Do people's politics color their views on the issues, even on life-and-death ones like war?  Yeah.  Happens on all sides.  But for Cenk Uygur to rip Republicans for having supported President Bush on Iraq while criticizing President Obama on Libya is nothing short of grotesque . . . given that Uygur now supports Obama on Libya, while when it came to Iraq and its aftermath he wanted Bush . . . imprisoned for at least ten years.

Adding fuel to the bonfire of Uygur's hypocrisy is his failure to mention that as a senator-cum-presidential-candidate, Obama himself laid out a doctrine condemning precisely the kind of military action without congressional approval in which Obama-as-president now engages.

View video after the jump.

Watch Uygur engage in shameless hypocrisy.

Note: In claiming Bush didn't seek "authorization for the war," Uygur is either ignorant or shamelessly prevaricating.  Not only did Bush seek and obtain congressional approval for the Iraq war, but such worthies as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted for it–later defending their votes.

I've said for years it takes an amazing amount of rationalizations to be a liberal these days.

On Tuesday's "Hardball," Salon editor Joan Walsh demonstrated perfectly what I mean (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Can’t they hear themselves in the echo chamber of B.S. they live in that the minute the guy did the opposite of what he said he did, he should have done, they would have attacked that. It’s just automatic criticism. Your thoughts, Joan.

Before we get to Walsh's absurd response, what Matthews and his guests including the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman were discussing were comments some of the possible Republican presidential candidates have been making concerning Barack Obama and Libya that may not have been consistent with previous positions that they've made in the past.

For his part, Matthews was, as typical, playing the conveniently ignorant shill who despite having worked for a politician before and in his current capacity as a professional commentator for decades has suddenly forgotten how politics work.

As the "Hardball" host knows full well except when it's employed by politicians he despises, the modus operandi of a potential challenger to an incumbent is to criticize everything he or she says or does. You don't get anywhere by agreeing with your opponent.

That Matthews is pleading ignorance to this is of course not at all surprising as after saying in November 2008 that it was his job to make Obama's presidency a success, he has made it clear in recent months that he will do everything within his power to get him reelected.

With that, let's see what Walsh had to say:

JOAN WALSH, SALON: Well, it’s so shallow, too. You know? And that is what you’re saying, Chris. It doesn’t matter. If something different happened, they would have a different principle. So they’re not, they’re not applying any kind of coherent principle of foreign policy or of domestic policy. They’re just looking for opportunities to cheap shot the President. The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view, where as here, I think you’re exactly right. They would just be trashing him whatever he did, and it feels that way. It feels cheap, it feels shallow.

That warrants repeating: "The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view."

Really?

I guess Walsh has forgotten the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which was originally coined by Charles Krauthammer in December 2003:

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.

Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that “the most interesting'' theory as to why the president is “suppressing'' the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies.

When Rep. Cynthia McKinney first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former Rep. McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading.

The virus indeed spread. Let's recall that folks on the Left blamed Bush for among other things:

• A recession that began less than two months after he took office as a result of the explosion of the tech bubble the year before
• The attacks on 9/11 despite them taking years to plan
• The Enron scandal
• "Outing" Valerie Plame
• Rising oil and gas prices
• Hurricane Katrina including poorly maintained dikes
• Tornado response in Kansas
• The 2008 financial crisis despite the major culprits being the Financial Service Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 both enacted before he was inaugurated
• Our current budget deficit despite the last budget he created with a Republican Congress in 2007 having produced a relatively tiny $160 billion shortfall and him being out of office for 26 months.

Of course, this is only a short list. So pervasive was BDS that there's even a Wikipedia page devoted to it.

Sadly, this malady continues today as Matthews himself in January blamed the Egypt riots on Bush. New York Times columnist Frank Rich blamed last year's BP oil spill on the former President as well.

I guess this is what Walsh would consider "coherent."

It seems Starbucks is regretting the health care Frankenstein it helped create. The company was a key corporate backer of Obamacare in its legislative stages, but its top executive has raised concerns about the law's economic damage.

