And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?

As many of you know, Keith Olbermann left his 6:00pm slot there for any number of reasons many of us would be willing to suggest were the true reasons. Regardless, he has been gone for a number of months now (though not off the tv – he found another cable channel to take him).

You will never believe who they found to replace him.

But before I make the big reveal, it seemed that Olbemann’s likely successor was Cenk Uygur, of “Young Turk” fame. Indeed, he was on the path. Or so he thought. But then something strange happened, according to Mr. Uygur (h/t to Harp2 for this video):

For those of you who may not have internet service that supports videos, suffice it to say, Mr. Uygur was told that he would not be stepping into Olbermann’s shoes because some in Washington didn’t like his “tone,” according to Mr. Uygur in this NY Times article (which also highlights the NY Times incredible bias):

[snip] Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

MSNBC is home to many hosts who criticize President Obama and other Democrats from a progressive point of view, but at times Mr. Uygur could be especially harsh.

[...]

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”

“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added. [snip]

Of course he didn’t. That’s why Uygur claimed that the head of MSNBC met with him, and told him that they were Washington Insiders.

Just as I am so sure the White House had nothing to do with MSNBC indefinitely suspending the editor of Newsweek, Mark Halperin, for a comment he made on “Morning Joe.” Oh, wait. Yes they did. (Now, I do not think it was appropriate for Halperin to use the language he did about a sitting president, but honestly – the things people said about Bush and Clinton were pretty harsh, but I don’t think either one of those presidents had their toadies call the network and insist the person be let go. We do have an amendment about what people can say, after all, whether they like it or not.)

Okay. So, it is not going to be Cenk, since he has the unmitigated gall to actually question what Obama does once in a while. No sirree, can’t have THAT on MSNBO.

Wanna guess who it’s going to be? Oh, you won’t – this is just so freakin’ glaringly biased for Obama, you would never believe that an alleged news channel would hire this man for such a prime slot. But you would be wrong.

It’s the Reverend Al Sharpton. I swear. It isn’t official as of this writing, but it is “Imminent,” according to the New York Times:

[snip] Mr. Sharpton’s imminent hiring, which was acknowledged by three people at the channel on condition of anonymity because the contract had not been signed, is significant in part because MSNBC and other news channels have been criticized for a paucity of minority hosts in prominent time slots. Mr. Sharpton, who is black and is a well-known civil rights activist and radio host, has been guest hosting in the 6 p.m. time slot for the last three weeks.

There had been uncertainty about the 6 p.m. slot ever since the channel’s marquee anchor, Keith Olbermann, departed in January, prompting Ed Schultz to be moved to 10 p.m. from 6. Suddenly Mr. Uygur, who had been made a paid contributor to MSNBC months earlier, was handed 6 p.m., a big coup given that he had earlier campaigned to have his progressive Web show “The Young Turks” picked up by MSNBC. [snip]

Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton is now going to have one of the plum, prime, slots on MSNBC. He is SO impartial, so even handed, in his outlook and statements. And I trust you know that it total and complete snark on my part. Of course, he is wildly partisan, taking offense where there is none, taking on causes that have little merit, and on and on Io could go. One thing is for certain about the good reverend – he loves to be on the tee-vee, so no doubt, this is a dream come true for him.

As for MSNBO, come on already, make it official. Go ahead and change your logo to this:

Seriously, I think we would all have more respect for you if you were honest about who and what you are. As a bonus, my partner, who created this for me, said you can even have it for free.

Until then, I imagine you will keep pretending to be a “news” source with the likes of Al Sharpton as your prime time host. And I imagine a lot of us will be laughing at you for it…

You will not believe what he has said now. During a discussion about Rep. Anthony Weiner’s immoral, indecent, misogynistic, perverted behavior, Chris Matthews had this to say (h/t to Sowsear1 for the link):

[snip] They never get the Speakership back because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally – you can say backward if you want – but they don’t like this kind of stuff at all. They’re not part of that 56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens who say, “okay, we can live with this guy. [snip]

Oh, where to begin? The 56% of people in Brooklyn and Queens who are okay with Weiner’s behavior, which is disturbing in and of itself, or the claim that only conservative, culturally backward Christians would be upset by this kind of behavior?

Good grief. Well, let me start with the latter. It is not just rural, “culturally backward,” conservative Christians who are upset by this despicable behavior of an official elected to one of the highest offices in the land. And some of us are not looking at this in terms of how it will affect the Democrats’ chances in 2012, as Matthews was, but in terms of the most basic decency and decorum, sorely lacking in Weiner’s behavior. (Feel free to add your own reasons why this was an assholic thing to say.)

And speaking of Weiner, the plot continues to thicken. Weiner has admitted engaging in communications with a 17 year old girl. His spokesperson assures us that there was nothing untoward about the contact whatsoever. Since Weienr has been so honest and forthright throughout this process, we have every reason to believe him. Oh, wait, no, no, he wasn’t. He lied through his teeth up one side and down the other, calling to meet with media outlets to lie some more. As if I didn’t think he already needed to resign. Holy cow.

It is the weekend, so a little music is in order. The following Patsy Cline is a classic, and goes out to all of Weiner’s Twitter pals:

Oh, and this one is a bit crazy, and goes out to Weiner’s wife, Huma (h/t to ScrewtheDNC):

Your turn for “Crazy, Crazy, Everywhere!”

