Conservative Hypocrites Ignore Prior Speeches By Presidents

This is from Media Matters for America related to speeches by presidents to students:

Putting aside possible ulterior motives, the conservative freak-out over President Obama’s planned speech to students urging them to stay in school and work hard is due to fears that Obama will use his platform as an opportunity to push his agenda on unsuspecting students. Ironically, that’s exactly what President Reagan did two decades ago. On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marlin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “t o schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes …

For the rest of the entry, visit: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020

Big Hollywood Writer Singles Out Minorities for Attack

The backlash against minorities continues to build since the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States of America. Now, in reality, this is hardly an unexpected occurrence as many older members of the Republican and conservative wing of the political spectrum are angry. The country they knew is slipping away and what many of these individuals see is the browning of America. And, they don’t like it one bit. These bitter and angry individuals show their frustration with the severe backlash to anything even remotely resembling affirmative action and with illegal immigration (with the way that the Latino population in this country is growing and the projections for the future).

This all brings me to a blog published on Big Hollywood by a man named Brian Jennings. Jennings goes on and on about how the country is going into debt (conservatives didn’t care as much about it when George W. Bush was president) and then laments bailouts (or potential bailouts) for minority broadcasters.

Here is what Jennings wrote (with the graphic included):

Well if we can spend millions to protect the salt marsh mouse in San Francisco Bay, we can surely shell out billions to bail out minority broadcasters. It’s good for the economy and after all Congress is on record as saying it needs to save our nation’s newspapers, too.  So, the table is set for government financial intervention of the media.

Minority broadcasters are asking tax-cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for financial assistance.  Sounds like the financial and auto industries, and it is.  These broadcasters, including the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, the Inner City Broadcasting Coalition, the Spanish Broadcasting System, and others say they can bounce back because “unlike the auto business, broadcasting has been healthy for many years.”  Has it now?

Jennings continues:

As the nation digs itself further into debt and unemployment continues to increase, media is being hit as hard as any sector.  But, there is an important point to be made.  Perhaps suspect business models should be allowed to fail.  If there is bailout money for minority broadcasters, what about bailout money for the nation’s non-minority broadcasters who face what many believe is their only path – bankruptcy.  The answer to that is a forgone conclusion.  Minorities will get a bailout because after all they are minorities and deserve special treatment.  But, other broadcasters – especially the consolidated media will not get a dime.  No media should be bailed out.

It’s the same old politics of fear in regard to under-qualified minorities supposedly getting so muchspecial treatment while “others” work sooooooooooooo hard and, well you know, just can’t get a break.

Jennings seems to think that minorities get all of this special treatment that “other broadcasters” don’t seem to get.

I doubt Jennings, or others like him, truly would want to trade positions with minorities.

He makes some reasonable points in regard to conflict of interest if the media is taking money (in the form of a bailout). So, maybe no media should be bailed out, but to take an obvious and angry shot at minorities (the way this writer did) has a bit of a smell of resentment and perhaps racism to it.

He also took an angry, partisan cheap shot at Timothy Geithner.

Crooks And Liars Points Out Sarah Palin’s Words Directed At Hillary Clinton

In March of 2008, at a during a Women and Leadership event, Sarah Palin had these words directed at then presidential candidate and U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton (who now is Secretary of State), who had talked about some of the media scrutiny she had been enduring during her historic run toward the White House:

This is pointed out by Crooks and Liars:

PALIN: Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it… When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don’t think it’s, it bodes well for her – a statement like that. … It bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.

I wonder if Sarah Palin now bothers herself. Now, it seems Palin is the woman out front complaining about the media, complaining about her treatment, complaining about the treatment of her kids and her family at every turn. This is after she took a shot (probably politically motivated) at Hillary Clinton.

Great point made by Crooks and Liars (there is video there, too):
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/after-calling-hillary-whiner-palin

Surprised To See Jesse Jackson And Al Sharpton Turn Up After Michael Jackson’s Death?

