Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category
When this election is over, what will be the fallout from news consumers on Fox News? Which personalities and hosts will be looking for new jobs? Will Megyn Kelly jump ship for a network job or a show on CNN? One thing that likely won’t change is that Bill O’Reilly will still have his show. His “I’m just a simple man” schtick still resonates with his viewer, most of whom seem to have the intelligence of eighth graders.
O’Reilly’s talking point Wednesday night is a shining example of O’Reilly’s ignorance:
O’Reilly’s statements aren’t the statements of a well-educated man. They’re the statements of a man who hasn’t studied reality. Let’s compare O’Reilly’s statements with Karl Rove’s statements. (I’m not a fan of Rove but he’s smarter about this stuff than O’Reilly.)
The most important information from Rove’s WSJ article is when he writes “Mr. Trump’s sweeping victory was impressive. But, as Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center pointed out at National Review, it was also expected.” I’d quibble that it wasn’t totally expected. Trump’s victory exceeded expectations. Still, Trump is trailing the OTT (Other Than Trump) delegates.
That didn’t matter to O’Reilly, who said “Simply put, Trump is so far ahead that Ted Cruz and John Kasich or any other Republican phantom simply does not have the constituency to take the nomination away from Trump. Any back room dealings will be quickly exposed and will doom the Republican Party.”
That’s something only an idiot who hasn’t studied the convention would say. First, if Trump doesn’t win on the first ballot, he’ll face a major uprising from delegates in the Bible Belt states, the Rust Belt states and the Midwest. That’s because Trump’s gotten spineless lately. Trump wants to change the GOP platform on abortion. What’s worse is that Trump “thinks transgendered people should be able to use whatever restroom they’d like to use.”
Changing the GOP platform on abortion requires an uphill fight that Trump wouldn’t win. With the delegates attending the convention, Trump’s position on the bathroom issue resembles a suicide mission. While many northeastern delegates would continue faithfully supporting Trump, he’d be the person losing his constituency attending the convention.
O’Reilly’s Talking Points is wrong because he didn’t pay attention to the details. That’s because he’s an impatient, big-picture guy. Compare that with Rove’s column:
According to the National Association of Secretaries of State, by the time Republicans gather in Cleveland on July 18, the deadline for Mr. Trump to be listed on the ballot as an independent will already have passed in 12 states with a combined 166 Electoral College votes.
There’s those pesky little details inserting themselves into the conversation again. By the time the convention ends, it would be clear that a Trump third party run was his attempt to hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
Some of Fox News’ anchors haven’t indulged in drinking the Trump Kool-Aid. Unfortunately for them, not enough of them have refrained from drinking that toxic drink.
Thus far, politicians endorsing Donald Trump haven’t paid a price. It isn’t a stretch to think it might hurt them in the future. Sen. Ben Sasse, (R-NE), is a rising star in the Republican Party. He’s a freshman who isn’t afraid to criticize Mr. Trump or other politicians.
This weekend, Sen. Sasse criticized Trump, saying “This is sad and everyone who has a sister or wife or daughter or mom should reconsider supporting this tiny little man.” Then Sen. Sasse finished the criticism of Trump, saying “@RealDonaldTrump loves bullying women on Twitter. But he’d never have the guts to talk like this abt a guy’s wife to his face. #fakeToughGuy”
Trump’s disgusting statements about women (think Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina) and his denying his campaign team’s physical mishandling of women (think Michelle Fields) are creating a problem that there isn’t a solution to.
Trump can’t call women ugly or accuse them of mistreating him because they’re menstruating or have his campaign manager physically manhandle a reporter without creating a general election problem that he can’t dig himself out from.
Some of the things Trump’s said are fixable. Frequently insulting women isn’t fixable. Just because Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham support Mr. Trump doesn’t mean women will support him in the general election. They won’t. Polls consistently show Trump with a 25-30 point favorability gap with women. That can’t be swept aside by saying that you “cherish women.”
