Thread: How Liberal Bias Shapes the MSM - and Our Views

CNN's Obama Adviser
L. Brent Bozell – Wed May 18, 3:00 am ET

Creators Syndicate – As much as CNN likes to tell the public and advertisers that it's squarely in the sensible center between the partisan attacks of MSNBC and Fox News, the reality says otherwise. Even if CNN has no Screaming Schultzes or Crazy Larry O'Donnell types, it's still firmly in the Democratic sphere of influence.

On his show, "In The Arena," on May 12, CNN host Eliot Spitzer recounted how a story in The New York Times "brought a smile to my face. It said the president of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world. So first, when he calls you, what does he say? Hi, Barack calling for Fareed? What does he do?"

His guest Fareed Zakaria replied, "Mostly it's been face-to-face meetings. You know, usually organized by Tom Donilon, the national security adviser," and it's been a "very thoughtful conversation." (That certainly compliments both sides of the chat.)

Spitzer then added, "I'm not going to ask you what you have said to the president, but it makes my heart warm that the president is calling you for wisdom and advice."

Zakaria is the host of "Fareed Zakaria GPS," a Sunday CNN news offering. He was happily — proudly — acknowledging that he counsels the president. Neither CNN nor Zakaria found this admission compromised its self-image of neutrality for an instant. There were no urgent denials, as Katie Couric tried to smother Whoopi Goldberg's on-air claim in 1997 that they marched at abortion rallies together. Zakaria openly proclaimed his presidential access.

The folks at CNN certainly failed to remember how their network reacted on Nov. 18, 2002, after Bob Woodward broke the "scoop" that Fox News president Roger Ailes had sent a memo on the War on Terror to Karl Rove, who then shared it with President Bush. CNN anchor Paula Zahn (a former Fox employee) asked commentator Jack Cafferty, "Does that shed new light on 'we report, you decide' Jack?" Cafferty joked, "'Fair and balanced.' (Laughter.) We better leave that alone."

On that day, the Ailes "controversy" was in heavy rotation. CNN's "Talkback Live" also devoted a segment to the subject, as did "Crossfire" and "Wolf Blitzer Reports."

So how many segments has CNN devoted to its own compromised position? None, unless you count Howard Kurtz brushing over it all by himself (no outsiders, please) on "Reliable Sources" on Sunday. Zakaria never touched it on his own Sunday show, and when he showed up on Monday's "Situation Room" to discuss rape allegations against the head of the International Monetary Fund, Blitzer wouldn't breathe a word of it.

If Ailes sending a memo to Rove compromised Fox's independence, then what about Zakaria's ongoing face-to-face strategy sessions with Obama? As controversy grew over the weekend, Zakaria tried to claim, "At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists."

This denial doesn't pass the laugh test. What the hell did they talk about, then? If Obama is looking to formulate a policy and a speech (as The New York Times article asserted), then merely being in the room with him and moving your lips is advising him. As Zakaria himself said of meeting Obama in the Times, "He is searching for a way to pull back and weave a larger picture."

But Zakaria isn't just a "columnist," as he's been with Newsweek and now Time. He hosts a Sunday show on foreign policy for CNN. To now claim that Zakaria's covert meetings do not conflict with his journalistic integrity is not only inaccurate, it's hypocritical by CNN's own standards. If they were really interested in the image of journalistic independence, Zakaria would recuse himself immediately from covering foreign policy that affects the United States.

What's happened to our "news" media? They don't see their role as simply providing the public with the best information. They would much rather apply all their wisdom gleaned from their Harvard and Yale educations to assist the government in running the country.

Incredibly, here's how Zakaria actually ended his show on Sunday. He showed several Internet reworkings of the historic picture of Obama's staff watching the bin Laden takedown, and announced: "This one may be my favorite. The superhero squad. President Obama is Captain America, Vice President Biden as Flash. Madame Secretary (Hillary Clinton) as Wonder Woman, and many more."

Where are Jack Cafferty's "fair and balanced" wisecracks now?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20110518/...4zOXNvYmFtYWE-

Mentioning ‘food stamps’ the new racism, says Chris Matthews
Published: 7:44 PM 05/16/2011
By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller

Is criticizing welfare the new racism? According to MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews it is.

On his Monday MSNBC show, Matthews cited a speech former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave in Georgia on Friday in which he said, “You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama is an enormous success – the most successful food stamp president in American history, or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?”

The “Hardball” host’s assessment, which mirrored the assessment of “Meet the Press” host David Gregory, was that Gingrich’s remarks had a hint of racism in them. Matthews suggested Gingrich was using the language of the era of Reagan, which even the “right-wing had dropped it.”

