- This is now beyond stupid and ridiculous. Progressives are now angry at Roland Martin because he was making jokes during the Super Bowl. There is a scary, fascist trend developing here in the United States where people too sensitive to apparently participate in society are holding everyone else responsible for meaningless remarks. It’s victimhood chic.

- Wrong: it’s the third time hyperventilating progressives were willing to freak out for nothing only to go back to their man caves with no scalp.

Dylan Byers notes that criticism of Roland Martin for a comment he made about a Super Bowl commercial — “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!” — marks the third time this year that CNN contributors have caused some kind of controversy. The fact that CNN keeps finding itself in this position, he writes, says something about its editorial strategy

It’s a symptom alright, a symptom of progressives so antsy to drum out speech or thought with which they don’t agree that they’re willing to embarrass themselves in an all-out witch hunt.

- A FYI: Making fun of David Beckham’s underwear and soccer is now apparently “gay bashing.” Hands to heaven I’m not making this up. Who in America doesn’t make fun of soccer? Who doesn’t laugh at the giant David Beckham bollocks billboards? What does that have to do with being gay?

- WSJ: Disney, Univision In Talks to Launch 24-Hour English Language News Channel.

- Did the Freepers have enough of the Romney surrogates calling everyone who didn’t vote Romney “bigots?” Seems so. Much in the same way that Obama supporters called conservatives “bigots” for not supporting Obamacare (or just disagreeing with Obama on anything), some Romney supporters borrow language of the left and call those who don’t get in line behind Romney ‘anti-Mormon bigots.’

(I’m sure it’s completely coincidental that I followed a piece about progressives freaking out over Roland Martin with conservatives freaking out at other conservatives over Mitt Romney.)

Evangelicals went for Romney hand over fist in the Florida primary, as well as in Nevada where Mormons did, too. Did you hear non-Romney supporters calling Romney’s Mormon supporters “bigots” for not voting for a Catholic or Evangelical? No. Because that language is best left to progressives. Knock it off, people.

- Now Gingrich wants more debates.

- That WHRRR WHRRR WHRRR sound you hear is the BS meter going off: “Listening to Rachel Maddow is like listening to Walter Cronkite.”

- AOL is trying desperately to get people other than your grandparents and that aunt who sends you videos of cats to care about its services.

- How Pininterest uses content without violating copyright laws.

- On crackers. MSNBC set the rules when it declared “food stamps” as a Racist Codeword©. Going by MSNBC’s rules, “cracker,” even when used on Floridians, is Racist©.

- Memphis police delete a photographer’s cell phone photos:

If you are on a public street and take pictures or video of Memphis Police with your cell phone, you could end up in the back of a squad car and your pictures could be deleted.

ABC 24 News photographer Casey Monroe said that’s what happened to him Sunday morning. Police never charged Monroe with a crime, but this could happen to anyone with a cell phone camera.

Monroe said police went too far outside Thai Bistro Restaurant in downtown Memphis that morning, and that they violated his rights.

As police were giving the restaurant’s owner, Loy Bouaphaypengerprachan, a ticket for parking illegally, Monroe went to see what was going on and started taking pictures of the parking ticket fiasco.

The owner told abc24.com, “I think he was doing what a regular citizen would do if they see a situation that’s happening they’re trying to evidence.”

Monroe said he was “just trying to document the situation going on.”

- Bozell: Jan Brewer vs the Shoe-Tossing Journalist.

(more…)

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw is featured prominently in a new ad from the Romney campaign focusing on Newt Gingrich’s House ethics violation in the mid-1990s.  The ad, entitled “History Lesson,” is a 30 second excerpt from NBC Nightly News the day Gingrich was found guilty by House Democrats and Republicans in an ethics investigation.

In an unprecedented move, lawyers for NBC News have demanded that the Romney camp remove the ad.  In a statement, Brokaw himself writes:

“I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”

Really, Tom?  Big concerns over your “role as a journalist compromised for political gain”?  Take another look at that video and listen to the condescending, judgmental way the Gingrich story was framed by Brokaw back in 1997.  He and his teleprompter feeders went out of their way at the time to make Gingrich appear to be the biggest hypocrite and crook in American political history.  Check out the way the ethics committee’s wrist slap was framed:  (more…)

This is what real journalism looks like, folks. Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes a 2,300 word piece about Newt Gingrich’s relationship to ethics charges (those brought by and against him) that ends with this rehash of his fall from grace:

In the end, nearly all of the charges were dismissed. But the ethics committee did find that Mr. Gingrich had used tax-exempt money to promote Republican goals, and given the panel inaccurate information for its inquiry.