Here are Sen. Sasse’s tweets:
Thanks to conservatives with character, Republicans that endorse Donald Trump will have some explaining to do in the years to come. They’ll have to explain why they supported a man “devoid of honor, integrity or manliness.” When Trump loses, whether at the convention or in the general election, people will get criticized for supporting him without questioning Trump’s lack of integrity.
When that day of reckoning comes, it won’t be a good day for Fox News, Breitbart hacks or Sean Hannity.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Corey Lewandowski, Make America Awesome PAC, Liz Mair, Michelle Fields, Heidi Cruz, Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse, Accountability, Sean Hannity, John Nolte, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Election 2016
Prior to Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses, Donald Trump’s ceiling of support seemed to be in the 35%-36% range. He won handily in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. It’s particularly noteworthy that those 3 states were open states where Democrats were allowed to cause mischief or where independents could vote.
Yesterday’s events were closed events, with only Republicans voting. This table shows yesterday’s results:
Combining the 4 events together, Sen. Cruz got 41% of the votes cast. Meanwhile, Trump got 33.3% of the vote.
I haven’t hidden my disgust with Trump. If I were king for a day, I’d banish him to Gitmo and throw away the key to his cell. I’ve got great company in not respecting Trump. Steve Hayes’ article lowers the boom on Trump, especially this part:
The worst of these moments may have come when Trump mocked the disability of a journalist who had criticized him. At a rally in Sarasota last November, Trump was discussing Serge Kovaleski, a reporter for the New York Times. “The poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy,” Trump said, before flailing in a manner that resembled a palsy tremor. Kovaleski suffers from arthrogryposis, a congenital condition that affects the movement and positioning of his joints.
When Trump was criticized, he said he couldn’t have been mocking the reporter because he was unaware of Kovaleski’s condition. That wasn’t true. Kovaleski had interviewed Trump a dozen times and said they had interacted on “a first-name basis for years.” Trump then accused Kovaleski of “using his disability to grandstand.”
This came up last Friday, as I drove my 8-year-old son to see the Washington Capitals play. I’ll be gone on his birthday, covering presidential primaries, so this was an early present.
My son and his older sister have followed the campaign, as much as kids their age do, and they’re aware that I’ve traded barbs with Trump. So we sometimes talk about the candidates and their attributes and faults, and we’d previously talked about Trump’s penchant for insulting people. On our drive down, my son told me that some of the kids in his class like Trump because “he has the most points,” and he asked me again why I don’t like the Republican frontrunner.
I reminded him about the McCain and Fiorina stories and then we spent a moment talking about Kovaleski. I described his condition and showed him how physically limiting it would be. Then he asked a simple question:
“Why would anyone make fun of him?”
I’d flip this around a bit. I’d ask what qualities or policies would convince me to vote for Mr. Trump. In terms of national security policy or taxes, regulations, federalism, the Constitution and the rule of law, I find Mr. Trump utterly deficient. Listening to Trump answer a question on national security is torture. At times, he’s said that he’d “bomb the s— out of ISIS.” At other times, he’s said he’d talk Putin into taking out ISIS. Bombing the s— out of ISIS sounds great but that’s just part of the threat ISIS poses. That does nothing to stop ISIS from radicalizing Muslims in Europe or the United States. Apparently, Trump hasn’t figured that out, mostly because he doesn’t even have an elemental understanding of foreign policy.
On national security, Trump says he’ll be strong and frequently pronounces himself “militaristic.” But he doesn’t seem to have even a newspaper reader’s familiarity with the pressing issues of the day. He was nonplussed by a reference to the “nuclear triad”; he confused Iran’s Quds Force and the Kurds; he didn’t know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. The ignorance would be less worrisome if his instincts weren’t terrifying. He’s praised authoritarians for their strength, whether Vladimir Putin for killing journalists and political opponents or the Chinese government for the massacre it perpetrated in Tiananmen Square. To the extent he articulates policies, he seems to be an odd mix of third-world despot and naïve pacifist.
