NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Cronkite Said He Was a Liberal, But Liberals Aren't 'Committed to a Point of View'

Tim Graham — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:36:27 -0400

One of the early books on liberal TV news bias, Edith Efron's The News Twisters (1971), the author recounted that in the November 4, 1970 edition of Variety, although Walter Cronkite "conceded he was a 'true liberal,' he defined the position as having no content at all: a liberal, said Mr. Cronkite, was one who is 'not bound by doctrines or committed to a point of view in advance.'"

Efron also recalled the November 25, 1969 broadcast of 60 Minutes, in which Cronkite defended CBS against charges of liberal bias from Vice President Spiro Agnew:

Well, we all have our prejudices, we all have our biases, we have a structural problem in writing a news story or presenting it on television as to time and length, position in the paper, position on the news broadcast. These things are all going to be affected by our own beliefs, of course they are. But we are professional journalists. This is the difference. We are trying to reach an objective state, we are trying to be objective. We have been taught from the day we went to school, when we began to know we wanted to be journalists, integrity, truth, honesty, and a definite attempt to be objective. We try to present the news as objectively as possible, whether we like it or don't like it. Now that is objective.

Efron summed up that Cronkite merely ended up saying "Objectivity is when one tries to be objective." That's a little like saying that victory in war is when one tries to win.

CBS News Special Report on Walter Cronkite

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:38:01 -0400

In case you missed it, this was the Special Report CBS News aired Friday concerning the passing of Walter Cronkite (h/t TVNewser):

Text of Revealing Video Coverage from AP on Cronkite's Death

Tom Blumer — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:21:29 -0400

Perhaps inadvertently, the text of the Associated Press's earliest video coverage (scroll down the right frame at the link) of Walter Cronkite's death would appear to say a lot about how journalists see themselves -- and it's not as objective communicators of what is occurring in the world:

Cronkite: "Hello, I'm Walter Cronkite."

AP's Diane Kepler, narrator: He was the most trusted man in America.

Cronkite (November 22, 1963): From Dallas, Texas, the flash apparently official. President Kennedy died at 1PM Central Standard Time, 2 o'clock Eastern Standard Time, some 38 minutes ago.

DK: Walter Cronkite, for many the quintessential TV journalist, has died. For most Americans he was the man to turn to on everything from the assassination of President Kennedy to what to think about the war in Vietnam.

Cronkite (1968): But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then would be to negotiate, not as victims, but as an honorable people, who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

DK: He covered battlefields, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, and was a familiar presence to all of the presidents he covered. But it was his presence and his ability to tell a story with his Midwestern intonations that endeared him to Americans from coast to coast, always promising always to report an event the way it is.

Cronkite (apparently in the late 1950s or 1960, ahead of an interview with John F. Kennedy): Our interview with the Senator will be entirely unrehearsed. It will be spontaneous, it will not be edited. The questions have not been submitted to Mr. (John F.) Kennedy in advance. And I will be asking them of him for the first time.

DK: His familiarity led many to call him "Uncle Walter," and even though he didn't know them personally, he sometimes shared America's enthusiasm on the air, like when man first walked on the moon.

Cronkite (July 20, 1969): "Man on the moon!"

Apollo 11's Neil Armstrong: Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.

Cronkite: Boy!

Apollo 11's Neil Armstrong: We're going to be busy for a minute.

DK: Cronkite left the anchor desk in 1981, handing the reins over to Dan Rather. However, Cronkite wouldn't soon disappear from the landscape. He backed then-President Clinton when he was suffering from the Lewinsky scandal. He also condemned former President George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.

Cronkite: If the war we are fighting cannot be sustained with the people knowing what it takes to win that war, then we shouldn't be there in first place."

DK: Walter Cronkite, dead at the age of 92. Diane Kepling, the Associated Press.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Blogosphere Roars, MSM Snores: Zelaya Attempted Honduran Referendum Vote Fraud

P.J. Gladnick — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:19:44 -0400

Stories reported almost exclusively by the Blogosphere which are mostly ignored by the mainstream media have become such a recurring theme recently that it deserves to be filed under the category of "Blogosphere Roars, MSM Snores." And the latest entry in this category is the report from the Catalan Europa Press in Spain relayed via the Babalu Blog about an attempt by former Honduran president Manuel (Mel) Zelaya to fix the results of a planned referendum via programmed computers on the very day he was ousted. Here is the translation of the story which has yet to appear in the English language press here in North America:

Several computers containing the results of the referendum Zelaya wanted to conduct are seized at the Presidential Palace

Are you taking notes, ACORN? And now for the rest of the story:

The National Directors of Criminal Investigation seized various computers from the Presidential Palace that had recorded the supposed results of the referendum to reform the constitution that the deposed leader, Manuel Zelaya, was planning to conduct on June 28, the day he was removed from office.

Or, as the Babalu Blog put it, taking a page out of the Hugo Chavez playbook:

The official investigation now deals with the possible crime of fraud and falsification of documents due to the fact that some of the certified voting results had been filled with the personal information of individuals that supposedly participated in the failed referendum that did not take place because of the coup.

One of the district attorneys that participated in the operation that took place this Friday showed reporters an official voting result from the Technical Institute Luis Bogran, of Tegucigalpa, in which the specific number of people that participated in table 345, where there were 550 ballots, 450 of which were votes in favor of Zelaya's proposal and 30 were against, in addition to 20 blank ballots and 30 ballots, which were nullified.

And how many of those table 345 ballots were cast by dead Chicagoans? Sorry, I just couldn't resist:

The seizure took place on the third floor of the building attached to the Ministry of the Presidency that had been rented to the ex-minister of the Interior, Enrique Flores Lanza. The deputy district attorney, Roberto Ramirez, declared this area as a "crime scene" and, although he did not want to provide further details, said that further evidence had been found that could be categorized as crimes of fraud, embezzlement of funds, falsification of documents, and abuse of authority.

In addition to the Babalu Blog, this story was also reported by Fausta's Blog, Atlas Shrugs, and Capitol Hill Cubans among others. And has anybody yet heard a peep about this "inconvenient" story breaking through the wall of silence maintained by the MSM?

Maher: U.S. Is Michael Jackson -- 'In Debt, On Drugs and Over the Hill'

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:03:28 -0400

"Michael Jackson IS America. We love him so much because he reflects our nation perfectly: fragile, over-indulgent, childish, in debt, on drugs, and over the hill."

So said HBO's Bill Maher on "Real Time" Friday night during his "New Rules" segment.

As he elaborated on how America fit each of these negative attributes, he concluded by claiming, "Monday is the 40th anniversary of Neil Armstrong first setting foot on the moon, and I can't think of any ambitious goal we've reached since then" (video embedded below he fold, relevant section begins at 1:45):

Imagine that. In Maher's view, America has accomplished nothing since July 20, 1969.

So I guess President Nixon opening up China to the west three years later was nothing.

So was the creation of the personal computer which potentially has changed America and the lives of its citizens more than any invention since the car.

Or how about President Reagan's ambitious goal of destroying the evil empire known as the Soviet Union?

Lest we not forget the Internet, which despite existing for decades was not made easily accessible to regular folks until the '90s, and has radically changed virtually all aspects of our lives.

In the end, these are but a few of the ambitious achievements America has made in the past 40 years, and anybody living here that doesn't appreciate them is either blind or a liar.

Or is it both, Bill?

CBS Spins Setback for Obama on Health Into 'Warning from the President'

Brent Baker — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:06:04 -0400

A night after CBS and NBC skipped the assessment from the chief of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that the Senate and House health plans won't meet President Obama's pledge to not increase deficit spending, the two networks caught up only when Obama, reacting to “anxiety” even from Democrats, addressed the setback to his quest late Friday. CBS anchor Katie Couric spun the bad news for Obama into “a warning” from him about the ominous fate which awaits Americans if he does not succeed.

“Also tonight, a warning from the President,” she teased Friday's CBS Evening News before a clip of Obama with a very suspect claim: “If we don't get health care reform done now, then no one's health insurance is going to be secure.” Couric introduced the story by portraying Obama as the hero trying to reach a noble goal: “President Obama today continued his hard sell for health care reform, but he also had to do a little doctoring, treating a case of sticker shock over the latest proposals for insuring nearly every American.” Chip Reid related that “with anxiety surging over the cost of health care reform, the President today sought to reassure the public and nervous members of Congress” a day after the CBO director “sent shock waves through Capitol Hill.”

