CNN discovers the smoking gun that will derail Rubio’s political future

Yes, this is the actual graphic from CNN.

Hydrating.  With water.  Apparently, when Ted Kennedrunk killed a woman with his car and spent his entire life being a raging alcoholic, that wasn’t a “career ender”.  But sipping water on camera before a rebuttal to SOTU is.

And you people wonder why I don’t tune into politics much anymore?

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Why no October Surprise in 2012?

Because according to Zombie, his entire TERM was one big friggin’ October Surprise!  Excerpt:

But in Barack Obama’s case, the situation is reversed: Everything he’s ever done is scandalous. The reason there was no October Surprise for Obama is that we’re all scandaled out. Anyone’s who been paying attention since 2008 has literally been in paralytic shock every single day. We spent October 2012 exactly as we’ve spent every month of the last four years: Our jaws on the floor, aghast, stupefied, unable to breathe. Almost every single thing Obama has done since he’s been in the national spotlight could have been and should have been a career-ending October Surprise. But the mainstream media, as we all know, has devoted itself to protecting him.

Not a day has gone by since Obama took office when I didn’t learn of some fresh outrage and say Oh. My. God. But we’ve been traumatized so often that over time the scandals have all blurred together and fused into a single red-hot thought: Please let this nightmare end.

Seriously, read the column, which exhaustively outlines the blunders, missteps, and scandals that a non-corrupt media would have uncovered in such a way so as to GUARAN-FRIGGIN-TEE he wouldn’t even be able to get elected dog catcher in Detroit, much less leader of the free world.

This is beyond media bias…it’s media corruption, propaganda we would expect to see in third world tinpot dictatorships.

Night and Day, “How the NYT sees 2% GDP growth” edition

Via Newsbusters.  Money quotes:

From the New York Times editorial, “Gross National Letdown,” of Thursday October 29, 1992:

President Bush smiled when he learned this week that economic growth during the third quarter reached a surprising 2.7 percent, almost twice the previous rate. But his smile shouldn’t be broad. The new figure almost certainly exaggerates the health of the economy, which continues to creep along at a painfully slow pace. Even the 2.7 figure is half the normal rate of recovery and not enough to bring down unemployment.

New York Times editorial, “Slow but Steady Improvement,” from Saturday October 27, 2012:

The slow pace of the nation’s economic recovery has picked up a bit lately. In the third quarter, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2 percent, beating expectations and the dismal 1.3 percent growth in the second quarter. Over the past year, the growth rate has been 2.3 percent. At that pace, there’s enough momentum to keep unemployment, currently 7.8 percent, from getting much worse.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Liberal Iowa fishwrap endorses Romney, first GOP endorsement since 1972

The Des Moines Register hasn’t endorsed a Republican for president since Nixon defeated George “One State” McGovern in 1972.  It’s taken 40 years, but even this fishwrap recognizes that stupid is as stupid does and a vote for B.O. is stupid.  Excerpt:

The former governor and business executive has a strong record of achievement in both the private and the public sectors. He was an accomplished governor in a liberal state. He founded and ran a successful business that turned around failing companies. He successfully managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority — and rightly so.
…
The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House. …

Funny, though, that one of B.O.’s campaign spokesboobs doesn’t think it’s “reality-based“:

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter on Sunday dismissed the Des Moines Register endorsement of GOP candidate Mitt Romney, saying it was not “based at all in reality.”

“They endorsed Mitt Romney in the primary, so this was not much of a surprise,” said Cutter on ABC’s “This Week” of the influential swing-state paper’s backing for President Obama’s challenger.

“It was a little surprising to read that editorial, because it didn’t seem to be based at all in reality, not just in the president’s record, but in Mitt Romney’s record,” Cutter added. “It says that he’d reach across the aisle, which he’d do the exact opposite. It’s the exact opposite of what he did in Massachusetts.”

Um…sure, Snookums.

I guess they were more “reality-based” when the fishwrap endorsed her boss in 2008, huh?  Funny, that.  Anywho, looks like every major newspaper in that swing state has endorsed Romney.  And while I don’t put much stock in a newspaper endorsement’s ability to persuade would-be voters, I do find it extraordinarily telling that more fishwraps than I ever suspected would jump off the Obama Titanic.