“They stopped talking in this dog whistle like the white racists were going to hear it because everybody hears you now,” Matthews said. “They know what the whistle sounds like. Is Newt just out-of-date or is he deliberately using this dog whistle in a way he thinks he knows exactly what he’s doing. He doesn’t care what we think?”

Even MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe disagreed with Matthews’ assessment, but the “Hardball” host stuck to his position. “[I] haven’t heard food stamps discussed since the last racist guy tried to play the card,” Matthews said. “I mean, I can’t remember the last time it was talked about. [It has] a particular tinge to it.”

Watch: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/16/me...#ixzz1MiigBG4t

commemts

Those who constantly see racism are by definition racists.

---

Chris Matthews is frequently afforded the appelation of “Journalist.” That could not be further from the truth, he bagan his career as a political operative for a partisan democratic official, and nothing has changed since that time except for his mentor’s demise. Mr. Mathews continues to be fiercly partisan, and has never shown any objective honesty in my awarness since he was hired as one of the taking heads of the acceptable left. it should be remembered his particular party led the anti-civil rights movement, his party had the dogs and fire hoses, his party prevented children of color from entering segregated schools. Its no wonder Mr Mathews understands ‘the whiff’ of racism. His words and deeds have been consistant, ‘Poor blacks need us to learn to succeed, to be as white as I am, to be all that I want them to be. That is racism, ladies and gentlemen, and that is Chris Matthews.

--

Who would know better than the head racist? When will real citizens get tired of that term? When it’s abused so long people are not impressed anymore, it really doesn’t rate interest because we have been called that regardless of true meaning. It’s liberal mantra, the only phrase they know. Facts mean nothing, but they have their fear phrases, whole cult like schumer has been given the marching orders, use terms, liberal media has been given proper propaganda directions, make sure this is all people see and hear. Liberals have brainwashing agenda only, control the uneducated.

---

Okay…Chrissy Tingles has laid out the rules for running against Obama this season…

“GOP ANYTHING you say we will make it sound like you’re a racist so just give up now and endorse Obama because if you open your mouth or challenge our Messiah we will call you racist or say your comment is racist.”

---

I find Chris Matthew (much like most) very bias reporter and an insult to people of color. His claims of food stamp being racism, means that ONLY people of color gets food stamp, and to thnk that Obama and his administration goes along with such comments is offensive because every nationality in these economic times get food stamp help.


Chris Matthews strikes again: Sarah Palin ‘profoundly stupid’
Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller – Tue May 17, 7:26 pm ET

With a history of accusations of misogynistic behavior from both the left, MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews is not showing any indications that he’s willing to tread carefully, especially when it comes to discussing conservative women.

On his Tuesday MSNBC “Hardball” program, Matthews took another swipe at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. In a discussion about the prospects of Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann’s shot at the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, Matthews was warned by one of his guests not to count out Palin, to which he immediately downplayed her viability. “I think Sarah Palin proved herself to be — I think she’s proven herself to be profoundly stupid,” Matthews said to applause on-location in Los Angeles. “Her inability to answers the questions of Katie Couric, her inability of even now to explain if she ever reads anything.”

“Her absolute failure to begin studying and get serious about running for president,” he continued. “She has shown no effort to doing any homework or understanding issues about the economy or science or the world. No effort and she’s running for president? I don’t believe she would be at all helpful to our republic.”

Matthews judgment: Palin’s participation in the 2012 race would be bad for America. “I hope she doesn’t run for our good,” Matthews added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/...ofoundlystupid

Comments

How can you single out one politician and call them stupid? A former representative of the state of North Carolina stated " Women could not get pregnant when being raped,because their juices were not flowing." Now that is stupid!

---

How's this for stupid: Mistaking the number of states in the union. Sure was dumb when Palin said that...no wait, that was Obama. OK-how about when Palin plagarized an entire speech from a Welch politician, and even mimicked his Welch accent! No...that was Biden.

Palin is an average politician, no dumber and no smarter than Kucinichh/Reed/Pelosi or Romney/ Huckabee.

---

I've watched enough of Chris Matthews to realize that he feels anyone who disagrees with him is profoundly stupid.

---

Matthew's proves his ignorance daily! He is a hate and racist monger that never debates issues, just goes straight to character assassination (even if there is no truth to his rant) and fancies himself a political sophisticate and elitist. Liberal bufoonery at its finist!

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Mentioning ‘food stamps’ the new racism, says Chris Matthews
Published: 7:44 PM 05/16/2011
By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller

Just thought this was ironic :

Michigan Man Allowed to Use Food Stamps After Winning $2 Million ‘Make Me Rich’ Lottery
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 7:48am
**Written by Doug Powers

If your hot morning coffee didn’t do enough to get your blood boiling, this should help:

AUBURN, Mich. — A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told TV5 that he still uses food stamps.

Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on “Make Me Rich!” He told TV5′s Bill Walsh that more than half the prize went to taxes.

Fick said the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with Michigan tax dollars. “If you’re going to … try to make me feel bad, you aren’t going to do it,” said Fick.

[snip]

DHS spokeswoman Gisgie Gendreau said under federal guidelines, if a person receives a lump-sum payment, the winnings are not counted as income.

Hey, why not? The state’s coffers are overflowing.

Click the pic of the guy winning more money than many of the people who are paying for his groceries will ever see for the story at WNEM:



Character. What you really do when you think nobody else is looking. This man lacks vast quantities of the stuff.

---

So if he worked to make a million dollars, he wouldn't be egigible for food stamps anymore, but if he wins the lottery, he's eligible for food stamps forever....?

MM's column today looks at the infantilization of America. As noted over the years, defining dependency up is both a policy phenomenon and a cultural phenomenon. In 1996, entitlement reformer Pete Peterson asked, “Will America Grow Up Before It Grows Old?” The answer, sadly, is still a big fat toddler-screeching, “No!”

***

Adult Baby Syndrome
by Michelle Malkin

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/05/20...baby-syndrome/

Welcome to the land of the freeloaders and the home of the depraved. No image captures America’s regressive ethos better than that of 30-year-old Stanley Thornton Jr., self-proclaimed “Adult Baby.” Profiled on a recent National Geographic reality television show, Thornton claims to suffer from a bizarre infantilism that leads him to wear diapers, lounge around in an oversized crib and seek constant coddling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB1gPgcycQ8



The nappies may be extreme, but let’s face it: Thornton Jr. — let’s just call him Junior — is a symptom of our Nanny State run amok, not an anomaly.

Junior came to Washington’s attention this week when Oklahoma GOP Sen. Tom Coburn challenged the Social Security Administration to probe into how the baby bottle-guzzling 350-pound man qualified for federal disability benefits. A former security guard, Junior is handy enough to have crafted his own wooden high chair and playpen. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...to-adult-baby/

Junior can drive a car and has sense enough not to go out in public in his XXL footie pajamas. Yet, welfare administrators treat him as an incurable dependent. Also collecting taxpayer-subsidized paychecks: Thornton’s adult roommate, a former nurse, who has indulged Thornton’s baby role-playing for the past decade.

Junior, naturally, threw a tantrum when his government teat-sucking was called into question. He wiped his nose and un-balled his fists long enough to type out an e-mail to The Washington Times:

“You wanna test how damn serious I am about leaving this world, screw with my check that pays for this apartment and food. Try it. See how serious I am. I don’t care,” Junior threatened. “I have no problem killing myself. Take away the last thing keeping me here, and see what happens. Next time you see me on the news, it will be me in a body bag.”

Not from nowhere has this stubborn, self-destructive sense of entitlement sprung. As I reported last month, a record-breaking 12 million Americans have been added to the federal food stamp rolls over the past two years, and the bloated $6 billion AmeriCorps social justice army has been converted into a publicist corps for the welfare machine.

Just this week, a Michigan man boasted that he’s still collecting food stamps after winning a $2 million government-sponsored lottery prize. “If you’re going to … try to make me feel bad, you aren’t going to do it,” he told a local TV reporter. Embedded in his rebuke is the eternal refrain of the self-esteem-puffed teenager: “You can’t judge me!”

Diana West, author of “The Death of the Grown-Up,” traced the modern abdication of adulthood to the Baby Boomer generation. “The common compass of the past — the urge to grow up and into long pants; to be old enough to dance at the ball (amazingly enough, to the music adults danced to); to assume one’s rights and responsibilities — completely disappeared” after World War II. A culture of behavioral restraint gave way to “anything goes” and morphed into the current generation’s “whatever” attitude.

Look around: Junior’s infantilism is of a piece with the refusal of celebrity mothers Dina Lohan and Tish Cyrus to act like parents — and instead serve as best friends and tattoo parlor pals for their wayward daughters Lindsay and Miley. They’re the kind of women who shop at Forever 21, buy beer for their daughters’ prom parties and give them Botox certificates for high school graduation.

Junior’s penchant for pajamas is of a piece with perpetually stunted Hugh Hefner’s fetish for velvet robes 24/7 and self-indulgent decadence. Junior’s giant playpen is a cringe-inducing symbol of the Farmville-tethered, “funemployed” class of self-gratifiers who continue to live for today and spend like there’s no tomorrow.