Over on NBC, anchor Brian Williams at least accurately painted Obama as on the defensive with a “hastily-scheduled” public appearance after 4 PM EDT on a Friday: “One day after the Congressional Budget Office said a Democratic health care reform plan would actually cost money instead of saving it, President Obama put together a hastily-scheduled appearance at the White House for a pep talk.” Kelley O'Donnell explained “signs of trouble for his health care overhaul” led him to deliver “that quick speech with a stern and unwavering message for Congress.”

My Thursday night NB item, “Only ABC Cites 'Devastating' CBO Judgment & 50%+ Tax Rates to Pay for Health Care,” recounted:

“Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats,” the Washington Post reported Friday, but of the broadcast network evening newscasts on Thursday only ABC's World News related how, as Jake Tapper put it, “the President's case was dealt a blow today” when CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned the health plans will require massive additional spending....

(On Friday night, ABC didn't mention health care or Obama's late in the day pronouncement.)

The story on the Friday, July 17 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: In Washington, President Obama today continued his hard sell for health care reform, but he also had to do a little doctoring, treating a case of sticker shock over the latest proposals for insuring nearly every American. Here's our chief White House correspondent, Chip Reid.

CHIP REID: With anxiety surging over the cost of health care reform, the President today sought to reassure the public and nervous members of Congress.

OBAMA: Health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it.

REID: His statement comes one day after a congressional budget director sent shock waves through Capitol Hill with testimony that the bills now working their way through Congress would send spending on health care soaring.

DOUGLAS ELMENDORF, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE: The legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.

REID: That's exactly the opposite of what the President has repeatedly promised, that health care reform will bend the long-term cost curve downward. A promise he repeated today.

OBAMA: The bill I sign will also include my commitment and the commitment of Congress to slow the growth of health care costs over the long run.

REID: But Republicans say the budget director's prediction that the cost curve will go up means the Democrats' plan will break the bank. Many Democrats are worried, too. About three dozen first-term House Democrats today voiced their concerns about cost in a meeting with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a meeting the President dropped by. Members in the meeting say President seemed open to suggestions but was adamant about passing it this year.

OBAMA: If we don't get health care reform done now, then no one's health insurance is going to be secure.

REID: In another effort to try to keep control of the health care debate, the White House announced today that the President will hold a prime time news conference next Wednesday. Katie?

From the NBC Nightly News, following the lead story on Obama addressing the NAACP:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Some of the intensity of last night carried over today to the President's push for health care. One day after the Congressional Budget Office said a Democratic health care reform plan would actually cost money instead of saving it, President Obama put together a hastily scheduled appearance at the White House for a pep talk. On Capitol Hill. Correspondent Kelly O'Donnell with us tonight for more on this. Kelly, good evening.

KELLY O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. Clearly the President wanted to get in the last word of the week after he could see there was new resistance and signs of trouble for his health care overhaul, so he added that quick speech with a stern and unwavering message for Congress. Now the issues are basically cost and time. It really set off alarm bells when the Congressional Budget Office said that the plans would increase spending, not reduce it. And today, key Democrats and Republicans -- moderates the President needs -- made a direct appeal to the White House asking for more time to resolve these differences. But as you'll hear, the President's answer was a definite no.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Those who are betting against this happening this year are badly mistaken. We are going to get this done. We will reform health care. It will happen this year. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

O'DONNELL: And Brian what happens here next week will be critical in this debate because the differences are still so wide. The President did soften a bit acknowledging this is tough work, but he is not yet ready to budge on some of the issues that Congress thinks are most important right now. Brian?

Cronkite's First 'CBS Evening News' Broadcast

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:45:41 -0400

In 1992, CBS "Up to the Minute" put together some clips of Walter Cronkite's first "CBS Evening News" broadcast on September 2, 1963 (h/t NBer Gary Hall, and don't miss hilarious Johnny Carson sketch about Cronkite in comments section):

Readers should notice a segment done by Dan Rather as well as one by Bernard Kalb.

On NAACP's 100th Anniversary Media Ignore Boxer's Racist Treatment of Black Chamber CEO

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:22:07 -0400

On Thursday, NewsBusters asked if the media would notice Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) being called out by the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce for her racist and condescending treatment of him during a Senate hearing.

Such seemed a particularly important question as this disgraceful event occurred on the 100th anniversary of the NAACP.

Yet, according to LexisNexis, not one major media outlet other than FNC thought it was at all newsworthy that Harry Alford called Boxer "God-awful" for pitting the opinions of other black organizations against his.

You think this would have been boycotted, especially on the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, if Boxer had an "R" next to her name instead of a "D"?

For those interested in hearing more from Alford, he was interviewed by LA radio host and Sarah Palin documentarian John Ziegler Friday, and made some comments about Boxer I guarantee media will also ignore (video embedded below the fold, h/t Hot Air):

Now, imagine for a moment that the ranking Republican at that hearing, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), had been accused of racism by Alford.

Do you think this would have gotten media's attention?

In fact, as it occurred on the same day President Obama was speaking at the gala for the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, such remarks by a Republican would have been used as an example of how racism is still a problem in our nation.

I guess media didn't want to use what happened between Alford and Boxer to demonstrate such.

Any wonder why?

ABC's 'Cougar Town': 'Under-dressed Divorcées Prowling for Younger Men'

Noel Sheppard — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:36:55 -0400

Looking for some wholesome entertainment to share with the kids this fall?

Well, don't turn on ABC at 9:30 PM (8:30 CST), for in that prime time slot will be a new sit-com called "Cougar Town."

Yep, you guessed it: another show about mature divorced women seeking men half their age for -- ahem -- dates.

One glimpse at the following sexually charged preview, along with ABC's own description of the show, should give readers all they need to know (video embedded below the fold):

Can a woman of a certain age be a mom, a successful career woman and still be on the prowl? Jules Cobb (Courteney Cox) is about to give it a try.
In a small Florida town, the center of high society is the Cougars high school football team... which is wildly appropriate since this town is the natural habitat for over-tanned, under-dressed divorcées prowling for younger men. Jules desperately doesn't want to be one of them, but with an ugly divorce behind her and 40 staring right back at her, she's longing for a little more action in her life. The available men her own age, like her silver fox of a neighbor, Grayson Ellis, only seem interested in dating barely legal hotties. Egged on by her very married and very irreverent best friend Ellie and her determined assistant Laurie, Jules reluctantly dips her toe back into the dating pool. To her surprise, she hits it off with a nice young guy named Matt -- emphasis on the young -- and discovers this gal still has the goods.
Co-executive produced by Courteney Cox and Bill Lawrence (Scrubs), Cougar Town is the single-camera comedy that dares to tell the truth about dating after divorce. Juggling a teenage son with her thriving career and budding love life isn't easy, but before you know it, Jules will have you cheering, "Go Cougars!"

Yeah, with a son that just turned 21, that's exactly what I'll be cheering.

After all, a 40-something divorcée with several children and limited moral fiber is exactly what I want for my son.

Don't you?

40 Years Since Chappaquiddick; Ted Kennedy 'Would Have Brought Comfort' to Mary Jo Kopechne 'In Her Old Age'

Rich Noyes — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:03:00 -0400

Earlier this week, ABC, CBS and NBC all noted the tenth anniversary of the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr. That Kennedy was an “icon” according to CBS’s Harry Smith, and “the Prince of Camelot” to ABC’s Chris Cuomo, a former cousin-in-law. Today marks the 40th anniversary of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, killed July 18, 1969 after leaving a party with Senator Edward Kennedy. That night, Kennedy drove his car off a bridge, and left the scene with Kopechne still in the submerged vehicle; he did not call the police until the following morning.

Over the course of the past four decades, the media elite have touted Kennedy as a “liberal lion,” spending far more time celebrating his ideological agenda than reminding people of his behavior that night in 1969. As my colleague Brent Baker noted in an op-ed back in 1999, the media have come to refer to Chappaquiddick as a “Kennedy tragedy,” not a “Kopechne tragedy.”

Perhaps the most egregious example of the liberal media planting a pro-Kennedy spin on Chappaquiddick came in a January 5, 2003 Boston Globe Magazine profile of Kennedy:

“If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age,” wrote the Globe’s Charles Pierce. The quote was recognized as the worst of the year at the MRC’s DisHonors Awards in 2004.

If you’re interested in how a writer could build up to such a quote, here’s a lengthy excerpt of “Kennedy Unbound,” Pierce’s largely sympathetic profile of the senior senator from Massachusetts. Pierce salutes Kennedy’s liberal accomplishments — blocking Robert Bork, for example, and expanding government regulation and the welfare state — and paints the Senator as as much a victim of his name as someone who has personally benefitted from it. (The entire piece appears to still be available online here.)

