Friday, 23 July 2010

THE JOURNOLIST (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Investors Business Daily has an excellent editorial on the "journolist", which I have been blogging about for days - and which most mainstream media are almost comically desperate to keep you in the dark about.

Here it is.  The bold print is mine:

JournoLism's Bias

JournoGate: For those who think the growing JournoList scandal is much ado about nothing, think again. It's about secrecy and power among the left-wing media and leads all the way into the White House.

One of the defenses put forward by those taking part in the JournoList the secretive online discussion forum for liberal journalists and "experts" is that it was really just a place to talk and discuss things without a lot of argument from those who don't share their left-leaning views.

But JournoList, formerly run by Washington Post journalist Ezra Klein, was much more than that. It was an attempt to secretly influence public debate in one partisan direction toward the Democrats and to bias the news toward both the liberal political agenda and the election of Barack Obama.

In essence, all these left-leaning journalists, an estimated 400 in all, used the JournoList site to refine their messages for maximum effect. It was an exercise in mass propaganda, getting everyone to sing from the same ideological hymnal which explains the tedious sameness of the mainstream media's 2008 election coverage.

In short, they were fraudulently selling you political opinion and propaganda disguised as fair-minded "news."

The big questions: Did these journalists veer into outright advocacy? Did they collude with the White House before and after the election? Were they a de facto arm of the Democrats?

Sure looks that way. Among those taking part in JournoList was Jared Bernstein, an adviser to the Obama campaign in 2008 who today works as the top economic aide to Vice President Joe Biden.

In 2009, Bernstein appeared often as an unpaid "surrogate" for Obama on CNBC. He says his JournoList participation ended when he took a job with the White House in December 2008.

Well, did it? In February of this year, a group of liberal journalists and bloggers met with Bernstein at the White House. A number of them were JournoListers.

"The basic thrust of the event was to present a case for the efficacy of the Recovery Act as a part of the broader effort to convince the American people that the administration's efforts to restore the economy have been successful," wrote one of the participants, Jonathan Singer, of the meeting.

Got that? The White House was in effect enlisting the left-leaning "mainstream media" in its PR battle to sell Obamanomics to the American public. The media knew it and were willing tools.

And we don't know if this was the only instance, for Bernstein isn't the White House's only JournoList connection. As it turns out, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag also was a participant in the online group.

Nothing wrong with talking to government officials unless you're doing so with a secret agenda, selling partisan views as objective media coverage to an unsuspecting public.

Contrary to claims now being made, JournoList wasn't an innocent Web tool, a harmless forum for discussion. It was an organized effort by one party and its sympathizers in the liberal press to secretly influence public debate and policy.

 To quote Sean Connery's character in The Untouchables, this stinks like a whorehouse at low tide.

And the attempted (and, so far, relatively successful) burial of this story by the same media whose members are part of it?  That stinks even worse.

Thank you IBD for this editorial.  May many, many more follow.


ALVIN GREENE'S CAMPAIGN VIDEO

Ken Berwitz

Weeks ago, when Alvin Greene won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate I asked, implored and begged the Democratic Party to do whatever it could, to prevent him from running a campaign.  This is not because I expect Greene to win (I most certainly don't).  It is because his candidacy is a grotesquery and an embarrassment that does neither Greene nor his party any good at all.

Well, he's still the candidate.  And now he has a campaign video.  Here it is. 


Alvin Greenes On the Scene'

I'm asking - imploring - begging again.  Don't let this happen.

Zeke .... ..... Green Jobs ! ! ! .... Alvin and Kermit ..... (07/23/10)


JOHN KERRY AND HIS DISAPPEARING YACHT TAX

Ken Berwitz

 

Has there ever been a U.S. Senator who got more press mostly positive press for accomplishing less, than John Kerry?

 

After a quarter century in the senate, can anyone provide a list of his accomplishments?  Major legislative successes?  Try and find any.

 

We all know he can talk a good game, and has a great talent for getting his face in front of the cameras (in that regard, hes right up there with Chuck Schumer).  But what has he ever done?