Like Steve Hayes, I’m a proud member of the #NeverTrump movement. While pundits like Sean Hannity and Andrea Tantaros talk about Trump like he’s a conservative god, I won’t. That’s because I care more about the principles that make conservatism and capitalism the most powerful forces for positive change.
Why anyone would vote for a disgusting, immoral liberal like Donald Trump is mind-boggling. Personally, I won’t.
During his stump speeches and during debates, Donald Trump frequently criticizes politicians who are “all talk and no action.” The media, especially shills like Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Andrea Tantaros and Eric Bolling, never question Trump on that statement. If there’s anyone who is all talk and no action, it’s Mr. Trump. What’s worse is that he threatens lawsuits against newspapers, reporters and presidential candidates in his attempt to intimidate them into silence.
Wednesday, Mr. Trump made the mistake of threatening to sue the Cruz campaign. I wrote this post to highlight the incompetence of Mr. Trump’s attorney and Sen. Cruz’s willingness to stand up to Mr. Trump. Jeffrey Goldman, Trump’s attorney, sent a cease and desist letter to Sen. Cruz’s campaign. Not only didn’t Sen. Cruz refuse to cease and desist, Sen. Cruz held a press conference to literally tell Mr. Trump to bring it on, calling Trump’s lawsuit frivolous. In addition to that, Sen. Cruz’s attorneys replied to Mr. Trump, saying ”
As recently as Saturday, February 13, 2016 – four days ago at the Republican Debate sponsored by CBS – Mr. Trump said Planned Parenthood “does do wonderful things.” Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the country. Being pro-life and supporting Planned Parenthood are incompatible. Moreover, Mr. Trump has recently donated political contributions to many pro-choice candidates and officeholders, including Chuck Schumer, Andrew Cuomo, Anthony Weiner, and Rahm Emanuel. Do you, on behalf of your client, deny that these contributions were used to help elect pro-choice candidates to office? Indeed, before the 2008 election cycle, Mr. Trump donated $303,600 to Democrats, many of whom are pro-abortion. Mr. Trump also donated to the New York State Democratic Party, whose platform is pro-choice, and he has donated to pro-choice candidates as recently as 2014. Suffice it to say, there is ample evidence casting grave doubt about the truthfulness of Mr. Trump’s campaign claims that he is truly pro-life.”
Since then, Sen. Cruz has taunted Mr. Trump, daring Mr. Trump to file his lawsuit. Mr. Trump is caught between a difficult position. If he files the lawsuit, Sen. Cruz has threatened to personally depose Mr. Trump. That opens all kinds of legal difficulties for Mr. Trump. It’s one thing for Trump to lie about being pro-life on the campaign trail. It’s another to say that during a deposition:
Trump isn’t pro-life in any meaningful way. He’s recently contributed tens of thousands of dollars to staunchly pro-abortion candidates like Chuck Schumer, Andrew Cuomo, Anthony Weiner and Rahm Emanuel. I’ve yet to find a pro-life activist who wouldn’t instantly reject contributing to any of those politicians. It’s impossible to find a pro-life activist who would contribute to all of these pro-abortion dirt bags.
Next, Trump’s defense of Planned Parenthood is that Katrina Pierson, his dishonest spokesperson, said that “Mr. Trump has said that Planned Parenthood does do cervical cancer screenings, and that is a good thing when you are a poor, single mom in a neighborhood that doesn’t have access to these other clinics.” That doesn’t even rise to the level of flimsy. There were 669 Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation in 2013. That number was shrinking. The number of cancer screenings provided by Planned Parenthood was dropping, too.
By comparison, there were 9,059 Federally Qualified Health Centers, aka FQHCs, in the United States. The number of FQHCs is increasing. I’d love hearing Ms. Pierson prove that there’s a Planned Parenthood clinic that provides cancer screenings in a city where there isn’t an FQHC that can do those same cancer screenings.
Simply put, Mr. Trump has shown tendencies that make First Amendment activists worry. He’s shown a willingness to use intimidation tactics to silence his critics. Now that someone has called his bluff, it’ll be interesting to see if Trump will do something or just talk big.