What if his name had been Edward Moore?

It was a great line, a defining line. Against any other candidate, and especially in this age of endless political reiteration, it would've been the knockout line. It became a cheap trope for easy newspaper columns. On August 27, 1962, at the close of their first debate prior to the Democratic senatorial primary, Edward McCormack looked at Edward Kennedy and said, "If his name was Edward Moore, with his qualifications -- with your qualifications, Teddy, your candidacy would be a joke."

It bit so deeply because of the essential truth of it -- the truth that, among other things, would doom Eddie McCormack. Back then, with Jack in the White House and Bobby as attorney general, Teddy Kennedy's candidacy for the Senate was an act of raw dynastic power. An obscure family retainer named Benjamin Smith held the seat until Kennedy was old enough to be elected to it. Once he was, he was sworn in, not at the beginning of the term in January 1963 but almost immediately after his election in November 1962, which is how he got the jump on seniority over Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who was elected the same year. None of this would have happened if his name were Edward Moore.

If his name were Edward Moore . . .

He would not have served so long, if he'd served at all. He might not have served with more than 350 other senators. He would not have served with all three men -- Everett Dirksen, Richard Russell, and Philip Hart -- after whom the Senate office buildings are named. He would not have had his first real fight over the poll tax and his most recent one over going to war in Iraq. None of this would have happened if his name were Edward Moore.

If his name were Edward Moore . . .

If his name were Edward Moore, Robert Bork might be on the Supreme Court today. Robert Dole might have been elected president of the United States. There might still be a draft. There would not have been the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which overturned seven Supreme Court decisions that Kennedy saw as rolling back the gains of the civil rights movement; the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, the most wide-ranging civil rights bill since the original ones in the 1960s; the Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill of 1996, which allows "portability" in health care coverage; or any one of the 35 other initiatives -- large and small, on everything from Medicare to the minimum wage to immigration reform -- that Kennedy, in opposition and in the minority, managed to cajole and finesse through the Senate between 1996 and 1998, masterfully defusing the Gingrich Revolution and maneuvering Dole into such complete political incoherence that Bill Clinton won reelection in a walk. None of this would have happened, if his name were Edward Moore.

If his name were Edward Moore . . .

His brothers might be alive. His life might have been easier, not having mattered much to anyone beyond its own boundaries. His first marriage might have survived, and, if it had not, Joan Kennedy's problems would have been her own, and not grist for the public gossips. It might not have mattered to anyone, the fistfight outside the Manhattan saloon, the foozling with waitresses in Washington restaurants, the image of him in his nightshirt, during Holy Week (Jesus God!), going out for a couple of pops with the younger set in Palm Beach and winding up testifying in the middle of a rape trial. His second marriage simply would have been a second marriage, and Vicki Kennedy would not have found herself dragooned into the role of The Good Fairy in yet another Kennedy epiphany narrative.

All of this would not have mattered, if his name were Edward Moore.

And what of the dead woman? On July 18, 1969, on the weekend that man first walked on the moon, a 28-year-old named Mary Jo Kopechne drowned in his automobile. Plutocrats' justice and an implausible (but effective) coverup ensued. And, ever since, she's always been there: during Watergate, when Barry Goldwater told Kennedy that even Richard Nixon didn't need lectures from him; in 1980, when his presidential campaign was shot down virtually at its launch; during the hearings into the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, when Kennedy's transgressions gagged him and made him the butt of all the jokes.

She's always there. Even if she doesn't fit in the narrative line, she is so much of the dark energy behind it. She denies to him forever the moral credibility that lay behind not merely all those rhetorical thunderclaps that came so easily in the New Frontier but also Robert Kennedy's anguished appeals to the country's better angels. He was forced from the rhetoric of moral outrage and into the incremental nitty-gritty of social justice. He learned to plod, because soaring made him look ridiculous. "It's really 3 yards and a cloud of dust with him," says his son Patrick.

And if his name were Edward Moore, he would have done time.

He has spent so much of his professional life draining that line of its meaning -- the defining line, what would have been the knockout line if his name hadn't been Edward Moore Kennedy. He went to the Senate. He respected its traditions. He learned from its elders; his office today is in the building named after Richard Russell, with whom, according to Adam Clymer, Kennedy first attempted to break the ice by mentioning that Russell himself had entered the Senate when he was 36. Yes, Russell replied, but I'd been governor of Georgia by then, and Kennedy had had the good grace (and the good sense) to laugh.

"At that time, I think, there was less partisanship," Kennedy says. "There was less pettiness, and there were stronger personal relationships that stretched across party lines. Now we're so evenly divided that little things become big things. That demeans the institution and demeans our relationships, and, anyway, I think the public sees through that."

He developed a thick skin and learned to leave the heat of the argument on the Senate floor. That's how Kennedy learned to move past that day in 1991 when, during the debate over the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, his good friend Orrin Hatch appeared to summon up the Great Unmentionable. "Anybody who believes that," said Hatch, "I know a bridge up in Massachusetts that I'll be happy to sell to them."

To this day, Hatch maintains that any connection between his wisecrack and Chappaquiddick was unintentional. "I was really mortified," says Hatch. "A lot of my supporters loved it, and when I said I hadn't meant it, it drained some of the charm, some of the glory, out of it."

Of Kennedy, he says: "He's able to take criticism and let it wash off him like water off a duck. He's been praised so much and criticized so much that he just ignores it."

For his part, Kennedy plays his cards so close to the vest that, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, if they were any closer, they'd be behind him. "It's basically a result of understanding how the institution is working and how things get done and to know that intuitively," Kennedy says. "The other stuff is just part of the deal. If you don't learn it, you might as well not bother serving in the Senate. I can go down and fight with Orrin on fetal transplantation and then testify with him on religious restoration when both were white-hot, and then we can go out later.

"Unless you work on that, there's very little left you can do. You can just be an advocate, and there's nothing wrong with that, or you can just be an accommodator, and you're not going to be a leader if you do that."

And that's the key. That's how you survive what he's survived. That's how you move forward, one step after another, even though your name is Edward Moore Kennedy. You work, always, as though your name were Edward Moore. If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age....

END of excerpt.

Tom Watson Open Thread

NB Staff — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:42:14 -0400

He'll be 60 in September, and he's tied for the lead going into the third round of the British Open:

Can Tom do it, and what would such a victory do for golf?

Open Thread

NB Staff — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:29:21 -0400

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Obama wants to be able to set Medicare reimbursement rates!

The White House is asking Congress to give the executive branch more power to limit Medicare's rising costs. A White House letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care costs and providing better care. The proposal would allow an independent advisory board to recommend changes in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers. If the president approved the recommendations, Congress could still vote to reject them altogether. But Congress could not approve some recommendations and reject others.

Is there anything this president doesn't want control of? Has America ever had a president more interested in controlling all aspects of citizens' lives than Obama?

Time: Cronkite, the 'Patron Saint of Objectivity' -- Well, Actually, Thankfully, No

Tim Graham — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:02:06 -0400

Most Americans who were born before 1970 remember Walter Cronkite as a towering figure of TV news. I remember being riveted to the set during his final newscast in 1981. But one grand claim about Cronkite should not stand: that he was "TV’s patron saint of objectivity," as Time TV writer Jim Poniewozik wrote in a tribute. Even Poniewozik can’t stick with that claim. He went on to honor Cronkite for trusting his audience enough to abandon a "false even-handedness that flies in the face of reality." If writers want to appreciate Cronkite’s biases, that’s much more honest than claiming he wasn’t part of the historic CBS effort to paint the world in liberal hues. Here’s the end of Poniewozik’s appreciation:

Cronkite was TV's patron saint of objectivity, in an era when audiences still believed in it (though he became a liberal columnist after retiring from TV). And yet ironically his most famous act as a news anchor was a rare occasion when he ventured an opinion. After reporting in Vietnam in 1968, Cronkite commented on the air that "it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate." President Lyndon B. Johnson remarked that if he had lost Walter Cronkite, he had lost Middle America; soon after he announced that he would not seek re-election.

Despite his comments on the war — or because of them — Cronkite cemented a reputation as a straight shooter. His successors, at CBS and elsewhere, would later be denounced as biased hacks for far less opinionated statements. Maybe Cronkite benefited from working in a time when Americans simply had more trust in authority. But it may also be that he earned that trust — that by calling a quagmire what it was, he showed that a false even-handedness that flies in the face of reality is not the same as honesty.