 

Ok, Ill help out.  I can name one thing Mr. Kerry has done very consistently.  He has almost uniformly supported higher taxes and more government spending throughout his career.

 

So what are we to make of the fact that, while sticking us with every tax under the sun, he appears to aggressively work at not paying his own taxes?  And to make things worse, the taxes he appears to be avoiding are on an activity that only the super-rich fatcats like Kerry can afford to indulge in at all, taxes or otherwise.

 

From todays Boston Herald:

 

Sen. John Kerry skips town on sails tax

By Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa
Friday, July 23, 2010 -

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Isabel - Kerrys luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage - was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabels hailing port is listed as Newport on her stern.

Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven - like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau - for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

The senior senators chief of staff David Wade denied the old salt was berthing his boat out of state to avoid ponying up to the commonwealth.

The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and its based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons, Wade told the Track.

 

And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.

 

Lovely.

 

Kerry, who is richer than just about any one of the rich people he made a career of railing against, makes sure that, no matter how much $$$ Massachusetts is able to extract from those other rich people with yachts  you know, the bad ones he wont be paying even one red cent.  

 

And the idea that he has to keep his yacht in Rhode Island because of long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes is an insult to our intelligence.  Regardless of where it was built, is Kerrys home state of Massachusetts devoid of the capability to maintain a yacht?  Is there no charter activity in the state? 

 

Youll pardon me if I stick with the assumption that Kerry did it because he wanted to save the tax money.  Not that I blame him, by the way; $437,000 sales tax and then $70,000 more each year** is a helluva lot of money.

 

(It must be nice to have a yacht so big and luxurious that the yearly taxes alone are about 8 times the entire household income of an average family in this country.  But I wouldnt know.  I dont live in that kind of world.  Do you?)

 

Would it be fair to point out that this arrogant tax-and-spender is happy to stick everyone else with bigger and bigger tax bills while he ducks out on paying state taxes for his rich-mans yacht?   

 

Would it be unkind to point out that most other boat owners, who are not as fabulously wealthy as he is, cannot escape those taxes.  Would it be impolite to conclude that this makes Kerry a consummate do as I say, not as I do hypocrite?

 

Hmmm, tough one..

 

===================================================

 

** This is corrected from my original blog, which erroneously claimed the $437,000 was every year, not just year one.  Thank you, free, for the heads-up.

free` Ken, The $437,500 is a one time sales tax. The annual excise tax is about $70,000. [from the article] Still it is a huge amount to have to pay every year. (07/23/10)


RANGEL: IT COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A NICER GUY

Ken Berwitz

The thoroughly corrupt, thoroughly arrogant, thoroughly disgusting charles rangel has been charged with a host of ethical violations - most of which have already been detailed in this blog over the past two years.

From Reuters (among countless other sources):

A congressional investigative panel on Thursday accused Democratic U.S. Representative Charles Rangel, former chairman of a powerful tax-writing committee, with undisclosed ethics violations.

The House of Representatives ethics committee announced the action, clearing the way for a separate panel to determine if the accusations can be proved.

Rangel stepped down under pressure in March as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after the ethics panel, in a separate case, admonished him for corporate-sponsored trips in 2007 and 2008 in violation of the chamber's gift rules.

The ethics committee -- three Democrats and three Republicans -- has been examining for nearly two years a number of other matters involving Rangel, including his use of a rent-controlled apartment and his fund-raising for the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service in New York.

Rangel, 79, who had been a key player in President Barack Obama's overhaul of U.S. healthcare, has rejected calls to step down and is running for re-election in New York to a 21st two-year term.

Democrats, who are facing a potentially disastrous midterm election, need this slightly less than they need an advanced bowel virus.

Can you even begin to imagine how dirty rangel is if they are letting it go forward?  Maybe the political calculus is that an investigation into Rangel's affairs, which presumably could be extended beyond election day, will have less negative fallout than trying to stop it cold.

