monday Representative Darrell Issa threatened Attorney General Eric Holder with a contempt of Congress if he does not fulfill Mr. Issa’s subpoena from October 12, 2011. Hardly anyone reported it. But then when I went to Google “Issa Eric Holder” this evening and a bunch of results came up. Unfortunately it was not about Mr. Issa’s statements. Instead it’s all about Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice’s remarks.

I’ve mentioned before it’s unusual for the Old Media to run any Fast and Furious news if the AP didn’t run something first. Same thing with this story. AP didn’t bother to post a story about Mr. Issa, but as soon as Mr. Holder says something they’re all over it. It’s quite pathetic and reminds me of Pavlov’s dog. This is the explanation of Mr. Issa’s letter:

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., made the accusation in a letter threatening to seek a contempt of Congress ruling against Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to turn over congressionally subpoenaed documents that were created after problems with Fast and Furious came to light. Holder was to testify Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs.

That’s it. No mention that this is a response to his subpoena on October 12, 2011. No mention of the emails sent Friday night. But the media goes crazy and reprints this article.

Not every outlet used the AP story though. The Washington Post again had an original piece written by Sari Horwitz! Weird, isn’t it, that she writes original posts when the DOJ and Democrats are on the defense. Surprise surprise! The story is on the front page of the website.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

Remember this? Yes, last Friday night the DOJ dumped documents on Congress about Fast and Furious. Anyone with an ounce of common sense & critical thinking skills would come to the conclusion based on the emails between Monty Wilkinson, Attorney General Eric Holder’s then deputy chief of staff, and then-US Attorney Dennis Burke, Mr. Holder and quite possible Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer knew about Operation Fast and Furious.

The majority of the media ignored the documents. They took the AP article and printed it, but buried it among other articles. Only NPR, The Daily Caller, and CBS had original articles. The New York Times really buried it: Even if you searched for it you wouldn’t find it. The AP article mentions the emails at the very end, but just repeats the talking points instead of using their common sense. “Mr. Wilkinson does not recall discussing this aspect with the attorney general.” Come on people let’s use our brains! Do you believe Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Holder’s deputy chief of staff, did NOT tell his boss about this?

But Congressional Democrats and the media don’t think this way. Instead of investigating further they simply take someone’s word, even if it sounds suspicious. This morning I saw an alert from The New York Times. The Democrats on The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee cleared the Obama administration of any wrong doing. This is the same Times that ignored the Friday night document dump. This story appeared on the front page of their US section and is an original piece written by Charlie Savage. Ironically the article by Pete Yost at the AP is the most concise one he’s written about Fast and Furious. Gee, I wonder why. The Huffington Post put Mr. Yost’s article on the front page of their politics section. What’s this I see? The Washington Post actually didn’t publish the AP article, but had Sari Horwirz write an original piece? I believe that hasn’t happened since September.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

Oh look! The Justice Department decides to dump 500 pages on Congress on a Friday night! If they really want to be secretive or different they’d choose to dump documents on a Tuesday night. We’re almost looking forward to Friday nights because that’s when we can expect anything about Fast and Furious from the Justice Department.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify on Thursday, February 2 in front of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee so it’s no surprise there was a dump last night. I was looking through my timeline when I saw Michelle Malkin’s tweet about the documents. The link led to NPR, which shocked me they would be the ones to have it plus they included nine pages of the documents. They beat the AP! I have found unless the AP writes about Fast and Furious the majority of the Old Media won’t touch it.

I went to sleep around midnight central time and at that time the only major outlets that covered it were AP, CNN, Washington Post, FOX News, and ABC News. This morning I woke up and saw USA Today posted the AP article. The story was the main story on the front page of their national section, but has since been replaced. It’s not even on the front page anymore. I’d give them props, but it appeared before 6AM and taken down before 9AM CDT. Sorry guys, it doesn’t count when you have it up and taken down before the majority of the country wakes up. It’s also nowhere on the FOX News home page and it’s buried in the politics section. Shame on them since they’ve been consistent with Fast and Furious coverage. CNN does receive credit because it’s still on their home page.

At The Washington Post and ABC News you have to go a search for Fast and Furious in order to find their AP article. The New York Times also buried the AP article. In order to find it you have to go to the bottom of their home page and find the tiny cube for “More News From AP and Reuters.” Click on AP and it’s under AP Politics. But you have to click AP Politics and scroll to the bottom. Even if you search “Fast and Furious” it doesn’t bring up the article. I consider this as NOT covering it New York Times! I’m very disappointed The Washington Times hasn’t even mentioned it. I haven’t seen anything on CBS News either. MSNBC buried the AP article.

