Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

The Memory Hole

“Obama Awards Medal of Freedom to Supporter and Former NBC Anchor Tom Brokaw,” Curtis Houck writes at NewsBusters:

Throughout her report [on Brokaw receiving the award], [Andrea] Mitchell certainly didn’t note many of the instances in which Brokaw heaped mounds of praise on the President (that has appeared to pay off). As the Media Research Center’s Kyle Drennen noted back on November 12, Brokaw’s positive remarks toward the President are numerous and included him comparing Obama to Vaclev Havel, who led the “Velet Revolution” that brought down communism in the former Czechoslovakia.

It would be fun to ask Brokaw what his definition of “freedom” is, given that the veteran NBC newsreader begged the Chief Spokesman for the Office of the President Elect in December of 2008 to raise taxes during the trough of the Great Recession (consistent with his take on President Reagan cutting taxes), and his loathing of the Second Amendment, telling fellow NBC employees Al Sharpton and Joe Scarborough in January of 2013 that, as Nathaniel Botwinick paraphrased at NRO’s The Corner, “Silence on Gun Violence Like Not Speaking Out Against Segregation in 1960s South.” Or as Brokaw himself said:

All these component parts claim, it’s not their responsibility. The NRA says it’s not about the guns, it’s about violence and mental health. Mental health people can’t share information because we have privacy issues here. The video game industry says we have a right under the First Amendment. Reverend Al, it reminds me a lot of what happened in the South during the 1960s during the civil rights movement. Good people stayed in their houses and didn’t speak up when there was carnage in the streets and the total violation of the fundamental rights of African-Americans as they marched in Selma. And they let Bull Connor and the redneck elements of the South and the Klan take over their culture in effect and become a face of it.

The testimony of many blacks who relied upon the Second Amendment to defend themselves during that period against Brokaw’s fellow Democrat Bull Connor contradicts the NBC newsreader:

When Charles “Chuck” Hicks does the Martin Luther King Jr. Day peace and freedom walks Saturday, he’ll also be taking a step for what the National Rifle Association has dubbed “National Rifle Appreciation Day.” That’s because Hicks is the son of Robert Hicks, a prominent leader of the legendary Deacons for Defense and Justice — an organization of black men in Louisiana who used shotguns and rifles to repel attacks by white vigilantes during the 1960s.

“The Klan would drive through our neighborhood shooting at us, shooting into our homes,” recalled Hicks, 66, who grew up in Bogalusa, La., and has been a civil rights activist in the District for more than 35 years. “The black men in the community wouldn’t stand for it. You shoot at us, we shoot back at you. I’m convinced that without our guns, my family and many other black people would not be alive today.”

As the Glenn Reynolds adds, “Condi Rice tells a similar story, of course. More background here.”

Continuing with the Orwellian aspects of Tom’s award, when Dan Rather had cooked the books in September of 2004 launching his ultimately career-ending scandal known as Rathergate, his then-fellow over-the-air nightly news anchors Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings both circled the wagons the following month — with the presidential election still ongoing — to defend their fellow dino-journalist from those whom they perceived as rabble conservative upstarts.

Around that time four years later, Brokaw helpfully lied to PBS’s Charlie Rose, “We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy…There’s a lot about him we don’t know.” Gee Tom and Charlie, if only you had entire armies of journalists you command at your two networks to answer those questions, not to mention an information retrieval device called the Internet.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

The Bonfire of the Ferguson Kabuki

November 23rd, 2014 - 7:31 pm

“Darren Wilson has been meeting with network anchors: What the heck?”, asks the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple:

Credit CNN’s Brian Stelter with a very big scoop. On today’s “Reliable Sources” media-news program, Stelter reported that “high-profile news anchors” have spoken in “secret locations” with Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. The sessions have been off-the-record and, the way Stelter tells it, they’ve been auditions for one of the biggest exclusives of this century — namely, the sit-down talk with the elusive officer who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., on Aug. 9.

Some details exist. NBC News’s Matt Lauer, ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, CBS News’s Scott Pelley and Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon of CNN have met with Wilson, according to Stelter.

I’m not at all sure why Wemple seems so surprised or outraged by this development, given that from the start, Ferguson has been a form of video kabuki, to the point where NBC sent Al Sharpton out to gin up the protestors, and then recorded awesome video of those protestors pelting Sharpton’s fellow MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes with rocks. (Mission accomplished, Al.)

