Posts Tagged ‘Lanny Davis’

Charles Schumer: All-Too-Typical Democrat Megalomaniac Jerk

August 28, 2008

This was truly amazing, although it really shouldn’t be.

Apparently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not the only “queen bee of the universe” wannabe.

Here’s the skinny: Bill O’Reilly had Karl Rove on to give a Republican response to the Democrat’s dog and pony show.  Knowing that Karl Rove is smarter than any two Democrats, O’Reilly, in the interest of fairness, decides to have Lanny Davis and Charles Schumer come on the program under the desperate hope that they might somehow come up with a brain between them.

Lanny Davis is in the makeup room when Charles Schumer – with his entourage in tow – comes into the makeup room (no surprise that Schumer wants to wear makeup after this display of unladylike behavior).  Schumer asks Davis – a fellow liberal Democrat in good standing – what he’s doing there.  And when Davis explains that they’re going to be on the program together, Charles Schumer erupts into a diva-like tantrum and storms out.  Schumer can be heard on the phone shouting at someone; one of Schumer’s “people” is yelling at someone else on his cell.

A little bit later an O’Reilly producer comes up to Lanny Davis.  Would he be okay with bowing out so the queen diva can go on the program alone? Absolutely not, says Davis.  Is that what Senator Schumer is asking for? Lanny Davis, you see, had been the original guest, and Schumer had just been a late invite (you know, for the brain-thing).

Continue reading for the meaty part of the write up, in a minute-by-minute narrative: (more…)

Sleazy Tabloid Rag Morally Superior To Top Democrat, Major Media

August 9, 2008

Sadly, this comes as no surprise to me.

I wrote about this when the evidence of the affair was already way beyond overwhelming, back when John Edwards was caught visiting Rielle Hunter in a hotel room in the wee hours of the morning.

Up until recently, John Edwards has refused to comment on a National Enquirer story that’s been unfolding for over a year. Asked about it on Thursday at an event in New Orleans, Edwards pompously sniffed: “I have no idea what you’re asking about. I’ve responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don’t respond to these lies and you know that … and I stand by that.”

Democrat strategist Lanny Davis somehow managed to climb up onto his gigantic moral high horse yesterday long enough to chide Fox News for covering the scandal (“It’s a private matter, blah blah blah.”). But where was this guy when Republican politicians were getting nailed? It would have been nice if you could have shown up on that high horse of yours then, Lan.

Okay, so John’s wife Elizabeth has been diagnosed with terminal, incurable cancer, and the guy that was very nearly our Vice President responded by getting busy with some homewrecker that filmed the pretty boy.

Now, it is something that such a major Democrat player is revealed to be a slimeball and a soulless liar. You’ve got major liberal donors (e.g. Fred Baron) showing their willingness to financially bail out a creep in the act of being a creep; you’ve got money games being played, with the mistress and the Edwards staff campaign fall guy (Andrew Young) being moved to mansions to keep the lie going; you’ve got a Democrat candidate for president and vice president cynically cashing out on the loyalty of those around him.

But the bigger deal about this story is the fact that a slimy tabloid rag is demonstrated to be morally superior to not only this top Democrat, but the major news organizations as well.

The National Enquirer‘s Barry Levine was on Geraldo Rivera’s Fox News program on Saturday pointing out that the Enquirer had “left a lot of bread crumbs way back in October” for the mainstream media, and that during the campaign for the Democratic nomination “all the time the mainstream press is following [Edwards] around, this affair was happening right under their noses.”

The New York Times hasn’t deigned to cover the Edwards scandal, even when it became blatantly obvious. But these ideologues didn’t have a any problem whatsoever literally creating an affair out of scratch to tarnish Republican John McCain. The title of the story itself – “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk” – shows just how out to destroy McCain’s character The New York Times was. And there was no basis for this innuendo hearsay story at all.

And The Los Angeles Times not only refused to run a story in their own backyard when it reflected poorly on a Democrat, but they even went to the lengths of trying to cover up the story in their blog.

