DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 15, 2011, 01:04:32 PM
-
...or Bush and his Universal Drug Program for Seniors. The MSM would be going apoplectic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the American public have the bandwidth to follow two Solyndra-style White House scandals at once? As maddening as the Solyndra row has been -- and we'll have an update on that story later this morning -- this revelation is probably worse. I reach that conclusion based on the relative scale and consequences of the dueling disgraces' politically-motivated dishonesty. First, a little bit of background to prime the pump: When Democrats entered their full-court press for Obamacare last winter, they made it clear that nothing would stand in their way. Not hostile public opinion, not sound policy interests, not even a desire to know what was in their own bill. Nothing. One of their boldest plays was to manufacture a CBO score explictly designed to reach the ludicrous conclusion that theor new multi-trillion-dollar entitlement program would actually reduce the deficit. In order to accomplish this feat, they used smoke and mirrors accounting gimmicks that went far beyond even many Beltway cynics' wildest imaginations.
Rep. Paul Ryan exposed and debunked Democrats' most audacious tricks during the healthcare summit -- which of course did absolutely nothing to convince Democrats of the error of their ways. During his illuminating dissection of the bill, Ryan mentioned a provision called the CLASS Act, a new federally funded long-term care program embedded within Obamacare. Ryan quoted Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat, as decrying the program as a Madoff-style "Ponzi scheme." Why? Because the premiums supposedly collected to pay for the CLASS Act over Obamacare's first decade would be injected into that phony, contrived "deficit reducing" CBO formula -- while the program itself would likely collapse under its own weight almost immediately. In other words, some critics suspected, Democrats were creating an entire program just to extract hypothetical dollars from its front-loaded revenue mechanism to "pay for" the larger bill -- with no real intention of implementing a sustainable long-term care program. To outside observers like Ryan, it looked like a giant shell game. As we now know, it looked that way to inside observers, too. The AP has the hugely important exclusive:
Even as leading Democrats offered assurances to the contrary, government experts repeatedly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan could go belly up, saddling taxpayers with another underfunded benefit program, according to emails disclosed by congressional investigators. Part of President Barack Obama's health care law, the program is in limbo as a congressional debt panel searches for budget savings and behind the scenes, administration officials scramble to find a viable financing formula.
So the White House was telling the public everything was copacetic while internal government experts were frantically warning that the administration's ideological plans were profoundly unwise. If this scenario feels strangely familiar, it should. Here's the AP's background on the CLASS Act as well as an explanation of its fatal flaws:
CLASS was intended as voluntary long-term care insurance plan, supported by premiums, not taxpayer dollars. Workers would pay an affordable sum of around $100 a month or less. In exchange, they would receive a modest daily cash benefit averaging no less than $50 if they become disabled later in life. Beneficiaries could use the money for services to help them stay at home, or to help with nursing home bills. The Health and Human Services Department is supposed to set the final premiums and benefit levels in the coming months.
But the program is on a collision course with powerful demographic and economic forces. How to pay the exorbitant cost of long-term care remains a major unmet need for an aging society. On the other hand, many economic experts believe the government has already promised seniors more than it can deliver, and now is not the time to launch another program likely to need a taxpayer bailout or new mandates.
In short, this was a preposterous boondoggle that was bound to fail (by design) from the get-go. The dirty little secret, you see, was that Obama, Inc. didn't care if CLASS failed. The whole point was to show theoretical on-paper "premiums" that added revenue to the black side of the CBO's overall Obamacare ledger. Whether those premiums ever materialized, and whether the program went totally bust, was immaterial. This was purely an accounting scheme contrived to make Obamacare appear less costly. Some veteran government number-crunchers noticed the impossible math and tried to raise the alarm. They were disregarded and frozen out of deliberations for their trouble:
Emails show that the first warning about CLASS came in May 2009, from Richard Foster, head of long range economic forecasts for Medicare. "At first glance this proposal doesn't look workable," Foster wrote in an email to other HHS officials, some of whom were working with Congress to get CLASS into the health care law. Foster said a rough outline of the program would have to enroll more than 230 million people — more than the U.S. workforce — to be financially feasible. But work on CLASS continued, bolstered by a report for AARP that laid out scenarios for implementing the plan. The AARP study also raised financial concerns, although the seniors' lobby supports CLASS. (My note: More incomprehensible treachery from AARP).
In July, Foster tried again. After reviewing the latest information from Kennedy's office, he wrote HHS officials: "Thirty-six years of (professional) experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue." Too late. The Obama administration had decided to support CLASS. Documents and emails indicate that Foster was edged out of deliberations.
Foster was sent to the corner to sulk. His math was too politically inconvenient, so he was banished to intellectual Siberia. (Say, I thought it was only those anti-science, anti-critical thinking Republicans who did this sort of thing). Foster wasn't the only insider who was extremely critical of the scheme:
By that time, Marton, the HHS aging policy official, was also raising questions internally. Emails he sent other administration officials relayed studies that raised concerns about such issues as premiums and the role of employers, while also recommending fixes. Publicly, the administration maintained it would all work out. A December 2009 presentation for senior officials stressed the end result would be a financially robust program. In private, administration insiders were still spelling out concerns.
They knew it was a lie. Their actuaries told them so. The math was clear. They didn't care. If CLASS goosed the numbers for the broader bill -- thus helping secure the historic power grab they'd been salivating over forever -- these Statists were thrilled to adopt an "ends justifies the means" mentality. And that, my friends, is how the White House and Democrats manipulated the CBO score, lied their asses off to the American public, and passed their unaffordable, unwanted healthcare monstrosity under deliberately false pretenses.
This. Crew. Must. Go. (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/09/15/more_lies_wh_emails_reveal_major_obamacare_accounting_fraud)
-
So.....when ever the left decries how "The GOP won't compromise"..."The Republicans are working against this President"...."The GOP is placing party in front of country", we merely have to go back, no more than 2 years, and take note that Obama & the Dems ramrodded everything they could down our throats, compromise be damned, civility be damned, and damn any repercusssions to the country, along the way (including the loss of the House and near loss of the Senate).
They did it, because they could, and in the case of Obamination Care, did it even when they couldn't, all the while lying to the country on its cost and the enormous debt it was piling on to our already spiraling out-of-control unsustainable debt
And where's the MSM on this?? If it were Bush, this would be 24/7 news
-
This just gets more transparently ridiculous in the silence of the MSM
--------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.
Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work.
(sirs adds; as opposed to the latter bankruptcy, and the putting more than 1,000 people out of work)
Even with the federal help, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees.
The Fremont, Calif.-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model. Obama visited the company's Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking.
Since then, the implosion of the company and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he sells his new job-creation program around the country.
An Associated Press review of regulatory filings shows that Solyndra was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009. The company eventually got $528 million.
