With the debt-ceiling debate continuing to rage on in Washington, D.C.,the discussion has expanded to address our overall fiscal health. The conversation has now grown to the point that it now includes talk of a balance budget amendment., which many feel is long overdue.
The topic also came up during the first ever Twitter Presidential Debate, with Congresswoman Bachmann continuing her strong stance that we need to regain our fiscal sanity.
Bachmann vows she’ll submit only balanced budgets
By Associated Press, posted from NH Journal
NORWALK, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says she will submit only balanced budgets if she’s elected next year.
But Bachmann won’t promise that she’ll veto deficit budgets if Congress sends them to her desk.
Bachmann spoke Wednesday during a campaign event in Iowa.
On Monday, she signed a so-called “cut, cap and balance” pledge during a campaign stop in South Carolina. The pledge says the federal government should not borrow more unless there are immediate spending cuts, enforceable spending caps and Congress passes a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.
Bachmann had previously said she wouldn’t sign the pledge because it didn’t go far enough in dealing with the national debt.
Eight other presidential candidates have signed it.
Make no mistake about it, the Left cannot stand a strong, common-sense, intellectual conservative woman. The mere thought sends Liberals into fits. But not to worry, Liberals actually have an attack template they use to try and discredit any conservative woman who gets too big for their britches…….or skirt.
Just prior to the general election in 2008, Michele Malkin wrote about the Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse, an article that is as relevant today as it was when it was first written.
The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse
My syndicated column today takes a broader view of those suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome and assesses the longtime signs and symptoms of progressive Conservative Female Abuse by the Left. Yes, I speak from personal experience. Been there, done that. See also: Unhinged. See-Dubya blogged over the weekend about the Palin-haters’ fake bikini photo mania. Again: Been there, done that. Now, those fake photos of the governor are spreading like kudzu. See here, here, and here. It’s all coming soon to a Democrat rag-masquerading-as-a-tabloid or a Democrat tabloid-masquerading-as-a-manstream newspaper near you.
The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse
by Michelle Malkin
There’s something about outspoken conservative women that drives the Left mad. It’s a peculiar pathology I’ve reported on for more than 15 years, both as a witness and a target. Thus, the onset of Palin Derangement Syndrome in the media, Democrat circles, and the cesspools of the blogosphere came as no surprise. They just can’t help themselves.
Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors. Minorities who identify as social and economic conservatives have left the plantation and sold out their people. Women who put an “R” by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As Republican officeholders and conservative public figures who are women have grown in number and visibility, the progression of Conservative Female Abuse has worsened. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.
The first stage of Conservative Female Abuse by the Left is infantilization. Right-wing women can’t possibly believe what they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets, or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. Or, as a far Left (is there any other kind of Left in San Francisco?) San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote of First Lady Laura Bush, they must be put in their place as “docile doormats” with no brains of their own. True to form, no sooner had John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his veep pick than jeers of “Palin = neocon puppet” sprouted across the Internet.
The second stage of CFA is sexualization. A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. MSNBC hosts insulted former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s accomplished wife and mother of two, Jeri Thompson, as working the stripper pole. Newspaper cartoonists Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant, and Jeff Danziger caricatured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a mammy, thick-lipped parrot, and Bush “House Nigga” armed with “hair straightener.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd derided former GOP Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris for applying “her makeup with a trowel.”
True to form, Dowd was first out of the box to snicker at Gov. Palin’s beauty pageant past, ridicule her “beehive and sexy shoes,” and compare her path to the vice presidential nomination as a “hokey chick flick.” Joe Biden backhandedly praised her as “good looking.” And left-wing bloggers worked overtime on lurid photoshops of Palin as a bikini model and porn star. At the Democratic Underground, a highly trafficked liberal website raising money for Barack Obama, members held a contest to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — and then to “spread [them] all over the ‘net.” Among the “nicer” entries: “Cruella,” “Gidget,” “Governor Jesus Camp,” “VPILF,” “Fertilla the Huntress,” “Iditabroad,” and “KILLER PYSCHO FUNDIE BITCH FROM HELL!!”
