Ethics? Democrats? Liberal Media? Surly you jest!

Oh this a tad bit, well, Interesting!

Media Research Center (MRC) President L. Brent Bozell, III has written a letter to ABC News President David Westin calling on him to publicly address and resolve what appears to be a clear violation of journalistic ethics by ABC’s Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos. Last week a Politico story broke the news that Stephanopoulos has participated in daily phone strategy sessions with now White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel throughout his tenure at ABC.

Mr. Bozell on Thursday issued a statement demanding an explanation, and calling for Stephanopoulos to recuse himself from reporting on an Obama Administration whose plans and messaging he spends every morning helping to craft. Stephanopoulos has remained silent.

Bozell has now brought the matter directly to Westin, calling on him to either provide evidence that the Politico story is false, or admit and resolve what clearly would be a major violation of journalistic ethics.

via Bozell to ABC President: You Must Publicly Address Stephanopoulos’ Apparent Conflict of Interest.

Maybe the idea that the Liberal Media was in the tank for Obama, is not such a preposterous notion after all!

Others: Flopping Aces, Gateway Pundit and Right Wing News

Are the Democrats secretly attempting to bring back the fairness doctrine?

This is a very dangerous thing, Conservatives and Republicans ought to be raising the roof about this.

Despite the absence of any action pending to re-enact the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” congressional Republicans have nonetheless introduced legislation to prevent its passage, insisting that Democrats are advancing a quiet agenda to silence conservative talk radio.

Whether Americans realize it or not, say Republican lawmakers, “Free speech is under attack.”

For their part, several Democrats have denied there’s any attempt underway to reestablish the “Fairness Doctine,” insisting the GOP is trumping up paranoia that amounts to “much ado about nothing.”

So which is it?

In 1949 the Federal Communications Commission adopted a policy that required broadcasters to devote airtime to the public interest and to air opposing viewpoints when discussing controversial and political issues. The FCC abandoned the policy in 1987, paving the way for talk radio to explode from fewer than 150 stations nationwide to more than 3,000.

The majority of the country’s talk radio programs are politically conservative, prompting some, as WND has reported, to long for a more “balanced” menu.

“For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country,” Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. “I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.”

Former broadcaster Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., however, sees the policy as an attack on First Amendment rights.

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves,” Pence has said in opposition to the policy. “It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech.”

via Is there sinister plot to squelch talk radio? — WorldNetDaily.

Let me give you my opinion. That is what Blogs are all about, political opinion and discussion. I believe that the “fairness doctrine,” is nothing more pure communism. Control of free speech in America. FDR instituted it during World War II to control dissent towards the War. It was called Communism at that time, by many Conservatives of that era and it still IS communist in nature as far as I am concerned. The reason I say this, is because it is the same thing that Hitler did in Germany and what the Soviets did in Russia, they controlled freedom of speech to quell dissent. (Yes, I know, Hitler was not a communist!)

However, on a more practical level. I do not believe that the Democrats will succeed in bringing it back. Why? Because the Government does not have the resources to enforce such a law. Heck, the FCC has been cutting down staff since the 1980’s, because the high costs of maintaining the huge staff. Examples, The FCC has basically turned over the examination process of the Amateur Radio Service over to the Amateur Radio community themselves. The enforcement is there, but you have to be doing something rather obnoxious to get a visit from the FCC anymore. The Amateur Radio Service is essentially self policed. So, I seriously doubt that even something like this was even passed, that the FCC would even bother to enforce it. I also believe that it will never get to a vote, because there would be a push back within the FCC to stop it, because of the lack of enforcement funding.

So, while I believe that this is a huge political issue, and that Conservatives everywhere ought to stay on top of it. I just do not believe that one; it will ever pass and two, that the FCC would even bother enforcing it.

John Amato is full of crap

Once again, liberal loon John Amato is caught talking out his rather large bazoo:

Referring to the comment, that I thought was absolutely awesome:

He shouldn’t be back on the shows. MSNBC has a duty not to invite him back on. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Republicans can say absolutely anything on the airwaves (women get the brunt of it) and never have to pay a price for it.

via There should be a penalty for Armey’s sexist comment to Joan Walsh | Crooks and Liars.