And more important, he had faith that his viewers, even in a painfully divided period in history, were sophisticated enough to understand this. What finally distinguished Walter Cronkite, perhaps, was not the trust his audience placed in him. It was that he was a good and wise enough newsman to place his trust in his audience.

Bozell Column: Porn, Just Another Business?

Brent Bozell — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:32:34 -0400

On society’s list of most shameful professions, the pornographer would be near the top. What must pornographers think of themselves? They would argue that their industry has joined the mainstream, yet for porn performers, it’s a sordid career fraught with perils of drugs, disease, and in the darker corners of porn, exploitation and abuse.

Take the case of a true pervert, Paul Little, who calls himself "Max Hardcore." The British author Martin Amis submerged himself in the sleaziest subcultures of sex on film for the British newspaper The Guardian a few years ago. He recalled the making of Little’s "Hollywood Hardcore 13." The film included a series of...excretory humiliations.

In these scenes, Little talks to down to actress Cloey Adams, who is pretending to be a child. "If you're a good girl, I'll take you to McDonald's later and get you a Happy Meal." After she submits to his disgusting desires, she then asks, "What do you think of your little princess now, Daddy?"

Just reading the gross-out titles of Little’s DVDs ought to tell the story. One of them is "Golden Guzzlers 7." Little has another series called "Anal Auditions."

Pardon the grotesque details, but they’re essential. The "mainstream" media simply omit these wretched realities in order to "mainstream" this kind of madness. Paul Little was indicted during the Bush years by the Department of Justice and convicted for distributing his pornography in the mail. He began serving a 46-month term in Los Angeles in January, while lawyers appeal the verdict.

And believe it or not, Little is now one of the sympathetic subjects of a new smut-exploiting CNBC documentary called "Porn: Business of Pleasure." On July 15, CNBC anchor Melissa Lee, the lead pseudo-investigator of the porn industry, presented Little as a First Amendment casualty.

She sat down with Little and asked sympathetically: "Are there plenty of things out there that there would be an audience for, but society says ‘Not for us’?" The line of questioning is chilling. Child pornography is something "there would be an audience for," yes. So, too, are snuff films. Would she scorn "society" for disapproving of those, too?

Little boasted in reply: "Society has spoken. There's more people buying my videos than there are people protesting my videos." Ditto, snuff films.

Clearly, not enough people have any idea of what kind of sickness reigns in Max Hardcore videos. CNBC was more interested in exploiting Little’s reputation, rather than denouncing it. "He’s the dirtiest man in America," they cooed in a promo, emphasizing the naughty fun, not the temptation to vomit.

In promoting her smutty documentary, the audaciously ambitious Lee played up the centrality of porn to American pop culture. "It’s as mainstream as [NBC’s] Must-See TV," she proclaimed on her regular CNBC show "Fast Money." NBC should have fired her on the spot for comparing their shows to "Golden Guzzlers 7."

CNBC’s porn extravaganza offered just two brief interruptions from porn critics. Pat Trueman appeared about halfway into the hour to explain how porn can be illegal. Recovered porn addict Michael Leahy appeared briefly to explain how his porn habit ruined his marriage and his relationship with his sons.

But viewers mostly saw a parade of pornographic product placement and cordial interviews with a series of porn-makers, including porn star-slash-Oklahoma mom "Jesse Jane," whose nine-year-old son doesn’t yet know "exactly" what his mother does for a living. The supposedly saddest moment is porn CEO Steven Hirsch lamenting that all the free-porn websites are killing his profits, and with the suspicion that free sites are pirating his films, "now we have to spend money policing the Internet." Cue the violins.

CNBC is the Consumer News and Business Channel, and what this has to do with news or business is beyond me. They’re trying to shore up their dreadfully low prime time numbers by celebrating all kinds of sleazy money-making schemes, and saying – and can’t you just hear this – "it’s a business like any other!" CNBC has also recently aired specials on prostitution, and on the marijuana business. This kind of special is the prostituting of journalism; this compares to "business news" about the same way that Nancy Grace’s lurid crime interviews compare to hard news.

Shame on CNBC for making no attempt to police the porn industry. Instead, viewers were urged to buy the documentary on DVD with "more [porn] star extras." If porn is just a business like any other, can we expect the next CNBC special to focus on sugar beet growers, or bicycle makers? I think everyone knows the answer.

Walter Cronkite Dead at Age 92

NB Staff — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:03:42 -0400

Former CBS "Evening News" anchor Walter Cronkite died today. He was 92 years old.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Cronkite family.

A roundup of obits and retrospectives from major news outlets:

A compilation of statements from some journalists on Cronkite's passing can be found here.

MSNBC: Talk Radio and Tea Party Protests ‘Push Boundaries of Decency’

Kyle Drennen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:21:56 -0400

On Friday, MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall exclaimed: "Harsh political discourse against [President Obama] really amped up and people started to push the boundaries of what might be considered decency. From talk radio to those tea parties that we saw with some pretty offensive signs folks were holding, even in the presence of children. The anger has certainly intensified."

As evidence of the supposed lack of "decency" co-anchor David Shuster declared: "And so listen to Glenn Beck make his case against health care reform just yesterday on his radio show, watch." The audio clip that followed featured Beck yelling at a hostile caller during his Wednesday show.

Based on that one example, Shuster wondered: "So are the political attacks, is the language, is the discourse, going too far? And does it have real consequences?" He then teased another segment on the topic in the next hour, but it was preempted by live coverage of President Obama speaking on health care reform.

Before moving on to the next story, Hall remarked: "Imagine if we talked to our viewers like that?" Hall does not need to imagine, she can simply turn to MSNBC’s own Keith Olbermann. The left-wing bomb thrower routinely screams insults and accusations at conservatives during Countdown every night.

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

3:48PM SEGMENT:

DAVID SHUSTER: We've been talking about the language, Tamron, between the President and Congress, but there's also this whole sort of area of language besides the President and Congress, and that’s sort of out there on the blogosphere and talk radio. And remember the old adage about being able to disagree without being disagreeable?

TAMRON HALL: Yeah, I remember it, but I don't think a lot of people who listen to, maybe, certain radio stations believe that. Well, six months after President Obama took office, a lot of sociologists and analysts believe that harsh political discourse against him really amped up and people started to push the boundaries of what might be considered decency. From talk radio to those tea parties that we saw with some pretty offensive signs folks were holding, even in the presence of children. The anger has certainly intensified.

SHUSTER: And so listen to Glenn Beck make his case against health care reform just yesterday on his radio show, watch.

KATHY: -industrial country in this world-

GLENN BECK: In this world-

KATHY: -that doesn't have health care. What the hell is wrong with you?

GLENN BECK: And we are the only country in the world where leaders come from every other country to get health care when they can't get the right kind of health care in their own country!

KATHY: I'm asking you a logical question and you are-

BECK: I'm giving you a logical answer.

KATHY: You don't have logic! Every time you people bring up costs, you don't care about the trillions of dollars to bail out the banks and all the credit card companies.

BECK: Kathy, get off my phone! Get off my phone, you little pinhead!

SHUSTER: Wow. So are the political attacks, is the language, is the discourse, going too far? And does it have real consequences? We will take up that issue coming up in our next hour right here on MSNBC.

HALL: Imagine if we talked to our viewers like that? Get off my- [laughs].

SHUSTER: Wow.

CNN Touts Obama at the NAACP: Bush Didn't 'Have the Same Kind of Credibility' as the Black President

Tim Graham — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:39:46 -0400

The vision of the first black president speaking before the NAACP clearly mesmerized liberal reporters. But their ardor began to sound racially touchy when they suggested Obama has more "credibility" than pale presidents. On Thursday Night’s Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper oozed over the president: "He had a lot more to say in a way that no other president has ever been able to before." But the message itself hardly seemed any different than what President Bush would say, as Cooper summarized it: "tremendous advances have been made in race relations in America, but there's still a lot of work to do."

Cooper passed the baton to CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux, who sounded the same touchy note: "When we saw President Bush go before this group in 2006, a lot of tension, he ignored this group for five years or so. But his message was similar. He talked about the need for accountability, responsibility. He did not have the same kind of credibility that President Obama does."

Turn that around. Can you imagine anyone at CNN suggesting last year that Hillary Clinton or John McCain had "more credibility" with white audiences than Obama because of their skin color?

Malveaux left out that perhaps Bush didn't appear at an NAACP convention for years because they viciously accused him of murdering James Byrd all over again in a very nasty campaign ad in the last weeks of the 2000 campaign.

