When the Obama scandals pile up and Obama's image of integrity starts to enter the shredder, what do the most partisan reporters do to fend off the bad publicity? Try to portray the conservatives as "nutso" impeachers. At The Daily Beast, there was this headline Monday: "The Coming Attempt to Impeach Obama: The idea of impeaching Obama is industrial-strength insane. Republicans will probably try anyway, predicts Michael Tomasky."
Tomasky portrays conservatives as "crazy" and Obama as the most clueless of presidents: he knew absolutely nothing about the Benghazi talking points? Then who elected him expecting a competent executive? Tomasky leads with his heart, with his fervent Obama-loving hope that history does not record these scandals as significant:
Hard-left Daily Beast writer Michael Tomasky has a nasty habit of smearing conservatives every chance he gets, and it seems he has found his newest target, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.). Writing in a May 1 piece for the online publication Tomasky used the FBI investigation over gifts McDonnell received for his daughter’s wedding to slam the Virginia governor's Christian faith.
Tomasky started off his rant by throwing harsh language at the governor, calling his actions, “sleazy and cowardly.” At issue is the controversial relationship McDonnell has with businessman Jonnie Williams and whether or not the governor accepted money for political benefits aimed at Williams’ company, Star Scientific Inc.
MSNBC's Chuck Todd on Thursday echoed a liberal columnist and mocked the idea of blaming Barack Obama for sequester spending cuts, even though it was the President's idea. On Thursday's Daily Rundown, Todd sneered, "Of all the dumb things Washington does, this 'who started it' argument has proven to be one of the dumber ones, especially since we're so close to the actual cuts going into place." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Todd's talking points sound very similar to assertions made by liberal Newsweek/Daily Beast writer Michael Tomasky. On Tuesday, he admitted that Obama came up with the plan, but wondered why it matters. The sub-headline offered this Daily Beast article proclaimed, "Conservatives keep reminding everyone that the sequester was Obama’s idea. But, says Michael Tomasky, that doesn’t mean he’s to blame for the current crisis."
This from a man who loves to fish, so presumably he knows the purpose of "bait".
Liberals are reacting with predictable histrionics to a new National Rifle Association ad slamming President Obama as an "elitist hypocrite" for dismissing the NRA's suggestion of armed security in every school while he sends his children to a school with armed guards. (audio, video clips after page break)
Liberal Daily Beast writer Michael Tomasky joined the gang of other liberal journalists expressing their overwrought, melodramatic outrage this morning at the NRA's latest Web ad which calls President Obama to task for dismissing their call for armed guards in the nation's schools.
But, being Tomasky, he had to crank the amp up to 11, suggesting that the ad was darkly coded in a way that might inspire violence against the president's daughters (emphasis mine):
The Des Moines Register shocked many political observers Saturday by endorsing Mitt Romney for president.
Clearly not accepting such a thing, Michael Tomasky, the Obama-loving correspondent for the Daily Beast, came out Sunday claiming the Register's endorsement "is little more than a practical joke":
Liberal Daily Beast writer Michael Tomaksy has already labeled this year's Republican National Convention as "reprehensible." In his insufferable knowingness, Tomasky claimed that the next few days will be a "toxic waste dump of hate and lies and race-baiting." In other words, it will be the most racist gathering of party delegates in the history of the republic. Why? Because The New York Times said so, of course:
Tom Edsall said it without quite saying it this morning in the Times, that this Romney-Ryan campaign is becoming among the most racist we've ever seen. The two key lies so far are totally about race--that Obama is soft on welfare recipients, and that he's "robbing" $716 billion from Medicare (77 percent of recipients are white) to "pay for Obamacare" (that is, to extend health care to black and brown people who don't deserve it, havent earned it, etc.).
Sunday on ABC, as Rush Limbaugh noted on his show yesterday, Obama campaign senior adviser and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney a "schoolyard bully."
