Mother Of Spokesweasel Who Banned Herald From Obama Event Is David Axelrod’s Sister (Updated)

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?

Update 5/19:

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.

 

MSNBC: George W. Bush’s Book Is Wildly Popular…Because He Was Hated

Riiight.  Because people just love to drop cash on books about people they loathe.

Mediate via Hot Air

In the battle of the presidential memoirs, George W. Bush is gaining some significant ground on his predecessor, selling almost as many copies of Decision Points in two months as President Bill Clinton sold of his in two years. Why would Americans be so eagerly purchasing the product? One suggestion on MSNBC is that, maybe, people just hate Bush more. Speaking to Norah O’Donnell, who introduced the segment in awe of the book sales given approval ratings, Salon writer Alex Pareene brought a grab-bag of reasons that Bush’s book may be selling like hotcakes, few of which were flattering:

It may be the fact that he was hated by so many people actually helped fuel his book sales because people wanted to hear him actually justify himself and explain some of his decisions that he made. And, you know, there are, I mean, you can imagine that some people bought it as a gag or some people got it, received it as a gift and didn’t really want it.

Why of course….a gag gift! 

It’s going to be a long two years for Poor Norah & Co. at MSNBC now that the bloom is officially off The Messiah’s rose and people are looking back on the Bush years with longing.  Pass the popcorn!

 

 

 

 

No Labels? Joe Scarborough Calls Jon Kyl “Un-Christlike”…Right After Quoting Matthew’s “judge not” Instruction From Bible

This is especially priceless as it comes on the heels of the launch of “No Labels” of which Scarborough and Precious Mika are charter members.

Mere moments after citing Matthew 7’s instruction to “judge not, that ye be not judged,” Joe Scarborough denounced Jon Kyl and Jim DeMint as “un-Christlike.”

Scarborough’s strange self-contradiction came in the course of his diatribe against the two Republican senators for having criticized Harry Reid for threatening to keep the Senate in session through Christmas.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

Epic Fail. Obama’s Oval Office Speech Savaged By…Left?!?!

The screaming headline at The Huffington Post says it all.  I think it’s safe to say that Barry & Co. never imagined they would wake up to the words “JUNK SHOT” in response to The One’s first Oval Office speech.  The words that follow are just as harsh:

Reviews of the speech were harsh. Environmental reporter Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones wrote:

On the Gulf disaster, Obama could have offered clear direction on several issues: for instance, by clarifying the administration’s stance on eliminating the liability cap to protect oil companies from damages following a spill, or by offering a hard number for how much money BP must set aside for the independently administered fund the government has proposed.
Then there are the questions about wider energy and climate policy that remain unanswered. Obama largely avoided the issue of climate change, only uttering the word “climate” once as part of the phrase “a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill.” He at least hit the right notes on clean energy, talking about solar power, wind, efficiency, and electric cars, an improvement over his State of the Union address this year, where nuclear power, “clean” coal, and offshore drilling figured heavily. But what his speech lacked was specific directives, which is what the Senate needs at this point. There wasn’t even a clear call for a carbon cap, which I fear all but dooms its chances this year.

Similarly, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted the “pessimistic take” on Obama’s vague language about an energy bill was that the president “shied away from clearly describing the problem, did not endorse specific legislation, did not set benchmarks, and chose poll-tested language rather than a sharper case that might persuade skeptics.”

MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Howard Fineman were particularly disappointed. “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days,” Olbermann said, adding, “Nothing specific at all was said… I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling to have heard this, isn’t it?” Fineman agreed: “He wasn’t specific enough,” and failed to lead as a “commander-in-chief” should.

There is a link to the MSNBC video.  I highly recommend it.  I’m a sucker for punishment and watched the Keith & Chris smackdown after the speech and had to lift my jaw off the floor at their comments delivered with such snark.

Maddow Calls Scott Brown A Creep For Using Senate Run Rumor To Raise Money…In Full-Page Ad To Promote Her Crappy Show

This is rich.  The rumor that Maddow is so offended over was started by a  Tweet from the MA Democratic party chairman and furthered by a liberal talk radio host.

“The idea that the Democrats are to blame for this doesn’t even make sense. It’s ridiculous,” Maddow told the Herald yesterday. “Scott Brown made this up in order to make money off my name and likeness and I think he should stop. And I think he should apologize.”

Maddow, who lives in western Massachusetts, called Brown a “creep” in a planned MSNBC newspaper ad scheduled to run today and slammed him for sending out a nationwide fund-raising letter this week “smearing me to raise money for himself.”

However, the rumor sprang from a Facebook page launched by a liberal Northhampton radio host, was fueled by a mysterious tweet from the state Democratic party chairman and got pumped up as recently as Wednesday by the state’s Democratic governor.

Maddow is offended that Brown used the potential match-up for fund-raising.  So what does the failed Air America turned MSNBC host do?  She takes out a full-page ad to denounce him while promoting her unwatchable show.

Typical liberal.  Playing the victim while doing the same thing you accuse your foes of.

And Rachel dear, I wouldn’t worry too much about Scott Brown making money off of your likeness.

Chris Matthews Calls West Point “Enemy Camp”…Update: Matthews Apologizes

Scroll for updates.

After Obama’s Afghanistan speech tonight, Chris Matthews notes that the cadets were less than impressed with the speech and then refers to West Point as “the enemy camp.”

They didn’t throw roses at Obama so they are the enemy

Watch it here.

