When The Abnormal Becomes Normal

I have seen a reference to this on several blogs but I want you to read it first and then check out my question below.

Mr. Frum now makes his living as the media's go-to basher of fellow Republicans, which is a stock Beltway role. But he's peddling bad revisionist history that would have been even worse politics. The truth is that Democrats never had any intention of working with Republicans, except to pick off two or three Senators and calling it "bipartisanship." This worked for Democrats on the stimulus, and they had hoped to do it again on health care.

In the House, Republicans were frozen out from the start. Three Chairmen—Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman and George Miller—holed up last spring to write the most liberal bill they could get through the House. Republicans were told that unless they embraced the "public option," there was nothing to discuss.

As for the White House, House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor in May sent a letter to President Obama "respectfully" requesting a meeting to discuss ideas. The White House didn't respond. Mr. Obama's first deadline for House passage was July, and only after public opinion turned against the bill did he begin to engage Republican ideas. Yet in his September address to Congress attempting to revive his bill, he made no concession save pilot projects for tort reform.

In the Senate, a group of Republicans did negotiate with Finance Chairman Max Baucus for months, even as Senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy were crafting a bill that mirrored the liberal House product. GOP Senators Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe and Orrin Hatch are hardly strangers to working with Democrats. In 2007, they helped Mr. Baucus expand the children's insurance program over President Bush's opposition.

Senate liberals kept tugging Mr. Baucus to the left, however, and eventually the White House ordered him to call off negotiations. Senator Snowe still voted for the Finance Committee bill, though even she fell away on the floor as Majority Leader Harry Reid insisted on pushing the public option and tried, as Ms. Snowe put it, to "ram it" and "jam it" through the Senate.

In the end, Republicans couldn't as a matter of principle support even 50% of a bill that was such a huge and reckless expansion of government. If they had, they would have rightly lost the support of their own most loyal supporters. In the end, too, the bill was so unpopular—59% opposed in a Sunday CNN survey—that 34 House Democrats voted no and Mr. Reid is resorting to reconciliation to get the "fixes" of more taxes and spending through the Senate.

Without knowing the source where would you say that excerpt came from?

a) A conservative bog

b) FoxNews' website

c) A conservative columnist

d) The editorial board of a major newspaper


If you answered anything but D you would be mistaken.

This is actually taken from The Wall Street Journal and not from a columnist there but from the paper's editors. Thing of it is most of the places I have seen that linked to this column did so without noting at all the partisan ideologically slanted rhetoric throughout the piece. Maybe I'm naive but has there ever been a time when a paper like the Wall Street Journal published something this far to either side of the political spectrum from their editorial page? I can't believe that there has. And if that's the case why is nobody making an issue out of it?

It is scary to think that a major news outlet can be used for the purpose of smearing a political commentator on partisan grounds. And you know if they can do it to one of their own like David Frum, they will have no qualms doing it to a progressive or liberal.

Are we really going to let Rupert Murdock totally destroy even the standards for our print media?

If so we deserve whatever comes next...

Calling All Journalists With Time On Their Hands

By now most journalists and political bloggers have seen the clip of Rupert Murdock agreeing with Glenn Beck that President Obama is a racist. For the handful who haven't here you go.



Now of course, through a spokesman, he is denying that he "for one second" believes President Obama is a racist.

Now that may sound like an unequivical walkback, but it really isn't. Even though his spokesman didn't come out and say it, you will notice that he didn't retract his statement that President Obama SAID something really racist. Now most folks realize that the GOP and the conservative movement are now the kings of proclaiming that just because somebody says something racist doesn't mean they ARE racist. And my prediction is that the next time some Republican says something wildly innappropriate you will hear the wingnuts proclaim "well what about President Obama?"

We shouldn't let it go down like that.

So I am simply asking that any journalist or blogger (or both) who has contact information for Rupert Murdoch, to get in touch with him or his office and ask them to provide the statement that Murdoch is claiming that President Obama said that was racist. And I mean call or email or whatever every single day until the spokesman either has to admit they Murdoch was full of shit, or they stop responding at all which is just as damning.

So whaddya say? Anybody up for harrassing Rupert Murdoch into submission?

IOKIYAR

For the uninitiated IOKIYAR is an acronym for "Its Ok If You're A Republican". Basically it denotes the double standard that Democrats are held to as opposed to their Republican counterparts. Glenzilla crushes the Wall Street Wing Nut Journal's editorial page for their criticism of President Obama with respect to him having a pre-selected list of names to call on for his press conference. You see this was just terrible and a travesty, especially since President Bush never did it. Except when he did.

Wall St. Journal Editorial Page, today:

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?". . . .

The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out. . . .

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors.

Ari Fleischer, Tuesday night, The Bill O'Reilly Show:

O'REILLY: Look, [Obama] had those guys written down, who he was going to call on. Now, in other press conferences, they'd just look around and go: "this one, that one, this one" - correct?

FLEISCHER: Well, George Bush never did that. . . . Writing it down gives the President more control.

O’REILLY: OK, so George Bush came in with a list of guys he was going to call on?

FLEISCHER: Yes, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot coms and other oddballs who come in there. They’re screened.

O’REILLY: Like the Huffington Post. Now it gets called on.

