President George W. Bush
Watching the media's inability to find relevant investigative news during the Obama era is like watching a bald-headed fellow named Fudd hunting for ‘wabbit'.
Such is the case of the main stream media's complete and utter ignorance involving the administration recently steering a $25 million no-bid contract to a Democratic campaign contributor.
While Fox News reporter James Rosen did an in-depth investigative report (and follow up) on the deal with Checchi & Company - despite working for what the administration considers a non-news network - the entire media establishment had ignored a significant reneging of campaign promises, right up until that deal was canceled.
Doing his best impersonation of a crystal ball, NewsBuster Tom Blumer correctly foretold the future when he questioned the media response to the story:
"Will the rest of the establishment press risk the tattered remnants of its credibility, follow the White House's suggestion, and ignore the story because it's coming from Fox?"
On Monday’s Newsroom program, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez tried to justify that Cindy Sheehan is still worth covering, as the unrelenting left-wing activist recently protested near the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush. When Republican strategist Rich Galen advised that she should stop protesting and that the press ignore her, Sanchez went out of his way to find an angle for covering her.
Sanchez brought on Galen and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona to discuss the Sheehan protest during the bottom half of the 3 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program. He first asked Cardona, “Should she [Sheehan] let it go?” The strategist answered by putting her cause in the wider context of all the parents of servicemen who were killed during the Iraq war. When she concluded her answer by asking rhetorically, “who are we to say yes or no” to Sheehan, Galen jumped in and replied, “I can say yes or no. The answer’s no, I’m afraid.”
With former President George W. Bush, it's just the opposite. Show biz types can't get enough of poking fun at him. This is true even at the National Geographic Bee. Yes, the National Geographic Bee. The Associated Press's story "Trebek Makes Bush Joke as Texas Teen Wins Geography Bee" details the latest:
The nation's top geography whiz breezed through questions about mountain ranges, rivers and world capitals Wednesday, but he was stumped when National Geographic Bee host Alex Trebek asked him to name one of his weaknesses.
"Um ..." said Eric Yang, 13, pausing. The Texas teen had just revealed to the "Jeopardy!" host how he crafts his own chess strategies and plays the piano.
"That's OK," Trebek replied. "You remind me of a former president, but we won't get into that."
Roberts’s taped interview of Gore aired in three parts, and his questions to Gore about Cheney came during the second part, which began at the bottom half of the 7 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program. The anchor asked the former vice president, “You were a big critic of the previous administration, particularly in the run-up to the war and thereafter. What do you think of Vice President Cheney’s statements that the Obama administration’s policies are leaving this country less safe?”
As you might expect, Jon Stewart and CNN commentator Jack Cafferty’s combined act on Monday’s Daily Show consisted of some serious discussion of the economy intermixed with unoriginal jabs at former President George W. Bush’s speech pattern and high praise for the Obamas. Stewart even half-jokingly suggested that if Obama “doesn’t do well,” (perish the thought!), “we can still blame it on Bush” [audio available here].
Cafferty was on the Comedy Central program to promote his new book, “Now or Never.” After the two initially joked about this title and the title of his last book (“It’s Getting Ugly Out There”), the commentator made his first joke about Bush. Stewart asked, “Are you feeling less confident in our ability to pull this out? Is your perspective that we truly are in a nosedive?” Cafferty replied, “I don’t know. You know, I’ve got -- I’ve got some faith, I think, in the new president. He’s capable of making a declarative sentence, a cohesive thought.” When the audience applauded, Stewart quipped, “Big grammar fans.”
The CNN commentator then continued to gush over Obama: “I like Obama. I think he’s a bright guy. He’s a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, former senator, president of the United States, and he goes on The Tonight Show and says, arguably, the stupidest thing he’s ever said in his entire adult life.” Oh, it’s definitely arguable, Jack
Reporting on the President's new book deal, " Decision Points,” Olbermann said,
"I am told he gets $7 million for his life's accomplishments in book form. So, the book is five pages long?"
To display what mean-spirited looks like? To improve ratings? (Certainly hasn't worked up to now). To solidfy support for Obama? Whatever the reason, it certainly is not good or authentic journalism.
For some in the mainstream media, fawning over Barack Obama - as pleasurable as it is - isn't quite enough. Kicking George W. Bush around enhances the gratification.
Julia Keller, cultural critic, for the Chicago Tribune today contributes: "Of books and Obama: What does 'literary president' mean, exactly?" At the end of the piece she happily concludes, "It's great to have a literary president of the United States." Getting there, however, includes the obligatory Bush bashing:
But I'm being coy here. We all know what people mean when they say Obama is a "literary" president—and, sadly, it has less to do with our widely beloved new leader than it does with the apparently unloved man he replaced: George W. Bush. Bush became the poster president for the non-literary set, for people who not only don't read, but also seem to be rather proud of not reading. Reading, to certain people, is classified as a sort of prissy, fussy, sissified activity, equivalent to daydreaming or lollygagging. It's a sign of elitism. Of having too much leisure time and too little drive.
Yet shortly before Bush left office, his closest adviser—Karl Rove, now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal—made a shocking revelation: Bush, it turns out, reads. He reads a lot. Two books a week, in fact. That, anyway, is the claim.
That George W. Bush reads would be a "shocking revelation" only to someone whose bias is so pervasive that he - or in this instance, she - spent little time researching the question.
On Tuesday’s Hannity and Colmes program top Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs displayed the latest example of the Democratic campaign attempting to whitewash their opponents. When co-host Sean Hannity asked him about Obama’s connections to William Ayers, Gibbs shot back, "Are you anti-Semitic?" He then changed the entire subject of the discussion to whether Hannity was anti-Semitic for recently interviewing Andy Martin, who in 2000, accused George W. Bush of using cocaine, has been a candidate for various offices in several states, and is accused by the Washington Post of starting the rumor that Obama is a Muslim.
This charge by Gibbs caused a three-plus minute back-and-forth argument in which the Obama spokesman continued to charge that Hannity was anti-Semitic, and also asked at one point, "Why am I not to believe that everyone who works for the network is anti-Semitic because Sean Hannity gave a platform to a man who thinks Jews are slimy?" The argument was finally stopped by co-host Alan Colmes, who defended Hannity as "not anti-Semitic" [see video at right; direct link to video here].
What is the first step in the main stream media’s handbook of liberal bias? Why, alter the headline to fit your agenda, of course.
In textbook MSM form, liberal news outlets have been altering the planned Tuesday announcement by President Bush that 8,000 troops in Iraq will be home by February.
Allow me to demonstrate…
Does it get much lower than this?
After first extolling the "F--- Bush" headline, MSNBC's David Shuster, substituting for Tucker Carlson today, later engaged in a grotesque game of "gotcha," exploiting an Amercan soldier killed in Iraq to make his partisan point.
Chatting with Newsweek's Richard Wolffe and MSNBC analyst Craig Crawford, talk turned to the controversy surrounding the editorial in the Colorado State student newspaper headlined "Taser This: F--- Bush" [f-word spelled out in headline].
Wolffe went first, and was patently delighted by the incident. With a hearty grin, he observed . . .
Upon President Bush's arrival yesterday in Sydney, Australia, deputy Prime Minister Mark Vailes politely inquired about progress in Iraq. President Bush answered bluntly that "we're kicking a--."
In making this statement, President Bush at once committed two acts for which the mainstream media has historically been critical: 1) he used a curse word, and 2) he used sharp rhetoric.