Here’s the thing. I know these outlets have investigative reporters. The emails gave me more questions than answers and I’m wondering why no one in the Old Media is pointing this out. I receive Google Alerts for Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious. This morning a blog post from Stop The ACLU popped up addressing the same questions I had. NPR brings up this part in the emails, but ignores it and doesn’t realize the importance. Right after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry passed away Monty Wilkinson, Mr. Holder’s deputy chief of staff,  emails Dennis Burke (bold my emphasis), “Tragic. I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

(more…)

Mary Chastain

Media outlets didn’t cover March For Life while it happened, despite knowing it was going to happen and hundreds of thousands of people there. News outlets do have stories on it now, but of course the number of people there are distorted and the stories are pretty bland. Again, remember how much effort went into Occupy Wall Street coverage. Reporters were at the scenes. News stations were always on them. Also if they had anyone on the scene at March For Life they’d have a more accurate number of people.

Photo Credit Michelle Fields from The Daily Caller

The best coverage belongs to Judge Andrew Napolitano on his show  ”Freedom Watch” on FOX Business Network. Judge Napolitano is a fierce pro-life advocate and doesn’t shy away from the issue. At the end of every show he signs off with “The Plain Truth” and yesterday it was about abortion.


His guest was Rep. Renee Ellmers who discussed the defense of life. This was the most coverage by anyone in the media. Thank you, Judge Napolitano.

I then went to FOX News and I’ll admit, I was disappointed. The article was written by Shannon Bream and just like C-SPAN she called the protestors anti-abortion. Yes they are anti-abortion, but why doesn’t anyone ever call them pro-life? Why do they have to be constantly addressed as anti? When pro-choice protesters march they’re referred to as pro-choice, not anti-life. She did, however, give a reasonable estimate of people there, tens of thousands. Trust me, that’s much better than some of the others.

(more…)

Meredith Dake

Apparently, not much.


The pressing issues of the day according to NBC: Terri Schiavo, sugar subsidies, the Everglades Project, the over-asked “Will you run as a 3rd party candidate?” question, English as the official language, and the very pressing issue of deciding what to do when Fidel Castro dies. There were a few moments that allowed for internal bickering and foreign policy. Most of the time, the candidates were fighting the moderators to get in policy talking points so that the American people might be slightly more informed of what the candidates actually plan to do should they be elected President. (more…)

Mary Chastain

The March For Life took place yesterday in Washington, DC despite the cold, dreary weather. But unless you tuned into C-SPAN2 for a few hours this morning or EWTN (the Catholic station) all day you wouldn’t have known it happened. Other stations, including FOX News, glossed over this march while it happened.

Credit Elizabeth Avis @Beth_Avis

Before the march Michelle Malkin wrote a post about the media’s lack of attention. It got me interested and I decided to tune into DirecTV News Mix and the C-SPAN coverage all afternoon. Some people on Twitter, especially Sharon Cabana, helped me out by keeping an eye on CNN and MSNBC. There were a a few seconds of coverage on FOX News & MSNBC, but didn’t see anything on CNN. I’m not shocked, but it doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed. The Old Media was on hand to cover OWS at all times. They knew this was happening and yet no one on stand by. It’s awful how these peaceful, clean, and civilized people were completely ignored by the Old Media while the disgusting and uncivilized people of Occupy Wall Street received so much attention.

Thank goodness for social media like Twitter. Since I knew I wasn’t going to receive anything from the Old Media I knew I had to use the New Media. I reached out to people on the #MarchForLife hash tag and people have been tweeting me pictures. Here are a few:

(more…)

John Nolte

Over the past couple days, it’s been fascinating to watch and read the corrupt media’s reaction to the effective counter-attack Speaker Gingrich has launched against them. Here are a couple of  prime examples:

New York Times:

John King of CNN, Juan Williams of Fox News and Brian Ross of ABC News all ended up being hit by Mr. Gingrich in his relentless criticism of the news media last week, part of an anti-elite, anti-establishment campaign that is rallying conservative voters around him.

Translation: Angry GOP voters just want to see the MSM take a beating.

Politico:

Both Thursday and in numerous debates before, the former House Speaker’s stance suggested a candidate harboring deep bitterness toward the media, a man appalled by the very sight of notebook-carrying scribes.