First Romney-Obama debate postmortem

I bet you think I’m gonna declare Romney the winner of the first debate, being the ideological hack that I am.  Well…you’d be right, of course. 😆

But it’s not just ME who thinks this.  In addition to CNN’s poll showing 67% of respondents thought Romney was the clear winner, and CBS’ poll showing more than twice as many people though Romney won as Obama, this page will give you a great illustration as to how the left saw it.  Even James Carville can’t help but call it straight, for once.  Dude, when you’ve got Bill Maher, Queen Andrew Sullivan, Mark Halperin, Peter Beinart, Juan Williams, and even Tingles Matthews and other MSDNC talking heads (speaking to both of their viewers) all in despair…well, it’s a good night for the good guys!  🙂

Exit question: Will “objective, neutral journalist” George Snuffalupagus (or whatever the h3ll his name is) continue his trend of ignoring reality and call this one for B.O., too?

Quote of the day, “MSM and Lewinsky not that dissimilar” edition

Heh. Video at link.

At Thursday’s Mitt Romney rally in Fairfax, Virginia, one Romney supporter lambasted the media in its coverage of the election.

“I think you guys are suck-ups,” the woman said. “I think you guys got your embroidered kneepads from the White House, buddy. That’s what I think.”

Feckless Obama administration blasted for disgusting reaction to Libyan embassy massacre

Video link here, partial transcript here:

These optics suck, White House! I mean we have 4 Americans who are dead who were butchered and slaughtered because this administration did not have the foresight to fortify these embassies on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. And there he is with all of his fanbois and fangirls in Vegas raising money while they scream ‘I love you!’ in the middle of an international crisis.

But hey, it’s ROMNEY’S STATEMENT that is drawing MSM scrutiny, right?  Effin’ lapdog media.

What to expect from the media during the 2012 campaign

Obama’s DNC acceptance speech bombed, says…MSM?

His constituents and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) are mortified that their boy didn’t deliver the goods as well as Bubba did the night before.  Some of the biggest B.O. sycophants are disappointed and/or panicked.

A rundown of the reactions here.  A handful of excerpts, though:

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “A Lot Of Stuff We’ve Heard Before.” CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “Going on to the next chapter right now, Jessica Yellin, our Chief White House Correspondent. You sat with me. We listened together. I thought there would be more specifics. There were a lot of goals expressed, generalities, a lot of stuff we’ve heard before. I didn’t hear any specific new initiative that the President unveiled.” (CNN, 9/6/12)

CBS’ Bob Schieffer: “It Just Didn’t Have That Spark.” SCHIEFFER: “But this as not the kind of speech that Bill Clinton made last night. It just didn’t have that spark.” (CBS, 9/6/12)

…

ABC News’ Rick Klein: “Strange Silence Prevailing In The Arena.” “Almost no confetti at #DNC2012, and strange silence prevailing in the arena” (Twitter.com, 9/6/12)

…

The Washington Post’s “The Fix”: “Certainly Not Among The Best He Has Ever Delivered…” “One person you won’t see in winners and losers is President Obama. His speech was certainly not among the best he has ever delivered — the #1 seed in those rankings is his 2007 Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner address — and, at times, it felt more like a State of the Union address rather than a convention acceptance speech.” (The Washington Post, 9/6/12)

The Associated Press: “Obama Urged Voters To Stay Patient Even Though His Economic Policies Have Failed To Fully Fix The American Economy.” “Obama urged voters to stay patient even though his economic policies have failed to fully fix the American economy. Once the candidate of hope, Obama’s message was hang in there.” (The Associated Press, 9/6/12)

 

Reporters buying Obama and Democrat merchandise at DNC convention…using fake names!

Nope…no liberal media bias!  Excerpt:

Members of the media have apparently been using “fake” names to buy official Obama gear and contribute to the Obama campaign inside the Time Warner Cable Arena where the President is due to speak in a few minutes. During our travels around the arena, Politicker spotted a souvenir stand in one of the press stands selling T-shirts and buttons supporting President Barack Obama, “Democrats Are Hot” bumper stickers and other official Obama merchandise.