The third stage of CFA is demonization. When the Left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. Bill Maher called Laura Bush “Hitler’s dog.” George Carlin attacked Barbara Bush as “the Silver douchebag.” A Huffington Post website member wrote of Nancy Reagan: “Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here’s hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub.” Another added: “I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband’s political beliefs.”
True to form, rumors of Palin being a crypto-Nazi surfaced on the Internet and the fringe media. And liberal critics used her gun-rights record to smear her as bloodthirsty.
And the final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator?” Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates? Or when Al Gore’s fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body?”
Echoing the bottom-feeders in the liberal blogosphere, mainstream journalists and Obama water-carriers now question Palin’s commitment to motherhood and even challenged her pre-natal care decisions in an effort to destroy her. Forget about questioning their patriotism. I question their sanity.
Other resource (book): Sarah Quaylin: Left-Wing Smear Attacks on Rogue Conservatives
Try as we might, most inside New Hampshire knew this day was coming. The federal government has sent a bill to the State of New Hampshire for the repayment of 35 million dollars for what they are claiming was misused.The State has long contended that the misuse was not intentional, and was a result of a confusing bureaucratic process.
The NH House, Senate, and Executive Branch have been working to change the mind of Uncle Sam, who is dealing with its own fiscal shortfalls. The State will continue to fight the decision, but we are quickly running out of places to fight the decision. But the bigger problem now is where do we find the money in an already lean budget?
Improperly used Medicaid funds to cost NH $35 million
Federal officials have decided that New Hampshire must repay $35 million in Medicaid funds that were improperly used in 2004, state health officials said yesterday.
By MARK HAYWARD
New Hampshire Union Leader
Federal officials have decided that New Hampshire must repay $35 million in Medicaid funds that were improperly used in 2004, state health officials said yesterday.
Health and Human Services Commissioner Nicholas Toumpas said the state will ask for reconsideration of the decision, but in the meantime he will work with the Legislature and prepare a contingency plan.
“I will look at the entire department,” he said. The amount comprises about 5 percent of his department’s general fund budget.
The issue stems from the payments of Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funds that the state made to 26 hospitals in 2004.
The state used the DSH money to refund Medicaid Enhancement Taxes the hospitals paid.
On Tuesday, the state Department of Health and Human Services received a decision from the Departmental Appeals Board of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that requires the money be repaid to Medicaid.
The federal government audited the state over Medicaid practices in 2004, and then-Gov. Craig Benson reached an agreement with former DHHS Secretary Tommy Thompson that satisfied all outstanding issues, Toumpas said.
But the Office of Inspector General within the U.S. DHHS disputed that agreement and sought the repayment of the $35 million.
“This is not an issue related to blaming any one governor, any one commissioner. This is a systemic issue,” Toumpas said.
He said Gov. John Lynch and leaders in the House and Senate were well aware that the $35 million decision was possible.
It may be difficult to cut Medicaid spending. Federal law prevents the state from reducing Medicaid eligibility, and a reduction in Medicaid payments to physicians and hospitals could run afoul of federal efforts to discourage providers from refusing to serve Medicaid patients.
“They would have to find the money somewhere,” said Kathy Bizarro, an executive vice president with the New Hampshire Hospital Association.
She said hospitals are losing $250 million, most of it in DSH funds, over the current two-year budget cycle.
Several hospitals recently filed amended tax returns with the state, claiming they overpaid the Medicaid Enhancement Tax by $51 million in previous years.
The three-stools of conservatism are fiscal, social, foreign policy – defense. The stool cannot stand without all three legs, but does that really matter to the powers that be within the Republican Party?
Faith and Values are sins of omission at GOP.com
As Republican presidential hopefuls crisscross the country appealing to faithful conservatives for their votes, the Republican National Committee’s website no longer lists “Faith” or “Values” among its “most important issues.”
