But the remark didn’t make it into the long profile. Leibovich agreed to give the Clinton campaign veto power over the statements she made.
The revelation comes in Part III of a massive email release from WikiLeaks.
Leibovich evidently gave the campaign the ability to ax quotes as part of a deal for access. Representatives from The Times did not immediately respond to an inquiry from LifeZette.
Leibovich emailed campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri on July 7, 2015, to try to lobby for a batch of quotes.
“These exchanges were pretty interesting … would love the option to use,” he wrote.
The Palin shot came during a discussion between Clinton and Leibovich in which the Democratic candidate for president discussed having eaten moose stew in Alaska. “So that’s why I always got a big kick out of Sarah Palin with all of her, ‘We’re cooking up some moose stew here,'” she said. Read the rest of this entry »
Erica K. Landau reports: It’s not just Republicans who get riled by the thought of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton ascending to the presidency. Some people on the left lock horns over Clinton often enough to suggest that Team Hillary still has a long way to go before she has shored up the traditional base of progressive voters.
The forthcoming book, “My Turn,” by Nation Magazine Contributing Editor Doug Henwood, critiques the former secretary of state’s decades-long political career, calling out her foreign policy positions and purported connections to big-money interests, among other contentious points. Read the rest of this entry »
Andrew Wallenstein reports: A website for a small cable network that will feature Sarah Palin talking with Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush crashed hours before the interviews were set to take place.
“So much interest in the interview of Donald J. Trump, Jeb Bush, and Ted Cruz tonight by Sarah Palin at 10 pm EST that you crashed the oann.com website! It will be up shortly – Thank you for the interest in One America News Network.”
Little-known One America News Network acknowledged the outage at 3:45 p.m. PT on Friday, citing widespread anticipation in the interviews. Read the rest of this entry »
Daniel Nussbaum writes: The comedian had long been an ardent (and profane) Tweeter, directing 140-character, expletive-laden barbs at Sarah Palin, ISIS, and Common Core, just to name a few. So it was somewhat surprising when his Twitter account seemed to simply vanish late last year.
“It didn’t make me feel good,” the comedian told host Gregg “Opie” Hughes. “It made me feel bad instead. So I stopped doing it.”
Every time I say anything on here, I wish I hadn’t said it. And then I’ll write a couple things to try to fix it, and then I feel worse. It’s just any time I tweeted anything, I was like, ‘Ugh, I don’t like the way that came out.’ And then four and a half million people saw it. Like it was the worst things I ever said, heard and seen by the most people. It’s like the worst possible scenario.”
“It’s too instant,” the comedian explained, telling Opie that he wasn’t bothered by trolls or criticism. “I don’t think the speed helps dialogue. I think it hurts. I think it’s why everything is kind of f***ed up and polarizing, because people are going too fast, they’re trying to react quickly.” Read the rest of this entry »
Matt Wilstein reports: It’s been close to five years since Louis C.K. got drunk on an airplane and tweeted the foulest things he could think of about Sarah Palin. Since then, he has moved on and deleted his Twitter account, but as the comedian told Howard Stern on Wednesday, it was just two months ago that he finally decided to apologize.
As Louis C.K. told it, Palin actually approached him at the afterparty for Saturday Night Live’s 40th anniversary special to tell him she thought he was “terrific” and “really funny,” though it was unclear if she really knew who he was.
In response, Louis C.K. just said, “I owe you an apology,” telling Stern that he’s never before apologized for anything he’s said and “fuck anybody else who’s offended.” But now that he was face-to-face with Palin, he felt he needed to address the situation.
When he explained to her what he had done, Palin told him, “Well, you’re a vile person,” which made him laugh. Then she invited him to go fishing with her next time he’s in Alaska, which he said he would do in a heartbeat.
Stern and Louis C.K. agreed that Palin is attractive and they both kind of want to “fuck” her. “It would be fun to fuck a conservative politician,” the comedian said, noting that opposites attract for a reason. This conversation led Stern to admit that he also fantasizes about sleeping with Megyn Kelly and Kimberly Guilfoyle from Fox News. Read the rest of this entry »
John Nolte writes: When it comes to the current scandal surrounding Democrat Hillary Clinton, the gossip/celebrity site TMZ is doing the job the mainstream media won’t. In the search for answers, TMZ was willing to send a staffer to the airport in the hopes that Ms. Clinton would answer questions about the scandal brewing around her decision to use only a private email hosted on her private server while serving as Secretary of State.