Uh, John, once again, you open your pot hole, before you know what the hell your even talking about. Does anyone remember Don Imus?

For those with the short memories:

So, John, please, stick to what you know; Because obviously, you don’t know what the fuck you’re even talking about. Damn liberal idiot. 🙄

This is why I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh

Yes, I am a “right of center”, and no, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh. I have in the past, here and there. But to say that I am a “Dittohead”, would be crazy. This below is why:

Yes, elections have consequences. But where’s the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

via Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus – WSJ.com.

If you read the whole article, you will say that Rush Limbaugh believes in the classical Neo-Conservative line of; “Protect the rich, screw the poor and middle class.” It is funny, Rush is fond of quoting Reagan; does he know that Reagan was a economic populist? This is proven in what he did for Harley Davidson.

Basically, this is why I do not like Rush Limbaugh’s show, it is basically an ego driven show; it is all about Rush, if I am going to watch or listen to a politico, I want someone who is going to seriously discuss the issues, not sit and recite party propaganda.

Besides, who the hell to take someone like Rush seriously, when he constantly dismisses his own statements with, “I am just an entertainer?”

Others: The Opinionator, The Atlantic Business Channel, TIME.com, Don Surber, Hot Air, Weekly Standard, Balloon Juice, Commentary, The Note, Scared Monkeys and The Washington Independent

(via memeorandum)

I was afraid of this

Last night I blogged about this and warned the far right not to do it, but naturally, because I am such a small blog, no one listens.

Anyhow, Huffington Post has the complete transcript of President Obama’s interview with Al-Arabiya Arab TV Network. Head on over and read it, because it is a bit much to quote here. Of course, the reaction amongst the far-right blogs was quite predictable.

However, Michael Goldfarb over at the Neo-Conservative Weakly Standard (:P) makes a valid point:

Reacting to this quote here:

Q Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Mr. Goldfarb comments:

Wouldn’t a simple ‘no, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the United States and our allies’ have sufficed? Instead Obama says that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is “unhelpful,” that it’s “not conducive to peace.” When Obama was in Israel, he said that “a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He added that he would “take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat.” In the first debate of the general election, Obama reiterated that the United States “cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.” But when Obama has the chance to speak directly to the Muslim world, he can only muster retread rhetoric from his inaugural address about clenched fists and open hands.

President Bush was incapable of engaging the Muslim world with his own words, but neither was it possible for the Muslim world to confuse his view of American interests in that region. President Obama has the potential to secure real progress through his skill as a communicator, but there’s always been a fear that some portion of his success in negotiating difficult issues was the result of a willingness, or perhaps a compulsion, to tell his audience whatever it is he thinks they want to hear.

I must say, he does have a valid point. One cannot use flowers and anvils at the same time. It tends to confuse people. Hats off to Goldfarb for bringing up this point.

More Progressives on TV?!?!

I know what you’re thinking and I thought the same thing.

Open Left seems to think that we need more Progressive Voices in the Mainstream Media.

Seriously?

Let’s see here:

  • CNN = Liberal/Hillary Supporter, then Obama
  • MSNBC = Liberal as hell/In the tank for Obama as hell
  • ABC = Liberal
  • CBS = Liberal
  • PBS = Liberal
  • NPR = Liberal
  • FOX NEWS = Conservative

Now, someone tell me what is wrong with this picture?

Marxist Liberal and Obama water carrier, Chris Matthews questions if Sarah Palin can read

I admit, I am not as big of a Sarah Palin nut as many of my follow Conservatives, But this is just way over the line.

First the Video:

The Story via Politico:

MSNBC host Chris Matthews suggested Friday that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) may not have the reading or writing ability needed to complete the book she is reportedly shopping.

The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that Palin is seeking an $11 million advance for her memoir and has hired high-powered Washington attorney Robert Barnett to broker the deal.