The “Faith & Values” tab on the GOP.com website disappeared during a 2009 site-redesign project. The resulting lack of online religious focus comes at a time when nearly all Republican presidential candidates are reinforcing their conservative credentials on faith and social issues.
Earlier this month, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann shared her religious beliefs during a speech at an Iowa church. “If we humble ourselves, and pray and confess our sins, and turn away from our wicked ways, and ask an almighty God to come and protect us and fight the battle for us, we know from his word, his promise is sure,” Bachmann preached.
Bachmann was also heard accounting for her pro-life beliefs — something she shares with all but one of her fellow contenders. (Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson supports a woman’s right to choose abortion up to the point of fetal viability.)
Bachmann’s rhetoric, however, doesn’t match up with her political party’s website.
Since 2004, the GOP.com website has made prominent references to “faith” and “values” as principal issues for the Republican party. (Dissatisfied Republicans develop plan for brokered convention)
In 2005, “Faith & Values” were clearly front-burner issues on the RNC’s website, which happily proclaimed then-president George W. Bush’s success advocating for faith-based organization to keep competitive grants.
RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski insists the website’s failure to address faith issues is unintentional.
“They’re not really missing,” Kukowski told TheDC. “Under the previous administration in ’09, GOP.com was totally redone.”
Kukowski said she wasn’t sure why the GOP’s flagship website ditched its “Faith & Values” section under former RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Adding it back under the site’s “Issues” tab, however, isn’t a top priority and may prove too pricey for the cash-strapped GOP.
“This is the website we were given, and right now we just don’t have the resources,” Kukowski said. “There was a bit of a cash-flow issue; fundraising and bringing money in the doors is the number one priority.”
Still, Faith and Freedom Coalition director Gary Marx hopes to see more work on the website.
“It looks like the techies and the policy shop have a little bit more work left to do,” Marx said. (RNC wants probe into Obama fundraising video filmed in White House)
Kukowski said faith and values continue to be core concerns for the GOP, pointing to GOP.com for a link to the 2008 Party Platform.
“It’s in our platform, which you can still find on our website,” Kukowski said. “Nobody is characterizing that faith and value aren’t a part of what we do.”
Indeed, “faith” is mentioned twelve times in the 60-page party platform declaration, while “American Values” claims its own section in the document.
Shortly before the GOP published its 2008 platform, however, references to God, Faith, and values were far more common at GOP.com.
In January 2008, the Republican Party bragged about all President George W. Bush had done to support the Defense Of Marriage Act, and to keep the phrase “Under God” in America’s official motto. Then, the GOP website’s “Faith & Values” section praised Bush as the most pro-life president in history.
Today, such references are MIA.
Kukoski said the Republican Party will re-examine its website during the coming months, especially as the Republican National Convention approaches.
If you were to follow the misleading headlines/polls, some would say the Republicans are losing the debate over the debt-ceiling. Or are they? The devil is in the details folks, and you really need to read the breakdown to truly understand that in the end most Americans are concerned about the debt-ceiling, and are not happy with either party.
The next step for Republicans in the debt fight
Judging by the pundits and the talking heads, Republicans have already lost the message war over the debt ceiling. Conventional wisdom portrays them as intransigent, refusing Democratic offers of huge spending cuts in exchange for modest tax — or “revenue” — increases. When Reps. John Boehner, Eric Cantor and their colleagues go to the White House, President Obama is “the adult in the room,” while Republicans are the children, threatening to blow up the economy rather than let go of their precious tax cuts.
The picture looks a little different inside the GOP camp. Republican leaders believe they can win the battle on taxes because, however the debt fight turns out, voters will evaluate them based on the issue they care about most: jobs and the economy. “The public wants to make sure that whatever comes out of this will have a positive impact on the economy and job creation,” says a Republican closely involved in the debt ceiling talks. “The challenge for Republicans is connecting this debate to the economy and job creation.”
