We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.


By: sebastianjer , 12:48 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012



BY: Matthew Continetti

Hoping to spend the week sliming Paul Ryan and screeching about the mythical Republican “war on women,” the Democrats instead have been set back as the news cycle spun out of their control. Foreign policy, health care, and energy have forced them into a defensive crouch. No wonder I’m in such a good mood.

David Axelrod most likely is not. He must have wished he could go back to bed on the morning of Mar. 26, when news broke of President Obama’s “hot mic” moment at the security summit in South Korea. ABC News had caught the president telling Putin stooge Dmitri Medvedev that he needed the Russian dictator to give him “space” on issues such as missile defense until after “my last election,” at which time he will have “more flexibility.” Medvedev nodded sympathetically throughout the conversation and said, in his best General Orlov imitation, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” All that was missing from the ridiculous exchange were fulminations over “moose and squirrel.”

The president embarrassed himself. Not only did Obama give us a glimpse of his backwards statesmanship, in which “diplomacy” involves telling a corrupt strongman that electoral concerns prevent him from further accommodation. He also reminded Republicans and independents of the high stakes in 2012. What would be the results, not a few conservatives wonder, if the president had all the “flexibility” he desires?

As it happened, the hot microphone mess was the least of the president’s troubles. The gaffe was still in the news when oral arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act began at the Supreme Court. The first day of proceedings concerned whether the Court could rule on the law at all since the individual mandate will not be enforced until 2014. But even those arguments went poorly for the administration and its hapless solicitor general, Donald Verrilli Jr., who was unable to explain how the mandate could be a “penalty” one day and a “tax” the next day.

Yet the liberal panic did not truly begin until Mar. 27, when the Court heard arguments over the mandate’s constitutionality and even the president’s most hardened supporters had to acknowledge his signature policy was in trouble. No sooner had the proceedings concluded than a hysterical Jeffrey Toobin fled the courtroom, screaming that Obamacare was in “grave, grave” condition. The flimsiness of the administration’s arguments had transformed Toobin into a Henny Penny in drag, running around Capitol Hill and warning his fellow liberals that the Court could overrule Obamacare in “one big package” and that at the very least the mandate is “doomed.

The administration and its friends in the media found themselves in a truly helpless position. If Toobin is proven right and the Court overrules Obamacare in part or in whole, Republicans will pounce, the president will look like a loser, and Democrats will be both demoralized and radicalized (not a winning combination). If Toobin is proven wrong, however, he will look like an idiot, Republicans and Tea Party activists will mobilize for the fall, and Democrats still will have to defend an unpopular law whose consequences grow worse with each passing minute.

The liberal reaction to this dilemma has been a predictable combination of spin and scapegoating. The noted legal mind Chuck Todd, who seems to have missed the class on Marbury v. Madison, asked guests on his show whether a Court decision against the health care overhaul might not be an unprecedented intrusion of one branch of government over the elected branches. Meanwhile, James Carville and Harry Reid lamely suggested an anti-Obamacare ruling would be good for the president and his party. The White House was reduced to using Newspeak, referring to the mandate as the “personal responsibility clause.”

It was Verrilli, however, who bore the brunt of the blow. After transcripts and audio of the arguments revealed little difference between his platform and that of a former Miss Teen South Carolina, left-of-center talking heads likened the longtime attorney to Bill Buckner and a clueless actor in a fifth-grade play. Mike Barnicle suggested that the administration would have been better off sending in Vincent LaGuardia “Vinny” Gambini to argue the case.

None of the commentators who hurled these insults dared to ask whether they might have done any better. They probably could not have improved on Verrilli’s performance for the simple reason that the arguments for the constitutionality of the federal health insurance mandate are weak. So it goes: Whenever liberals are dealt a setback, as has happened repeatedly during the last three years, they blame their defeat on a lack of message. Once again, they have failed to realize that the marketing is not the problem. The problem is what they are selling.

As a possible anti-Obamacare majority was forming inside the Supreme Court chambers, the magnitude of this week’s Democratic rout was becoming apparent across First Street. Senate Democrats had hoped to spend the last few days before Easter Recess reminding Americans that Republicans are the protectors of those horrible, greedy oil companies. To that end Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin had Bob Menendez introduce a bill eliminating tax breaks for carbon energy producers and replacing them with tax breaks for green energy companies. The Democratic leadership had expected the Republican caucus to block debate on the Menendez proposal, handing liberals and the White House a tactical victory.

This is your Democratic-controlled Senate at work: No budget in three years but plenty of votes to score partisan points. What the oaf from Nevada had not anticipated, however, was that Republican leader Mitch McConnell would allow debate on the bill, thereby providing the Senate GOP an opening to blame Obama’s anti-drilling policies for high gas prices. The Menendez proposal went down in the end as expected, but not before Republicans turned the tables on Democrats.