- Why wasn’t the mainstream media camped out with TMZ in the hopes of getting some answers?
- Why isn’t this video of Hillary refusing to answer running every fifteen minutes on cable news? I haven’t seen it once.
The answer of course is simple: Democrats sure got it good. Read the rest of this entry »
William Kristol weighs in:
…the overwhelming reason to kill the bill is that it’s not going to become law anyway. The president and the Senate leadership have made clear they’ll never accept it. So what’s the point of passing it? Leadership’s answer is—well, we’ll get credit for trying to do something. But will they? From whom? The mainstream media? Then the media will focus on what further compromises the GOP leadership will accept in September, on why Republicans won’t go to conference with the original Senate bill or parts of it, and on splits in GOP ranks about immigration…
…The president’s approval rating is slipping to historic lows. Let it continue to slide. Don’t bail him out by jamming though a bill that divides Republicans, will confuse voters, won’t become law anyway, muddies responsibility for the border fiasco, and takes the spotlight off what should be the focus of the August recess–President Obama’s failed policies and Congressional Democrats’ support for them…(read more)
My secret lust for right-wing women
“I envy men of the right — their sexual lives are not constrained by the rules of sexual correctness we lefties are expected to live by.”
For The Spectator.uk, Cosmo Landesman writes: Not long ago I was out drinking with a group of friends and we started playing the If-You-Had-To game. The idea is to present players with two people they would never want to sleep with — and then make them choose which they’d sleep with. Here are some of the fiendish alternatives I had to face: Imelda Marcos or Wallace Simpson? Ayn Rand or Yoko Ono? Gertrude Stein or Virginia Woolf?
“Sorry, comrades, but when it comes to the bedroom I’ll have to vote Tory.”
Then one joker said: Theresa May or Jemima Khan? Everyone laughed at this no-contest choice. Everyone except me. How could I tell them the ugly truth: I’d prefer a night of passion with right-wing Theresa over lefty Jemima any day of the week.
But then I belong to that small, deviant group of liberal-lefty-pro-feminist men who find conservative/right-wing women super sexy. In an age when anything goes — at least in terms of sexual pleasure — ours is a lust that dare not speak its name.
I know this because later that evening, I turned to one of the group and confessed my secret longing for the likes of Theresa May, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin — ideally all at once. I thought my fantasy night of passion would be received with sympathy and understanding. After all, this friend of mine pays a woman in Earls Court to put him on a rack and do things you don’t want to read about. He just looked at me and said: ‘You’re sick!’ Read the rest of this entry »
Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday he and President Obama have been targets of “a racial animus” by some of the administration’s political opponents.
“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.” (read more)
‘This Video Has Been Removed By User’: Cowardly Washington State Democrat’s Controversial Campaign Ad Angers CriticsPosted: July 12, 2014
Washington Examiner‘s T. Becket Adams contributes to embarrassing a reckless Washington state congressional candidate. Does he stand by his message? Well, no. He yanked the YouTube link, as illustrated in the screen cap above. The Yakima Herald reports that Beltran pulled the ad on Saturday after Americans for Responsible Solutions, a pro-gun control group, criticized it. Here’s how Beltran‘s (now removed) ad begins:
“They say I can’t win in this district.”
Estakio Beltran might as well have added “so let me take this opportunity to prove them right.”
“But what happens to an elephant that stands around doing nothing for too long?” he asked, referring to Republican Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington’s 4th District.
The Democratic candidate pulls the trigger and blows away the elephant.
According to The Seattle Times, the backlash over the imagery of the “Republican Party Symbol” has been heaviest among conservatives, who say the Democrats “would flip out if a GOP candidate blasted away at a symbol of the [Democrat] Party.”
Understandable, yes, it’d be a Democrats-with-hair-on-fire cuckoo-bananas flip out.