Look at any Republican statement these days, and it will most likely link the debt fight to jobs. For example, on Monday, after Obama threatened to veto the GOP’s “cut, cap and balance” proposal — White House spokesman Jay Carney called it “duck, dodge and dismantle” — Boehner issued a statement that began by bemoaning Obama’s rejection of a “common-sense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America.”
Even as opponents criticize them as inflexible, look for Republicans to become even more inflexible on taxes and fight back even harder against the charge that their tax cuts would send the deficit into the stratosphere. As it has in the past, the battle will be fought over the Bush tax cuts.
“Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts cost, and we’re saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue,” says the Republican involved in the fight. It’s true. According to historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget, government revenue shot higher after the Bush tax cuts were enacted. Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent. In 2007, the federal deficit shrank to $160 billion — all after tax cuts that Obama and his Democratic allies portray as disastrous.
That recent history is at the heart of the conflict between Republicans and Obama over taxes. “The president’s view of tax reform is tax increases,” says the Republican. “Republicans view tax reform as setting tax rates to maximize economic activity.”
While they continue the message war, Republicans are moving the real war to another level. After weeks of useless negotiations with the White House, they’re taking the debt issue into their own hands with the passage of cut, cap and balance, in defiance of Obama’s veto threat. Republicans know the president and Senate Democrats can stop it, but they believe it’s important to stake out their ground.
“Republicans are laying out a starting point with cut, cap and balance,” says the Republican. “They’re saying to the president, ‘We have actually passed something. It’s time for you to come up with your proposal.’ In the background, everybody is trying to figure out the [Mitch] McConnell plan.”
Many GOP strategists believe that a single question — “Where are the jobs?” — played a key role in the Republicans’ victory last November. After taking office, House GOP leaders got tangled up in the continuing resolution fight and then the debate over Medicare cuts, leading some Republicans to question what had happened to the jobs agenda. Now, they believe the debt ceiling fight is another front in the jobs fight. It’s no accident that when Obama staged his Twitter town hall recently, Boehner sent in a four-word question: “Where are the jobs?” As long as the jobs aren’t appearing, Republicans will keep saying it.
“The biggest problem the president has right now is that he is trying to make his arguments with an anemic economy and staggering deficits,” says the Republican involved in the fight. “He’s saying, ‘I’ve got an economic plan,’ and they’re responding, ‘You mean like the last one?’ ”
Republicans know they’re losing the message battle, but in the end, they are convinced that they’ll win the war.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at email@example.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
Well, President Obama only ‘slightly’ overstated the support for tax increases. Oh, who am I kidding. I am only surprised Obama’s nose didn’t grow foot during this press conference.
Fact check: Obama’s press conference
President Barack Obama had a lot to say about what the “American people” think about the budget impasse during his Friday press conference, but his statements weren’t always accurate.
During his morning presser, Obama said Americans agree with him on the budget deal, and that they believe in a tax hike and in the preservation of entitlement programs.
“The bottom line is that this is not an issue of salesmanship to the American people; the American people are sold,” Obama said. “The American people are sold.”
Just how sold are the American people?
Obama believes that polls indicate an overwhelming majority of Americans take his “bipartisan” position on the issue.
“You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach,” Obama said. “Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren’t sold is not the problem. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements.”
Obama made similar suggestions regarding Republican voters, suggesting that they also favor tax increases as one part of a debt fix. (Aug. 2 no hard deadline on debt limit)
“The clear majority of Republican voters think that any deficit reduction package should have a balanced approach and should include some revenues. That’s not just Democrats; that’s the majority of Republicans. You’ve got a whole slew of Republican officials from previous administrations.”
TheDC searched for a poll with such numbers, but couldn’t find much to support Obama’s claims.
Obama may have been referring to the most recent Gallup poll, published Wednesday, which touched on the prospect of tax hikes.
While Gallup reported that a slight majority, 32 percent, agree a budget deal should include both spending cuts and tax increases, this is nowhere near the “80 percent” Obama claimed Friday.