The souvenir stand was in a secure area only accessible to those with a media credential and buying campaign gear means contributing to the campaign, so we asked the woman working the cash register whether anyone at the press stand had been making purchases. Her answers were quite surprising.

The woman working at the souvenir stand told us she hadn’t been “too busy” during the day, but had seen business pick up in the past half hour or so. She then asked us whether we wanted to buy anything. When we informed her that our status as a reporter means we don’t buy campaign gear, she suggested a strategy other members of the media have apparently used to pick up their Obama swag.

“Have you ever thought of making up a fake name? That’s what the other guys do,” she said.

Newt to Piers Morgan on CNN: Say, you guys kinda sound like Obama surrogates, huh?

Video and partial transcript at Newsbusters.  It’s brief, so check it out.  Takeaway line, though:

Now, nobody in the media seems to want to come to grips with the fact that the Obama economic policy is a disaster for the poor. Look at the unemployment rate for black teenagers. Look at the unemployment rate for Latino teenagers. At what point do we hold the president accountable for a policy which is crippling the poor in America by crushing the economy under big government?

Ryan and Romney represent a different approach. And I think there’s this mantra you guys almost sound like you’re an extension of the Obama campaign. The Ryan/Romney plan empowers middle class Americans to get a job. When they get a job, their income goes up. They pay more taxes. They are independent. They’re able to live their own lives.

As for CNN: Nope…no liberal media bias!

MSM continues getting it wrong in their flailing attempts to connect the Tea Party to violence

By now, many of you have seen how Brian Ross of ABC, with an assist from former Clintonite George Snuffalupugus, committed arguably the worst cast of journalistic malpractice since Dan Rather’s forged memo story cost him his job.  Immediately after the Colorado movie shooting, Ross found a guy with the same name as the shooter on a Colorado Tea Party Facebook page.  Turns out that James Holmes isn’t that uncommon of a name and the shooter and “Liker” of the FB page weren’t the same guy.  Go figure.

Anywho, this isn’t the first time the MSM has attempted to paint the Tea Party or conservative groups with the violent brush.  There are at least six verifiable cases of the MSM employing this shameful tactic…and in every single instance, the MSM was 100% wrong.  Excerpt:

After James “The Joker” Holmes committed unspeakable acts of violence at a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” last Friday, ABC’s Brian Ross — in what can only be described as a sloppy act of journalism — practically jumped at the chance to tie the shooter to the Tea Party.

“There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, CO, uh Paige, on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last summer. We don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it is Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado,” Ross said.

Problem: Ross and ABC never investigated the connection. Had they checked their facts, they would’ve discovered that the 52-year-old Tea Partier was not, in fact, the same man arrested by Aurora police that morning. But that didn’t stop Ross. He went on national television and casually tossed out the idea that the Tea Party might somehow be connected to the “Batman” massacre.

Of course, ABC and Ross have apologized for their sloppy reporting, but the speculation remains: Somebody, whether it was Ross or his producers, wanted to tie the conservative grassroots movement to the nightmarish events that took place that night.

But you know what? Conservatives should be used to this at this point. After all, it’s not like Ross’ undisciplined act of media malpractice is a first. Indeed, the media has a long and illustrious history of trying to tie acts of psychopathic violence to either the Tea Party or some other conservative group or personality.

Lawyer and Blogger Gabriel Malor has an op-ed in the New York Post that includes a sampling of some of the moments when the media, without any sort of evidence or proof, has falsely connected conservatism to random and senseless acts of violence. We’ve decided to pick six of them and go into detail.

You MUST read the whole thing, especially to be reminded of the specific cases where the MSM got it wrong.  Yet they keep doing it!

This is what we’re up against, folks.  A state-run MSM that has gone from reporting to advocacy in a couple of generations.  Fortunately, we have the alternative media to call them to the carpet, and we will continue to expose them as the leftist hacks that they are.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Washington comPost poll shows tie with Romney and Obama…with a D+9 sample

For those of you on the left, that means the poll sampled 9% more Democrats than Republicans.  Which is fascinating, considering that the Big Blue Wave of 2008 showed Democrats outnumbering Republicans at the polls by 7%.  In other words, this new poll from the comPost samples an electorate that is MORE Democratic than the biggest Democratic wave EVER…and the best Obama can do with a 9% advantage in poll sampling is a TIE.