Here’s my prediction: if Mr. Trump doesn’t sue Sen. Cruz, we’ll know that he’s all talk and no action. We’ll have proof that he’s a whiny punk who doesn’t like being held accountable. Mr. Trump is right. DC has too many politicians who are all talk and no action.
We don’t need to nominate another all talk and no action politician to be the GOP presidential candidate.
Reuters’ debate analysis sounds either like a paid Trump ad or it was written by an alien from another solar system. Their article starts by saying “Even in boycotting a debate with his Republican rivals, front-runner Donald Trump managed to upstage the event on Thursday with a typical dramatic flourish.”
My initial response is “Seriously”? Wow. It gets worse from there, with Reuters’ team of reporters throwing accuracy to the wind when they wrote “Instead of attending a seventh debate, the former reality TV star held a competing event across town that he said raised $6 million for U.S. military veterans. In doing so, he cast a shadow over his rivals, who frequently tossed barbs his way.”
I watched the debate. The candidates didn’t frequently toss barbs his direction. There were a half dozen mentions of him. That’s hardly frequent in a 2-hour debate. The accurate adjective in this instance is sparse, not frequent.
Further, Trump’s absence made for the best, most substantive debate of the cycle. Sen. Cruz summed it up best when responding to Megyn Kelly’s question about the “elephant that’s not in the room” when he said “Let me say, I’m a maniac, and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat and ugly, and Ben, you’re a terrible surgeon. Now that we’ve gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way,” he finished to laughter.”
Otherwise, Mr. Trump was an afterthought at best. This statement is just wrong:
Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, the two top challengers to Trump in Iowa, engaged in squabbles over immigration and national security and did not appear to threaten Trump’s lead. He holds the edge over Cruz in polls of Iowa Republicans.
The polls actually show Trump and Cruz virtually tied. The Monmouth University poll that shows Trump with a 7-point lead is based on a turnout model that’s more fantasy than scientific. Further, let’s stipulate that Trump’s most loyal supporters aren’t going anywhere. They simply aren’t. The latest Quinnipiac poll, though, shows 39% of Republican caucusgoers might still change their minds. They aren’t likely to break in Trump’s direction.
Reuters needs to discipline these reporters because their reporting is woefully inaccurate.
Readers of LFR know that I’ve criticized the Agenda Media for almost 10 years. I especially criticized them when they didn’t do their due diligence on then-Candidate Obama. What’s happening now with GOP-leaning commentators is just as disgusting as what lefty pundits and reporters did in 2008. One of the biggest offenders this year is Andrea Tantaros, a co-host on Outnumbered.
Each time that Outnumbered talks about Trump, her eyes glaze over and she starts rattling off utter nonsense. Normally, I don’t have much use for Media Matters but I appreciate them highlighting what Ms. Tantaros said during Tuesday’s show. Particularly disgusting is Ms. Tantaros’ statement that “He has been front runner despite these controversial comments. Republicans criticizing him but again they’re saying to a problem “nope,” even though he’s coming up with a solution, even though they don’t like it.”
Tantaros said this about Trump’s ban-all-Muslims diatribe. Calling Trump’s childish diatribe a solution is insulting. The primary definition of solution is “the act of solving a problem, question, etc.” Ms. Tantaros, how does Trump’s diatribe solve the problem of stopping Middle Eastern terrorists entering the United States when it isn’t enforceable?
Trump’s statement barely qualifies as a coherent thought. (That’s still debatable.) It certainly doesn’t qualify as a solution. If Ms. Tantaros’ blather wasn’t enough, she continued with this exchange with Fox Business’s Sandra Smith:
TANTAROS: But, Sandra, from a messaging perspective, again we see Trump, though he says something that is inflammatory perhaps, right? Discriminating based on religion, right?
SANDRA SMITH (HOST): It helps him in the polls.
TANTAROS: It helps him in the polls because it’s a solution to a problem that no one will tackle.
