The Washington Post and the New York Times Can’t Think of One Republican in New Jersey

When New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg (D) announced on Thursday, February 14, 2013, that he would not seek a sixth term in the Senate, reporters were undoubtedly and immediately interested in the news. With only 100 people serving in the U.S. Senate, it is understandably an important and breaking development. While the news of a retiring senator typically prompts an examination of their political record while serving in office, it also starts the speculation as to who might be running for the seat next. When a senator retires or decides not to seek re-election, the open seat offers others an opportunity to run for public office without challenging a powerful incumbent. For political types, it is the time to act. It’s a big deal; open seats don’t come along very often.

For the Washington Post and the New York Times, however, it’s a panic signal that the Democrats may lose a seat in the Senate. So it’s also the time to act quickly.

How else can you explain the fact that both the Post and Times failed to mention which Republicans might be interested in the new open seat created by Frank Lautenberg’s (D) announcement in their initial story of Friday, February 15? Both papers’ reporters, Ed O’Keefe for the Post and Kate Zernike for the Times, speculated as to which Democrats might be interested in the open seat but never mentioned any Republicans.
The Wall Street Journal, however, mentioned a few possible candidates from both political parties.

Now, come on, there is no legitimate excuse for this blatant political move by the Times and Post. The only explanation for the failure to promote the possibility or even the mention of a Republican for the Lautenberg seat is that both O’Keefe and Zernike (and their editors) got caught assuming the open seat will be picked up by another Democrat. I mean, if you already assume Republicans are clowns – why would any of them deserve even a mention in the immediate news story promoting the next senator from New Jersey?

How much you want to bet “journalists” Kate Zernike and Ed O’Keefe are Democrats?

obama celebrates an unapologetic vogue magazine editor

One year ago this month, Vogue Magazine published a glowing profile piece of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s wife, Asma. Over the last year, Vogue Editor in Chief Anna Wintour has defended her magazine’s portrayal of the Syrian First Lady despite the brutal crackdown in Syria by Asma’s husband’s regime that has killed more than 8,000 citizen protesters.

This week, President Barack Obama invited Wintour to the White House for the coveted State Dinner of America’s greatest ally – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The invite is yet another signal that Obama doesn’t understand how important Syria’s future is to U.S. national security.

Not only has Obama ignored the Syrian people’s cry for help, but he is honoring and rewarding the woman who celebrated the killer’s wife in the pages of a fashion magazine.

Vogue has since deleted the profile piece from its pages. But for a refresher, here are some controversial quotes from writer Joan Juliet Buck:

- “When I first arrive, I’m met on the tarmac by a minder, who gives me a bouquet of white roses and lends me a Syrian cell phone; the head minder, a high-profile American PR, joins us the next day. The first lady’s office has provided drivers, so I shop and see sights in a bubble of comfort and hospitality.” The high profile American PR firm working for the Syrian regime is the notorious firm of Brown Llyod James.

- “The old al-Assad family apartment was remade into a child-friendly triple-decker playroom loft surrounded by immense windows on three sides. With neither shades nor curtains, it’s a fishbowl. Asma al-Assad likes to say, “You’re safe because you are surrounded by people who will keep you safe.” Neighbors peer in, drop by, visit, comment on the furniture. The president doesn’t mind: “This curiosity is good: They come to see you, they learn more about you. You don’t isolate yourself.”

- “Asma al-Assad empties a box of fondue mix into a saucepan for lunch. The household is run on wildly democratic principles. “We all vote on what we want, and where,” she says.”

- “I can’t talk about empowering young people, encouraging them to be creative and take responsibility, if I’m not like that with my own children.”

- “The president joins in the punch line: “Brad Pitt wanted to send his security guards here to come and get some training!”

- “This is the diversity you want to see in the Middle East,” says the president, ringing his bell. “This is how you can have peace!”

Is what’s going on in Syria the kind of peace Wintour was thinking of? And more importantly, is this piece something that President Obama should honor by inviting its unapologetic editor to a White House State Dinner?

vogue magazine’s 2011 glowing profile of asma al-assad (no longer on vogue’s website)


Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert
by Joan Juliet Buck

Asma al-Assad is glamorous, young, and very chic—the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies. Her style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment. She’s a rare combination: a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement. Paris Match calls her “the element of light in a country full of shadow zones.” She is the first lady of Syria.

Syria is known as the safest country in the Middle East, possibly because, as the State Department’s Web site says, “the Syrian government conducts intense physical and electronic surveillance of both Syrian citizens and foreign visitors.” It’s a secular country where women earn as much as men and the Muslim veil is forbidden in universities, a place without bombings, unrest, or kidnappings, but its shadow zones are deep and dark. Asma’s husband, Bashar al-Assad, was elected president in 2000, after the death of his father, Hafez al-Assad, with a startling 97 percent of the vote. In Syria, power is hereditary. The country’s alliances are murky. How close are they to Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah? There are souvenir Hezbollah ashtrays in the souk, and you can spot the Hamas leadership racing through the bar of the Four Seasons. Its number-one enmity is clear: Israel. But that might not always be the case. The United States has just posted its first ambassador there since 2005, Robert Ford.

Iraq is next door, Iran not far away. Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, is 90 minutes by car from Damascus. Jordan is south, and next to it the region that Syrian maps label Palestine. There are nearly one million refugees from Iraq in Syria, and another half-million displaced Palestinians.

“It’s a tough neighborhood,” admits Asma al-Assad.

It’s also a neighborhood intoxicatingly close to the dawn of civilization, where agriculture began some 10,000 years ago, where the wheel, writing, and musical notation were invented. Out in the desert are the magical remains of Palmyra, Apamea, and Ebla. In the National Museum you see small 4,000-year-old panels inlaid with mother-of-pearl that is echoed in the new mother-of-pearl furniture for sale in the souk. Christian Louboutin comes to buy the damask silk brocade they’ve been making here since the Middle Ages for his shoes and bags, and has incidentally purchased a small palace in Aleppo, which, like Damascus, has been inhabited for more than 5,000 years.

The first lady works out of a small white building in a hilly, modern residential neighborhood called Muhajireen, where houses and apartments are crammed together and neighbors peer and wave from balconies. The first impression of Asma al-Assad is movement—a determined swath cut through space with a flash of red soles. Dark-brown eyes, wavy chin-length brown hair, long neck, an energetic grace. No watch, no jewelry apart from Chanel agates around her neck, not even a wedding ring, but fingernails lacquered a dark blue-green. She’s breezy, conspiratorial, and fun. Her accent is English but not plummy. Despite what must be a killer IQ, she sometimes uses urban shorthand: “I was, like. . . .”