Oh, my – Sarah Palin really stepped in it this time, didn’t she? She completely bungled the history of Paul Revere while up North. Yes, this short little clip says it all:

What an idiot, right? I mean ALL the Lefty blogs and news channels are claiming so, from Think Progress above, to Mother Jones, to Chris Matthews (big surprise), to USA Today, and many news outlets in between. Yes, they are all laughing with glee at the ridiculous, preposterous account by Sarah Palin of Paul Revere’s ride.

Except – she’s right. Whoops.

I am sure all of these outlets are just RACING to correct the record. Ahahahaha – not. Of course they aren’t. It is far too much fun to attack Palin for being the biggest idiot this side of George Bush, so why would they bother?

What I have really found funny is when people point out Obama’s misspeaks, his minions are quick to defend him. Check out this comment from Mother Jones in response to someone’s mentioning the 57 (and counting) states comment by Obama:

Nishant Srivastava; Except Obama, at the time a rookie national campaigner, said “We’ve visited 57 states”, when he obviously meant stops in states at a press event he did as part of a campaign for President.

Palin has endured the heat of a prior political campaign, so one can reasonably argue that she should have more experience. [snip]

Uh huh. Except at that point, Obama had been on the campaign trail for months and months, and that was not the only stupid thing he said then, or now. And never mind that Palin had been riding around on a bus for hours and hours and hours – she couldn’t possibly be the least bit tired when she said what she did about Revere.

Which, as I noted above, turned out to be correct, as this historical document highlights:

[snip] I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out. We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

So, tell me where she was wrong?

Like Palin or not, the issue here is one of hypocrisy. We saw it with Hillary Clinton when she exaggerated a story about a trip in Bosnia, one that was fraught with danger, which was, of course, omitted from the accounts.

Obama has misspoken PLENTY, but his misstatements are often underreported by the media or just plain ignored. I don’t recall ANY major news outlet going through his books the way they did Palin’s book. If ANYONE else had said in a speech so blatant a lie as he did describing how the March on Selma enabled his (glorious) birth into this world, though he was born at least FOUR YEARS BEFORE the March, they would have been treated like, well, like Sarah Palin was for what she said about Paul Revere. Though, again, she was accurate, and Obama was not.
At least Hillary Clinton’s claim about Bosnia had SOME truth to it – Obama was just a liar, and allowed to get away with it (then as now).

And they wonder why Palin doesn’t like to talk with MSM? Sheesh.

Bottom line, I don’t care if you love Palin, or think she is Demon Spawn, want her for president, or are horrified at the thought of it. What I DO care about is the media lambasting her for something she was actually correct about, when it fails repeatedly to acknowledge Obama’s foibles (or other prominent Democrats – Biden’s gaffes are now treated as routine), and to do so in such an incredibly juvenile manner. That is the purview of hacks and rags, not prominent news outlets.

My advice? Try checking your facts before you go on the attack, and grow the hell up already. Be a big enough person to admit you attacked her in error, and APOLOGIZE for it. There are legitimate reasons to question ANY politician in a rational manner. But the uproar over this alleged “gaffe” was far from reasonable, and far from adult. Issue a retraction, admit your mistake, and try and be a little less biased in your coverage. Just a thought.

Oh, and for all of those who jumped on this bandwagon just to attack Palin, this is for you:

UPDATE: Thank goodness I was sitting down when I saw the following article from the LA Times, “You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?” I know, right? I still almost fell over. Now, of course, despite pesky facts, the commenters are still raging on, attacking the messenger of this reality rather than being big enough people to say they were w-w-w-r-r-o-o-n-n-g-g-g-g, but who really expected them to have that much integrity? They continue to attack Palin relentlessly because, well, just BECAUSE, okay?!?! Here is the pertinent part of the article:

You may have heard recently something about that Sarah Palin telling a reporter that Paul Revere warned the British on his famous rousing revolutionary ride.

Now, that so many Americans have wallowed in their smug confirmation that Palin is an idiot unqualified for anything but repeating sixth-grade history, how far, wide and fast do you think the contradictory news will spread that the former governor of Alaska was indeed correct?

That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere’s midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you’re dumber than the reputed dummy.

As it happens, though, such phenomena are regular occurrences in American politics, reminding consumers of news to be wary when some fresh story seems to fit contemporary assumptions so absolutely perfectly.

The well-known fable is Revere’s late-night ride to warn fellow revolutionaries that….

…the British were coming. Less known, obviously, is the rest of the evening’s events in which Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution’s inevitable victory.

Palin knew this. The on-scene reporters did not and ran off like Revere to alert the world to Palin’s latest mis-speak, which wasn’t.

Like a number of famous faux gaffes in American politics, the facts of the situation no longer really matter. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Read the rest – there is some interesting information about someone I always assumed was an idiot for not being able to spell “potato” – turns out he was set up a bit. Who knew? Gore is included, too, for his “creating the internet” comment, though the reality of what he actually said was lost in the rush to (erroneous) judgment.

Anyway, pretty amazing that such a big time outlet actually did the right thing. I do believe we have witnessed a miracle!