“Mr. Beltran’s ad showing him shooting a stuffed elephant — the longtime symbol of the Republican Party — is irresponsible and offensive. This kind of misguided imagery and rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum just furthers the lack of balance in our nation’s debate about guns,” a statement from Americans for Responsible Solutions read…(read more)
T. Becket Adams continues,
…this is slightly different from shooting a copy of the Affordable Care Act. There’s the Imagery of the party mascot and the suggestion that “this is what happens” to incumbent Republican politicians…
…Remember: Hours after Jared Loughner on Jan. 8, 2011, opened fire on a crowd in Casas Adobes, Ariz., killing six people and injuring 13, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, economist Paul Krugman penned a blog post blaming former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin:
Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing. Read the rest of this entry »
Sarah Palin Switches Sides, Supercharges Democratic Campaign Fundraising Efforts with Thrilling ‘Impeach Obama’ Democrat HelperPosted: July 12, 2014
In a surprising move, Sarah Palin joins forces with Democratic fundraisers to help boost campaign contributions, and increase Democrat voter turnout
“…The Constitution provides the remedy for a president who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s impeachment…
To be clear, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not necessarily ordinary criminal offenses. Our Framers used the term to signify a dereliction of duty, and the first duty of the president is to enforce our laws and preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution. Read the rest of this entry »
And there’s no reason to believe it will work in 2014. The exit polls tell the real story.
For the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved writes: President Obama is suddenly upset about the alleged wage gap between men and women, but he’s not responding to a national economic crisis. Instead, he is attempting to revive the “war on women” theme that, according to Washington wisdom, helped carry Democrats to victory in 2012 and might do again in 2014. If this narrative were true, the White House could spend the year demonizing Republicans as women-hating creeps, driving women to the polls in November and helping the party hold the Senate.
But the conventional analysis isn’t accurate. National exit polls from 2012 show scant success for the war-on-women ploy, and there’s no reason to think trotting it out again will help Democrats in the midterms.
True enough, Mr. Obama won the overall female vote by 11 points in 2012—55% to 44%—but that’s hardly remarkable for a Democratic presidential candidate. Al Gore fared the same in 2000, prevailing among women by an identical 11-point advantage. Mr. Obama did better with women in 2008, beating John McCain by 56% to 43%. He enjoyed that advantage even though his first campaign never emphasized “women’s issues” and despite the presence of a woman— Sarah Palin—on the Republican ticket.
A closer look at the numbers reveals that Mr. Obama’s success with the ladies actually stemmed from his well-known appeal to minority voters. In 2012, 72% of all women voters identified themselves as “white.”
This subset preferred Mitt Romney by a crushing 14-point advantage, 56% to 42%. Though Democrats ratcheted up the women’s rhetoric in the run-up to Election Day, the party did poorly among the white women it sought to influence: The Republican advantage in this crucial segment of the electorate doubled to 14 points in 2012 from seven points in 2008. In the race against Mr. Romney, Obama carried the overall female vote—and with it the election—based solely on his success with the 28% of women voters who identified as nonwhite. He carried 76% of Latina women and a startling 96% of black women.
The same discrepancy exists when considering marital status. In 2012, nearly 60% of female voters were married, and they preferred Mr. Romney by six points, 53% to 46%. Black and Latina women, on the other hand, are disproportionately represented among unmarried female voters, and they favored Mr. Obama by more than 2-to-1, 67% to 31%.
Conservative Nebraska Senate candidate Ben Sasse, who has been surging since being labeled the anti-Obamacare candidate, has released a “Constitutional Madness” bracket to highlight the lawlessness of the Obama administration.
“Which is President Obama’s worst constitutional violation?” the bracket says.“Make your picks!”
Pairings include “allowing congressional Obamacare subsidies” versus “forcing taxpayers to violate religious conscience by funding abortion through Obamacare” to “Using the IRS to suppress free speech” to “Secret monitoring of Fox News and the Associated Press.”
Sasse, who has vowed to take on the permanent political class and has already clashed with the Washington establishment, was most recently endorsed by former Alaska. Gov. Sarah Palin.
Here are the “Constitutional Madness” regionals:
Allowing congressional Obamacare subsidies.
Forcing taxpayers to violate religious conscience by funding abortion through Obamacare.
Two-year delay in Obamacare individual mandate.
One-year delay to make health plans Obamacare-compliant.
One-year delay in Obamacare’s employer mandate.
Implementing the DREAM Act without legislation.
Changing welfare work rules without legislation.
House of Cards: ‘Is it possible, then, that we’re watching a conservative show? Well, no. And also yes…’Posted: March 16, 2014
There’s a lot to chew on in House of Cards, and much has been written about it, but this one has the finest blend of humor and insight. For a primer on Andrew Klavan (besides his book) check out his YouTube videos on the P J Media channel.