I don’t know if Ms. Tantaros is that stupid or that dishonest. Sen. Rubio, Mrs. Fiorina and Gov. Christie have stepped forward with plans to fix the problem. Their plans include no-fly zones so displaced Syrians don’t leave the Middle East. Trump’s blather is based on isolationism that doesn’t attack the root cause of the problem.
If Ms. Tantaros can’t figure that out, she shouldn’t be on national TV.
Other repeat offenders are Charlie Gasparino and Eric Bolling. They sing Trump’s praises constantly, too. Yesterday on The Five, Bolling praised Trump before mentioning that there were hundreds of people at his campaign rally. Greg Gutfeld interrupted, saying that you don’t have to mention numbers if you’re right, the point being that Bolling tried using numbers of supporters at a campaign event to prove Trump was right.
In 2008, tens of thousands of people showed up for President Obama’s campaign events. We’ve suffered through 7 years of economic malaise and several years of apprehension about stopping terrorist attacks. Simply put, Bolling’s argument is flimsy at best.
This trio’s critical thinking abilities don’t exist when it comes to Mr. Trump. Rather than turning this post into a rant, though, let’s provide solutions to this trio of wayward souls.
Mentioning something in that day’s news isn’t a solution. Presenting a half-baked idea that’s been modified several times in the following 24 hours isn’t a proposal, either. Here’s a hint to this clueless trio: if a candidate has to constantly modify what he said, it’s safe to say that he didn’t think things through.
Here’s another hint: I’m not looking for a candidate that mentions a timely topic but doesn’t provide a thoughtful solution. Any idiot can mention things. The United States is in terrible shape because we’ve got a president who hasn’t provided a solution to the challenges facing this nation. We don’t need another narcissist who doesn’t think in terms of thoughtful, detailed solutions.
Finally, Trump’s supporters say that he’d “get things done.” I’d challenge that because it’s impossible to solve problems when the candidate can’t put a coherent sentence together, much less provide a solution.
Technorati: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Charlie Gasparino, Agenda Media, Sandra Smith, Greg Gutfeld, Solutions, Refugee Resettlement Program, Syria, No-Fly Zone, ISIS
I’ve frequently criticized President Obama for his use of straw man arguments. Ditto with Hillary Clinton. If I want to maintain credibility, I can’t sit and listen to Rush Limbaugh’s straw man argument. During his monologue on how Trump plays the media, Rush mentioned that Harry Reid criticized Republicans after Trump’s speech. Reid said “Donald Trump is standing on the platform of hate, and, I’m sorry to say, hate that the Republican Party has built for him.”
Rush’s knee-jerk reaction was disgusting and foolish. He criticized Republicans, saying “You Republicans, you can denounce Trump all day, all week, all month, and the Democrat Party and the media are still gonna say you laid the table for it. You can condemn Trump all you want, but it is not going to buy you any love or respect or admiration from the Drive-By Media and the Democrats.”
That’s breathtaking. When I’ve criticized Trump, it’s been substantively. I’ve never done it to win a Democrat’s admiration. Period. Apparently, Rush hasn’t learned the first rule of holes because he kept digging:
Now, folks, the conventional wisdom is that Trump is scum, that Trump is a reprobate, that Trump is dangerous, that Trump is obscene, Trump’s insane, Trump’s a lunatic, Trump’s dangerous, Trump’s got to go. Why join in with that phrase? Why join that crowd? We never fall in with conventional wisdom here.
If Rush thinks that it’s “conventional wisdom” to think that Trump’s a lunatic or a reprobate or that he’s dangerous, then Rush’s brain isn’t what it used to be. The definition for lunatic is “a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.” The definition for reprobate is “a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person.”
It wouldn’t require Einstein to defend the notion that Trump is a reprobate or a lunatic. Therefore, it isn’t conventional wisdom that Trump is a reprobate or a lunatic. It’s just the indisputable truth.
It’s time for someone to tell Limbaugh that his arguments about Mr. Trump are embarrassingly stupid. He used to be smart. While it’s possible that he’s still smart, it isn’t showing lately.