Mr. Gingrich formally apologized, conceding he had brought discredit on the House. He had always   regarded himself as a “transformative figure” who would change the course of history, but on Jan. 21, 1997, he made history in another way.

The House voted 395-28 to reprimand him and fine him $300,000, making him the first speaker ever disciplined for unethical conduct.

That’s it. That’s how the tale ends. It’s as if they’ve quoted Newt’s history but added an invisible ellipsis over the final portion of the story. This is a doctored quote of the record. This is “agenda journalism.”

Do you think it’s relevant that after the events described above Democrats campaigned for a further investigation? Is it relevant that the IRS took them up on it, and that after more than three years determined that Newt did nothing wrong? Simply put, all the charges, even the ones Newt was reprimanded for, were bogus. Is any of that worth mentioning in a front page story on the topic at the New York Times?

(more…)

Yesterday Elliot Abrams was part of a calculated effort against one of the GOP primary candidates whose last name wasn’t “Romney.” It’s typical in any primary, but what wasn’t typical was that in this republican primary, the information was misconstrued and presented a false narrative to readers. Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator takes Abrams to task for his piece and says it is “not worthy” of its author:

Abrams

A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.

Not so fast.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of his [Abrams'] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me …

… I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary.

Read the whole thing. Ben Shapiro has the full text of Gingrich’s remarks.

Such hits on candidates is expected in primaries, but a heated primary is no excuse for conservatives in media to forget their principles and assume the characteristics of progressive media. Lord is right on this. Let the purposeful inaccuracies stop.

When John King opened the last CNN-hosted GOP debate with a question regarding Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Newt lit into him, putting King on the defensive early. In fact, King remained defensive during CNN’s post-debate report.

“This story did not come from our network,” King contended. “As you also know, it is the subject of conversation on the campaign. I get your point, I take –”

Since the debate, King hasn’t let the issue go. He’s been making media appearances –after the fact–to bolster what many believe was a poor decision. Frankly, it’s hard to envision any mainstream media moderator opening up a Democrat debate with that type of question. They’d be more likely to claim it shouldn’t be asked, as it was the candidate’s personal life, none of our business, and didn’t impact on their ability to govern. (more…)

Mitt Romney appears to be so anxious to hit Newt Gingrich on anything and everything, he completely misses the point that the mainstream media moderators of debates are the most powerful people in the room. They can shape, or frame questions, or an entire debate however they please. The Right feels they often do so to our disadvantage. Romney would appear to disagree.

Mitt Romney dismissed Newt Gingrich’s attacks on the media during an appearance on Wednesday’s “Fox and Friends.”

The former Massachusetts governor lambasted this strategy. “It’s very easy to talk down a moderator,” he said. “The moderator asks a question and then has to sit by and take whatever you send to them. And Speaker Gingrich has been wonderful at attacking the moderators and attacking the media. That’s always a favorite response for the home crowd….

(more…)

Newt Gingrich

Charles M. Blow, over at The New York Times, loves to allege that Republicans are racist, racist, racist. James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, accused Gingrich of practicing the Southern Strategy. The NAACP piled on.

In Gingrich’s populist call and celebration of the nobility of work, they hear Nixon’s ominous “Southern Strategy.” The media alone seems acutely attuned to the racist dog whistles we conservatives are supposed to be hearing, but their dogged attempt to sully the Republican Party’s strategy in the South runs afoul of historical facts. Ironically, one commentator, Jim Sleeper, professor at Yale University, plays the race card in suggesting that Gingrich plays the race card.

In 2004, the masterly Claremont Review of Books debunked this growing media narrative in greater depth than I can venture here, but the left-wing argument rests on three key assumptions: that Republicans tailored their message to attract racists, that those of us who oppose racial preferences are somehow racist, and that, having won the South in ‘68, the Republican party continued to play to racism. This is what they believe, made clear by Dan T. Carter, author of From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution 1963-1994: “Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon’s subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan’s genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush’s use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich’s demonization of welfare mothers.”