Howard Schultz, the coffee company's CEO, recently told the Seattle Times that "the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great" in the Obamacare law as currently written (h/t Mark Hemingway).

So why did he support the law in the first place? Schultz says he was enthused by the drive to insure the uninsured. So he likes that goal, he just doesn't how like it's being achieved.

That raises two questions: first, given that the mandate was integral to the legislation when it was under congressional consideration – and that the problems with the mandate were entirely foreseeable – why did he support the bill in the first place?

It may well be that Schultz believes the damage done to small business is a fair price for universal health care coverage. It's also quite likely that Starbucks will benefit from the mandate precisely due to its economic damage. As he noted, that damage will hit small businesses hardest. Starbucks can afford a bit more overhead. It's smaller competitors, not so much.

But giving Schultz the benefit of the doubt with respect to his motives, we then have to ask: if he wants universal coverage without the mandate, how does he propose we go about insuring the uninsured?

The logical answer is by lowering health care costs to allow more people to buy insurance coverage. But Obamacare also swells the cost of health insurance, an outcome President Obama conceded was likely even before the bill passed. Because the minimum coverage requirements for Insurance plans are much higher, the law will likely yield an increase in insurance premiums.

The law's backers are quick to point out that under Obamacare Americans get better coverage, though they may pay more for it. That's true, but if the goal is to insure as many people as possible without an economically burdensome mandate – that seems to be what Schultz wants – Obamacare is a failure.

Schultz is economically literate, of course, so it's a bit of a mystery why he supported Obamacare in its legislative stages, when some of these facts emerged.

The Baltimore Sun has no trouble noting for readers the political affiliation of politicians who face an ethical scandal and/or official investigation. That is, of course, if the pol in question is a Republican.

Last Wednesday, I noted how the Sun's Julie Scharper failed to note Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Democratic party affiliation in a story about her voting on city contracts where her husband's company had a competing bid.

The very next day, however, Scharper's colleague Nicole Fuller promptly noted the Republican affiliation of two-term Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold. Here's how Fuller opened her story:

State prosecutors have served Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold with a subpoena as part of an investigation into whether he misused government resources by directing his county-funded security detail to do work for his 2010 reelection campaign, a spokesman for Leopold confirmed Thursday.

 

The subpoena, served late Wednesday, seeks the county executive's schedule from 2008 to the present, an indication that the investigation may broaden to include allegations beyond last year's election.

 

The subpoena also requires Leopold, a Republican who was reelected last year, to answer questions regarding the schedule — but does not demand that he appear before a grand jury, said Leopold spokesman Dave Abrams.

For our archive on "Name That Party" bias, click here.

Readers may have noticed a slight change on the site. We've switched out the old Eyeblast video player for a YouTube player, which should function more smoothly than the old one. You've probably noticed the delay in new episodes showing up on the homepage. That will no longer be a problem.

Some other big news regarding 'Busted: with this new player, you can now embed your own NewsBusted widget on your website. It will function exactly like the one you see on the NB homepage, displaying the latest NewsBusted episode right on your blog or homepage. Just copy and paste the code below the break to embed the player.

<object height="280" width="345"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFMAZaRO94EyUWNjxMJROHU2Sqd8rK3×0SE=" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFMAZaRO94EyUWNjxMJROHU2Sqd8rK3×0SE=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="280" width="345"></embed></object>

You can also change the width and height values in the code (italicized) so that it better fits your site's theme.

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or problems, feel free to post them in the comments and an NB staffer will address them.

NBC's Jamie Gangel gave Cory Booker the full liberal media rock star treatment in her Tuesday Today show profile of the Democratic Newark, New Jersey mayor as she cheered that he's "a celebrity with friends like Bon Jovi" and gushed he has "more than a million followers on Twitter."

Calling Booker "a young ambitious politician often compared to Barack Obama," Gangel proclaimed: "He truly is a force…and despite what he says, watch out. In a few years, his friends say they believe they will see him on the national stage." This prompted Today co-anchor Ann Curry to respond to her NBC colleague: "Well he is very impressive" admitting that she's also a fan, "By the way I'm a Twitter follower."