In 1988, when he was promoting the Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe told PBS’s Bill Moyers, “a good bit of the book has to do with this curious phenomenon of how demonstrations, which are a great part of racial and ethnic politics, exist only for the media:”

Well, one of the things is what I would call “media ricochet”, which is the way real life and life as portrayed by television, by journalists like myself and others, begin ricocheting off of one another. That’s why to me, in Bonfire of the Vanities, it was so important to show exactly how this occurs when television and newspaper coverage become a factor in something like racial politics. And a good bit of the book has to do with this curious phenomenon of how demonstrations, which are a great part of racial and ethnic politics, exist only for the media. In the last days when I was working on The New York Herald-Tribune, I’ll never forget the number of demonstrations I went to and announced that to all the people with the placards, “I’m from The New York Herald-Tribune,” and the attitude was really a yawn, and then, “Get lost”. They were waiting for Channel 2 and Channel 4 and Channel 5, and suddenly the truck would appear and these people would become galvanized. On one occasion I even saw a group of demonstrators down in Union Square, marching across the Square, and Channel 2 arrived, a couple of vans, and the head of the demonstration walked up to what looked like the head man of the TV crew and said, “What do you want us to do?” He says, “Golly, I don’t know. What were you going to do?” He says, “It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. You tell us.”

NBC, in the form of network spokesman Al Sharpton (let those last four words percolate for a few moments) simply took that strategy to its logical conclusion. Why shouldn’t their fellow Democrat operatives with bylines get in on the other half of the equation as well by coordinating with Wilson as well?

It’s as if the networks, having been happy to beam back staged “Pallywood” productions from the Palestinian media propaganda assembly line for years, decided to get in on the fun of staging domestic riots from top to bottom themselves:

daily_news_cosby_fixer_11-23-14-1

“EXCLUSIVE: Ex-NBC employee Frank Scotti claims Bill Cosby paid off women, invited young models to dressing room as he stood guard,” the New York Daily News reports:

Back when Bill Cosby was the king of network television, veteran NBC employee Frank Scotti served as the royal fixer.

When Cosby invited young models into his Brooklyn dressing room, the megastar’s pal stood watch outside the door. When the married Cosby sought a Queens apartment for another pretty face, Scotti arranged the deal.

And when the man behind Fat Albert needed cash disbursed to his flock of single female friends — hey, hey, hey — Scotti became the conduit for payments of up to $2,000 a month.

“He had everybody fooled,” said Scotti in an exclusive interview with the Daily News. “Nobody suspected.”

Scotti came forward last week with his insider’s look at Cosby’s womanizing ways during the magical 1984-92 run of “The Cosby Show.”

The 90-year-old Scotti said he decided to speak as the drumbeat of sexual abuse allegations against Cosby, 77, grew steadily louder. “I felt sorry for the women,” he told The News.

Along with the multiple women coming forward with allegations, is Scotti lying? Presumably the left-leaning Daily News wouldn’t run the story unless the paper and its lawyers believed him. But in any case, NBC certainly has ample prior examples of enabling their performers’ dysfunctional behavior to help keep a hit show humming along.

As Doug Hill and Jeff Weingrad wrote in their 1986 book, Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live, while the late John Belushi was the most legendary substance abuser of the original cast of SNL, the performer most affected by drug use according to the authors was Garrett Morris. And certainly, his onstage performances in his last season on the show often seemed near-catatonic, as he appeared to lean heavily on his cue cards to remember even the simplest of lines. According to Hill and Weingrad, “Garrett free-based cocaine, meaning he mixed it with ether and heated it to filter out the impurities, then smoked it in its purest, strongest form,” and insiders at NBC, including Morris’ own fixer at the network, were certainly aware of drug use of some sort by Morris:

As much cocaine as John Belushi used, within Saturday Night Garrett’s habits were seen as more dangerous, because Belushi seemed so much stronger than Garrett. “Belushi,” one of the writers said, “was howling against the elements. Garrett sort of just slipped away in his sleep.” In the end, of course, that judgment proved to be incorrect, but at the time most would have expected Garrett to succumb long before John.