Given the company's shaky financial condition, Republican lawmakers say the decision to restructure the loan raises questions about whether the administration protected political supporters at taxpayers' expense.
"You should have protected the taxpayers and made some forceful actions here after this analysis," Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., told a top Energy Department official this week. "Because you should have seen the problems. And you should have said, 'Taxpayers need to be protected and this has got to stop.' "
The loan restructuring is one element congressional investigators are focusing on as they look into the federal loan guarantee Solyndra received under the economic stimulus law.
Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors — Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP — stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated. The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government.
Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation of Tulsa, Okla. The foundation is headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president's aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs.
Madrone Partners is affiliated with the Walton family, descendants of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. Rob Walton, the eldest son of Sam Walton, contributed $2,500 last year to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
The AP review also found that officials at Solyndra had been seeking a second round of loans from the Energy Department to expand the company's Silicon Valley headquarters. The request for a second loan was denied.
"We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, including a net loss of $114.1 million in 2007, $232.1 million in 2008 and $119.8 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2009, and we had an accumulated deficit of $505 million at Oct. 3, 2009," the company said in a December 2009 filing to the SEC. "We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses and negative cash flow from operations for the foreseeable future."
Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said Friday that the company's financial losses were not uncommon for a high-tech startup and were a major reason Solyndra applied for the federal loan. The loan program is intended to help promising companies that cannot receive financing through private banks because of high risk.
Jonathan Silver, executive director of the Energy Department's loan program, said DOE officials faced a stark choice late last year and early this year: Refuse to allow the loan restructuring, "thereby ensuring that Solyndra would close its doors immediately" or allow the company to accept emergency financing, "thereby giving it and its almost 1,000 workers a fighting chance at success, and the government a higher expected recovery on its loan."
The decision by Energy Secretary Steven Chu was not an easy one, Silver told the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but appeared to be the right action at the time.
"Without DOE's agreement to restructure Solyndra's loan, the company likely would have faced bankruptcy much earlier — in December 2010" or soon after, Silver said. "Restructuring gave them a fighting chance to compete and succeed, and kept approximately 1,000 workers from losing their jobs."
Republicans were not impressed.
"If their model was weak to begin with, and then the market gets worse, doesn't that mean that maybe we should have just not thrown good money after bad?" asked Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va. "Because now we're in a worse position in the bankruptcy courts to get our money back."
GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann called the Solyndra loan an example of "crony capitalism" that benefited political donors.
"It's wrong to abuse executive authority with unilateral actions" Bachmann said at a campaign event Friday in California. "And of course the other problem with Solyndra is the fact that it appears there was crony capitalism, that there were political donors that benefited by this $535 million loan."
Newly released emails show the White House was worried about the likely effect of a default by Solyndra on Obama's re-election campaign.
"The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad," an OMB official wrote in a Jan. 31 email to a colleague. "The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up."
The budget official, whose name is blacked out in the email, wondered whether Solyndra should be allowed to restructure its loan.
"Questions will be asked as to why the administration made a bad investment, not just once (which could hopefully be explained as part of the challenge of supporting innovative technologies), but twice (which could easily be portrayed as bad judgment, or worse)," the email says.
Piss Poor Judgement??.....naaaaaaaaaaa (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-admin-reworked-solyndra-1182334.html)
-
I can't pin down exactly when this started, but these days I always carry with me a peculiar sense of angst that everything that has made America so fantastic over the past two hundred plus years - innovation, entrepreneurship, prosperity, the desire for wealth, robust independence and personal responsibility - is slowly grinding to a screeching halt, primarily due to rent-seeking. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Well, TJ's wise words pretty much sum up the multiple scandals (Solyndra, CLASS Act, LightSquared) we saw coming out of the White House in what I thought set the new standard for their Worst Week Evah, even though they're keeping pretty mum about it all. While President Obama certainly didn't start the snowball of crony capitalism, 'virtue' legislation, and political hijincks that is gradually ruining us, he has aided and abetted that snowball's exponential transformation into an avalanche, and the mainstream media and establishment liberals have been all too content to stand back and let him. Still, however, there's always hope, and I don't mean the kind our slick President promised us the last time around.
In a new New York Times/CBS News poll, the President's job disapproval rating has hit 50 percent, and 42 percent view him as personally unfavorable.
The president’s support has fallen to its lowest levels across parts of the diverse coalition of voters who elected him, from women to suburbanites to college graduates. And a persistent effort over the past year to reclaim his appeal to independent voters has shown few signs of bearing fruit, with 59 percent of this critical electoral group voicing their disapproval.
While Mr. Obama has not yet succeeded in winning over independent voters, who comprise the most influential piece of the electorate, neither have Republicans. The field is largely unknown to independents, and few have a favorable opinion of any of the candidates.
It's a loooooong way 'til Election 2012, of course, but I'm going to choose to see this as an encouraging sign of life from the glassy-eyed zombie electorate of 2008. Support of President Obama's handling of the economy has been diving for some time now, but these numbers are a new low and may be an indicator that Americans are just about ready to give up on The Dream That Was Barack Obama. (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2011/09/17/nytcbs_news_poll_obamas_approval_rating_slips)
-
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that his committee plans to investigate government loan programs to private corporations in light of allegations of improper dealings between the White House and failed energy company Solyndra and wireless start-up LightSquared.
"I want to see when the president and his cronies are picking winners and losers… it wasn't because there were large contributions given to them," the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Tuesday morning on C-SPAN.
Issa said the committee was looking at whether it was improper for members of Congress or White House staff to select companies eligible for subsidized government loans when those companies could give campaign donations. Loan programs have been a popular tool to provide funding for popular industries — like tech, green energy, and American auto companies — at more favorable terms than could be secured privately.
The Obama administration has been defending itself against criticism by Republicans that it exerted improper influence to the aid of both companies.
Solyndra abruptly filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, surprising both employees and the administration, which had secured $535 million in low-interest loans for the company.
Republicans in Congress quickly mocked the bankruptcy as emblematic of the president's green technology initiatives under the stimulus bill — and noted that a key Solyndra investor had been a bundler for the Obama campaign. House Republicans say they have emails showing the White House pressuring Department of Energy bureaucrats to expedite the loan approvals, although the White House has argued that nothing improper occurred.
Republicans have also charged that the White House pressured an Air Force general to revise testimony before a closed congressional hearing to aid LightSquared, a wireless start-up company. Emails between the company and the White House make mention of the fact that the company's CEO would be attending Democratic fundraisers in Washington, and administration officials met with executives from the company on the same day that CEO Sanjiv Ahuja wrote a $30,400 check to the Democratic National Committee.
The company is facing a tough regulatory road after initial tests showed LightSquared's technology had been found to interfere with military and aviation GPS. But both the company and White House have denied any influence-peddling.
