Their press secretary idiotically points to news opinion guys, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, to *prove* their point. Then, in the next breath the White House invites two of MSNBC’s biggest Obama/Democrat lackeys to Pennsylvania Avenue for a secret, off-the-record meeting? (1:45)

Yes, Maddow and Olbermann – nah, no *perspective* there! MSNBC an arm of the DNC? Nah, couldn’t be!

Well, all I can say is I’m relieved. I now have a full and complete understanding of what it means to be a ‘news organization.’ Apparently, all it takes is agreeing with the President and doing his bidding.

(h/t Newsbusters)

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

H/T Gateway Pundit

Look, I liked Michael Jackson’s music as much as anyone. His gifts as an entertainer were bar none. His death certainly merits coverage but it does not merit all of our news organizations, including Fox, dedicating an entire night to his tragic death, morbidly following the helicopter as his body is transported to the coroner (played over repeatedly I might add) while completely ignoring other events going on in the world.

Did the Iranian protests and killings end yesterday?

Was the critical vote on the C(r)ap & Trade bill today in Congress suddenly of no meaning to us?

At what point does a news organization come down on the side of ethics and not ratings?

Michael Jackson’s death is significant – but only from a pop culture perspective. Yes, pop culture has its time and place and meaning in our society. But the death of one celebrity should not mean that serious news organizations should drop all other news coverage and act like TMZ.com.

What’s worse, though, is I bet most people know far, far more about Michael Jackson than a bill about to be voted on in Congress that will raise our taxes and seriously threaten our economic prosperity.

Scary.

Honestly, I could probably go on about the biased reporting against these tea parties today, as well as the juvenile ”teabagger” ridicule hurled our way by the likes of a meaningless person like Rachel Maddow – and I’m sure we will hear more insulting garbage tomorrow – but my mind is put at ease knowing this: these protests make liberals afraid.

They don’t like people actually challenging them and their beliefs. Liberal politicians don’t like it when they are exposed. That’s why they go after things like talk radio and try to silence us. They want their power and they want to line their pockets. And they want normal, average, hard-working Americans to shut up and take it. Well, I have one thing to say about that, “Ain’t happening!” We’re done being quiet. The silent majority will be silent no more.

OK, I know I’ve been tooting my own horn over my post on Dems wanting Bush to fail (if I don’t, who will? ). But you have to admit it’s amazing how one little blogger just futzing around on the Internet could cause a tremor that reached the biggest media outfits in the country.

Now, the latest ramification of my little post is this little ditty from Bill Sammon of Fox News:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

“The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed,” Carville railed on CNN recently. “He is the daddy of this Republican Congress.”

Rush responded today himself:

“The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,” Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. “I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama’s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

“I deal in principles, not polls,” Limbaugh added. “Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It’s not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?”

Just classic. More liberal hypocrisy. I really think these people think we’re all stupid.

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. Such deep hatred is bad news for the country at a time when America needs to bridge the partisan divide. It’s also bad news for the Democrats, who risk repeating the Republicans’ mistakes of a decade ago, driving away the centrists they need to regain power or going too far if they do manage to win.

Fox’s question was revealing: “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” Democrats said “not,” 51 percent to 40 percent – where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one. [See page 4 of this document for the poll in question.--ST]

In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people – suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies – detest George W. Bush.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents – hardly right-wing zealots – hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

In fact, the fury against to Bush has reached unprecedented levels, even compared to the animosity among Republicans to his predecessor. Not long ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that “strong disapproval” of Bush was 10 points higher than that recorded for Bill Clinton at any point during his presidency, including his impeachment. (That wasn’t during a war, either.)

[CORRECTION] Following quote from Betsy Newmark’s blog post.

Remember, for better or for worse, George W. Bush will be our president for more than two years. Hoping that he’ll fail is really hoping that America will fail. These people detest Bush so much that they don’t mind America getting a setback across the globe if it will weaken Bush.

Of course, there’s a key difference between then and now. Wishing Bush would fail meant wishing the country lost in Iraq. Wishing Obama fails means rooting against socialistic policies that threaten everything the country was founded on and our future prosperity.

Do you think the MSM, considering their whining about Limbaugh’s comments, would think to look something like this up now and then report on it? Nope, that would actually mean really reporting on something and adding some context. That would mean they couldn’t marginalize and demonize him.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

[UPDATED 3/9/09]

Quite a day! I had no idea this would ever happen. I actually e-mailed the story to Rush last week, but it wasn’t until Gateway Pundit and Little Green Footballs picked up on it that it got out there.

Amazingly, even Fox News picked up on this and ran a story flashing back to the poll.

Again, I didn’t do anything special here. A little light bulb went off and said let me check around and see what I can find. Any reporter for any media outfit could have done the same. The fact that they didn’t says alot about the mainstream media and their agenda.

Here’s the transcript from Rush’s show.

Bret Baier – Political Grapevine!

O’Reilly’s Talking Points!

Here’s Sean Hannity running with it!

Sorry, I’m sick of these arrogant, condescending jerks in the MSM.

In addition, a post-election test of Obama voters was conducted by Zogby International which showed that only 2% of Obama voters got all the answers correct and only 54% got half the answers correct. Obama voters readily knew negative things about McCain/Palin but did not know negative things about Obama/Biden. (See here for the complete results.)

Link: HowObamaGotElected.com

The guy just was elected leader of the free world and this is what some of these idiot reporters want to know? Good grief already.

Apparently, Mr. Khalidi doesn’t think enough of the American people to give a few straight answers.

While I can’t say I’m surprised by Mr. Khalidi’s response, the larger question for me is, where are the other media outlets on this story? Why don’t they ever seek out all of these people in Obama’s past, like Ayers and Khalidi? I think we know the answer.