NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Time's Media Writer Argues Media's Dominated by a 'Moderate Bias'

Tim Graham — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:53:23 -0500

The latest Pew poll found people see Fox News as conservative, but Time media writer James Poniewozik noted large numbers also thought the major networks were liberal. That must mean it’s time to assert the media has a "moderate bias." This is defined, as liberals usual define it, as pretending conservative idiocy isn’t idiocy:

As anyone following health reform knows, centrism is a political position too. And you see moderate bias — i.e., a preference for centrism — whenever a news outlet assumes that the truth must be "somewhere in the middle." You see it whenever an organization decides that "balance" requires equal weight for an opposing position, however specious: "Some, however, believe global warming is a myth." (Moderate bias would also require me to find a countervailing liberal position and pretend that it is equivalent to global-warming denial. Sorry.)

Far be it from us to assert that paragraph has a moderate bias. The liberal bias is quite clear. Poniewozik here did not note the recent Pew finding that the number of people who believe in global warming is on the decline (too much moderate bias?)

All of the Time writer’s cuteness here is avoiding the issue. The objective approach to reporting a news story isn’t "centrist," but it is inclusive. It doesn’t lecture the reader that the truth is obvious, and what’s obvious is the conservatives are idiots. (That’s certainly the Time and Newsweek approach.) Liberals who complain that the "truth" is being wronged by idiocy are suggesting that objectivity is a ridiculous, even damaging journalistic approach. It is a whole-hearted sermon for incessant and aggressive liberal bias.

The objective report should not avoid or run away from the truth – like trying to declare that it’s still not clear the Fort Hood shooter is a Muslim. But some "facts" are not yet clear: the forecast that the Earth will warm so much you can tie your boat to the Washington Monument is not a fact just yet. (That radical ecologist Paul Ehrlich predicted such a fate on NBC’s Today twenty years ago and it hasn't happened yet never stops the liberal certitude.)

Poniewozik’s "moderate bias" theory is not all wrong:

Often, moderate bias is just the result of caution, but the effect is to bolster centrist political positions — not least by implying that they are not political positions at all but occupy a happy medium between the nutjobs. Meanwhile, conservatives see moderate bias as liberal, and liberals see it as conservative — letting journalists conclude that it's not bias at all.

There is some truth here. The objective approach does stand between sides, or independent of the sides. It could be seen as sitting on a happy medium "between the nutjobs." The question, to use Time’s terminology, is why they feel standing firmly with the liberal "nutjobs" is a better plan than objectivity. The only reason: stand for liberalism, make a better, more liberal world. "Afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted."

Journalists should not conclude that if they are being complained about by both conservatives and liberals that they are not biased at all. Both sides could have a case, depending on each story. On some issues in journalism, the "nutjobs" even agree: both conservatives and liberals think the news has too much tabloid fluff, for example.

Poniewozik also argues that this "centrism" which favors established experts leads to a status-quo bias:

Moderate bias also grows from a related phenomenon: status-quo bias. Journalists, like anyone, have a built-in bias toward believing that what was true yesterday will be true tomorrow. Establishment news outlets grow cozy and comfortable with other establishments. One reason some journalists insufficiently questioned the run-up to the Iraq war and underestimated the housing bubble was that they listened to their usual, credentialed sources — and the history of the past decade is the history of the experts being wrong.

But what is the alternative: journalists trusting gadflies without much of a resume? It’s certainly true that experts tend to draw packs, that media outlets feel comfortable huddled together using the same experts. Sometimes, the experts are wrong. Everyone quoted in a news story is a fallible human (even Barack Obama). There is an "iron Rolodex" that can be hard to break into.

But Poniewozik doesn’t have an answer to all this, just an ending that throws up its hands and settles for confusion: "And they all, in these unsettled times, have various issues with the centrist establishment — which has its own permutations and camps. All of this promises wild and interesting times for journalists to cover, but they won't be able to do it from the neutral center. Because there isn't one, and there never was."

Clippers Owner Settles Discrimination Suit: Where's the Rush Outrage?

Noel Sheppard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:49:02 -0500

Last month liberal media members armed with false allegations of racism went into a full-court press to prevent Rush Limbaugh from becoming an owner of the St. Louis Rams.

On Tuesday, the owner of basketball's Los Angeles Clippers settled a multi-million dollar discrimination lawsuit wherein it was alleged that he had for years tried to keep blacks and hispanics out of his apartment buildings.

This is actually the second such suit Donald Sterling has settled in the past four years.

Despite this, America's television news media, which had a field day going after Limbaugh last month, completely ignored the story.

Bucking the trend was sports columnist Dan Wetzel (h/t Shekhar Jain):

Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling agreed to pay $2.73 million this week to settle a federal case alleging he discriminated in the rental of apartments he owns with his wife in Southern California.
The settlement is "the largest monetary payment ever obtained" in this kind of case by the U.S. Justice Department, according to a news release from the organization.
It stems from allegations Sterling's company targeted and discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and families with children in renting apartments in greater Los Angeles. The settlement must still be approved by a federal judge but should also resolve two additional tenant-filed suits alleging racial discrimination. [...]
What the magnitude of this settlement should have done is create a wave of questions and condemnations of Donald Sterling from across the NBA.
Instead, most incredibly, there hasn't been a lick of public discussion.
The NBA said it has no plans to investigate or comment, according to a spokesman. Other owners have been silent. The NBA Player's Association has had no reaction and did not respond to messages. The players themselves have, best I can find, said nothing.
The media, which just last month went full force on the story of Rush Limbaugh becoming part of a potential NFL ownership group, has mostly ignored the deal.
So, where's the outrage?

Indeed. And, as Wetzel noted, this isn't a new issue for Sterling:

Four years ago his company agreed to settle a similar 2003 racial discrimination suit for an undisclosed sum - "one of the largest ever obtained in this type of case," according to the judge - and a reported $5 million in plaintiff legal fees. [...]
Since Sterling made no admission of guilt or liability in the settlement, the NBA's ability to take official action was greatly reduced. This isn't league business and there are no criminal charges.
Still, NBA commissioner David Stern could've stated he doesn't approve of an owner repeatedly being involved in these ugly cases. If he's so concerned with his player's off-court attire, why not his owners' off-court business? He could demand the Clippers raise funds and awareness for fair-housing advocacy groups.

To be sure, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell certainly felt the need to immerse himself in the Limbaugh case:

It's two different leagues, two different groups of people, two different circumstances, but the parallels with the firestorm that enveloped Limbaugh's potential bid to become a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams immediately spring to mind.
Limbaugh was engulfed from all directions. Players, owners, union officials - even NFL commissioner Roger Goodell - all voiced opinions, almost all negative. There was an avalanche of media coverage; in part, because Limbaugh delivers the ratings and page views. (Sterling is merely famous for being one of the worst owners in professional sports.)
Still, Limbaugh was attacked for expressing political views that some people find offensive. You may hate every word he says, but he wasn't repeatedly settling multimillion dollar racial-discrimination lawsuits.
You'd think Sterling was worth something.

Yes you would.

Yet apart from the silence on this matter from America's television media, the New York Times ignored this story, as did USA Today.

As for the Washington Post, here's what it alloted for this issue in the middle of its "Digest" piece on November 4:

Los Angeles Clippers owner and real estate mogul Donald Sterling has agreed to pay a record $2.73 million to settle allegations by the government that he refused to rent apartments to Hispanics, blacks and to families with children.
The Justice Department sued Sterling in August 2006 for allegations of housing discrimination in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles. Other defendants were Sterling's wife, Rochelle, and the Sterling Family Trust. . .