FLEISCHER: And I used to seat them all in one section. I would call it "Siberia." And I told the President, "Don’t call on Siberia."

Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs:

At one point while making his way through the press questioners, Bush awkwardly referred to a list of reporters whom he was instructed to call on. "This is scripted," he joked. The press laughed. But Bush meant it was scripted, literally. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer later admitted he compiled Bush's cheat sheet, which made sure he did not call on reporters from some prominent outlets like Time, Newsweek, USA Today, or the Washington Post.

Michael Crowley, The New York Observer:

In fact, the [] only moment of candor [of the March 6, 2003 Press Conference] may have come when Mr. Bush admitted during the conference that he was calling on reporters according to his pre-arranged list of names, which his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, later copped to preparing.

"This is scripted," Mr. Bush joked.

Strangely, many reporters laughed at this remarkable joke, which had the additional benefit of being true

.
Deliberate deceit or complete editorial recklessness from The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page? And which is worse? Are there any limits at all to the factually false claims newspapers can spew without correction? We'll see

Now I have been thinking about this for awhile, especially as it pertains to FauxNooz's actual news shows which just like its opinion shows flog Republican talking points and make concerted efforts to spread patently false anti liberal/progressive propaganda. Well I for one am not an advocate for the fairness doctrine but I do believe that shows that promote themselves as news sources SHOULD be held to a higher standard. So I would propose legislation that allows the FCC to fine, suspend or cancel news shows that are found to have reported factually incorrect stories on purpose because of a particular political bent and or financial a financial conflict of interest or because of gross negligence repeatedly. To me that would pressure EVERYONE to raise their game up and it would make them live up to the standards set by the founding fathers when they wrote in the protections for the press in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Many of these shows do not at all deserve those protections nor do they deserve to try to pass themselves off as arbiters of the truth and the news. I believe just like you have truth in advertising laws when it comes to consumer goods we should be able to institute truth in advertising laws where it comes to shows promoting themselves as being reporters of the news. If we can punish the makers of a birth control pill for making false claims about its benefits, we should be able to punish a news source for making false claims about ability to uncover and report the truth. What say you?

Wall Street Journal Is Now Wing Nut Central

I just so happened to catch this story over at the Wall Street Journal about how supposedly the Chicago Tribune caused the premature arrest of Rod Blagojevich. As the story goes some ever present "unnamed sources" claim that the Tribune had been asked to put a hold on a story that ran December 5th detailing how Blago's phones were being tapped by the Feds. The story is chocked full of all manner of assumptions and aspersions against the Times and it ends thusly.

Had it not been for the Tribune’s Dec. 5 story, the meeting Blagojevich’s brother was arranging might have proceeded. Mr. Blagojevich is quoted as citing the story, in the affidavit, then calling off the meeting. At a minimum, the FBI’s recorders would have been rolling when he reported back. The feds also probably would have tried to bug the session live, or at least to tail the participants and secretly film or photograph them. That’s what feds do. Jurors love video.

Now there was a time not long ago that paragraphs such as the one quoted would have been seen as below the standards of the WSJ. But that day is no more. Ever since Rupert Murdock bought them out, they have moved considerably towards their seeming goal to become the far right mouth piece of print media. Its sad really because once a publication loses the respect of the average reader its rare that they ever get it back. But I am a firm believer that you can tell a lot about the quality and direction of a publication by the stuff you find in the comments section. So let me provide a few excerpts for your voyeuristic pleasure.

Why waste time writing about this. Obama can do whatever he wants. Please, write more stories about his puppies and how he likes to play basketball. Obama is Untouchable. He can buy houses with other peoples money and say it was a “bone headed” thing to do and ‘journalists’ could care less.

Please, this is all just another ‘distraction’. We don’t have to know these details. Can’t you just have Obama be Obama? If this kind of stuff is so important now, why didn’t the MSM look into Mr. Obama’s upbringing in the cauldron of Chicago machine politics, and how a nobody like him rose to State senator, US senator, and President-elect in just a few years with no tangible achievements, and assumed to be pure as the driven snow?

Someone at the Tribune must have tipped off the targets of this investigation (inside the BHO campaign), then , getting their orders to spill the beans, they released the story to force Fitz’s hand and/or warn Blago

This is an intro to a presidential term of Chicago “Daley” mafia politics run by an “untouchable” expert, B.H. Obama, that will infect every corner of USA. Get ready folks!

At least Bush wasn’t a crook.

Why didn’t our messiah, Obama, bring “change” to Ilinois and Chicago before trying to bring it to the USA and the world?

The Chicago Tribune and especially it’s editor are treasonous. They are protecting the empty suit conman, Obama. Barry is an unqualified, ineligible liar, and I doubt he’ll even make it to president, as the American people are about to demand that he show his birth certificate, which he has hired three law firms to avoid.

Not exactly the kind of readership most would normally associate with the WSJ, no?

The irony, of course, is that Sam Zell has been a major financial donor to Republican causes. But hey why let the facts get in the way of wingnut outrage right?

So great job Rupert,you are right on track in your quest to turn the Wall Street Journal into the FoxNews of print media. How about buying PBS next and giving Andy Martin his own show?