Curry teased the Gangel story by hailing Booker as "one of the biggest rising stars of the Democratic Party" and added: "Everywhere you look nowadays, from Oprah to Facebook, Bon Jovi to Brad Pitt, Newark's charismatic mayor Cory Booker is enlisting help for his troubled city." During her piece Gangel covered everything from Booker's early years noting, "Booker was an academic star, class president, and all-American tight end who went on to Stanford, a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford, and Yale Law School," to his future plans as she prodded: "Do you think about running for governor? Senator? White House?"

(video and transcript after the jump)

The following is the full story as it was aired on the March 22 Today show:

ANN CURRY: Back now at 8:39 with one of the biggest rising stars of the Democratic Party. Everywhere you look nowadays, from Oprah to Facebook, Bon Jovi to Brad Pitt, Newark's charismatic mayor Cory Booker is enlisting help for his troubled city. Well today, national correspondent Jamie Gangel recently tried to keep up with the busy mayor. Hey Jamie, good morning.

JAMIE GANGEL: That's true, Ann. Good morning. Let's face it, most ambitious politicans might have looked for an easier city than Newark. But then again, Cory Booker is not your usual politician. And his high profile has led to speculation he might be interested in running for higher office. But we started by talking with Booker about his latest challenge, a personal one.

(Start Video)

GANGEL: (Voiceover) As if being mayor of Newark isn't tough enough, these days Cory Booker has taken on a new challenge – losing weight.

GANGEL: Why are we here at the crack of dawn?

BOOKER: I actually got up to 290 pounds. So right now, about 275. But it was ridiculous, and in all of life, if you really want to make a change, you've got to be that change.

BOOKER: (Video Clip) What's up fellas, what's up?

GANGEL: (Voiceover) It is vintage Cory Booker. Driven, charismatic, a man on a mission, trying to turn around one of the toughest cities in the country.

BOOKER: (Video Clip) I have no right to think anything else. But Newark, New Jersey is going to shock the world.

GANGEL: And it's not just talk, as shown in this award-winning documentary series, Booker has been known to personally patrol the streets-

BOOKER: (Video Clip) How are you guys doing tonight?

GANGEL: -find people jobs-

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Video Clip) Hey you gonna get me a job?

BOOKER: Yeah, well let's talk about it.

GANGEL: -mentor students-

BOOKER: (Video Clip) You've gotta study for the test.

GANGEL: Even shovel snow. It's made him a celebrity with friends like Bon Jovi and more than a million followers on Twitter. But Booker admits it's been a roller coaster, with extraordinary highs, like this grant for Newark schools from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg-

OPRAH WINFREY: (Video Clip) One-hundred million dollars!

GANGEL: -and devastating disappointments.

BOOKER: (Video Clip) June, seven murders! July, eight murders!

GANGEL: (Voiceover) For a young ambitious politician often compared to Barack Obama, he could have picked an easier city. Raised in an affluent Jersey suburb, his parents were IBM executives, and Booker was an academic star, class president, and all-American tight end who went on to Stanford, a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford, and Yale Law School.

BOOKER: My father would tease me, he says boy you were born on third base. Don't be fooled into thinking you hit a triple.

GANGEL: You have an expression that you got – I think you got your B.A. and your M.A. at Stanford, but you got your –

BOOKER: PhD on the streets of Newark.

GANGEL: (Voiceover) But he sounds a little like Don Quixote –

BOOKER: I want to return us to a nation that believes in impossible dreams again.

GANGEL: (Voiceover) Booker is also pragmatic. He supported President Obama's decision to maintain tax cuts for the rich.

BOOKER: To me, I thought that was one of the high moments of his presidency.

GANGEL: Even though that $700 billion could have helped you?

BOOKER: If he fought that, we would still be in a stalemate.

GANGEL: And one of his closest political allies is Republican Gov. Chris Christie.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, NEW JERSEY: I've watched Cory be able to do some really great things in this city. And I know he's just starting.