What to do about Garrett occupied a good deal of conversation on the 17th floor. That he wasn’t taken off the show or forced to get some sort of treatment struck many as utterly irresponsible. The countervailing opinion was that taking him off the show would have only completed his collapse. No one could convince Garrett he needed help; he always insisted he was fine. But obviously he wasn’t fine, and many blamed Lorne for not dealing with it. “A lot of people felt Lorne ignored the problem,” one of the featured players said. “A lot of people thought, ‘Lorne’s got to do something about this.’ It seemed that week after week Garrett was in bad emotional shape. Nobody knew what to do.”

Garrett’s problems were also ignored by NBC, and not because no one in the network was aware of them. To the contrary, one NBC executive, a vice president, frequently gave Garrett the money to buy his cocaine. Garrett would come to this executive for advances on his salary. He always said he had some different project in the works that he needed it for, but the executive was well aware of what Garrett was doing with the money. The advances were usually $1,000, but once, when the show was ending for the season and Garrett needed enough to tide him over the summer, he was advanced $10,000. The executive says that Garrett thought of him as a sort of friendly banker, and that as a result he and Garrett always got along extremely well. Eventually the advances were stopped.

In more recent years, NBC has long ignored Alec Baldwin’s homophobic slurs and violent encounters with photographers, as long as they could build shows around him. (Unlike the heyday of the original SNL and Cosby Show, ratings be damned, curiously enough). And today, as the New York Times strongly implied last week, NBC looks the other way at Al Sharpton’s multiple tax abuses.

When the MSM, those Democrat operatives with bylines, as Glenn Reynolds memorably dubbed them, ignores corruption in the Obama administration, remember that they have a lengthy history of ignoring and in some cases enabling corruption and malfeasance in-house as well. Anything as long as the show goes on.

QED.

The Ultimate Friday Afternoon Document Dump

November 21st, 2014 - 2:32 pm

mussolini_obama_lerner_forward_6-13-13-1

“30,000 missing emails from IRS’ Lerner recovered,” according to the Washington Examiner:

In all, investigators from the inspector general’s office combed through 744 disaster recovery tapes. They are not finished looking.

There are 250 million emails ion the tapes that will be reviewed. Officials said it is likely they will find missing emails from other IRS officials who worked under Lerner and who said they suffered computer crashes.

Investigators said the emails could include some overlapping information because it is not clear how many of them are duplicates or were already produced by Lerner to the congressional committees.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee he chairs will be one of the committees that will examine the emails.

“Though it is unclear whether TIGTA has found all of the missing Lois Lerner e-mails, there may be significant information in this discovery,” Issa told the Examiner. “The Oversight Committee will be looking for information about her mindset and who she was communicating with outside the IRS during a critical period of time when the IRS was targeting conservative groups. This discovery also underscores the lack of cooperation Congress has received from the IRS. The agency first failed to disclose the loss to Congress and then tried to declare Lerner’s e-mails gone and lost forever. Once again it appears the IRS hasn’t been straight with Congress and the American people.”

And…? Other than the (admittedly enjoyable) videos of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen appearing regularly on Capital Hill as Trey Gowdy’s punching bag, will there be any real consequences to the agency for its malfeasance?

(H/T: SDA)

Update: “That’s a lot of emails. But remember when the New York Times asked its readers to ‘crowdsource’ the review of 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s emails?”

More:

Sarah Palin committed no crime other than being a conservative woman. Lois Lerner has been implicated in using the power of the IRS to stifle the First Amendment rights of thousands of Americans and conservative Tea Party groups.

Surely, the media will investigate these newly found Lois Lerner emails more aggressively than they looked into Palin’s emails. Right?

Of course they will.

Quote of the Day

November 20th, 2014 - 5:01 pm

Actually I think the whole racial angle on Cosby should be turned on its head: How come Roman Polanski’s film career wasn’t ended after a conviction for rape? Or Woody Allen’s career after the facts of his behavior emerged? And if we’re now going to end careers over old charges, can Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey now get their due against Bill Clinton, whose sexual assaults didn’t end his career. To the contrary, he is honored as if he were the Dr. Huxtable of politics. The double standard here is obvious: if you’re a powerful (liberal) white man, you can survive being a rapist. Maybe the liberals are ironically right for a change.

Steve Hayward, Power Line, today.

“Influential gay rights advocate and top Obama donor, Terry Bean, and alleged former boyfriend arrested,” Brett Decker writes in USA Today:

This story was first reported by the local press, and there have been vague references to sexual trouble for Bean and Lawson since June, but the national media has not picked it up. That oversight is politically convenient for President Obama as he tries to pull off one of his riskiest political moves ever with his amnesty executive order.