Asma Akhras was born in London in 1975, the eldest child and only daughter of a Syrian Harley Street cardiologist and his diplomat wife, both Sunni Muslims. They spoke Arabic at home. She grew up in Ealing, went to Queen’s College, and spent holidays with family in Syria. “I’ve dealt with the sense that people don’t expect Syria to be normal. I’d show my London friends my holiday snaps and they’d be—‘Where did you say you went?’ ”

She studied computer science at university, then went into banking. “It wasn’t a typical path for women,” she says, “but I had it all mapped out.” By the spring of 2000, she was closing a big biotech deal at JP Morgan in London and about to take up an MBA at Harvard. She started dating a family friend: the second son of president Hafez al-Assad, Bashar, who’d cut short his ophthalmology studies in London in 1994 and returned to Syria after his older brother, Basil, heir apparent to power, died in a car crash. They had known each other forever, but a ten-year age difference meant that nothing registered—until it did.

“I was always very serious at work, and suddenly I started to take weekends, or disappear, and people just couldn’t figure it out,” explains the first lady. “What do you say—‘I’m dating the son of a president’? You just don’t say that. Then he became president, so I tried to keep it low-key. Suddenly I was turning up in Syria every month, saying, ‘Granny, I miss you so much!’ I quit in October because by then we knew that we were going to get married at some stage. I couldn’t say why I was leaving. My boss thought I was having a nervous breakdown because nobody quits two months before bonus after closing a really big deal. He wouldn’t accept my resignation. I was, like, ‘Please, really, I just want to get out, I’ve had enough,’ and he was ‘Don’t worry, take time off, it happens to the best of us.’ ” She left without her bonus in November and married Bashar al-Assad in December.

“What I’ve been able to take away from banking was the transferable skills—the analytical thinking, understanding the business side of running a company—to run an NGO or to try and oversee a project.” She runs her office like a business, chairs meeting after meeting, starts work many days at six, never breaks for lunch, and runs home to her children at four. “It’s my time with them, and I get them fresh, unedited—I love that. I really do.” Her staff are used to eating when they can. “I have a rechargeable battery,” she says.

The 35-year-old first lady’s central mission is to change the mind-set of six million Syrians under eighteen, encourage them to engage in what she calls “active citizenship.” “It’s about everyone taking shared responsibility in moving this country forward, about empowerment in a civil society. We all have a stake in this country; it will be what we make it.”
In 2005 she founded Massar, built around a series of discovery centers where children and young adults from five to 21 engage in creative, informal approaches to civic responsibility. Massar’s mobile Green Team has touched 200,000 kids across Syria since 2005. The organization is privately funded through donations. The Syria Trust for Development, formed in 2007, oversees Massar as well as her first NGO, the rural micro-credit association FIRDOS, and SHABAB, which exists to give young people business skills they need for the future.

And then there’s her cultural mission: “People tend to see Syria as artifacts and history,” she says. “For us it’s about the accumulation of cultures, traditions, values, customs. It’s the difference between hardware and software: the artifacts are the hardware, but the software makes all the difference—the customs and the spirit of openness. We have to make sure that we don’t lose that. . . . ” Here she gives an apologetic grin. “You have to excuse me, but I’m a banker—that brand essence.”

That brand essence includes the distant past. There are 500,000 important ancient works of art hidden in storage; Asma al-Assad has brought in the Louvre to create a network of museums and cultural attractions across Syria, and asked Italian experts to help create a database of the 5,000 archaeological sites in the desert. “Culture,” she says, “is like a financial asset. We have an abundance of it, thousands of years of history, but we can’t afford to be complacent.”

In December, Asma al-Assad was in Paris to discuss her alliance with the Louvre. She dazzled a tough French audience at the International Diplomatic Institute, speaking without notes. “I’m not trying to disguise culture as anything more than it is,” she said, “and if I sound like I’m talking politics, it’s because we live in a politicized region, a politicized time, and we are affected by that.”

The French ambassador to Syria, Eric Chevallier, was there: “She managed to get people to consider the possibilities of a country that’s modernizing itself, that stands for a tolerant secularism in a powder-keg region, with extremists and radicals pushing in from all sides—and the driving force for that rests largely on the shoulders of one couple. I hope they’ll make the right choices for their country and the region. ”

Damascus evokes a dusty version of a Mediterranean hill town in an Eastern-bloc country. The courtyard of the Umayyad Mosque at night looks exactly like St. Mark’s square in Venice. When I first arrive, I’m met on the tarmac by a minder, who gives me a bouquet of white roses and lends me a Syrian cell phone; the head minder, a high-profile American PR, joins us the next day. The first lady’s office has provided drivers, so I shop and see sights in a bubble of comfort and hospitality. On the rare occasions I am out alone, a random series of men in leather jackets seems to be keeping close tabs on what I am doing and where I am headed.

“I like things I can touch. I like to get out and meet people and do things,” the first lady says as we set off for a meeting in a museum and a visit to an orphanage. “As a banker, you have to be so focused on the job at hand that you lose the experience of the world around you. My husband gave me back something I had lost.”

She slips behind the wheel of a plain SUV, a walkie-talkie and her cell thrown between the front seats and a Syrian-silk Louboutin tote on top. She does what the locals do—swerves to avoid crazy men who run across busy freeways, misses her turn, checks your seat belt, points out sights, and then can’t find a parking space. When a traffic cop pulls her over at a roundabout, she lowers the tinted window and dips her head with a playful smile. The cop’s eyes go from slits to saucers.

Her younger brother Feras, a surgeon who moved to Syria to start a private health-care group, says, “Her intelligence is both intellectual and emotional, and she’s a master at harmonizing when, and how much, to use of each one.”

In the Saint Paul orphanage, maintained by the Melkite–Greek Catholic patriarchate and run by the Basilian sisters of Aleppo, Asma sits at a long table with the children. Two little boys in new glasses and thick sweaters are called Yussuf. She asks them what kind of music they like. “Sad music,” says one. In the room where she’s had some twelve computers installed, the first lady tells a nun, “I hope you’re letting the younger children in here go crazy on the computers.” The nun winces: “The children are afraid to learn in case they don’t have access to computers when they leave here,” she says.
In the courtyard by the wall down which Saint Paul escaped in a basket 2,000 years ago, an old tree bears gigantic yellow fruit I have never seen before. Citrons. Cédrats in French.