Adult Baby Syndrome isn’t an isolated pathology. It’s the new American Way. Or, I should say, the new American Wahhhhh. :wahwah:

The Unbiased Headline of the Day is posted just above pictures of Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio, and comes to us courtesy of the cable net that hosted last night’s Republican debate, CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/14/news....htm?iid=HP_LN




Because expressing grave concern for raising the debt ceiling above $14.3 trillion is just crazy talk!

comments

After seeing a bit of last nights CNN debate in which John King had no patience for answers he did not agree with I am none too surprised by that headline at CNN.

When will the GOP learn that it is one thing to have the debates on the MSM channels, but it is totally another thing to have some liberal hack moderate.

---

CNN? The unbiased NoNews group the Republicans chose for the Presidential candidates debate CNN? Walk into the lions’ cage and you just may get eaten.

Next Republican Presidential candidates debate to be hosted by Katie Couric’s Colon and Chrissy Matthews’ Thrill with a side of Keith Overboard.

Geesh

---

Did anyone get a load of Morning Joe this a.m.? They were lamenting the MSM coverage of Palin and how biased it was/has/is!!! They even mentioned how the MSM never went after Obumbler in the run up to the election. I almost spewed coffee every where – my gawd – they just now noticed biased coverage of Palin? They are as out of touch as Teh One himself!

---

There was only one important observation to be drawn from last night’s “debate” and that is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is fighting for smaller government. Everyone else is arguing that the government, particularly Obama and the Dems, are doing the wrong things and they would do things differently. Republican big government vs Democratic big government.

Like him or not, Ron Paul was the only guy with an A++++ rating for consistency, clarity and conviction. the opposite end of that scale was Romney who has taken every side on every issue at some point and cannot be believed even when you know for sure that he is telling the truth this time.

---

HOW can they use the term WINGNUTS in the open like that? I know they think that way, but now they have tipped their leftist, a-wiping hand TOO SOON. Remember this occasion and this headline. It should be hammered out how absolutely pathetic these water carriers are.

Yes, it’s just KRAZY to call for a debt-limit! ha ha – how funny the GOP is >sarc<

--

Can’t help themselves—spread the stupidity around. And that MORON, King, didn’t wait FIVE seconds into a response (let alone 30) before he started grunting and snorting his displeasure at any answer, ALL of which he disagreed with just BECAUSE. What an ass!




See also : http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/1...est-loser-cnn/

How John King lost the GOP debate
June 14, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