Holy shit. Are you KIDDING me with this? Check out the “rationale” from the maker of this “Hero” figure:

Navy SEALs have become national heroes since news broke that they took down Osama bin Laden, so it’s fitting that the newest action figure from a Connecticut company is a fierce-looking President Barack Obama as a SEAL.

The minute Obama said late on the night of May 1 that the U.S. had found and killed bin Laden, Emil Vicale knew which his action figure company’s would make next — Rambama.

On Wednesday morning, Hero Builders released the Obama SEAL Team 6 action figure — a muscular President in fatigues armed with an M1-A4.

Vicale, who owns the custom action figure company in Oxford, said the speech was a pivotal moment in the Obama presidency.

It was also a parallel to the speech that inspired the company in the first place almost 10 years earlier.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Vicale listened to then-President George Bush’s bullhorn speech from Ground Zero and was inspired to create Hero Builders. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Never mind that Obama did not GIVE the order to take out bin Laden, and had to be yanked off the golf course by the adults in the White House, HE did nothing to get bin Laden. HE did not risk his life. HE likely doesn’t even know how to OPERATE a gun, which I think I can say without fear of contradiction given this:

Yeah, doesn’t sound to me like someone who would have an M-1 in his arms, does it to you? Much less someone I think it is safe to label a “milquetoast,” as someone did in the comments.

Okay – I am too busy being disgusted to write more. What is your reaction?

Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits – including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations – GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.

“How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?” Feingold asked in an email to supporters, as The Hill reports. “And under Immelt’s direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes.”

MoveOn asked its members to sign a petition calling on Immelt to leave the administration, and Executive Director Justin Ruben called G.E.’s tax status “outrageous.”

“At a time when many in Washington, including the President, are worried about our nation’s deficit we should be punishing–not rewarding–companies like GE who are robbing the US Government and taxpayers of billions of dollars,” he said in a statement. “This sort of bad corporate behavior should not be rewarded with a top White House appointment.”

Why did it take the honorable Mr. Feingold so long to notice? Please forgive my cynicism but it is quite apparent that most politicians no longer speak out to help the American people – they speak out to help themselves. If indeed he does have a mind to challenge Barack Obama for the nomination in 2012, this is awfully good timing to start noticing corruption that was all too apparent to the rest of us three years ago.

Ironically, CBS also reports that President Obama has lambasted the very tax loopholes that companies like GE take advantage of. So are you telling me he is not aware of this contradiction?

The only people not aware are the ones who don’t follow the news closely enough to know the President is railing against the very people he has been helping all along. There seems to be a current bent to punish small businesses who create the bulk of jobs in this country in favor of crony capitalism and powerful über companies who wield far too much political influence as it is.

By the way, during 2008, GE owned NBC/MSNBC and also owned Newsweek. These are three organizations that morning, noon and night posted grossly favorable press to Mr. Obama in 2008 while trashing his primary opponent Hillary Clinton with a zest not before seen. That’s quite the coincidence…

MoveOn was so busy denigrating Hillary and trumpeting Obama beyond all sense, I suppose they did not notice the coincidence either. Did they not think there would be some sort of quid pro quo?

And if President Obama finally notices the “coincidence,” you can be sure he will not throw Immelt under the bus unless and until it is politically advantageous to do so.

Here is the All Star Panel discussing this very issue, and how the media is continuing to ratchet up antagonism against the right under the guise of moderating our rhetoric:

As Baier highlighted, I have seen a number of reports in which people are doing exactly as he suggested, “There is no evidence of this lunatic being influenced by Palin, the Tea Party, or Republicans at all, BUT let’s blame them anyway, and try to squelch free speech while we are at it.”

I wrote recently about my ignorant representative, Jim Clyburn, blaming the Tea Party/Palin/Republicans, AND wanting to cut back on Freedom of Speech. And all of this is under the guise of wanting to decreasing violence in speech.

Tuesday, Arianna Huffington, she of HuffPo creation, wrote a post, “Arizona Shootings: Our Moment of Silence Needs To Be Followed By More Than Just Lowered Voices.” I suppose I should have warned you in case you were drinking something at the time – my apologies. Anyway, in Ms. Huffington’s post, she writes this:

[snip] And while we don’t know all the facts yet and the story is still unfolding, we know enough to know that we need more than a little soul searching.

The fact that the gunman is clearly mentally unbalanced does not absolve us of the responsibility to consider the atmosphere in which the shootings occurred. “Shootings of political figures are by definition ‘political,’” writes James Fallows. “That’s how the target came to public notice; it is why we say ‘assassination’ rather than plain murder.”

And the atmosphere in which this horrible tragedy was born, nurtured, and carried to its wretched fruition is toxic. Of course, there are always going to be unbalanced people, just as there are always going to be viruses in our environment — but what most determines whether those viruses make us sick is the strength of our immune system. When it is stressed and compromised, infections can easily take hold.

And there is no doubt that our collective immune system is worn down, making us more susceptible to the kind of infection that turned that Arizona parking lot into a killing field. While there has never been a golden age in our democracy’s history, there have been many times in which our national immune system was much stronger. [snip] (Click here if you want to read the rest.)