If one of President George W. Bush’s bundlers would have been charged with child rape, make no mistake about it, the media feeding frenzy would have been uncontrollable – which would be legitimate given the severity of the allegation. The silence surrounding Terrence Bean exposes the national media’s partisan double standard in obscene detail.

In 2003, after it was obvious that CNN had been in the tank for Saddam Hussein, Eason Jordon, the network’s then-president, wrote a mea culpa in the New York Times titled “The News We Kept To Ourselves.”

The MSM sure has been keep a lot of news to itself since 2008, haven’t they? Two guesses as to why.

“Jeff Fager has stepped down as chairman of CBS News, leaving full command of the news division to David Rhodes, two sources at the network told POLITICO on Thursday,” Dylan Byers reports:

Fager, who spent four years as chairman, will return to CBS’ “60 Minutes” full-time as executive producer, effective at the beginning of the new year. Rhodes, who Fager hired as president four years ago, will remain in that role and assume sole leadership of the division.

As the Daily Caller noted in May of 2013, “Top Obama official’s brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over Benghazi coverage.” That reporter was Sharyl Attkisson who has since left CBS:

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.

That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

Curiously, the relationship between the two Rhodes isn’t referenced in Byers’ story above, or in this article on Jeff Fager stepping down at the Huffington Post.

Unexpectedly.

Related: “Bombshell: Email Proves that White House, DOJ Targeted Reporter Sharyl Attkisson,” from Bryan Preston at the PJ Tatler. I’m sure CBS will want to blow the lid off this story…

Update:

“Democrats across print, web, and cable media have been repeating the claim that Obama is doing nothing more than what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did first.” Not true, Gabriel Malor writes at the Federalist:

In 1986, faced with a large and growing population of illegal aliens, Congress created a new, time-limited form of immigration relief for certain aliens who, among other things, had to have come to the United States more than six years previously. This is the much ballyhooed Reagan amnesty. It was, unfortunately, riddled with fraud in its execution, the uncovering of which is still roiling the immigrant community. But even setting that aside it left President Reagan with a moral dilemma. Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.

Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

These Reagan and Bush 41 executive actions were obviously different than what Obama is doing now.

Read the whole thing.

GruberGate’s Insider Problem

November 19th, 2014 - 5:49 pm

“So when I see journalists saying that Gruber’s revelations don’t matter because he’s just kind of awkwardly saying something that everyone knew, I get a little jittery,” former(?) Obama supporter Megan McArdle writes at the house organ for crony socialism, Bloomberg.com:

That politicians should try to exploit the accounting rules was inevitable; that is what people do with accounting rules. I’m not saying that’s what the rules are for, or that they do no good; I’m just saying that about eight seconds after your rules are made, some bright Johnny will start figuring out a way to game them.

What is not inevitable is that journalists should effectively sanction this by saying it’s no big deal. We don’t have to get elected, after all. And those politicians and policy makers aren’t our bosses; the reading public is.

Now who’s being naive, Kay?

The Ominous Parallels

November 17th, 2014 - 9:49 pm

In “Hartache,” Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard compares and contrasts two infamous Democrat presidential candidates wildly overhyped by their party operatives in the MSM who later famously crashed and burned due to Icarus-level hubris:

[Gary] Hart and Obama each had an iron-clad faith in his own claim to genius, and many believed them, partly because they looked like the kind of people journalists thought should be intelligent, and partly because their sort of intelligence—glib, facile, and good at the right sort of patter—was the same sort that these journalists had. Thus presidential historian Michael Beschloss called Obama (before he took office) “the smartest man ever elected as president,” and Bai takes Hart at his own self-estimation, as a “brilliant and serious man, perhaps the most visionary political mind of his generation .  .  . the flat-out smartest politician I had ever met.” Hart’s gift, as Bai put it, “was to connect politics and culture and theology and technology seamlessly and all at once—to draw from all available data points .  .  . a larger picture of where everything was headed. .  .  . Hart himself would tell me, ‘I have only one talent. I can see farther ahead than most people. And I can put pieces together in constructive ways, both to avoid disaster and to capitalize on change.’ ”