The best thing rangel can do, of course, is resign immediately.  But given the transcendental arrogance and self-importance of this man, that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Me?  I'm actually pretty happy about this.  It is long past time that rangel be held to account for his actions.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.....


FARAH: WHERE ARE THE ANTI-WAR PROTESTORS?

Ken Berwitz

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily asks a very fair and very interesting question:  where are the anti-war protestors?

Here is the way he puts it:

A record 60 Americans were killed in Afghanistan in June the most ever in the nearly decade-long war that is not winding down, but rather intensifying under the leadership of Barack Obama, the "peace candidate" in 2008.

Worse yet, U.S. soldiers, no doubt demoralized by seemingly interminable wars on two fronts, neither of which has any clear definition of victory, are taking their own lives in record numbers 32 just last month and 145 since Jan. 1.

My question: Where are the anti-war protests? What happened to them? Do those protesters from earlier this decade think the wars are over? Or did they really not care about these conflicts in the first place? Were they only truly interested in protesting the old leadership in the White House?

For the life of me, I cannot begin to understand our objectives in either Iraq or Afghanistan any more.

Because I appreciate the sacrifice our men and women are making over there, it is with a heavy heart that I make this proclamation. But enough is enough. We have spent over $1 trillion on these two wars and spilled far too much American blood. We are obviously unwilling as a country to do what is necessary to kill the bad guys in either place, so what is the point? Isn't it time to declare victory and get out? What is the point? Can someone, anyone, tell me?

There is what Farah thinks.

What do you think?

Zeke .... The last foreign general who was victorious in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great. ..... .... (07/23/10)


ANDREW BREITBART: UNREPENTANT...BUT IS HE RIGHT?

Ken Berwitz

Andrew Breitbart, who has been Palined (i.e. mercilessly lambasted with virtually no chance to defend himself) by our wonderul "neutral" media over the past several days for putting up a video clip of Shirley Sherrod's speech to an NAACP banquet, absolutely stands by what he did.

Here, from www.politico.com, via John Johnston of www.newser.com, is why:.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Andrew Breitbart to issue an apology to Shirley Sherrod for the infamous video. Highlights from an interview with Politico:

 

                 "If anybody reads the sainted, martyred Sherrods entire speech, this person has not gotten past black vs. white." (NAACP has the full video here.)

                 I believe that Im held to a higher standard. If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now.

                 I am public enemy No. 1 or 2 to the Democratic Party, the progressive movement, and the Obama administration based upon the successes my journalism has had.

                 He defends the posting as a self-contained newsworthy video that established the media standard of pointing out that the NAACP countenanced racism in its own award dinner setting. That was the point. That was the point. And the video proves it.

As you can see, Mr. Breitbart is not backing down one inch.  That makes him either an obtuse idiot, incapable of understanding what he did wrong --- or someone who didn't do anything wrong and is being tarred and feathered by obtuse idiots posing as journalists and politicians.

Well, let's take his points one at a time and see where it leads:

-Has "the sainted, martyred Sherrod" gotten past White versus Black?  Based only on what she said immediately after the clip that Breitbart put up, the answer is yes.  Based on other things she said during the same speech, and what she said on CNN's morning show (refer to my previous two blogs), the answer is no. 

-Is Breitbart being held to a higher standard?   Would a reverse situation (i.e. a White audience responding positively to a White official talking about how she underserviced someone who needed help because of his skin color, which is what happened in Sherrod's speech before then saying it was wrong to do so) put him in line for a pulitzer prize?  On this one Breitbart is dead right about being held to a higher standard.  The pulitzer prize thing is murky because I don't know if he was being literal or figurative. If literal, he's wrong.  If figurative (i.e. he was trying to communicate that he'd be seen in a positive light by the people now attacking him), he's got a point.

-I don't know what the public enemy pecking order is, but Breitbart is stinging the Democratic Party and I think it is clear that they have him in their crosshairs big-time.