The reality is very different.

The same candidate who on Thursday decried “the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media” shows another face to the cadre of reporters who follow his campaign day-to-day. He jokes with them, publicly celebrates their birthdays, teases them about the early hour they are often forced out of bed to cover his events

Translation: Newt likes us! He really likes us! And what he’s really doing is just politics and red meat for those bitter conservatives bitterly clinging to their bitter hatred of the media.

By painting Newt’s attacks as nothing more than political theatre, the MSM is able to avoid any serious analysis or, God forbid, soul searching with respect to their own behavior. The truth, of course, is actually much deeper. The appeal of Newt’s counter-attack against the MSM can be summed up in two words: “food” and “stamps.”

(more…)

Mary Chastain

It’s bad when national media outlets show bias, but I honestly think it’s worse when your local media shows bias. Last night on Twitter I came across a tweet about thousands at a pro-Walker rally, but the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said only hundreds were there.

This may not seem like a big deal, but the Associated Press picked it up and didn’t bother to check the facts. Other media outlets reported the original AP article. The MacIver Institute took a screen shot and posted it to their Facebook account:

I looked all over the Associated Press website and couldn’t find their articles. Not shocked at all, but luckily other local outlets used the numerous AP articles on their site. The first one appeared on their ABC website. This article is interesting because it glosses over the pro-Walker protestors, but goes into detail about the anti-Walker protestors. No bias here, right? The AP did post another article that was picked up by Madison.com. This one did get into more detail about the rally and the supporters, including those who spoke. The only article I could find that is any good is from Wauwatosa Patch. The writer, Jim Price, uses accurate numbers. He mentions the organizers were expecting 1,000 people, but 3,000 attended.

I don’t know about you, but when I hear someone say over 1,000 I picture 1,200, maybe even 1,500. I definitely don’t picture 3,000! It doesn’t change the perspective much by updating the articles to say over 1,000 when they will be specific about the number of counter protestors. Matt Batzel, from the original tweet, told me this is unfair because it appears the pro-Walker protestors only outnumbered the anti-Walker protestors 10 to 1.

The local TV stations also repeated the numbers like TMJ-4 and WSAW. Now, the TMJ-4 article says thousands now, but if you look under the by line it will say it was updated. The video of the actual news broadcast shows they changed their mind. The broadcaster says hundreds instead of thousands. Luckily, the MacIver Institute also posted a video on YouTube.

(more…)

John Nolte

And so, let the word go forth that Super PACs must bloom in every corner of America! Let the free speech flow! Let the money fall like rain, and let the national debate give voice to opinions other than those held by the MSM!

Wikipedia’s description of a Super PAC:

[A] political action committee, or PAC, is the name commonly given to a private group, regardless of size, organized to elect political candidates or to advance the outcome of a political issue or legislation.  … The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed “super PACs,” and officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees,” which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals. … Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties and are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.

Question: How is any part of that description different from what the MSM does on a daily basis and what it has been doing for years now?

Just like Super PACs, the MSM does most of its partisan campaigning in print, on radio and on television, and just like Super PACs, the MSM enjoys unlimited amounts of cash, much of it coming from the super-rich top 1% and their big multi-national corporations.

There are, however, three important differences between a Super PAC and The New York TimesWashington Post, Politico, The L.A. Times, The Huffington Post, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and all the other usual suspects. And those differences make the case for why Super PACs are better for America than the mainstream media:

(more…)

John Nolte

A narrative growing around former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is that he avoids right-of-center news outlets. A few weeks ago, the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis stood by a piece the Romney camp disputed that took issue with the fact that only left-wing news outlets received any attention on one particular conference call. And in recent months both Brett Baier and Chris Wallace of Fox News have made an issue over the Governor’s apparent reluctance to show up for a grilling on their respective shows (though Romney did eventually make an appearance with both).

Today, the Daily Caller repeats a familiar refrain:

Romney last week granted one-on-one interviews in Iowa to both MSNBC and the Huffington Post, among the best-known sources of news for liberals in the country. In recent weeks, he also gave interviews to The Washington Post, The New York Times and Politico.

It’s a peculiar strategy for someone who has had trouble convincing conservatives throughout this race he’s one of them.

The Romney campaign runs a tight ship when it comes to media access. Unlike other candidates who can be more open at campaign stops, Romney will only answer questions from reporters during organized media availabilities. …

Romney’s campaign has refused multiple times over the last year to provide the former Massachusetts governor for an interview with The Daily Caller.