The problem with each of these instances of supposed racism is that you have to believe that the issue is racism, not principle. To wit, plenty of non-racists doubt the wisdom of busing, racial preferences, furloughing criminals, and giving lavish government benefits. This is a subtle game the media plays and as tautological as it is stupid: views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. It’s not really an argument because it already assumes its premise.

(more…)

Via The Huffington Post:

On Saturday Al Sharpton actually asked: “Are we dealing with someone who’s just racially insensitive or someone who’s cynical, who would use race to play and blacks as backboards to score a shot?”

Is the mainstream media trying to help Newt Gingrich win? Do they really think a fight on air between Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton would do anything but make Gingrich more powerful? Or are they that cynical that they want to drive ratings on the back of Gingrich’s surge?

But Gingrich can’t easily be tarred with the racist brush because he has a long history of supporting blacks as individuals against government largesse.

Here’s what he told ABC in 2008:

There are a lot of good cases to be made that the African- American community has been hurt more by the failures of government than any other community. Look at New Orleans, where the African- American community was devastated by the failure of the federal, state and local governments in Katrina.

Gingrich repeatedly supported outreach efforts toward blacks as Speaker of the House, especially J.C. Watts, who helped oust a younger John Boehner from a leadership position in the party. Gingrich even selected Watts to deliver the rebuttal to Bill Clinton’s State of the Union speech in 1997. Watts is now returning the favor, having endorsed Newt Gingrich in his presidential bid. (more…)

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…)

- Geraldo: Newt Gingrich called Juan Williams a ‘racial epithet.’

Yes, seriously. [via]

- Former John Kerry Staffer Arrested For Disclosing Identities of CIA Operatives Who Interrogated Top Al-Qaeda Leaders To The Media:

The Justice Department charged that John Kiriakou, 47, who worked as a CIA officer from 1990 to 2004, revealed the information to journalists and that one reporter passed some of the secrets onto attorneys representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Buried in the 12th graph:

Kiriakou worked for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as a Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigator from March 2009 to April 2011, according to Senate records.

I’m sure the outrage over this will match the tantrum the media threw for Valerie Plame, yes?

(more…)

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:

- Mitt Romney unhinged: Calls Gingrich a “disgrace,” failure.” Will MSM reprimand Romney for going mean or do they save that line of attack for Gingrich specifically? Instead, MSM keeps insisting that the guy with the blowout victory in SC isn’t “electable.”

- Major Garrett returns to the White House beat for National Journal.

- Gingrich asks for equal treatment.

- Reuters and Youtube to launch Reuters TV.

- Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina was a blow to liberal media. Romney supporters are furious. Media apologists lost the battle against South Carolina grassroots:

Down goes Juan Williams.
Down goes John King.
Down goes the media elites.
And, down goes the Dick Morris who told us Rick Santorum won the debate on Thursday night.

Hear the roar.

(more…)

Via Newsbusters, Lawrence O’Donnell decided to rewrite history on the story of progressives, Newt Gingrich, and foodstamps:

There’s a tremendous amount of cynicism in Gingrich’s use of food stamps because of what he actually know that his Republican debate audiences do not know. His Republican audiences do not know that most people on food stamps are white.

Actually, it’s been progressives that didn’t know:
(more…)

First it was Juan Williams. In the other South Carolina debate, Gingrich actually had the audacity and indecency to address Mr. Williams by the name Williams’ parents gave him.

Obviously, Gingrich’s insensitive remark towards Juan Williams showed signs of subtly racist language. Just ask former one term president, Jimma Carta.

Next is Chris Mathews. Sure he cackles like an old lady, come to think of it, kind of looks like one too, but when it comes to calling out conservatives for being evil and racists, well his ears and intuition are to Mathews as built in sonar is to bats.

You can read the entirety of the comment and judge for yourself:

Juan

Not convinced? OK. In case you missed last night’s debate,  Gingrich “subtly” struck again. This time it was with last night’s CNN debate moderator, John King.