-If his point in showing the video clip was to prove Sherrod was a racist, he's busted -  because the point of her story was that she was wrong to do it.  If it was to show that the NAACP audience reacted positively when she said she screwed over a White farmer to get back at Whites for past injustices, he's right.  One look (and listen) will tell you the audience was very happy with that part of the story. 

Looking at this in its entirety, I would say Mr. Breitbart has a pretty strong case.  At the very least, he has a tenable case that neutral journalists should be presenting -- along with the tidal wave of attacks they have made on him.

So how have media handled this incident?  Do you think they've acted fairly? 

Your call.

=====================================================================

UPDATE:  I just came across a video of Andrew Breitbart being interviewed by a CBS news correspondent who either couldn't, or - I hope - declined to, shut him up.  Breitbart fully explains how he got the clip and how dishonest mainstream media have been in reporting about him.  Here it is, see for yourself:

WATCH: BREITBART STANDS BY SHERROD VIDEO

Zeke ... .... Journolist ! Journolist ! .... .... The million-times-played Rodney King Video was ALWAYS abridged to cut out his aggressive behavior. The dude was high on Angel Dust, IIRC. ... .... ... Also, did Breitbart ONLY get the abbreviated video -- who actually edited it down ? ? .... ... And, there is ABSOLUTELY no question that the FEDERAL Government (USDA) violated all the tedious protections that employees enjoy, by kicking the woman under the bus and firing her in one day flat. ... ... .... .... More buses needed in Washington DC ... the Dems kicking all these people under these vehicles (07/23/10)


THE VALUE OF ISRAEL

Ken Berwitz

Is Israel of value to the United States?

Robert Satloff certainly thinks so.  And given that he is a former pentagon official who is now Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, that means something.

Here are excerpts from his excellent commentary and analysis, made earlier this week during an event at the Nixon Center.  The bold print is mine:

Robert Satloff Prepared Remarks

Nixon Center debate, Israel; Asset or Liability?

July 20, 2010 

 

My task today is to make the case why Israeland the U.S.-Israel relationshipis a strategic asset to the United States. In fact, I will go even further. I will argue that Israel, and the U.S.-Israel relationship, isboth in objective terms and compared to any other Middle Eastern relationship we havea strategic bonanza to the United States. Not just an asset, but a bargain.

 

Let me make these points:

 

        It is to Americas advantage to have a nation of friends, whose people and government are firm supporters of and advocates for American interests in the broader Middle East. I dont think there is anyone in this room who would disagree with the contention that there is no country in the Middle East whose people and government are so closely aligned with the United States; in some countries, the people are pro-American, in others, the government, but in Israel, it is unabashedly both. Our two countries share ways of governing, ways of ordering society, ways of viewing the role of liberty and individual rights, and ways to defend those ideals. Some realists tend to dismiss this soft stuff as having no strategic value; I disagree. This commonality of culture and values is at the heart of national interest; it manifests itself in many ways, from how Israel votes at the United Nations to how its people view their role as being on the front line against many of the same threats we face.

 

        It is to Americas advantage to have in Israel an economy that is so closely associated with ours and that is such an innovator in the IT field, in high-tech medicine, and in green technologies, like the electric car. The Obama administration made the economic health and well-being of the U.S. the pillar of its National Security Strategy. Our partnership with Israel is a clear asset in this regardnot only does Israels fiscal responsibility (a situation that contrasts with other U.S. allies in Europe) mean that Israel is not part of this problem, but with its high-tech economy, Israel is actually part of the solution. Indeed, the strength of our relationship helped turn Israel from an economic basket case into an economic powerhouseand our economic partner. Just ask Warren Buffett and all the other American investors who view Israel as a destination worthy of their capital.

 

        It is to Americas advantage to have had a close working partnership with Israel for the last thirty-plus years in the pursuit of Middle East peace. Some bemoan the peace process as all process, no peace and critique the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship as an impediment to progress, not an ingredient of it. I disagree. First, I would argue that a strong Israel, with a strong U.S.-Israel relationship at its core, has been central to what we know as the peace process. And second, in historical terms, the Middle East peace process has been one of the most successful U.S. diplomatic initiatives of the last half-century.