Some outrage, huh?

But there's actually more to this story, for something Wetzel didn't mention was that in February, Hall of Famer and former Clippers GM Elgin Baylor filed a -- wait for it! -- discrimination lawsuit against Sterling.

The Los Angeles Times reported on February 11:

Baylor charges that Sterling had "a pervasive and on-going racist attitude as expressed to then NBA player Danny Manning during contract negotiations."
The lawsuit, which was obtained by The Times on Wednesday night, alleges that Sterling once said of Manning: "I'm offering a lot of money for a poor Black kid."

The civil lawsuit also states that NBA Commissioner David Stern was present when Sterling made the remark about Manning.

Several pages later, Baylor claims that Sterling once told him that "he [Sterling] wanted the Clippers team to be composed of 'Poor Black boys from the South' and a White head coach."

By contrast, Limbaugh offered an opinion years ago about how the sporting press were treating Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, and his potential minority ownership in a football team created a media frenzy.

Any questions?

FNC Interviews Fmr Planned Parenthood Clinic Director Who Turned Pro-Life

Brad Wilmouth — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:55:23 -0500

On Saturday’s Huckabee show on FNC, host Mike Huckabee interviewed the former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan Texas, Abby Johnson, who became a pro-life activist after witnessing an ultrasound of an abortion while she assisted in a procedure. She charged that the abortion provider tries to "increase the number of abortions they do" for the purpose of making money, and described the emotional experience of watching an unborn baby at 13 weeks pregnancy "trying to get away" as its life was being ended.

Johnson: "I saw the probe going into the woman's uterus. And at that moment, I saw the baby moving and trying to get away from the probe. ... And I thought, 'It's fighting for its life.' And I thought, 'It's life, I mean, it's alive.'"

She soon continued:

I just was thinking, "Oh, my gosh, make it stop." And then, all of a sudden, I mean, it was just over, just, in the blink of an eye. And I just saw the, I just saw the baby just literally, just crumble, and it was over.

After Huckabee predicted that more women would leave the abortion clinic if they got to see an ultrasound beforehand, Johnson went even further and predicted that many employees of abortion clinics would also leave if they got to see such ultrasounds. Johnson:

If clinic workers saw what was happening on that screen, they would be running out of those clinics. This is what the abortion industry does not want their workers to see. They don't want their workers to see what's actually happening during an abortion. That's why Planned Parenthood doesn't do, that's why so many of these large abortion industries don't do ultrasound-guided abortion procedures. They don't want people to see what's really happening in the woman's womb.

Below is a complete transcript of the interview with former Planned Parenthood executive director Abby Johnson from the Saturday, November 7, Huckabee show on FNC:

MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, she helped numerous women get abortions, but she’s now a strong pro-life advocate who helps lead protests at the very clinic she once worked for. Please welcome former director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson, from Bryan College Station, Texas. Abby, it’s so nice to have you here.

ABBY JOHNSON: Thank you.

HUCKABEE: We asked Planned Parenthood to issue a statement. We actually asked would they like to be on and share their side of the story. We got this statement – I want to share it. They said: "Planned Parenthood respects everyone's beliefs on this most personal of medical issues, and Planned Parenthood remains fully committed to ensuring that every woman facing an unintended pregnancy knows all of her options. Planned Parenthood’s focus is on prevention. Nationwide, more than 90 percent of the health care Planned Parenthood affiliates provides is preventative in nature."

Abby, my honest assessment of that statement is they do prevent some things. They prevent birth, not illnesses. There’s no illness involved in a pregnancy. Illness means you're sick. You're not sick when you're having a baby.

JOHNSON: No.

HUCKABEE: When you were at Planned Parenthood, did you find that the focus was on health care and prevention of illness?

JOHNSON: No, it's prevention of, I mean, a lot of it is prevention of pregnancy. And that is why I got into it.

HUCKABEE: That's why you first got involved-

JOHNSON: That’s why I first got involved.

HUCKABEE: -to keep people from getting an unintended pregnancy.

JOHNSON: That's right. That’s absolutely why I got involved in it. But I soon found that one of their goals was to make money. And the way they make money is to increase the number of abortions they do.

HUCKABEE: You were working, actually, helping and assisting in an abortion, and you saw on an ultrasound of the abortion process. Tell me what did you see when the ultrasound was running and the abortion was taking place?

JOHNSON: Well, I was called into the room to assist during a procedure. And it was actually an ultrasound-guided abortion procedure, which is not that common in Planned Parenthood health centers because it's a longer type of abortion procedure, and Planned Parenthood centers are trying to do as many procedures a day as they can, and so they’re not going to take a lot of time for each procedure. But for whatever reason, this physician did decide to do an ultrasound-guided procedure on this particular woman. And so, I was called in to help. And my job was to hold the ultrasound probe on this woman's abdomen so that the physician could actually see the uterus on the ultrasound screen. And when I looked at the screen, I saw a baby on the screen. And she was about 13 weeks pregnant at the time. And I saw a full side profile. So I saw face to feet on the ultrasound machine. And I saw the probe going into the woman's uterus. And at that moment, I saw the baby moving and trying to get away from the probe.
HUCKABEE: Moving away from it, oh, my God.

JOHNSON: Yes. And I thought, "It's fighting for its life." And I thought, "It’s life, I mean, it's alive."

HUCKABEE: Until that moment, Abby, had it appeared to you that you were able to use words like "fetus" and "tissue," it's very different than when you saw the form of a child, recognizable.

JOHNSON: That it was alive. Mm-hmm.

HUCKABEE: What did you do? Did you say anything at that moment to the doctor?

JOHNSON: No, I mean, my mind was racing, my heart was beating so fast. And I just was thinking, "Oh, my gosh, make it stop." And then, all of a sudden, I mean, it was just over, just, in the blink of an eye. And I just saw the, I just saw the baby just literally, just crumble, and it was over. And I just, I dropped the ultrasound probe. And then I realized, "Oh, my gosh, I'm not holding the ultrasound probe," so I scrambled and I put the ultrasound probe back in place. And I, so many things were going through my mind, and I was thinking about my daughter who’s three, and I was thinking about the ultrasound I had of her, and I was thinking of just how perfect that ultrasound was when she was 12 weeks in the womb. And I was just thinking, "What am I doing? What am I doing here?" And I could just, I had one hand on this woman's, on this woman's belly, and I was thinking, "There was life in here, and now there's not," and-

HUCKABEE: You literally were holding your hand on top of her, on top of her belly at that point-

JOHNSON: Mm-hmm.

HUCKABEE: -and realized that what was underneath that hand once a moment ago was life and it's gone?

JOHNSON: Mm-hmm.

HUCKABEE My gosh. When you were faced with that – by the way, did the woman see any of this? Did she have access to see the screen at all?

JOHNSON: No, she was sedated.

HUCKABEE: People never see really what’s happening to them.

JOHNSON: No.

HUCKABEE: I can't help but believe if they saw that they might be running out of those clinics.

JOHNSON: Yeah, absolutely. If clinic workers saw what was happening on that screen, they would be running out of those clinics. This is what the abortion industry does not want their workers to see. They don't want their workers to see what’s actually happening during an abortion. That's why Planned Parenthood doesn’t do, that's why so many of these large abortion industries don't do ultrasound-guided abortion procedures. They don't want people to see what’s really happening in the woman's womb.

HUCKABEE: You know, I think about what you've gone through. You must have walked away that day saying, uh-oh, this is not what I want to be spending the rest of my life doing as a career. What was the next step you took? You were the executive director of that Planned Parenthood clinic, and yet, really you didn't know what was going on back in those back rooms in that standpoint.

