NBC’s Late Night host Seth Meyers has a clearly documented record against conservatives, but the show from late Thursday into Friday sunk to a new low as he cracked a joke about John Boehner’s Lucifer comments toward Ted Cruz as an implication that he’s worse than the now-revealed child molester Dennis Hastert.
As far-left MSNBC hosts go--an admittedly low bar--I'll admit to having found Chris Hayes a relatively fair and decent proponent of his misguided policies. But he did two things tonight that made me lose respect for him. First, he literally laughed in the face of Rick Tyler and called him "preposterous," when Cruz advocate Tyler called Donald Trump a "northeastern liberal progressive." This despite Trump's record of donating to . . . northeastern liberal progressives and describing himself, among other things, as "very pro-choice." Would Hayes ever be so rude to a liberal guest?
Even worse when it comes to hypocritical double-standards, it is hard to top Hayes' skeptical suggestion about Denny Hastert's pattern of sexual abuse of boys: "good Lord Almighty do I wonder whether that just stopped when he left the high school?" Come back and reclaim your integrity, Chris, when you wonder the same about post-White House Bill Clinton. Did his abuse stop when he left "the precincts" of the White House? Orgy Island, anyone?
The sophomore TV Land show Younger, about a 40-year-old divorcée who pretends to be 26 to get a job in the New York publishing industry, shocked viewers with a scene of bestiality this week. Real mature.
Friday's NBC Nightly News gave former Democratic Representative Barney Frank a platform to blast his former Republican peers in Congress, as it covered the Dennis Hastert scandal. Frank asserted that the issue is "a reminder of the hypocrisy especially among my Republican colleagues. Dennis Hastert became Speaker to preside over the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He then went on, as Speaker, to put before the House twice, constitutional amendments that would have banned same-sex marriage."
One doesn't know what to do with the rubbish which follows beyond noting it and hoping that the ridicule which results will somehow and in some way have some kind of impact.
Despite 6-1/2 years of horrid governance and dozens of acknowledged scandals, several of which a few of the credible remaining outposts of liberal thought have actually agreed are scandals, David Brooks, the New York Times's resident fake conservative, asserted on Friday's PBS NewsHour, as if it's an indisputable fact, that "President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him."
The New York Times classless liberal columnist Paul Krugman has a reputation for exploiting tragedy for partisan gain, and did so again Sunday afternoon, writing about former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, accused of using hush money to cover up sexual misconduct with a former student: "Defense of traditional values played a big role in the 2004 campaign....But what we’re now learning about the Speaker of the House during those years is beyond anything one could have imagined."
When CBS's Steve Kroft recently asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) some penetrating questions about stock purchases she and her husband made, the internet was abuzz with rumors about an upcoming 60 Minutes installment about the wealthy couple that have been known to use her political interest for their mutual benefit.
Unfortunately, this Sunday's 60 Minutes piece about Congressional insider trading cherry picked from author Peter Schweizer's soon to be released book "Throw Them All Out" to make it look like this is largely a Republican scandal (video follows with commentary):
As Father Daniel Coughlin marks 10 years of ministry as the chaplain to the U.S. House of Representatives, the Washington Post found an occasion to suggest to readers that Republicans who now praise the priest's service as the first-ever Catholic to hold the post have overcome a prejudice against the Catholic Church.
"In the beginning, there was partisanship," staff writer Ben Pershing began his April 27 article with a clever homage to the opening line of Genesis, but flash forward to last week and behold, "lawmakers from both parties streamed onto the House floor to honor [Coughlin's] of service."
Pershing explained to readers that back in 2000, another Catholic priest, Timothy J. O'Brien, "had more support on the [bipartisan chaplain search] committee" than Presbyterian minister Charles Wright, the candidate whom then-House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-Ill.) picked to replace outgoing House chaplain, Rev. James Ford, a Lutheran.
"Democrats suggested that Hastert's choice might reflect an anti-Catholic bias among Republicans," Pershing noted, adding that a "furious" Hastert then "urged Wright to withdraw" and then named Father Coughlin, a priest who had not been among the finalists, as the new House chaplain.
But Pershing left out a more plausible and decidedly less sinister explanation for why Hastert picked Wright in the first place, something that Post staffer Bill Broadway noted in his February 19, 2000 article, "Holy War in the House" (excerpt below via Nexis, emphasis mine):
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, on Friday's Today show, remarked how similar the Eric Massa case was to the Mark Foley sex scandal in 2006, and back then Scarborough went with Matt Lauer's premise that Hastert should be "Thrown under the bus" - a point some Republicans and conservatives agreed with then. However when NBC's Meredith Vieira questioned if Pelosi needed to testify, let alone resign, over the Massa mess Scarborough demurred: "I don't think so." So much for holding a Democratic Speaker to the same standards.
The following is what Scarborough told Lauer on the October 4, 2006 Today show:
MATT LAUER: So in other words, are you saying that the Republicans, to turn those numbers around, are going to have to--for lack of a better expression--throw somebody under the bus other than Mark Foley?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: They're going to have, they're going to have to throw Denny Hastert under the bus. But I-
LAUER: You think he should resign?
We've come to expect intellectual dishonesty from the media elite, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times, never disappoints.
Krugman, in a Nov. 11 post on his NYTimes.com blog titled "The agony of Fox Business," made it clear he was a subscriber to the left-wing fairy tale that Fox News, and by extension the Fox Business Channel, are not pro-business. Instead - they're "pro-Republican."
"Clearly, the Fox Business crew is having a very hard time," Krugman wrote. "They bill themselves as being truly pro-business - not like those leftists at CNBC. But they aren't really pro-business; they're pro-Republican. They'd like you to believe that it's the same thing; but there's this awkward fact that markets have, you know, gone up under Obama."