Latest Posts

By Jack Coleman | | January 22, 2013 | 4:10 PM EST

OK, that settles it. This is what it's like to watch the news in North Korea.

Capping a day of unctuous fawning unmatched on television since MSNBC's coverage of the last inauguration, Rachel Maddow swooned upon her sudden realization last night that ... could it be? ... tell me it's so! ... the first couple might actually ... dance yet again!  (video clip after page break)

By Mike Bates | | January 22, 2013 | 3:40 PM EST

With this week's inauguration, several media stories recounted past inaugural addresses. One oration prominently featured and applauded was the speech given by President John F. Kennedy in 1961.

On CNN's Web site, it was listed as one of "The six best inaugural addresses."  U.S. News & World Report's site included it as one of "The 5 Best Inaugural Addresses," noting that it set "the benchmark against which subsequent addresses have been measured."  Just in case readers missed it, the following day the same site carried the story "What Obama Can Learn From the Greatest Inaugural Addresses," this time declaring part of Kennedy's speech "poetry."  At The Washington Post, The Fix counted it as part of  "The 10 most famous inaugural addresses."  Politico claimed it "ranks alongside Lincoln’s two for pure eloquence." 

By Liz Thatcher | | January 22, 2013 | 3:36 PM EST

Do you have an extra $20? You could end poverty for one person according to a new report by international rights group and charity Oxfam. On Jan. 20, Al Jazeera cheered about this new study. Both Oxfam and al Jazeera failed to actually work out the math of this new claim to realize how ridiculous this “study” actually was.

Al Jazeera claimed that with the income of the world’s 100 richest billionaires, it would be enough to “end world extreme poverty four times over.” So let’s do the math, since Al Jazeera and Oxfam refused to do it for themselves.

By Matt Vespa | | January 22, 2013 | 3:31 PM EST

Liberal Obama-backing musician James Taylor has no clue about what the president's latest executive orders on gun control entail, but insists that we need to “sacrifice” some our freedoms to keep America's children safe.  Taylor made these remarks in an impromptu interview with The Daily Caller’s Nicholas Ballasy shortly after the inaugural ceremonies yesterday:

By Matt Hadro | | January 22, 2013 | 2:37 PM EST

CNN hosts were wowed by President Obama's second inaugural address on Monday afternoon, and the love kept coming on Monday evening when a CNN panel gushed over the "marvelous" and "iconic" address in the vein of Martin Luther King and Lincoln.

"And now he's come along with a statement that firmly addresses a progressive, liberal agenda that's very much in the tradition of King and of Lincoln, and he has rallied his base," said CNN senior political analyst David Gergen. [Video coming soon. Audio here.]

By Noel Sheppard | | January 22, 2013 | 2:21 PM EST

Libtalker Mike Malloy is at it again.

Last Wednesday he actually said on the air, "This Limbaugh, this is one of the most vile human beings ever to live! If Limbaugh had the power, he would open gas chambers! If Limbaugh had the power, he would line people up against the wall and execute them...The only thing he sees in children is sex partners!" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

By Clay Waters | | January 22, 2013 | 1:38 PM EST

The cat's out of the bag: Obama's a liberal. A banner headline across Tuesday's New York Times front page confirmed what conservatives have been saying about the president for years: "Obama Offers Liberal Vision: 'We Must Act.'" Peter Baker's lead story "Inaugural Stresses Theme of Civil and Gay Rights -- Safety Net Praised," also stressed Obama's liberal message. So why has the paper spent the last four years defending Obama from conservative criticism by insisting Obama was actually a centrist?

By Tom Blumer | | January 22, 2013 | 1:16 PM EST

For four years (and really going back further when you consider former President George W. Bush's halting attempt to reform Social Security in the middle of last decade), Barack Obama and his party have paid lip service at best to the idea of entitlement reform while refusing to provide any specifics about what they would do to fix Social Security and Medicare, both of which are unsustainable in their current forms. Obama rejected his own Simpson Bowles commission's recommendations. Democrats have treated serious proposals coming from Republicans as grannycide.