printer-friendly First of all, to get the important housekeeping out of the way, I am a flip flopper. There’s just no defense I can mount. By the time I finished watching the debacle that was the June 14th CNN Republican primary debate, I declared on Twitter that I was too disgusted to even bother writing a column on it. And yet, like a moth drawn to a flame, here I am, typing away. Or, in this case, perhaps the better analogy would be more like a fly drawn to a cow pie.
While I will force myself to play the pointless game of picking “winners and losers” among the candidates in a game which can not be conclusively scored, I should start by pointing out the real losers in last night’s affair… John King and CNN. In their eagerness to prove that they are in touch with the cool kids and social media they cranked out a debate format which was heavy on technical razzle dazzle but restricted the candidates to clipped, canned sound bites which mostly wouldn’t be long enough for a quick attack ad during campaign season. This format should be abandoned immediately and never rear its ugly head again.
As to the big show itself, what held the promise of a lot of potential sizzle wound up never rising above a slow simmer. (Again, this is mostly – though not entirely – CNN’s fault, not the candidates themselves.) A group of challengers badly in need of a huge boost in name recognition finally had a chance to take a shot at perceived frontrunner Mitt Romney. But up and down the line they seemed to have no stomach for the fight.
The worst offender, and possibly the biggest loser of the night, was Tim Pawlenty. In one of the few areas where I would give some credit to the moderator, King started off the evening throwing some confrontational, challenging questions at T-paw and looked like he was trying to set up a scuffle between him and Mitt. The big opening came when he referenced Pawlenty’s comments from the previous day about “Obamneycare.” It was a clever shot across the bow at both Romney and the president which had gotten the media wondering if the Minnesota governor had stoked up some fire in the belly and was ready to put some high voltage in his campaign.
When King tossed that ultimate softball at T-paw I was reaching over to grab my wife’s arm saying, “Watch this.. here we go!” But rather than hitting it out of the park, Pawlenty took a complete pass on it, falling back on criticism of the president’s health care plan. The moderator even gave him a second chance – rare in this stunted format – challenging him as to why he wouldn’t talk about “Obamneycare” now that he was standing next to Mitt. King offered Pawlenty his own Teddy Roosevelt moment, positioning him at the base of San Juan Hill with troops at the ready. But rather than leading the charge, T-Paw chose to load everybody into a beige minivan and drive around the hill instead.
Pawlenty has been unable to break out of single digits in most polls and he badly needed to frame himself as the viable alternative to Romney, who currently looks like the stereotypical “who’s next” Republican nominee. But in my opinion he let that opportunity slip away and I don’t know how much time he’s going to have left to seize the moment. It’s not that he got any of the questions “wrong” last night. He just didn’t light the kind of fire that he’s going to need for the long war to come.
Herman Cain was, I think, hurt most by the format and the moderator’s mishandling of the event. It seemed to me that Cain, along with Michele Bachmann, were cut off at the thirty second mark on most questions much faster and more aggressively than the rest of them. It also felt – at least anecdotally – like Cain didn’t get as many questions as the rest of the candidates, nor as many follow-ups. (Hopefully somebody counted them all. I know I didn’t.) On the few occasions when John King did go straight at Cain he seemed to pick out the items which were most likely to pin the candidate’s ears back with the many moderate and independent voters who will get to cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary. (The biggest example there being on the “litmus – loyalty test” for any Muslims in a Cain administration, a question which Herman bobbled badly as I viewed it.) This debate didn’t do much to help Cain, but mostly because he really was never given a chance to shine and mix it up.
The surprise entry for the evening was Michele Bachmann, who at least generated a bit of early evening buzz by announcing her formal entry into the race. (Or, more correctly, announced the upcoming announcement of it.) She also probably did herself the most good of any candidate on the stage, which obviously came as a huge disappointment to yours truly. I don’t know if somebody shot her with a dart full of Thorazine and lithium on the way in or if the new staffers she hired have been browbeating her, but there was absolutely no sign on the Crazy Michele Bachmann I’ve come to expect. I believe line two of the Twitter Debate Drinking Game last night was to do a shot every time Michele said the word, “socialist.” We were expecting mass hospitalizations from acute alcohol poisoning, but a lot of people went to bed sober instead. She was on point for most of the evening, and aside from a lack of direct attacks on Romney, there was very little to criticize in her performance.
Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were pretty much non-players in the show as I viewed it. Santorum never really got any good openings tossed to him. Newt needed something huge to overcome his recent setbacks, and I can’t think of one moment where he grabbed the brass ring and made that happen.
Ron Paul was… well, once again Ron Paul was Ron Paul. There just isn’t much more to say about the man at this point. He did what he always does and was consistent with all of his previous positions.
All in all, the poorly handled format hobbled most of the candidates and didn’t make for a very pretty picture. Santorum and Pawlenty came off looking like they were auditioning to be Mitt’s VP. Bachmann and Cain both seemed hungry for a shot at the nomination but never got enough at bats or good pitches to drive in any runs. Newt just seemed confused as to why he’d bothered showing up.
And Mitt Romney? He spent the evening smiling and relaxed as if he was busy writing his acceptance speech for the GOP convention. Everyone needed to be piling on Mitt last night, but as near as I could tell, nobody landed a glove on him. All in all, you’d probably have been better off watching the hockey game.
UPDATE: I forgot to add what may be the most important point. I had been considering tossing my support to Herman Cain after the first debate, but I have to completely abandon him after he answered the key question of the evening by saying he endorses Chicago style deep dish pizza over the New York, thin crust variety. Too bad, Herman. You were looking pretty good up until then.
UPDATE 2: Over at Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis seems to have registered roughly the same level of disdain for CNN’s performance as many of the rest of us. He does go one step further on Tim Pawlenty though, thinking that this may have been a death blow to his POTUS aspirations.

I’ll go even further. This may have been a fatal blow to Pawlenty’s campaign. He’s been languishing in the single digits from the beginning of his campaign, looking for a way to breakthrough into the top tier without success. Contrasting himself strongly with Romney would have gone a long way toward doing that. Instead, after going on the attack on Sunday, he backed away last night, and that makes him look weak. Contrasted with a candidate like Michele Bachmann, Pawlenty looks like weak tea, and I think that’s going to hurt him in the long run. More importantly, if someone like Rick Perry gets in the race, then Pawlenty is likely to fade fast.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...he-gop-debate/

“In their eagerness to prove that they are in touch with the cool kids and social media they cranked out a debate format which was heavy on technical razzle dazzle but restricted the candidates to clipped, canned sound bites which mostly wouldn’t be long enough for a quick attack ad during campaign season. This format should be abandoned immediately and never rear its ugly head again.”

In other words, candidate’s answers were restricted to a maximum 140 characters.