Malveaux sounded like a White House aide in describing the address. She didn’t say he dropped g’s and employed black slang like "ballers" for basketball players and described the "flow" of rappers. Some might think he's putting on this speaking style like a suit of clothes. But Malveaux lauded his loose style and energy as a return to their leg thrills on the campaign trail:

You know, Anderson, we saw that different kind of Obama -- you had mentioned that before -- the cadence, the rhythm, the style, the -- the energy from this president that we saw in the campaign for two years, but, essentially, really kind of turned the corner in that tone when he became the president, that things were a lot more serious.

But he has a familiarity with this audience. A couple of things that he wanted to do. First and foremost is acknowledge that yes, discrimination still exists. That a lot of people have tough times. But that most African Americans have it tougher, have it worse.

Having said that, he wanted to put that into context and say, look, you have control over your future. It is time for accountability and responsibility. He does this because he feels that he has the familiarity, but he also has the credibility to deliver this kind of message more so than you had with President Bush before. for five years or so. But his message was similar. He talked about the need for accountability, responsibility. He did not have the same kind of credibility that President Obama does.

Malveaux has been clear before about her low opinion of George Bush’s credibility. From December 8, 2006: "Critics calling Mr. Bush ‘the cowboy’ for stubbornly leading the charge, and Mr. Blair ‘the poodle’ for obediently following. But three years since the U.S. invasion, the two are still adamant their Iraq mission is sound. President Bush didn’t just drink the Kool-Aid, he made it. But perhaps now it’s a little less sweet."

Weekend Captionfest

NB Staff — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:58:12 -0400

Vice-President Joe Biden, July 16, 2009. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

CBS And NBC Tout Continued Relevance of NAACP

Kyle Drennen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:50:05 -0400

Marking the 100th anniversary of the NAACP on CBS’s Sunday Morning, correspondent Bill Whitaker wondered: "A black president who addresses black issues unflinchingly...Attorney General Eric Holder dedicated to equal justice...some say begs the question, is the NAACP needed anymore? Is it even relevant? Is it time for the venerable organization to say ‘mission accomplished’?"

Later in the segment, Whitaker answered that question: "[Current NAACP President Benjamin Todd] Jealous and [former NAACP President Julian] Bond say with one of fifteen black males behind bars, with black students in inferior schools, with almost half of black homeowners in subprime mortgages...there’s plenty of work to do."

On NBC’s Nightly News on Wednesday, correspondent Ron Allen similarly questioned the NAACP’s relevance: "With an African-American in the White House and many discrimination battles won, the question is whether the NAACP is still necessary." Allen, like Whitaker, cited the organization’s leadership: "Jealous says the battle now is to close the social and economic achievement gap between people of color and mainstream America...A fight for justice and equality he insists must be carried on."

Neither Whitaker nor Allen applied a liberal political to the NAACP or featured any critics of the organization’s left-wing causes.

The CBS segment did offer some criticism of the organization when Whitaker cited Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, who challenged its necessity: "I ask myself the question if – if the NAACP disappeared, would – would anybody notice? And I had to say I don’t think they would...Their agenda is – is complete. It’s accomplished. They – they actually did it by the end of the sixties. The – the – the troubles afflicting black America, colored people, have more to do with poverty and economics than with discrimination. May I remind everybody, that we’ve got an African-American President now?"

At the same time, Whitaker went on to further cite Jealous, who claimed: "This country needs the – the NAACP because when we lift up even one community, we ultimately improve the way that all people in this country are treated...While we were the children of the dream, we had come of age just in time to find ourselves the most murdered generation in this country and the most incarcerated generation on the planet."

In the NBC report, Allen featured another quote from Jealous: "We fight for good schools. We fight for good jobs. We fight for safe communities for everybody. We've outlawed racial profiling and the death penalty in New Mexico. We are working for major reforms in the criminal justice system in Kansas and California."

Near the end of the CBS story, Whitaker included one final statement from Jealous, who exclaimed: "I think it’s hard sometimes for people to – who remember when there was a big iconic enemy like Jim Crow. That icon has broken into a whole bunch of different villains, predatory lending, over-incarceration, schools that are falling apart."

Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the CBS report:

9:35AM SEGMENT:

WHITAKER: Change unimaginable one hundred years ago, a black President who addresses black issues unflinchingly.

OBAMA: Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.

WHITAKER: And Attorney General Eric Holder dedicated to equal justice.

ERIC HOLDER: In racial terms, the country that existed before the Civil Rights Movement is almost unrecognizable to us today.

WHITAKER: Which some say begs the question, is the NAACP needed anymore? Is it even relevant? Is it time for the venerable organization to say ‘mission accomplished’?

CLARENCE PAGE: I ask myself the question if – if the NAACP disappeared, would – would anybody notice? And I had to say I don’t think they would.

WHITAKER: Clarence Page is a Washington-based syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

PAGE: Their agenda is – is complete. It’s accomplished. They – they actually did it by the end of the sixties. The – the – the troubles afflicting black America, colored people, have more to do with poverty and economics than with discrimination. May I remind everybody, that we’ve got an African-American President now?

BOND: Well, remember, we are not the ‘national association for the advancement of one colored person.’ We’re the NACCP, ‘association for the advancement of colored people.’

WHITAKER: Julian Bond.

BOND: We crossed a barrier. We haven’t crossed the finish line.

BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS: This country needs the – the NAACP because when we lift up even one community, we ultimately improve the way that all people in this country are treated.

WHITAKER: Benjamin Todd Jealous is the next generation, the new thirty-five-year-old president of the Century-Old Organization.

JEALOUS: While we were the children of the dream, we had come of age just in time to find ourselves the most murdered generation in this country and the most incarcerated generation on the planet.

WHITAKER: Jealous and Bond say with one of fifteen black males behind bars, with black students in inferior schools, with almost half of black homeowners in subprime mortgages-

UNIDENTIFIED MAN D: NAACP, national headquarters.

WHITAKER: -there’s plenty of work to do.

BOND: We have sued some of the nation’s leading mortgage companies, charging that they targeted racial minorities for these subprime loans that they knew the people couldn’t pay back and they did it deliberately.

JEALOUS: I think it’s hard sometimes for people to – who remember when there was a big iconic enemy like Jim Crow. That icon has broken into a whole bunch of different villains, predatory lending, over-incarceration, schools that are falling apart.

WHITAKER: The NAACP says its goal is to one day work itself out of business.

BOND: We like to hope that the day will come when we can look around and say that the gaps between blacks and whites in this country are vanished and disappeared. And, if it takes a hundred years more, we’re going to keep trying.

GROUP [Singing]: Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear-

Here is a full transcript of the NBC story:

7:00PM SEGMENT:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: The NAACP is celebrating its 100th anniversary. And when you think about our present era, just the first two stories in our broadcast tonight, after all, about the first African-American president and his nomination of the first Latina justice to the Supreme Court, then you understand why some folks are asking some hard questions about the relevance of an organization for, quote, "the advancement of colored people." But the answer isn't just that simple. And our own Ron Allen is covering tonight.

RON ALLEN: As the NAACP celebrates 100, its new, young leader takes center stage.

BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS: Good morning, my name is Benjamin Todd Jealous.

ALLEN: Ben Jealous is 36, just the 17th president to lead this organization steeped in history and tradition. Why did you want to lead this organization?

JEALOUS: My family has belonged to this organization for five generations, and I have a lot of opinions about how to run the place better.

ALLEN: Jealous is the biracial son of a white father and black mother. An Ivy League grad, a Rhodes scholar, a former head of a black newspaper association who later led a human rights foundation, and now is trying to win the NAACP’s trust.

RON WALTERS [PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND]: He hasn't been in sort of the traditional mold of African-American civil rights leadership. And to that extent there are people who don't know who he is.

ALLEN: However, Jealous’ age is one reason he was chosen to re-brand and reinvigorate an organization that first met here in this great hall in New York City a century ago. A proud history but an uncertain future.

BARACK OBAMA: And I will execute-

ALLEN: With an African-American in the White House and many discrimination battles won, the question is whether the NAACP is still necessary.

JEALOUS: We fight for good schools. We fight for good jobs. We fight for safe communities for everybody. We've outlawed racial profiling and the death penalty in New Mexico. We are working for major reforms in the criminal justice system in Kansas and California.

ALLEN: He has tried to do that by recruiting young activists. More than half a million people belong, most over 50 years old. But the fastest growing groups is under 25.

STEPHANIE BROWN: I first don't approach them with, ‘Hey, join the NAACP.’ I talk about issues going on in their communities, how do they feel, do they want to do something about it.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Our organization is changing because we don't have – we’re not fighting the same battles that my great-grandfather fought.