Back in the car, I ask what religion the orphans are. “It’s not relevant,” says Asma al-Assad. “Let me try to explain it to you. That church is a part of my heritage because it’s a Syrian church. The Umayyad Mosque is the third-most-important holy Muslim site, but within the mosque is the tomb of Saint John the Baptist. We all kneel in the mosque in front of the tomb of Saint John the Baptist. That’s how religions live together in Syria—a way that I have never seen anywhere else in the world. We live side by side, and have historically. All the religions and cultures that have passed through these lands—the Armenians, Islam, Christianity, the Umayyads, the Ottomans—make up who I am.”

“Does that include the Jews?” I ask.

“And the Jews,” she answers. “There is a very big Jewish quarter in old Damascus.”

The Jewish quarter of Damascus spans a few abandoned blocks in the old city that emptied out in 1992, when most of the Syrian Jews left. Their houses are sealed up and have not been touched, because, as people like to tell you, Syrians don’t touch the property of others. The broken glass and sagging upper floors tell a story you don’t understand—are the owners coming back to claim them one day?

The presidential family lives surrounded by neighbors in a modern apartment in Malki. On Friday, the Muslim day of rest, Asma al-Assad opens the door herself in jeans and old suede stiletto boots, hair in a ponytail, the word happiness spelled out across the back of her T-shirt. At the bottom of the stairs stands the off-duty president in jeans—tall, long-necked, blue-eyed. A precise man who takes photographs and talks lovingly about his first computer, he says he was attracted to studying eye surgery “because it’s very precise, it’s almost never an emergency, and there is very little blood.”

The old al-Assad family apartment was remade into a child-friendly triple-decker playroom loft surrounded by immense windows on three sides. With neither shades nor curtains, it’s a fishbowl. Asma al-Assad likes to say, “You’re safe because you are surrounded by people who will keep you safe.” Neighbors peer in, drop by, visit, comment on the furniture. The president doesn’t mind: “This curiosity is good: They come to see you, they learn more about you. You don’t isolate yourself.”

There’s a decorated Christmas tree. Seven-year-old Zein watches Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland on the president’s iMac; her brother Karim, six, builds a shark out of Legos; and nine-year-old Hafez tries out his new electric violin. All three go to a Montessori school.

Asma al-Assad empties a box of fondue mix into a saucepan for lunch. The household is run on wildly democratic principles. “We all vote on what we want, and where,” she says. The chandelier over the dining table is made of cut-up comic books. “They outvoted us three to two on that.”

A grid is drawn on a blackboard, with ticks for each member of the family. “We were having trouble with politeness, so we made a chart: ticks for when they spoke as they should, and a cross if they didn’t.” There’s a cross next to Asma’s name. “I shouted,” she confesses. “I can’t talk about empowering young people, encouraging them to be creative and take responsibility, if I’m not like that with my own children.”

“The first challenge for us was, Who’s going to define our lives, us or the position?” says the president. “We wanted to live our identity honestly.”

They announced their marriage in January 2001, after the ceremony, which they kept private. There was deliberately no photograph of Asma. “The British media picked that up as: Now she’s moved into the presidential palace, never to be seen again!” says Asma, laughing.

They had a reason: “She spent three months incognito,” says the president. “Before I had any official engagement,” says the first lady, “I went to 300 villages, every governorate, hospitals, farms, schools, factories, you name it—I saw everything to find out where I could be effective. A lot of the time I was somebody’s ‘assistant’ carrying the bag, doing this and that, taking notes. Nobody asked me if I was the first lady; they had no idea.”

“That way,” adds the president, “she started her NGO before she was ever seen in public as my wife. Then she started to teach people that an NGO is not a charity.”

Neither of them believes in charity for the sake of charity. “We have the Iraqi refugees,” says the president. “Everybody is talking about it as a political problem or as welfare, charity. I say it’s neither—it’s about cultural philosophy. We have to help them. That’s why the first thing I did is to allow the Iraqis to go into schools. If they don’t have an education, they will go back as a bomb, in every way: terrorism, extremism, drug dealers, crime. If I have a secular and balanced neighbor, I will be safe.”

When Angelina Jolie came with Brad Pitt for the United Nations in 2009, she was impressed by the first lady’s efforts to encourage empowerment among Iraqi and Palestinian refugees but alarmed by the Assads’ idea of safety.

“My husband was driving us all to lunch,” says Asma al-Assad, “and out of the corner of my eye I could see Brad Pitt was fidgeting. I turned around and asked, ‘Is anything wrong?’ ”

“Where’s your security?” asked Pitt.

“So I started teasing him—‘See that old woman on the street? That’s one of them! And that old guy crossing the road?

That’s the other one!’ ” They both laugh.

The president joins in the punch line: “Brad Pitt wanted to send his security guards here to come and get some training!”

After lunch, Asma al-Assad drives to the airport, where a Falcon 900 is waiting to take her to Massar in Latakia, on the coast. When she lands, she jumps behind the wheel of another SUV waiting on the tarmac. This is the kind of surprise visit she specializes in, but she has no idea how many kids will turn up at the community center on a rainy Friday.

As it turns out, it’s full. Since the first musical notation was discovered nearby, at Ugarit, the immaculate Massar center in Latakia is built around music. Local kids are jamming in a sound booth; a group of refugee Palestinian girls is playing instruments. Others play chess on wall-mounted computers. These kids have started online blood banks, run marathons to raise money for dialysis machines, and are working on ways to rid Latakia of plastic bags. Apart from a few girls in scarves, you can’t tell Muslims from Christians.

Asma al-Assad stands to watch a laborious debate about how—and whether—to standardize the Arabic spelling of the word Syria. Then she throws out a curve ball. “I’ve been advised that we have to close down this center so as to open another one somewhere else,” she says. Kids’ mouths drop open. Some repress tears. Others are furious. One boy chooses altruism: “That’s OK. We know how to do it now; we’ll help them.”

Then the first lady announces, “That wasn’t true. I just wanted to see how much you care about Massar.”

As the pilot expertly avoids sheet lightning above the snow-flecked desert on the way back, she explains, “There was a little bit of formality in what they were saying to me; it wasn’t real. Tricks like this help—they became alive, they became passionate. We need to get past formalities if we are going to get anything done.”

Two nights later it’s the annual Christmas concert by the children of Al-Farah Choir, run by the Syrian Catholic Father Elias Zahlawi. Just before it begins, Bashar and Asma al-Assad slip down the aisle and take the two empty seats in the front row. People clap, and some call out his nickname:

“Docteur! Docteur!”

Two hundred children dressed variously as elves, reindeers, or candy canes share the stage with members of the national orchestra, who are done up as elves. The show becomes a full-on songfest, with the elves and reindeer and candy canes giving their all to “Hallelujah” and “Joy to the World.” The carols slide into a more serpentine rhythm, an Arabic rap group takes over, and then it’s back to Broadway mode. The president whispers, “All of these styles belong to our culture. This is how you fight extremism—through art.”

