I really like Morning Joe, I like Joe, I like Mika, I like Barnicle. They drive me nuts a lot because I DO like them. If I didn’t I wouldn’t care. (its the same way with Andrew Sullivan, he was one of the first blogs I ever read and when he went over the hill it hurt because I remember how great he used to be)

Today on Twitter he is doing a pubic service in a series of tweets explaining the political stunt used by Democrats who rather have a political point than help for 9/11 responders.

His tweets in sequence:

first

For those who don’t understand King/Weiner debate, here are the facts….

second

JoeNBC

1. You need 218 votes to pass a bill under regular order in the House of Representatives.

third

JoeNBC

2. Pelosi had over 250 votes to pass the 9/11 bill to help NY firefighters and cops.

fourth

JoeNBC

3. Pelosi and Democrats chose to bring up the bill in a way that would require a 2/3rds vote, effectively killing the bill.

fifth

JoeNBC

4. This procedure is called a “suspension” vote and is for non-controversial measures like naming post offices.

sixth

JoeNBC

5. Pelosi could have ruled Republican amendments out of order and still taken the majority-wins vote.

seventh

JoeNBC

I know many rabid ideologues don’t let facts get in the way, but House leaders chose to kill a 9/11 relief bill they could have passed.

Some might think this is unnecessary, but you should never assume that just because you know something other people do as well. People have to be constantly reminded by nature.

More please.

Andrew Breitbart at Big Government notes a NYT correction that the Mainstream media has ignored:

Let’s go over that again:

* The Times is admitting that there is absolutely no evidence that any epithets were shouted at the Congressman by any member of the Tea Party.
* This correction demonstrates we have finally proven our point to the nation’s most eminent and influential liberal media organ: that Rep. Andre Carson lied when he told the AP that members of the Tea Party hurled the “N-word” 15 times during the March 20 health-care rally that took place at the U.S. Capitol.

That’s great, as far as it goes – a thorough vindication of the Tea Party — but it doesn’t go far enough.

* It’s not enough for the Times to make a correction having let that calumny sit out there unrebuked for weeks and months and then, way after the fact, issue a correction.
* It’s not enough because the Times continues to imply that something racially charged might happened on the steps of the Capitol, when we have shown conclusively, via multiple videos of the moment in question, that nothing of the sort occurred

Not bad for a “conservative propagandist” eh Chuck?

Will the media that attacked Breitbart with glee report this story? Will Cokie Roberts retract? Will George Stephanopoulos who kindly asked Media Matters Eric Boehlert for permission to show Andrew’s videos do so? How about the other papers? How about the NAACP and every commentator who mentioned it as fact during the Sherrod kerfuffle?

Not bloody likely is it?

memeorandum thread here.

…about media coverage.

Let’s ask every democratic candidate what they think of Angle’s statement, if they mock it or critique her for it then in the spirit of that question we should immediately follow up with the toughest possible questions on the most uncomfortable topics that said candidate doesn’t want to answer. When the candidate or their press and campaign people duck or give “No Comment” they should be pressed, after all they think Angle is foolish for trying to get favorable coverage then they should be willing to answer the tough questions.

The Truth is every candidate wants favorable coverage, every candidate tries to answer what they want and duck what they don’t. Angle being a normal person said aloud what every person knows.

What a concept, a candidate actually saying the truth. No wonder the left is outraged!

Perhaps we should ask every democrat their position on the Ground Zero Mosque (or as Rush put it, the Islamic Victory Lap). Right now their reaction to said question is duck and cover.

Question: Why did Tycoon Sidney Harman purchase Newsweek and take on its debts as described by the Daily Caller?

After all you don’t want to risk a magazine browsed by many disinterested readers in doctor’s offices around the country to be exposed to anything resembling conservative thought. What would wife in congress say?

Hey if rich liberals want to throw their money away, that’s their business.

Memeorandum thread here.

The Gods of Irony head’s are now exploding.

Update: This comes from a discussion of hiring quotas that were included in the bank bill. Brown and Mika both came down on “White Men” and maintained that if there were more women in charge in Wall Street than the bank meltdown wouldn’t have happened. After all we know that women are not greedy and could never run a company into the ground or lie or steal or cheat.

Are we actually hearing people saying this in the year 2010? I was waiting for them to call for Wall Street to be run by a “Wise Latina”.

The details:

Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have signed a letter complaining that Section 324 of the conference report titled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” “includes a section on race and gender that even those who pride themselves on keeping up with national affairs may have failed to notice.” This provision, which can be found on page 172 of the conference report, may lead to unconstitutional racial and gender preferences being forced on financial institutions covered by the new law.

There’s more:

The Commissioners further argue that these new bureaucrats will be empowered to shall “’develop standards’ for ‘assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency’ and ‘develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all businesses and activities of the agency.” According to the letter, this new mandate will cover “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.” If these institutions are doing business with the government, newly minted bureaucrats will be allowed to study the racial and gender composition of these covered entities work forces to search for companies with not enough minorities and women in a decision making capacity.

If I’m Scott Brown, and the senators from Maine, I’m feeling pretty foolish right now, and you should be.

Update 2: Newsbusters wasted no time jumping on this. They miss the irony part.