I normally don’t get too caught up in polls this far out.  After all, McCain was doing well against Obama at this time in 2008, and Carter was leading Reagan at this point in 1980, according to the polls.  We all know how both of those turned out.  But I do find polls like this one interesting, where they sample in such a way as to get the results that they seek.  Although I’m sure the comPost was hoping that a D+9 poll would have yielded better results for their boy.

As for the comPost: Nope, no liberal media bias!

The MSM embargo of Operation Fast and Furious continues

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Headline of the day, “AP’s media bias” edition

Yes, this is the actual AP headline:

Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?

Read the intro:

By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press – Sat, May 19, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth.

ObaMao’s big government borrow-and-spend policies have been crap, with no positive results and a plethora of negative results.  So Americans elect the GOP to control the House, as their way of expressing displeasure with (among other things) B.O.’s and the Dems’ way of dealing with the economy.  So when the Republican House – again, elected by the people to stop Obamanomics – decides to stop the runaway borrow-and-spend Greece-like policies…they’re trying to sabotage the economy?

Um, yeah.  They’re trying to sabotage something that hasn’t friggin’ worked in nearly four years, and the AP treats it as though it’s a given that Obamanomics works and those mean ol’ Republicans are trying to “sabotage the economy” just to hurt Obama.  Because Obama’s economic policies couldn’t possibly harm Obama…nope, it’s those economy-sabotaging Republicans!

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Romney to reporter: Can we talk about economic issues, you know, the stuff that matters this year?

Video clip here (can’t embed it).  The magic comes around the 2:15 mark, when an exasperated Romney asks the reporter (who is droning on about gay marriage, in-state tuition for kids of criminal aliens, medical marijuana) if there are any “issues of significance” she’d like to discuss.

See, though, she’s just telegraphing the left’s and the MSM’s (pardon the redundancy) intention: get the ADHD public focused on shiny objects to distract them from the colossal failure of Oba-Mao’s government-controlled central planning economic policies.  Sure, jobs have hemorrhaged since he took over, more people have abandoned looking for work, gas prices have more than doubled, foreclosures have spiked, and…oooo, look, gay marriage/medical dope/dog on a car roof!

Time magazine helpfully edits Obama campaign ad to remove unflattering quote that was uttered, add flattering quote that wasn’t uttered

Obama is running a commercial with B.J. Clinton (Billy Jeff…William Jefferson…you perverts!) talking about B.O. ordering the hit on Bin Laden.  Details at Boortz’ site.  Here is the original, unedited transcript of BJ’s comment in the ad:

“That’s one thing George Bush said that was right:  the President is the Decider-in-Chief.  Nobody can make that decision for you.  Look, he knew what would happen.  Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden?  Suppose they’d been captured or killed?  The downside would have been horrible for him.  But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’  He took the harder and more honorable path, and one that produced, in my opinion, the best result.”

So Bubba opines that had the raid gone awry, the fallout would have been disastrous…for Obama!  Yeah, screw the SEALs and the country, the real issue would have been Obama’s re-election chances!  Way to keep your eyes on the prize (and off of the interns), BJ!

Well, Time magazine had an article, by former Newsweak hack Jon Meacham, with a slightly different (but highly significant) quote from Bubba:

“That’s one thing George Bush said that was right:  the President is the Decider-in-Chief.  Nobody can make that decision for you.  Look, he knew what would happen.  Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden?  Suppose they’d been captured or killed?  The downside would have been horrible (???? – CL).  But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’  He took the harder and more honorable path, and one that produced, in my opinion, the more honorable and best result.”

Notice how the quote was totally altered to remove the pesky and problematic “for him” part, and how “honorable” was added a second time, despite the fact that Bubba never used it the second time.  Isn’t the purpose of the quote to, oh I dunno, quote something that someone actually said?

Nope…no liberal media bias!

NYT clears NYT of allegations of bias

This is a joke…right?

The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.

According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”

I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites. Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by collateral factors — for example, political views that creep into nonpolitical coverage.