Brass bells are handed out. Now we’re all singing “Jingle Bell Rock,” 1,331 audience members shaking their bells, singing, crying, and laughing.

“This is the diversity you want to see in the Middle East,” says the president, ringing his bell. “This is how you can have peace!”

February 25, 2011 9:03 a.m.

romney wins michigan, daily kos loses relevancy

In the last few days leading up to the Michigan primary yesterday, the liberal and once popular website Daily Kos, started to encourage its readers to get involved in the open Michigan primary by doing something they wouldn’t normally think of doing. The Daily Kos told its all-liberal readers to pick up a Republican ballot and vote for Rick Santorum. The Daily Kos’ idea was to give Rick Santorum a primary victory in Michigan, deny Mitt Romney a win and cause chaos in the Republican primary. Readers responded with enthusiasm at the thought of helping Rick Santorum win the Republican nomination because they believed he was the weakest candidate to take on President Obama.

The Daily Kos went into a full out campaign – even sending out an email blast to its’ Michigan readers. The day before the Michigan primary, Jonathan Martin of Politico tweeted: @jmartpolitico: The 8500 MI’anders on Daily Kos email list got note today: “Please vote for Rick Santorum…”

While most all of the main stream media journalists ignored the Daily Kos’ campaign, some on Twitter questioned just how effective the Daily Kos could be. After all, as Martin pointed out, they only had 8,500 supporters in Michigan?

Immediately, the power of the Daily Kos and its’ uber liberal founder Markos Moulitsas was on display. Political strategists were wondering if the Daily Kos still had any power or if the liberal class has moved on to David Brock’s Media Matters for America.

Markos’ campaign for Santorum went into over-drive. He tweeted and re-tweeted messages all day Monday encouraging and celebrating his supporters’ missives about supporting Santorum.

But the media’s prediction that Santorum would make Michigan a race or possibly even win it turned out to be spin. Romney easily won the state despite Markos’ campaign. And we learned that the Daily Kos’ power isn’t what it used to be.

obama less popular than bush in arab world, says zogby poll

In 2008, candidate Obama made fun of the Bush Administration for not having many friends and not being able to lead the world.  The facts show that Obama is less popular than Bush was at the end of his term.  The difference is that the Bush team actually produced votes at the UN (the Bush team produced 5 resolutions on Iran, Obama has only managed to get 1) and was confronting dictators.  Maybe you are more popular if you actually lead?

See poll results here: http://aai.3cdn.net/5d2b8344e3b3b7ef19_xkm6ba4r9.pdf

cnn and npr fail to question white house spin, repeat errors

When the White House released the erroneous fact that President Obama would be the first President since John F. Kennedy to visit Puerto Rico, CNN, NPR and others accepted it as fact and began reporting it.  Without checking the White House’s spin, many media organizations highlighted Obama’s visit and failed to find that the White House was wrong – President Gerald Ford had visited Puerto Rico in 1976 and was the last president to do so.  While many outlets reported the error, CNN and NPR repeated it and failed to correct the mistake while highlighting the trip.

National Public Radio used the erroneous statistic to develop a stand-alone story, highlight its significance for Puerto Rican Americans and give President Obama accolades for his commitment to the island.  NPR host Melissa Block introduced the piece titled, “Why is Obama Going to Puerto Rico”, by stressing “what Obama’s visit means to a growing Puerto Rican population — and his re-election efforts.”  Block interviewed Frances Robles, correspondent with the Miami Herald, from Puerto Rico who also emphasized the historic visit.  When Robles confronted the White House and NPR’s error at the top of her interview, Block failed to acknowledge it.  Block never corrected
NPR’s error even when challenged.  In subsequent news updates, NPR repeated the White House’s factual blunder despite online fact checkers highlighting it.

CNN also failed to investigate the White House’s claim and even ignored a plethora of online corrections from various reporters and fact-checkers who caught the White House spin early on.  Shortly after the White House press release highlighting the President’s trip, bloggers found that not only had President Ford visited Puerto Rico in 1976, but President Lyndon B. Johnson visited the island in 1968.  The White House had failed to notice.

And so did CNN.  For 24 hours after the White House’s false claim, CNN failed to question it.  CNN took Obama’s arrival in Puerto Rico live with the headline “Obama in Puerto Rico.  First presidential visit since JFK 50 years ago”.  Host Suzanne Malveaux hyped the trip with pronouncements like, “(Obama) fulfilled his promise to come back” and “There’s a lot of excitement about the trip” and “more than 4 million Puerto Ricans live on the mainland” and “This is an historic trip for Obama”.  All pitches built around an error that CNN failed to check or correct.  The mistake could have been chalked up to one big error if “the best political team on television” wasn’t so Johnny on the spot with fact-checking Palin, Boehner, Bush, Romney, Ryan, Gingrich, etc.  For example, shortly after her Puerto Rico error, Malveaux interviewed Angie Holan
from The St. Petersburg Times in a segment titled “Checking The Truth-O-Meter” where the two questioned the accuracy of claims made by Republicans at the presidential debate in New Hampshire last night.

While it’s reasonable to conclude that a simple mistake was made by the White House in its initial announcement of Obama’s trip, it’s disturbing to see staffers not correct their error.  It’s more troubling to see media outlets like NPR and CNN not only fail to fact-check, but ignore the truth when confronted with it.  Both NPR and CNN should correct their mistake and come clean as to how it happened.

imagine if karl rove replaced matt lauer

ABC News and George Stephanopoulos have a credibility problem with conservatives and middle America.  And it seems to be getting worse.

It’s not just that ABC News hired former President Clinton’s White House spokesman and counselor George Stephanopoulos as a journalist; it’s that
the pack mentality at ABC News doesn’t see it as a problem.

“The planning meetings (at ABC News) have little political diversity.  Everyone is left of center and at ease with their liberal ideals. The other viewpoint is rarely raised and never fully represented,” a current ABC News producer told me last week.

And this week is a perfect example of the problem.  Stephanopoulos opened Good Morning America’s show the morning after Congressman Anthony Weiner’s press conference clearly feeling sorry for Weiner and dismissing the negative media coverage.  Stephanopoulos went on to interview Democratic activist and close friend James Carville on Weiner’s Twitter troubles and asked “what’s illegal, if anything?”  Carville responded to his friend in agreement.  While NBC’s Today Show and CBS’s Early Show interviewed Andrew Breitbart, the man who broke the Weiner story, Stephanopoulos’ team at Good Morning America never reached out to the conservative to request an interview.

