December 3, 2008

Bigger Buffoon Face-Off: Is It Rendell on Napolitano, or Campbell Brown’s Hyprocritical Coverage?

Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:43 pm

SarahPalin1008CampbellBrown1108Rendell1208At first glance, it’s hard to figure out who is the bigger buffoon:

  • Is it Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, for suggesting that Arizona Governor and Obama Homeland Security Secretary-Designate Janet Napolitano is perfect for her presumptive position because she’s single and can therefore “have no life”?
  • Or is it CNN’s Campbell Brown, for criticizing Rendell’s sexism and bias against employees who don’t have families — after Brown herself suggested in September that Sarah Palin shouldn’t have accepted John McCain’s vice-presidential nomination because of her daughter’s pregnancy?

Here are excerpts from the program transcript (video here), including Rendell’s howler, and Brown’s subsequent hypocritical editorializing (HT Tall Cotton):

Brown: How many times have politicians been warned about the dangers of an open microphone? And yet, on Tuesday, the lectern mic at the National Governors Conference picked up this little nugget from Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell.

….. Rendell: Janet’s perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it.

Brown: Wow. Now, I’m sure Gov. Napolitano has many qualifications for the job beyond having no family, and therefore the ability to devote 20 hours a day to the job.

….. But it is fascinating to me that that is the quality being highlighted here as so perfect. C’mon. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is married with two grown children. His predecessor, Tom Ridge, had a family. Anybody remember a debate about whether they would have trouble balancing the demands of work and family?

No, but I do remember a certain CNN reporter — her name is Campbell Brown — who,  in a September interview with Tucker Bounds, questioned whether Sarah Palin was being a good mother (i.e., properly “balancing the demands of work and family”) by accepting the nomination in light of her daughter’s situation (bolds are mine):

BROWN: Tucker, though, this obviously putting this young woman, Bristol Palin, smack in the media spotlight at what’s already got to be a very challenging time in her life, I mean, how do you respond to people who wonder why her mother would have subjected her to this kind of scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?

BOUNDS: I think Gov. Palin understands that these are serious times. We have serious challenges and it’s time to shake up Washington. It was the reason she was happy to take John McCain’s invitation to go to Washington, make the changes that Americans needs and Americans depend on. She’s an expert on energy. She understands we need an all of the above energy approach that includes the alternatives and the renewable fuels. This is an important decision. I think it’s dangerous to confuse her civic decision to get involved and make a difference in the country with a family matter –

BROWN: I understand that. I recognize that. In an ideal world, it would be private. You know, this is a presidential campaign. Nothing is private. The world is watching. And if we, you know, as much as everyone might want to give this young woman her privacy, you know that’s not going to happen. And so you do risk putting her through an incredibly difficult process by accepting this job if you’re her mother. You can’t deny that, right?

Brown’s attack on Palin’s nomination acceptance as being unfair to her pregnant daughter was every bit as sexist as Rendell’s comment was stereotypically discriminatory against unmarried women (and men). Please — the media were going to dig, and probably did dig, into every aspect of each of Palin’s children, up to and including whether or not they ever talked back to a teacher, jaywalked, or stuck chewing gum under a table. They clearly found nothing. The pregnancy/privacy matter was a fig leaf Brown used to go after Palin as a bad mother for having the nerve to take on a tough job. You might also recall that within 2-3 weeks of Palin’s nominiation, all interest in Bristol Palin had virtually vanished.

Brown’s September attack on Palin would seem to imply that someone like the childless Napolitano would be a good fit for the tough job for which she has been nominated.

Thus, based on false concerns over a problem that never really materialized, and demonstrated sexism beyond the call of duty, Campbell Brown wins the “bigger buffoon” contest quite handily.

Cross-posted at

Harry Reid’s ‘Smelly Tourists’ Comment: No Republican or Conservative Would Survive It

Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:06 am

HarryReid1208.jpgSome think that Harry Reid must live a charmed life.