Book claims Obama misstated mother’s struggle with health care coverage
By Holly Bailey Senior Political Reporter The Ticket – 3 hrs ago

During his 2008 presidential campaign and his subsequent fight to enact health care reform legislation, President Obama frequently told a heart-wrenching story of how problems with the nation's insurance system had touched his own family.

He said his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, had spent the final months of her life battling with insurance companies who refused to pay for her medical treatments because they claimed her ovarian cancer had been a pre-existing condition.

"She wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality," Obama said at a rally in September 2007. "She had been diagnosed just as she was transitioning between jobs, and she wasn't sure whether insurance was going to cover the medical expenses because they might consider this a pre-existing condition. I remember just being heartbroken, seeing her struggle through the paperwork and the medical bills and the insurance forms. So, I have seen what it's like when somebody you love is suffering because of a broken health care system, and it's wrong. It's not who we are as a people."

But the story, which was the subject of an Obama campaign ad in 2008, is facing critical scrutiny in a new biography of Obama's mother, which reports Dunham actually did have health coverage for most of her bills when she died of cancer in 1995.

In "A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother," author Janny Scott writes that an employer-sponsored health insurance plan paid for all of Dunham's medical bills, except for her deductible and some "uncovered" medical expenses that added up to "several hundred dollars a month." According to Scott, Dunham hoped to pay for those extra costs through disability coverage, but her insurer at the time, CIGNA, denied the claim, citing her pre-existing condition. Scott's reporting is based on copies of letters between Dunham and CIGNA that she obtained via friends of Obama's mother.

As the New York Times' Kevin Sack writes, the White House says it hasn't reviewed the records that Scott cites in her book, but administration officials aren't disputing the book's claim--though an Obama aide insists his boss didn't get his story wrong.

"The president's mother incurred several hundred dollars in monthly uncovered medical expenses that she was relying on insurance to pay," White House spokesman Nick Papas tells the Times. "She first could not get a response from the insurance company, then was refused coverage. This personal history of the president's speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/b...192058714.html

comments

if all politicians we required to have the exact same benifits as the nation ,, our health care would ,, not be near as crappy as it is now

---

Barack Obama was about 34 years old at the time. Could't he and Michelle afford to help her out? If I were in his situation in the early 1990's (a Univ. of Chic. law prof. and wife a prominent lawyer), I would have given my mother the money she needed to stay alive. It might sound cold, but why did he not pay this?

---

I am fairly liberal but most of us have some type of payments after the insurance coverage pays their portion unless you are on medicaid? Even Medicare has deductibles and co pays?? The way he and his sister have distanced themselves from her (and that bothers me as I am multi racial and don't claim just one side) it seems odd she was used in this way but as far as owing something check your own policies very few cover 100% no deductible no co pay...

---

Even when an insurance company pays their portion in full, subscribers are STILL left with copays, out of pocket expenses and medical bills that just are not covered due to that particular company's policies in dealing with particular hospitals. Those who have favored contracts receive a bit more in compensation for the services rendered, but everyone has bills that insurance won't pay. So let's stop being disingenuous, shall we?

---

"but administration officials aren't disputing the book's claim". I wonder how come they are not disputing the claims? Could it be because this is another one of his lies he told America to get voted into office? Hmmm.

---

just another story from the media to take our minds from the real issues. this is happen in the past. i'm worried about not losing my childs future not my past.

---

just another story from the media to take our minds from the real issues. this is happen in the past. i'm worried about not losing my childs future not my past.

Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy
By Holly Bailey Senior Political Reporter | The Ticket – 9 hrs ago

Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.

Supporters of Obama's re-election will no doubt view the number as a good sign for the president's bid for a second term. But they shouldn't get excited yet.

Polls over the last year have consistently found that voters continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the struggling economy. Yet Obama and Democrats have consistently struggled to translate that displeasure with Bush into a vote against GOP candidates.

But that could be changing. While Obama's approval rating on the economy is nothing short of dismal—just 38 percent approve—the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.

Those aren't great numbers for Republicans who are likely to face just as much political peril as Obama in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve over the next year.

The Quinnipiac poll also finds major support for one of the concessions Obama has called for in the debt deal: 67 percent say any deal on the deficit should also include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/v...143014602.html

Comments

I just wished that everyone spent more time on the solution than on the 'blame-storming'

----

The good news is that the MAJORITY will be heard in 2012 and the only poll that really counts (the election) will settle the matter once and for all. I will be voting that day!

----

In 53 years I have never been asked a "poll" question. Would love to know where they find these "people" who give these answers.

---

Love to see he wording of the questions in that poll! Pollsters and media are so biased it is sickening!