(more…)

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America was so enthusiastic about new accusations of infidelity by Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife that he boasted on Twitter: “noted: it’s been 16 yrs since Dems had to defend a WH candidate’s marraige/sex [sic] life. For GOP, its now become wkly thing;”.

Someone going by the Twitter handle “OH_Robb” responded soon thereafter by pointing out an obvious counter-example: “John Edwards ran in 2008.”

Instead of acknowledging the error, Boehlert doubled down: “Q’s abt. Edwards marriage arose after his 2008 run was over; was never part of the campaign dialogue.”

Not only was that claim untrue–the National Enquirer accused Edwards in October of 2007–but it also highlights the left-wing media bias that Media Matters is at great pains to deny. It was no accident that journalists failed to probe Edwards until after he had dropped out.

Media Matters declares that its purpose is to correct “conservative misinformation” in the American media. To that end, it also tries to dismiss conservative allegations of left-wing bias in the mainstream media, either by denying that such bias exists, or claiming that such bias, even if it does exist, has no effect on Americans’ views. On matters such as the Edwards scandal, Media Matters provides the cover-up for the media cover-up.

The goal for Media Matters is not to win a political debate but to prevent one–to shift the terms by eliminating the few conservative voices in the mainstream media. (more…)

The other day on CNN Jimmy Carter accused Newt Gingrich has that “subtlety of racism.”

This isn’t a new argument for Jimmy Carter. He argued Rep. Joe Wilson’s charge that Obama was lying about illegal immigrants receiving health care under ObamaCare was motivated by racial animus:

I think it’s based on racism…. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

But Jimmy Carter is one of the most racist politicians in the history of the modern South as Steve Hayward perceptively argues in The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry.

(more…)

Let’s call it what it is now, folks. The biggest SuperPAC out there right now is the one working overtime to destroy any Republican wh0 might be so bold as want to take on the media’s Dear Leader in the White House.

Stephen Colbert won’t be parodying this SuperPAC, because he can’t make fun of his friends, but there is plenty of material out there he could use.

The Activist Old Media has two very specific goals in mind here, 1) keep the “horse-race” going as long as possible because it will help ratings and revenue, 2) work to damage whomever becomes the GOP winner. Oh, they call it good journalism, or whatever line they want to use, but the facts show otherwise. They have never been this aggressive towards Democrat candidates. The only time they go after a Democrat Presidential candidate to this degree is when he has been so damaged by his own actions that the candidate is finished and they have no other choice, then they pile on to make it look like they’re doing their job.  See: John Edwards (hey, didn’t the National Enquirer break those stories?)

Take your pick, Mitt or Newt, the media has the long knives out. Mitt Romney has already been called by some in the media, “one of the wealthiest candidates to ever run for President,” like that is some sort of negative. Let’s see here, I believe Jon Carry (intentional mis-spelling, click the link to remember why) was rather wealthy, in fact, he has four times as much money as Romney and his wealth was not an issue in 2004. Of course, Romney made his money on his own (he donated his inheritance to charity) and Kerry married his billion dollar fortune. To the media, Romney is the bad guy here, Kerry the good guy,  and he could not be put on the spot for finding a Heinz flavored Sugar Mama.

Romney has been ripped for donating to his church. 10% of his income, possibly more. Kerry donated 0 dollars to charity on his 2003 tax returns. I guess when you are the media and you are running the Obama SuperPAC you can rip candidates for donating to charity.

Romney has been ripped for paying the required 15% income tax on capital gains, Kerry paid 12%. I don’t recall that being an issue in 2004. BTW, don’t give me this garbage that it matters now because the media says it’s supposed to matter now, they would change the landscape of “what matters now” to whatever they want to fit their needs. They will pull out the class-envy card whenever it needs to be played, and since their candidate is using in now, they will belly-up to the table and unload the entire deck.

With Romney, the media has already stated that his religion will be a major issue and at the same time, Obama’s Media SuperPAC has virtually declared Reverend Wright off-limits. No, they have not vetted this issue already. Of course, now they will say this is old news and they covered it in ‘08, when they did not. NBC has yet to air audio of Reverend Wright—I saw them air video briefly once when they referred to some sort of controversy, but the audio is still too damaging to Dear Leader to have NBC put it on air.

(more…)

This was pretty amazing to behold. This is how you deal with the media.

(more…)