For City Journal, Andrew Klavan writes: House of Cards, the Netflix series about a lethally unscrupulous Washington politician, is a wonderful show, but it does sometimes stretch the limits of credulity. I have no trouble believing that a Democratic congressman would push a reporter in front of a train, but the idea that anyone in the press would try to expose him for it is flat-out ridiculous. After all, Barack Obama has been pushing reporters under the bus for six years and nobody’s said a word. Ah, well. If the show gives leftist politicos nightmares about being held accountable for their actions by American journalists, they can simply keep repeating, “It’s only a movie, it’s only a movie.”
“…After all, Barack Obama has been pushing reporters under the bus for six years and nobody’s said a word.”
House of Cards does pose a more realistic threat to leftists, however: their 40-year monopoly on artistic political statements—and their tacit blacklist of anyone who tries to make opposing statements—may finally be coming to an end. House of Cards is not, as left-wing activist Randy Shaw wrote in a blithering and inattentive piece on Huffington Post, a “Republican fantasy world,” but it is not pure leftist cant, either. And that in itself makes it something of a New Thing on the show-business landscape.
“…the actual political maneuvers that move the story forward are ideologically muddy and unrealistic. Democrats seek serious entitlement reform, but Republicans are reluctant to go along. Really? Democrats circumvent teachers’ unions to reform education. Dream on!
Let’s set aside the bigger issues for a moment and consider one small scene in the third episode of the second season. Reporter Janine Skorsky—brought to vivid life by the perfectly cast Constance Zimmer—has left the Washington rat race to teach journalism at an unnamed college in Ithaca, New York.
We find her lecturing the class on how a media-manipulated narrative can outweigh the facts. Her example? In 1992, led by the New York Times, the left-wing media reported that President George H.W. Bush was surprised to see a barcode scanner in the checkout line at a grocery store. Read the rest of this entry »
“This the second time in a week that former Republican candidates — ridiculed at the time for their foreign policy observations — have been proved right about Russia; Sarah Palin predicted in 2008 that under a weak Obama, Russia would be tempted to invade Ukraine…”
UPDATE: Now The New Republic is on record, saying “yeah, about that Romney thing…he was exactly right…” Question: Will any other left-leaning critics of Romney who trashed him during the campaign step up and revise their earlier (mocking) coverage? We’re not holding our breath…
[note: video links corrected]
Mitt Romney’s clear-eyed assessment of Vladimir Putin’s Russia is looking more spot-on accurate than ever, yet it was greeted at the time with widespread ridicule. Barack Obama, in the final presidential debate:
“A few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia…the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
“…but not Mitt Romney. He’s even blurted out the preposterous notion that Russia is our ‘number one geopolitical foe.’ Folks: Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska; Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.”
[Also see Obama to Romney in 2012 Debate: ‘Cold War is Over’]
John Nolte writes: Life would be so much easier for CNN, Wolf Blitzer, and the rest of the mainstream media if they would just come out and admit that they want to destroy Republicans and empower Democrats. If Wolf would just use his outside voice to admit to that, no one would care about the phony outrage campaign he ginned up this week to benefit the campaign of Democrat Wendy Davis. Instead, Blitzer and CNN have had to foolishly pretend they are mad at 70’s rocker Ted Nugent.
Blitzer and CNN could not care less that Nugent called President Obama a “subhuman mongrel.” If they did care, Blitzer and CNN would have expressed outrage when Nugent said it way back last month. Everyone knew Nugent said it. But there was no outrage from CNN. Not a peep.
Instead, this week, CNN chose to pretend the comment suddenly outraged them just so they could attack Republican Greg Abbott, who is running against Wendy Davis to become governor of Texas. This was a pose on CNN’s part. Period.
Forget income inequality. Most of our money and clout goes to Washington.
For USATODAY, Jonah Goldberg writes: On my wife’s side, I have a very large family in Fairbanks, Alaska. Culturally, Fairbanks is a lot further from New York City (where I grew up) or Washington, D.C., (where I live now) than the several thousand miles on the map might suggest. Alaska wins a lot of comparisons, and not just the obvious ones such as physical beauty or salmon fishing. For instance, Alaska ranks second best in terms of economic equality (just behind Wyoming) while New York and the District of Columbia compete for dead last.
[Jonah Goldberg‘s book “The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas” is available at Amazon]
Frankly, I don’t much care about the issue of income inequality beyond its status as a symptom for real problems such as poor economic mobility, chronic unemployment and family breakdown. But lots of people do. President Obama even says it’s the “defining challenge of our time.” So it’s at least fun to note that Sarah Palin’s Alaska beats the competition.
