At this point, is Michael Bloomberg really anywhere near the center? The Washington Post pretended it was so on Sunday in a Michael Scherer article titled "A political aberration courts the Democratic nomination." To be a stitch to the right of today's Democratic Party is not the "center," just like being a stitch to the right of the ultraliberals in Manhattan is not the "center."
Time Magazine published a side piece by Michael Scherer and Zeke J. Miller accompanying its primary story on Miller's interview with the President. In "Donald Trump After Hours," the pair observed that "At the dessert course, he (Trump) gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie, instead of the single scoop for everyone else." Hard as it might be to believe, some unhinged members of the press have pounced on this sentence as proof of Trump's less than exemplary character.
On Thursday's Morning Joe, the panel discussed TIME Magazine's latest cover of White House Chief Strategist and Special Counselor Steve Bannon captioned "The Great Manipulator." It is imporant to note, unlike former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove and former Obama adviser David Axelrod, Bannon has been dubbed as if he is the "president's brain." The former was on the cover of TIME in 2005, while Axelrod has never been pictured there.
Longtime readers here may recall that yours truly and others have written about liberties New York Times reporter Kate Zernike has taken with the truth, especially in her reporting on the Tea Party movement. Her penchant for inventing baseless stories about alleged racism in the movement once caused the late Andrew Breitbart to label her "a despicable human being."
Breitbart might well have the same reaction to the hours-later revision made at Zernike's Times story Friday about Chris Christie. Several alert bloggers and tweeters noted that her story about Christie's knowledge of shut lanes on the George Washington Bridge conveniently went from solid to speculative without any indication that any changes had been made.
Moments earlier, President Obama wrapped up a petulant, whiney Rose Garden harangue in which he defended ObamaCare while insisting no one was more frustrated by the botched roll-out than he was.
Earlier this morning, Time magazine took it upon itself to counsel that the chief executive "has to get mad" about the failures of the ObamaCare web portal. "Political reality, unlike actual reality, is malleable stuff," writer Michael Scherer offered, adding:
You can trust National Public Radio to take the statist side in a shutdown. It happened again on The Diane Rehm Show on Monday, where “objective” reporters took turns slashing at “reality”-deprived Tea Party conservatives. Washington Post reporter Lori Montgomery said “the Obamacare push was a giant mistake.”
She even announced that “Obamacare madness” can be blamed for the shutdown:
As we noted previously and to its credit, the Washington Post has been critical of misleading Barack Obama attack ads on Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Now Time magazine has taken to fact-checking an Obama ad which hits Mitt Romney on a hot-button social issue: abortion.
Time magazine's Michael Scherer -- no Romney backer he -- slammed the Obama spot as "centered on a clear untruth," and delved into the comments the ad took wildly out of context in order to appeal to women voters on the basis of a "scary falsehood" (emphases mine):
The Washington press corps always love it when establishment Republicans scold conservatives for trying to “purify” the party, and Time magazine’s Michael Scherer did not disappoint. “Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar did not go quietly, after losing his primary contest Tuesday in Indiana to a Tea Party-backed challenger, Richard Mourdock,” Scherer wrote the next day in a Time “Swampland” blog titled “The Importance of Dick Lugar’s Farewell Warning.”
“If there is one thing the American people need to read today,” the former writer for the far-left Mother Jones directed, “it is his farewell missive, which may prove to be as prescient and long lasting as Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 exit speech warning of the coming military industrial
Time magazine's Michael Scherer on Monday constructed one of the odder political metaphors when he compared the likelihood of Barack Obama running for reelection to the recent announcement that Playboy founder Hugh Hefner is engaged.
Appearing on Monday's Early Show, he joked, "This is about as surprising as Hugh Hefner getting married again." The weird comparison makes even less sense when you think that Hefner is 84 and has only been married twice. (The eight-time married Elizabeth Taylor, he is not.)
Early Show guest host Russ Mitchell quizzed Scherer on the announcement by White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs that Obama would likely run for a second term: "The President's run in 2008 was historic in so many ways. How will the 2012 campaign be different, do you think?"
Shortly after 5 p.m. yesterday, Time's Michael Scherer laid out his reasons why he believed Democrats would eventually come around to President Obama's compromise with congressional Republicans on tax policy.
In "Why Democrats Will Probably Swallow The Tax Cut Compromise," Scherer noted that, according to one economic analysis, the Obama-GOP compromise would result in both stronger economic growth and lower unemployment than under a plan liberal Democrats were more likely to favor:
Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn't understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush.
Without naming this week's PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of "Hardball" asked his guests, "Why would you want that back?"
When Time's Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn't having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary):
A reporter asked a stray question, and Obama blew all the careful planning of his staff. He varied from his initial remarks, creating a new narrative for a story the White House does not want to linger. Was he adding an asterisk to his remarks, as the Washington Post put it? Was it a recalibration, as the New York Times put it? In short, this is a communications disaster. The White House had to release a statement clarifying the new statement, or restatement, or whatever.
The president's opponents, who had been pushing the mosque issue for weeks as a way to get Democrats on the wrong side of the polls in an election year, came out celebrating. Liz Cheney, who can diminish just about any nuanced thought into a barbed cable news talking point, emailed Politico's Mike Allen from her iPhone. "I guess President Obama was for the mosque before he was against it. You can quote me," went the message.