---

President Barack Obama opposed increasing the debt ceiling in AUGUST 2006. Here is a direct quote from then senator Obama back when he voted against raising the debt ceiling…are you ready?? :

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

---

Lets ask the real question. What party controlled congress during Bush's term?

Gallup: Only 16% Of Americans Are Satisfied With Direction Country Headed In
July, 14, 2011

Lowest Since Obama Took Office…says Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/14/g...a-took-office/

The glorious socialist revolution of 2009 down in flames.



I can understand why 11% would think things are going swimmingly….but who are these remaining 5%?

And why-o-why does Obama still have an approval rating in the 40s when he’s screwed things up so badly?

UPDATE: Of course, the only poll that matters is the one on election day, and damn, if things aren’t looking too good for the “Lightworker” on that front:

Gallup’s poll of registered voters: Obama 39 % Generic R 47 %

Keep in mind, since our first Community Activist President is going to have nearly a billion dollars to demagogue his opponent with, the conventional wisdom is: 2012 Will Be “The Dirtiest Campaign You Have Ever Seen”: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ever_seen.html

Charles Krauthammer argues that President Obama’s campaign money will have “no effect” on getting him “out of the box on explaining high unemployment.” Instead, he says it will “be used on negative advertising. It’s going to be the dirtiest campaign you have ever seen. It’s going to be almost a billion dollars of sheer attacks because it’s essentially a referendum on Obama. Unless the Democrats can make the personality or the baggage or the history of the Republican the issue, and that’s what you do if you’re an incumbent. You have a lot of money, it’s going to be an incredibly negative campaign.”

Poll: Only 34% Are In Favor Of Obama’s Plans For Tax Hikes In Debt Deal, 55% Opposed…
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/14/p...al-55-opposed/

Todays' Headline:

Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die
By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket – 10 hrs ago

If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.

Paul disagreed with the audience on that front. "No," he responded, noting he practiced medicine before Medicaid when churches took care of medical costs--a comment that drew wide audience applause. "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."

Paul voiced support for legalizing alternative health care and argued that the reason medical costs have skyrocketed is that individuals have stopped taking personal responsibility for their health care.

Though Paul spoke to the larger issues of health care and government-backed health insurance--both pivotal in the 2012 election--the audience's reaction has overshadowed the substance of the exchange between the candidates. And the day after the event, Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered his own criticism of the audience response.

"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald of the audience reaction after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa Tuesday morning.

"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."

The campaigns for Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann did not immediately respond to The Ticket's request for comment.

Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room. "America, moreover, has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can," Sullivan wrote.

Sullivan also decried the audience reaction, writing: "Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/a...163216817.html

How Four of Rush Limbaugh's Critics Lost the Moral High Ground
By Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic | National Journal – 8 hrs ago.

For years, I've warned conservatives about the bigoted rhetoric and dubious analysis that Rush Limbaugh offers on his radio program. There is no bigger critic of the man than me. I am nevertheless appalled by the prominent liberals who want the state to use its coercive power to silence him. Writing at CNN.com, Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem actually compare the talk radio host to Joseph Goebbels before arguing that if Clear Channel won't drop him, the FCC should throw him off the air because his broadcasts aren't in the public interest. In a separate effort, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred has sent the Palm Beach County state attorney a letter urging that office to prosecute Limbaugh under an antiquated law that treats as a misdemeanor speaking about a woman and "falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity."

Neither effort is likely to succeed. And, thank goodness. The precedents these women would set are orders of magnitude more damaging than any offensive remark that Limbaugh has uttered. The U.S. has been well served by legal and social norms that stop the government from targeting, punishing, or censoring political speech based on the perceived offensiveness of its content. Weakening that norm would result in attempts by the Left and the Right to use speech codes as a cudgel against opponents. And as David Bernstein long ago observed in a different context: http://www.cato.org/publications/com...at-free-speech

There's a great irony in current First Amendment scholarship in that it tends to be people on the radical left, radical feminists, and so-called critical race theorists, who are most in favor of granting government power to censor ideas that they disapprove of. And they seem to be under the impression that somehow you're going to allow the government to regulate hate speech ... but somehow it's not going to impinge on them.

But once you start making exceptions to the First Amendment, it's a very steep slippery slope, and ultimately the restrictions won't be limited to hate speech, just generally unpopular speech. The irony is that the views of these radical Left-Wing professors, whether ultimately you think they're right or wrong, are clearly very unpopular. So it seems shortsighted that people who are among the most likely to eventually be censored will be those who are calling for weakening the traditional rule that the government cannot censor speech based on dislike of its viewpoint.