Nope, we’ve been right down the middle, no favoritism on our part.  How do we know?  Because we just checked ourselves.  And as luck would have it, we’re clean.  So there.

So nope…no liberal media bias!

Obama ate dogs

By now, many of you know that the Romneys are catching hell over the way they transported the family Irish setter nearly 30 years ago on family vacations, namely on the roof of the car.  Ann Romney says the dog enjoyed it, and considering my dog darned near steps all over my passengers to stick his head out the window, I can see that.  Would I put my dog on the roof?  No, probably not.  But if the dog didn’t die, didn’t suffer, and it happened three decades ago, then I don’t give a wet fart on a dry January Monday how they transported their dog.

But the MSM cares.  They do not want any talk about the sky high unemployment, the exploding deficit, our crippling debt, hemorrhaging of jobs, skyrocketed fuel prices, unconstitutional power grabs…but instead, Mitt Romney’s dog from the 1980’s.

OK, you hacks.  You wanna go there?  You really wanna go on the “who loves dogs?” track.  Fine.  Let’s go there.  I’ll stipulate that Obama loves dogs more…especially with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.  Slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp!  From the Daily Caller:

Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago.

Can you name the author of this quote?

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”

Yep, that’s Barack Obama, writing about his childhood with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, from Chapter Two of his bestseller Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

“So what? It was a long time ago,” you say. “He was a lot younger. Customs are different there. He was just doing what his stepfather told him. And hey, you can’t even prove that the dogs were ever left on top of a car, you racist.”

Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, libs. Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth. And whenever you bring up the one, we’re going to bring up the other.

It’s no fun when we push back, is it? That’s why it’s so much fun.

You must read the updates and the comments, which are friggin’ hilarious!  One to whet the appetite:

Q: What does Obama do when his dog gets stuck?
A: Grabs a toothpick.

Game on, beyotch.

CNN poll a product of “utter fantasy”

This is a great takedown of that CNN poll from yesterday that is wildly different from other recent polls.  In the CNN poll, Obama leads Romney 52%-43%.  In polls from two and three days before, Romney leads Obama in both, albeit within the margin of error.

Why am I talking about polls at this stage of the game?  Simple: media malpractice.  Excerpt of the takedown:

…That might not be the biggest problem with the poll, though. Its biggest problem is … math. Reader Raymond O did some math and asked a rather interesting set of questions in an e-mail last night about how CNN did theirs. First, let’s start with the topline results, as reported by CNN: Obama 52%, Romney 43% among registered voters, 53/41 among all respondents. If that’s the case, then the number of respondents in the latter case voting for Obama should be 538, and the number supporting Romney 416.

However, when reading the questions on page 3 of the poll report, that’s not at all what we see:

BASED ON 484 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR OBAMA — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
3. (Asked of Obama voters) Is that more a vote FOR Barack Obama or more a vote AGAINST Mitt
Romney? …

BASED ON 476 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
4. (Asked of Romney voters) Is that more a vote FOR Mitt Romney or more a vote AGAINST Barack
Obama?

Since the combined total of the two exceeds their count of registered voters in the survey (910), we have to assume this refers to the general-population response. That’s wildly different than the 53/41 split that CNN reports from the poll. In fact, it’s only a 48/47 split for Obama. And given that the poll shows a slightly better result for Romney among registered voters, it’s not difficult to conclude that Romney probably led in that category before CNN’s pollster shifted the results around to this extent.

Read the whole thing…it is fascinating to what lengths CNN is going in order to get their boy re-elected.  They refuse to offer the breakdown of respondents the way every other poll does, with number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents polled.  The comPost and other fishwraps almost always oversample Democrats by double digits over Republicans for their polls, but at least they show their weighted unrealistic numbers.  CNN isn’t going to bother with that.  Plus…they’re even ignoring basic rules of math now!

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Washington comPost challenges CBS on “Fake but accurate”

Oh, it’s not what you think.  You probably thought “challenges” as in “calling CBS out”, didn’t you?  Nope.  Instead, they’re challenging CBS on trying to bastardize the English language in such a way as to advance their leftist agenda.  Details:

“For far too long women have been left behind in Obama’s job market. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is truly unsustainable.”