GANGEL: (Voiceover) One thing the 41 year-old mayor hasn't done – settle down.

GANGEL TO BOOKER: You frequently say you're a failure in your social life.

BOOKER: Yes.

GANGEL: But not for lack of trying?

BOOKER: Well, I think for lack of prioritization. I do believe in the Jewish conception of bashart – destiny – that you will, that there is somebody that is meant for you and I'll find her and discover her, or maybe she's even already in my midst. And that woman will have to have a very charitable heart.

GANGEL: (Voiceover) As for his political future, Booker still has three more years as mayor. But like his friend the governor, he's often asked what's next.

GANGEL TO BOOKER: Do you think about running for governor? Senator? White House?

BOOKER: It is – the first two are presented to me on a regular basis. And it's hard to even get my mind around doing those things when there's so much work here to do.

GANGEL: You ever look at Barack Obama and say, that could have been me?

BOOKER: No, because that was not a path I wanted to take. Even on the most discouraging days, I feel like I'm in the right place, right time, taking on the right fights.

GANGEL: (Voiceover) So for now, Booker says Newark remains his inspiration.

BOOKER: I always say my first professor is somebody we just buried last month. It was Virginia Jones. When I was a young man, I showed up on her doorstep like John Wayne. I was like "I'm Cory Booker, I'm from Yale Law School. I'm gonna – I'm here to try to help you out." And she looked at me in the way Newarkers do, like who the heck do you think you are? And I'll never forget, she looks at me, and says boy, you need to understand something. The world you see outside of you will always be a reflection of what you have inside of you. If you see hope, opportunity, love, if you see the face of God, then you can help me out. And you can make a difference. And I remember looking down to myself and saying okay grasshopper, thus endeth the lesson. And that is Newark.

(End Video)

GANGEL: He truly is a force, and he is so committed. And despite what he says, watch out. In a few years, his friends say they believe they will see him on the national stage. Ann?

CURRY: Well he is very impressive. Jamie Gangel, thanks. By the way, I'm a Twitter follower.

—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here

A Monday New York Times business story by Elizabeth Olson provided some unusual good press to Big Food, at least in aid of the wildly overstated liberal cause of “hunger” in America: “From a Food Giant, a Broad Effort to Feed Hungry Children.”

Conagra Foods, whose social cause is ending child hunger, is taking a new approach to raise the issue’s visibility. The company is starting its largest campaign ever, including a television special, to spur more grass-roots involvement to make sure no child goes hungry.

The Omaha-based ConAgra financed a 30-minute program, hosted by Al Roker of the “Today” show on NBC, to tell the stories of American families who, each day, face the question of whether they will have enough to eat. One 8-year-old boy says, “I eat less so my sisters can have another meal.”

“Child hunger is not a problem, it’s a crisis,” Mr. Roker said in an interview, referring to the 17.2 million children the Agriculture Department estimates are at risk of lacking food. In the special, Mr. Roker, along with an NBC correspondent, Natalie Morales, highlights the effects of hunger on children’s ability to learn and complete their education.

The source of that undigested “17.2 million children” statistic isn't given but may refer to this Agriculture Department “Food Security Status” report from 2009, which states that 17.2 million children live in “Food-Insecure Households,” which are defined this way: “At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.”

That’s a far more amorphous concept than the word “hunger” used by the Times and Conagra, which conjures up malnutrition and starvation.

While the Times has often gone after “Big Food” for fattening up kids and dismissed its denials, in this case the Times eagerly swallowed dubious statistics, without pesky questions concerning how a big food conglomerate may conceivably benefit from government efforts to fight hunger.

Saturday’s New York Times featured a flattering profile by David Halbfinger of Long Island Rep. Steve Israel, whose job it is, in his new role as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to return the party to power: “L.I. Congressman Leads an Uphill Charge Toward a Democratic House.”