This is not just scurrilous, it is the height of hypocrisy. Many of us remember all too well how our “immune systems” got weakened by vitriolic speech. A lot of it happened right there at Huffington Post to those of us who had the audacity to support Hillary Clinton over The One. We were bullied, berated, attacked, and essentially banished from the site for our refusal to capitulate on the best choice for president. Sure, there have been a few posts here and there in support of Hillary Clinton since Obama took office (do I really need to explain that one?), but the fact remains, this blog has been at the forefront of vitriolic rhetoric.

Just last month, in December, Huffington Post allowed the once-great Aaron Sorkin to post an almost unintelligible screed against Sarah Palin, laced with profanity, and twisted facts throughout. His attack on her was completely unprovoked. He just couldn’t help himself in his desire to attack, attack, attack, and demean this woman. And Huffington Post allowed him to do so. One month later, Huffington has the nerve to talk about “toxic” rhetoric? Spare me the sanctimony.

MoveOn.org has joined the chorus as well, asking its members to sign a petition to our Congress with this as the petition text: “I call for an end to all overt and implied appeals to violence in American politics. We must debate, not hate.” Are they for real?? The same organization who referred to General Petraeus as “General Betrayus” is now acting as if they are some honest broker in restoring civility to speech? Again, I remember just how they conducted themselves during the 2008, 2010 elections. They have no leg on which to stand in tryin gto claim this moral high ground.

Neither does Obama Sycophant, Jonathan Alter, who, in the spirit of Rahm Emanuel, wants Obama to make sure he makes political hay out of this horrible tragedy. His headline says it all, “Can Obama Turn Tragedy Into Triumph?” Alter writes:

[snip] But silence will not be enough. This horrific event offers the president a chance to show leadership qualities that he’s inexplicably hidden away in some blind trust. The shootings and the resulting debate over the climate of incivility play to his strengths as a calm and rational leader. Just as Bill Clinton’s response to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings helped him recover from his defeat in the 1994 midterms, so this episode may help Obama change—at least in the short term–the trajectory of American politics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Perhaps Alter was just mistaken that Obama ever embodied the leadership he is “inexplicably hidden away.” That was Alter’s mistake for making that leap based on little data, just like others have done with this tragedy. But even more disingenuous is this rampant implication by those on the left that they engaged in NONE of this vitriolic rhetoric. It is, again, scurrilous, for someone like Alter, who regularly appeared on Olbermann, trashing Clinton AND Palin, to now act like he and his cohorts were just meek little lambs in their political discourse. The hypocrisy is just staggering.

I cannot possibly go through all of the instances of the Left’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Primary in their blind desire to elect Obama. The unsubstantiated attacks, the theft of votes, the fraud perpetrated in the caucuses by the Obama camp, all with tacit approval by the DNC, along with the most misogynistic shirts, slogans, sayings, and ads put out by the Obama camp. And now they are trying to act like they were harmless in their rhetoric? It would be pathetic if not so infuriating.

And then there was what they did to Palin. This Primer by Michelle Malkin gives you just a quick glimpse into the “moderate” language of the left about this governor.

And now, these same people, who attacked these candidates, and their followers, relentlessly, are now blaming inflammatory rhetoric on the RIGHT as the primary reason this maniac tried to assassinate Rep. Giffords. Moreover, they would seek to limit our speech as a result of this attack.

We cannot, CANNOT, censor ourselves with an eye to not upsetting some deranged lunatic. That essentially allows the crazy people to determine our discourse, which is, in and of itself, crazy. It is over-functioning to a pathological degree to try and tiptoe around our nation in fear that someone somewhere may just lose it. That kind of walking on eggshells is a horrible way to live, and does, by its very nature, make us prisoners of our own making. We cannot stop talking, or writing, or protesting, or arguing, just because it might set some psycho off on a rampage. We cannot know what will be the next trigger, and we cannot live our lives in constant fear of “upsetting” someone so much they will go off the rails. It is a destructive path down which some would have us go.

And it will strip us of our very freedoms. I, for one, am not willing to give up my freedom to appease some nut-job. How about you?

You may have heard that Barbara Walters included Sarah Palin as one of the “Top 10 Most Fascinating People.” And after the taping, Walters made condescending comments about Palin to Robin Roberts on Good Morning America after Palin had the grace to sit down with her. If I was Gov. Palin, I would add Walters to the list with Katie Couric. But that’s just me.

Now Richard Wolffe, the MSNBC toady, I mean, analyst, has had some smack to say about Palin from that very interview. About what does he make fun of her for saying? That she reads C.S. Lewis.

Huh?

You may recall back during the 2008 election, liberals were upset with Palin for her conservative faith. Heck, even the Washington Post was writing about her “pastor problem.” Palin’s pastor problem – because, well, you know, Obama didn’t have one. Ahem (and the JournoListers made damn sure many people didn’t know he had one).

Yes, Richard Wolffe made fun of Palin for saying she reads C.S. Lewis for “divine inspiration.” Oh, yes he did:

[snip] Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Wolffe expressed incredulity, noting that Lewis wrote “a series of kids’ books.”

Matthews interrupted Wolffe: “I wouldn’t put down C.S. Lewis.”

“I’m not putting him down,” Wollfe responded. “But you know divine inspiration? There are things she could’ve said to divine inspiration. Choosing C.S. Lewis is an interesting one.”

