Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

MSM’s “Vanishing War”

Best summed up by Ace:

Remember that study about a half year back demonstrating that FoxNews didn’t cover Iraq as much as the other TV outlets when news was bad? CNN et al. made a rather big deal about that. Their argument seemed to be that good or bad, the War had to be covered, and only partisanship and bias could explain a drop in coverage.

Well, covering the war “good or bad” includes, I see, covering it when it is going rather good.

So how come CNN and the nets aren’t interested anymore?

Last time ’round we were told Fox’s diminished coverage was proof that they were in the tank for the GOP.

So what does the diminished coverage by ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC demonstrate, praytell? 

Nope…no liberal media bias!

December 10, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias | Leave a comment

ABC works with moonbat blog to dig dirt on Huckabee

I’m no fan of Huck, as you folks here know.  But there’s one thing I’m less fond of, and that’s media bias.  Here, we have a clear-cut case of bias, and Kurtz doesn’t even bat an eyelash over it.  From Big Head DC:

Howie Kurtz, the media writer for the Washington Post, today uncovers a fishy relationship between a journalism giant and a liberal blog. While Kurtz didn’t make much wind about it, he reveals within an item about GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee that the Huffington Post and ABC News have teamed up to report the news.

“ABC, working with the Web site, interviewed a former parole board member who said Huckabee had pressed the panel to release the convict, Wayne Dumond,” Kurtz writes regarding a well-referenced story the Huffington Post published last week.

The quote raises an important question: How common is it for an apparently nonpartisan news source to team up with an admittedly liberal Web site in reporting a news item? Isn’t this a case of liberal media bias at its worst?

Also raising questions about the news relationship, Kurtz quotes Huckabee as saying he’s “amazed” that ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross ignored information he provided to him. 

Why is he amazed?  Ross has no need for Huck’s information, since facts only tend to get in the way of a good story sometimes. 

It’s one thing to do research obtained in part by the blogosphere (which was done, among other times, during the Rathergate fiasco, but no MSM agency actually worked with the rightosphere on that one).  It’s quite another to work in a coordinated fashion in conjunction with an admittedly partisan blog for the purposes of finding dirt on political opponents.  We now know that ABC News can go ahead and abandon any pretense of objectivity.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

December 10, 2007 Posted by | Huckabee, media bias, moonbats | 3 Comments

Headline of the day

Headline: “Homosexuality Turned On and Off in Fruit Flies”

Exit questions: (1) How are scientists able to determine that an insect is gay?  Do they have Village People posters, #ssless chaps, Indigo Girls ticket stubs, or cats?; (2) if gayness is disabled in “fruit flies”, does that mean they simply become “flies”?

We ask the tough questions here, my friends!  😀

December 10, 2007 Posted by | gay, headlines | 9 Comments

Cuban Missile Crisis?

I showered White House spokesbabe Dana Perino for taking Helen the Hutt to the woodshed at the press conference last week.  Now, I have to call out Ms. Perino for this one:

“Appearing on National Public Radio’s light-hearted quiz show Wait, Wait… Don’t Tell Me” the Washington Post says White House press secretary Dana Perino “got into the spirit of things and told a story about herself that she had previously shared only in private: During a White House briefing, a reporter referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis — and she didn’t know what it was.”

Said Perino: “I was panicked a bit because I really don’t know about… the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I’m pretty sure.”  

D’oh!  Google it, Dana.  It’ll help next time those reporters ask you crazy things like, oh, I dunno…American history!

December 10, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Seared, seared into Dowd’s mind

Lefitst NYT columnist Maureen Dowd is the inspiration of the term “Dowdify”, which means to abbreviate or alter quotes with a period of ellipses so as to remove the context and manufacture the impression that the opposite is true.  For example, if Bush said “I do not think that Obama is a racist”, a Dowdified quote would be that Bush said “…Obama is a racist.”

Anywho, not only does she Dowdify quotes, she apparently Dowdifies her own age.  From Instapundit:

CAUGHT YOUTHENING: Maureen Dowd’s latest column begins:

When I was a kid, we used to drive on the Beltway past the big Mormon temple outside Washington. The spires rose up like a white Oz, and some wag had spray-painted the message on a bridge beneath: “Surrender Dorothy!”

But if you’re imagining Dowd as a pigtailed six-year-old in the back of the family station wagon, think again. The temple was finished in 1974. Maureen Dowd was born in 1952. So she was a “kid” who was old enough to vote and drink. (According to this source, the graffiti first appeared in 1973, when Dowd would have been 21.) Thanks to reader Conrad Kiechel for the tip. I remember the graffiti, too, though, which was still there in the 1980s when I was a “kid” practicing law in Washington. By then Dowd was pushing 40. 

The NYT claims to use many layers of fact-checking in their stories (try not to laugh), but they probably didn’t think they needed said layers of fact-checking in their columns, particularly when the columnist should presumably be aware of her own birthday.

December 10, 2007 Posted by | media bias | 2 Comments

NBC nixes, then allows, pro-troops ad

Freedom Watch, a conservative group who wanted to run some paid pro-troop ads that didn’t bash anybody, was denied the opportunity by NBC (though CNN and Fox allowed the paid ads).  Well, well, well…it turns out the NBC lawyer who nixed the ads is a big time Democrat donor!  Color me with the “unsurprised” crayon.

