The same network that touts just one regular “conservative” analyst, David Brooks --- who many would argue isn’t even really a conservative --- announced Wednesday that they were launching a "conservative" political talk show, debuting April 13. Called In Principle, the PBS show will reportedly follow in the style of William F. Buckley’s Firing Line, which aired from 1966 to 1999.
Many consider Donald Trump an anomaly in the Republican party, but they really shouldn’t, suggested New York’s Chait in a Tuesday piece. Chait argued that the GOP which nominated Trump for president is pretty much the same GOP which has freaked out for several years over the Affordable Care Act. As Chait put it, “Republican hatred of Obamacare exemplifies the madness that left its elite unable to stop Trump.”
As right-leaning Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson substituted for New York Times columnist David Brooks on Friday's PBS NewsHour, he gave an analysis worthy of pretend-conservative Brooks as he was critical of the North Carolina bathroom law and asserted that there is an equivalency between the Obama administration on the left and supporters of the North Carolina law on the right.
On Friday's PBS Newshour, during the regular "Shields and Brooks" segment, the trio of Judy Woodruff, liberal Mark Shields and right-leaning Michael Gerson sitting in for David Brooks all suggested that, because of all the talk of deporting illegal immigrants, only a "moderate Republican" will be able to win the presidency for the GOP, and will need to "repudiate the idea of mass deportations."
On Friday, March 6, liberal columnist Mark Shields used his weekly appearance on PBS NewsHour to harshly criticize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. Speaking to co-host Judy Woodruff, Shields proclaimed that Netanyahu “made a very impassioned, I would say, eloquent indictment, criticism of the president’s policy. The Republicans were rapturous. They were adulatory. Even they were post-orgasmic.”
The staff "conservatives" at The Washington Post are throwing the kitchen sink at the Ted Cruz wing of the Republican Party again on the Post editoral page on Tuesday. In his columm, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson dismisses conservatives (like Cruz) who favor so-called “apocalyptic showdowns” with Obama on his executive-power trips.
Gerson concluded by talking 2016: "Those who judge a Bush-Clinton race to be a tired retread or disturbingly dynastic should consider the more novel and dynamic alternatives. A Warren-Cruz race would be less of an electoral choice than a national trauma. It’s been said that too much clarity darkens."
The liberal St. Louis Post-Dispatch has bowed to the "Fire George Will" folks and discontinued his syndicated column after he wrote about liberal universities now being pressed to stem an alleged tide of campus sexual assault. They're switching to big-government conservative Michael Gerson, the former chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush.
"The change has been under consideration for several months," they claimed in a note from editorial page editor Tony Messenger, "but a column published June 5, in which Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it."
In Saturday’s Washington Post, they published a letter to the editor from a Paul Whittemore in Spotsylvania, Virginia, who noticed the Post’s movie critics never attempted a movie review of God’s Not Dead, which has so far grossed $55.5 million at the box office and tiptoed back into the top ten this weekend.
On March 21, the Post could only report “This movie did not screen in time for critic review in Weekend.” As if the Posties couldn’t buy tickets at the cineplex? Whittemore also noticed the naughty, porny movies they did not skip:
On Thursday’s PBS NewsHour, anchor Gwen Ifill fed the tired old stereotype that the Tea Party ruins everything.
During a discussion about the nation’s political outlook for the coming year, Ifill posed this question to The Washington Post’s Michael Gerson:
On Friday, as I noted on Saturday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told public radio's Susan Arbetter that "extreme conservatives" – that is, people who are pro-life, understand the clear meaning of the Second Amendment, or wish to keep marriage as it has traditionally been defined – "have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are." Note well that Cuomo's remarks are still not news at the Associated Press's national site.
On Sunday, Cuomo's people sent and released an "open letter" containing a very inaccurate transcription of the original interview accusing the New York Post's Aaron Short of being "entirely reckless with facts and the truth" in his report ("Gov. Cuomo to conservatives: Leave NY!"). As I demonstrated on Monday, the only reasonable interpretation of what Cuomo said is that Republican Party members who hold any one of the three positions noted in the previous paragraph "have no place in the state of New York." In the past several days, the matter has escalated. The Post has continued to cover the story – that's what newspapers are supposed to do – while, in an extraordinary move, the Counsel to the Governor has entered the fray with what can only be interpreted as threatening language.