After reading the opening paragraphs of this SC Times Writers Group article, I’m disappointed that the writer bought into liberal spin.
When Mr. Larson said “Perhaps the most obvious historical acts of domestic terrorism were committed against black Americans by white lynch mobs. In a single campaign of terror in 1918, white residents of Arkansas murdered 237 of their black neighbors in an attempt to enforce Jim Crow laws and maintain segregation. Recent scholarship places the total of American-Americans killed by lynching between 1877-1950 at 3,959 and likely many more undocumented cases exist as well,” he exposed himself to criticism for buying that spin.
The reason why Larson deserves the criticism he’ll get in this post is because he opened his article by saying “The United States has a terrorism problem. Despite our new-found fear of Syrian refugees, however, the greater risk is almost certainly from domestic sources.” That’s stupidity personified.
According to Mr. Larson, domestic terrorism is the United States’ biggest terrorist problem today because “white lynch mobs” murdered black people 100 years ago. What type of idiot thinks that crimes committed a century ago constitutes a domestic terrorist threat in the 21st Century?
These paragraphs are breathtakingly painful:
News reports the past 15 years have included terrorist attacks by animal rights extremists, lone wolf snipers, a pilot angry at the IRS, religious extremists targeting Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and Christians, and, of course, multiple school shootings — at least some of which might also be described as acts of terrorism.
All of these attacks were committed by Americans against other Americans, and all with political or religious motivation to use terror to “intimidate or coerce.”
Under this definition, the word terrorism is utterly meaningless, which, I suspect, is the goal of anti-war lefties.
The latest spin from progressives is that the questions asked at the CNBC Disaster were “the most substantive” questions asked this debate season:
Cruz ticked off the insults the CNBC moderators had lobbed Wednesday night at the assembled Republicans. “Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?”
The crowd roared. Republican pollster Frank Luntz reported with some awe that his focus group gave Cruz’s riff a 98. “That’s the highest score we’ve ever measured,” Luntz tweeted. “EVER.”
Cruz’s attack on the moderators was smart politics, but it was almost precisely backwards. The questions in the CNBC debate, though relentlessly tough, were easily the most substantive of the debates so far. And the problem for Republicans is that substantive questions about their policy proposals end up sounding like hostile attacks, but that’s because the policy proposals are ridiculous, not because the questions are actually unfair.
Let me correct those deceptive statements before someone starts thinking that they’re substantive comments worthy of serious consideration. To do that, it’s important to provide context for the debate. CNBC signed a contract that said that this debate would be about economic issues.
John Harwood didn’t meet those expectations. He failed that test early and often. Early on, he asked Donald Trump a question that ended with him saying “Let’s be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?” That’s Klein’s idea of a substantive, hard-hitting question?
A couple minutes later, Becky Quick asked Dr. Carson a question about his tax plan, saying “Dr. Carson, let’s talk about taxes. You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and, I’ve looked at it, and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I’ve had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.” Though this sounds like a fair question, it isn’t from the standpoint that Dr. Carson’s flat tax plan, in Dr. Carson’s words, “the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.”
If these are examples of “the most substantive”, hard-hitting questions of the debate season, why are they utterly disrespectful? Why didn’t the ‘moderators’ do their homework and get the basics right? When Harwood asked Sen. Rubio about his tax plan, he got it almost entirely wrong. Here’s that exchange:
HARWOOD: Senator Rubio, 30 seconds to you. The Tax Foundation, which was alluded to earlier, scored your tax plan and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to people in the middle of the income scale. Since you’re the champion of Americans living paycheck-to- paycheck, don’t you have that backward?
RUBIO: No, that’s — you’re wrong. In fact, the largest after- tax gains is for the people at the lower end of the tax spectrum under my plan. And there’s a bunch of things my tax plan does to help them.
Number one, you have people in this country that…
HARWOOD: The Tax Foundation — just to be clear, they said the…
RUBIO: …you wrote a story on it, and you had to go back and correct it.
HARWOOD: No, I did not.
RUBIO: You did. No, you did.