JOHNSON: Mm-hmm. I went home that day, and I had made the decision that day that that was it, and I went home, and I talked to my husband about it. And, I mean, my husband is a teacher. And we have a daughter, and so we're depending on two incomes, and so, we just decided that I would go back to work, and I would just be really looking for another job. And I knew that I had two weeks until we were going to be doing surgical abortions again. So I had two weeks to find another job. And so I went, the first week was pretty uneventful. And the next weekend came, and that Monday came, and I was just sitting in my office, and I was crying. I had the door closed. And I was just thinking, "Where am I going to go? What am I going to do? I don't want to be here."

HUCKABEE: What did the people at the clinic say when you finally said, "This is it, I'm leaving"?

JOHNSON: Well, nobody really knew what was happening. I couldn't talk to anybody at the clinic because they didn't know what was going on in my heart. They didn't understand what was happening. And now that they do know, Planned Parenthood has put a restraining order out on me now that they know I’m working with the pro-life movement.

HUCKABEE: I wish Planned Parenthood would put a restraining order on themselves and stop the horrible procedures that they're doing every day. Abby Johnson, thank you. You have a lot of courage to share your remarkable story. And I thank you so much, and I hope it's a great reminder that we can't necessarily just listen to words. We need to understand the actions behind them.

JOHNSON: That’s right.

HUCKABEE Thank you. God bless you. What a wonderful story.

JOHNSON: Thank you, thank you.

HUCKABEE: Abby Johnson.

AP: Obama's Glow From Health Care Triumph Over -- Bill DOA In Senate

Noel Sheppard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:37:26 -0500

"The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate."

That's not a quote from National Review, the Weekly Standard, NewsMax, or World Net Daily.

Such was the opening paragraph of a truly surprising Associated Press article published moments ago:

Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people."
The problem is that the Senate won't run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.
If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.
Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Checking that link to make sure this really is an AP piece.

I understand.

'We're Going to Have to Have More Stimulus, More Spending,' Donaldson Contends

Brent Baker — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:34:06 -0500

With the unemployment rate soaring in 10.2 percent in Friday's report on October, two old hands in the Washington press corps appeared on Sunday morning shows where they asserted that means we need another stimulus bill and/or the problem is the current “stimulus” bill wasn't big enough. On This Week, ABC News vet Sam Donaldson maintained “we're going to have to have more stimulus, more spending.”

Over on NBC's Meet the Press, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, a former Washington correspondent for the New York Times before covering politics for the Post, complained: “The problem is the stimulus was too small, and they compromised it down and so you had less effect. I mean, the fact is these numbers would be a lot worse without the stimulus.”

Donaldson contended:

Paul Krugman is often on this program, a New York Times columnist, and I think he's right, we're going to have to have more stimulus, more spending. You say, well that's terrible. Frank [Luntz], you say you hand it to the Republicans. Well alright, so we don't come out of the recession. Oh, good. Tremendous. In other words, which is worse? More spending, more debt -– which we're going to take care off -- but we come out of the recession because of it, or let's just stay wth a lot of people out of work.

Later in the roundtable on the November 8 program, Donaldson lamented the loss of liberal Republicans, lecturing George Will:

When I came to the town, there were people in the Senate, Republicans Leverett Saltonstall, John Sherman Cooper, Clifford Case, later Tom Kegal [?], Hatfield from Oregon, Chafee –- where are they today? They're not there because your party has driven out the moderates from the party. And you can't have a party that represents this country with the kind of people that now seem to be the voices of the Republicans.

I have no idea who “Tom Kegal” is and see no one by any name close to that in the list of all past U.S. Senators.

Bret Baier: Election Results Changed White House View On Fox

Noel Sheppard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:08:43 -0500

"Special Report" host Bret Baier thinks Tuesday's election results changed the White House's view on the Fox News Channel.

He further believes that Obama senior adviser David Axelrod's interview with Fox's Major Garrett Wednesday was a sign "they’re gonna start playing ball on the news side."

During his Thursday chat with WOR radio's Steve Malzberg, Baier also agreed that Fox's ratings domination on election night had to be an eye opener for the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (15-minute audio available here, relevant section at 8:50):

STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: David Axelrod back on, back on Fox yesterday. He did an exclusive interview, you know, with Fox, one on one I should say with Major Garrett. Is this some kind of signal, or, or was were the election results just so bad that he just needed to put the White House spin on Fox?
BRET BAIER, FNC: (Laughs) Well, you know, I think it's a signal. I really do. I think that the White House realizes that, that perhaps it's time to stop what they were doing which was, you know, speaking out against our news shows. They obviously have a problem with the opinion shows, and they're tough on the Administration. But, but it appears that they're, they're gonna start playing ball on the news side. I also think however as you mentioned the elections did affect the, David Axelrod going out because they look at those numbers. 63 percent of independents in Virginia voting Republican and 58 percent in New Jersey voting Republican. And, you know, a lot of independents and moderate Democrats and even Democrats watch Fox News Channel, so...

MALZBERG: You guys killed in the election. I mean, you, CNN was fourth. You guys had over 4 million and everybody else had under 1 million. I mean, you guys were, were, were, I mean devastating in the ratings.

BAIER: Yeah.

MALZBERG: So, I guess they're looking at that.

BAIER: (Laughing) They look at the numbers, I'm sure they do.

Will Baier's prediction hold true and we're going to be seeing a lot more White House officials on Fox?

Frankly, with healthcare reform passing in the House Saturday, it is quite possible the change of strategy towards FNC will be put on hold pending how the bill moves through the Senate.

If Reid can keep the Democrats in line enough to get this disgusting piece of legislation passed, the Administration might not feel the sense of panic that led Axelrod to chat with Garrett Wednesday.

On the other hand, if a couple of moderate Democrats join Republicans in a filibuster, the White House might be more inclined to make some appearances on Fox.

As the late Ed Hart was famous for saying, we will know in the fullness of time.

Sam Donaldson: GOP Doomed If It Follows Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck

Noel Sheppard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:27:31 -0500

"If the Republican Party follows the course of Palin and Beck and Company it's doomed."

So said Sam Donaldson on ABC's "This Week" Sunday.

His evidence?

Democrat Bill Owens victory Tuesday in the 23rd Congressional district of New York.

Readers are strongly advised to stow all fluids, combustibles, and sharp objects for the ignorance on display here might produce uncontrollable fits of anger (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):

Let me tell you that the wake-up call for the Republicans was the New York's 23rd. Now just as Rush Limbaugh couldn't prevent the Party from nominating John McCain despite his best efforts, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the gang could not prevent that district for the first time in a hundred years from going Democratic. Because they had a candidate, well he wasn't a Republican, I understand that, who was the Sarah Palin values, the robocalls and all of that. It didn't resonate. It doesn't resonate with independents. If the Republican Party follows the course of Palin and Beck and Company it's doomed.

Staggering ignorance, dontcha think?

First off, John McCain lost last November, Sam, in one of the biggest landslides in decades.

As such, Limbaugh's attempts to prevent McCain from being the Republican nominee actually look quick wise.

Think about it, Sam: knowing what you now know about the results of that election, would you STILL nominate McCain?

As for NY-23, the Republican Party backed a liberal who had to drop out of the race three days before Election Day because she couldn't garner enough support.

Add it up and the GOP was WRONG to back McCain last year and WRONG to back Dede Scozzafava this year.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY BOTH LOST!!!

But Donaldson thinks the Party is doomed if it chooses to get different advice.

Amazing.

And you gotta love his point concerning robocalls.