A significant majority of Americans do believe some combination of tax increases and spending cuts are appropriate, however. The poll found 69 percent think there should be a blend of the two approaches in the budget deal, but not in equal parts as the president is advocating.
A Rasmussen poll published Thursday finds only 34 percent of Americans want tax increases included in any emerging debt-ceiling legislation. (Dems afraid McConnell’s debt ceiling plan will make them look bad)
Thursday’s Quinnipiac poll showed similar findings. Sixty-seven percent said the agreement should include tax surges on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
But a “clear majority of Republicans” aren’t jumping ship to the tax hike side either, at least according to the Gallup Poll.
Only 24 percent of Republicans believe budget-deal provisions should be divided equally between spending cuts and tax increases; 67 percent believe the deal should include “only” or “mostly” spending cuts.
Elliot Gaiser contributed to this report.
The news continues to be moving in the right direction for Congresswoman Bachmann. Overall, the polls show that conservatives are happy with the field, and Bachmann’s steady rise indicates that she is connecting with the voters.
Perry, Bachmann lead in July Daily Caller/Conservative Home Tracking Poll
This time the survey asked five questions: Who is your top pick for president? Who is the most electable? Who is your second choice? Who would do the best job handling the economy? And who would do the best job reducing spending in Washington?
Having finally conceded that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are actually serious when they say they’re not going to run, we removed them from the ballot. We added Rudy Giuliani, who looks to be heading in the opposite direction.
Perry and Bachmann have set a new bar for the poll, garnering nearly 25 percent of the vote in the categories of electability and top pick.
This suggests that more Republican voters are becoming engaged in the race as they find candidates who actually excite them, as opposed to voting for the best option in a fairly unexciting field.
It’s indicative that while a large margin has consistently considered Romney to be the most electable candidate (a pragmatic metric), he has never particularly caught fire as voters’ top pick (a more idealistic metric of electability). (Pawlenty declines to sign Family Leader marriage pledge, promotes faith in video)
That trend continues in this round of the tracking poll.
Romney was judged the most electable by 33.5 percent, but just 12.4 percent called him their top pick for the nomination. Perry, on the other hand, does well in both categories: He’s well-liked as a candidate, with 25.4 percent naming him as their top pick, and voters also see him as an electable candidate — with 28.5 percent calling him the most electable.
That combination would seem to bode well for Perry, should he decide to enter the race. Voters would get someone they see as capable of taking on President Obama, but for whom they wouldn’t have to compromise on their principles.
Bachmann also saw a huge gain in the Tracking Poll, as she has in most other polls released in the past two weeks. She is the top pick of 25.8 percent of those polled, while 21.1 percent called her the most electable.
She also seems to have firmly cemented herself as the Romney or Perry alternative, with 29.4 percent calling her their second choice.
Bachmann’s rise has to do with the very good show she has put on since formally launching her campaign last month. She has, to some degree, demonstrated that she can be a serious, credible candidate, and not just a sensationalist who generates buzz.
The main difference between Bachmann and Perry is that while Perry would enter the race with a cache of existing credibility, she has had to earn hers by proving herself to the electorate. (Bachmann surges in national poll, Perry makes strong debut)
It’s worth noting that Rick Perry has been on the ballot since the very beginning, rating one to two percent of the vote each time around. His sudden, meteoric rise in the polls is notable because he has done nothing concrete to change voters’ opinions other than indicating that he was seriously considering a run.
This underscores what Mike Murphy has insisted to the Daily Caller on several occasions. At this point, he said, polls are as much an “applause meter/noise meter” as they are real indications of voter preferences. All of a sudden Perry is attracting serious media attention and generating significant hype among Republicans, as everyone waits to see whether or not he’ll jump into the race. Correspondingly, his poll numbers have skyrocketed.
Perry and Bachmann are also both perceived to have strong economic credentials. They lead the pack as the candidates who would do the best job with the economy and keep Washington spending under control.