But this week’s bias is certainly not unique for ABC News.  Stephanopoulos currently has an ABCNews.com story running where he interviews his buddy and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and gives this prediction: “After serving in two administrations and becoming a top Democrat in the House, if Emanuel does a good job as mayor Democrats will talk about him for a 2016 presidential run.”  Stephanopoulos also interviewed Emanual last week and titled the article “Rahm Emanuel: President Obama ‘Consistent’ on Israel”.

The week before Stephanopoulos “interviewed” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and gave her nothing but softball questions.   He didn’t even give her one follow up question after she dismissed the criticism over rapper Common’s White House invite.

But the bias at ABC News doesn’t stop with just political activist turned “journalist” Stephanopoulos.  Obama White House Spokesman Jay Carney is married to ABC News reporter Claire Shipman.  Shipman regularly reports for ABC World News Tonight and Good Morning America on political issues with no mention to the viewers that she is married to the Obama White House Spokesman.  The morning after the memorial service for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Shipman criticized Sarah Palin on Good Morning America for comments interpreted by the left as inciting and encouraging violence.  Shipman produced former Clinton White House strategist and Democratic activist Paul Begala to weigh in on the controversy and then showed a Keith Olberman attack video (her husband was Vice President Biden’s Spokesman at the time).  Perhaps more troubling, the ABC News’ website currently erroneously claims that Carney doesn’t work at the White House.  Shipman’s bio reads: “Shipman, a Columbus, Ohio, native, now resides in Washington, D.C. with her husband, Time magazine White House correspondent Jay Carney.” Not disclosing their reporters’ relationships with Obama Administration officials is clearly not an issue for ABC News.

There is also Christiane Amanpour, host of ABC News’ ‘This Week’ Sunday Show who is married to former Clinton State Department spokesman and Democratic activist Jamie Rubin. There is also no mention of Rubin on Amanpour’s ABC News’ website bio.

And there is former ABC News Congressional Reporter Linda Douglass who was the 2008 Obama campaign spokeswoman and now works in the Obama Administration.

And there’s former ABC News reporters Geoff Morrell and David Ensor who currently work in the Obama Administration as spokespeople.

And ABC News reporter Chris Cuomo, who’s brother is New York Democratic
Governor Andrew Cuomo – again, no mention in Cuomo’s bio.

ABC News also has as its Political Director an out-and-proud partisan liberal named Amy Walters. Walters’ bias is legendary and her associates don’t even challenge the claim that she is a partisan liberal Democrat. “She actually owns it, there is no pretense,” said one ABC News producer.

While the hiring of George Stephanopoulos as a legitimate and impartial journalist was laughable in itself, ABC News top brass actually think they have a balanced team.  One current ABC News employee said to me last week, “George was seen by David and Diane as unbiased and Ben has accepted that premise.  Nobody talks about Claire’s conflicts of interest and Chris has been here long enough that nobody cares.”  The employee was referring to former ABC News President David Westin, Diane Sawyer and current President Ben Sherwood.  “Ben needs to look no further than George’s Bottom Line (on ABCNews.com) to understand the enormity of our morning problem,” she added.

But imagine the rage from liberals and the main stream media if NBC hired Karl Rove to replace Matt Lauer?

While some outsiders expected early on that new executive Ben Sherwood would make the necessary corrections to ABC News’ bias trouble, Sherwood has been criticized internally with making the situation worse by avoiding the bias issue altogether.

It’s telling how Stephanopoulos is consistently compelled to defend Democrats rather than ask probing questions that are fair and balanced.  Instead of asking follow up questions to understand the issue, as normal journalists do, he makes statements.  And his statements always defend the Democrats.  Always.  And why not?  He is, after all, a Democratic political operative that has for years worked to elect liberals to elective office. He now gets to do it from the perch of the Good Morning America anchor chair surrounded by ABC News producers and reporters who don’t question his journalistic integrity or his bias.

ABC News and Sherwood must make changes to the ABC News team if they are ever going to convince conservatives that both sides of issues are well represented on their network.  At the very least, Sherwood needs to fire Amy Walters, stop Stephanopoulos from interviewing his friends, bar Shipman from reporting on any political issues, be transparent and honest about reporters’ connections to Democratic political operatives and hire conservatives to balance their coverage.  Sherwood, by the way, has a sister, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who works for Obama at the White House too.

the koran in florida and the mormons on broadway

This week, two different religions were mocked and disrespected in the United States and the followers’ reactions couldn’t have been more different.  While a lone preacher in Florida burned a copy of the Koran, a Broadway show opened in New York making fun of the Mormon faith with irreverent humor and sacrilegious musical numbers.  Some Muslim followers in Afghanistan reacted to the burning by storming the UN compound and killing innocent international public servants.  The Mormon Church reacted to the musical by pointing the public to the superficial nature of it and the supernatural power of their faith.

While burning the Koran is religiously intolerant and insensitive to our Muslim brothers and sisters, to suggest that it endangers American lives in and of itself is ridiculous.  What endangers Americans’ lives is the over-reaction to the burning by extremists, not the act of free speech.  The assumption that people will kill because of the burning of a book and therefore the book shouldn’t be burned justifies the over-reaction and makes it a rational answer.  There should be a universal condemnation to the killings because it isn’t rational or acceptable.  Radical followers of Islam killed innocent people in reaction to a radical follower of Christianity’s lighting a book on fire.  I would characterize both radicals as not truly following the God they claim to be following.  Islam and Christianity teach peace and acceptance not provocation and death. 

To assume that people are going to be killed if a Koran is burned is a dangerous supposition.  The patronizing reaction by many liberals and politicians to condemn the burning of the Koran on the same level as the UN killings – and many times in the same sentence – left an assumption that the reaction was a natural outcome of the action.  President Barak Obama’s statement on the UN murders also wasn’t helpful in teaching religious tolerance.  Obama elevated the Koran burning to an extreme offense and therefore gave comfort to an extreme reaction.  “The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry,” said Obama.  The White House’s use of the word extreme was inappropriate for this situation. 

Compare American liberals’ reaction to the Koran burning with their gleeful embrace of Trey Parker’s and Matt Stone’s Broadway musical about the Mormon faith.  A musical with a song called: “Fuck you, God” and described by the authors as an “atheist love letter to religion”.  New York Magazine said, “What’s so uniquely winning about The Book of Mormon is its scruffy humanism, its eagerness to redeem its characters—even its smaller ones.”  And Jon Stewart was left speechless after he said “it was so good, I almost don’t know what to say.”  The reviews for the musical have been the best any modern Broadway show has ever seen.  And very few liberals have condemned the defilement of the Mormon Church’s holy text as Obama has for the Koran.  If we believe that desecrating a religion’s holy text endangers lives then so does the accolades and support for The Book of Mormon on Broadway.  I, for one, don’t accept this premise. 