Alas, as it happened, “avoiding disaster” was not one of Hart’s strong points, and the man many thought capable of saving the world and the country proved a genius at destroying himself. Hart worshipped John Kennedy and imitated him down to his gestures and weakness for women, seeming to think he was back in the ’50s and ’60s, when presidents’ affairs and those of their peers had gone unremarked on, or perhaps in the days of the 1940 election, when Wendell Willkie made campaign speeches from his girlfriend’s apartment and Franklin Roosevelt’s train would make stops in New Jersey so the president could see his old flame. Hart’s first mistake was to ignore the extent to which Chappaquiddick and Watergate had collapsed the old walls between public and private, increasing suspicion of public officials and making dissembling seem the worst of all sins. His second mistake was to lie, which turned his private life into a public and character issue, into which the press felt entitled to dig. In Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars, their book on the 1988 contest, Jack Germond and Jules Witcover give a detailed list of the people Hart lied to, including reporters, old friends, and campaign consultants who had agreed to work for him only after being assured by him or his allies that the rumors about his many adventures with women were either false or else a thing of the past.

Nonetheless, one woman refused to join the campaign, saying, “Everybody here knows that he’s fooling around with a woman in Florida, and that he came out of a bar a few nights ago with another guy and two other women. .  .  . I can’t work for him.” He assured aides that nothing was wrong even as he was arranging a weekend in Washington with the woman in Florida. Reporters from two different news organizations warned his campaign they were thinking of tailing him, which perhaps was in Hart’s mind when he dared E. J. Dionne to “follow me around. I don’t care. I’m serious .  .  . go ahead. They’ll be very bored.”

Flash-forward to today; “Obama Encouraged Us to ‘Pull Every Clip’ On Obamacare So We Did,” David Rutz writes at the Washington Free-Beacon. Speaking of ominous parallels* note the exceedingly Hart-like goading from the semi-retired former president at the start of the video:

* Yes, the homage to a book referencing an infinitely more sinister form of nationalized socialism was intentional.

Architects of Fortune

November 17th, 2014 - 12:06 pm

How badly did Gruber screw the pooch? So badly that even CBS’s dinosaur arch-liberal Bob Schieffer has noticed, Jack Coleman notes at NewsBusters, along with a minor fisking of some of Schieffer’s loopier statements:

SCHIEFFER: I’ll be honest — while I favor health insurance (a show of hands for all those opposed to health insurance, and auto insurance, and homeowners’ …?) I am not wild about the new plan and how it became law either. (Welcome to the club, Bob, mere half-decade late). But here is my question for Mr. Gruber — if all this was as bad as you say, why did you take the money you earned as an adviser? Nor is it too late to give it back. What we have here is another example of the sorry state of American politics where people take money for things in which they don’t believe and whether it’s good for the American people is not even a question. As for the president, he may want to consider that old politician’s prayer — Lord, I can take care of my enemies, just protect me from my friends.

Why would Gruber return his taxpayer-provided “consulting” fees? As Coleman adds, “Gruber was instrumental in getting this monstrosity enacted into law. Return money for a job well done? Yeah, right. His only fault, at least to liberals, is in the man’s apparently manic, post-legislative compulsion to spill all about ‘dirty secrets.’”

Gruber is certainly useful to the left right now as a scapegoat. He allows them to say, “look how badly we were duped!” during the early years of the Obama regime when they went all-in to push his programs, not the least of which, Obamacare.

CBS, along with the rest of the Democrat operatives with bylines might want to take advantage of that opportunity.

Consider it a Christmas miracle

So Much for ‘The Reality-Based Community’

November 16th, 2014 - 9:52 pm

Because really, why bother with unvarnished reality, when you can mold it, Lysenko-style, to match your politics — and then when that fails, simply toss it down the Memory Hole?

— Ed Carson (@IBD_ECarson) November 15, 2014

“Voxplaining In Action.”

All the President’s Snipe Hunters

November 14th, 2014 - 3:20 pm

“In a rather bizarre move Friday, the Washington Post published an appeal to Fox News  to ‘Investigate Gruber’s Remarks,’” John Nolte writes at Big Journalism:

The Post’s argument is a snipe hunt. If Fox News did exactly as the Post requested, history proves it would change nothing. The important investigative work Fox has already done on stories like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS, and even ObamaCare, are usually ignored, downplayed, or Media Matters’d by the likes of the Washington Post.

If six freakin’ videos aren’t enough to grab the media’s attention, nothing will. And even if Fox News did dig up a bigger bombshell a few weeks from now, the MSM would dismiss it as “old news.”

After six years of President Obama, how the media works its protection racket is not a secret.