There is, I think, an important difference between a candidate and an elected official. If you’re president of the United States or the local dog catcher, you have an obligation to meet with the press, even the hostile press. You are, after all, representing all of the people once you take office. A candidate, though, is a different story. Their job is to win as many votes as possible and, yes, to manipulate the media to their own advantage. In fact, how well a Republican candidate does or doesn’t manage the media frequently means the difference between a loss or a win. Democrats, of course, almost always have the media wind at their backs.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

The media will do anything to keep Eric Holder in a good light. Politico has a piece up about Mr. Holder’s statements on more police deaths. According to Politico the statistic jumped 13% in 2011 and Mr. Holder said it is “a devastating and unacceptable trend.” He blames them on illegal firearms.

Yes, the man who is in charge of the department that allowed 2,000 guns to be illegally bought and walked into Mexico — resulting in the deaths of 300 Mexican civilians and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry — is upset about deaths caused by people using illegally purchased guns. Mr. Holder goes on to say:

“This is a devastating and unacceptable trend. Each of these deaths is a tragic reminder of the threats that law enforcement officers face each day,” Holder in a statement. “I want to assure the family members and loved ones who have mourned the loss of these heroes that we are responding to this year’s increased violence with renewed vigilance and will do everything within our power — and use every tool at our disposal — to keep our police officers safe.”

What a slap in the face to Brian Terry’s family. It wasn’t until Senator John Cornyn asked Mr. Holder if he apologized or expressed remorse to Mr. Terry’s family that Mr. Holder finally did say something to them. Ironically it was Politico (and the article was written by Tim Mak, author of this article) who leaked the apology to the public before Mr. Terry’s mother even had a chance to see and open it. It’s nice Mr. Holder is reassuring the family members of these fallen heroes, but why did it take so long for him to say something to Agent Terry’s family, especially since one of the guns from Operation Fast and Furious was used to murder Agent Terry?

(more…)

Mary Chastain

Come on Media Matters for America, you’re making it way too easy to prove you’re an Obama propaganda machine and should not be tax exempt. I would prefer a better challenge. I’ve already had to fix one of Chris Brown’s articles and now he has another out there filled with misinformation.

Mr. Brown wrote about the NRA’s “conspiracy theories” and, of course, one of them was about Operation Fast and Furious. Mr. Brown titles this part, “What the … Botched ATF Operation Initiated To Promote Gun Control?” First of all, Fast and Furious was NOT botched. This is how it was suppose to work. Secondly, this isn’t a “ridiculous claim” because it’s true. I already had to point out to Mr. Brown that Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News has documents proving the ATF was using Fast and Furious as a way to implement tougher gun control laws.

Mr. Brown says, “What’s truly breathtaking is LaPierre’s willingness to push such wild conjecture absent any evidence.” No, Mr. Brown it’s truly breath taking that no matter how much evidence is presented you and MMfA keep on the rose colored glasses. Again, look at the documents Ms. Attkisson provided in her report. There is evidence the ATF was using Operation Fast and Furious to promote tougher gun control.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

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…)

Mary Chastain

Media Matters for America’s favorite topics are FOX News, the Big sites, and The Daily Caller. Chris Brown claims Matthew Boyle was so happy to accuse The New York Times and Attorney General Eric Holder in one article Mr. Boyle didn’t bother to get his facts straight. Well, the same could be said about Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was so happy to jump on Mr. Boyle he didn’t bother to look at the article from ALL angles. Then again is anyone surprised? After all MMfA is the Obama administration’s cheerleaders. No one could ever do wrong in this administration, right?

This is what has Mr. Brown’s underwear all in knots:

Savage wrote that there are no “documents or testimony” to support allegations that Holder knew of the “gunwalking” tactics employed in Operation Fast and Furious.

“Mr. Holder has denounced the tactics used in the operation, known as ‘gunwalking,’ but said he did not know about them or sanction their use,” Savage wrote. “No documents or testimony have shown otherwise, but Republicans have pummeled him at oversight hearings and in news media appearances.”

Savage made these statements without attribution.

Despite those assertions, Holder’s office was provided with multiple briefings and memos about Operation Fast and Furious by top Justice Department officials. The memos contained intimate details of how Holder’s DOJ allowed guns to walk.