For American Mormons, the Broadway show and its embrace by the mainstream and liberal media has been embarrassing and humiliating.  But the even tempered official Mormon Church reaction should make everyone take a second look at the religion.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued a statement saying, “The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people’s lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ.”  The actions of some Afghan Muslims who killed UN officials as a reaction to the burning of a Koran in Florida cannot be justified or even confused to be a rational response.

advocate magazine covers-up the democratic label for anti-gay politician

The powerful anti-gay Democratic State Senator from New York, Carl Kruger, was outed this month by the New York Post for allegedly taking bribes that were used to partially pay for his gay lover’s water front mansion.  In its front page March 11 story, the Post outed the Democrat as a hypocrite because of his 2009 vote to deny equal marriage rights to gays despite having an alleged romantic relationship with a man.  The Post labeled the politician’s partisan affiliation prominently in the first sentence of the article.  The same day, New York Magazine used the label “Democratic” as the third word in its first sentence to describe Kruger in its’ breaking news story.  New York Magazine even finished their piece by admonishing, “if true, it serves as a helpful reminder that the phenomenon of hypocritical politicians who live gay lives in secret, but vote against gay issues in public, is not reserved for only one side of the aisle.”  But The Advocate magazine, the supposed promoter of gay rights and reason, only sits on the left side of the aisle.  It dropped Kruger’s political affiliation from its story’s headline and lead paragraph when it announced the influential Democrat’s troubles.  In fact, the editors of The Advocate only alluded to Kruger’s political affiliation in the last sentence of the last paragraph of their story by saying Kruger was “one of eight New York Democrats to vote against the state’s marriage equality bill, which failed to pass the senate.” 

Was it a mistake or was it deliberate? A look at the facts suggests it is part of The Advocate’s ongoing partisan bias – a bias permeating the gay media, but not always part of the left’s media playbook.  The Advocate’s cover-up and obvious strategic move is steeped in history.  Earlier this year on January 3, The Advocate writer Julie Bolcer wrote an article titled: “Iowa Republican Obsessed With Marriage Issue?”  Note the partisan affiliation announced in the title.  The lead sentence in Bolcer’s story also messaged the anti-gay candidate’s political relationship, “A friend and former campaign adviser to Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats says the Republican who led the recall effort against three state supreme court justices, is “obsessed with the gay-marriage issue.”” The word “Republican” is used consecutively throughout Bolcer’s piece and in gratuitous ways.

But it wasn’t the first or last time The Advocate tried its’ partisan tactic.  In November 2010, Bolcer also wrote an article titled: “Iowa Republican Predicts Removal of More Judges”.  Note the title announcement of the politician’s political affiliation again.  The lead sentence of Bolcer’s piece also once again messages the anti-gay politician’s political party connection, “Following a voter recall of three Iowa supreme court justices who voted for marriage equality, state senate Republican leader Paul McKinley said the four remaining justices would be at risk of losing their jobs unless lawmakers give Iowans a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriages.”

And in October of 2010, Bolcer writes yet another article for The Advocate about an anti-gay candidate titled: “N.Y. Republican: Gays Are “Dysfunctional”.  The hopeful politician’s political attachment was also described in Bolcer’s first sentence, “Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor in New York.”  It’s a pattern consistently repeated throughout The Advocate’s online archive.

The Advocate’s obvious double standard in describing politicians’ political affiliations is glaringly partisan.  When a Republican is anti-gay, the political relationship will be announced in the title of the article, messaged in the lead sentence and repeated throughout the piece.  But when a Democrat is anti-gay, the political membership will not be mentioned in the article’s title or even lead sentence.  In the case of Kruger, The Advocate only took a passing shot by referring to the politician’s colleagues’ political association.

Even New York Magazine, known for being a left-wing operation, describes Kruger as a Democrat.  So why would The Advocate cover it up?  Continuing to shill for the Democratic party after its’ disastrous two years of Washington control is foolish and naive.  And pretending that anti-gay elements exist in just the Republican party alone is one of the erroneous assumptions that led to Prop 8’s passage in California.  Readers deserve better from a publication calling itself their advocate.  As for the editors, for whom do they think they are advocating?

as the nfl fumbles, the ufc kicks it up a notch

As the National Football League spun into an abyss of finger pointing and legal action this past week, the Ultimate Fighting Championship made a brilliant, under-the-radar power play by acquiring Strike Force – the last remaining hurdle to unifying the sport under one organization.  The UFC may appear like an upstart against the NFL powerhouse in terms of fan base, revenue and reputation, but securing absolute ownership of the elite athletes of the sport signals that Dana White and company are an entertainment force to be reckoned with.  Bringing together the sport under one brand allows greater fan loyalty, more marketing opportunities and exponential revenue growth.  It’s a game-changer within an industry historically dominated by the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.

But now the UFC has been elevated to the elite club of sports entertainment organizations.  And like most grassroots movements, the mainstream media and politicians are the last to realize it.

It wasn’t long ago that baseball, hailed as American as apple pie, was the nation’s pastime.  Even with the Super Bowl as the most watched TV event of the year, football couldn’t knock baseball from its throne.  Then the 1994 MLB strike happened.  Fans revolted and were forced to consider other entertainment options, giving football a fresh look.  Although today’s baseball ticket prices, player salaries and annual revenues show the sport is as strong as ever, the ’94 strike gave the NFL a chance to earn fans’ loyalty and permanently change the pecking order of professional sports.  Baseball executives and players can be pleased that a crisis was averted but there is still that creeping feeling of “what if?”

The inherent violence in the UFC will likely never win over enough of the female population for it to take the throne as America’s top sport, but those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  The NFL is heading for a drop-off that is entirely avoidable and the UFC is poised to take advantage of it if it happens.  Americans have always had a love affair with sports – all types of sports.  The spirit of teamwork and personal growth and the hope of fame and fortune is inherent on American little league fields, Saturday soccer schedules and high school locker rooms.  NFL fans will look elsewhere for their entertainment if there is a strike and there are plenty of options.

And Dana White is ready.  The UFC has risen from its humble beginnings in 1993 to surpass the one billion dollar mark; and it’s now broadcasting in more than 130 countries.  Fighters Randy Couture and Quinton Jackson are crossover successes and starred in two Hollywood blockbusters last year – The Expendables and The A-Team, respectively.  When Charlie Sheen’s fight with Chuck Lorre and CBS erupted, he name dropped the octagon – the UFC’s standard fight structure – as the place to bring his tiger blood and fire-breathing fists.  And the UFC is one of the premiere case studies of how social media can deliver when done right.  White’s embrace of Twitter showcases his strong personality and fan-appeal and he has personally won over legions of paying followers with his unparalleled direct dialogue.  With a rabid and growing fan base, the UFC’s ceiling is nowhere in sight.