Teasing a segment on the book during his show “Hardball,” Matthews said: “If she can read, if she can write, she’ll make some money.”

Matthews repeated his suggestion that Palin could not write the book later in the show. “The question is who actually will write the Palin book,” he said. “The only politician I know who can write is Barack Obama.”

Chris Matthews ought to be given two choices, apologize or be terminated. This guy has been doing this sort of thing for too damned long. He needs to be told to knock it off and leave. Just the other night, he made a rather asinine comment about Bloggers, memo to Chris, we watch your show too.

Others: Stop The ACLU, RedState, The Other McCain,HotAir

The Media Honeymoon is just about over for President Obama

Uh-oh…. It’s already Starting:

The Video:

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

“Ahh, see,” he said, “I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here.”

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter’s shoulder and staring him in the eye.

“Alright, come on” he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. “We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys – that’s all I was trying to do.”

The president was quickly saved by a cameraman in the room who called out: “I’d like to say it one more time: ‘Mr. President.’ ”

via Obama flashes irritation in press room – Jonathan Martin and Carrie Budoff Brown – Politico.com.

Look for that Politico reporter to turn up in Gitmo; as a suspected terrorist, For daring to ask “The One” a question. What I just do not get, why can’t the President just answer a damn question??!?! Is he that much of a empty suit, that he cannot answer a straight question?

To be fair, Bush did so the same things when he was office, and yes, I did criticize him for it.

This whole thing of shooting down questions from the media; by the President, totally pisses me off.  That’s the media’s job. Try doing yours, “Mr. President”, and answer their questions.

Others: The Moderate Voice, Outside The Beltway, CBS News, Pirate’s Cove, theheretik.us, Time, USA Today, Swampland, Gawker, Don Surber, Vox Popoli, Hot Air, FishBowlDCSister Toldjah, Betsy’s Page, RedState, Pajamas Media

(Via Memeorandum)

Tucker Carlson on Obama's Inauguration, "Let's Not Pretend This is the Second Coming of Jesus"

This is why I like Tucker Carlson, he is absolutely fearless and is not afraid to speak his mind.

Listen to it: (Via Media Bistro)

Quote:

Former MSNBC and CNN anchor Tucker Carlson, who is already “worn out” from the Inauguration festivities, joined us this morning on the mediabistro.com Morning Media Menu. Carlson and host Glynnis MacNicol are two of the millions in D.C. right now.

He had some strong thoughts about the media’s love affair with President-elect Barack Obama. “I’m excited about it, I live here, I want my kids to see it…On the other hand, in the end he’s a politician taking a political office, 52% of the public voted for him, 48% didn’t vote for him, so let’s not pretend this is the second coming of Jesus,” said Carlson.

And although he didn’t want to sound like “a libertarian wacko,” he had some problems with the D.C. security. “The security is really over the top, anti-American really…We are far too willing to accept security restrictions,” he said.

As for the “exclusive” deals being worked out between TV networks and the Presidential Inauguration Committee, Carlson said, “How you can decide you have exclusive right to something that takes place on the National Mall? I don’t know who came up with that? I should try it!”

He also had some other suggestions: “Why don’t we name the White House? We could call it the Staples House, you know what I mean. The Home Depot House.”

Carlson also said that a friend of his tried to cross the Washington Bridge and was confronted by a United States Army solider with a bullhorn and an assault rifle. Which I believe, if I am not mistaken, against the law and our constitution.

I also agree with his assessment of the Liberal media’s infatuation with “The One”, it’s a sad day; when the media refuses to look at something objectively.  I mean, there are so many questions, his citizenship, his ties to communism, it just sickens me, that the media and the American citizens not asking more questions.

Of course, you can expect that the far lefty liberal media will, of course, pay attempt to paint Tucker Carlson as a hater. But thinking Americans will know better. Further more, the Fascist Neo-Conservatives will refuse to report this, because of their love affair with the Democrats, seeing that most Neo-Cons are of Democratic breed.

I fear for what America is about to become. The Rapture of the Church cannot come fast enough, if you ask me.