The week ends, then, with the Democrats in disarray as a result of the president’s gaffe, unanticipated trouble at the Court, and shrewd maneuvering by McConnell. Having spent most of 2012 under fire for the mind-numbing Republican primary and for not properly appreciating Sandra Fluke’s unique contributions to society, this was the first good news cycle for conservatives in a long time. Might as well enjoy it while it lasts. Rarely do politics get better than this. Though they might on Nov. 6.

And he did not even mention that the "racist" killer of Trayvon Martin turned out to be a Hispanic-American Democrat

************************************************* ****
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map


The religion of Climate Science

Romney's Pending Sellout on Global Warming

EPA Endangers Human Health and Welfare




History in Pictures


“When people say we’re drilling everywhere—well, we’re not drilling everywhere!”

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.)

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions..."

- Jimmy Carter

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 14 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

14. theshepherd
1:14 PM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
Ah yes, I felt compelled to provide this tidbit on quorum sensing at the most basic level. Make your own analogy with respect to today's politics. It's not hard to do :)

The TED Talks have been enlightening to say the least.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
8. Ossqss
3:19 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Hey Spathy, doing Friday. I hope all is well with everyone. CUL8R !

Coming time for that change that has been called for .....

Yes indeed! :)
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
5. Ossqss
2:46 AM GMT en Marzo 31, 2012
Ah yes, I felt compelled to provide this tidbit on quorum sensing at the most basic level. Make your own analogy with respect to today's politics. It's not hard to do :)

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
3. latitude25
7:11 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012
"until after “my last election,” at which time he will have “more flexibility.”

...can't wait for the ad to come out
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
2. latitude25
1:49 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012
Why isn't this a racial hate crime........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121855/J ames-Kouzaris-James-Coopers-friends-criticise-Obam a-lack-compassion.html
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1. sebastianjer
1:38 PM GMT en Marzo 30, 2012

Media Hackery: Subtle, But Insidious

By Quin Hillyer

Leftist bias is worse than ever.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Noting the leftward bias of the establishment media is about as newsworthy as noting that cows moo, the sun rises in the East, and Hollywood stars tend to rut around like bonobos. But what's different these days is the flagrant and willful dishonesty that often accompanies the bias.

It has gotten so bad that sometimes editors will refuse to listen to audiotapes directly disproving their stories making conservatives look ignorant -- instead, insisting that it is better to go with the (incorrect) account of a major news leader rather than to get it right, even when presented with irrefutable proof of what was and wasn't actually said.

Yes, that really happened.

And that sort of thing has been rampant in recent months -- or, actually, just within the past week.

Consider a story by The Associated Press's Laurie Kellman that ran in Wednesday morning papers, about how both parties are stepping up efforts to appeal to unmarried women voters. Here is how the final sentence (in my paper at least) read: "Democrats have been trumpeting a 'Republican war on women,' a phrase coined because of GOP objections to birth control access."

Come again? The sentence didn't say "a phrase coined because Democrats say GOP positions will lead to less access to birth control." No, it reported as fact that Republicans actually object to birth control access. And that, of course, is to frame the issue exactly as the Democrats frame it, in the guise of stating a (supposed) fact.

Conservatives, of course, contend that there is a huge difference between not forcing churches to pay for other people's abortifacients and restricting access to birth control, which is inexpensive and readily available elsewhere. To ascribe to them, as a fact, a motive they claim to utterly reject is to completely and deliberately bias the news against them. Plus, of course, Republicans say the issue isn't about contraception anyway, but instead about religious freedom.

This isn't a small matter. To state as fact one side of a political dispute, while not even crediting the other side's contentions, is the antithesis of objective journalism.

Consider an almost perfectly analogous situation: Sarah Palin's description of Obamacare as having the effect of forming "death panels." All throughout the brouhaha over that issue, the AP belittled the Palin position, and continues to do so almost up to this day (as this piece at NewsBusters makes clear).

If AP had written that Palin story in completely neutral fashion at the time, it would have written (in exact parallel to Wednesday's story on single women voters) that "Republicans have been trumpeting what former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin called 'death panels' because Republicans say Obama's policies will lead to rationing of medical care." Now that phraseology would have been fair to all sides.

If AP had written to bias it in favor of Republicans the same way Wednesday's story took Democrats' side, it would have been "Republicans have been trumpeting Obamacare's threat of 'death panels,' a phrase coined because of Democratic support for rationing health care."

Instead, we get the editorializing within the relevant sentence that the death panel phrase is "now widely debunked." Worse, at the time the AP actually went out of its way to "fact-check" the "death panel" phrase -- even though Palin herself used it only figuratively, within quotation marks -- just to make sure the public knew how off-base Palin had been.