How better to celebrate the anniversary of Andrew’s birth, Feb. 1st, than by rolling it into Feb. 2nd? Join me in celebrating the anniversary of Andrew’s last laugh:
“…Though the dinner took place on Super Bowl Sunday, Ayers and co. abruptly dismissed us before halftime, leaving our plan of attack only half realized, as we were attempting to ease into the evening like gentlemen and polite dinner guests…”
“…Ayers, in skullcap and earrings, shows us to an elaborate spread overlooking the city. We’ve entered a parody of a multimillion-dollar liberal lair…”
In 2012, Matt Labash recalls:
…Ayers, in skullcap and earrings, shows us to an elaborate spread overlooking the city. We’ve entered a parody of a multimillion-dollar liberal lair. Unidentifiable abstract sculptures snake about the floor. Framed epigrams from Louise Bourgeois installations (“The Hour Is Devoted To Revenge”) line the wall. Cutouts representing the duality of the American spirit, from Thoreau and Rosa Parks (good), to Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin (evil), festoon our plates. Tofu and quinoa—pinko food—is among the seven savory courses served.
“This is the bomb, Bill,” Breitbart said to the former explosives-rigger…”
Apart from shuffling off to the kitchen or catching a few minutes of the game while avoiding awkward conversations about their past, the Weather-hosts couldn’t be nicer. They ask us about our backgrounds, which they already seem familiar with (thanks, Wikipedia!). They plump us with falling-off-the-bone hoisin ribs and fluff us with apple pie and Ameri-Cone Dream ice cream. “This is the bomb, Bill,” says Breitbart, after sampling the farmhouse cheeses. “It has explosive flavor,” I chime in…”
In a separate remembrance, Matt Labash writes:
“…Our friend, Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson, had won the Ayers dinner at an Illinois Humanities Council auction, and had brought us along. Tucker and I were a little worried that we had in our possession a human grenade in Breitbart, though if we were being honest with ourselves, that’s precisely why we brought him. With Andrew, every day was anything-can-happen day.
As it happened, Breitbart was on his best behavior. “I’m here to learn,” Andrew said facetiously. It was part of the pleasure of keeping company with him. He wasn’t just a friend, he was a co-conspirator. Once we arrived at the apartment, much to Andrew’s and Ayers’s chagrin, they got along famously. Just two guys having dinner, finding commonality, even if Andrew regarded it his hidebound duty to passive-aggressively heckle Ayers as he served us plates of hoisin ribs and farmhouse cheeses. (“This is the bomb, Bill,” Breitbart said to the former explosives-rigger.)
h/t The Greenroom
So what did he say that was so bad? Here’s an excerpt, via E!:
“‘Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,’ he tells the magazine. Paraphrasing Corinthians, he says, ‘Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.’”
… “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
… ”We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
Much of the criticism coming from conservatives (regarding A&E’s decision) has focused on the fact that a). Robertson was merely stating an orthodox Christian position, and b). that this is just his opinion — and he’s entitled to it (and besides, why are people so offended these days?).
But I’ll make another observation: This may be an attack on “unsophisticated” country folks as much as it is an attack on orthodox Christianity.
When you consider the more effete, cosmopolitan America that “Pajama Boy” represents, you’ll get a sense for why the Duck Dynasty folks are out of touch with today’s acceptable norms. There is a huge schism between red state America and blue state America, and these two stories seem to symbolize the yawning chasm.
What passes for journalism on the network is downright silly
Charles C. W. Cooke writes: More than any other subject, apolitical sorts will ask me about Fox News. “Is itreally crazy?” my British friends inquire, flashing the sort of smile that a botanist might exhibit while examining a newly discovered species of moss. “Is it, like,really right wing?”
The question has always slightly irritated me, showing as it does that the considerable success that the Left has had in demonizing its opposition extends even across the Atlantic. Certainly, both Fox’s commentary and its ostensibly straight reporting are marked by the right-leaning proclivities of its owners. But the notion that the network is unique in exhibiting bias is one of the more egregious planks of Western conventional wisdom — and especially so because it seems patently obvious to me that if one were to single out for palpable eccentricity a cable-news station in the United States, it would not be Fox. It would be MSNBC.