Yet the Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown, who must be gaining strength in her arms and shoulders from all of her water-carrying for Obama and his party, wants us to believe that Obama has a "deeply conflicted relationship with entitlement reform." And in case you missed it (I certainly did), Obama has tried "harder than any other Democratic president to tackle the issue" (no Democratic Party president has "tried hard" to tackle the issue). Several paragraphs from her Tuesday dispatch follow the jump (bolds are mine):

By Ken Shepherd | | January 22, 2013 | 1:15 PM EST

As many of you are doubtless already aware, the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey, converted to Christianity in the mid-1990s and became a pro-life activist, repentant of her role in the lawsuit that 40 years ago today legalized abortion.

So you'd think that any interview with McCorvey's attorney before the Court, Sarah Weddington, would include at least one question about McCorvey's change of heart. But alas, that wasn't in the cards with TIME magazine's Valerie Lipinski in her January 22 interview with Weddington. Indeed, the entire affair was a succession of softball question after softball question, concluding with a query about whether Weddington ever goes back to listen to audio recordings of her arguments before the Supreme Court (emphasis mine):

By Scott Whitlock | | January 22, 2013 | 11:57 AM EST

After years of downplaying ideological labels for Barack Obama, ABC has seemingly accepted the idea that the President is a "progressive" and a "liberal." While recapping the inauguration, Good Morning America's journalists used the terms four times in just two minutes and 45 seconds. Yet, when Obama was a Democratic primary candidate in 2007, the networks deployed the L-word just twice– in the entire year.

On Tuesday, George Stephanopoulos hyped the ideological content of Obama's second inaugural: "The speech, a call to action, an uncompromising enunciation of liberal principles." Seconds later, the former Democratic operative turned journalist reiterated, insisting that "liberals were cheering yesterday." Jon Karl trumpeted, "He went big. He went lofty. He went ambitious. And he went unmistakably liberal." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

By Noel Sheppard | | January 22, 2013 | 10:47 AM EST

One of the requirements to be a liberal media member in the 21st century is to have selective amnesia when your agenda demands it.

Consider presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin who during an appearance on PBS's Charlie Rose Monday said, "The political culture in which [Barack Obama's] had to work in these last four years may have been the most difficult political culture that any president’s had in a long period of time" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

By Liz Thatcher | | January 22, 2013 | 10:21 AM EST

At one time, newspapers were America’s source for news and current events. Today it’s a completely different story. While President Obama has declared a push to ban or limit types of guns, the nation’s major newspapers are nearly unanimous in their support of gun control. The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and other most-popular papers led the list.

The consistent theme of almost every gun editorial from Dec. 15, 2012 to Jan. 11, 2013, was that stricter gun laws were needed, and semi-automatic rifles should be completely banned from civilian use. Some newspapers were even more aggressive.

By Tom Blumer | | January 22, 2013 | 10:08 AM EST

At his January 14 press conference, in response to a question from Major Garrett of CBS News and the National Journal about raising the federal government's debt limit, currently at $16.394 trillion, President Barack Obama said: "I’m not going to have a monthly or every-three-months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills."

On Wednesday, a Fox News dispatch to which the Associated Press contributed reported that House Republicans hope to pass a bill on Wednesday which would "allow the government to keep borrowing through May 18," but that "Democrats have generally reacted coolly to the three-month extension" beyond February 18, when the government is currently expected to hit the ceiling. Despite all of this, Jim Kuhnhenn, AP's White House and politics reporter at its Washington bureau, called the House's move a "retreat," with his Tuesday morning story's headline claiming: "Obama stands his ground." Really (bolds are mine throughout this post):

By Noel Sheppard | | January 22, 2013 | 9:57 AM EST

As NewsBusters reported Saturday, CBS News political director John Dickerson advised the current White House resident to destroy the Republican Party.

On PBS's Charlie Rose Monday, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward made a much different recommendation to President Obama saying, "Sticking your finger in these people’s eye all the time I don't think will work" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

By Mark Finkelstein | | January 22, 2013 | 9:06 AM EST

Ah, the masses. How they loved President Obama's inaugural speech.  And how Andrea Mitchell, being "up there," loved looking out over them.  She was "very moved."

Yes, on Morning Joe today, NBC correspondent Mitchell not only said that she was "very moved, being up there . . . looking out over the masses," but that she found the speech "uplifting," and that it was "a bigger moment that a lot of people originally gave it credit for."  View the video after the jump.