Although Issa did not specifically accuse the White House of wrongdoing, he suggested that government loan programs tempted corruption.
"This is another reason that crony capitalism … is dangerous, because they're going to pick winners that they ideologically, or in some cases because they support their candidacy, want to see win," Issa said.
The congressman said he also wanted to expand the investigation to see whether congressmen were also exerting influence on the bureaucracy, which is commonly tasked with approving low-interest government loans.
"We see that as a backdoor, easy way to end up with corruption in government," Issa said.
Shhhhhhh, MSM has more important things to look into (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182553-issa-to-investigate-government-loan-programs)
-
Solyndra (Exxon) execs will decline to testify at hearing
Solyndra (Exxon's) LLC's chief executive and chief financial officer will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions put to them at a Congressional hearing on Friday, according to letters from their attorneys obtained by Reuters.
In the letters sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, attorneys for Solyndra (Exxon) CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W. G. Stover said they advised their clients not to provide testimony during the hearings.
The bankrupt company's $535 million federal loan guarantee is being investigated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Harrison is represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Stover is represented by Keker & Van Nest.
Solyndra's (Exxon's) offices were raided by the FBI two days after the company filed for bankruptcy, although the FBI did not say what prompted the raid. (Reporting by Nichola Groom in Los Angeles, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Shhhhhhhhhhhh, just (imagining), and the apoplectic outrage the MSM would be having, at this time (http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFS1E78J1KE20110920)
-
Just for clarification, are you saying that the Solyndra executives should act against the legal advice given them and waive their 5th amendment rights because of how the press may or may not portray that action?
And could you clarify who you are referring to when you say the MSM would be having a fit if this were Exxon and the Administration was GOP. The reason i asked is because reuters is reporting this planned exercise of 5th amendment rights and i wasn't sure when they lost their main stream media designation.
-
Just for clarification, are you saying that the Solyndra executives should act against the legal advice given them and waive their 5th amendment rights because of how the press may or may not portray that action?
And could you clarify who you are referring to when you say the MSM would be having a fit if this were Exxon and the Administration was GOP. The reason i asked is because reuters is reporting this planned exercise of 5th amendment rights and i wasn't sure when they lost their main stream media designation.
From my perspective if this were a Republican problem every newspaper, every TV station, every Cable News outlet, every magazine, and every late nigh comedy show would have jumped all over this like flies on shit. But most NSM are liberal and like the money and attention going towards alternative energy they are all pretty much silent as lambs about the whole thing. Do you think much has been said about this on MSNBC or CNN?
-
It's not as if this isn't getting play. Once the wire services report it, the story goes viral. The Washington Post has a story about it. Even Democrat Underground is practicing their spin. I just don't see where this story, at this stage, is being hidden.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Solyndra+LLC%27s+chief+executive+and+chief+financial+officer+will+invoke+their+Fifth+Amendment+rights&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=Solyndra+LLC%27s+chief+executive+and+chief+financial+officer+will+invoke+their+Fifth+Amendment+rights&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
-
It's not as if this isn't getting play. Once the wire services report it, the story goes viral. The Washington Post has a story about it. Even Democrat Underground is practicing their spin. I just don't see where this story, at this stage, is being hidden.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Solyndra+LLC%27s+chief+executive+and+chief+financial+officer+will+invoke+their+Fifth+Amendment+rights&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=Solyndra+LLC%27s+chief+executive+and+chief+financial+officer+will+invoke+their+Fifth+Amendment+rights&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
OK but in my opinion this is a bigger story than the gun selling justice department case that got far too little attention too.
-
Gun Walker got some border agents killed. That by far is the bigger story. And it will get bigger as they work their way up the food chain. We know it goes to Holder... does it go higher up? Don't know that yet. And we don't want folks starting to pity Obama cause those mean racist Repubs are unfairly investigating him.
-
Gun Walker got some border agents killed. That by far is the bigger story. And it will get bigger as they work their way up the food chain. We know it goes to Holder... does it go higher up? Don't know that yet. And we don't want folks starting to pity Obama cause those mean racist Repubs are unfairly investigating him.
funny you should say that (about the so-called racist investigations) because I think there are some black politicians that think they have an invisible shield surrounding them (those racist rascals), which tends to get them into ethics trouble. And I think Obama might operate that way too and it just might come back to haunt him with some of these illegal activities he is engaged in. But certainly if Obama thinks he can scream out racism and avoid getting into trouble he could be headed into dangerous waters. Chicago politics is a dirty business.
-
If you control the perception of the story then you control the outcome.
You and I both know the Clinton Impeachment wasn't about sex. Yet to this day that is the dominant perception.
-
If you control the perception of the story then you control the outcome.
You and I both know the Clinton Impeachment wasn't about sex. Yet to this day that is the dominant perception.
Yeah and having a large group of the press in your camp gives Obama lots of cover. That is why I'm getting excited because once they leave him he will be left to the wolves. And the wolves smell blood right now.
-
CBS is MSM right?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20108965-10391695.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20108965-10391695.html)
-
more here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20108460-10391695.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20108460-10391695.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody)
-
Just for clarification, are you saying that the Solyndra executives should act against the legal advice given them and waive their 5th amendment rights because of how the press may or may not portray that action?
It wreaks of something that was "inappropriate" at minimum, and criminal at worst. The 5th is specifically used because of something you may say is likely to inCRIMInate you, i.e. there was a CRIME possibly performed. This isn't some military covert action, where divulging secrets may risk the lives or methods used. The press is far more likely to stick with the status quo, and stay largely mum, outside of just making the incidental report,...oh by the way, the Solydra execs are pleading the 5th, now we return you to the far more important news of how Republicans refuse to compromise and are thwarting Obama's efforts to turn our economy & unemployment around
And could you clarify who you are referring to when you say the MSM would be having a fit if this were Exxon and the Administration was GOP. The reason i asked is because reuters is reporting this planned exercise of 5th amendment rights and i wasn't sure when they lost their main stream media designation.
MSM --> messers ABC, NBC, CBS, all the Cable News Services, the ongoing standard of national news reporting such as the NY Times & Washington Post. Yes, a trickle of news is starting to come out, because of just how bad the cronyism, being demonstrated by this administration is. Point being, if this were Bush and Exxon, this would have been MSM news, 24/7, right out of the gate, and not some half hearted, have-to-report-it-if-we-must, kind of trickle. And I think you know that. At least, I would have assumed such
-
It wreaks of something that was "inappropriate" at minimum, and criminal at worst. The 5th is specifically used because of something you may say is likely to inCRIMInate you, i.e. there was a CRIME possibly performed.
Right and Reuters and every other MSM agency that picked that up let us know the execs would plead the 5th and all that that implies. I'm not sure why you are saying the story isn't getting reported. New shoes drop every day.