After all, Scozzafava did a robocall for Owens. So did Vice President Joe Biden. Apparently so did President Obama.

Alas, like virtually all liberals, Sam only finds robocalls distasteful when done to assist Republicans.

Now THAT'S entertainment!

Brokaw: Liberated East Germans ‘Still Adjusting to Harsh Economic Realities’ of Capitalism

Rich Noyes — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:55:27 -0500

Noting tomorrow’s 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall on Sunday’s Today show, former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw claimed East Germans were “still adjusting to the harsh economic realities” of life after communism. But a recent poll of former East bloc countries by the Pew Research Center actually discovered that the people of what was East Germany are actually the biggest enthusiasts of the shift to capitalism, with 82% approving, higher than any other ex-communist country.

Brokaw did note, however, that the current “center-right” Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, was “born and raised in East Germany,” implicitly acknowledging that her youth spent under communism obviously did not make her a fan of leftist economic policies.

The suggestion that capitalism is somehow “harsh” compared to communism echoes what many liberal journalists argued after the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. “The transition from communism to capitalism is making more people more miserable every day,” CBS reporter Bert Quint argued in 1990.

“After four decades of standing in communism’s food lines, capitalism has created a new place to wait: at the unemployment office,” NBC’s Mike Boettcher claimed later that same year. For a full run-down of how the media reacted to the fall of communism, check out the MRC’s new Special Report, “Better Off Red?”

After Brokaw — who was in Berlin this morning — related what he saw 20 years ago as an eyewitness to the Wall coming down, co-host Lester Holt asked him, “how do Germans today remember that event and the reunification that followed?”

Brokaw replied:

Well, you have to remember that there's a whole new generation of Germans who have been born since then. Those who were alive at the time — they're still finding their way, trying to find their way into a new Germany in the 21st century. Many who were raised in the East are still adjusting to the harsh economic realities, especially during this economic downturn. What was once West Germany decided to have a unified Germany -- that was a big economic burden for everyone. So I think that this is a country still in search of its identification, and as a result is looking more inward than it is outward.

A few minutes later, Brokaw stumbled as he announced the list of VIPs who will take part in the ceremonies tomorrow:

There'll be the leaders of the present and the past. Mikhail Gorbachev — whom I saw last night — will be here. Dmitri Medvedev, who is the new president of Russia, obviously; Harold Brown from Germany — pardon me, from Great Britain; Hillary Clinton will represent President Obama here, President Sarkozy of France; of course, Angela Merkel from Germany, the first woman to be chancellor of this country, born and raised in East Germany, now a center-right politician. So it will be an all-star line up as they take stock of where we've been, where we are now, and maybe even try to determine where we may be headed from here.

Of course, Harold Brown was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Defense in the 1970s. Britain's Prime Minister is Gordon Brown, and he will be among the speakers in Berlin tomorrow. Merkel invited President Obama, but he is sending Clinton instead.

Stephanopoulos Discusses Possibility of House Speaker Boehner

Noel Sheppard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:46:42 -0500

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accidentally referred to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) as "Speaker Boehner" during Sunday's "This Week," and host George Stephanopoulos surprisingly didn't disagree.

Quite the contrary, he found this so compelling he gave great attention to it at ABC News's website:

Republican Chairman Michael Steele had a Freudian slip this morning on 'This Week' when he referred to Minority Leader John Boehner as "Speaker Boehner."...And Steele stuck by his slip: predicting a Speaker Boehner if Dems continue to push health care.

During the broadcast, Stephanopoulos not only didn't disagree with Steele, but instead used exit poll numbers from Tuesday's elections to show just how much trouble Democrats might be in 2010 (videos embedded below the fold with partial transcript, file photo):

Moments later, Stephanopoulos again referenced what Steele had said suggesting the RNC Chairman might be right:

I do want to move on to the elections, because Michael Steele had a bit of a Freudian slip there, he called, he said, "Speaker Boehner." Maybe he was looking at the returns Tuesday, forecasting into next year...Let me look, dig into the numbers a little bit more from Tuesday night. One of the things that you saw in both Virginia and New Jersey is those new voters that President Obama brought to the polls last year in Virginia and Jersey under 30s, way down. Half the share of the electorate that they were in 2008. And then on independents, look at these numbers, first of all in Virginia. President Obama, last year, Democrats won 49-48. This year, Republicans two to one. 66-33 among independent voters in Virginia. New Jersey much the same story. 51-47 last year under President Obama. This year Republican Chris Christie gets 60 percent of the independent vote, Democrats get only 30 percent of the independent vote. That is a HUGE flashing light for next year, isn't it?

Wow? Why does Stephanopoulos feel this way?

Is it because he's really concerned that Steele might be right, especially given Stephanopoulos's experience as a Clinton White House adviser who watched the Republicans take over Congress in 1994 somewhat as a result of the unsuccessful push for HillaryCare?

Hmmm.

Stossel: Ostracized After Defecting from Liberalism, Sees NYTimes Double Standard

Brad Wilmouth — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:23:33 -0500

On Tuesday's The O'Reilly Factor on FNC, former ABC News anchor John Stossel -- now with Fox Business -- came aboard to discuss the New York Times's recent attack on him for speaking in front of the conservative/libertarian group Americans for Prosperity. After charging that the Times never showed interest in his speeches to conservative groups before he joined Fox Business, the former 20/20 host also relayed that during his early days as a consumer reporter, he received a number of Emmy Awards because "they loved me" for his left-leaning work. But after, in Stossel's words, "I got smarter," turning more pro-business and anti-regulation, the Emmy Awards were no longer forthcoming.

Stossel even recounted an incident in which a person he met on the street expressed a desire that he "die soon" for his conservative views.

After starting the interview by asking Stossel about Web sites that engage in gambling based on election predictions, O'Reilly brought up the Times's newfound interest in the former ABC anchor. Stossel pointed out the double standard: "I make speeches. I make about 25 a year. I've done that for years. And suddenly, now that I'm at Fox, critics are leaping to attack me, according to the New York Times."

He added: "Isn't that interesting? When I worked for ABC two months ago, I also made three speeches for this group, but nobody worried about that. ... I'm sure somebody cared, but the Times didn't care."

Stossel soon recounted the radical shift in attitudes toward him that he experienced after turning from liberal to conservative on economic issues:

They loved me then. I won 19 Emmy Awards. Then I got smarter. I saw how the regulation I called for made things worse, didn't help consumers. And simple competition was better. And I started praising business and occasionally criticizing regulation. Suddenly, I stopped winning Emmy Awards.

He even repeated one case of a person on the street who recognized him and expressed a death wish for him. Stossel: "Someone did come up to me on the street and said, "are you John Stossel? I hope you die soon."

Below is a complete transcript of the interview with Stossel from the Tuesday, November 3, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:

BILL O'REILLY: In the "Stossel Matters" segment tonight, our pal John recently gave a speech in front of the Americans for Prosperity group. That's a conservative free market outfit. Well, the New York Times didn't like it. No, they did not, saying it was another example of the conservative bias at Fox News Channel. Here now the very, very controversial John Stossel. Before we let you hammer the Times, which you can do as much as you want, you have been following the gambling on the New Jersey gubernatorial race. InTrade.com? What is InTrade.com?

JOHN STOSSEL: It's a Web site. It's run out of Ireland because it's illegal in America to bet on these things. But Karl Rove may be a genius, but I think the best predictor of elections is where people put their money where their mouths are. And that's InTrade.com. Corzine was as high as 65 percent early this afternoon. Now he's down to 45 percent.

O'REILLY: So 65 percent were voting, were betting on him this afternoon, and now he's under 50 percent?

STOSSEL: Right.