I will not even pretend to say I was surprised to see the Rev. Al Sharpton show up on television to be interviewed after the shockingly-sudden death of Michael Jackson, who was one of the great entertainers of all time. In the back of my mind, I was wondering when Rev. Sharpton would make his first appearance on the airwaves to have something to say about the life and death of Michael Jackson. But, then I began to wonder, when would the Rev. Jesse Jackson show up? It was not long before Rev. Jackson had shown up to essentially serve as spokesperson for the family of Michael Jackson. I could see the photograph that accompanied the Associated Press story with Rev. Jackson standing with Joe Jackson, father off Michael Jackson (that’s a lot of Jacksons).

I know a lot of people will come out and criticize Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton (both men certainly have earned their share of legitimate criticism over the years). I was hardly surprised Rev. Sharpton quickly found a television camera. But, perhaps Rev. Jackson might have been sought by the Jackson family or had offered to serve as a spokesperson for the Jackson family. To some extent, how his role came about as a sort of spokesperson for the Jackson family is a bit unclear to me.

While I know Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton both crave the spotlight (we’ve seen evidence of that over and over again), personally, I am going to give Jesse a pass on this one. I think, at least in this case, it appears Rev. Jackson is doing a noble deed for the family of Michael Jackson (even if he does get something out of it for himself: the spotlight he seems to enjoy).

If Jesse is able to bring the family of Michael Jackson a little comfort and support during this tragedy then I have no problem with it.

Huffington Post Question Story Being Blown Out Of Proportion

Many reporters on the left, and some reporters from the so-called mainstream media, are throwing a it about a question that the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney was allowed to ask President Obama during a White House press conference. This is another one of those manufactured controversies from individuals on the right wing and from individuals from the mainstream media overcome by a powerful sense of jealousy.

Here is the exchange during the press conference:

OBAMA: Since we’re on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?

QUESTION: Yes, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions on tonight from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online. And one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of — of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?

OBAMA: Well, look, we didn’t have international observers on the ground. We can’t say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country.

What we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It’s not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so, ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States.

And that’s why I’ve been very clear, ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say, unequivocally, that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the peaceful dissent, that — that spans cultures, spans borders.

And what we’ve been seeing over the Internet and what we’ve been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that — that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

The White House apparently was following that Nico Pitney was communicating with individuals inside of Iran as that country’s turmoil was all over the media. White House spokesman Bill Burton came out with a response: “We did reach out to (Nico) prior to press conference to tell him that we had been paying attention to what he had been doing on Iran and there was a chance that he’d be called on.”

This is a totally overblown story spun out of very little. There is no evidence that the president knew what the question was going to be (even if he had an idea what the subject matter might be). I could care less if he wanted to take a question about the situation in Iran from a reporter that the White House felt was in contact with people on the ground in Iran.

Pitney asked a question that was a hell of a lot better than others I’ve heard asked at presidential news conferences.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/23/nicos-question/

POLITICO:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html?showall

Will O’Reilly, Others On Fox Point Out Sanford Being Harsh On Clinton?

It will be interesting to see if the media (particularly Fox News) points out how tough Gov, Mark Sanford once was on former President Bill Clinton.

This is from an AP story posted by Yahoo News:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina’s governor once cited “moral legitimacy” when he was a congressman voting for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. He became a darling of fiscal conservatives over his ideological opposition to federal stimulus cash.

I wonder if Bill O’Reilly will mention this on his show or if he will just proceed with an one-sided attack (joined by Karl Rove and Bernie Goldberg) on the so-called liberal press.

I wonder if Bill O’Reilly and others will call out that “moral legitimacy” hypocrisy.

This also is a good example of why we shouldn’t put politicians on a pedestal.

Is All The Teleprompter Talk About President Obama Simply Disguised Racism?