-
Not saying its "not getting reported". AM SAYING, that if this were Bush and Exxon, this it'd be 24/7, headlining news, and the lead story in nearly every MSM newspaper ::)
-
Well are you looking for a pat on the back for marvelous analysis of the unfairness of it all or are you looking to be shown that the story is being covered though not to the level you would prefer?
Bush isn't in office nor is he running.
Riddle me this, is the MSM going after Perry for the Gardasil flap harder than they are Obama for Solyndra?
That would seem to me to be more apples to apples.
-
Looking to shine light on ever pervasive overt hypocrisy, of the MSM. You don't mind, do you? Apples to apples is comparing one Presidential administration with another
-
Looking to shine light on ever pervasive overt hypocrisy, of the MSM. You don't mind, do you? Apples to apples is comparing one Presidential administration with another
Thank you for your efforts. I'm sure this bias is news to all your fellow conservative members.
-
.....and to those visitors who could be of all forms of ideological diversions, such as independents, moderates, and those not yet as well informed
-
We don't get much accidental traffic, mostly just google and other search engine bots. But i'm sure they appreciate your efforts.
-
All your sarcasm aside, I'm hopeful they are, myself
-
there is always hope.
-
Not with the current Administration, and its MSM bedmates
-
Hypothetical viewers and hypothetical situations to prove bias, probably don't help either. But please persevere.
-
Good thing I'm sticking with current situations, and comparing them to situations that have plagued republicans in prior administrations, for far smaller supposed "transgressions". A certain former CBS Nightly News host comes to mind. And doubt anyone you're not personally privvy to, who visits our saloon is hypothetical. But thanks for the encouragement to continue. The examples I keep getting provided are quire ample
-
So remind the class about Bush and Exxon and how the press pilloried him about it.
-
Funny how I never claimed that as an actual occurence. Then again, you knew that, and still are trying to pawn it off as if I did.
tsk tsk tsk
-
Funny how I never claimed that as an actual occurence. Then again, you knew that, and still are trying to pawn it off as if I did.
tsk tsk tsk
And yet you, of your own free will, choose to use as your title an example of bias an occurrence you refuse to claim actually happened. And then you went so far as to claim it was an apples to apples comparison of the treatment of presidential administrations. or did you forget you said that.
-
oh contraire, its happened adnauseum for supposed transgressions FAR less egregious. Sorry if your memory of the prior administration, and how the MSM painted it with perseverating accusatory questioning, is so short
-
oh contraire, its happened adnauseum for supposed transgressions FAR less egregious. Sorry if your memory of the prior administration, and how the MSM painted it with perseverating accusatory questioning, is so short
Perhaps you can provide some actual examples so we can test your hypothesis.
-
Already provided one, the Dan Rather Debacle. Don't even need to go into Helen Thomas's daily accusatory tirade aimed at either Bush or his press secretary, or the plethora stockpiled at MRC. You actually want more examples??
How much more do you need, considering you are on record as acknowledging the bias, in a prior thread last year, IIRC.??
-
The Dan Rather Debacle was a setup. Debunked almost immediately.
Are you saying that the Obama Solyndra Scandal is a setup also?
That would be apples to apples no?
-
Dan Rather was the host of CBS Nightly News. He was the lead fella on a primary MSM network. Even after it was debunked, he still kept pushing it, as it if was true. Bush/Cheney were pilloried by the MSM on practically a daily basis for their supposed connections to "big oil". Again, I don't need to go into Helen Thomas' daily accusatory rants, each and every WH press conference, that was then echoed in the NYTimes and WashPost
Democrat majorities in congress, after they took over, kept launching investigation after investigation with the implied accusations of price gouging and of course the implied connection to Bush/Cheney. all the while the MSM kept parroting the supposed connection, minus any evidence of either connection or even price gouging
The apples to apples is the MSM actions, not the scandals. Then again, you know that as well, yet are pushing this false premice
tsk tsk tsk
-
Dan Rather lost his job over Guardgate.
Where is the equivalent with Solyndra? Is there false reporting going on? Is thre under reporting going on or is the media being cautious? I mean, i have a pretty good idea of the timeline as reported by the MSM (http://www.verumserum.com/media/2011/09/solyndra-timeline.png).
The problem seems to be that you want to indict an industry and then give as examples the actions of individuals? You bring up Helen Thomas like she was a reporter. She wasn't and hadn't been for years. She shared her opinions much like Limbaugh and Elder. Would they be examples of bias?
-
I can only assume that you are purposely missing the point. It's NOT the scandal, ergo, it's not something similar to Rathergate. LAST TIME, It's the actions of the MSM.
The real problem is this apparent need to indict my POV, despite the mountains of support that backs it up
-
The real problem is this apparent need to indict my POV, despite the mountains of support that backs it up
The real problem seems to be that you can not defend your point of view.
It's the actions of the MSM.
WTF does that mean? Is that the equivalent of the actions of chinese people, or christian people or rich people.
You broadbrush is too wide. You fail to make your point.
Your claim MSM bias.
We have two stories that are in the news right now that are very similar in scope.
Solyndra and Obama and Merck and Perry.
Show me how the MSM is being harder on Perry than Obama which would tend to prove your assertion that the MSM displays bias for the dems/libs.
-
The real problem is I have, and you just can't except my POV as being accurate, despite your own acknowledgement of the bias
And the WTF is precisely what it means.....actions. The actions the MSM takes when its a Republican or Conservative administration, vs a Democrat or Liberal. with the predominant validation via what the MSM doesn't report on the latter, to anything close to a level it has with the former
Then again, you knew that as well, yet still trying to pawn off a non starter as trying to compare scandals
tsk, tsk, tsk
-
It's NOT the scandal, ergo, it's not something similar to Rathergate. LAST TIME, It's the actions of the MSM.
The actions of the MSM in the person of Dan Rather is what caused the scandal and goes to prove your bias. Yet Dan Rather is not the MSM. He is a member of the MSM, he worked for the MSM but he is not the MSM.
My example of Perry's treatment vs Obama's treatment would be a perfect way for you to prove this bias, because the scandals are similar in transgressions. Yet you refuse to prove your point.
And that refusal speaks volumes. And thus endeth the discussion.
-
I hope you're getting some sense of self entertainment, as you keep pushing a premise I never made. Turn a person's POV into a false premise/position, than debunk that, as if that was the point being made. Brilliant, if it weren't also wholly disingenuous. I'm confidence others saw thru it, as well
tsk tsk tsk
-
What others are seeing is you whining about MSM bias but when given an opportunity to show how the MSM treats one group more favorably than another when the transgressions are similar, you demur. But that's just the way you roll, and i guess they see that too.