ALLEN: Jealous says the battle now is to close the social and economic achievement gap between people of color and mainstream America.

JEALOUS: We’ve come 100 years on this good road and we ain't turning back now, y’all. Thank you and God bless.

ALLEN: A fight for justice and equality he insists must be carried on. Ron Allen, NBC News, New York.

Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow Debate Sonia Sotomayor

Noel Sheppard — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:46:49 -0400

One of the sad byproducts of journalism's decline is that you rarely see a great debate on television anymore between a liberal and a conservative without it devolving into a lot of yelling, name calling, and folks talking over each other.

On Thursday night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow invited Pat Buchanan on to talk about the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

What ensued was a surprisingly civil and respectful ten minute discussion that should give viewers faith that it is still possible for folks on opposite sides of the political spectrum to converse like adults about controversial subjects (video embedded below the fold with transcript, file photo):

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: One prominent Republican who believes that the Republicans did not make enough of the issue of race at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing is my MSNBC colleague, Patrick J. Buchanan, who argued in his column this week that the hearings should have been seized even more by Republicans to try to win over white conservatives who feel aggrieved by racial issues.
He says, quote, "These are the folks that pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. What Republicans must do is expose Sotomayor as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males."
"Even if Sotomayor is confirmed," Pat says, "making the nation aware she a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an I assignment worth pursuing."
Joining us now is my MSNBC political colleague, Pat Buchanan.
Pat, it is-it's been far too long since you've been on the show.
It's so nice to see you.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to see you, Rachel.
MADDOW: So, your argument is that Republicans could reap political rewards by making the argument that Sotomayor essentially doesn't deserve to be on the supreme court, that she's only there because of her race. Is that-is that-did I understand your argument correctly?
BUCHANAN: Well, I think I would vote no on Sonia Sotomayor the same way I would have voted no on Harriet Miers-and I said so the first day she was nominated.
I don't think Judge Sonia Sotomayor is qualified for the United States Supreme Court. She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of the Constitution. She's never written anything that I've read in terms of a law review article or major book or something like that on the law.
And I do believe she's an affirmative action appointment by the president of the United States. He eliminated everyone but four women and then he picked the Hispanic. I think this is an affirmative action appointment and I would vote no.
MADDOW: And what do you-what do you think that affirmative action is for?
BUCHANAN: Affirmative action is to increase diversity by discriminating against white males. As Alan Bakke was discriminated at the University of California at Davis; As Brian Weber, that worker in Louisiana was discriminated against; As Frank Ricci and those firefighters were discriminated against; As Jennifer Gratz, was discriminated against and kept out of the University of Michigan which she set her heart on, even though her grades were far higher than people who were aloud in there.
That's the type-affirmative action is basically reverse discrimination against white males and it's as wrong as discrimination against black females and Hispanics and others. And that's why I oppose it.
MADDOW: I obviously-I have a different view about it, but I want to give you a chance to explain what you.
BUCHANAN: But why do you have a different view? Why is it OK to discriminate against white males?
MADDOW: Well, let me-let me just-let me ask-let me ask you this.
BUCHANAN: Sure.
MADDOW: Why do you think is that of the 110 Supreme Court justices we've had in this country, 108 of them have been white?
BUCHANAN: Well, I think white men were 100 percent of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Probably close to 100 percent of the people who died at Normandy.
This has been a country built basically by white folks in this country who are 90 percent of the entire nation-in 1960, when I was growing up, Rachel-and the other 10 percent were African-American who had been discriminated against. That's why.
MADDOW: But does that mean that you think that there are 108 of 110 white Supreme Court justices because white people essentially deserve to have 99.5 percent of those positions? That there's nothing-that doesn't reflect any sort of barrier to those positions by people who aren't white. You think that's what they've-you think that's just purely on the basis of what white people have deserved to get?
BUCHANAN: I think a lot of people get up there for a lot of reason, but my argument would be: get the finest mind you can get. Get real scholars. Whether you agree with Bork or Scalia or not, they're tremendous minds and I think there are other minds. I'm sure the Democratic Party, I'm sure has women there that can stand up head-to-head with Scalia and make the case, who have got tremendous credential, knowledge, background.
But this one doesn't have that. She was appointed because she's a Latina, a Hispanic and a woman.
MADDOW: She's also.
BUCHANAN: I mean, look at.
MADDOW: She is also the judicial nominee who has more judging experience than any judge has gone up in, say, in the past, I don't know, what is it, 70 years? She has been an appellate court judge of some distinction for a lot longer than Judge Roberts was, Judge Alito was. I mean, it's not like she was-she was picked out.
BUCHANAN: Rachel.
MADDOW: . she was like picked out of the minor leagues and brought up here, Pat.
BUCHANAN: Listen, it certainly is. Look at her own words in "The New York Times," from the tapes. It's in "The New York Times," June 11th. She said, "I'm an affirmative action baby."
MADDOW: Yes.
BUCHANAN: I got into Princeton on affirmative action. I got into Yale. I didn't have the scores that these other kids did.
How did she get on Yale law review? Affirmative action. How did she get on the federal bench by Moynihan? Moynihan needs a Hispanic woman just like Barack Obama needs a Hispanic woman.
That is not the criteria we ought to use, Rachel.
MADDOW: But, Pat.
BUCHANAN: ... for Supreme Court justices, conservative or liberal.
That's why I opposed Harriet Miers. I said I know she's going to vote with me. She's a good Christian woman. She's probably a fine lawyer, but she's not Supreme Court material, and neither is Sonia Sotomayor.
And I think-I think you know that, Rachel.
MADDOW: I don't know that at all.
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: And I would say that if you and I agree that what our country needs is to be able to choose from the largest possible pool of talent in order to be able to pick the people who are going to have to function at the highest levels so that our country can compete and our country to do all the hard things we need do, I would hope that you would see that picking 108 out of 110 white justices.
BUCHANAN: Rachel.
MADDOW: . to the Supreme Court means that other people aren't actually being appropriately considered. And the reason that you have affirmative action is that you recognize that the fact that people were discriminated against for hundreds of years in this country means that you sort of gained the system, unless you give other people a leg up.
BUCHANAN: It is not. It does not.
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: . the best schools and the best jobs-hold on, I let you talk for a while.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: She was put into the best schools. She was put into the best schools.
MADDOW: That's right. She was.
BUCHANAN: Of affirmative action, not because of ability, Rachel. She was put there, she said herself, because of where she came from. She's a Hispanic woman. She's from Puerto Rico. That's why she was passed over. Other students who applied there with better scores who were denied the right to go to Princeton.
MADDOW: Do you think that she got the grades that she got at Princeton on the basis of affirmative action, too?
BUCHANAN: I think what they do in the Ivy League, and you know it as well as I do, that half the class graduates cum laude these days.
MADDOW: How did you do at Georgetown compared to how she did at Princeton?
BUCHANAN: I'll tell you, I graduated higher in my high school, I will bet or as high as she did. And I certainly say, in Georgetown, I did. And I'll tell you, I will match my test scores against her-but I'm not qualified for the United States Supreme Court.
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: But, Pat, for you to argue that there's no basis on which the United States benefits.
BUCHANAN: Right.
MADDOW: . from having Hispanics be among the people who we choose the best and brightest from defies belief.
BUCHANAN: I don't.
MADDOW: The idea that you think we'll best serve by only choosing among 99.9 percent white people.
BUCHANAN: Hold it. No, no, no.
MADDOW: . to hold these jobs, I don't believe you believe it, Pat.
BUCHANAN: I-hold on-I believe everybody should get a chance to excel and be on the United States Supreme Court. But if I look at the U.S. track team in the Olympics, and they're all black folks, I don't automatically assume it's discrimination. I will say, "I think maybe those are the fastest guys we got, that maybe they're the fastest guys in the country, maybe they're the fastest in the world. If they're all-our Olympic team in hockey is eight white guys from Minnesota, I don't assume discrimination.
Why do you assume discrimination simply because you got one component on the Supreme Court? Where is the genius you think who's a woman and a feminist who sure ought to be on that Supreme Court? Go for her. Don't go for an affirmative action person you know was picked because she's a Latina and because she's a woman.
MADDOW: Pat, when I look at the United States Supreme Court and I see 108 out of 110 white people, I see 108 out of 110 men. I'm-I don't look at that and think, "God, white guys are naturally better at this type of work than other people who aren't getting these jobs." I don't think that way.
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: I want to hear you-I would love to hear your answer as to whether or not you think that is what explains it, too. Because, I think, what the more obvious explanation is, is that you have to be a white guy in order to get considered for these jobs and has been true since the dawn of time in this country.
BUCHANAN: No.
MADDOW: That's starting to break up now so that we can tap a bigger pool of talent. You should be happy about that for your country, Pat.
BUCHANAN: I do. I do. I'm happy when you got all 78 firemen can take a test, but if all the guys that win in the test are all white guys and one is Hispanic, I don't say, automatically, the test was fixed, bias, bigoted against black people, because I don't know that, Rachel.
And those guys did well in that test and they are victims of this evil affirmative action policy which says in effect that everybody's covered by the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws unless you're a white male and your parents and ancestors came from Europe. Then we can discriminate against you. That's what I am against.
MADDOW: Pat, do you-do you-are you happy that we've got a Latino on the Supreme Court for the first time or we're about to? Does that seem like a positive thing for the country?
BUCHANAN: I would-I think the Republicans had an outstanding Latino who had outstanding grades, who was brilliant and was gutted, Miguel Estrada.
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: Let me just ask you a question before going to talk about some other Latino who's not in question here. Are you happy for the United States of America for our prospect as a nation that we'll be the best that we can be, that there is a Latino on the Supreme Court for the first time ever, that that glass ceiling is broken. Do you see it as a positive thing?
BUCHANAN: If you say, be the best question we can be. We're not being the best we can be with Sonia Sotomayor and I think you know it.
MADDOW: Pat, I couldn't disagree with you more. I tribute-I credit you sticking to your gun. I think you're absolutely wrong about this and I think that by advocating that the Republican Party try to stir up racial animus among white voters.
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: You're dating yourself.
BUCHANAN: I say, you know, I think what they ought to do-they ought to defend the legitimate rights of white working-class folks who are the victims of discrimination, because that's the right thing to do and because it's the politically right thing to do. It so happens that here, that doing the right thing is the right political thing, standing up for Frank Ricci. We saw the face of-the face of a victim of these policies.
Rachel, you and your friends admire up there and in New York and you never look at these guys who are working class guys with their own dreams, just like Sonia Sotomayor.
MADDOW: Pat, I don't need a lecture from you about whether or not I know what working class.
BUCHANAN: You certainly do, Rachel.
(CROSSTALK)
MADDOW: I really don't need a lecture from you about what I think about working class Americans or what anybody else in New York, including Sonia Sotomayor who grew up in the Bronx thinks about working-class Americans.
BUCHANAN: What do you think?
MADDOW: A lot of things divide us, Pat. Race is one of those. But there's a lot of other ways in which we just gratify as a country, and for you to privilege race and say that what we really need to make sure we tap, politically, is white people's racial grievances, you're playing with fire and you're dating yourself. You're living in the 1950s, Pat.
BUCHANAN: Maybe I'm dating-I'm dating in the 1960s when the civil rights act was passed. Do you think Frank Ricci and those guys were treated justly when they were denied that promotion because they were white?
MADDOW: Pat Buchanan, MSNBC political analyst-I'm very sorry that we're out of time. It's nice to have you back on the show, Pat. Thanks.
BUCHANAN: I've enjoyed it. As I always do, Rachel.