Just a couple of hours later (the time stamp is noon on Sunday), what little is left of Newsweek published "Mitt Romney's Wimp Factor." Zheesh -- So which is it?
Newsweek's print magazine has slid steeply toward irrelevance, but that didn't stop CNN from airing its latest hit piece on Romney's "wimp problem" on Monday. CNN devoted over 12 minutes of coverage on its morning shows to the attack disguised as a cover story and authored by a liberal journalist.
Early Start anchor John Berman hyped the "pretty brutal" portrait of Romney and even ventured to call former President George H.W. Bush a "wimp." Starting Point anchor Soledad O'Brien read aloud one of the nasty passages, giving the liberal screed even more attention.
Increasingly Shrill Liberal Journalists Attack ‘Legitimacy’ of Supreme Court Ahead of ObamaCare Ruling
As the ObamaCare decision looms large on the horizon, the Left is doing their best to defame the Supreme Court in anticipation of a defeat of the president's signature legislative accomplishment.
In the past two days, liberal journalists Michael Tomasky and James Fallows have published histrionic tirades at their respective publications, the Daily Beast/Newsweek and The Atlantic.
Fallows cries that the “Roberts majority” is ruining the court’s legitimacy by somehow violating unwritten "norms" of its behavior:
Norms have given the Supreme Court its unquestioned legitimacy. The Roberts majority is barreling ahead without regard for the norms, and it is taking the court’s legitimacy with it.
Tomasky published an article in which he quoted the following from his pal Fallows as “factually true.”
First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
Then the beneficiary of that decision appoint the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
Yes, you read correctly. Liberal journalists are descending into loopy conspiracy theories about the Court now.
Of course, in their rush to paint the Supreme Court as a right-wing cabal controlled by shadowy millionaires, both Tomasky and Fallows do absolutely nothing to actually address the salient constitutional issues at play in the ObamaCare case, HHS v. Florida.
It should be a major embarrassment to Newsweek and The Atlantic that instead of attempting thoughtful liberal cases for upholding the ObamaCare mandate, it's plunged into the abyss with overheated, conspiratorial rhetoric like Tomasky's and Fallows's.
Daily Beast/Newsweek Hits Conservatives on Supreme Court as ‘Radical,’ Suggests They’re Racist, Misogynistic
Driven close to a hydrophobic frenzy fearing that the Supreme Court will soon strike down ObamaCare as a transgression of the Constitution's limits on federal power, Newsweek's Michael Tomasky took to his keyboard to vent his spleen, all but denouncing the conservatives on the Supreme Court as "radical" racists and misogynists backed by shadowy right-wing money men.
Tomasky's piece is laughably predictable in its foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric -- Scalia, he tells us, belongs on a "marginal rubber-chicken circuit" rather than "on the highest court in the land imposing his 16th-century will on the rest of us" -- but it's also built upon some distortions of what the Roberts Court has actually done in some "hot-button" 5-4 cases.
"I looked at eight representative and major Roberts Court decisions in hot-button issue areas," Tomasky noted, starting with two that dealt with "race":
Parents v. Seattle & Meredith v. Jefferson, which began as two cases and were eventually combined into one, also known as the Seattle/Louisville desegregation case. The Court ruled that local school districts basically couldn’t do anything to ensure racial diversity in their schools.
That's excellent liberal spin, meant to suggest a moral blindness to institutionalized racism by a conservative Roberts Court, but as former NewsBuster Jason Aslinger has explained, the mainstream media were wrong to see the rulings as a blow against school integration. From his July 3, 2007 post (emphases mine):
In the wake of last week’s Supreme Court decision regarding racial integration in public schools, the media have gone out of their way to obscure the facts for the purpose of advancing its familiar political agenda, not to mention skipped over giving readers a glimpse of the concurring opinions of Justices Thomas and Kennedy, both of which shed light on the case's significance to the average American.