-
The big headline from President "Underdog" Obama's interview on Good Morning America yesterday was his frank admission that Americans are not better off today than they were before he took office. Indeed, sir. Another noteworthy element of the exchange was George Stephanopoulos' line of questioning about Solyndra -- the first time the president has been asked about the swelling scandal. His response? Hey, no biggie
President Obama told ABC News Monday that he does not regret touting the solar company Solyndra as a model of his jobs program, or loaning $535 million in taxpayer money to the company before it declared bankruptcy. "Hindsight is always 20/20," Obama told "Good Morning America" anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview broadcast online Monday. "It went through the regular review process and people felt that it was a good bet." The interview was the first under a new alliance between ABC News and Yahoo News.
Hindsight is 20/20, sir, but invoking that excuse in the context of Solyndra is a complete head-fake. The reason this story has legs beyond typical griping about government waste is the reality that multiple red flags were raised and ignored before the waste took place. In light of Obama's spin, a cursory review of the timeline is in order.
In 2009, prior to Obama taking office, Bush-era Energy officials unanimously rejected Solyndra's loan application.
Weeks later, Obama OMB number-crunchers warned that the deal stunk to high heaven, and cautioned against going through with it.
The loan was fast-tracked and approved after multiple White House visits by billionaire Solyndra investor and Obama donor George Kaiser.
In 2010, White House officials and outside supporters sounded the alarm that a planned presidential visit to Solyndra's headquarters could blow up in Obama's face because of the company's deteriorating finances.
These concerns were "brushed off," and the photo-op happened anyway. In 2011, after Solydra defaulted on its loan, White House budget officials recommended letting the "green energy" company fail rather than re-structuring its loan because the former course of action would save taxpayers up to $168 million.
The loan was re-structured, and was constructed to ensure that Solyndra's private investors -- like George Kaiser -- would recoup their losses before taxpayers in the (inevitable) event that the company went bust.
Objections were raised at every step of this process, yet poor, politically-motivated decisions ensued in each case. This disastrous nature of these decisions are not merely evident "in hindsight." The whole enterprise was a slow-motion, real-time debacle from day one. People did not "feel it was a good bet," Mr. President. Many people within your own administration felt it was a very bad bet, but your political team placed it anyway, and doubled-down at every opportunity. With our money. That's not bad luck. That's not hindsight. That's a scandal.
Parting thought - Which is the better White House approach to evading the stench of this self-created mess: Disingenuously deflecting, like Obama did on GMA, or just running away?
Such a sad Commentary on the state of the MSM (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/10/04/obama_on_solyndra_meh,_hindsight_is_2020)
-
Always recalling its not what's reported, near as much as what's NOT reported that continues to validate the pervasive bias of the MSM
--------------------------
For the 33rd consecutive day, ABC's Good Morning America on Tuesday omitted any mention of the Obama administration's Solyndra scandal, even though co-host George Stephanopoulos asked the President about it in an interview on Monday and elicited a newsworthy defense of the more than $500 million loan to the now-bankrupt company.
Tuesday's show instead focused on other questions from the ABCNews / Yahoo! online interview, like the best piece of advice the President has received from his wife and whether or not he would stop Bank of America's new monthly debt card fee.
Stephanopoulos pressed Obama on Monday about his touting of Solyndra as a cornerstone of his stimulus program not even 18 months before it declared bankruptcy. In fact, he even included the exchange in his segment on that evening's ABC World News.
"And for the first time, President Obama had to answer for Solyndra, the solar panel company which failed despite half a million dollars in government loans from the Energy Department," Stephanopoulos touted on Monday's World News. "President Obama had held it up as a model for green jobs and clean energy."
"Do you regret that?" Stephanopoulos asked the President about the Solyndra loan.
"No I don't, because if you look at the overall portfolio of loan guarantees that have been provided, overall it's doing well," Obama answered. "And what we always understood was that not every single business is going to succeed in clean energy," he added, noting that "hindsight is always 20/20."
Good Morning America didn't include that exchange but did air Stephanopoulos lobbying the President from the left to "put a stop" to Bank of America's new debit card fee – something NewsBusters reported on yesterday.
"More than 40,000 questions came in online for the President, most expressing anxiety and anger about the economy, including outrage about Bank of America's five dollar debt card fee," Stephanopoulos reported Tuesday morning. "Vicki Menkel wrote, 'Those are the types of things government should get involved in and put a stop to.'" ABC then played his question to the President: "Can you put a stop to that?"
"Well you can stop it," Obama answered, "because if you say to the banks you don't have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit, if your customers are being mistreated – and my hope is that you're going to see a bunch of the banks who say to themselves, you know what? This is actually not good business practice."
A transcript of the segment, which aired on October 4 at 7:10 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now to politics. "Your Voice, Your Vote." And a brand new ABC News/Washington Post poll that has some pretty startling results, especially for former GOP frontrunner Rick Perry. He's dropped like a rock since our last poll into a second place tie with businessman Herman Cain. Mitt Romney out front now with a steady 25 percent.
It's a tough poll for President Obama too. His approval rating down to 42 percent, the lowest of his presidency. And for the first time a majority of Americans believe that he will be a one-term president. So when I sat down with the President at the White House yesterday to kick off the new partnership between ABC News and Yahoo, that's where I began.
(Video Clip)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you the underdog now?
President BARACK OBAMA: Absolutely. The – because, you know, because given the economy, there's no doubt that whatever happens on your watch you've got –
STEPHANOPOULOS: You embraced that pretty quickly.
OBAMA: You know, I don't mind. I – I'm used to being an underdog. And I think that at the end of the day, though, what people are going to say is who's got a vision for the future that can actually help ordinary families re-capture that American dream.
STEPHANOPOULOS: There's so many people who simply don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. How do you convince them that they are?
OBAMA: Well I don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. They're not better off than they were before Lehman's collapsed, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we're going through. What we've seen is that we've been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy, but the unemployment rate is still way too high. And that's why it's so critical for us to make sure that we are taking every action we can take to put people back to work.
STEPHANOPOULOS: (Voice-over) More than 40,000 questions came in online for the President, most expressing anxiety and anger about the economy, including outrage at Bank of America's five dollar debt card fee. Vicki Menkel wrote, "Those are the types of things government should get involved in and put a stop to."
(To Obama) Can you put a stop to that?
OBAMA: Well what we did was we put a stop through the Financial Reform Act of them charging fees for credit cards.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And the banks are saying that's creating these new charges –
(Crosstalk)
OBAMA: Well – what the banks are saying is that rather than take a little bit less of a profit, rather than paying multi-million dollar bonuses, let's treat our customers right. And this is exactly why we need this Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that we set up, that is ready to go –
STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you stop this service charge?
OBAMA: Well you can stop it because if you say to the banks you don't have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit, if your customers are being mistreated – and my hope is, is that you're going to see a bunch of the banks who say to themselves, you know what? This is actually not good business practice.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of your potential opponents, Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, very tough speech at the Reagan Library last week, he said you don't have the courage to lead, and he asked –
(Video Clip)
Governor CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R-N.J.): What happened to state Senator Obama? When did he decide to become one of the dividers he spoke so eloquently of in 2004?