— Statement by Sharon Day, co-chair of the Republican National Committee, April 6, 2012

In an effort to fight back against Democratic claims of a Republican “war on women,” the Republican National Committee has rolled out a new and startling fact—that under Obama, women have lost seven times as many jobs as men.

So, are the numbers correct?  The comPost concludes that the numbers are indeed correct:

We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.”  (Hey, when was the last time a liberal fishwrap like the comPost chalked up bad numbers under a Republican administration to “coincidence of timing”? – CL)

And the comPost concludes…

If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:

TRUE BUT FALSE

Um…whiskey tango foxtrot?  “TRUE BUT FALSE”?  Are you bleeping kidding me?

The numbers are true…but the numbers are damaging to Chairman Zero, so the comPost has to polish this turd in the best way they know how.  Which is to sodomize English. 

Webster just called and asked to be lubricated next time.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

MSNBC edits quote to make Zimmerman look racist

By now, all of you know about the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL, by Hispanic George Zimmerman.  Well, the “Lean Forward” network, MSNBC, offered up a news story with a Dowdified quote.  Via Big Journalism:

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” Zimmerman told a police dispatcher from his car. His father has said that Zimmerman is Hispanic, grew up in a multiracial family, and is not racist.

(Sidebar: quick explanation of “dowdified” here).

So, it’s clear that Zimmerman equates “suspicious” with “black”, right?  Um…not exactly:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good, [begin ellipsis] or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic? [end ellipsis]

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

For the record, I think I’ll let the law enforcement folks do their job before I jump to conclusions the way that the majority of black America seems to have done.  But this is an example of rotten, corrupt, agenda-driven journalism and I think MSDNC ought to apologize to both of its viewers.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Newt spanks David Gregory over MSM’s obsession with Rush – contraception thingy

Dang it, why does this guy have to have so much baggage?

Record number of reporters and media execs join Team Obama

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Even many liberals turning against Obama on his decision to force Catholic institutions to violate their religious tenets in health care coverage

From the Washington comPost:

The White House sought Tuesday to soothe concerns over a controversial birth control rule that has led to Republican attacks and tension among close allies of the administration.

The efforts followed mounting criticism from Catholics and other faith leaders that a new rule requiring certain religious institutions to cover contraception as part of their employee health plans violates their constitutional rights.

And they came as White House officials began hearing complaints from some of their own allies and advisers, who view the rule as a policy mistake that feeds what they see as an unfair charge from Republicans: that President Obama is anti-religion.  (Yeah, really!  It’s unfair to note that the guy is pro-abortion, thumbs his nose at the church and the Constitution to throw a bone to his moonbat base, etc. … but hey, where would you get the crazy idea that the guy is anti-religion or anything? – CL)

Even Chris Matthews?  Dude, when Tingles says his boy’s wrong, that should make the front page of the comPost!

Normally, the Catholic church runs interference for the Democrats.  I’m guessing that’s why Chairman Zero shoved this down their throats: he figured they’d stick with him and his party like they always do.  Considering they backed ObamaCare in the first place, I’m not sure why they are surprised by this.  Unless they thought they could get a waiver just like every other B.O.-friendly organization that also didn’t want to be subject to ObamaCare’s onerous requirements.

NY Times loses $40 million last year

Heh.

It couldn’t be the quality of their newspaper, or lack thereof, now could it?  Nah.

Of course, since B.O. is good about doling out money to his constituents, and since Democrats have floated the idea of bailing out friendly fishwraps before, it seems like the Old Gray Hag should go kneel before Chairman Zero and ask for their own bailout.  No sense parroting his talking points and polishing his knob for free, right?  There’s bills to be paid.

Reuters sees great news in new unemployment numbers; realists, not so much

al-Reuters goes to bat for their boy:

Job growth surges, jobless rate near 3-year low

The economy created jobs at the fastest pace in nine months in January and the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to a near three-year low, giving a boost to President Barack Obama as campaigning heats up ahead of November elections.

Hey, that’s awesome news!  Except for the fact that it isn’t:

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. …

Again, when people stop looking for work because the economy sucks way too bad to be producing jobs at the levels needed to perpetuate a recovery, those people simply aren’t counted against the unemployed.  A hospital has a certain number of sick people, but when some of those sick people die, you don’t exactly see the hospital celebrating the drop in the number of sick people there, now do you?