Take a quick look at the numbers. A recent Pew study revealed that the supposedly neutral CNN spent 54 percent of its time broadcasting “news” and 46 percent of its time hosting “opinion.” Fox, by contrast, transmits 55 percent opinion and 45 percent news. But MSNBC — well, MSNBC consists of a remarkable 85 percentopinion and only 15 percent news. This has consequences. During the election, Pew added, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”
“Biased” doesn’t cut it. To watch MSNBC for an afternoon is not so much to be given a slanted account of what is happening here in America, but instead to witness a series of discussions about current events in parallel America II — a rather silly place in which the political center of gravity and all things Good are defined by the preferences of the faculty at Berkeley and the comments section of the Daily Kos and in which anyone who dissents from this position is believed to possess two heads, a black heart, and a pocket copy of Mein Kampf.
Bashir vs. Breitbart: Disgraced (Former) MSNBC Host Martin Bashir Interviews the Legendary Andrew BrietbartPosted: December 4, 2013
MSNBC’S BASHIR RESIGNS
On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir formally tendered his resignation from his daily show. Bashir had been absent from his show since November 22, prompting rumors from inside the network that he had been suspended; MSNBC had maintained that he was merely on vacation. Bashir was under heavy fire for his comments in which he stated that someone should “p*ss” and “s***” in Sarah Palin’s mouth. He issued an on-air apology, but criticism of MSNBC never waned, especially given the fact that his monologue suggesting such misogyny was backed by the network itself. MSNBC is expected to release its own comment shortly.
There’s nothing like tuning into an episode of “The View” for a little exploration of social sensitivities in the modern American culture.
In keeping with that tradition, on Black Friday, a term used to describe the Friday following Thanksgiving, which is the beginning of the traditional Christmas shopping season, the use of the word “black” to mark this occasion was a topic of discussion on “The View” for its potential “racist” implications.
Co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, who has her own primetime HLN cable show, debated the use of “black” on the Nov. 27 pre-recorded broadcast. Goldberg, a black woman, took the meaning to be a positive and that there was nothing wrong with it used that way. Behar, however, was trouble with the word “black” used in conjunction with Friday, taking the meaning as a negative (emphasis added):
GOLDBERG: Oh, hello and welcome to ‘The View.’ Today is Black Friday, all day long,” Goldberg said. “And I’m going to stay black all day because of it.
BEHAR: Isn’t it a little racist to call it Black Friday?
GOLDBERG: Well, I would have called it African American Friday, but that’s taking something away from it.
BEHAR: But there’s a negative connotation to it? Or does it mean something else?
GOLDBERG: No, it’s like when you make all the money – you’re in the black.
BEHAR: So it’s positive?
GOLDBERG: Yeah. It’s in the black, so it’s a huge great thing.
BEHAR: A lot of times, like blackmail is negative, black sheep.
GOLDBERG: Black people.
BEHAR: No, not black people.
GOLDBERG: But it used to be, it used to be.
Wes Vernon writes: Taken page by page, this book is a fun read. Taken as a whole, it remains entertaining but acquires a deeper meaning. One must add up all “50 Things Liberals Love to Hate” to appreciate fully the huge canyons that have divided us into two nations in terms of worldview.
It is now common-sense Americans (of whatever ethnic, racial or religious background) versus a segment of the population that has bought into a strain of thought that constitutes an intellectual “foreign object” in our midst.
The latter is a disruption to — and arguably, an attempted destruction of — the free exceptional nation we have come to know and love and for which our Founding Fathers sacrificed that we may enjoy prosperity and happiness as rewards for hard work and initiative.
Author Mike Gallagher is a radio talk-show host whose daily routine is such that he can’t avoid stumbling over other-planet ideas promoted by those who, with a straight face, imply, “Doesn’t everybody think so?” If they get the wrong answer to that question, their follow-up will include such epithets as “racist,” “bigot,” “homophobe,” and “Islamophobe,” to cite some of the milder insults.
Mr. Gallagher obviously had fun putting all these leftist pet peeves between two covers. The book is filled with howlers that are at once amusing and threatening.
Take, for example, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, two parts of one of the “50 Things,” and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) acolytes who go to court to force each of those two groups to admit members of the opposite sex into their ranks.
The people pushing that idea are not ignorant of the most basic facts of life and human nature. Most (though not all) know that boys and girls are wired differently. Liberals know it all too well. That’s what they intend to change.