(End Video Clip)
OBAMA: Well look, if the guy's thinking about running for President, he's going to say a lot of stuff. And I think in the Republican primaries saying nasty stuff about me is probably polls pretty well.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But he basically says he did in New Jersey brought people together, which you haven't been able to do in Washington.
OBAMA: Well, I'm not sure that folks in New Jersey necessarily would agree with that, but here's the broader point – I don't think that the American people would dispute that at every step of the way, I have done everything I can to try to get the Republican Party to work with me, and each time all we've gotten from them is no.
STEPHANOPOULOS: (Voice-over) But this weekend, a little break from politics. The first couple celebrated their 19th wedding anniversary. The President says the best piece of advice he got from Michelle, that the mark of success comes from having happy and loving children.
(To Obama) How do you protect them, this time around when everybody's saying all these bad things about you?
OBAMA: You know, so far so good. They know who their daddy is. The thing I do worry about is trying to figure out that balance of making sure they've got space to make mistakes, be teenagers. So they're still going to the mall and they're still going to movies, but they've got this guy with a gun following –
(Laughter)
STEPHANOPOULOS: (Voice-over) And for those of you who wanted to know where the President goes online –
(To Obama) Which websites do you surf?
OBAMA: You know, I'm pretty eclectic.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You have an Ipad?
OBAMA: I've got an Ipad, and Steve Jobs actually gave it to me a little bit early. And –
STEPHANOPOULOS: Oh, that's pretty cool.
OBAMA: Yeah, it was cool. I got it directly from him. You know, typically I read on the web what I read in hard copy. I mean, there are some exceptions, there are some blogs and some websites that are interesting, that you don't have –
STEPHANOPOULOS: You ever feel compelled to make a comment?
OBAMA: You know, I don't. I figure if I got started I wouldn't stop, and I've got other things to do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thanks for your time.
OBAMA: I appreciate it, thank you so much.
Shhhhhhhhhh (http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20111004065609.aspx)
-
It really is difficult to find equivelence.
You would need scandals not only of equal seriousness , but also of equal credability.
George Bush was accused of draft dodgery and Dan Rather believed a forged document.
President Obama has been accused of forgeing his citizenship and forging a document.
Is this an equivelently credable set? Maybe not?
Do we have a unit of measurement for the seriousness and belivability of accusation?
If we invent a matrix for measurment of credability and seriousness do we get to name the measurement unit?
Lets call the unit "Rathers".
-
I'm pleased to see you bring up this comparison Plane. Tell me, what MSM outlet has been pushing the Citizenship controversy? Can you point out a predomiant MSM anchor using his MSM credentials, as some supposed form of credibility, in pushing the questioning of Obama's citizenship??
-
Credance is subjective.
Gotta metric?
-
No, but I got milk ;)
-
And imagine if it was a majority GOP Senate that tabled Obama's save-my-job's-bill
------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Obstruction of Obama's Jobs Bill Elicits Yawns From the Networks
By: Scott Whitlock
Thursday, October 06, 2011
The network newscasts on Wednesday downplayed Democratic obstruction of Barack Obama's jobs bill, offering only minor coverage. Good Morning America and Early Show allowed brief mentions. In an otherwise unrelated segment, GMA's Jon Karl admitted that the President "has a problem with [congressional] Democrats."
Karl added, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, he does not plan to have a vote on the jobs bill in its entirety, rather he's gonna try to pass bits and pieces of it."
CBS's Early Show highlighted the President's complaints about Republicans. Reporter Bill Plante explained, "...[Obama] attacked Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor by name for not passing his jobs bill and bringing it to the floor."
Yet, not until the very end of the segment did Plante acknowledge, "But meantime, over in the Senate, Democrats have admitted they don't yet have the votes to pass the bill."
When prospects for the legislation were brighter, on September 12, Early Show devoted three segments to the jobs bill, all of them from the Democratic perspective. No Republicans were featured.
On that day, Plante played up how "the corrosively nasty debate over raising the debt ceiling soured the public, and they let members of Congress know that when they were back home."
The Daily Caller explained the latest developments:
For all of President Obama’s insistence that Congress must “pass this bill now,” and Democrats’ assurances that they have the votes necessary to pass it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in no mood to vote on the president’s jobs-creation bill Tuesday afternoon.
Reid blocked a vote on Obama’s jobs bill after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a motion to add it as an amendment to a bill being heard on the floor.
Network mentions of Democrats holding up the jobs bill follow:
GMA
10/05/11
7:14
JON KARL: As for President Obama, he took his campaign to pass his jobs bill to the heart of Rick Perry territory, in Mesquite, Texas. And he used the opportunity to blast Congress for not getting the job done.
BARACK OBAMA: Some folks are living day to day. They need action on jobs, and they need it now. They want Congress to do what they were elected to do. They want Congress to do their job.
JON KARL: The President had been beating up on Republicans for not passing that jobs bill, but he also has a problem with Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, he does not plan to have a vote on the jobs bill in its entirety, rather he's gonna try to pass bits and pieces of it. Elizabeth?
8:02
JOSH ELLIOTT: The holdup on the President's jobs bill right now is from Senate Democrats. They want to include a tax increase for millionaires.
CBS
10/05/2011
07:07 am EDT
CBS - The Early Show
CHRIS WRAGGE: We now go to Washington, DC, where President Obama's jobs bill is going nowhere in Congress, and the President is blaming one key Republican leader. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has the latest on the jobs fight for us this morning. Bill, good morning.
BILL PLANTE: Good morning to you, Chris. Well, the President was in his new campaign mode- aggressive and confrontational- and he attacked Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor by name for not passing his jobs bill and bringing it to the floor.
[CBS News Graphic: "Calling Out Cantor: President Gets Tough On GOP Leader"]
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Eric Cantor said that, right now, he won't even let this jobs bill have a vote in the House of Representatives. Think about that. I mean, what's the problem? Do they not have the time? (audience laughs) They just had a week off. Is it inconvenient?
PLANTE (voice-over): The President was just getting warmed up. He then went after unnamed members of Congress for saying they shouldn't pass the bill because it would give him a win.
OBAMA: Give me a win? Give me a break! (audience laughs and applauds) That's why folks are fed up with Washington. This isn't about giving me a win. This is about giving people who are hurting a win.
PLANTE: The White House says the American Jobs Act is a mix of spending measures and tax breaks, to help bring down the unemployment rate. On 'The Early Show' less than a month ago, Cantor sounded ready to deal.
REP. ERIC CANTOR, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER (from September 9 interview on CBS's "The Early Show"): And I think now the country's really ready for us to set aside those differences, and try and build consensus, reach commonality, and see if we can produce a bill that does help job creation.
