Updates in bold.
The corrupt apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
In case you missed it, the White House banned the Boston Herald from full access to Obama’s fundraiser in Boston today because the Herald ran an op-ed by Mitt Romney on its front page on the same day of the Messiah’s visit here back in March.
The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”
“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.
Howie Carr, a Herald columnist, was livid and went ballistic on his radio show today.
Watch Howie’s rant here.
Makes you wonder what Obama’s internal poll numbers are showing in a matchup with Mitt, doesn’t it?
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell sides with the Herald. No, your eyes are not deceiving you.
O’DONNELL: The Herald says it made a request to send a pool reporter to today’s events. Pool reporters provide information to the rest of the media when there’s limited access at a press event. The Herald said in turning down their request, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich mentioned the Romney op-ed from the last time President Obama was in town. Lehrich’s email to the Herald said in broken English, “I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters.” Good luck trying to diagram that sentence. “My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting President of the United States to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits.”
Okay, White House, let’s get something straight here: The Boston Herald is not unbiased. Let’s get something else straight: The Boston Globe is not unbiased. The New York Times is not unbiased. The Washington Post is not unbiased. There are now maybe no more than ten cities left in America that have more than one newspaper. Boston is one of those lucky cities. The Boston Globe, the dominant paper in the region, likes you guys in the Obama White House. The Boston Herald doesn’t like you. Get used to it. And understand that the Herald can do you no harm. You won Massachusetts by nearly 26 points. You are going to win Massachusetts again no matter what the Herald says about you. If the Herald had the power to change minds in Massachusetts, John Kerry would not be a senator and Deval Patrick would not be a governor.
You know you’ve really stepped in it when you have the likes of Lawrence O’Donnell calling out your stupidity.
How one handles defeat says a lot about a person. How one handles victory says even more. Barney Frank was his usual small, mean and bitter self in his victory speech last night.
A cranky U.S. Rep. Barney Frank blasted the Herald last night as “irrelevant,” even as surging Republicans grabbed control of the U.S. House and swept him from his lofty perch as chairman of the powerful financial services committee.
“With the re-election of the Massachusetts delegation and Gov. Deval Patrick, we can reaffirm the complete political irrelevance of the Boston Herald,” Frank told more than 100 supporters at the Crowne Plaza in Newton. “There is no limit to the bias and vitriol they unleashed.”
They say you get the government you vote for. The people in Barney Frank’s district have made it clear that they want this porcine, obnoxious, pompous ass to represent them in Washington.
Update: Howie Carr reminds Barney that irrelevance awaits him on Capitol Hill.
You want to talk irrelevant? How about an over-the-hill back-bencher whose district is just crying out to be eliminated in the upcoming redistricting?
It looks like alarm bells are also ringing at the Boston Globe. In their endorsement of Coakley, the editors mention her seven times. In contrast, they mention Scott Brown fourteen times. It reads more like a repudiation of Brown than an endorsement of Coakley.
Republican State Senator Scott Brown, who drives an old truck, channels voter skepticism more directly. Ignoring signs of improvement in the economy, he casts President Obama as the source of today’s problems, and would give the Republicans enough votes to block, under Senate rules, anything Obama wants to do. Affable in person, Brown nonetheless seeks to be a terminator, stopping the Democratic domestic agenda in its tracks.
In Massachusetts, the expected result of a Senate election is a Democratic victory, so Brown wins points for being different. He even entices voters to give him a try, noting that they can toss him out after three years.
Rarely has a pitch been more misleading. A vote for Brown is hardly a symbolic protest against congressional gridlock and the ways of Washington. It’s a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That’s what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate.
Um, that’s the point. Thanks bow-tie bumkissers!
In case you’re wondering, the Herald endorsement of Brown mentions Coakley once.
This isn’t too surprising, but it helps and I love the timing – less than two hours before the debate.
Massachusetts voters have to ask themselves a serious question before they head to the polls next week: Are they content with the current state of affairs in Washington?
Are they content with a sweeping health care bill, now being negotiated behind closed doors by principals from only one political party? (So much for a new era of bipartisanship promised by our president.)
And are they prepared for the impact that bill will have on the health care industry in our own state, where we already insure 97 percent of our population?
Well, the voters of this state have the power to change that next week. Sometimes one vote can make a difference – especially if it’s one vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
If you love what’s going on in Washington, well, then by all means vote for Martha Coakley. She’s a perfectly nice person, and she won’t make a dime’s worth of difference in the balance of power in Washington.
But if you’re not happy with the status quo, if you think the way business is being conducted on Capitol Hill today is a disgrace and an affront to taxpayers, then you probably agree it’s time for a change.
Scott Brown can single-handedly deliver on that kind of change and the Herald is pleased to endorse his candidacy in the race for U.S. Senate.
Brown talks about being the “41st senator,” adding to Republican ranks and depriving Democrats of the “supermajority” which has allowed them to ride roughshod over the nation’s agenda. But he would go to Washington as his own man – and as ours, beholden to no one, except Massachusetts voters.
Will Martha The Ice Queen beg The Boston Globe to push up their glowing endorsement of her now?
The Boston Herald’s resident dingbat, Margery Eagan, sinks to a new low with her Sunday column. The supposed feminist took a few hours off from bashing Sarah Palin to spend some quality time with a Muslim convert who extols the virtues of the burqa.
Everything else is hidden by a cloth barricade, her Muslim burqa. She seems entombed, yet I feel strangely exposed, as if she has the unfair advantage until we go inside the Islamic Center of New England, in Quincy. Then there are three women together in a room, and she removes her veil.
I still can’t see her hair or body. But now we are face to face. I feel much better.
“This is my choice to cover,” she says. “I am not oppressed. My husband doesn’t oppress me. No one stands over me with a gun. There is nothing in my culture that says I should cover. I do it for religious reasons,” says Bilal, 43, a wife and mother and a Muslim convert at age 25. She says most of the Muslim women she knows don’t cover their faces. That is their choice. But the wives of the prophet Muhammad did, Bilal says, and to her, “covering is more pleasing to God.”
I wonder if she happened to mention to Eagan that one of Muhammad’s wives was nine years old (at best) when she got so lucky?