In a prior NewsBusters post, I called out MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for his false and race-baiting claim that the Supreme Court had “overturned” the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education. The subsequent commentary by the media has at least been more clever, but no less false. Undoubtedly, the press and “expert commentators” have calculated that the general public would not check their factual (and political) conclusions by reading the Court’s 185-page opinion. Without knowing the specific facts, the media distortions can not be fully appreciated. Below we'll take a look at the facts of the case as well as the reasoning from the justices, reasoning that all too often is glossed over if not outright ignored in the media.
The case in question was a consolidation of two challenges to the racial integration plans for the public school districts in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle, Wa. These school districts had integration plans which relied mostly upon race-neutral criteria, but in the case of “resolving ties,” the school district would assign a small number of students based solely upon their race.
In the Louisville example, kindergarten student Joshua McDonald was assigned to a public school ten miles from his home. His mother applied to have Joshua transferred to a school one mile from his home. Since Joshua was not a black student, and his enrollment at his desired school would disrupt the school district’s pre-determined goal for racial integration, the school district denied Joshua enrollment.
In its decision, a four-justice plurality (Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) found that Joshua McDonald had been denied equal access to the school of his choice solely on the basis of race. Ironically, the Louisville school district employed racial discrimination for the purpose of advancing racial integration.
The four-justice plurality found that even if the “ends justified the means,” racial classifications of any kind were unacceptable, unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. Justice Kennedy, concurred in the ultimate judgment, but found that certain “race-conscious” policies were acceptable as long as they didn’t arbitrarily treat individual students differently from others based upon race.
Justice Thomas also wrote a separate concurrence in which he made a point that has been ignored entirely by the mainstream media. Justice Thomas remarked that Brown v. Board of Education was about the desegregation of public schools, while the current cases were about racial imbalances, which by their nature are fluid.
Another ruling with which Tomasky took umbrage was:
Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which made it harder for (female) employees to sue employers on equal-pay grounds.
Again, nice spin, but the court simply held that Ledbetter could not file a lawsuit as her filed claim was well past the relevant statute's deadline for doing so. If Ledbetter was a Larry instead of a Lilly, it would have come down the same way.
Indeed, if Tomasky's gripe with the court is judicial activism, he should applaud the ruling in Ledbetter, which strictly applied the law on the books and hewed close to established precedent. From Justice Alito's majority opinion (emphasis mine)
We are not in a position to evaluate Ledbetter's policy arguments, and it is not our prerogative to change the way in which Title VII balances the interests of aggrieved employees against the interest in encouraging the "prompt processing of all charges of employment discrimination," Mohasco, 447 U.S., at 825, 100 S.Ct. 2486, and the interest in repose.
Ledbetter's policy arguments for giving special treatment to pay claims find no support in the statute and are inconsistent with our precedents. We apply the statute as written, and this means that any unlawful employment practice, including those involving compensation, must be presented to the EEOC within the period prescribed by statute.
Spurred by the Court's decision, Congress subsequently amended the law to address the deficiency in the statute that left Ledbetter without legal recourse in her discrimination claim. President Obama signed that piece of legislation into law in January 2009.
But those pesky facts don't seem to matter to Tomasky. The Court's conservative majority clearly cannot be motivated by its honest evaluation of the laws and Constitution. Seeking to explain why "hot-button" issues in the Roberts Court are getting decided on a one-vote margin while similar "hot-button" cases in the liberal Warren Court were often unanimous or carrying few dissents -- like Roe v. Wade, a 7-2 case -- Tomasky found a convenient villain in rich right-wing money men:
[N]o, we’re not “more conservative.” The main thing that changed between then and now, instead, is that rabidly right-wing billionaires started throwing many millions of dollars into politics, forming and funding groups like the Federalist Society, which have managed to assert their will. They represent about the same 30 percent they represented back when Barry Goldwater won the GOP nomination. It’s just that now they’re organized and lavishly backed, whereas before they weren’t. In the 1960s, Nino Scalia would’ve ended up teaching at Notre Dame law school (where he belonged)—a crackpot speaker on a marginal rubber-chicken circuit that mainstream America could have blissfully ignored, instead of sitting on the highest court in the land imposing his 16th-century will on the rest of us.
