A new survey of Native American opinions on the Washington Redskins' nickname once again demonstrates underwhelming opposition to the moniker and just how out of touch the so-called "mainstream media" really is. The new survey duplicates the Washington Post's 2016 poll finding that 90 percent of Natives are not offended by the Redskins' nickname ― much to the disappointment of writers at the Post. Like Theresa Vargas, who insists the name is a dictionary-defined slur, no matter how many people accept the word.
The revelation, that 90% of Native Americans are in no way offended by the word Redskin, may not have swayed the uber-leftist panel of ESPN’s Around the Horn to change their minds about the Redskins name. However, it apparently has caused at least one member of the mainstream press to drop his opposition to the team name.
As I blogged Monday night, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews gave Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe a platform to urge liberal viewers at home who live in the Old Dominion to vote pro-gun control by voting for Democrats the following day. Of course, that didn't pan out like either hoped. Republicans retained control of the both houses of the state legislature, while Democrats had hoped to flip the Senate over to their control.
Under Obama, the Federal Communications Commission has done pretty much nothing on broadcast obscenity. So it’s utterly baffling why Washington Post metro columnist (and former Metro section editor) Robert McCartney would try to pretend it’s any kind of a threat that the FCC will punish broadcasters for using that alleged obscenity....”Redskins.”
“Professor's FCC filing should worry Snyder” was McCartney’s headline. The professor threatening Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is liberal John Banzhaf III, best known for anti-tobacco crusading many years ago.
Robert McCartney slimed a Northern Virginia Catholic priest in a Sunday column in the Washington Post for his decision to end his parish's relationship with the Boy Scouts for letting openly-homosexual youth to join as scouts. McCartney blasted Father John De Celles, pastor of St. Raymond of Peñafort parish in Springfield, for his supposed "diatribes against gay behavior, liberal activists and similar targets in his weekly columns."
The columnist later touted how "De Celles is in the minority" in disbanding his parish's Cub Scout pack and Boy Scout troop, and bringing in an alternative youth group that "discriminates against boys who refuse to hide their homosexuality," as he spun it. He all but called for discrimination against those who defend traditional sexual morals: "I hope and expect that those with narrow-minded views will be the ones who end up 'marginalized.'"
Ken Shepherd was amazed on Thursday that Washington Post "On Faith" diva Sally Quinn took 48 days to slam Dr. Ben Carson for the alleged rudeness of his National Prayer Breakfast speech. But that's nothing. In Sunday's Post, Metro columnist (and former Metro section editor) Robert McCartney trashed the Washington Nationals for picking William Howard Taft as their new racing president...65 days after the announcement.
"This mascot ought to be impeached," screeched the headline. The other four racing presidents at Nationals Park are on Mount Rushmore, while "Taft doesn't merit being on a pebble." McCartney complained the "gutsy" move would have had an FDR mascot wheeling behind the race every day:
In Sunday's Metro section, Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney celebrated ultraliberal Sen. Barbara Mikulski, all the way back to her humble origins as a "young community organizer" in Baltimore in 1970: "The ethnic American, Mikulski said, was overtaxed, underserved by government and 'sick of being stereotyped as a racist and dullard.'" Overtaxed? She's dropped that word.
He concluded: "Mikulski deserves credit for being genuine, a trait in short supply in American politics. Conservatives can criticize her on ideological grounds for being reflexively liberal. But she is so consistent and plain-spoken that nobody can doubt where she stands." She's not consistent if she used to worry about overtaxing the ethnics of Balitmore. But McCartney said she was "sticking to the vision" of 1970:
But Washington Post Metro columnist Robert McCartney today romanticized the average Occupy DC squatter as reminiscent of "one of [his] childhood heroes," Yogi Bear.
In the last week of the state campaign in Virginia, Democrats are still desperately trying to scare voters into thinking Republicans are extreme -- and so is The Washington Post. On Wednesday, reporter Anita Kumar wrote a stale old rerun of the attack on Republican state Senate candidate Richard Black because he sent pink "fetus" models before an abortion vote -- the same tactic she tried in September. The story began like a negative TV ad.
"Dick Black once questioned whether a husband commits rape if he forces his wife to have sex," she began. "The former member of the House of Delegates introduced a bill to ban gays from adopting children. He voted to limit access to birth control. But the Republican who opposes abortion rights is probably best known on Capitol Square for sending plastic pink models of fetuses to lawmakers as they prepared to vote on an abortion bill."
Put the lie in your lead and the truth deeper into your story, Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney relayed on Sunday in passing along advice he got from his late father. A few pages away, Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton seemed to take that advice as he led his Sunday column, “The truth about the Sarah Palin e-mails,” by asserting: “If you read the mail to the ombudsman last week, you would think The Post organized a vigilante mob to burn Sarah Palin at the stake. That interpretation is complete balderdash.” He also insisted: “Nor was this a biased, one-sided effort to dig up dirt on Republicans and not Democrats.”
Not until the 17th paragraph of his lame 17 paragraph column did Pexton undermine his premise and let the truth out:
I think requesting the correspondence of public officials is a crucial tool for journalists. Sure, go ahead and get Obama’s e-mails from when he was an Illinois state senator. Why not? And I think crowd-sourcing is here to stay as a regular part of the future of this publication and others.
Robert McCartney, the liberal Washington Post columnist, has done something that Chris Matthews and his fellow leftist MSNBC hosts have yet to do: attend a tea party rally without being confrontational and/or snarky. McCartney went to a tea party with an open mind last week and this is what he discovered:
I went to the "tea party" rally at the Washington Monument on Thursday to check out just how reactionary and potentially violent the movement truly was.
Answer: Not very.
Based on what I saw and heard, tea party members are not seething, ready-to-explode racists, as some liberal commentators have caricatured them.
- Ran 11 articles related to D.C.'s new law allowing same-sex marriage.
- Devoted 543 inches of column space to the ruling - equal to nearly four full pages.
- Printed 14 photos of gay celebrations, including a prominent one of two men kissing.
- Quoted supporters 11 times more often than opponents - 67 to 6.
- Repeatedly compared gay marriage to the historic civil rights movement.
Nobody can accuse The Washington Post of being objective when it came to covering the District of Columbia's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. The Post has reported on the event with a celebratory zeal more appropriate to The Advocate or The Blade.