The Enquirer has had a whole bunch of ammo last year on this, but the elite media – not wanting to damage a top Democrat during the campaign season – put “the cone of silence” over the story, ala Maxwell Smart. Their silence about Edwards didn’t stop The New York Times from running a pseudo-story broadside about a manufactured John McCain affair.

In an unrelated but quite related story, Fox News pointed out yet another example – in its coverage of yet another major Democrat scandal going on – of the leftist bias that now so completely characterizes the media:

Selective Reporting?

We told you about Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick getting out of jail Friday. Thursday, when the Associated Press reported that he had been imprisoned for violating terms of his bond in his perjury case, the AP failed to mention his party affiliation. Kilpatrick is a Democrat.

But back on July 29, when Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was indicted, the AP made his party affiliation clear. The headline read, “Ted Stevens indicted, longest-serving GOP senator.” The article included the word “Republican” seven times and “GOP” four times.

Media watchdog Web site reports that both “ABC World News” and “NBC Nightly News” also failed to report Kilpatrick’s party affiliation.

It’s a shame. If you want politically neutral news, don’t turn to The New York Times, or The Los Angeles Times, or the Associated Press, or ABC, or NBC. Way too often they can only be counted on to try to help Democrats and hurt Republicans. Nope. If you want honest coverage, you’ve got to turn to the people that run stories about alien abductions, paparazzi trash, and half-dog, half-human babies.

The funny thing is that, even as major media are now forced to cover the Edwards story (due to prurient interests), they are covering it on very different terms from their coverage of Republican sex scandals. I constantly see the question, “Should we be covering this story? Is it good for society? How is it relevant?” When such questions never occupy the debate in covering Republican scandals. Let me just put it this way: if Sen. Larry Craig in a restroom is a story, then former Sen., V.P. candidate, and Presidential candidate John Edwards in a hotel room is a story as well. Yet we find the media in hand-wringing introspection over the latter when it seemed only to exult in the former.

John Edwards certainly ought to be ashamed. But the press should be hanging their heads as well.

Hillary Clinton’s Next Move

June 4, 2008

Although Barack Obama holds all the required delegates, Hillary Clinton still holds a lot more cards than most liberals want to acknowledge.

People have been debating Hillary’s end-game strategy for some time.  Obviously, with Obama ostensibly clinching the magic number of delegates, Hillary’s strategy must necessarily begin to reveal itself.

One of the guests on June 3rds Larry King Live was Kamala Harris, the District Attorney for uber-liberal San Francisco.  She said, “I have faith in Democrats to do the right thing,” expressing her Obama-camp hope that Hillary Clinton will swiftly do the best thing for the Democratic Party and fold up her campaign tent.

Well, I sure don’t.  I count on Democrats to do the most self-serving thing imaginable, and then spin their self-centeredness with the smarmy rhetoric of, ‘It’s a far, far better thing I do…’.

Larry King asked Wolf Blitzer, “The pundits all said she was going to withdraw tonight.  What happened?”

You see, too darn many in the media – who couldn’t be more in the pro-Obama camp if they were on his payroll – have been telling us what Hillary should do, and would do, in a further effort to pressure her to drop out so their Golden Child could win.

Arianna Huffington was also on the program, talking of the wonder of having a black man as the nominee near the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech.  She also said that Barack Obama’s candidacy marks “the end of the fear of God,” which just goes to show just how godless liberals have actually become.

The fact that Obama has now lost state after state by the largest margins ever seen by a nominee of either political party, and the fact that Obama lost South Dakota last night by near double digits when everyone predicted he would win it handily doesn’t fit into the media narrative.  So they ignore it, or “put it in context” in an Obama-favoring way.

Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been increasingly becoming frustrated with being treated like Republicans.  Everything they say is spun in an unflattering way.   Every flaw is magnified, while the media quickly spins the positive side of their liberal darling’s every problem in the interest of “providing context.”  Nasty stories are published  about them that generate a lot of negative attention even though they have little in terms of substantiation to them. that sort of thing.  Republicans have been experiencing this sort of treatment for years.