Twenty-four percent of respondents said Perry would do the best at dealing with the economy, while 18.5 percent chose Bachmann, 16.7 named Romney, and 16.0 percent went with Herman Cain.
On reducing spending, Bachmann leads with 28.7 percent saying she would do the best job. Perry trails her at 17.2 percent, followed by Herman Cain at 14 percent. In this category, Romney falls to 8.5 percent, trailing Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, a fact which illustrates that voters see reducing spending and doing a good job with the economy as two very distinct issues.
The big loser in this poll is Herman Cain. Though he continues to be in the top few in a number of categories, his numbers have fallen significantly since the last tracking poll was conducted. In June, 16.1 percent of respondents called him their top pick; this month, just 9.6 percent said that. The perception of his electability has taken an even bigger hit: 12.1 percent called him the most electable in June, while this month just 4.4 percent said he was the most electable.
Tim Pawlenty, who is seen as the candidate who is the most threatened by Bachmann and Perry — with Perry ousting him as the logical Romney alternative, and Bachmann outshining him in the crucial state of Iowa — has a generally mediocre performance in the poll. Originally touted as the candidate who could win by being ‘everybody’s second choice,’ Pawlenty does perform fairly well in that category: He is the second choice of 7.9 percent, putting him just above Palin, but below Bachmann, Perry, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney.
Pawlenty gets no more than 2.4 percent of the vote in any other category on the survey, though that doesn’t seem to be directly correlated with Perry and Bachmann’s rise. He’s within two percent of his performance in earlier polls, however, so this is not a significant change.
It is funny that most members of the media will deny that there is a media bias until they are actual presented with the evidence (because God forbid they would mention it on their own).
Gaffes made by political figures, such as Obama, Bachmann, Biden, Palin, and Cain, are treated differently by the major media outlets. This glaring hypocrisy was the focus of a recent exchange between Jake Tapper, ABC News, and talk-shoe host Dennis Miller.
Jake Tapper Concedes Media’s Bias on Obama Medal of Honor Gaffe, Double Standard on Bachmann
ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper appeared on the June 27 edition of Dennis Miller’s radio show and conceded to a media blackout of Barack Obama’s Medal of Honor gaffe. (The President confused a living recipient with the deceased Jared Monti who died in combat.)
Tapper admitted that the President made “a big uncomfortable mistake.” He added, “And I don’t think that that got the same kind of coverage as, you know, when Sarah Palin got Paul Revere’s ride-” Tapper’s right. His own network, ABC, as well as CBS and NBC have skipped the Monti story.
Tapper was away when the Medal of Honor story initially broke, but he, thus far, has since ignored it, although he did cover it online (while still on vacation). Additionally, while the journalist had generic criticism for “the media,” he certainly didn’t take ABC specifically to task. [MP3 audio here]
Miller critiqued, “Well, you guys gotta work that out in house. But, I will tell you, you’re not- the herd’s not fooling anybody out here.”
Tapper at one point seemed on the verge of admitting the media liberal bias. He allowed, “But the question is, okay, and removing the ideological bias, and I don’t- do not generally disagree that there is-” Unfortunately, Miller interrupted him.
The White House correspondent attempted to shift the issue to one of sexism, suggesting that Hillary Clinton dealt with much harsher criticism than Obama. However, Good Morning America, where Tapper frequently appears, fawned over both.
On the January 18, 2007 edition of that show, Clare Shipman summed up the Democratic battle as one between Clinton’s “hot factor” and Obama’s “fluid poetry.”
An August 29, 2007, a Media Research Center study found Tapper to be wrong on this larger point of anti-Hillary bias. The MRC’s Rich Noyes wrote:
The top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Senator Clinton cast as “unbeatable” and Illinois Senator Barack Obama tagged as a “rock star.” The most prominent Republican, Arizona Senator John McCain, was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq.