It is, finally, immoral to urge the state to silence or even arrest someone because his or her words are offensive, an ultimately subjective standard that everyone arguably transgresses against on occasion.

The behavior of Allred, Steinem, Fonda, and Morgan in this case reminds me of what Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were doing during the uproar over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque: shortsightedly urging government to intervene, on flimsy pretenses, where it doesn't belong. Private citizens are perfectly capable of registering their objections without government -- and have no right to demand assistance from government in stopping what merely offends them.

http://news.yahoo.com/four-rush-limb...101813966.html


comments

someone should tell jane that her 1st Amendment rights were there to save her from her statements during vietnam - if not she would have been tried for treason...

...

Nice article. The left is quick to cry moral outrage, racism, bigotry--whatever--when something is said they disagree with. I can disagree with you without hating you. I can disagree with Pres. Obama's economic policies without being racist. I can advocate for marriage without being homophobic. Rush was wrong to impune the lady from Georgetown. He apologized. The market will determine if he was sincere and punish him if it is felt he wasn't. Involving the government is akin to the anti-communist hearings on unamerican activities. Liberals scare me--even when I agree with them. That being said, birth control is not a "right". Neither is abortion or a drivers license. And yes, democrats, you should have to present ID to vote.

...

In any debate, the first person to mention Hitler loses. I wonder if that goes for Joseph Goebbels as well? Nice to have Hanoi Jane back in the political arena.

..

I agree with the premise of the article- no government intervention in free speech issues. I support Rush's right to his opinions and I equally support the free speech of those who oppose Rush.

...

Of course the left wing zealots want the right wing zealots off the air. They have learned that the American Public generally does not want to hear their tripe, as reflected in the ratings of folks like Ed Schultz, so Rush cannot be out competed. Instead, they turn to the tried and true last resort of the desperate, trying to legislate the speech they don't agree with off the air.

and they have the gall to compare ANYONE else to nazis.

...

Fonda should have been hung for treason, so she should shut her aged mouth about anything. Bill Maher continually calls Palin the c##t word and was charged for beating his girlfriend where's the lib outrage on these things? :crickets:

...

sorry but how is Rush a bigot? Seems like most of the poeple who call others bigots do so because they are intolerant of those people's views, beliefs and opinion. Funny, isn't that the definition of a bigot?

Gloria Allred Jumps the Shark by Going After Rush Limbaugh
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Sat, Mar 10, 2012.

The Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke kerfuffle took a turn for the surreal when Gloria Allred, a celebrity lawyer, wrote a letter to the Palm Beach County state attorney demanding Limbaugh be prosecuted under an obscure Florida statute, according to Politico. The law is Section 837.04, which states, "Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree." Punishment is up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, examined the law and suggests what Limbaugh called Fluke likely does not apply. He further suggests the law almost certainly violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution since it does not apply equally to men. Very likely Allred knows this and is not entirely serious about wanting Limbaugh prosecuted and hauled away to a Florida jail for bad mouthing a student/political activist. The intent is likely to garner public relations, to get Allred's face on TV again to explain why Limbaugh is a bad person and that smearing women is a bad thing -- unless, of course, that woman is Sarah Palin or some other conservative woman.

It has been months since Allred helped to take down the presidential candidacy of Herman Cain by representing Sharon Bialek, who had a dubious claim of sexual harassment against the former Godfather's Pizza CEO. This latest gambit on the part of Allred proves even she can jump the shark and venture from the outrageous into the bizarre. It is telling that, at least of this writing, Fluke is not a client of Allred's.

One wonders if, instead of having Allred as a guest to talk about her latest legal campaign, the cable news networks ignored her. Such restraint might discourage this sort of thing from happening so frequently. Sadly cable news is not likely to exercise such restraint.

http://news.yahoo.com/gloria-allred-...182400159.html

comments

Allred was with Bill maher when he called Palin the C word,she sat their and said nothing..What a role model of a lawyer

...

Gloria Allred is the female version of Al Sharpton. Sharpton is a race baiter, and she is a gender baiter.

..

Slow day for ambulances Gloria?

..

WOW! Looked what creature crawled out of the wood work! The female version of Al and Jesse! Where was she when other women were attacked? Oh yeah, those were not liberal women.

..

Equal justice Gloria Allred. If Ms. Allred is so offended by Limbaugh comments then she should also be demanding that Bill Maher be prosecuted for his words against Sarah Palin. What a phoney.

....

How come Gloria doesn't go after Bill Maher for calling Palin the C word and TW word (numerous times). Why is there a double standard here? Slander is slander regardless of who says it and who it is against. Oh, I bet it's because Palin is a conservative and Fluke is not...