Heck, the very fact that Hillary Clinton even spoke last night was spun by the media as somehow constituting a slap in the face of Barack Obama on the night of  his “historic victory.”  It was given to the Obama campaign to oh-so-magnaminously say that they didn’t consider it an insult.  Oh, Barack; you’re so… so wonderful!

And the Clintons – who benefited from that same media bias for years – certainly deserve the talionic justice of experiencing the other side.

Bill Clinton got a chance to erupt a bit about the instantly famous Vanity Fair hit piece:

“You know he didn’t use a single name, cite a single source in all those things he said. It’s just slimy. It’s part of the national media’s attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It’s just the most biased press coverage in history. It’s another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn’t do anything about it. The first day he said ‘Ah, ah, ah well.’ Because that’s what they do– he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain– maybe I better quit the church. It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it.”

“But I’m telling ya, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away– because they know exactly what it is– this has been the most rigged press coverage in modern history– and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn’t the first dishonest piece he’s written about me or her.”

“Anytime you read a story that slimes a public figure with anonymous quotes, it oughta make the bells go off in your head. Because anytime somebody uses those things– he wrote the story in his head in advance, and he just goes around and tries to find some coward to say whatever they want to say, hoping to get some benefit out of it. It didn’t bother me. It shouldn’t bother you.”

Does this sound like the tone of a man who just can’t wait to patch things up with the Obama campaign for the good of the Democratic Party?  Bill Clinton is mad as hell about Obama’s character assassination by proxy and the biased liberal media elite that piles on.

Don’t think there aren’t a lot of sour grapes packed into that Clinton w[h]ine.

So the same media that has been saying that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for months is now predicting that she will drop out in order to show that she is a loyal Democrat.  The implication, of course, being that if she doesn’t drop out she will be revealing that she is a traitor to the Democratic Cause.

And so we come to the Lanny Davis open letter:

Dear Senator Obama,

We write you because we believe it is very important for the Democrats to win back the presidency in 2008.  To do so, we must field the strongest possible ticket for the Democratic Party.  We believe the 2008 election could be close.  And your selection of a vice presidential candidate may make the difference between victory and defeat.

We write to urge you to select  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be your choice for vice president because we believe that she would be, by far, the most qualified and strongest candidate to be your running mate.

Both you and Senator Clinton during this campaign have demonstrated strengths in different segments of the electorate and in different parts of the country. Together,  you stand the best chance of making U.S. history not once but twice — the first African American president and the first female vice president since the founding of our great nation.

We know this is ultimately your decision on who is to be your running mate.  But with the greatest respect, we ask you to select Senator Clinton in recognition of the more than 17 million Democrats who supported her at the polls and who, in combination with your more than 17 million supporters, would form the base of a successful presidential campaign in the November election.

Lanny Davis was on the June 3 Larry King Live program claiming that Hillary Clinton would certainly never attempt to force her way onto the Obama ticket.

But Davis’s letter “polite advice” to the Obama campaign provides the narrative for Clinton’s future moves.

Hillary Clinton is perfectly poised to say, “If the Obama camp wants to reconcile the Democratic Party, they know how to do it.  And I have already expressed my willingness to serve on the ticket for the good of the Party and the good of the country.”

If Barack Obama refuses to allow Hillary on the ticket, and loses the election as her supporters don’t turn out for him, well, who’s fault is that?

Hillary doesn’t have to drop out of the race, because she still has the ostensibly selfless cause of standing up for the rights of Michigan and Florida voters to have their votes fully counted.  She can push this thing all the way to the DNC convention in August.

Hillary has the twin option of either forcing her way onto the Democratic ticket, or else allowing Obama to twist in the wind while her supporters stay home or actually vote for McCain so she can run in 2012 – and she can do either one while claiming to be trying to do the best thing for the Democratic Party and the will of the Democratic voters.

It is a widely acknowledged fact that Barack Obama does not want Hillary Clinton (and Bill too, of course) as his running mate.

But if Obama blinks under the pressure, and accepts Hillary Clinton on the ticket, one thing you can bet is that the media headline WON’T be “Obama Appeases Clintons.”

That, you see, would be spinning right; and the media only spins left.  So it would be worded something like “Obama Unites Divided Party” instead.