A transcript of Tapper’s June 27 appearance on Dennis Miller can be found below:
[Tapper moving off a question about Chris Wallace and the "flake" comment.]
JAKE TAPPER: I do think that there is a question, and we were talking about this in our newsroom earlier today, I think there is a question about whether we are tougher, we meaning the media writ large, the Borg, that we are tougher on women candidates than we are on men, because I have to say, you know, anytime Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, you know, misplaces an adjective-
DENNIS MILLER: Sure.
TAPPER: -we know about it and we cover it in the media. And, you know, this thing that the President did, and, obviously it was a mistake and he didn’t mean to, but last week when he misidentified- he’s given two Medals of Honor. And he was at the 10th Mountain at Fort Drum and he mistakenly said that he had given one to Sargent First Class Jared Monti when actually Monti was the one of the two Medals of Honor he’s given that was given posthumously. Monti died in Gowardesh, northeast Afghanistan in 2006. That’s a big, uncomfortable mistake.
MILLER: Huge. Yeah, yeah.
TAPPER: And I don’t think that that got the same kind of coverage as, you know, when Sarah Palin got Paul Revere’s ride-
MILLER: Well, it’s not even an “I don’t think” and “we have to ask the question,” Jake, you’re in a herd up there. You’re one of the guys on the fringes of that herd who has to play with the herd, but is also an individual. So, I admire you for that. But, you know the answer to these in your inner sanctum-sanctorum. Nobody’s going to say it up there, but of course they’re tougher on women. And they’re even tougher on Republican women. And most of them are predisposed to be liberal and it’s obvious all of us. And they’re playing some in-house game where they go, “no, no.” But, listen, we’re on to the whole thing.
TAPPER: But, they were tougher- I’m not disagreeing with anything- or agreeing- with anything they just said. But, I think they were also tougher- the media was also tougher on Hillary Clinton than they were on Barack Obama or John Edwards, who, by the way, you know, was up to no good. I don’t know if you read the papers.
MILLER: Yeah. Well, you guys gotta work that out in house. But, I will tell you, you’re not- the herd’s not fooling anybody out here. You guys can do what you want with it. Either steer into one lane and just say, “Yeah! We’re liberal. This is what we do. Shut up.” Not you. But a bunch of them. Or just say, “No, no. We are completely jaded” and apologize for it. We’re onto it! We see it.
TAPPER: But the question is, okay, and removing the ideological bias, and I don’t- do not generally disagree that there is-
MILLER: Yeah, it’s about 85 to 90 percent of the reporters.
TAPPER: I don’t know what it is.
MILLER: Yeah, I do.
TAPPER: But, in any case, why is it do you think it is that people were tougher on- and I’m not disagreeing with the idea that people- but there’s no reason why the Medal of Honor mistake should have gotten less attention than Michele Bachmann-
MILLER: Because liberals don’t like individual members of the disenfranchised class to save themselves. That’s their raison d’etre.
TAPPER: But, why tougher on Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama during the primaries in 2008? Why that? Was it being fed up with the Clintons?
MILLER: Mmmm. Yeah, I guess he was the new thing, right?
TAPPER: I also think- if you look back at some of the coverage back then, some of it was fairly sexist against Hillary Clinton.
MILLER: Yeah, but it’s easier to be perceived sexist than to be perceived racist. You know that. There’s a grievance chart over there and everybody knows that the biggest dime you can get dropped on you is an accusation of racism. For God’s sake, Bill Clinton went from being the first black president, coming out of South Carolina when he got pissed off and questioned something, to have the race card dime dropped on him. So, it can happen to anyone at anytime. Would you rather have them say you’re sexist or racist?
— Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
‘Agenda 21 usurps sovereignty, property rights, economic liberty, and basically hands over power, resources and land to unelected elitists’
The United Nations is made up of a group of unelected bureaucrats, most of whom come from countries that live below the U.N. defined poverty line. For the past 30 years the influence of the United Nations has crept deeper and deeper into the daily activities of sovereign nations. Some of these nations have allowed the U.N. into their borders with very little resistance; but here in the United States we need to remember that we are made up of 50 sovereign entities, the States.