From Majority Accountability Project:

The NBC lawyer who refused to allow a non-profit group to air an advertisement thanking American troops for their service has donated at least $45,000 to a host of Congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and the campaign committees of House and Senate Democrats, research by the Majority Accountability Project has found.

According to a Fox News report, Richard Cotton, the general counsel for NBC/Universal, was one of two network officials who decided not to sell ad time to Freedom’s Watch, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan movement dedicated to preserving, protecting, and defending conservative principles and promoting a conservative agenda.”

Freedom’s Watch prepared a series of television ads thanking American troops stationed abroad for “their service and for spending time away from their family and friends this Holiday season.” The ads will run from December 6 until December 21, and while CNN and Fox are both airing the group’s commercials, NBC refused to sell airtime on their cable networks, MSNBC and CNBC.

According to the Fox report, NBC will not sell airtime unless Freedom’s Watch removes their website address from the commercial. The group’s website address, http://www.freedomswatch.org, appears at the end of the 30 second spot, under a banner that reads “thank you.”

“NBC asked us to re-vamp our Web site. They wanted to censor us, and we said, ‘No we’re not going to be censored’,” Freedom’s Watch president and CEO Bradley Blakeman told Fox News.

Neither CNN nor Fox objected to the commercial’s content.

A letter to the Senior Vice-President of NBC News Network Sales posted on the Freedom’s Watch website reports this is the second time the Peacock Network has refused to sell the group ad time.

While NBC’s rejection of a Freedom’s Watch ad from August was never explained, according to the group, Federal Elections Commission (FEC) records are sure to raise eyebrows.

According to FEC records, Cotton has been a generous donor to Democrat campaigns and liberal causes. Earlier this year, he donated $1,000 to the political action committee (PAC) of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and last year gave the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) $7,000.

Over the past decade, Cotton has contributed at least $45,000 to Congressional Democrats, including $2,000 each to Clinton and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

Cotton has donated to some GOP candidates, including $1,000 earlier this year to House Republican Leader John Boehner, D-OH, but those contributions are a fraction of his total giving. While Cotton has written checks to the DCCC, DSCC, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), he has never given to a Republican campaign committee, according to those FEC records.

Ironically, it was one of NBC’s networks, MSNBC, that earlier this year created a stir when they detailed the political giving of journalists and news organizations.

“Because appearing to be fair is part of being fair, most mainstream news organizations discourage marching for causes, displaying political bumper stickers or giving cash to candidates,” the cable news station reported.

“The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms,” according to the MSNBC study, which found that 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes since 2004, 16 to Republicans, and two gave to both parties.

Noting that “many news organizations have applied the rules to only political reporters and editors,” the report revealed that “NBC, MSNBC and MSNBC.com say they don’t discourage or encourage campaign contributions, but they require employees to report any potential conflicts of interest in advance and receive permission of the senior editor.”

It is unclear whether a similar policy exists for other network executives, such as Cotton.

But hey…they “support the troops”, right?

December 10, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, media bias, shameful | Leave a comment

Howard Dean: the term “illegal alien” is “outrageous”

The barking moonbat who heads the DNC, Howard Dean, is about as fond of the English language as Bill Clinton is.  From the Washington Times:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean yesterday said Republicans are targeting immigrants and told the Republican presidential candidates that the tone of their debates on the issue has become “outrageous.”

“Stop scapegoating immigrants and stop using immigration as a wedge issue,” Mr. Dean, a 2004 presidential hopeful, said in a conference call with reporters meant to set the stage for this weekend’s Republican presidential debate on Spanish-language network Univision.

Mr. Dean said that in the most recent debate, Republicans used “outrageous phrases like ‘illegal aliens.’ ” He urged the candidates to “have some morality and some humanity.” 

To normal people (i.e. not liberals), words mean things.  To use an accurate term that even the law uses is apparently “outrageous”!

December 10, 2007 Posted by | Howard Dean, illegal immigration, moonbats | 4 Comments

The NIE: fact or fiction?

I haven’t covered the National Intelligence Estimate report much, mainly because there’s been quite a bit of info out there about it.  In short, our intel community (which has been at war with the administration as much as, if not more so than, with Al Qaeda) released a report that says Iran doesn’t have nukes or the ability to make them.

Well, the Euros beg to differ, as do the Israelis.  As Allah puts it, you have no idea how much it stings to have the Euros telling us we’re naive about a threat!

British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran…

British intelligence is concerned that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war – as their reports on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programmes did in Iraq – that they got it wrong this time.

A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.

The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. “We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.

John Bolton describes the NIE as both “politics disguised as intelligence” and “quasi-putsch”, which is more diplomatic than I would be.

December 10, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Euros, intelligence, Iran | 2 Comments

Dems’ faux outrage over waterboarding

Whether or not you think waterboarding is torture (or at least, borderline torture and an unacceptable method of interrogation), one thing is certain: you cannot defend those who decry it now, but didn’t decry it over five years ago.  From the Washington comPost:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

That’s right…Madame Speaker herself was debriefed and had no problem whatsoever with it!  Remember this whenever you see these opportunistic backstabbers bloviate on the matter from this point forward.

December 10, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, hypocrisy, Pelosi | 1 Comment