Aside from authoring popular children’s books like the “Chronicles of Narnia,” Lewis was known as a Christian apologist who authored a number of books on religion, like “Mere Christianity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, you know it is bad when even Tweety jumps in there at Wolffe’s statement. But Matthews has a point. C.S. Lewis was a well-regarded scholar, erudite, intelligent, and a prolific writer of books on Christianity. One would think after criticizing her for being too conservative that her choice of this scholar, contemporary of, and friends with, J.R.R. Tolkien would have gotten her a bit of a break. But no.

Wolffe, in his PDS state can only make fun of her, apparently assuming she was referring to the “Chronicles of Narnia,” the children’s series. That is but one part of the numerous books Lewis wrote about Christianity. Perhaps, since Wolffe is apparently unfamiliar with the author, he doesn’t even have to look it up. He can watch “Shadowlands” and learn all about the life and works of C.S. Lewis. That will only take him a couple of hours. Shoot, I bet he can stream it from NetFlix.

No, it is just so much more fun to put Palin down for ANYTHING she says. I swear to the goddess, if she lived during the time Jesus walked the earth, she could say she
sat down and talked with him for divine inspiration. No doubt, Wolffe would find a way to put her down for that. He might say something like she hung out with blue collar carpenter whose friends were a bunch of fishermen, and – GASP – women! What a joke!

This is the same crap they did to Hillary time and time again. It is so, so tiresome to see this “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” mentality ever present with those in the media. I’m sick of it.

And I am sick of the constant “gotcha” mentality of the media toward Palin (and Clinton) ever present. Why did Palin even mention reading C.S. Lewis? Because Barbara Walters, a la Couric, asked her what she read. I kid you not. Oh, and she also said to Palin, “Many find the idea of you as president ‘scary.’” Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s just rude.

Unfortunately, I am sure this is far from over, especially as 2012 approaches. I mean, really – when reading C.S. Lewis becomes fodder for put downs, well, that says it all, doesn’t it?

As for Mr. Sajak, the same thing. This was then. To give you an idea, this is what Keith used to be like:

Funny, right? Perfectly entertaining. But something happened in 2008 that just seemed to send him off the rails. Mr. Sajak seems to feel the same way, given he issued an apology, which he did through Ricochet.com:

[snip] Keith tended to wear out his welcome at stations and networks, and he bounced around to several places before he found his niche at MSNBC. When he first went on the air there, he was actually quite entertaining. He was wry and amusing, and he looked at the news at a kind of cockeyed angle that I enjoyed.

I’m not sure how he morphed into the bitter-sounding, hate-mongering name-caller he’s become, but I’m sorry he did. I liked the guy, and he was always a good guest. Maybe it’s just show business and trying to find a place in it and building an audience, but I don’t know. We were never friends away from the show, so I can’t even guess what drives him.

I do know that to whatever extent the political well has been poisoned, Keith has dumped more than his share of venom into the water. I’d like to think he knows that and maybe even regrets it. I liked the Keith Olbermann of 1989. This tape reminded me that I miss him. (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, you will get zero argument from me that Olbermann dumped more than his share of venom into the political well. The extent of his poisonous ranting has been well documented.

But you know Mr. Olbermann was not going to take this lying down. Why should he? He is probably one of the few people who can be suspended from work, and make his employers apologize to him in order for him to return. Go figure. Anyway, the long and short of Olbermann’s retort is that Sajak did not introduce him to a national audience. Yeah, okay, Keith – whatever you say (am I alone in not believing what he says? Yeah, didn’t think so.).

I appreciate Mr. Sajak’s taking the time, and bearing the responsibility, for apologizing for unleashing Olbermann onto the national scene, but it isn’t his fault. We don’t blame the Wheel of Fortune man. How could he possibly know that the funny, quirky sportscaster he had on his show was going to turn into someone who said crap like this:

Yikes. And anyone who listened to this man during the 2008 Primary knows for Olbermann to throw the terms “sexist” at someone else is just laughable. Laughable. The manner in which he has talked about both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin make him the last person in the world to be taken seriously hurling that charge at another. Who could forget statements like this from the lips of Mr. Olbermann, “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” So, this man, who is threatening violence against a woman, and not just any woman – a sitting US Senator, thinks he can call anyone else a “sexist”? Yeah, that would be laughable if it wasn’t so despicable.

Again, anyone who watched him during the 2008 Primaries/Campaign know the type of rhetoric to which Mr. Sajak was referring. He couldn’t know, couldn’t possibly know, that this is who the once-funny sportscaster would become…

While we are on the topic of ranting hosts from MSNBC(O), I would be remiss to leave out Olbermann’s counterpart, Rachel Maddow. I cannot help but wonder, how is it that people who actually work in the media, on television, are not aware that there is video documentation available to either support or dispel their assertions? I continue to be amazed that so many of these people seem to forget this, as illustrated above.

In the case of the Rhodes Scholar, Rachel Maddow, you would think a Rhodes Scholar, of all people, would know there will be video archives of programs on her own network, especially since she likes to use video archives of other cable news, like, say, Fox.