Who knew that Sullivan’s Syndrome might have a positive side effect:

If you want to know why the allegedly liberal media didn’t touch – and still won’t touch – this story, look no further. It has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with their politics. Notice the core modus operandi of the political operative, not the journalist. When dealing with a story: first ask yourself not if it is true but whether the outcome benefits your side. Second, write things in defense of this that you cannot possibly know. Palin a “wonderful mother”? How on earth did Klein know that?

I’m reminded of the line from Screwtape XIII where Screwtape comments that a “patient” is: “defended from strong temptations to social ambition by a still stronger taste for tripe and onions” His trig trutherism is such a deeply held belief that it removes the blinders from his eyes to the dangerous of journolist and the lies therin one more quote:

This is your liberal media, ladies and gentlemen: totally partisan, interested in the truth only if it advances their agenda, and devoid of any balls whatsoever.

His Palin derangement comes through in the next lines blinding to the fact that of course the press would have the willingness to attack Palin in 2012 just not with Trig Trutherism. I will say this for him: He was honest enough in his delusion to openly admit it and fight for it, not so others.

Via Sissywillis on Twitter

Top memeorandum thread here.

How Ironic is it that Sullivan’s trig trutherism might be the thing that forces the journolist into the MSM? I know the Lord works in mysterious ways but this takes the cake.

Update: Who the **** is Leo La-Port?

Update 2: Ok that name I recognize. All you need to make news is a fedora and a trenchcoat to sit on.

Various news outlets are treating the story of the three Gay Cathlolic priests out getting laid in Italy as a “church scandal”. This is incorrect. Before you faint dead away let me explain:

The Huge church scandals of the last decade involving priests were a church scandal not because of what they did. (Which was scandalous and sinful) but because when knowledge of this came to their higher ups, they to their shame hid it, moved the priests around and/or didn’t report it to the proper authorities. That turned the sin of an individual (the priest in general) into a scandal of the church (an official action) and a sin by their superiors as well.

If instead this had been handled publicly when it happened it could have been addressed and stopped. Instead sin begot sin and it’s taken a lot of time, effort and money to weed this stuff out. In trying to avoid the exposure of scandalous behavior they created an actual scandal.

Now take a look at these priests in Italy. They are without a question sinning mortally, their behavior is scandalous but unless their superiors knew this was going on and looked the other way, OR if they do not take some kind of action, it is not a church scandal. It is individual sin. As the church has stated:

The Rome diocese pledged to pursue “with rigour any behaviour that is unworthy of the priestly life”.

It added: “No one obliges them to remain priests and keep enjoying the advantages.

“Consistency demands that they reveal themselves. We don’t wish them any harm, but we cannot accept that the honour of all the others is dragged through the mud because of their behaviour.”

If further information comes out concerning this then that’s another story, until then; No!

…so far not a word concerning journolist, or the daily caller stuff yet. We are at 8:10 and nothing yet.

8:15 Still nothing.

8:20 We’re into commercial, absolutely no mention. Cripes were these guys on vacation with Bob Schieffer?

8:23 Still no Journolist. I’m betting on a single CYA question just before he leaves so he can give an unchallenged response. Will I be wrong?

8:30 He appears to be gone, not even the CYA question. If they’re not ashamed they ought to be. They had better waive the not having 2 Fitchburg guys (Mike Barnicle) working for them and hire me posthaste. That would give them at least one person in favor of the war and one person willing to ask Ezra Klein the journolist question. Hey I’ll can blog for you from home 5 days a week for $20 an hour, it’s a bargain!

Update: How is it possible that people who actually get paid to do journalism could actually do this? How can people who claim to ask the tough question let this go? It’s an offense against their professional honor. This is why I say that the real offense of media bias is the ability to decide what stories are stories. Morning Joe decided that their audience didn’t need to hear about this, so they will not.

Joe, Mika, Barnicle, you guys are better than this.

Update Instalanche: Welcome all. Some other morning joe tidbits from today here and here, check out my latest examiner column here, an interesting take on the OK governer’s race at the Lonely Conservative here, the Senate race in Del at The Other McCain here and if you like Doctor. Who check out my reviews all the Series 5 episodes, start here and just keep clicking.

issues this correction:

The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members. emphasis mine

Of course as Powerline notes in their post:

Someday the Times may go all the way and admit that the epithets “reportedly” directed at Lewis (reported by Lewis himself, that is) never occurred. In the meantime, the paper is careful to assure its readers that Tea Party members have made “a number of” racially charged statements, all of which are unspecified.

Well they did use the word reportedly so I guess that’s a start.

Ready for the great swash of media condemnation of the NYT by the media that beat its breast over Andrew Breitbart in 3…2…1 Never.

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: American power has a screen shot and Smitty has some fun:

So, perhaps somebody with an iPod and some speakers was standing inside the building, listening to gangsta rap, and the Congressmen heard it as they came out. Then the whole incident could be downgraded from ‘victimized by racial epithets’ to ‘experiencing art’. Look at me being a Helpy Helperperson!

That works for me.

Update 2: Memo to some bloggers: Aspiring to the the NYT of the right is a bad idea.