PLANTE: But earlier this week, Cantor rebelled against the President's demand to pass his entire jobs bill, saying, effectively, it's dead. The Republicans oppose the bill mainly because there would be new taxes in it. They're also against any proposed stimulus spending.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (from press conference): Nobody gets everything they want. I don't get everything I want. And I think the President understands the legislative process.
PLANTE (on-camera): Well, the President is going to keep up that drum beat, though, urging the House to take up the bill. But meantime, over in the Senate, Democrats have admitted they don't yet have the votes to pass the bill. Chris?
WRAGGE: CBS's Bill Plante at the White House for us this morning- Bill, thank you.
Article (http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20111006124818.aspx)
-
Always recalling its not what's reported, near as much as what's NOT reported that continues to validate the pervasive bias of the MSM
--------------------------
Networks Keeping Viewers In the Dark on Solyndra Scandal
ABC, CBS and NBC Bury News of Taxpayer Money Squandered on Obama-Linked Solar Energy Company
By: Rich Noyes
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
A study by the Media Research Center finds that the three broadcast networks are providing virtually no coverage of the Solyndra scandal, a solar energy firm that went bankrupt after getting more than $500 million in taxpayer money from the Obama administration. This is not the approach the networks took after the collapse of Enron, an energy company with Republican ties. In just the first two months of 2002, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts cranked out 198 stories on the Enron debacle, compared to just eight so far on Solyndra, a 24-to-1 disparity.
Friday night — in a classic and cynical news management strategy — the administration disgorged e-mails showing a top Obama fund-raiser and Energy Department official, Steven Spinner — who had supposedly recused himself from Solyndra’s loan application because his wife worked at a law firm representing the solar energy company — had badgered his colleagues to approve the deal.
One e-mail exchange published by The Politico demanded to know: “Any word on OMB? [the Office of Management and Budget] I have the O.V.P. [Office of the Vice President] and W.H. [White House] breathing down my neck on this....How hard is this? What is he waiting for?”
Even though these e-mails were sensational enough to make it onto the front-page of Saturday’s New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC never found a moment over the long Columbus Day weekend to mention any of this, just as they skipped news earlier in the week that Jonathan Silver, who ran the Department of Energy loan program that handed more than $500 million in taxpayer money to Solyndra, had resigned. When two Solyndra executives took the Fifth Amendment before a congressional committee in late September, ABC and NBC skipped that news, too, while CBS offered a whopping 25 seconds of coverage.
A review of the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows by the Media Research Center found just fifteen stories mentioning the Solyndra scandal since its August 31 bankruptcy filing — eight on the evening newscasts (four full reports plus another four brief anchor-read items) and seven on the morning news shows (five full reports and two brief items). The network total coverage over nearly six weeks: just 25 minutes, 30 seconds, or less than 0.2% of the available network news airtime.
(http://www.mrc.org/RealityCheck/uploads/SolyndraChart.jpg)
That’s remarkably paltry compared to what one imagines the coverage would have been if a Republican administration had funneled that much government cash to a company dominated by political allies (the company’s biggest investor, George Kaiser, bundled more than $50,000 in contributions for the President’s 2008 campaign, and visited the White House four times before the loan from the Department of Energy was finalized).
While the networks are treating Solyndra as just a minor blip on Obama’s radar screen, the scandal exposes deep flaws in the President’s economic and environmental approaches. And, the media’s lackadaisical attitude is a vivid example of their ever-more partisan approach to covering Washington politics:
The Failure of Obama’s “Stimulus” Spending Spree: The taxpayer money for Solyndra came from Obama’s “stimulus,” and back in 2009 the media cheered the administration’s plan to massively increase government spending in order to jump start the economy. MRC’s analysis showed nearly six out of ten network news stories (58%) tilted in favor of the big government approach as Congress debated it at the time (January 20 through February 14, 2009). In the year after it passed, the networks grew even more skewed, with more than 70% of stories applauding the stimulus as good economic medicine.
The presumption that government spending would create the jobs it promised was too good to check, and network reporters passed along the administration’s claims of success. Typical was then-CBS anchor Katie Couric, who enthusiastically chirped on the March 6, 2009 Evening News: “We’ll show you the new jobs his stimulus plan is creating.”
Two years later, a review by the MRC’s Business & Media Institute found virtually no network stories (just 2% out of 589) reminding viewers how the original White House pitch for new spending included the idea that it would keep unemployment from rising higher than 8%. In fact, the unemployment rate has been above 8% for the past 32 months, since February 2009.
Statistics show that stimulus money was overwhelmingly directed toward projects in Democratic congressional districts, not Republican ones. Even for those who believe that government spending can boost economic growth, that’s a red flag suggesting money was handed out to pet causes and constituencies, not to those who could necessarily use it most wisely. Yet the networks have yet to seize on Solyndra’s Democratic ties to more broadly question how Obama’s stimulus dollars were actually spent.
Green Jobs Are an Even Bigger Failure: As for the “green jobs” that would result from showering cash on companies like Solyndra, the Washington Post crunched the numbers in September 2011 and found failure: Instead of creating 65,000 jobs, as promised, the $38 billion loan program which included Solyndra could only claim 3,545 jobs.
Yet, as the MRC documented, the network coverage of the “green jobs” concept has been even more lopsided than coverage of the stimulus overall. Skepticism has been virtually non-existent. “We have gotten the message. Green-collar jobs are the wave of the future,” co-host Diane Sawyer cheered ABC’s Good Morning America back on April 15, 2009. Out of 52 network stories that mentioned the administration’s “green jobs” program, only four (8%) bothered to include any critics at all.
Conservatives have criticized the entire Obama concept as antithetical to a free market. “When government takes $535 million and invests in a loser, it not only wastes taxpayer money but it also denies that capital to some other project in the private economy that might have succeeded. The Solyndra e-mails show how ill-equipped government is to predict the industries of the present, much less the future,” a Wall Street Journal editorial declared on Monday.
Yet in the 15 stories since the company’s bankruptcy, not one has included the suggestion that Solyndra’s failure casts any doubt on the administration’s green jobs campaign. Instead, the networks have maintained the Obama administration’s line that the scandal is an isolated matter, an aberration that should not be seen as impugning the overall record.
Double-Standard Scorecard: Bush/Enron, 198; Obama/Solyndra, 8: Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011 after taking $500 million in direct government loans. In late 2001, the energy giant Enron went bankrupt, and it quickly emerged that the Bush administration had refused pleas from company executives to provide a taxpayer-funded bailout.