Although the Post is one of the few mainstream media outlets to cover Gruber’s remarks, the Post has also been careful to  spin the story as either a partisan issue (using headlines about how Republicans are outraged) or as an outright nothingburger (this is how the sausage is made).

[WaPo blogger Erik Wemple] seems to want to argue that a story — backed by six videos of a man frequently trotted out as an ObamaCare expert by high-ranking Democrats like Nancy Pelosi — isn’t quite buttoned up,  or isn’t a story until the whole story can be told.

Geez, wait’ll Wemple discovers Woodward & Bernstein — that is, if anybody still remembers them at the Post.

Even ultra-PC Reuters can’t help but insert a few scare quotes into this story:

Russia plans to create its own “Wikipedia” to ensure its citizens have access to more “detailed and reliable” information about their country, the presidential library said on Friday.

Citing Western threats, the Kremlin has asserted more control over the Internet this year in what critics call moves to censor the web, and has introduced more pro-Kremlin content similar to closely controlled state media such as television.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia assembled and written by Internet users around the world, has pages dedicated to nearly every region or major city within Russia’s 11 time zones, but the Kremlin library said this was not good enough.

“Analysis of this resource showed that it is not capable of providing information about the region and life of the country in a detailed or sufficient way,” the state news agency RIA quoted a statement from the presidential library as saying.

Trofim Lysenko — call your Politburo.

Powerful Socialist One Percenter plays age and sexism victim card:

She also hinted that there was implicit sexism in the constant rhetoric of “will she or won’t she.”

“When was the last time you asked Mitch McConnell … ‘aren’t you getting a little old, Mitch?’” said Pelosi of the Republican senator from Kentucky.

McConnell, who is 72, has been in Senate GOP leadership since 2003 and the minority leader since 2007. He was earlier on Thursday elected Senate majority leader for the 114th Congress.

At 74 years old, Pelosi has been in House Democratic leadership since 2002 — and has been at the very top of the caucus power structure since 2003.

When was the last time that McConnell’s age was pointed out? Likely in every article written by Pelosi’s fellow Democrats with bylines, whenever they profiled McConnell’s hapless would-be opponent Alison Lundergan Grimes age 35, and while she was dallying with running against McConnell, Ashley Judd, age 46. Check out this Atlantic puff-piece on Grimes from last year:

Besides her staunch opposition to requiring a voting ID and an unsuccessful legislative push this year for online balloting for overseas military, Grimes is bereft of public-policy positions. “She doesn’t like to deal with the press. They keep her in a pretty tight cocoon. You tend to run into a wall unless the issue is on her terms, which is odd for a secretary of state,” observed one longtime political reporter in the state who requested anonymity to speak without restraint.

But the generational and demographic contrast with the dour, characterless 71-year-old McConnell couldn’t be brighter. In her first campaign email to supporters, she began to outline her frame of McConnell as a stick-in-the-mud, promising to “build a Kentucky that we can all be proud of. One that isn’t dead-set on obstructionism.” The frame Grimes hopes to construct: She’s for what works for Kentucky; he’s Senator Gridlock.

“While McConnell’s certainly a formidable opponent, people are tired of the same old thing. They’re going to associate McConnell with some of the problems. That’s baggage he has,” said Johnson. “I think the energy’s going to be on her side. She’s an up-and-comer in the party. I don’t think the Tea Party’s going to come out energized for McConnell. I think she can win it.”

In retrospect, so much for that idea, but as with how the MSM framed the 2008 election as being between rookie Senator Barack Obama and his dissipated opponents Hillary Clinton and John McCain, the media had no problems pointing out McConnell’s age.

On the other hand, Pelosi’s tone-deaf effort at playing the victim card was far from the dumbest gaffe she made today.

“Rich Weinstein, an investment banker and private citizen, with just average computer skills and higher than average persistence, uncovered the video of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber admitting that voter stupidity and deliberate lack of government transparency were necessary for the passage of the (Un-)Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, in which he was involved,” as Ethel C. Fenig writes at American Thinker. She goes on to quote blogger Peter Igemi, the proprietor of the Da Tech Guy blog, who adds:

It’s not the suggestion that lawmakers were trying to hide the true meaning and costs of the law. After all lawmakers have spun or twisted law for the sake of personal power, pandering or achieving particular ends since before Daniel was tossed into the Lion’s den but something more subtle.