O'REILLY: Okay, now, that's just amusement. We're not making anything of that, but Stossel is a strange guy, and this is what he does. Okay, now, the New York Times says that this group, Americans for Prosperity, they're some kind of heinous conservative group that were paying you money -- I know you give it to charity -- to do what? What were you doing? Why are they after you?

STOSSEL: I make speeches. I make about 25 a year. I've done that for years. And suddenly, now that I'm at Fox, critics are leaping to attack me, according to the New York Times. And Americans for Prosperity, I like them. I'm an American, I'm for prosperity. I've discovered, from 40 years of reporting, that what creates prosperity is limited government. And-

O'REILLY: And that's what these people espouse, right?

STOSSEL: And I would like to share that with as many people who want me to speak.

O'REILLY: So they hire you. You fly down, I guess, to Arkansas. Right?

STOSSEL: Right.

O’REILLY: You do you a couple of forums for them. Do they make you sign a paper saying that you hate liberals or something? Do they make do you that?

STOSSEL: No, and-

O'REILLY: Do you have to personally attack people? I don't understand why they're mad at you? So what? You make a speech in front of a group that you respect.

STOSSEL: Well, I'm aligned with this conservative group.

O'REILLY: Didn't you talk-

STOSSEL: Are they conservative? I'd call them libertarian.

O'REILLY: Didn't you talk to this group before you got to Fox?

STOSSEL: Isn't that interesting? When I worked for ABC two months ago, I also made three speeches for this group, but the Times didn’t write a word about that.

O'REILLY: Nobody cared. Nobody cared then. But now-

STOSSEL: I'm sure somebody cared, but the Times didn't care.

O'REILLY: Now, Mark Feldstein, an associate professor of journalism at George Washington University, said your speaking to a partisan group was, quote, "pretty shameful," unquote. Why is it shameful?

STOSSEL: I guess they believe that all reporters have no opinions. No point of view.

O'REILLY: But you're a commentator now.

STOSSEL: And even before. I was a consumer reporter. I kind of invented it on TV, and we made it up as we went along.

O'REILLY: You had an opinion. This product is bad. This is good. Here’s hosing you.

STOSSEL: Or go to businesses, "Why are you a crook?"

O'REILLY: Right.

STOSSEL: They loved me then. I won 19 Emmy Awards. Then I got smarter. I saw how the regulation I called for made things worse, didn't help consumers. And simple competition was better. And I started praising business and occasionally criticizing regulation. Suddenly, I stopped winning Emmy awards. A journalism show had me on, and I found they had titled it "Objectivity and Journalism: Does John Stossel Practice Either?" If I'd been quicker, I would have said, "Look at the title of the show. It shows you have a point of view. We all do. I just admit mine."

O'REILLY: Okay. I'm siding with the New York Times. I think you're shameful.

STOSSEL: Well, can't argue with you.

O'REILLY: Now, look, you know what the game is. Now that you're here -- and Glenn Beck found this out very quickly when he came over from CNN -- when you're here, you're a target. You become a target just by association because now you work for Fox News. So they're going to find anything that you do, and this is the New York Times, which they hate us, and they're going to put you in the pejorative light. They're going to put you in the negative light just because you work for us. You committed the cardinal sin of all time. You left a liberal network, and you went to a traditional right-leaning network. So you're never, ever going to be liked again by anyone. Does that make you sad?

STOSSEL: Well, I live with these people. They all live in my neighborhood. So that makes me sad.

O'REILLY: Why don’t you move out to Long Island where I live, because I live with the folks.

STOSSEL: I like taking the subway to work.

O'REILLY: You're a pansy. Come out to Long Island. All right? The best pizza in the world: Villa Milano in Manhasset. Okay? Come out there. They're regular folks. You won't have to deal with those pinheads on the Upper West Side.

STOSSEL: It's good exercise. Living with the liberals, you get to hear their arguments, fight with them all the time. Keeps me alert.

O'REILLY: Okay, but, if you do that, you're a fascist. Do you really want to be a fascist, Stossel? Do you really want to be that?

STOSSEL: Someone did come up to me on the street and said, "are you John Stossel?" "Yes." "I hope you die soon."

O'REILLY: Oh, is that right? You know, that was our boss.

STOSSEL: I don't think so.

O'REILLY: Just a joke. All right, John Stossel, everybody.

Fox the Only Cable Newser to Air Pelosi's House Speech Live

Noel Sheppard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:57:40 -0500

The White House might want to rethink its position on Fox not being a real news network after what happened during Saturday's historic debate and vote on healthcare reform.

Consider that as far as cable is concerned, with the exception of C-SPAN, only Fox aired House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech live as it was happening.

You're not going to believe what CNN and MSNBC thought was more important according to TVNewser:

So, we wonder if the White House still thinks Fox News is "not a news network." Tonight, Fox News was the only news channel [other than C-SPAN] to provide live coverage of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making her way to the house chamber, then speaking to members ahead of tonight's vote on health care reform. CNN stayed with a taped replay of The Situation Room. MSNBC was airing a crime documentary, but mentioned that Pelosi was speaking during a scheduled live cut-in.

Hmmm. So one was airing a rerun and the other a crime documentary as the Speaker was addressing the House hours before an historic vote that could end up impacting one-sixth of the American economy.

And the White House thinks Fox isn't a real news network?

Sunday NFL Open Thread

NB Staff — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:10:46 -0500

What are today's big NFL games and big upsets? Anything else you want to talk about related to sports?

Open Thread

NB Staff — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:01:53 -0500

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: PelosiCare passes by surprisingly narrow margin.

How many people watched much of the debate and vote Saturday? Regardless of the results, did you enjoy it? How do you think this sets up the Senate? Will this narrow margin make it very difficult for Reid to get 60 voters? What's up with the lone Republican Cao from Louisiana breaking ranks?

Finally, and maybe most importantly, do you think Stupak's abortion amendment impacted the final result actually allowing some moderate Democrats to vote for the bill? Or do you think this is a lot of hooey either because an equal or greater number of liberal Democrats especially women might have voted "Nay" because of that amendment passing or that Pelosi was going to get this passed no matter what she had to do?

Any other post mortems?

'Saturday Night Live' Mocks Fox News's Election Coverage

Noel Sheppard — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:50:37 -0500

"Saturday Night Live" in its recent installment took shots at the Fox News Channel for what it saw as an amazingly one-sided, anti-Obama take on Tuesday's election results.

The skit began with an off-screen announcer declaring, "You're watching Fox News, continuous coverage of the 2009 election -- end of an era."

On screen at that moment was a picture of President Obama above a graphic which read, "End Of An Era."

Actress Kristin Wiig, doing a marvelous impersonation of Greta Van Susteren, then hosted a discussion on the election results which included one-sided opinions from actors impersonating Glenn Beck, Brit Hume, Karl Rove, Shepard Smith, Joe Trippi, and Juan Williams.

The group was ecstatic over what happened in New Jersey and Virginia, but chose not to discuss Democrat Bill Owens victory in New York's 23rd Congressional district (video embedded below the fold h/t Story Balloon):

In the end, it really wasn't a very good skit with the exception of Wiig's great job impersonating Greta.

Brava, Kristin.

Who Says the WaPo Hates Extremists? Reporter Pushes PETA's Naked Intern Idealists

Tim Graham — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:28:42 -0500

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a very ideological and controversial group. Anyone who can compare chickens on our dinner tables to the Holocaust might not be welcome in everyone’s home. But if you read The Washington Post on Wednesday, you might think they’re just having fun with nudity. On the front of the Style section was a gushy profile by Monica Hesse headlined "PETA volunteers' body of work speaks for those who can't." Is this a news story or a commercial? Here’s how it began:

The PETA interns have beautiful skin and lovely teeth. They have shiny hair and the buzzy energy that comes, they'd say, from avoiding animal products and animal byproducts, and from the peaceful belief that through their work, you can be helped, too.