 

In the words of one knowledgeable observer: The peace process has been a vehicle for American influence throughout the broad Middle Eastern region. It has provided an excuse for Arab declarations of friendship with the United States, even if Americans remain devoted to Israel. In other words, it has helped to eliminate what otherwise might be seen as a zero-sum game.

 

 

And then there is the long list of military-related advantages that Israel brings to the United States directly, by its own actions and through the bilateral relationship. I will cite just a few:

 

        Since 1983, American and Israeli militaries have engaged in contingency planning, and Israeli facilities can be made available to the United States if needed. American forces have practiced the use of many Israeli facilities, ranging from Ben Gurion Airport to pre-positioning sites. All four U.S. armed services routinely conduct training at Israel Defense Forces facilities.

 

        The U.S. has deployed an X-band early warning radar for missile defense on Israeli soil. This facility supplements other American missile defense assets and is available for both Americas regional missile defense architecture and our own reconfigured missile defense concept for protecting Europe from longer-range Iranian missiles. 

 

        America began stocking war reserves in Israel fifteen years ago. Those stockpiles are hardly minimalthe total value is approaching $1 billion. Theyre U.S. property and the Pentagon can draw upon them at any time. America has shown it is able to move military supplies from Israel to the Gulf; for example, it sent Israeli mine-plows and bulldozers to Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991.

        Israel can be an extremely useful location for strategic logistics or power projection in the eastern Mediterranean, and in fact the United States Navy has conducted countless port visits in Haifa in support of U.S. operations.

 

        Israel has proven to be a prime source of effective counterterrorism/counterinsurgency tactics, techniques, and procedures, which have played a significant role in U.S. success (thus far) in Iraq

 

        Israel has also been an outstanding innovator in the technology, tactics, techniques, and procedures of unmanned aerial vehicles, which the U.S. now relies upon so extensively in Afghanistan.

 

Add all this up: Israelthrough its intelligence, its technology, and the lessons learned from its own experience in counterterrorism and asymmetric warfarehas saved American lives. And when you add to this Israels unique counterproliferation efforts destroying nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) Israels contribution to our security is even greater.

 

Bottom line: do a cost-benefit analysis of the U.S. relationship with Israel over the past thirty-plus years and the U.S. relationship with its Arab friends in the Gulf. What do you find? To secure its interests in the Arab-Israeli arena, the United States has spent about $100 billion in military and economic assistance to Israel, plus another $30 billion to Egypt and relatively small change to others. Our losses: a total of 258 Americans in the Beirut embassy and barracks bombings and a few other American victims of terrorism in that part of the Middle East. On a state-to-state basis, as I have argued, that investment has paid off handsomely in terms of regional stability. Compare that with the Gulf. Look at the massive costs we have endured to ensure our interests there, the principal one being to secure access to the regions energy resources at reasonable prices. The United States has spent more than $1 trillion$700 billion on the Iraq war alone, according to the Congressional Budget Officelost more than 4,400 U.S. servicemen, fought two wars, endured thirty years of conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran and a global al-Qaeda insurgency fed originally by our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia. After all that, the Gulf region is still anything but secure. Its when you boil it down to this very simple arithmetic that I can say that our relationship with Israel helped produce a strategic bonanza for the United States at bargain prices.

How does Israel's value stack up relative to the other countries in that region? 

Dare to compare.  And you will come to the same conclusion that Mr. Satloff does.

Then wonder, along with me, why the Obama administration has been so overtly disdainful and dismissive of such an immensely valuable ally.


OBAMA'S FLIPFLOP ON FUNDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Ken Berwitz

President Obama signed an extension of unemployment benefits yesterday, apparently without a care in the world that it adds another 34 billion dollars to our already-impossible national debt.

But did he always feel this way?  Nope.  Not even within the past year.

Read Mark Knoller's blog for CBS news and see for yourself.  The bold print is mine:

Obama Changes Tune on Paying for Unemployment Benefits Extension

 

In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.