Say what you will about Maddow, but she's the only thing of close to redeeming value featured by MSNBC during prime time.

Regardless of her far left-leaning views, she not only invites conservatives on her show, but also typically treats them with far more respect than do her colleagues.

Nice debate, folks...and thank you.

How Will Media Report Senators Wanting Healthcare Reform Delay?

Noel Sheppard — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:54:01 -0400

Six key moderate senators on Friday called for a slowdown in the White House's push for a healthcare reform bill.

Their decision was apparently precipitated by the Congressional Budget Office announcement Thursday that the legislation currently being discussed not only won't reduce healthcare costs, but also will have negative longterm ramifications to the economy given the increase in federal debt.

With this in mind, Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) sent Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.) the following:

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell:
In the current debate about our health care system, we are firmly committed to enactment of comprehensive reform this year. That reform must reduce premiums and administrative costs, expand choices, and increase coverage for all Americans. We are eager to work constructively with Senate leadership and agree that this is an historic opportunity which makes it imperative to proceed thoughtfully and responsibly. Our efforts will affect virtually every American.

The American people expect us to adopt comprehensive health reform that addresses the priorities we have outlined without detrimentally affecting those who have health insurance or increasing the national debt. This week, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf testified that the currently introduced health reform bills will not reduce costs. We are faced with the dual challenges of pressing ahead to pass legislation by the end of the year and to produce the reform the American people need.

We appreciate the work that has been done by Senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Finance committees, but in view of the Budget Director's statement, there is much heavy lifting ahead. We support the efforts of Finance Committee members to produce a bipartisan bill, despite calls from both sides of the aisle to rush forward or delay indefinitely. While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible, we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the U.S.

We look forward to working with you to develop legislation that is vital to the well-being of the American people and urge you to resist timelines which prevent us from achieving the best result. This opportunity is rare and the impact will last for generations.

Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
United States Senator

Olympia J. Snowe
United States Senator

Joseph I. Lieberman
United States Senator

Susan M. Collins
United States Senator

Mary L. Landrieu
United States Senator

Ron Wyden
United States Senator

Given media's undying support for healthcare reform and President Obama, how will this letter get reported in the next 48 hours?

God and Guns: CNN's Costello Pits Jesus Against Gun Ownership

Mike Sargent — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:46:31 -0400

Owning an semiautomatic AK-47, much less giving them away free with the purchase of a pickup truck, seems just "a tad irresponsible" to Carol Costello. The CNN anchor, who said she grew up with guns in her house as a teenager, tacked to the left on gun rights in her interview with Kansas City auto dealer Mark Muller, who is giving away vouchers for the Russian-made rifles with the purchase of a new truck.

Although Muller explained that only customers who pass a federal background check at a licensed firearms dealer will be able to get a gun, Costello arbitrarily drew the line of responsibility at owning a handgun:

COSTELLO: You know, some people watching this might think, you know, owning a handgun is one thing, but owning an AK-47 is something else, and maybe this is just a tad irresponsible.

As if to put icing on the proverbial cake, Costello also hit Muller by trying to pick a theological fight of sorts, wondering if Jesus would approve of carrying guns. [CNN video embedded below]

It’s a bit odd that one would resort to the eminent theologian’s argument of “WWJD” to disapprove of one’s gun choice – but nevertheless, Muller tied the accidental theologian in a logical knot:

COSTELLO: I understand evil in the world, but I'm just questioning the - like, a semi-assault weapon to protect yourself. That's all I'm saying. Your motto is God, guns, guts and American. Why did you come up with that particular motto?

MULLER: Actually it's God, guns, guts and American pickup trucks, because we sell cars.

COSTELLO: Right, but you include God in that and, you know, some might wonder why God is included in a motto that it also includes guns.

MULLER: You don't have a problem with God, do you?

COSTELLO: No, I don't. But the combination some people might between God and guns, some people might have a problem with that.

MULLER: We're a Christian nation. We're Christian people. I believe that 70 percent, 80 percent of this nation would classify themselves as Christians. I'd say 90 percent of the people in this country believe in God, whoever their God is. And to try to remove God from everything. I think is (INAUDIBLE).

COSTELLO: That's not what I'm saying.

MULLER: I think -- I don't think we need AK-47s if more people...

COSTELLO: I'm saying putting God in a motto that also includes guns might be a little upsetting to some people.

MULLER: You don't think God wants us to defend ourselves? I'm confused. You know.

COSTELLO: I don't know. I mean, I could ask you the question, you know, we could do the what would Jesus do, would he carry a gun?

MULLER: No, they didn't have guns back then, but I do believe he would carry a sword if he needed it. But he was so powerful, he didn't need any weapon.

COSTELLO: That is true. Thanks so much for joining us, Mr. Muller. We appreciate it.

Oh my. Well it would seem that Costello is attempting to marginalize Muller, pointing out the ‘God and guns’ connection. The problem is not necessarily God, nor is the problem necessarily guns; it is the combination of the two which classifies Muller – at least in Costello’s judgement – as a right-wing gun nut.

And this isn’t all. Muller clearly points out at the beginning of the interview that he does not give away the weapon itself. Instead, he gives a voucher for the value of the weapon, which an individual may use to buy whatever weapon they wish – not necessarily a Russian-made assault weapon:

MULLER: You know, we're not just going to give people an AK-47 gun. You know, felons buy cars, too. What we are going to do is we're going to give them a voucher where they can go to their local gun dealer and/or we have local gun dealers we would strongly recommend where they can go buy a gun and go through the proper background checks and so that, you know, the guns end up in the right hands.