This self-assured knowledge is useful when the PETA interns are naked, which happens occasionally, like at a recent Friday demonstration when Kelsey Jaye stands with another "PETA Beauty" in a makeshift shower on Pennsylvania Avenue by the National Archives. They languidly wash each other with cruelty-free soap and ignore heckles from the gathering crowd.

Hesse and the Post don’t seem to care that naked women rubbing each other with soap on the street might be offensive to parents, or modest people in general. (Late in the piece, in paragraph 25, Hesse quoted a newspaper in Memphis that "claimed that PETA would never treat cows the way they treat interns." The paper offers specifics that Hesse avoided.)

They’re more offended when the naked women get the "skeezy" reaction that the PETA people are looking for to start pushing their extremist animals-are-equal-to-or-better-than-people message:

"Can I get in?" a guy wants to know. (A guy always wants to know.)

"Gotta be veee-gan!" one of the Beauties sings in a sparkly voice.

"Is the water cold?" another man asks. Jaye smiles beatifically, striking a glam pose inside the short, opaque curtain, which reads, Clean your conscience: 1 lb meat = 2,463 gallons of water.

He's so skeezy. All the men here are so skeezy, snapping pictures with their cellphones, pretending to read the literature given to them by Line Moeller, another PETA intern who is wearing a teeny terry cloth robe. "I'm just...interested... in what they're...saying," says the man who wants the water to be cold. He stares slack-jawed at Jaye and her shower mate, who are saying nothing. (Unknown to the men, the Beauties are wearing panties.)

Jaye is used to this. These things happen when you are a PETA intern.

But interns like Jaye are profiles in naked courage, at least to the Post:

She was also at a Times Square demo, which was another naked one. "There were 50 demonstrators in a big naked pile, with arrows sticking out everywhere" to protest bullfighting, she says. "It was totally empowering. It's great to be able to use your body as a tool."

Opposition to PETA (such as PETAKillsAnimals.com) never seems to emerge in Hesse's article. They charge:

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.

That might make their outraged "Is Your Cat Safe?" ads look a little ridiculous. Opposition only emerges in the Post as guilt-filled rage, as a foil for PETA intern idealism:

Think of the rabbits, skinned alive. Think of the chickens, and that horrible debeaking. Think of the bee and the way we ruthlessly steal its honey. Think of the spider, held in captivity as researchers study its silk. Think of the silkworm. Nobody ever thinks of the silkworm. PETA thinks of the silkworm.

Sometimes, when Jaye receives pushback at a demo -- when someone gets defensive, or attacks, or makes snide remarks -- she tells herself that she's hitting home, that the defensiveness is a sign that she's getting through. "People feel guilty about what they're doing, and then they attack the people who make them feel guilty."

In case any doubt remains that Hesse was about two steps shy of stripping and joining the PETA crusade, here's how the story ended:

The PETA interns are about hope, really. They are about that moment when all things seem possible, like a world where cats live indoors and cows live outdoors and everyone is healthier and shinier, with lovely teeth.

They have seen glimpses of that world, and they want to bring us, too, lead us all to the promised land flowing with milk and honey, except that when we get there it will flow with soy.

ObamaCare Debate and Possible Vote Open Thread

NB Staff — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:02:18 -0500

C-SPAN is currently showing the healthcare reform debate happening on the floor of the House. We may even see a vote this evening.

Feel free to offer your thoughts.

Tom Tancredo Storms Off 'Ed Show' After Markos Moulitsas Insult

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:46:13 -0500

The liberal blogosphere is cheering one of its heroes for insulting a former Republican member of Congress on national television who as a result walked off an MSNBC set in disgust.

Appearing on Friday's "The Ed Show," Daily Kos owner Markos Moulitsas said to former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, "I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in a war that I supported in Vietnam."

Tancredo asked for an apology, and when one was not forthcoming, he took off his microphone and earpiece, and left (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, h/t Mediaite):

DAVID SHUSTER, HOST: Ok, so how about the veterans administration? The Veterans Administration is a single-payer system. Everybody in the military who was treated yesterday; so the military members, their health care system, that`s also a threat to our freedom?
TOM TANCREDO, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Talk to every veterans group I ever went and talked to complained about the Veterans Administration and the way it was a bureaucratically run program that didn`t serve their needs. They would rather have vouchers that would allow them to go out and buy their insurance in a private marketplace.
They`ve talked about it and at least you`re laughing. David, talk to the veterans. They talk to me and that`s what they said.
SHUSTER: Markos?
MARKOS MOULITSAS, DAILY KOS OWNER: I`m a veteran, Tom -- Tom, I`m a veteran.
TANCREDO: Yes.
MARKOS: Ok? I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in a war that I supported in Vietnam. I`m a veteran.
TANCREDO: Yes. Well decade, people want - they don`t any more stupid things...
(CROSSTALK)
MARKOS: They want a more effective -- they want a more effective VA. That`s more money.
TANCREDO: No, you`re not going to do that. You`re not going to try to insult me that way and then pretend like we`re just going on and talk about that. You either apologize.
MARKOS: I`m not pretending anything. I told you straight up.
The issue here, what the Republicans are afraid of, this is a threat to Republicans. They built an entire ideology predicated on telling people that government does not work. They are terrified of government programs that work because then people will realize that the government is not the enemy and that they`re going to work -- they`re going to vote Democratic because Democrats are the party who realize that people need help and government can sometimes offer solutions.
SHUSTER: Thank you Markos Moulitsas and also Congress Tom Tancredo for the time that he was with us. I think he left a little bit early. But the congressman is always welcome on this show. We always appreciate hearing his point of view. And it`s a feisty one. And that`s what we like around here.
Markos, thank you as well.

For those unfamiliar with Moulitsas's reference, the Denver Post reported in 2005:

As a Republican student activist, Tancredo spoke out in favor of the Vietnam War. After graduating from the University of Northern Colorado in June 1969, he became eligible to serve in Vietnam. Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment.

With this in mind, was Moulitsas out of line, or should Tancredo have stood up for himself and addressed his detractor rather than walking off the set?

Shuster the Snob: Election Returns Show 'The Public Can't' Focus on More Than One Issue

Tim Graham — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:51:06 -0500

MSNBC’s David Shuster isn’t impressed with the intelligence of the American people – and even said so on a liberal talk-radio show. On the nationally syndicated Stephanie Miller show on Thursday morning, Shuster blamed the election returns on the "fact" that the ignorant public can’t focus on more than one issue at a time:

SHUSTER: You can make an argument, and I think there is a point to be made where in this environment, where the economy is having some trouble, and where a lot of people don’t have jobs that should, the extent people see Washington focused on things other than jobs, like health care or like immigration, or card check, whatever it is.

Even though I would argue, no, Washington can focus on a lot of things at once, but for whatever reason the public can’t. And so to the extent that the public sees Washington only consumed with these other issues, they’re not concerned about jobs, the public is a little anxious about that and that showed up in the polling. I don’t think that’s a direct impact on Obama at all.

The folks on the Miller show were absolutely convinced that the election results were solid proof that the country thinks neither party is liberal enough. From the comic actor Hal Sparks came this welcomed bit of analysis:

SPARKS: The truth is what’s the real agenda about? What are these votes really about? The truth is people get angry at the Republicans for what they are doing and they get mad at Democrats for what they’re not doing.