And so: If we get a 5-4 ruling against the Affordable Health Care act or any part of it, this is the context to keep in mind. It will be another in a series of ferociously ideological one-vote-margin decisions from the court that we do not need history’s perspective to decide is far and away America’s most ideological.
On Sunday's Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC, as host Harris-Perry led a discussion of what the presidential candidates will need to do to appeal to white voters, panel member and CNBC contributor Keith Boykin asserted that Republicans have "carefully caricatured" the Democratic Party as the "party of black people," and suggested that Americans have been duped into believing that most federal tax dollars are spent to benefit black Americans. Boykin:
The Republican Party has not only caracatured the Democratic Party as the black party, but they've also described government as about black people. So when people think about government, they think about the caricature that Ronald Reagan constructed, the Cadillac-driving welfare queen.
And they don't realize that two-thirds of the federal budget goes to Medicare and Social Security and national defense and interest on the debt. The amount of money we spend on welfare programs is infinitesimally small for the budget, and the majority of it doesn't even go to black people. But they don't understand that.
Michael Tomasky of Newsweek soon argued that, while white voters are "voting against their own economic interests" in voting for Republicans, white voters instead "perceive their interests as being in a country with guns and without a black President."
Boykin soon jumped back in and added: "They're voting for their racial interests."
A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found here.
It's becoming clearer with each passing day the Obama-loving media are now in a full-scale panic that the man they helped get elected in 2008 is in serious trouble to repeat that feat in 2012.
Take for example Newsweek/Daily Beast which published a piece moments ago with the somewhat shocking headline, "Is Barack Obama Too Weak to Win in November?":
Remember when the big idea in Obamaland was to run against the do-nothing Congress? This was the thought late last year and early this one, when, working in concert with Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats, the White House was going to nail the Republicans to the wall one piece of jobs legislation at a time. Then something happened that distracted the White House’s attention, I don’t know what: The end of roll call votes? The Super Bowl? The start of a new season of American Idol? Whatever the reason, the do-nothing Congress disappeared. Well, now that we’ve had one lousy jobs report, suddenly it is reappearing. But the question of why it ever went away is a good one and reminds us again that the Obama administration and campaign too often flit from one narrative to the next in a way that’s far too reactive to events—and that he refuses to land the punch that would really draw blood.
So began Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky's Tuesday offering.
From there, it devolved into the usual nonsense about all the problems in the world being the Republicans' fault:
When Obama does go after the Congress, he doesn’t do it in the right way: he urges Republicans to pass his jobs bill. But that’s a waste of everybody’s time. He should be telling audiences that the GOP won’t do anything about jobs, and he should be telling people the truth about why: because all the Republicans are doing now is waiting Obama out. A few more months of crapper numbers, Obama should be telling his audiences, and the Republicans figure they’ll be rid of him. So they’re not going to do anything for the economy, and their motivation is completely political. They’ll deny it, but let them. He should be putting that issue on the table. And it is the issue. Legislation on jobs isn’t stalling because a handful of Republicans are waiting for a better earmark for some project in their district before voting yes. It’s stalled solely over politics.
Why is it that virtually every Obama-loving media member appears to have been out of the country when the current White House resident controlled the House and enjoyed a filibuster-proof Senate giving him power the likes of which hadn't been seen in this country since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1937?
Two straight years of virtually limitless, unconstrained ability to do whatever he wanted, and now all the world's problems are because Republicans have run the House for the past seventeen months.
I've said for years that it takes a lot of rationalizations to be a liberal media member these days, but in recent weeks I've begun to wonder if it also requires either a lobotomy or the complete removal of any shred of honesty.
Or maybe both.