On Monday on Twitter, National Review writer Charles C. W. Cooke called out the hypocrisy of the New York Times, as he posted a contrast, a Times flip-flop: a 2014 Editorial Board write-up on how the “Terror Watch Lists Run Amok” and a 2015 Editorial Board write-up on why Republicans are showing “Tough Talk and a Cowardly Vote on Terrorism” by refusing to let the terror watch lists run amok.
Libertarians

On Tuesday's The Lead, CNN's Jake Tapper zeroed in on University of Missouri Professor Melissa Click's attack on a student journalist, after he tried to cover anti-racism protests on campus. Tapper bluntly stated, "I have to say that I found this video shocking — not just this mob of students trying to intimidate this student journalist — but they had faculty help!" The anchor later asked Professor Tom Warhover, who also teaches at Mizzou, "Do you think she should be stripped of her courtesy opportunities?" Warhover replied, "I think that's probably a reasonable response."

Comedian Tim Allen is one of the few actors who has made no secret of his personal right of center beliefs, but what is even rarer is that he actually gets to voice his views through the character Mike Baxter on the ABC sitcom Last Man Standing.

I noted on Sunday how former Associated Press reporter Philip Elliott, writing for Time Magazine's Time.com website, joined the Scott Walker pile-on brigade criticizing the Wisconsin Governor's reasonable — arguably to a fault — position that he doesn't personally know whether Barack Obama is a Christian.
A separate post by Elliott, which covered a weekend retreat hosted by Charles Koch, originally carried a headline so obviously outrageous that it should never have gotten past him (though, to be fair, he may not have been responsible for creating it) or Time's editors (if they exist) for more than a few minutes after it appeared. Readers will see that headline after the jump (HT Mary Katharine Ham at Hot Air):
A movie dramatization of the Stanford prison experiment opened this weekend, but if you believe Andrew O’Hehir, that’s not the first time the 1971 psychological study has been restaged in some manner. O’Hehir asserted in a Saturday piece that over the past few decades, “the Republican Party has been the subject, willing or otherwise, of a version” of the Stanford experiment, with the result that the GOP is now “a xenophobic, all-white party of hate that seeks to roll back not just the Civil Rights movement and feminism, but the entire Enlightenment.”

Of all the media memes ever attempted, the one blaming Republicans for the fact that now-resigned Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Aruchleta was confirmed is high on the list of the most ridiculous ever. A reasonably close runnerup is the idea that Congress failed "to adequately fund OPM."
Matt Balan at NewsBusters covered CNN's ridiculous tweeted claim that "Republicans acknowledge ... they didn't properly vet Archuleta's qualifications." It's as if only Republicans — who, I must remind the media herd, were in the minority in the Senate in late 2013 when she was confirmed, and who opposed her by a 35-8 margin — were the only ones responsible for vetting this woman. Why isn't the press asking Harry Reid why his Senate Democratic Party majority didn't do its job? Far more fundamentally, did the president's responsibility for selecting competent people vanish when Barack Obama was elected?

Salon has never met a political subject that they couldn’t twist into a race issue. That trend continued in their latest hit piece, this one on right-leaning libertarians. Author Conor Lynch suggested that libertarians owe their political positions to their desire to protect white male dominance.

CNN's Chris Cuomo pressed Pam Geller on Thursday's New Day over her leadership of "a group that does take shots at Islam on a regular basis." Cuomo underlined that "you can show the cartoon. People have the equal right to criticize your showing the cartoon as an overt provocation of a religion." He also wondered, "Why go slight for slight with the Muslims?" The anchor later asserted, "It just seems like you're throwing a stone at something that doesn't really help anything."

Two U.S. Senators -- one Republican, the other a socialist who votes with the Democrats -- are outside candidates for president. Both were profiled in Monday's New York Times, but with quite different results. While Rand Paul's anti-surveillance crusade was caricatured as cynical "sloganeering," socialist Bernie Sanders' modest Iowa crowds (100 people instead of 50?) were hailed as a liberal insurrection.

Not the endorsement someone heading into the Republican primaries would normally want, but it's the one Rand Paul got. On today's This Week [hosted by Jonathan Karl in the absence of Stephanopoulos], far-left Rep. Keith Ellison declared that on a variety of issues he is "proud to stand" with Rand Paul.
Roll the video and watch Bill Kristol look on beningly as Ellison praises Paul. Let's read Bill's mind: every Ellison accolade was another chunk of GOP primary voters lost for Kristol's least-favorite Republican candidate. In the unkindest cut, Kristol claimed that it was Paul standing with Ellison, not the other way around,since Ellison and his fellow lefties were first to stake out those positions and Paul has now decided to become a "liberal Democrat" on them. Ouch!
Libertarian-leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has announced for president, and the media is locked and loaded, with Jeremy Peters reporting that "Paul Gets the TV Spotlight and Turns It on Interviewers in Testy Encounters."
Peters, who recently used the vaccine issue to smear conservatives as opposed to "modern science" on the Times' front page, made it clear that going after his media colleagues would be an unwise thing for Republican candidates to do, suggesting it played into the Republican stereotype (fostered by those very same media colleagues) as hard-edged and insensitive.

A Sunday Associated Press item carried at its national news site informs readers that the town of Westminster in north central Massachusetts is seriously considering a ban on tobacco products. The Boston Globe covered the story in a lengthy report on October 28, and the Washington Post carried a brief item at its GovBeat blog that same day.
None of those three items addressed an obvious question: If it's okay to ban the sale of a product primarily on the basis of the harm it causes when smoked, what is the justification for legalizing marijuana throughout Massachusetts and elsewhere? Many Bay State observers believe, based on the number of nonbinding referenda passed and the changing public mood, that pot legalization is perhaps two years away.