As the NFL’s labor situation spirals out of control and with the NBA only a few months from a similar fate, UFC’s owner Zuffa LLC and White are surely brushing up on their history.  The redneck, uncouth reputation that’s unfairly been attached to the UFC like a scarlet letter is starting to fade.  Don’t let the tattoos, dark music and gallons of blood spilled on the mat fool you, this is a multi-billion dollar industry.

The political elites in Washington, financial whizs on Wall Street and studio heads in Hollywood ignore the sport at their own peril.  An economic impact report last year determined the sport could generate $25 million a year in benefits to New York alone if the state allows fights to be held and regulated.  That’s based on holding only two events.  In the midst of the financial crisis, legislators in Albany and Washington, DC have foolishly failed to ignore the sport.  And taxpayers should be outraged.

You don’t have to be a football or mixed martial arts fan to appreciate the spectacle of an American sports entertainment industry rising to world-wide prominence.  It’s a uniquely American story that should be celebrated by even government tax collectors.

vivian schiller created this blow-back

State sponsored media is so last year.  And the news that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller has been forced out of her job is a good first step in stopping federal funds from going to support a news organization.  In the U.S., there is no need for government sponsored media – there are plenty of independent and private news outlets to choose from.  Having multiple news sources is the only way to get the real story anyway.  Anyone listening or reading to one news source is being spun.  Every news organization, albeit every reporter, carries bias into news reporting.  Left leaning news organizations, as well as right leaning ones, can give a great perspective if multiple news outlets are used to fully inform.  It’s scary when an American believes their preferred news source is the only unbiased coverage.  

Schiller and the other left leaning reporters and producers at NPR and its affiliate stations around the country should be allowed to spin the news to the left – but the rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for it with our tax dollars.  Federal sponsorship of NPR to the tune of tens of millions of dollars doesn’t make sense.  The Democrats, of course, have been happy to keep the tax dollars flowing to NPR because of the support they receive from its news coverage.  Imagine the outrage if Fox News received federal funds.  The new Republican Congress is right to cut the state sponsorship for NPR.  If listeners want the news it produces then they will need to pay for it.  It’s a basic principle of supply and demand.  If NPR is as crucial to understanding the news as the liberals say then it will be supported by those who need it.  Make no mistake about it: Schiller created this blow-back by accepting tax dollars and making the editorial choices she did.  It was only a matter of time before someone said, “Why am I paying for this ideological coverage?”  NPR’s editorial decisions over the years to support left leaning politicians, ideas and an expansion of government programs are certainly supported by some Americans – but this partisan coverage should not receive tax dollars to do it. 

NPR will survive.  Its’ federal funding won’t.  It may not look like its current propped up form this time next year, but NPR will continue to advocate for liberal policies and report the news as it sees it.  And I bet we see Schiller working for another liberal organization soon enough; she has demonstrated that she is an advocate for the left.

chris dodd will do for hollywood what he did for wall street…

Hollywood Follows Wall Street?

Hollywood is supposed to be the place where people take risks.  It’s the place where the industry types push the limits anew and create something fresh from the faint.  It’s not supposed to be a place where yesterday is the standard.  But this week, the Hollywood establishment made two choices that puzzled the forward looking – the Oscar for Best Picture went to the safest movie “The King’s Speech,” and the studio heads picked ethically challenged Chris Dodd to lead the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

In the press release announcing his appointment as the new MPAA Chairman and CEO, studio heads credited Dodd as “battle-tested” and experienced at “consensus-building”.  But for anyone paying any attention to what’s happening in Washington these days, he’s one of the last people Hollywood needs representing them in the nation’s capital.  For the last 30 years, Dodd has been a polarizing partisan in Washington.  He’s a “proud Democrat” who considers bipartisanship a talking point rather than a philosophy.   In fact, when The Hill – one of two daily newspapers focused on Capitol Hill – surveyed every Senator in 2009 for their opinions on bipartisanship among their ranks, Dodd was named the third least bipartisan member of the Senate.  The studio heads are obviously partisans themselves but they shouldn’t also be foolish.  A simple study of the political lay of the land for 2012 shows the Democrats in the Senate headed for a major defeat.  If polls are accurate, Dodd will be expected to deliver votes from the majority Republican Party he has trash-talked for three decades.

While political expediency may seem inconsequential to Hollywood, it’s a critical issue inside the Beltway.  The Democratic Party has long embraced Hollywood – supporting legislative agendas, making major campaign contributions and tolerating its creativity when critics complain the entertainment industry is out-of-touch with America.  And Hollywood’s outreach to conservatives has been almost non-existent.  The one-sided strategy is a big risk and having Dodd lead it is even more dangerous.  As revolutions in technology and international distribution continue to risk Hollywood’s current status quo, the last person the industry needs as its spokesman is banking specialist Dodd. 

Sending Dodd to Washington means Hollywood is looking to replicate Wall Street’s behavior of the last decade.  Dodd gave us the multi-billion dollar bailouts and failures of AIG, Bear Stearns and Countrywide from his perch as Chairman of the Banking Committee.  Why would Hollywood studio executives want to create the sequel if the original flopped?  American taxpayers have seen this movie before.

Richard Grenell & Brad Chase

huffpost purchased by aol

The Huffington Post may have been founded as the liberal answer to the conservative Drudge Report, a place for progressive wound-licking in the wake of George W. Bush’s re-election.