After all, he asserted last year that the Iraq War “is lost.” Now it looks like victory, at least to seasoned on-the-ground observers like Michael Yon.

He has fretted over how fossil fuels like coal make us sick. Never mind that life expectancy, largely, uh, fueled by industrialization and its accompanying higher living standards, continues to climb.

In each case, the consequences to Reid’s political career have apparently been minimal.

Now Reid has said that visitors to the Capitol — everyday American citizens like you and me — stink, and that he’s glad to get away from them.

Really (HT Michelle Malkin; last paragraph bolded by me; CNS News also has coverage):

Reid: We won’t smell the tourists anymore

The Capitol Visitors Center, which opened this morning, may have tripled its original budget and fallen years behind schedule, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found a silver lining for members of Congress: tourists won’t offend them with their B.O. anymore.

“My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway,” said Reid in his remarks. “In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.”

Suffice it to say that an “obviously elitist” conservative or Republican who said something similar would have found himself or herself the subject of the lead story in almost every Old Media outlet still standing. How would the Nevada senator react if tourists and the American people decided that they would avoid further offending him by not visiting his home-state tourist havens of Las Vegas and Reno?

As it is, coverage of Reid’s gratuitous insult has been relatively light, as seen in this Google News search on “Reid Capitol tourists” (not in quotes):


353-plus articles is very low compared to the many thousands of results that appear with many national stories.

The New York Times has no coverage of its own, but does carry the Associated Press’s coverage of the opening, where reference to Reid’s remarks can be found — in one-sentence paragraphs 13 and 14. The Times’s Print Edition has no story (use this link after December 3).

It’s not that Harry Reid lives a charmed life. Instead he lives a sheltered life, with traditional media outlets providing most of the shelter. Will New Media do him in by the time he’s next up for re-election?

I could say so much more, but I’ll leave it to commenters.

Cross-posted at

Latest Pajamas Media Post (‘Will Obama ‘Betray’ Environmentalists?’) Is Up (With Updates and Elaboration)

It’s here.

It will go up at BizzyBlog on Friday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.


Update and Elaboration:

One of the points of the column is that “the rest of the world” is renouncing the economy-crippling initiatives the promoters of globaloney so desire (“globaloney” is shorthand for the idea that the earth is catastrophically warming because of human activity; the truth is that it hasn’t been warming since 1998, that any warming that might have occurred isn’t catastrophic, and that it isn’t significantly caused by us anyway).

There’s a further development supporting that contention, courtesy of the indispensable daily e-mail from Benny Peiser at CCNet:


AFP Article: Italy threatens to veto costly EU climate change package

Italy will veto ambitious European Union plans to tackle climate change unless changes are made to make the package less costly to industry and consumers, a minister warned Monday.

“If the climate package passes as it stands it will lead to a 17 percent hike in electricity bills for every Italian,” Andrea Ronchi, Italy’s european policy minister, told reporters in Brussels.

….. “Britain’s (Prime Minister Gordon) Brown goes one way, (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel another, (French President Nicolas) Sarkozy goes his way and (Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis) Zapatero his,” he said.

“It’s a problem at a time when the European Union is going to be called upon more and more to speak with a single voice,” he added.

Here’s the fun part, as my column notes near the end: If there is to be “a single voice” coming from the EU in 2009, it will be that of Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, who will occupy the EU’s rotating presidency this coming year. Klaus, who has seen and lived through tyranny, calls out globaloney for what it is (bolds are mine, and differ from those in original):

The explicitly stated intentions of global warming activists are frightening. They want to change us, to change the whole mankind, to change human behavior, to change the structure and functioning of society, to change the whole system of values which has been gradually established during centuries. These intentions are dangerous and their consequences far-reaching. These people want to restrict our freedom. It is our duty to say NO.

….. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism.

….. I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.

….. I used to live in a world where prices and property rights were made meaningless. It gave me the opportunity to see how irrationally the economy was organized and how damaged the environment was as a result. This experience tells me that we should not let anyone play the market again and dictate what to produce, how to produce it, what inputs to use, what technologies to implement.