(http://www.mrc.org/RealityCheck/uploads/EnronSolyndra.JPG)
Yet the networks attempted to twist that story of corporate fraud into one of political malfeasance by stressing an imagined link between the Bush administration and the company’s corruption. “Enron’s connections to the Bush administration, wide and deep,” ABC anchor Peter Jennings intoned on January 10, 2002. Over on MSNBC that night, future NBC anchor Brian Williams hyped it as “the story some are already calling Bush’s Whitewater.”
In just the first two months of 2002, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts cranked out 198 stories on the Enron debacle, many about the potential entanglement of the Bush White House. Such feeding-frenzy coverage dwarfs the eight stories those broadcasts have devoted so far to Solyndra’s demise, a 24-to-1 disparity. Yet the Solyndra case involves the actual transfer of more than $500 million to a company whose largest investor, George Kaiser, was a major Obama campaign bundler (raising in between $50,000 and $100,000 for the President’s 2008 campaign).
And Obama’s Energy Department took the unusual step of restructuring the loan to Solyndra, so that private investors would be paid off before taxpayers in the event of a bankruptcy. According to e-mails released Friday, Treasury Department officials warned that such an arrangement might require a Justice Department ruling, but were ignored.
The few stories that have reached the air have been fairly tough. ABC’s Brian Ross, for example, painted the administration as deceitful in a September 14 World News report: “This year, even as Solyndra approached bankruptcy, the company and the White House kept it a secret, telling Congress and the workers everything was going great until the day it shut its doors.”
But the networks’ minimalist approach to this scandal seems designed to ensure that many Americans never even hear about Solyndra. A Pew Research Center survey in late September (after most of the stories aired) found 43% of respondents had never even heard of the scandal.
The media touted their adversarial, watchdog approach during the Bush years. If the Solyndra case is any indication, those once-aggressive reporters are now contented lapdogs snoozing at Obama’s feet.
Shhhhhhhhhh...don't look here, look at all those protesters marching on Wall Street and their bailouts...dolled out by Obama and company (http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20111011093017.aspx)
-
Do you need further explanation of the FOX networks success?
-
Nope
-
Always recalling its not what's reported, near as much as what's NOT reported that continues to validate the pervasive bias of the MSM
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Exposes Govt. Loan to Build Cars in Finland, Skips Company's Ties to Dem Fundraisers
ABC's Brian Ross on Friday investigated a $500 million government loan to a car company that is now operating in Finland. Ross highlighted how Vice President Joe Biden in 2009 claimed this would create jobs in America.
Yet, the Good Morning America reporter left out a key component for the network version of the story: Fisker, the European car company involved, have ties to big Obama campaign bundlers.
Ross began the segment by explaining to viewers: "[Henrik] Fisker got a federal loan two years ago of more than $500 million, with Vice President Joseph Biden saying the company would employ auto workers in his home state, Delaware." Yet, the 500 jobs created are in Finland, not the United States.
However, while ABC, in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity, should be commended for covering this story, the GMA version left out an important connection. This information did appear in Ross' online version of the story at The Blotter
One of Fisker's biggest financial supporters, records show, is the California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The firm financially supports numerous green-tech firms, records show.
Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr, a California billionaire who made a fortune investing in Google, hosted President Obama at a February dinner for high-tech executives at his secluded estate south of San Francisco. Doerr and Kleiner Perkins executives have contributed more than $1 million to federal political causes and campaigns over the last two decades, primarily supporting Democrats. Doerr serves on Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Doerr has not replied to interview requests since March.
Former Vice President Al Gore is another Kleiner Perkins senior partner. Gore could not be reached for comment.
Also absent on GMA is any indication of the similarities between the Fisker case and Solyndra. Ross broke the Solyndra scandal. Then, ABC promptly began to ignore its own scoop.
Ross' Fisker story will be featured again on Friday's World News and Nightline. Perhaps the Obama campaign bundler connection will be made there.
Don't hold your breath (http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20111021120646.aspx)
-
...Or Bush and Tommy Thompson. Always recalling its not what's reported, near as much as what's NOT reported that continues to validate the pervasive bias of the MSM
-----------------------------------------------------
If a private health insurer had engaged in the kind of criminal obstruction that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been tied to in her home state of Kansas, it would be a federal case. Instead, it's a non-story in the Washington press. Nothing to see here. Move along.
On Monday, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. World Magazine, a Christian news publication, reported on new bombshell court filings showing that Kansas health officials "shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces." World Magazine reported: "The health department failed to disclose that fact for six years, until it was forced to do so in the current felony case over whether it manufactured client records."
The records are at the heart of the fraud case against Planned Parenthood. Kansas health bureaucrats now shrug that the destruction of these key documents -- which they sheepishly admitted had "certain idiosyncrasies" -- was "routine." Who oversaw the agency accused of destroying the evidence six years ago? Sebelius.
As governor of Kansas, Sebelius fought transparency motions in the proceedings tooth and nail for years. Prosecutors allege a long-running heinous cover-up to manufacture false records of patients who had late-term abortions -- and to whitewash Planned Parenthood's systemic failures to report child rape.
Former GOP state Attorney General Phill Kline's investigation turned up massive discrepancies in reported child rape statistics compared to Planned Parenthood and the late late-term abortionist George Tiller's bogus claims. Planned Parenthood of Overland Park and Tiller together performed abortions on 166 girls aged 14 and under and only reported one each to authorities. So, 164 cases of underage rape or statutory rape went unreported and were not investigated by authorities.
Where is Joe Biden to decry actual rape atrocities and Nancy Pelosi to decry dire hazards to women's health when we need them?
A Kansas district judge found probable cause of criminality in the abortion providers' records; another district judge found probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts. Sebelius' response? A bloody ideological soul mate of Tiller's, she launched a vengeful witch-hunt against Kline. The state ethics board accused him of lying. The left-wing state Supreme Court Sebelius appointed stymied Kline's subpoenas and appeals.
Kline was cleared of all ethics violations. In fact, for 20 full months, the state's disciplinary board for lawyers suppressed an internal investigative report concluding there was zero probable cause to justify the ethics complaints.
Where there's obstructionist smoke, there's corruption fire. Under Sebelius' watch as governor, an inspector general also reported that her appointed health policy board had "applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators," according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.
Entirely fitting, of course. The war on whistleblowers and inspectors general has been a hallmark of the current White House. And the radically pro-abortion rights Sebelius has ruled ruthlessly from her Beltway perch:
policing citizen critics of Obamacare through a taxpayer-funded Internet snitch brigade;
threatening private companies and insurers who have increased rates to cope with Obamacare coverage mandates;
lashing out at newspapers who dare report on the costly consequences of the federal law.
As she bullies private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands, Sebelius has yet to be held accountable for overseeing state government agencies that conspired to hide the deadly truth about the Big Government/Big Abortion alliance from taxpayers. Like her boss in Washington, Sebelius' political playbook has a single page: Destroy the messenger. (http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/10/28/shredding_kathleen_sebelius)