In a surprise move, controversial commentator Martin Bashir has been tapped to lead NBC in 2014 as the network’s new President. “I couldn’t be happier”, said Bashir, “I think as a news organization, we’re on the right track, heading in the right direction. An NBC spokesman confirmed the transition. “We think Martin’s a great choice to bring dynamism and creativity to the network. We’re proud to have Mr. Bashir take on these new responsibilities.” Read the rest of this entry »
Carl M. Cannon writes: Last Friday, MSNBC anchorman Martin Bashir suggested that anyone who uses the word “slavery” too lightly should be forced to eat human feces. Although Bashir had Sarah Palin in mind for this torture, his own standard might have necessitated its infliction closer to home — as Bashir has used the same metaphor himself.
Bashir’s detractors immediately pointed out this inconsistency. Several of these critics said this disgusting punishment would be more befitting Bashir.
I have a better idea. NBC could just yank this kind of programming. If it did, the network that provides its anchors a platform for crude daily rants would be honoring its own legacy, which harks back to the very beginning of the medium.
Radical Right and Institutional Left on Same Page: NY Times Editorial Board Endorses Breitbart News Editor’s Book “Extortion”Posted: October 24, 2013
In a rare moment of ideological similitude, a Wednesday piece by New York Times editorial board member David Firestone titled “The Conservative Who Hates Slush Funds” hailed Schweizer’s book as one “sure to wind up on the nightstands of all campaign finance geeks.” Firestone added, “The issue cannot get enough publicity, but the best news of all is that the book was written by a conservative” who is “a fellow at the Hoover Institution and an editor-at-large at Breitbart.”
The Times’ article ran even as Breitbart News had as its lead story a book endorsement by Gov. Sarah Palin.
On Sunday, 60 Minutes partnered with Schweizer, who is also president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), on an investigation exposing how politicians use their leadership PACs as private slush funds to bankroll lavish lifestyle upgrades for themselves and their families, such as Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) spending $35,000 on NFL tickets; Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) using $64,500 to buy a painting of himself; or Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) spending $107,752 at the Breakers resort in Palm Beach. The Times said outrages such as these should raise bipartisan ire. Read the rest of this entry »
Jonah Goldberg notes: I recently had a small piece in the magazine where I made the point — now fairly commonplace — that Obama’s campaign was much better at running web operations than the Obama administration is. I wrote of Obama’s invocation of Apple’s “glitchy” roll out of the new iPhone:
People have had a lot of fun with this low-gear spin. Apple doesn’t force you to pay a fine if you don’t buy an iPhone. If the late Steve Jobs had handled the rollout of its most important product in a generation this badly, he’d probably have been looking for a new job. The “glitch” in the iPhone operating system didn’t stop people from being able to use the product, and it was seamlessly fixed after a few days. The Healthcare.gov “glitches” are in fact structural defects that may take weeks or months to repair. Apple doesn’t use tax dollars . . .
Oh, you get it. You could go on all day pointing out flaws in the president’s analogy because, well, it’s not a very good analogy.
A better, more illuminating comparison is between the Obama campaign’s technological brilliance and the Obama administration’s thumbless grasp of very similar technology. It’s a time-honored observation by pols and pundits to note that there’s a difference between campaigning and governing. “You campaign in poetry,” Mario Cuomo famously observed, and “you govern in prose.”
I think it’s fair to say that no president has been more confused on this basic point than Barack Obama. Read the rest of this entry »
Tim Stanley reports: The shutdown is basically over and the President has won. Or, at least, he’s won because the Republicans have definitely lost. Not only did they not get what they wanted – that “life or death” delay on Obamacare implementation – but they’ve given the impression of dragging partisanship to new lows. Obamacare had been passed already, the Supreme Court had okayed it and Obama had won an election on it, yet the GOP was still prepared to bring the country to the brink of ruin to cripple it. When Grover Norquist is saying that the Right went too far (he of the “drown government in the bath tub” fame) then the Right probably went a bit too far.
But there are caveats to that narrative. First, the Republicans aren’t the only ones who ought to hang their heads in shame. It was the Democrat-controlled Senate that first rejected the House’s bill and so sparked the crisis. It was the President who refused to talk to anyone about it (and went campaigning instead). It was the federal government – even when in shutdown – that behaved like a spoiled child, covering war memorials in fences and trying to stop military priests from saying Mass. And it was the mainstream media that took the side of the President and helped foster the impression that the GOP is run by a bunch of blowhard crazy people. For example, Dave Weigel points out that, contrary to reports, wild child Ted Cruz actually had “no intention” of delaying the critical final vote in the Senate. His image of being Sarah Palin 2.0 is entirely a media myth.