Like many people, I find it reasonable to have a little chuckle now and again when politicians stumble over their words or lose their space in a speech. Sometimes it is funny. Other times (most of the time) I find it little more than just simple human error in a pressure-packed situation.

Now, as many of you are well aware, a lot of people have taken shots at President Obama over and over again for his use of the much-talked-about Teleprompter (as if no other politician has ever used one).

Consider this exchange between White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and reporter Lois Romano:

MS. ROMANO: The teleprompter changed last night.

MR. GIBBS: Mm-hmm.

MS. ROMANO: What was that about that? It’s a big jumbotron now.

MR. GIBBS: You know can, I tell you this?

MS. ROMANO: Yes.

MR. GIBBS: I am absolutely amazed that anybody in America cares about who the President picks at a news conference or the mechanism by which he reads his prepared remarks. You know, I guess America is a wonderful country.

MS. ROMANO: You’re saying this is all Washington Beltway stuff?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t even know if it’s that. I don’t think I should implicate the many people that live in Washington.

MR. GIBBS: No, I you know, I don’t think the President … let me just say this: My historical research has demonstrated that the President is not the first to use prepared remarks nor the first to use a teleprompter.

I know that last statement from Gibbs will be shocking to so many people who have swallowed (whole) the far-right and anti-Obama talking points about the use of the Teleprompter. They must be thinking, “he can’t be smart … he has to be cheating somehow.” OK, I realize Barack Obama is considered the first black president of the United States of America. But, I can tell you this, he certainly is not the first president to make use of a Teleprompter or the first to make use of prepared speeches or statements. You know, there’s this profession some of you may have heard of, it’s called: presidential speechwriter.

Here are some famous speechwriters for famous people from Wikipedia:

• Judson T. Welliver wrote for President Calvin Coolidge and is considered the first official presidential speechwriter. However Alexander Hamilton may have written speeches for George Washington.^{[citation needed]}
• Theodore “Ted” Sorenson wrote for President John F. Kennedy.
• Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote for President John F. Kennedy.
• Richard N. Goodwin wrote for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
• Pat Buchanan wrote for President Richard Nixon.
• Ben Stein wrote for President Richard Nixon.
• William Safire wrote for President Richard Nixon.
• Robert Hartmann wrote for President Gerald R. Ford.
• Chris Matthews wrote for President Jimmy Carter.
• James Fallows wrote for President Jimmy Carter.^[2]
• Peggy Noonan wrote for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
• Christopher Buckley for Presidents George H.W. Bush.
• Michael Waldman wrote for President Bill Clinton.
• David Frum wrote for President George W. Bush.
• Michael Gerson wrote for President George W. Bush.
• William McGurn (former Wall Street Journal editorial writer) replaced Michael Gerson recently as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.
• Jon Favreau has been named Director of Speechwriting for the administration of President Barack Obama.

Now, keep in mind, this is merely a partial list from a quick Internet search. Yet, people act as if President Obama is the first president in history to have prepared remarks, to read from a Teleprompter, or to read off a piece of paper. This, to me, is an orchestrated effort on the part of some people in the media to try and portray the president as less intelligent than he really is. It’s an effort to portray the president as some kind of puppet who is not really smart, but has to be guided by others around him because he is not capable of being as smart as we’ve all seen him to be with our own eyes and heard him to be with our own ears. Many people have fallen for the right-wing propaganda that could be based on a crusty foundation of racism. Why are we just now talking about President Obama reading prepared statements or reading from a Teleprompter? He’s not the first. Lets add another first to President Obama’s record. In addition to being this nation’s first black president, he also may be the first president so roundly criticized and ridiculed for something so weak – something numerous previous presidents and other politicians have done for centuries without so much as a peep from critics.

It makes me wonder why.

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/27/gibbs-pushes-back-on-tele_n_180209.html

LeBron James Must Learn From This Moment

It’s understandable Cleveland Cavaliers’ star LeBron James felt a lot of frustration.