Oh Mr. Brown. You’re the almighty aren’t you? You can tell us you absolutely know for sure Mr. Holder knew nothing about Operation Fast and Furious? Because what Mr. Savage wrote was wrong. Read the sentence again, okay? Let’s say it really slow so you can understand: “Savage wrote that there are no “documents or testimony” to support allegations that Holder knew of the “gunwalking” tactics employed in Operation Fast and Furious.” OK let’s analyze that sentence.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

The Department of Justice released a statement about the uproar caused by Eric Holder using the race card.

“That is a complete distortion of the attorney general’s comment. His comments both in the article and elsewhere made clear that he believes much of the criticism is launched against him are unfortunately the typical Washington gotcha game. A simple reading of those comments show he was referring to how he is identified with the president given their close relationship and all they share in common including their ideology. The position of the attorney general has been a target for partisan attacks, and given the critical work that this attorney general he is doing at the Department of Justice, it’s no surprise that some are engaging in such tactics. His critics rightly view the attorney general is a progressive force, and given our current political environment, there will those who use any opportunity to score political points.”


Here’s what we supposedly confused [bold my emphasis]:

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.

So exactly what did we distort? There’s a key word in Mr. Savage’s sentence: animus. This is Merriam-Webster’s definition:

1: basic attitude or governing spirit : disposition, intention
2: a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will
3: an inner masculine part of the female personality in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung — compare anima

I’m going with definition 2. Those of the “most extreme segment” which, let’s be honest here, include Sharyl Attkisson, Cam Edwards, Matthew Boyle, Katie Pavlich, and myself, have a spiteful or malevolent ill will towards President Obama and Mr. Holder because of their relationship and they’re African American. Could the DOJ please explain to us how that doesn’t mean he played the race card? Mr. Holder said we have a prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will against him and President Obama because of their skin color. That’s calling us a racist. RACIST. Yes Mr. Holder played the race card. He said we are attacking him because he is African American.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

Charlie Savage’s newest piece at The New York Times is, as my friend Sean Arthur on Twitter says, a shameless PR drivel and allows Mr. Holder to make ludicrous statements without challenge and pulls the race card. The New York Times and Charlie Savage are really going to do this after all the articles they published during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales scandals? Give me a break.

The hypocrisy at The New York Times is too much to take. I’ve read The New York Times articles on Mr. Gonzales over and over. I never once saw an article that was sympathetic to Mr. Gonzales. My favorite piece is an editorial titled, “Why This Scandal Matters.” What a great title! The Times covered every single detail in the Gonzales “scandal” someone had to write an editorial to justify it. You could fit the first paragraph with Operation Fast and Furious. [Bold my emphasis.]

It (the administration) has offered up implausible excuses, hidden the most damaging evidence and feigned memory lapses, while hoping that the public’s attention moves on. But this scandal is too important for the public or Congress to move on. This story should not end until Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired.

This “scandal” involved the firing of eight US Attorneys. No one died. Not a single person. Three hundred-plus Mexicans have died because of Operation Fast and Furious. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered with a gun from the operation on American soil. I wonder if The New York Times and Mr. Savage could explain to me why Mr. Gonzales’s scandal mattered and Fast and Furious does not?

The best part, though, was Mr. Holder taking a jab at people like Sharyl Attkisson, Cam Edwards, Katie Pavlich, Matthew Boyle, and myself. [Bold my emphasis.]

But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Conflating things? How do we “conflate things” when we provide the documents PROVING our points? Plus if we are leaving out things it’s because Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice aren’t providing us with all the details.

This is what angers me the most. Basically Mr. Holder says that people like Ms. Attkisson, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Boyle, Ms. Pavlich, and I are staying on top of Operation Fast and Furious and asking you questions is because we’re racist? Let’s return to the Times editorial “Why This Scandal Matters” shall we? Whoever wrote this editorial (I cannot find the author) said, as I stated above, “This story should not end until Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired.”

So was The New York Times being racist? After all, Mr. Gonzales is Hispanic. Think about it Mr. Savage and Mr. Holder.

How about members of the Congressional Black Caucus Mr. Holder and Mr. Savage? As Mr. Boyle and Michelle Fields report the feeling in the caucus is that the congressional investigation is warranted. So do they feel this way because Mr. Holder is an African American? Are they racists against their own race?