Second, what has Obama really won? He keeps his precious healthcare reform and he gets government open again – but tomorrow morning he’ll still have the same gridlocked political system that he had the night before. The shutdown is a rare example of him winning, but remember that this lame duck president has not only had a very simple (and, frankly, inoffensive) gun control bill killed in the Senate but was so spooked by bad poll numbers that he tried to dump responsibility for military action in Syria onto the Congress – before quietly dropping the idea altogether. Any thought that the shutdown payoff will be that he can sail an immigration reform package comfortably through Congress is pure fantasy. This is a broken presidency living out its last few years either holding off Republican attacks or lazily cruising the country on some pointless, endless, fatuous campaign trail. Obama’s administration is politically bankrupt.
Michael Walsh eloquently writes: In the decades to come, historians may well look back on the partisan passage of Obamacare during President Obama’s first term and its disastrous implementation in the second as a Pyrrhic victory, the beginning of the end of the Progressive project to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. Whether Senator Ted Cruz ultimately succeeds in his quest to defund Obamacare this time, his electrifying quasi-filibuster yesterday and today nevertheless marks a turning point in modern American political history — the day when conservatives turned their back on the collaborationist Republican Party and finally fought back. Read the rest of this entry »
Some hate crimes are less hateful than others.
On August 15, 2012, at 10:46 a.m.—one year ago this week—Floyd Lee Corkins entered the lobby of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. He was carrying a backpack that contained 15 Chick-fil-A -sandwiches, a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol, and 100 rounds of ammunition. Corkins has since pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing for the crimes he proceeded to commit. He’s set to spend decades in a prison cell and fade into obscurity.
But Leo Johnson deserves to be remembered for his heroism that day. The building manager for the Family Research Council was manning the front desk that morning and let Corkins enter the building under the pretense he was a new intern. The video of what happened after that is remarkable.
After Corkins takes a suspiciously long time rummaging through his bag to produce identification, Johnson cannily stands up and walks around the desk to get a closer look at what Corkins is doing. Corkins bolts upright, gun in hand. Without the slightest hesitation, Johnson rushes Corkins, who fires twice. A bullet shatters Johnson’s left forearm. “And I just couldn’t hear anything, my arm just kind of blew back. So at that point I was thinking: ‘I have to get this gun,’ ” Johnson told The Weekly Standard. “That was my sole focus—I have to get this gun—this guy’s gonna kill me and kill everybody here.”
From there, Johnson somehow manages to push Corkins across the lobby and pin him against the wall with his bad arm. “I just started punching him as hard as I could, until I could feel his grip loosen,” recalled Johnson. Eventually he takes the gun from Corkins with his wounded arm. Before long, Corkins is subdued on the ground. Corkins now admits that it was his intention to shoot everyone in the building. There’s no question Johnson saved a lot of lives.
Pew Polling firm has found an interesting change in the way President Obama is being described, with the use of words like “incompetent” and “liar” on the rise.
The latest Pew poll finds that one-word impressions of Obama are turning negative more often than they have in the past. Until now, Pew says, these wholly negative one-word impressions were “rare.”
The survey finds that the one-word impressions people have of Obama have changed a great deal throughout his presidency. Terms like incompetent and liar now are among the most frequently used words to describe Obama. In April 2009, when his job approval was at 63%, these words were rare.
Pew also found that the word “socialist” is used in nearly the same proportion as it has been used since he first took office, showing that the President has not succeeded in knocking down the perception that he is a socialist.
The President is also viewed negatively on civil liberties.
“Yet Obama receives some of his worst marks for how he is handling privacy and civil liberties,” Pew reports. “Just 42% approve while 51% disapprove.”
Further, it is Independents that view Obama most negatively on civil liberties. Only 28 percent of Independents view Obama positively on his handling of civil liberties, while 52 percent view him negatively.
The views on Obama’s legacy are decidedly mixed. 31 percent say that his presidency is a failure, 33 percent say it is too early to tell, while 34 percent say it is a success.
But the poll also shows that Obama’s approval rating is holding relatively steady and is still in the high 40s. 43 percent of those polled have a negative view of his performance as president.
The poll queried 388 Republicans, 487 Democrats, and 575 self-declared Independents.