After all, he put the Cavaliers on his back and carried them toward theNBA championship he so desperately covets. That dream, of course, was derailed by the Orlando Magic. Thus, the dream matchup of LeBron James and Kobe Bryant in the NBA Finals will not take place this season. But, in the wake of the loss of James and the Cavaliers to the Magic was an incident that has left a large number of people disappointed. James hustled off the court and blew off the media following the loss to Orlando that ended Cleveland’s season.

LeBron is a great player, and his best years are very much ahead of him. I know he was tired. After all, he carried that team on his back, and carried the team deeper into the playoffs than perhaps it should have been. Still, James made a mistake in not being more gracious in defeat. All the great players hurt after a loss. But, for the most part, they do the right thing – they face the media and they congratulate their opponents. There is no shame in paying respect to an opponent. In hockey, one of the greatest traditions in all of sports is the handshake line at the end of a series.

It was even more disappointing to see LeBron not admit his mistake and disrespect (although probably not intended that way) of the Orlando Magic. At some point, I am sure LeBron and the Magic players will talk it over and bury the moment. In all honesty, it would not have hurt James to congratulate the Magic players and coaches on a phenomenal series and advancing to the NBA Finals. He should have been there with his teammates and coaches to face the Magic, the disappointment and the media.

Obviously, it was painful for LeBron James to lose so far short of his goal (an NBA championship). Now, he has to hope that this will not leave a stain (whether large or small) on his legacy.

Greg Gutfeld Hypocritically Chastises Janeane Garofalo … Forgets His Own Stereotyping Of Canadian Army

Greg Gutfeld, of Fox News, is blasting Janeane Garofalo for her strong comments about what she felt was the racism of tea party protestors on Tax Day. Certainly, there was a good deal of racism in those protests (and there has been toward President Barack Obama for quite some time), but I certainly would not paint all of those protestors with a broad brush. A lot of those anti-Obama protestors just hate liberals (Garofalo might argue that the intensity of the hatred perhaps is fueled, to some extent, by racism).

Gutfeld, starring as hypocrite, had these two comments about Garofalo:

Now Janeane was approached by Fox New’s own Griff Jenkins, who had asked her if she regretted her blanket stereotyping. To her strange, delusional credit, she stood by her original comments: that every tea party protestor hates black people.

The point is, the media excuses Garafolo’s ugliness, because they agree with it. The witch hunt for Carrie (Prejean) exists only because it’s carries a stamp of approval by the media.

You can’t get much uglier than that.

So, the media excused her, huh? Seems as though Fox News has been working overtime to hammer Garofalo at every turn. Last I checked, Fox News is part of the media … even if it is neither fair nor  balanced in its coverage and commentary. Gutfeld, however, has his own history of blanket and nasty stereotyping that he was forced to apologize for as he smeared Canada and the Canadian military:

They were spurred by comments from Canada’s army chief that the military would need a year’s hiatus to regroup and refurbish after its Kandahar mission ends in 2011.

In the Fox News segment, widely accessed on the Internet, Gutfeld said the Canadian military “wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white capri pants.”

“Isn’t this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country?” he said. “They have no army.”

That opening crack from Gutfeld prompted his comedian guest, Benson, to chime in: “I didn’t even know that they were in the war,” he said.

 ”I thought that’s where you go if you don’t want to fight – go chill in Canada. I guess that’ll be their tourism selling point: We’re not in the war for a year. So come on by while we nap.”

Gutfeld would be wise to remember his own history of unfair stereotyping before standing in judgement of someone else in a holier-than-thou fashion. So, who is really the delusional one here? Now, it’s possible Gutfeld is mostly upset because Garofalo did not back down from her comments (the way he was forced to for his reprehensible comments smearing an entire nation and its hard-working, dedicated military) when she was approached by Jenkins.

Yahoo News Canada:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/fox_news_cda

Big Hollywood:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/05/12/daily-gut-janeane-and-prejean/#more-133722