Update #1: Ethel Fenig writes about this at American Thinker:

So Matthews believes West Point, the first American military academy, is the “enemy camp” and “a strange venue” for their Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, to announce to the country and more specifically to the student and faculty audience who will be directly affected, his plans to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Confused by his tingling brain and perhaps thinking Obama was refereeing a West Point football game, Matthews spoke of his surprise that a group of “young kids–men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said” didn’t demonstrate “a lot of excitement” because he “didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there.” (But Matthews is the sort who notices and finds important what others don’t; eg, Sarah Palin admirers are mainly white. All of these comments reveal much about Matthews but little about the situation.)

Update #2:  Tingles apologizes  – Video via Hot Air

Now he can go back to his normal business of comparing the Christian Right to the Taliban and questioning the legality of calling Al Qaeda.

Chris Matthews Indignant At Question About MSNBC’s Dismal Ratings

And he refused to answer the question.

A petulant Chris Matthews wouldn’t talk about MSNBC’s recent ratings dip during an interview flogging his fawning chris matthews gropeessay on the late Sen. Edward Kennedy that’s in the November issue of Boston magazine.

“Let’s just drop all the conversation about my network,” the “Hardball” host huffed the other day. “I’m not a media critic.”

It could be that Matthews got a little hot under the collar because his left-leaning network has been losing viewers.

During the recent third-quarter ratings period, Fox News averaged about 2.26 million total viewers in prime time and was up 2 percent from the same time last year. CNN had 949,000 viewers and was down 30 percent. MSNBC averaged 795,000 viewers and was down 10 percent.

In the coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic, Fox News averaged 589,000 viewers and was up 5 percent. CNN had 288,000 and was down 39 percent. SNBC had 275,000 and was down 21 percent.

Mediaweek television analyst Marc Berman says Fox News is well above the competition.

“There’s bleeding everywhere except Fox News,” Berman said. “The rich has gotten richer and that’s Fox News.”

Matthews did, however, weigh in on the feud between rival Fox News and the Obama administration, which has accused the channel of being an “arm of the Republican Party” and said it shouldn’t be treated as a news organization.

“My hunch is they’ve discovered in their research that the commentators on that network have begun to cut into the independents and that they’re worried that some independents are listening to those voices and believing them,” Matthews opined.

As for his essay on Kennedy, Matthews says the glossy mag approached him to write it. The theme of his piece is how the legendary lawmaker triumphed over tragedy, and it’s the opening essay for the magazine’s upcoming Kennedy bonanza.

Boston magazine senior editor Paul Kix said they picked Matthews because he’d known Kennedy for a long time and because of his connection to the late House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. Matthews was the Cambridge Democrat’s top aide for six years.

Kix said he was also chosen for the “buzziness.”

“Though he’s not a local guy, he does have a reputation within media circles,” Kix said.

In addition to O’Neill, Matthews tells us he does have other Bay State ties. He graduated from Holy Cross and has a summer home on Nantucket.

The magazine had tried to get Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, to cooperate but she wasn’t interested . . .

Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment on the essay.

Obama White House Confirms Chris Wallace’s Crybaby Remarks

Via Hot Air/Via TimecrybabyThis is rich.

For deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer, the more hyperbolic attacks on health-care reform this summer, which were often covered as a “controversy,” flipped an internal switch. “When you are having a debate about whether or not you want to kill people’s grandmother,” he explains, “the normal rules of engagement don’t apply.”

How about when a U.S. Congressman says Republicans want sick people to die?  Crickets.

And for his boss, Anita Dunn, the aha moment came when the Washington Post ran a second op-ed from a Republican politician decrying the “32” alleged czars appointed by the Obama Administration. Nine of those so-called czars, it turned out, were subject to Senate confirmation, making them decidedly unlike  the Russian monarchs. “The idea — that the Washington Post didn’t even question it,” Dunn says, still marveling at the decision.

Nine out thirty-two and she is indignant.  So by her standards the other 23 must qualify as so-called czars.

The take-no-prisoners turn has come as a surprise to some in the press, considering the largely favorable coverage that candidate Obama received last fall and given the President’s vows to lower the rhetorical temperature in Washington and not pay attention to cable hyperbole. Instead, the White House blog now issues regular denunciations of the Administration’s critics, including a recent post that announced “Fox lies” and suggested that the cable network was unpatriotic for criticizing Obama’s 2016 Olympics effort. (See pictures of Barack Obama’s nation of hope.)

Is it redundant to ask about the collective orgasm the press would have had if George W. Bush had suffered such a humiliating defeat on an international stage?  As if MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC wouldn’t have run with this and dedicated hours of “analysis” on what it meant to his presidency and the United States’ standing in the world.

The general in this war is Dunn, 51, a veteran campaign strategist who arrived at the White House in May. She has been a force in Democratic campaigns since the late 1980s and helmed Obama’s rapid-response operation during his run. At the White House, she has become a devoted consumer of conservative-media reports and a fierce critic of Fox News, leading the Administration’s effort to block officials, including Obama, from appearing on the network. “It’s opinion journalism masquerading as news,” Dunn says. “They are boosting their audience. But that doesn’t mean we are going to sit back.” Fox News’s head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network’s reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to “the op-ed page of a newspaper.”

Um, MSNBC anyone?

It’s no wonder that Team O feels blindsided by the mildest of criticisms.  They were given the pass of all passes during the campaign and, to date, still have the press spinning the bleakest of news in a favorable light for them.  Now they can’t take it when journalists actually do their jobs for once.