Evidently not. Recently, Ms. Maddow had a little holier-than-thou moment in which she asserted that guests on Fox News shilled for money, thus engaging in politics, something people at MSNBC(O) would NEVER, EVER do. Oh, no, in her most sanctimonious tone, she claimed MSNBC(O) was all about news, not politics, according to this very good Johnny Dollar piece. Would you find someone on MSNBC(O) shilling for cash for their political careers? Absolutely not. How dare anyone even suggest such a crazy thing! No doubt Ms. Maddow would say something along those lines, given her umbrage at Fox allowing such a thing on its programs.

The thing is, she would be wrong in a big way, as this video by Johnny Dollar makes clear:

Oops.

So, not only is this Rhodes Scholar unclear on the concept of having video tape of her own news outlet, but of the term “HYPOCRISY.”

Honest to pete, how in the world can she be so freakin’ hypocritical, so pompous, and not see it? Or is it that she just doesn’t care that she’s a big liar? I guess being a Rhodes Scholar doesn’t automatically imply one is ethical, so there is that. But really, her sanctimonious, arrogant, condescending attitude toward Fox for the very same thing guests on her network have done – with impunity, especially Alan Grayson (and THANK YOU, FLORIDA for not voting this man back in), is just absurd.

But you know, Ms. Maddow does seem to be in the right place there at MSNBC(O). Any network that employs the King of Pomposity, Keith Olbermann, and Angry Man, Ed Schultz, would be a great fit for the condescending hypocrisy of Rachel Maddow.

Keep it up, Rachel. You’re making Fox look better and better.

But I’m not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water’s attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to “Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!” They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren’t the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there’s that. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you’re going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little “Mel Gibson” moment, as this NY Post article, “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers.” Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network’s 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, “I’m going to torch this [bleep]ing place.”

The hot-tempered anchor of “The Ed Show” lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, “[Bleep]ers!”

A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” [snip]

But wait – there’s more:

[snip] Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.”

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed – not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn’t it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:

Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn’t since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c’mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey – you know, that’s all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it – Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all – his father “would not want to limit voices.” So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That’s what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let’s have them!

I might add, after the big 18 minute speech, we can also add Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman to the list of people whose Obama-fog is being lifted. That’s quite a trifecta, and in large part due to the Obama speech about how we would deal with this devastating oil spill, all 18 minutes, which apparently lacked specificity. Just ask Olbermann. Wow, who even knew this was possible?

But to be fair, Stewart’s rehab back into the Reality-based community started earlier than the MSNBC Trifecta, not waiting for the speechifying of the Flawed Analogy Maker in Chief. At least from what I have seen in clips. But when I saw this on Tuesday night, I admit, I was stunned:

Holy moley – it’s as if this BP spill has finally broken through all of the Kool Aide induced amnesia, and some folks are finally starting to put together the pieces like we did during the primaries. Though Stewart missed one – that Obama as president also supports spying on American citizens. But other than that, it was as if Stewart finally decided to look at all of the things we had been screaming about in 2008 and 2009. Of course, he had to have the obligatory dig at Sarah Palin. We can’t have it all be about how hoodwinked the Obots were by Obama or else their heads might explode, so Stewart used the favorite punching bag of the Democrats, Sarah Palin, as a way to reduce tension in their brains. Whatever. Maybe he’ll get over that someday.

It should be interesting to see how Stewart responds to Obama’s Big Gulf Oil speech on Wednesday night’s show. If Tuesday night is any indication, Stewart may have finally gotten it. Perhaps he’ll report on the Safety Award the Obama Administration gave to the Deepwater Horizon, even though the Bush Administration gave it citations, or the lack of federal inspections, or that Obama only has 20 minutes scheduled for his big meeting with the BP Oil Execs (and, WTH with that??), or even why in the world Obama is still kowtowing to the unions and not waiving the Jones Act so other countries can come HELP US with this spill? Will more members of the MSM start to put these all together, or just leave it to a few sites while they continue to protect the Obama Presidency (how’s that working out for you now, Chris Matthews?)? Time will tell, and soon enough…

So, thanks, Larry, for helping me to go back to “The Daily Show.” Maybe there is some hope after all, you think?

President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border, an administration official and an Arizona congresswoman said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.

Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, they said.

The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts blocking drug trafficking. The troops will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, the administration official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending Guard troops to the border.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s popularity has gone through the roof since signing the new Arizona immigration law, despite the bullying of the President himself, not to mention the derogatory comments of both Attorney General Holder and Janet Napolitano, his head of Homeland Security. Brewer stood up for the safety and rights of her constituents, asking the President to step up and do his job and…he blinked.

That’s what happens when you call out a bully.

Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have abdicated their responsibility to secure the border – since it is such a difficult hot button issue and I can only assume both were afraid of risking the ire of Latino voters. This is not about discouraging immigration, but as many others pointed out, we cannot even move forward on immigration reform until we secure the border and protect our citizens – of all ethnicities.

MSNBC further reports…

Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move and Republicans planned to try to attach it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.

I guess the President needed to cut McCain and Kyl off at the pass.
In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the situation on the border has “greatly deteriorated.” He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent … as well as an additional $500 million, but it’s simply not enough,” McCain said.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said in a statement that the administration would announce the deployments later in the day Tuesday.