What is implicit is the idea that said deception would be entirely successful. Why? Because he understood that the media would not reveal and/or report on it. (italics in original)

Gee, where would Gruber get that assumption?

Related: “Besieged by stupid Americans, Media circles the wagons around Gruber.”

Update: Two Palominos In One!

Tweet of the Day

November 11th, 2014 - 3:25 pm

The insanity that swept over the MSM from 2007 through 2009 (and then again in 2o12) will provide plenty of “past performance is no guarantee of future results” moments between now and November of 2016 Not to mention a reminder not to take any statement from old media too seriously.

Just ask them, during their more unguarded moments.

Related: “See, they have to lie about their policies, because if they told the truth no one would support them.”

Click over to the Daily Signal for the video:

In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. The conservative group American Commitment posted Jonathan Gruber’s remarks, reportedly from an Oct. 17, 2013, event, on YouTube.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Of course, Obamacare only came into being because of the Democrats’ wins in the House and Senate in the 2006 midterms — about which, back in 2008, then-Congressman Paul Kanjorski told his constituents that his fellow Democrats lied about to win votes:

Now, I’ll tell you my impression. We really in this last election — when I say “we,” the Democrats — I think pushed it as far as we can to the envelope. We didn’t say it, but we implied it, that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.

Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn’t true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts.

And Mr. Obama “stretched the facts” in the years since at least 36 times in speeches to promote Obamacare that if voters “liked their plans they could keep their plans,” a lie so big that even Democrat house organ Politifacts was forced to declare it “lie of the year” last year.

And then there are all of the Democrats’ operatives with bylines who admit they’re perfectly OK with lying to their readers and viewers.

The left have displayed enormous condescension to voters in recent years; lying is merely one manifestation of that. And they wonder why they got clobbered last week.

Old and Busted: Bloggers? Those are nothing but partisan guys in their pajamas, looking to shoot down that paragon of objectivity, CBS’s Dan Rather, as former CBS producer Jonathan Klein said in 2004 as Rather’s self-induced auto-de-fé was nearing its apogee.

The New Hotness: Ten years after Rathergate, they’re a rich source of partisan raw material for the CBS Evening News:

Here is how she “reported” this last night, on CBSNews’ evening broadcast:

CORDES: But Boehner’s own attempts to craft immigration legislation has been blocked by members of his own party who worry reform would give new rights to people who came here illegally and Tuesday’s election added more members on his far right flank, North Carolina’s Mark Walker has suggested blitzing the border with fighter jets. Virginia’s Barbara Comstock said undocumented immigrants should be tracked like FedEx packages.

I very much doubted that Barbara Comstock had said that. I also doubted she could be fairly characterized as “far right,” as she was dogged as a RINO throughout the primary and then into the general election.

Turns out she didn’t say that. What she said was that FedEx can track packages throughout the country, so we can track immigrants who are here as well. She did not say we should “track them like FedEx packages.”

Here’s the quote in context.

So where did CBS “reporter” Nancy Cordes get this idea that the “far right” RINO Barbara Comstock said we should track immigrants “like FedEx packages”?

Well, Google “comstock immigrants fedex.”

You’ll see where Nancy Cordes got it — she got it from far left blog Think Progress:

Headline: Republican Congressional Candidate: Government Should Track Immigrants Like FedEx Tracks Packages

From far left blog The Daily Kos:

Headline: Barbara Comstock demands we track immigrants like FedEx tracks packages

Given the sclerotic age of dwindling TV news viewers, CBS’s news division at this point is basically is a public service repeating the news, Chevy Chase and Garrett Morris style, to elderly viewers who can’t understand how that newfangled Interwebs thing their grandkids keep talking about actually works, along with plenty of leftwing partisanship along the way. I wonder what they’d think if they knew how the sausage was made, or where the raw materials come from. (Or how closely they’re tied to the Obama administration?)  Or to put it another way:

Enough. If Cordes wants to sound like a blogger from Daily Kos, she should go to the Daily Kos. But CBS should think long and hard about having a newsroom built around actual news reporting and known less for being the longtime home of Dan Rather, who was involved in manufacturing stories against a Republican president, and for hostility to reporters who investigate Democrats as well as Republicans, such as Sharyl Attkisson.

As the Insta-professor likes to say, just think of the MSM as Democrat operatives with bylines, and you won’t go far wrong. Nice of CBS’s Nancy Cordes to illustrate just how that works.