….. the existing evidence does not justify the currently proposed expensive, economy and society disrupting and probably useless and ineffective measures.

As I said many times before: the current world-wide dispute is not about environment, it is about freedom. And I would add “about prosperity and living conditions of billions of people.”

Read the whole speech at the link.

I love this guy.

The New York Times hates Klaus so much that it dug into files of the former KGB to find negative comments about him. Note the irony, given Klaus’s positions and his history as an anti-Communist freedom fighter and his role in liberating Czechoslovokia.

So if a President Obama wants us to go whole-hog into freedom-suppressing emissions caps and the like, even in the teeth of a struggling economy, it seems he’ll have us doing so unilaterally, i.e., “go it alone” (Whatever happened to that liberal mantra, “We should be just like Europe”?).

As my column notes, I don’t think he will, at least at first.


Further Update: If Obama wants to see what happens to go-it-aloners, he need only look across the pond to see the consequences when elitists give in to delusion (again, courtesy of Peiser) –

Tough new targets on tackling climate change will cost Britain £500 a year per household, push up utility bills and force 1.7million Britons into fuel poverty by 2020.

The grim predictions came from independent Government advisers yesterday as they set targets for slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

The influential panel led by millionaire business guru Adair Turner wants the UK to cut levels by up to 42 per cent within 12 years.

….. But the committee insisted the target was essential to prevent dangerous global warming.

Everyday Britons disagree, which explains why Gordon Brown is the perhaps most despised British Prime Minister in memory. His Labour Party is suffering not only IN the polls, but AT the polls, having been thrashed in at least the past three electoral contests (May elections, London Mayor’s race, July special election). But Brown’s government seems grimly determined to lead his party over the cliff. I doubt that Obama, who above all is a preservationist — of his own political viability — will do the same.

Further Update II, 8:30 a.m.: Even more, courtesy of a Peiser e-mail received moments ago (his title is “Rising Anger”) –

BRUSSELS, Dec. 2 (Xinhua) — About 11,000 workers from the steel industry in European countries gathered on Tuesday in Brussels to protest the European Union’s climate change policy which they fear might make them lose their jobs.

The European Parliament and the French Presidency of the European Union agreed Monday on details of future targets on emissions from cars, setting the target for 2020 at 95 g CO2 per kilometer.

“We don’t want to lose our job,” one protester said, adding that the new regulations will possibly kill the steel industry in Europe. Several protesters held a coffin to indicate that the European steel industry will die when EU’s climate change plan is implemented.

Typical: The AP says it’s only 5,000. Yes, I trust Xinhua more than globaloney-crazed AP (see Jennifer Loven) on an environmenta-related story such as this.

Positivity: How ‘Under God’ Got Into the Pledge

Filed under: General,Positivity — Tom @ 5:58 am

From Alexandria, PA — the pastor who inspired that effort has gone to meet Him:

The Rev. George M. Docherty, credited with helping to push Congress to insert the phrase “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, has died at 97.

Docherty died on Thanksgiving at his home in central Pennsylvania, according to his wife, Sue Docherty.

….. Docherty, then pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, just blocks from the White House, gave a sermon in 1952 saying the pledge should acknowledge God.

He was born in Glasgow, Scotland, and was unfamiliar with the pledge until he heard it recited by his 7-year-old son, Garth.

“I didn’t know that the Pledge of Allegiance was, and he recited it, ‘one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,’” he recalled in an interview with The Associated Press in 2004. “I came from Scotland, where we said ‘God save our gracious queen,’ ‘God save our gracious king.’ Here was the Pledge of Allegiance, and God wasn’t in it at all.”

There was little effect from that initial sermon, but he delivered it again on Feb. 7, 1954, after learning that President Dwight Eisenhower would be at the church.

The next day, Rep. Charles G. Oakman, R-Mich., introduced a bill to add the phrase “under God” to the pledge, and a companion bill was introduced in the Senate. Eisenhower signed the law on Flag Day that year.

Go here for the whole story.