It may not be enough but it’s a start. Can’t wait to see what happens from here. Clearly, the President did not want to look like was standing on the sidelines once again.

I sincerely hope more of our representatives stand up for their principles and their constituents. Whether or not we agree with them on a specific issue is less important than the fact that someone is willing to make an honest case for their actions. Only then – when governance and choice is out in the open – can we have an effective debate on legislation, making decisions that will have a positive effect.

Better that than offering a small bandaid or merely paying lip service to a hot button issue.

What say you?

Heck, just today, the Washington Post put out a poll it did with ABC News in which the headline says things might be a bit hairy for incumbents for the next election, but that overall, Obama is seen as trustworthy on a number of issues. But what you DON’T learn in that article is the breakdown of the 1001 people polled, and how Obama’s positive numbers could be higher now than they were in a recent Gallup poll. Well, HotAir explains:

Why did Obama and the Democrats still manage to hold more trust over their GOP opponents? The pollster talked to more of them, that’s how — and more of them than they did in the last poll, relative to Republicans. In the March 26th poll, the WaPo/ABC sample had a D/R/I split of 34/24/38, giving Democrats a partisan advantage of 10 points in the poll. This time, the sample’s split went 34/23/38, and even the independents split in favor of the Democrats, 19/17, up from 17/17 last month. Just to give some perspective, the partisan gap from their November 2008 poll just before the election was nine points — and 26% of the sample was Republicans, compared to 23% now.

Given the expanding partisan gap shown in this poll, small wonder that Obama winds up with more trust than Republicans among respondents. It’s also no mystery why the WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama adding to his job approval rating, 54/44, when every other pollster has Obama sinking. That ten-point swing in the sample makes quite a difference.

It also makes a big difference in the consolation news the Post and ABC offered Democrats. The 46/32 split for Dems on trust by party shows that Democrats would be considerably narrower than the 14-point lead this survey shows. The eleven point lead that Obama has over the GOP for trust on the economy would be completely gone, and the 4-point edge Obama enjoys over Republicans on the deficit would have more than reversed itself.

So you can see why I was a bit surprised to see the Politico story indicating the love affair with Obama was over. Yet that is the claim in this lengthy article. (Let me say up front, I will not be including the whole thing here for space reasons, but I urge you to read the whole piece.)

And now to the story itself:

One of the enduring storylines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.

President Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship – as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the last decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors – and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost non-existent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic emails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call – or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

— Except for a few reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach – even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper – the New York Times – enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face-time.

“They seem to want close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said the New Yorker’s George Packer.

“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.

Okay. You know what I am going to say about this already. Had they actually done their jobs during the campaign, looked at who Obama really is, his job performance (or lack thereof), refrained from categorizing him as “cool” when he was being arrogant and aloof, maybe they would not surprised now.

And they sure would not be surprised by this, had they followed his “career”:

Much of the criticism is off-the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross-section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”

And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.

Obama’s White House aides can rightfully say they’ve set new standards for opening up access on several fronts, such as releasing previously secret visitors’ logs, expanding White House web content and offering more than 150 sit-down interviews with Obama to selected reporters.

But Gibbs is unapologetic about sometimes taking a hard line in his dealings with the press, saying it’s a response to the viral nature of modern media.

“There’s a danger in letting something go. Trust me, I read a lot of news every day. Not a day goes by that something that I didn’t pay enough attention to, or close attention to, doesn’t go from being myth to reality over the course of several hours,” Gibbs told POLITICO.

“I understand if you’re a reporter and get 95 percent right, and your word choice isn’t right on 5 percent. But that 5 percent goes on to become reality. I’ve got to live with that, when it may or may not be true,” Gibbs said. “It does make our jobs difficult.”

The correspondents association recently met with Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, “a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”

A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”

Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.

Hold the phone. Did they agree with Chris Matthews that a journalist’s job was to make Obama’s presidency a successful one and that’s why they gave him goodwill he did not EARN?? If so, they are unclear about the role of a journalist in a free society.

At least they acknowledged the total Obama/Gibbs “Transparency” meme with the response it deserved – laughter.

Here are their beefs with the Obama Administration:

The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:

Dodging questions

If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.

Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.

The numbers speak for themselves: during his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q&A sessions—an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University Professor Martha Kumar.

“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”

White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.

Reporters point out that the Bush White House was no paragon of press transparency. And since the meeting with Gibbs this month, Obama took a couple of questions at a meeting with congressional leaders last week and still photographers got into a couple more events.

“I give credit to Robert for having the meeting, hearing our concerns and taking some action after the meeting to show that, while he may not agree to all the things we’re pushing for, he respects our concerns,” said CNN’s Ed Henry, the correspondents’ association’s secretary.

Playing favorites

It’s one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.

But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces – then, in their view, lied about it.

Say Whaaaaa?? The Obama Administration LIED about something? Yeah, like every time Obama or Gibbs open their mouths. For the rest of this particular tale of how the White House dissed a whole bunch of reporters and lied about it, click HERE.

As for the New York Times being a favorite of the Administration, Spokesweasel Gibbs had this to say:

Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.

But Stevenson said, “Like every other journalist in Washington I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”

While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of the Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.