Expect more stories like this: Chairman fiddles while the USA smolders, and the MSM is dutifully doing its part in this election year to get ObaMao re-elected.

Andrea Mitchell on Tingles Matthews’ little-watched show: You know, Mitt’s ancestors were illegal aliens, right?

From Mrs. Greenspan’s cakehole:

ANDREA MITCHELL: And looking ahead to the next primary in Florida, 30 percent of the Hispanic community is Cuban-American. That’s a smaller proportion, and so the Hispanic community there is different. And they are less prone to be susceptible to Mitt Romney’s really hard line on immigration, more prone to the Newt Gingrich approach to immigration. The other interesting little fact is about the Mexican Romneys, those looking back at all of those records say that Mitt Romney should look back at the records because the Romneys that came back from Mexico to the United States, they crossed the border illegally.

That would be fascinating…except it’s not true.  Not a word of it.  Mutiple layers of fact-checking at the MSM, I see.  On the up side, it was on MSDNC…ergo nobody saw it.  😆

 

Nope…no liberal media bias!

MSNBC’s Maddow: You know who’s totally unbiased? We are!

Early morning beverage warning, because that Maddow dude “gal” is really huffing some primo fumes.  Quote:

“Yeah. That’s exactly right. We are not, we, there may be liberals on TV at MSNBC, but the network is not operating with a political objective. Whereas Fox is operating with a political objective to elect Republican candidates, and particularly, to elect Republican candidates Roger Ailes likes. I think Roger Ailes is a really good TV executive, but their operation is essentially a political operation to elect Republicans.”

As Ace says about Maddow (and this warrants a beverage warning, too):

I’ll have what she’s having (vagina).

Heh.  😆

I don’t even know if both of Maddow’s viewers at MSDNC believe that.

MSM: If only Congress hadn’t authorized civilians to carry guns into national parks, that crazed gunman that shot four people at a party wouldn’t have killed a park ranger

I’ll never understand the logic, or lack thereof, of liberals when it comes to gun control.  Let’s set the background:

Mount Rainier National Park remained closed Tuesday following the discovery of the body of the suspected gunman in the fatal shooting of a park ranger that has devastated the close-knit group of park workers.

The park, which sees more than 1.5 million visitors annually, has been off-limits since Margaret Anderson was killed Sunday morning. The body of the man suspected of killing her was found Monday morning by a plane searching the rugged, snowy area.

“We have been through a horrific experience,” said park superintendent Randy King. “We’re going to need a little time to regroup.”

Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, was lying partially submerged in a frigid mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on each side.
…
Authorities think Barnes fled to the park Sunday to hide after an early morning shooting at a New Year’s house party near Seattle that wounded four, two critically.

King County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Sgt. Cindi West said Barnes is a suspect in that shooting, as well. West said the shots were fired around 3 a.m. after a dispute over a gun. However, further details, including the vicitms’ identities, were not immediately available.

Parks spokesman Kevin Bacher said: “The speculation is that he may have come up here, specifically for that reason, to get away. The speculation is he threw some stuff in the car and headed up here to hide out.” 

So a crazed gunman (Barnes) shoots four people at a New Years Eve party, then flees to Mt. Rainier National Park and kills a park ranger who was part of a roadblock.  How does the MSM treat this?  Predictably:

The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.

Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

“The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now,” Wade said.

So let me get this straight:

A mentally disturbed man who didn’t care about gun laws (or any laws) shoots four people at a party, critically wounding two of them.  This same lawbreaker retreats to the wilderness to hide out, and when he is stopped by a park ranger, he ignored the law again (you know, the law about killing people and stuff?) and shot and killed the park ranger.  But had Congress not authorized law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into national parks to defend themselves against bears and mountain lions, this otherwise lawbreaking gunman would have…um…not taken his gun to the national park on account of it being illegal to do so?  Because he would have gotten in big trouble for breaking a gun law, as opposed to commiting homicide?  And that fear would have made a mentally ill gunman reconsider his actions?

Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

Nope…no liberal media bias!