Of course Mr. Holder says he thinks it has more to do with his political ideology. No Mr. Holder. We don’t care you’re a Democrat. If you didn’t know about Operation Fast and Furious then why aren’t you outraged? Why aren’t you firing those who are responsible for the operation? Why aren’t you cleaning house? Why aren’t you outraged that the people who started this operation haven’t been identified? Why aren’t you outraged that when people found out about Operation Fast and Furious (including your second in command) did nothing to stop it and more importantly did not tell you? I can’t speak for the others, but the fact it appears you don’t care something like this happened bothers me a lot.

Mr. Savage has not done his research because he says (bold my emphasis):

“Some accused him of perjury; others floated theories that the operation was intended to go bad so as to build a case for stronger gun-control laws and called the Holder Justice Department an accessory to murder.”

Um, Mr. Savage, on December 7th Ms. Attkisson released a story about documents showing the ATF was using this operation to get stronger gun control laws. But I’m not shocked he doesn’t know about this. After all it seems the only time a mainstream media outlet writes on anything about Fast and Furious is when the AP writes about it. The AP has not written about these documents. By the way, Ms. Attkisson provides these emails in her article so Mr. Holder cannot say she conflated anything or left anything out.

Mr. Holder also thinks our “attacks” are payback because of Mr. Gonzales and John Ashcroft, George Bush’s other attorney general. No Mr. Holder. We’re holding you and the DOJ accountable for your actions the same way we did for Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Ashcroft. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or your political leanings. When you do something wrong you should be held accountable. It’s that simple.

Again, it’s awful Mr. Savage just says a Border Patrol agent. Mr. Savage, that agent had a name. His name was Brian Terry. He was a son, brother, nephew, uncle, and godfather. He was a Marine veteran. More importantly he was an American citizen murdered with a gun from this operation on American soil.

Don't forget Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Mary Chastain

I’m not happy. Operation Fast and Furious was finally brought up in a debate, but it received one question and two responses. Growing up my mother told me to either go all the way with something or don’t bother with it because sometimes going half-way is worse than not doing anything at all. This is one of those cases. I don’t blame the media for ignoring the ONE question with TWO responses on Fast and Furious. If the moderators asked Speaker Gingrich or Governor Romney maybe the media would have given it a shout out.

I couldn’t find it anywhere in The New York Times. I found a part of the Fast and Furious segment in the Fact Check article at The Washinton Post. They didn’t mention that this Rick Perry quote came from his answer on the Fast and Furious question.

“Venezuela has the largest Iranian embassy in the world there.”

— Rick Perry

This is a dubious statement, especially since Iran has much deeper interests in countries closer to Tehran, such as Iraq and Syria. The extent of Iranian influence in Latin America is often overstated. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was embarrassed in 2009 when it turned out her claim that Iran was building a mega-embassy in Nicaragua was untrue.

The rest of the articles at the Post didn’t mention Fast and Furious. There’s a blog post at MSNBC about Rick Perry, but it doesn’t mention his response to Fast and Furious. Matthew Boyle and Katie Pavlich wrote about it.

But I fault Fox News on this more than the rest of the media. Operation Fast and Furious deserved the attention gay marriage and abortion received if not more. So many people on Twitter were demanding questions be asked that Fast and Furious was even trending on Twitter.

(more…)

Mary Chastain

I’m speechless. Last night on ABC World News reported about illegal gun sales in New York. New York City Mayor Bloomberg is on top of it! So many gun sellers sold guns to people who wouldn’t pass a background check! Mayor Bloomberg said something has to be done!

ABC World News appears to be outraged this is going on! This was the second story on their show. There’s quite a bit of information on this on their website too. One of their investigative reporters even went undercover, posing as a 17 year-old trying to buy a gun online. They put up Mayor Bloomberg’s press conference too. I bet they would be so angry if the federal government sold guns illegally.

Oh wait. THEY HAVE. And guess what ABC World News! One of those guns was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. You know what yesterday was? The one year anniversary of his murder.

Yes, ABC World News did a report on illegal gun sales in New York City on the one year anniversary of Brian Terry’s death. You show outrage at ordinary citizens breaking federal gun laws, but no outrage at the federal government for breaking their own federal gun laws? On the anniversary of Brian Terry’s death? We don’t care if it was a coincidence.

The fact is ABC World News should be ashamed of themselves. How can they be angry about this and not Operation Fast & Furious? How can they report, even go undercover to investigate this and not do the same for Operation Fast & Furious?! Hello ABC World News a gun illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on American soil. Why the lack of outrage over this?

(more…)