This was news to me. I read a lot of news. How is it that this was NOT out there? I mean, the Wall Street Journal is a pretty big news source, so why was this not discussed more? If anyone knows, I’d like to hear it.

Anyone who watched MSNBC during the Primaries/Campaign is familiar with Richard Wolffe, the Obama sycophant. Well, guess who is a WH fave? You got it:

[snip] Another event that riled many in the press corps took place on March 20. The Washington Examiner’s Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress’ big health care vote.

“You’re not in the pool,” Mason recalled telling Wolffe. “You shouldn’t be joining.” Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of “a special invitation from the Obama administration.” Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.

“Are you working for them officially now?” shot back Mason.

“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don’t know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It’s just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press.”

Oh, snap. And a “free press”? Yeah, I’d love to see what this country was like if we REALLY had a free press. You know, one that actually covered the differences in protests between, say, Tea Partiers and AZ Anti-Immigration people. I suppose a girl can dream, right?

As indicated above, this White House can be a tad vindictive:

[snip]Getting mad

And just what happens when you upset the White House?

Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice mail messages.

“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches, or the email equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.

“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” the New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation—not just message.”

One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story—only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.

“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graf that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off the record angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain, engage!”

Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.

“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now.…This isn’t unique in terms of us and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”

Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things….I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”

Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.

While some reporters note improvements since the Bush era, like more informed deputy press secretaries and assistants, others complain of rigid image control pervading the government. “The access is much poorer than the Bush administration,” one national newspaper who regularly covers the White House said. “This is wider than just the White House. I feel like the political appointees in a variety of agencies are more difficult to get to. There are people…you could reach in the Bush administration that now they say ‘That position does not speak to the press. We do not give background. We do not give anything.’ ’’

Compton said that if the Obama White House’s sense of being besieged by the press is authentic it bespeaks a kind of innocence born from a candidate and a president who have never confronted a full-on Washington feeding frenzy.

“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait ‘till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration under attack, wait ‘till there’s a scandal, wait ‘till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”

Well, it seems like the press is going to have ample opportunity with the revelation of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s phone calls with Obama. We shouldn’t have long to wait to see if there is a “feeding frenzy” over THIS scandal.

And if the press actually does their job, I am sure the level of push-back will be noteworthy given what the press is receiving now:

Getting even

While complaining about stories is hardly unique to the Obama administration, White House reporters charge that sometimes, aides even retaliate against reporters who cross them.

One reporter said that after he wrote a story the White House viewed as critical, aides tried to cancel meetings he’d lined up with other administration officials. “I was told very clearly the press office tried to stop those appointments going ahead,” the journalist said.

Gibbs said he couldn’t recall any such instance. “I’m sure people may have thought that, though,” he said.

While the Times clearly enjoys more access than any other publication, its perceived transgressions often get a heated and sustained response from the White House. “There certainly is no lack of friction or the appropriate tension that goes into this relationship—to put it mildly,” Stevenson said.

And that is with a favored organization. I imagine we can extrapolate to those the WH does NOT like:

[snip]“They throw some brush-back pitches every now and then,” one White House reporter for a major newspaper said. “They’ve been pretty heavy handed and have cut some people off.”

Edward Luce of the Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.

“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source-greasers or other fawning articles.

Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”

Clemons’s post on his findings, “Communications Corruption at the White House,” was harsh, particularly coming from a policy wonk who tends to agree with most of Obama’s stances.

“Has the bar moved so far that a reasonable piece that gives and takes a little but provides both criticism and applause, that is something White House has to respond to in such a prickly, thin-skinned way?” asked Clemons.

Um, YES!! For the gazillionith time, we tried to tell you so. We tried to get you to really, really look at this candidate instead of regurgitating whatever talking points Obama wanted you to spew for him. Or to quit transferring definitions for one word to another, like “even keeled” for “prickly,” “angry,” or “dismissive.” But would you listen? No. So on many levels, the press is getting what it has coming to it.

And that would be peachy keen-o if the press hadn’t given such a massive pass to this man who now occupies the White House, shoving through policies that are disastrous for our country, using the legal system as his personal bully under the guise of the Constitution (several things come to mind, but I’ll mention two: the DOJ supporting DADT, and Obama going after Arizona for trying to do something the Federal Government has failed to do – strengthen their border). Who knows, maybe when these reporters’ own outlets decide it’s cheaper to NOT cover their health care now that Obama got this god-awful law signed, they’ll wish they had actually done their jobs a bit better.

You know, come to think of it, they deserve pretty much what they are getting from the White House now. I’m willing to bet good money that a Clinton White House, even a McCain White House, would not be treating the press – our eyes and ears in the public arena – with such callous disregard, and even contempt. But they wanted Obama in there, and as he noted, they (most likely) voted for him.

So how does it feel now? Those Kool Aide fumes dispersing any?? If so, welcome to our world, the one you, the media, helped bring upon us. And thanks shitloads for that. Ready to do your jobs now?

Naturally the race baiters, race hustlers and sycophants to the current administration are frustrated. Their heads really ought to explode when they watch this video. Please enjoy some tea party folk being interviewed at these protests*…since the MSM et al are so busy tellin you there are no black Americans participating in these rallies…

I wonder what the exploding heads will say now.

Chat away.

**********
* H/T Hot Air for finding the video.