MILLER: Thank you! (Handel Hallelujah Chorus sound effect) Thank you!

SPARKS: Which points to the country moving in a very progressive way.

Miller and her sidekick thought the allegedly conservative national media were ignoring the liberal-pleasing results:

MILLER: Oh that damn liberal media strikes again. All that anybody is apparently talking about is the Republicans winning New Jersey and Virginia. They’re not talking about the fact that the Democrats won hugely unexpectedly in New York where the Republican Party imploded and out here in California, so the Democrats picked up two House seats.

CHRIS LAVOIE: Absolutely nobody in the mainstream media is talking about that. That’s highly irresponsible.

It would be incorrect that the Democrats "picked up two House seats." They did pick up New York 23, but California 10 (now represented by liberal John Garamendi) was represented by a Democrat, Ellen Tauscher.

CNN's Nguyen Asks: 'Was It Taunting, Was It Teasing, Was It Harassment?'

Mike Bates — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:17:02 -0500

On CNN Saturday Morning News today, anchor Betty Nguyen interviewed a psychiatrist about Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 and wounded 30 others in a shooting spree Thursday in Fort Hood, Texas. She began by delving into possible reason for Hasan's actions:

NGUYEN: Dr. Paul Ragan, a psychiatrist who specializes in post-traumatic stress disorder joins me now from Nashville. Dr. Ragan, let me ask you this. Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from PTSD?

DR. PAUL RAGAN, SPECIALIZES IN POST-TRAUMATIC SYNDROME: I think actually that's fairly unlikely. Dr. Hasan just finished a two-year fellowship at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and he had only been an independent Army psychiatrist for about four months. That is at an operational base. So for him to have been suffering from PTSD I think is highly unlikely.

NGUYEN: Doctor, let me ask you this, then. A lot of people find it awfully ironic too, he was a psychiatrist, someone to help people when they have issues, yet he's also accused of shooting of this magnitude. What would cause someone, especially with that kind of training and that kind of background to do something like this?

RAGAN: Well, that's the huge question before us. I don't have the exact answer. I can give a little guidance. To put it bluntly, the wheels came off many, many months or even years probably before he showed up at Ft. Hood. Usually, in the military after you finish your residency, you go and do your operational tour. That's what I did. Then, the Army allowed him to do a two-year fellowship. There's some evidence that he may have been trying to avoid deploying. And so where did he not identify with the military mission? He had been in the military as the soldier said earlier, over 10 years. What was it that happened that he couldn't fulfill his military obligations?

Nguyen then moved on to another potential reason for the massacre:

NGUYEN: Yeah. So, the question, too, is it the fact that he disagreed with the mission or was it taunting, was it teasing, was it harassment? Could these things have played a role as well?

RAGAN: They may have. I can tell you, in the medical community over 25 years I have been intermittently teased for being a psychiatrist. That, I don't think, was the tipping point for him. And clearly, there's a good deal of prejudice in certain areas of our society toward Muslims, but, again, as the soldier told us, the Army has been pretty strict about not engaging in that type of harassment. So again, I don't think that was the tipping point. I think it was earlier.

So who would taunt, tease or harasss a field grade Army officer? It's implausible that anyone lower than him in rank would be so foolish. People at his rank and above are probably astute enough in terms of political correctness to realize that their careers could easily be over with just one career ending utterance.

Moreover, earlier in her program Nguyen aired an interview of an Army sergeant who is Muslim conducted by correspondent Sean Callebs. When asked about harassment because of his religion, the sergeant responded:

The only experience that I did have was while I was in basic training and a friend, a battle buddy is my own -- basically the guy I room with, the guy who I have to look out for and he has to look out for me, just made a joke regarding my religion and my drill sergeant took that very seriously and had him disciplined from my entire company and he was punished for his actions, even though he was jokingly saying it to me.

Still, Nguyen wanted to explore that as a reason for what happened. With both PTSD and harassment effectively set aside, she moved on to one last reason:

NGUYEN: What about religious beliefs? Do you think that might have played a role because there were reports that he gave out the Koran the day of the shooting, also reports that he may have yelled Allah akbar right before the shootings. Could religion have played a role?

RAGAN: I think religion did play a role. Evidently he was counseled about proselytizing patients which was clearly a boundary violation. We have a report that he gave in his class at the fellowship, he was talking about endorsing suicide bombings. He was clearly engaging in some type of tunnel vision where this kind of radical view, which is not, as again the soldier said before, is not a part of mainstream Muslim religion. And so, he was -- there was something going on there, very much so.

Hasan's motivation may never be determined with absolute certainty. Still, it's interesting that some in the mainstream media look for other reasons - as remote as they may be - before considering a more obvious one.

Media 'Cringe' That Mass Killer a Muslim Since It 'Inflames' Right Wing, 'That Makes It Much Worse'

Brent Baker — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:33:08 -0500

Newsweek's Evan Thomas regretted the Fort Hood mass murderer, Major Nidal Hasan, is a Muslim because of how that reality will be abused by conservatives. On this weekend's Inside Washington, Thomas, now Editor at Large with Newsweek after stints as Assistant Managing Editor and Washington bureau chief, rued:

I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.

NPR's Nina Totenberg soon chimed in with agreement: “It really is tragic that he was a Muslim.”

Audio: MP3 clip

The weekly Inside Washington is produced by Washington, DC's ABC affiliate, WJLA-DT which runs it on Sunday morning, but it's first aired Friday nights on the PBS station and is carried several times by the DC-area all-news cable channel, NewsChannel 8.

Oops -- Cramer's October 12 Unemployment Prediction: 'We Are Not Going to Reach 10 Percent'

Jeff Poor — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:28:49 -0500

Drinking the Kool-Aid on MSNBC wasn't enough, even for CNBC's Jim Cramer, to escape the reality that Obamanomics isn't working.

Back on October 12, Cramer, to his credit, knew there were some problems with the $787-billion stimulus passed earlier this year. However, he felt it was necessary to pledge his admiration for President Barack Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. But, Matthews asked Cramer if there would be something tangible to back up that praise.

"OK - let me ask you the question," Matthews said on MSNBC's Oct. 12 "Hardball." "Let's talk about how we keep score in electoral politics, that's how we keep score. Between now and next summer, when people begin to decide how they're going to vote in next year's election, will the employment rate be coming down by then?"

At the time, the most recent unemployment figures showed a jobless rate of 9.8 percent. Cramer said the current level of 9.8 percent was the peak.

"Unequivocally," Cramer replied. "I think that we have seen the peak or are at the peak, and that next year will produce a lot of jobs. I'm very excited about that."

Matthews gave Cramer another opportunity to backtrack on his claim.

"We're looking at that peak," Matthews said. We just showed it up there on that card, 9.8 percent. Do you think it's going double, and then come back down, or go down from where it's at now?"

Nope. Cramer stuck to his guns - 9.8 percent was the top unemployment we would see (emphasis added).

"I think we are at the peak or within a point one [.1]," Cramer said. "We are not going to reach 10 percent. I have my neck on the line on that. But I think, Chris, that jobs are going to be created next year. But we really need help from Washington."

Unfortunately, Cramer was wrong. Department of Labor statistics indicated last week that the jobless rate exceeded 10 percent to 10.2 percent - the highest unemployment rate in the United States since 1983. Some economists, including Mark Zandi of Economy.com, think it could go higher, to a level of at least 11 percent.

Dem Consultant Claims White House Warned Him To Stay Off Fox

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:53:14 -0500

David Axelrod's appearance on Fox News Wednesday apparently wasn't a sign of a truce between the Obama administration and the cable news network as it appears the White House is putting pressure on Democrat consultants to avoid the station at all costs.

