President Donald Trump infuriated the left again on June 19, when he awarded supply-side economist Arthur Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The left’s reaction was predictably vicious. An MSNBC analyst called Laffer one of the most “destructive forces” in economics since Herbert Hoover. New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait minced no words about his anger over Laffer’s award ceremony, calling him a “kook” elevated to “metaphysical status” within the Republican Party. He ridiculed Laffer’s theory as “provably untrue” and based on a “fake curve.”
In the wake of the immense political conflagration that Michael Wolff’s upcoming book Fire and Fury has caused, Thursday’s Morning Joe was almost entirely consumed by discussion of all its salacious claims and their implications for the Trump White House. Even though multiple guest panelists on the show admitted to the shaky factual foundation for Wolff’s book and the unproven nature of many of his assertions, they nevertheless largely treated his testament as gospel.
With the passage of the Republicans’ $1.5 trillion tax cut bill looming, most of Wednesday’s Morning Joe was devoted to portraying the legislation as not just bad policy (which would be par for the course on MSNBC), but a threat to America’s survival, prosperity, and democracy. “Conservative” co-host Joe Scarborough put on his Marxist cap to make the case that “the greatest threat to American-styled capitalism [is] income disparity.”
On Friday’s Morning Joe, Willie Geist hosted a panel to discuss the latest news on the Russian hacking narrative regarding Facebook ads that were purportedly used by Russian intelligence to stoke "racial tensions" during the 2016 presidential election. The panel’s primary reaction, with only one dissenting voice, was to call for increased government "regulation" and financial “penalties in the hundreds of millions” to shut down alleged Russian influencers.
On Tuesday morning's MSNBC Live, Louise Mensch, though she claims to be a conservative, put forth what I suspect will be the left's core economic argument if the economy improves under Donald Trump. That argument: The economy is "fantastic" already, and Trump will have had nothing to do with whatever economic improvements over what is already "fantastic" we might see.
In Tuesday’s New York Times, legal reporter Charlie Savage went way overboard fear-mongering over a quip Donald Trump made to Hillary Clinton during their debate Sunday night in “Pledge to Put Clinton in Jail Gets Experts Thinking of ‘Tin-Pot Dictators.’” Trump’s “you’d be in jail” rejoinder to Hillary Clinton came during a heated discussion of her handling of classified documents, and the media aggressively misrepresented it to liken Trump to a dictator. One wonders where this concern about careful rhetoric and the rule of law was when the left howled for war crimes tribunals for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
When it comes to understanding Jewish neo-cons, Chris Matthews doesn't know a bagel from a hole in the ground . . . Speaking on MSNBC after Marco Rubio announced the suspension of his campaign, Matthews claimed that neo-cons like Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz will find Ted Cruz unacceptable and will instead support Hillary Clinton.
Let's put it this way: the day any of the above-named neo-cons endorses Clinton over Cruz, I will gladly send Matthews 10 lbs. of the finest lox and throw in a tub of first-class gefilte fish. Feh on your flawed prediction, Chris. Has Matthews been following any of the above lately? True, they detest Trump. But there's no reason they couldn't support Cruz. And Kristol has openly spoken of supporting a third-party conservative candidate if Trump's the GOP candidate. Speaking as something of a Jewish neo-con myself, this NewsBuster's odds of supporting Hillary over Cruz are approximately equal to those of me eating a ham sandwich at the Wailing Wall at high noon on Yom Kippur.
In case you didn't get enough of the Hillary-boosting after the "marathon" Thursday Benghazi committee hearing, other conservative media experts have rounded up their own samples of liberal-media wagon-circling.
There's "something rotten" in the Washington media, agreed James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal and Noah Rothman at Commentary.
It appears that Aron Heller at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's press, might have been applying lessons learned from the wire service's U.S. business and economics writers in his coverage of Israel's settlement activity. Heller also seems strangely fond of this mythical thing known as the "international community."
AP business and economics writers like Martin Crutsinger and Christopher Rugaber have regaled us with the wonders of the alleged housing recovery during the past two years, but haven't been quite as good at telling us that over 4-1/2 years after the recession officially ended, new home sales and construction activity is still only about 60-65 percent of what is seen as healthy by most economists and analysts. Heller pulled an analogous trick in his report; fortunately Evelyn Gordon at Commentary (HT Powerline) was astute enough to catch his misdirection, one in which President Obama has also engaged.
If "Hardball" host Chris Matthews is indeed going to challenge Arlen Specter for his senate seat in 2010, he must resign his position with MSNBC.
So say a growing chorus of observers from both sides of the aisle.
As reported by Politico's Michael Calderone Thursday:
If you want to get an idea of the kind of rose-colored microscope Obama will be scrutinized with by journalists now that he's headed to the White House, you need look no further than David Broder's column in the Washington Post Thursday which actually began:
The first week of Barack Obama's transition to the presidency has gone about as well as anyone could imagine.
Hmmm. I guess no one could have imagined president-elect Obama being greeted by a bullish show of confidence from Wall Street in the week following his coronation rather than an historic stock market collapse.
For some reason Broder chose to ignore the 14 percent decline in equity values since Election Day, but the Wall Street Journal didn't:
As NewsBusters previously reported, the Washington Post's ombudsman admitted Sunday that her paper's coverage of this year's presidential campaign was clearly biased towards Barack Obama.
Although that shouldn't surprise any sane person in this country, such a mea culpa is just good marketing unless the entity confessing the inappropriate behavior plans on doing something to correct it.
Jennifer Rubin of Commentary magazine agreed Sunday, and suggested that the road to recovery is first admitting the problem (picture courtesy Grinning Planet):