COSTELLO: So, how much money, how much does an AK-47 cost, I'm just curious?

MULLER: It depends. You can get a good AK-47 for $450, maybe $500.

Not that Costello could be expected to know, but that amount will buy a fairly nice handgun as well – well within Costello’s view of the norm.

On a humorous note, for someone who grew up around guns, Costello sure has trouble with some of the terminology:

COSTELLO: I understand evil in the world, but I'm just questioning the - like, a semi-assault weapon to protect yourself.

What, pray tell, is a “semi-assault weapon?” And would the correct tactical use thereof be to partially assault one’s attacker?

WaPo Mag Editor: 'Any Latina Could Make a Better Decision Than a White Man'

Noel Sheppard — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:44:07 -0400

In today's "She Really Didn't Say That, Did She?" segment, a contributing editor to Washington Post magazine claimed that if Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor were being really honest with America, "[S]he probably would want to say, 'Not only do I mean a wise Latina, I meant any Latina could make a better decision than a white man could.'"

Wow!

For those unfamiliar, besides being contributing editor of the Post mag, Cathy Areu publishes Catalina which she created to portray a positive image of Hispanic women in the media and entertainment industry.

With that in mind, appearing on CNN's "Campbell Brown" Wednesday, Areu made statements that if made by a white person would certainly be deemed racist (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, h/t NBer dronetek):

CAMPBELL BROWN, HOST: So, what have we learned? Judge Sotomayor follows the law. Not exactly a controversial statement. Let's dig a little deeper into, though, not just what's being said at the hearings but what perhaps they would like to be saying at these hearings.
This is a segment we're calling "Sotomayor Kabuki Theater." And here to help us out, Sam Seder, who is co-host of Air America's "Break Room Live" and Cathy Areu is contributing editor of "The Washington Post" magazine.
Welcome to both of you. I just want to go through some of the examples that have just kind of been mind-blowing to me watching all of this. Take a listen. This is one of the exchanges on the now infamous "wise Latina" comment. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Have you ever seen a case where -- to use your example -- the "wise Latina" made a better decision than non- Latina judges?
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: No, my speech was intending to inspire the students to understand the richness that their backgrounds could bring to the judicial process.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: Are you standing by that statement or are you saying that it was a bad idea, and you -- are you disavowing that statement?
SOTOMAYOR: It is clear from the attention that my words have gotten, and the manner in which it has been understood by some people, that my words failed. They didn't work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Words chosen very carefully now. Cathy, if she weren't sitting before this committee right now, and with so much at stake, would she really be backing off of that statement?
CATHY AREU, "WASHINGTON POST" MAGAZINE: No. As a wise Latina, I can tell you, no, she's not backing down. And she probably would want to say, "Not only do I mean a wise Latina, I meant any Latina could make a better decision than a white man could."
BROWN: OK.
AREU: I'm just saying, I'm just saying. It's not just in her mind. She may not say it, but maybe she's thinking that.

Wow!

Let's assume for a second that before Samuel Alito was confirmed, it had been revealed that he had on a number of occasions said, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

Assuming his nomination wasn't immediately withdrawn -- which of course it would have been -- let's further assume that during the confirmation hearings, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said on Fox News: "As a wise white man, I can tell you, no, he's not backing down. And he probably would want to say, "Not only do I mean a wise white man, I meant any white man could make a better decision than a Latina woman could."

Think there'd be calls for his immediate termination?

Yet, Brown didn't even bat an eye when her guest made this statement.

To quote Areu, I'm just saying.

House Panel Votes Huge $500 Billion Tax Increase; Networks Couldn't Care Less

Rich Noyes — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:29:07 -0400

The House Ways and Means committee approved a half-trillion dollar tax increase overnight, but the ABC and NBC morning news shows offered only a single sentence to the development, while CBS’s Early Show skipped it entirely.

Neither NBC’s Today nor ABC’s Good Morning America mentioned the tax increases $544 billion price tag, as each newscast folded the development into larger pieces on President Obama’s push for health care “reform.”

ABC’s Deborah Roberts first gave a mere two sentences to the CBO report that contradicts White House claims that Obama’s plan would save money. She then mentioned the big tax increase: “Meantime, a House committee approved billions in new taxes on the wealthy to pay for the reforms.”

Over on NBC’s Today, Natalie Morales, in introducing a longer report by correspondent Savannah Guthrie, mentioned that “During the night, the House Weighs and Means committee voted to increase taxes on higher income earners as part of a health care reform bill.”

MRC’s Geoff Dickens noted that neither the Guthrie piece nor a subsequent segment with NBC’s David Gregory on health care specifically mentioned the tax increase, although Gregory dwelled on the “sentimental” push on Capitol Hill to quickly ram through a health care bill in the next few weeks as an homage to ailing liberal Senator Ted Kennedy:

MATT LAUER: This, this August deadline is looming and it's a tough one to meet but, but you think there could be what I think you called it, “The Ted Kennedy Factor” here. What's that going to be?

GREGORY: Well, look, Ted Kennedy is a driving force behind this legislation. He's worked with the White House. He's talking to all sides in this debate. All sides in the debate say, “If he were here, perhaps it would be a better bill. We'd get it a little bit faster.” So he's involved. And I think there is a factor here. He wants this. The President wants it. I think there's gonna be certainly a sentimental favorite in terms of getting this legislation done. This is gonna go down to the wire in terms of whether there are Democratic votes. Right now, the Republicans are squarely against it. Maybe some of that opposition falls. It all depends on how close they get to making it look like it's inevitable. And this is really do or die time.

As for the taxes, today’s Wall Street Journal notes that the taxes in the House health care bill (which would still, the Journal says, leave the scheme $300 billion short), coupled with tax changes already incorporated in President Obama’s budget proposals, would propel top tax rates in the U.S. to levels higher in most European countries, including France and Sweden, as the accompanying chart shows.

“With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history,” the Journal’s editors marveled.

An excerpt from Friday’s Wall Street Journal editorial, “A Reckless Congress”:

Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Obama's February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate....

The [House health care] bill's main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama's budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.

This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.

The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.

House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America's millionaires aren't that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn't materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax....

The most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.

CBS Early Show Praises Obama’s ‘Sermon-like’ NAACP Speech

Kyle Drennen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:44:14 -0400

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Randall Pinkston described President Obama’s Thursday address to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: "The crowd responded to his soaring, almost sermon-like rhetoric."

Obama’s speech was part of the NAACP’s annual convention and marked the 100^th anniversary of the organization’s founding. Fill-in co-host Jeff Glor introduced Pinkston’s report by declaring: "The NAACP has spent a century trying to break down racial barriers...last night's anniversary party in New York featured the man who broke the ultimate barrier."

In contrast to the two news briefs the Early Show dedicated to the President’s speech, both ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today offered only single-sentence reports. [audio available here]

Here is the full transcript of the Early Show reports:

7:12AM SEGMENT:

JEFF GLOR: The NAACP is 100 years old, and President Obama joined the celebration in New York last night. Mr. Obama said, without the NAACP's efforts, he would not be president. He also said race relations in America can still be improved.

BARACK OBAMA: There probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that. But make no mistake, the pain of discrimination is still felt in America.

GLOR: The President said he wants young people to quote, ‘be aspiring to be scientists, engineers, doctors, and teachers, not just ballers and rappers.’

8:01AM SEGMENT:

JEFF GLOR: The NAACP has spent a century trying to break down racial barriers. And as CBS News correspondent Randall Pinkston reports now, last night's anniversary party in New York featured the man who broke the ultimate barrier.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking Barriers; President Addresses NAACP]

RANDALL PINKSTON: When the founders of the NAACP held their first meeting 100 years ago, the idea of an African-American commander in chief was a distant dream, but no more.

BARACK OBAMA: What we celebrate tonight is not simply the journey the NAACP has traveled, but the journey that we as Americans have traveled over the past 100 years.

PINKSTON: The crowd responded to his soaring, almost sermon-like rhetoric.

OBAMA: Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. But that's not a reason to get bad grades. That's not a reason to cut class. That's not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands. You cannot forget that. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court justice. I want them aspiring to be the President of the United States of America.

PINKSTON: No matter the difficulty, Mr. Obama insists there can be no excuses because there is work to do for a new generation who can see, perhaps more than ever, that hard work can make dreams come true. Randall Pinkston, CBS News, New York.