For its part, the White House has denied these allegations.

Such was reported Friday by the Los Angeles Times (h/t NBer Gary Hall):

At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration. [...]

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

The White House is denying this allegation:

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Thursday night that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for President Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.

Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that," he said.

Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself."

Even some Democrats aren't thrilled with the White House's Fox strategy:

Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, said in an interview: "This approach is out of sync with my conception of what the Obama administration stands for and what they're trying to do. I think they'll think better of it and this will be a passing phase."

Moving forward, it seems clear from Axelrod's appearance after Tuesday's election results the White House Fox strategy depends on how the Administration feels it's doing.

With this in mind, Obama and Company may be more inclined to go on Fox if healthcare reform fails, for if it succeeds they likely won't feel they need more exposure than they're currently getting.

Stay tuned.

Rosie Drops F-bombs On 'Late Night' Before Attacking Glenn Beck

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:02:20 -0500

Comedienne Rosie O'Donnell gave another classy performance Friday evening when she used numerous vulgarities on NBC's "Late Night" just before she attacked Fox News's Glenn Beck.

Almost worse, host Jimmy Fallon didn't seem at all disturbed by O'Donnell's behavior.

Quite the contrary, whether she was cursing like a rapper or demeaning one of the nation's leading cable news personalities, Fallon cheered her on.

Ironically, O'Donnell's attack on Beck ended with her saying, "I don't understand why people enjoy that carnival barker...He's a scary man" (videos embedded below the fold with partial transcript):

JIMMY FALLON, HOST: And the show's just kind of you talking about anything. It's not --
ROSIE O'DONNELL: Anything.
FALLON: It is not a political show. It's not...
O'DONNELL: No.
FALLON: It's just you talking to me going -- it's you and a couple of friends.
O'DONNELL: Yeah, it's not ever going to be me and Glenn Beck.
[ Laughter ]
FALLON: It won't be.
O'DONNELL: No.
FALLON: Crying hysterically. No.
O'DONNELL: No. [ Crying sounds ] "Obama is ruining everything. I want drugs. Be afraid, America, we're in trouble."
[ light laughter ]
FALLON: You don't want to hear that everyday now.
O'DONNELL: I don't understand why people enjoy that carnival barker. I don't get it.
[ Laughter ] He's a scary man to me.

Bear in mind this was just moments after the following disgraceful, vulgarity-laden performance:

Now THAT'S a scary woman!

WaPo's 'On Faith' Page Features Only Pro-'End-of-Life Care' Opinion

Ken Shepherd — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:07:50 -0500

Each Saturday, the Washington Post prints an "On Faith" page in the Metro section. Part of the feature is a "From the panel" digest with a few excerpts from opinion leaders from various faiths and theological schools of thought. "On Faith" editors select a sampling of the panelists for the print digest but direct readers to the "On Faith" Web page for more opinions.

Well today, the panel discussion topic was the role of "end-of-life counseling" in health care reform. The Post had space to print but four panelists, and surprise, surprise, they were all for "end-of-life counseling" as an integral part of federal health care reform.

One panelist, Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics, even took it upon himself to slam the "shameful" "political deception" of "Sarah Palin, the Christian Right and many Republicans who have tried to sabotage healt-care reform with the canard of 'death panels.'"

Yet not all On Faith panelists were in agreement with this sentiment, such as conservative evangelical Christian Chuck Colson, who was not excerpted in print but made an excellent conservative case in his post on the On Faith page, published yesterday at 9:36 a.m. EST:

End-of-life care should be managed and decided between the patient, the patient's family, and medical professionals. Government should be kept out of the consultation.

Millions of Americans have thought ahead about end-of-life care and have created living wills. I have myself. I have made it clear to my family and my physicians that I do not want to prolong dying unnaturally, nor do I want my death to be hastened unnaturally.

But that's my decision, not some bureaucrat or health-care czar's. If we allow the government to get involved in this kind of a decision, you can count on this: The government's decision will not be made in the best interests of the individual patient. The deciding factors will be cost and the government's view of what course of action provides "the greatest good for the greatest number"--which is just dandy if you happen belong to the greatest number. The greatest good for the greatest number is the ethical formulation called utilitarianism, which led to the horrors of eugenics.

Don't believe this will happen? Check out the Florida Department of Health's draft guidelines in case of an H1N1 emergency. The state has already published "the greatest good for the greatest number" as the standard for determining who will get care and who will not be worth the effort to save.

Weird: Membership-Deprived NAACP Expands to 'All Colors' Inside Prisons

Tim Graham — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:48:04 -0500

Winning the prize for Weirdest Front Page Story of the Week is the Tuesday Washington Post story on the NAACP spreading out to all colors – in the Maine State Prison. So now it’s the National Association for the Advancement of Criminals and Prisoners?

Post reporter Krissah Williams described the scene as NAACP leader Benjamin Todd Jealous surveyed the troops: "White face after white face, inmate after inmate -- a sea of white men with few exceptions. Here they are: the Maine State Prison Chapter of the NAACP."

With a stagnant black membership level, Jealous is seeking a more "inclusive" approach:

Though the organization has 2,200 chapters, Jealous has taken a special interest in this Maine group because of the NAACP's ongoing attempts to reach beyond its core in the black community. The association's membership has been stagnant at about half a million members for years, and part of Jealous's plan to increase that number is to be more inclusive.

He has formed an alliance around health-care reform with the country's largest Latino advocacy group, and in recent speeches has highlighted examples of diversity in the NAACP's ranks: the Bangladeshi chapter president in Hamtramck, Mich.; the Southeast Asian presidents in Seattle and San Jose; the Latino executive committee members in the Southwest; the Native American members in Alabama and Oklahoma.

More than any other example, though, the Maine prison chapter has become a kind of symbol of the 100-year-old civil rights group finding its way on the shifting terrain of race. Jealous talks about the chapter frequently, and as he deals with questions about the organization's relevance since Barack Obama was elected to the White House, he has returned here again and again.

"Colored people come in all colors," proclaimed Jealous. The star of the Thompson piece is the white president of the prison chapter, a murderer who's been the subject of a Hollywood movie treatment: 　

The man Jealous is talking to is William "Billy" Flynn, who is in for 28 years to life and is also president of the prison chapter. "All right, gentlemen," Flynn says, stepping to the microphone.

A poster of Malcolm X delivering his "By Any Means Necessary" speech is affixed to the front of the lectern. A cinder block wall is covered in fliers that read: "NAACP You Have the Right to Vote" and posters of Obama, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Muhammad Ali. In more than a dozen posters, no one is white.

"There's some confusion when people see an Irish guy as president of the NAACP chapter," Flynn says later. "I've had my fair share of comments."

Standing behind the poster of Malcolm X, Flynn talks about what he considers the lack of rights for prisoners. Sentenced at 16 after pleading guilty to a highly publicized New Hampshire murder, Flynn, now 35, has spent his adult life behind bars. He did not know anything about the NAACP when he arrived and is surprised to learn that he is one of the few whites leading an organization chapter.

In fact, Flynn was talked into murdering the husband of 23-year-old schoolteacher Pamela Smart -- the inspiration for the Nicole Kidman movie To Die For (Joaquin Phoenix played the Flynn part.) His vice president explains the appeal of NAACP behind bars:

Joseph "JJ" Jackson -- the chapter's vice president, who is black -- was locked up in May 1995 and knows Flynn well. "This is a black organization, but you have that felon beside your name and that makes you a minority," he says. "You're treated like you're black. Frankly, everybody needs civil rights here."