So where is the AP fact check showing the considerable remaining "access" to contraception even if Republicans had their way and the status quo ante (the exact situation that applied before the brand new Obama regulations were implemented) were re-established?

Even worse, as Monica Crowley noted on Thursday, AP can't even write about a unanimous House rejection of Obama's budget without editorializing in the lead paragraph that the very act of actually holding a vote on the president's proposal (oh -- the horror!) was "forced by GOP lawmakers to embarrass Democrats."

Sorry to keep bashing AP, but its Will Weissert filed a story a week ago that was outrageously sloppy, if in that case not necessarily stemming from bias. Here's how he started the story: "Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee…." Of course, Santorum had said no such thing, even though at least it is fair to say he left himself open to the interpretation that he was suggesting such a thing. Even then, though, to state as a blanket fact that Santorum said Obama would be preferable to any Republican but Santorum himself was outrageous -- especially since the Santorum campaign that very evening clarified his remarks. Weissert's story did not even bother noting the clarification, a failure that directly lent itself to sensationalist headlines like the one in my paper that read: "Santorum: Take Obama over Romney."


Of course the establishment media has been awful for a long time. Allen Drury skewered its leftist biases more than 50 years ago in Advise and Consent. In 1992 the elder Bush's campaign put out a bumper sticker saying: "Annoy the media: Vote Bush." And our good friends at NewsBusters/Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media (among others) have been documenting media perfidy for years, and the MRC's annual media bias awards are always a hoot.

Yet at least most reporters once took their "adversarial" role seriously enough that they gave the prior Democratic president, Bill Clinton, a fair amount of grief (not enough, but still a noticeable amount) when he strayed in numerous ways. They certainly didn't pander much in the late 1970s to Jimmy Carter. But now they have become such lapdogs for President Obama that it's a wonder they don't fetch his slippers and newspaper for him when he wakes up.

The bigger problem, though, isn't the obviously and/or flamboyantly outlandish statements by reporters in supposedly straight-news roles; the bigger problem occurs in the constant shadings of a subtler character, such as the one that began this column making it sound oh-so-matter-of-factly as if Republicans seek to restrict "access" to birth control. Witness the Washington Post's main story Thursday summing up the end of the Supreme Court's Obamacare hearings, beginning by describing the conservative justices' being "at least open" to declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and then immediately reporting that "much can happen between now and the expected ruling this summer, and a far more moderate tone may emerge [emphasis mine]."

Note how the idea of being "open" to jettisoning the mandate is juxtaposed against the idea of a "moderate tone" -- as if moderation is equivalent to supporting the mandate, which makes striking it down, by logical extension, extreme.

Actually, that exchange was in the second and third paragraph of the article. The first paragraph is even worse. It would be "the conservative majority," according to this supposedly unbiased news story, that "may be on the brink of a redefinition of the federal government's power."

Oh, really? And all along we were under the impression that the court was deciding if President Obama and Congress had tried to "redefine" federal power. Even the most ideological of liberals have acknowledged that the mandate is an "unprecedented" use of power; that isn't even in dispute. The only question was whether the unprecedented use of power is or isn't allowable under the Constitution -- but, either way, the redefinition of power, if it exists at all, is coming from the left, not from the high court's conservatives.

The Post's account is absurdly tendentious. The tone continued throughout the story: If the high court rules the mandate unconstitutional, it would be "insert[ing] itself into a partisan battle." (Somehow, I doubt the Post reported that the court "inserted itself" into the dispute over the Texas anti-sodomy law, and its potential repercussions for homosexual "marriage," in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. Likewise, was it "inserting itself" into the Kelo case about property rights?)

Every day, in newspapers and news broadcasts across the country, the examples abound of this sort of casual shading of news. The trend is despicable.

It's not as if it is impossible for a person with strong views to keep those views out of reporting. There are neutral approaches, and standards of reporting, that are not tremendously difficult to abide. As just one example, when the inimitable David Rogers was covering Capitol Hill for the Wall Street Journal, those of us who worked as Republican press staffers were rather sure, from friendly interactions with him, that his personal opinions listed leftward. But not once, in my years up there, do I remember ever seeing a trace of bias in the reports Rogers produced. Thorough, knowledgeable, detailed, balanced, and fair: Those were the inevitable insignia of a David Rogers news story.

No good reason exists for other reporters to fail to do the same. Instead, we get Republicans portrayed as "objecting" to birth control access merely by virtue of wanting the keep the law the same as it always has been. Instead, we get conservative justices portrayed as trying to redefine federal power.

Instead, we get dreadfully dishonest dreck.

One wonders how some of these reporters and editors even live with their own professional consciences, if they possess consciences at all.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 14 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page