But on Monday, Arianna Huffington was distancing herself from the lefty label as she announced the sale of HuffPost to AOL for $315 million.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49006.html#ixzz1DJSx7nLn

Arianna Huffington is pictured. | AP Photo

does dana milbank think its funny to joke about bombing the un?

dana milbank may think its funny but to say that Bolton wanted to blow up the UN is ridiculous and terrorizing – not to mention completely inaccurate.  responsible reporters shouldn’t joke about bombing the un.  to be accurate, bolton said, “The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”.  bolton was obviously commentating on a bloated bureaucracy and the need for efficiency.  i”ll put dana (don’t let the name fool you , he’s a guy) down for advocating for a waste of u.s. tax dollars and using bomb jokes to be funny.

dana may think it’s just a joke but it’s actually lame and dull writing from a lame and dull writer.  his bomb joke also furthers a lie that liberal pundits like to spread about bolton’s tough diplomacy skills.  i could easily argue that bolton’s work engaging the UN and trying to fix its’ mess means that he cares more about it than susan rice does since she just attends parties and doesn’t actually use the UN to further U.S. interests.

i ask you, who cares more - someone who ignores a problem or someone who tries to fix it?

a google search produces an la times editorial

The Los Angeles Times editorial board can’t get its story straight on the reasons the Senate should pass the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).  Or maybe it just doesn’t understand the complicated issue and what is at stake.  Thursday’s editorial insists that there is bipartisan support for the treaty and that only a few radicals want to kill it and then attacks Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona for not supporting it and “acting not in the interest of the nation but of his party”.  Either the treaty has bipartisan support or it doesn’t.  Either it’s not a partisan treaty or it is.  The editorial board is doing what they claim Senator Kyl is doing – playing politics at the expense of national security.  No debate, just name calling.  The truth is – the new START Treaty and the timing of pushing it through a lame-duck session of Congress is typical Obama partisanship with the same excuse for failure – “it’s the Republicans fault”.  The uber-liberal LA Times editorial board and consistent Obama apologist, however, would rather demonize anyone who doesn’t support the treaty than debate its merit.  So much for a rational discussion of national security issues.

In typical form, today’s editorial maligns conservatives John Bolton, John Yoo and Senator Kyl for their concerns over the treaty.  But is anyone surprised?  The LA Times editorials of late could be written by the Democratic National Committee strategists that consistently applaud the partisan writings.  Gone are the days when the editorials inform or bring to light real policy discussions.  The editorials are so usual that they are no longer relevant, especially on foreign policy issues.  In fact, whoever wrote today’s START Treaty editorial sounds as if they don’t understand the real issues involved in limiting nuclear arms or the research and development that is needed to create defense programs.  The writing reads as if someone did a google search and tried to write an editorial from it.  There is no discussion of:

- the actual concerns experts have in limiting our nuclear capability at such a dangerous time;

- the restrictions countries face in controlling their borders or stopping the actions of non-state actors;

- the wisdom of striking a deal with a significantly weakened Russia;

- the reasons we would allow the Russians to inspect and learn the latest American technology when they haven’t had the money to develop their own.

The editorial also conveniently leaves out the objections of other Senators that have studied the issue and are compelled to change it or stop it.  Surely no one could argue that Ohio Senator George Voinovich and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown are just partisan hacks too?  The LA Times editorial just calls names, omits facts and plays politics.

The editorial’s title even claims that all Republicans are just looking to defeat any and all legislation coming from the Obama White House.  This cynicism is the problem with politics, not the solution.  Residents of Los Angeles deserve better and should demand more from an editorial board that claims to be a serious news outlet.  There are very real objections to the new START Treaty – but you won’t read about those concerns on the editorial page of the LA Times.

new republican congress should stop funding npr

Juan Williams’ firing sends a wake-up call just in time for the mid-term elections.  Voters should demand to know if candidates will continue funding NPR.  It’s time to stop putting government funding into programs that compete with the private sector.  Tax dollars, after all, should be used to fund initiatives that take care of the needy or provide services that the private sector can’t or isn’t willing to provide.  Information radio in the United States is hardly something that our government should think is a top priority, especially when we have budget deficits, sky-rocketing unemployment, falling government revenue and critical public programs being cut.  There is also a healthy and vibrant private sector news radio industry and, therefore, no need to prop up one funded with tax dollars.  Government money given to NPR means government sponsored radio competing with the private sector – a uniquely un-American idea. If private sector citizens want to fund NPR then they should step up and do it with more commitment.  Coercing the rest of us to pay for NPR’s elite radio programming through our taxes is clearly a subsidy for the wealthy. 

NPR and its executives are to blame for the reaction to this alarm bell going off.  NPR’s intolerance of conservative opinions is well-known.  There are very few voices allowed on NPR programs that represent opinions outside the traditional liberal and elite viewpoints.  When NPR does allow a conservative voice air-time, it is limited and usually preceded by a condescending question or commentary.  Juan Williams firing by NPR was only a matter of time because the liberal executives running the shows at NPR never liked the fact that Williams was on Fox News.  It’s clear that NPR would rather play consistently to the left than reach a balanced audience.  And for that, they deserve to be pushed away from the public trough.

As all conservatives already know, NPR consistently frames stories in a slanted way to aid and comfort its overwhelming left listenership.  For instance, the current rising unemployment rate is not portrayed as an Obama Administration problem.  It is usually reported by NPR without an Obama angle and more times than not, as a total spin job.  Conversely, every month the unemployment rate went up during the Bush Administration it was portrayed as an announcement from the Bush White House or Bush Team followed by an evaluation of Bush’s economic policies.  The NPR diatribe was clear: unemployment is rising and Bush’s policies are not working.

This past Labor Day, the traditional start of election season, NPR reported the rising 9.6 unemployment rate as a recovery in the making.  And I’m not joking.  Shockingly, commentators and story selections were spinning that a recovery was happening, just slowly.  NPR even highlighted a story suggesting that more people were traveling for Labor Day and feeling good about the economy.  But in fact, a recovery wasn’t happening and the unemployment rate has risen. 

Conservatives have seethed for years as NPR hosts mock conservative ideas, poke fun at conservative candidates’ mistakes and run stories over several days when there is a negative story to tell about a Republican.  Every conservative scandal receives multiple days of commentary and a thorough analysis, while Democrats caught in mishaps either get little coverage, no mentions at all or one hit. 

My local NPR station in Los Angeles just yesterday ran a LIVE extended interview with one of the most liberal members of the County Board of Supervisors (15 days before the mid-term elections) where he lauded Senator Barbara Boxer’s leadership on public transportation issues.  He praised Boxer for something she hasn’t even taken credit for.  He went on to give additional credit to only Democrats for bringing a new rail line to the people of LA.  The host of the interview never pushed back or asked a question of the Supervisor’s claim that Boxer brought the rail line to LA – it was just assumed that Boxer delivered to the people.  Boxer’s new rail line, by the way, doesn’t even extend to the airport – which happens to be the number one transportation concern for residents – so if she did bring this project to LA it’s a colossal waste of tax dollars.  Sadly, it was an expected and typical interview from NPR.

But thanks to Juan Williams being fired, the rest of us might be able to keep a little more money in our paychecks.  Voters everywhere should ask their congressional candidates to commit to stop publicly funding NPR before they cast their ballots on November 2.  My mom used to take the ball away from us when someone cheated.  She would say, “If you can’t play fair then you can’t play at all”.  It’s time voters took the ball away from NPR.