Sean Davis’ article settles that matter permanently by posting Harwood’s tweet saying that he “had to go back and correct it”:
John Harwood? Verified account ?
?@JohnJHarwood CORRECTING earlier tweet: Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%). Avg for all: 17.8%.
It’s stunning that the DNC apologists that call themselves journalists can’t even get their facts straight. They can’t even admit that they’ve made mistakes when it’s highlighted that they’ve made major mistakes. Harwood’s mistake was so bad that the Tax Foundation corrected him in a tweet…during the debate:
Scott A. Hodge ?@scottahodge
Rubio was right about his plan. Poor get larger tax benefit than the rich. #CNBCGOPdebate http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/FF457-Charts_4.png …
These aren’t substantive, hard-hitting questions. If I wanted to write a 3,000 word article on the flimsy, unprofessional questions asked at the CNBC I could do it without much effort. When a moderator asks whether fantasy football should be regulated, the candidates should have the right to criticize the moderators.
Normally, Kirsten Powers is one of the somewhat sane liberals in the national media. Ms. Powers’ latest USA Today article proves that there’s an exception to every rule.
The subject of Ms. Powers’ latest column is last week’s Benghazi hearing. According to Ms. Powers, who seems to have digested the Democrats’ chanting points then regurgitated them for this column, Republicans “bungling and bullying at Thursday’s hearing should count as an in-kind donation to the Clinton campaign.” Of course, Ms. Powers then said that what “happened in Benghazi matters” before saying that “investigating security failures, especially those that resulted in the deaths of Americans, is a laudable endeavor.”
Unfortunately, she then asked “does anyone really believe that’s what the Republicans were up to last week?”
The reason I suspect that this is a world-class spin job is this question:
But is it really a mystery as to why a friend of at least two decades would have her email address?
That’s spin. It isn’t surprising that Sid Blumenthal would have Hillary’s email address. It’s that Christopher Stevens didn’t have it. This emphasizes the point:
“During the hearing Michael McFaul tweeted, “As ambassador in Russia, I enjoyed multiple ways to communicate with Secretary Clinton. Email was never one of them.”
Actually, McFaul might’ve highlighted something important in that tweet. Clearly, he was able to “communicate with Secretary Clinton.” Why wasn’t Ambassador Stevens able to communicate directly with Mrs. Clinton? It’s clear that Stevens tried getting Mrs. Clinton’s attention often. According to documentation introduced at the hearing, Christopher Stevens literally made hundreds of requests for additional security.
According to Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, she never received a single request. She said that she “neither rejected or approved” any of Christopher Stevens’ security requests.
Ms. Powers says that “hate-blinded Republicans” bungled the hearing. That’s a cheap shot and then some. Republicans weren’t blinded with hate. They were determined to find out why Mrs. Clinton failed to protect Christopher Stevens, the man Mrs. Clinton called her “dear friend.” Is it typical for Mrs. Clinton to treat dear friends like that? If it is, then I’m thankful I’m not one of Hillary’s dear friends.
Does Ms. Powers think that it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton repeatedly told the American people for well over a week that a video caused the terrorist attack after telling her daughter that it was a terrorist attack? Does Ms. Powers think it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister and the Libyan president that Christopher Stevens died in a terrorist attack?
If asking tough questions of Mrs. Clinton is bullying, then this nation’s best days are in its past. If trying to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her decisions is proof that Republicans hat Mrs. Clinton, then Ms. Powers has a dramatically different definition of hatred than I do. Does Ms. Powers think Mike Pompeo bullied Mrs. Clinton when he asked her why nobody at the State Department got fired for not approving Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security? Does Ms. Powers think Susan Brooks bullied Mrs. Clinton when she asked Mrs. Clinton if she ever talked with Christopher Stevens after he was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to Libya?
Personally, I’d call those important, thoughtful questions proof that Republicans on that committee took their jobs seriously.
Finally, I’d love hearing Ms. Powers response to whether these questions are either a) inappropriate or b) proof that I’m trying to bully Mrs. Clinton.