States like New Hampshire, Montana, Texas (to name a few) have been fiercely resistant to mandates from the Federal government; so it is highly unlike they will go along with policies dictated by the U.N.
UN environmental initiative is the Tea Party’s new nightmare
Tea Party activists have started to sound the alarms over a United Nations initiative most Americans have never heard of, one that many in the movement see as one of the greatest threats to America’s sovereignty.
“Americans are so focused on Congress and Obama at the federal level of government right now that most are overlooking the socialism creeping in at the local level through Agenda 21,” the Tea Party publication the Tea Party Tribune warned readers on July 2.
Agenda 21 is a UN initiative that 178 governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) adopted in 1992 under the auspices of saving the environment. It bills itself as a coordinated plan of action to help nations and local government ensure “sustainability.”
“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment,” the U.N. website explains.
While the aim sounds innocent enough, Tea Partiers argue that it is just a means to an end. The end, they say, is the usurpation of American sovereignty, a planned economy and redistribution of the wealth.
The media may be quick to dismiss this as the breathless caterwauling of a minority of Americans, but American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese says not so fast. According to DeWeese, these concerns are legitimate and repercussions of Agenda 21 are already visible, in urban growth schemes across the country.
“This is as vast, complicated issue that invades every corner of our lives. Al Gore promised us a ‘wrenching transformation’ of our society — this is it,” DeWeese told TheDC. “What we are fighting is a move toward top down control–the exact opposite if the system America started with. Special interests, NGOs [Non-governmental organizations], and quasi official government groups like the American Planning Association are descending on local government and changing it through the establishment of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments. They don’t answer to the people.”
Congress has never approved the implementation of Agenda 21, though Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush all signed executive orders to implement it.
Tea Partiers aware of the initiative are eager to get the word out and stop what they see as an encroachment of an international agenda, manifest in local planning programs such as smart growth, land use policies, and green building codes.
“Agenda 21 usurps sovereignty, property rights, economic liberty, and basically hands over power, resources and land to unelected elitists … to control the populations of every country in the world,” North Carolina military mom and self-described “concerned citizen,” Cheryl Pass said at a local Tea Party meeting in mid-June. “Agenda 21 purports to address environmental issues, but calls for wealth redistribution, resource redistribution, food redistribution, energy restrictions, supposed social justice, and more. It is NOT about the environment, though it pretends to be.”
According to international public policy consultant Wendall Cox, while policies promoting “sustainability” are a threat to personal liberties, it is not the international conspiracy some believe it to be. Cox says the homegrown “green” phenomena is the truly dangerous threat.
Cox told TheDC it is a mistake to blame the move toward “sustainable” growth on the international community when 99 percent of local urban planners are already aggressively pushing for it.
“[The local green agenda] is not being imposed by the United Nations. That is being imposed by local elected officials who are being misled by radical environmentalists and their urban planners to do this,” said Cox. “We need to make sure we understand what we are fighting here, and we are not fighting the United Nations.”
Either way, the Tea Party remains troubled by Agenda 21’s mere existence.
“Agenda 21 is the United Nation’s blue print for the complete restructuring of nations and local communities to fit into a proper mold for global governance,” said citizen activist Donna Holt at an event for the Virginia Campaign for Liberty, “It outlines, in detail, the UN’s vision for a completely managed society, dictating the process to be used for industry, agriculture, housing development, and especially education. It’s an all-encompassing plan to rule from an all-powerful central government.”
As more members of the Tea Party become aware of the perceived threats of the U.N.’s Agenda 21, politicians will likely begin speaking to their concerns.
Mother Jones noted in a recent article mocking the Tea Party’s concerns that even this past election cycle Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes brought up U.N. control through the implementation of a bike sharing program.
As the Tea Party continues to become more entrenched, expect more discussion about the U.N. and Agenda 21.