That's the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts.

The White House dismissed GOP concerns as partisan game-playing.

In two speeches over the last week, Mr. Obama argued that in the past, presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is: an emergency expenditure.

"Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that," he said.

He portrayed Republicans as hypocrites for demanding that jobless benefits be paid for but not applying the same standard to their call for an extension of Bush Administration tax cuts that will expire this year.

"So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they've finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed," the president said last Saturday in his radio/internet address.

But Republicans were quick to remind Mr. Obama what he said after signing a previous extension of unemployment benefits on November 6th of last year.

"Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible," he said.

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so.

Asked about the contradiction, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he needed to examine what Mr. Obama said last November and would get back to this reporter. He didn't.

What a blatant fraud.

Thank you, Mr. Knoller, for the honest reporting.  I hope you still can keep your job.

And something-else you to the vast majority of mainstream media, which did not tell its readers/views about this 180 degree flipflop.


THE JOURNOLIST (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

The Daily Caller has done it again.

Here is the latest installment of how a group of leftward/liberal "journalists" and academics appeared to have worked with each other to set an agenda of how the news would be reported.

Today's journolist article is a particular favorite of mine, because it confirms what I have suspected for quite some time:  i.e. keith olbermann is so objectionable a character that even people who agree with his views can't stand him.

I'm putting up the first part of Johnathan Strong's piece detailing what they said about olbermann.  You can read the rest by clicking here:

Journolisters offended by Keith Olbermanns misogynistic, predictable, and pompous show

By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:00 AM 07/23/2010 | Updated: 10:36 AM 07/23/2010

If you were one of the 400 members of the listserv Journolist, perhaps one of the most vicious insults you could hurl at a colleague is: Youre just like Bill OReilly and Sean Hannity.

If the reader holds neutral or even positive views about the Fox News hosts, the insult may not sting. But in the cloistered world of liberal listserv enclaves, Hannityism is a cardinal sin. After all, Fox is a dangerous, deranged cesspool that, possibly, the FCC should be investigating.

The feelings against MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, then, must run deep.

Hes become OReilly on the left completely predictable, unfunny, and arrogant, said Georgetown University Professor Michael Kazin in May 2009. To my mind, what they do is no different form Hannity and OReilly, said the New America Foundations Michael Cohen, At least Hannity and OReilly engage with the other side (if mainly just to yell at them). Olbermann is just an echo chamber.

(Cohen later elaborated he was arguing that both MSNBC and Fox News play to political extremes).

At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was I hate Keith Olbermann again, and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nations Katha Pollitt began the groups rant. He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie opposite marriage Prejeans breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was part plastic and pathetic.  Youd think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating.  It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasnt easy, Pollitt said.

Michael OHare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable persons internal alarm doesnt go off in a situation like that Im going to ridicule a girl whos obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me?

OHare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse, he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermanns root problem is his misogyny. I cant take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize.

The Washington Independents Spencer Ackerman said a brutal parody of Olbermann reflected his true nature. I hate both Ben Affleck and Saturday Night Live, but this should end all debate about the merits of Olbermann, he said, linking to the parody.

As always, I strongly urge you to click on the link and read every word.  This is something that you don't want to miss.

But even if all you read is the above segment, it is clear that, however agreeable they are to his political positions, olbermann's leftward counterparts consider him a pompous, hateful ass.

By the way, this is another day that the Today Show, which uses every negative angle it can to go after its political bogeymen (Sarah Palin, more recently Andrew Breitbart, etc), has not so much as mentioned what is being uncovered from these journolist emails.  Nor has the New York Times:  not a word in today's paper. 

And they are certainly not alone:  the vast majority of "mainstream media" seem determined to ignore these hugely revealing email exchanges.

Then they wonder why people like me call them biased....

free` The way the msm are avoiding these emails, it is almost like the climate gate emails, proving that global warming was handled in the same way as journolist operates. This just must be how the liberal left operates. (07/23/10)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!