It may seem surprising that the job of taking back the House — Democrats need 25 seats to do so — has fallen not to a bloodthirsty partisan, but to the easygoing Mr. Israel: an unassuming centrist from Long Island who once voted with President George W. Bush nearly half of the time and has barely made a mark after a decade in Congress.

“Unassuming”? Perhaps. “Centrist”? No way. The American Conservative Union awarded Israel’s lifetime voting record (he's a 10-year veteran of Congress) a mere 11 points out of 100, including 0 out of 100 the last two years. Those numbers situate Rep. Israel well left of center.

The Times's Jamie Lorber also insisted Israel was a "moderate" and a "middle-of-the-road Democrat" in a November 19, 2010 story marking his ascent to head the DCCC.

After recruiting praise from minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Halbfinger suggests Israel is being underestimated, while conveniently injecting unmediated Democratic talking points into the Times.

Indeed, Mr. Israel, who says he likes low expectations, isn’t as unlikely a fit for the job as his benign first impression might suggest.

In a strategy session, he picks over a series of Republican budget cuts, then coaches his staff to turn those around as weapons. “Do this inside out,” he says. “Find the most vulnerable Republicans, match it up with this chart, and come up with another matrix to figure out what’s the most effective hit on each of them.”

He points to 14 Republican incumbents in districts that were carried by John Kerry in 2004, each of whom just voted to cut money for family planning. “This stuff is potent,” he says. “You should ask them: ‘How many jobs does eliminating family planning create?’ Right?”

….

He came into his own on the Huntington town council, showing flashes of major league shrewdness. Elected in 1993, he bromanced the Republican supervisor, who switched parties. He persuaded colleagues to vote for pay raises while he took the politically safer position of opposing them, according to Joe DeVincent, then a town official. He bowed to local resistance to affordable housing. But he delivered the decisive vote for a hiring center for immigrant day laborers over vehement opposition.

In contrast, Halbfinger’s February 23 profile of New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie, was not nearly as kind, referring to Christie as “pugnacious and boastful," and suggesting "the state’s education system" was "still reeling from Mr. Christie’s cuts."

While looking into the News Media Guild's positions in the current standoff between it and the Associated Press, I came across the most recent contract (large PDF file) between the two. It expired this past November; unionized AP employees are continuing to work under the old contract's provisions.

Many people don't know that the AP is a "not-for-profit news cooperative" which is "owned by its contributing newspapers (over 1,000), radio and television stations (over 5,000) in the United States." It would appear to be exempt from paying federal, state, and local income taxes (and perhaps others), and as such would seem to have a competitive advantage over any person or entity which might consider competing with it.

I thought readers might be interested in certain of the expired 65-page Editorial Unit contract's provisions, and consider how often such arrangements are available in the private sector (56 other pages which follow relate to Technology Unit, whose contract provisions are very similar; bolds are mine):

(Page 7 — Article 6, Item 1) "There shall be no dismissals except for just and sufficient cause. The Guild and the employee shall be notified in writing at least four weeks in advance of any dismissal, with the reason for the dismissal stated in such notice, except in cases of proven financial dishonesty, gross insubordination, gross neglect of duty, or gross misconduct in the performance of his/her duties, or where discharge is self-provoked …"

 

(Page 12 — Article 6, Item "The Employer will give the Guild not less than six months’ notice prior to the installation of new equipment or machinery generally referred to as automation, provided that such installation would result in a reduction of the staff."

 

(Page 13 — Article 7, Item 1) "Except as noted herein, dismissal indemnity shall be paid in a lump sum at the rate of two weeks’ of pay for the first six months of service, plus one week’s pay for each subsequent full six months of continuous service up to a maximum of 72 weeks’ pay for 426 months or more of continuous service. Employees who are terminated for poor performance will be paid dismissal indemnity in a lump sum at the rate of one (1) week’s pay for each full 12 months of continuous service up to a maximum of 36 weeks’ pay for 426 months or more of continuous service with the Employer."

 

(Pages 17-21 — Article 11, Item "Wage Minima." Highlights (in a relatively unusual move, the wire service is permitted to pay more highly valued employees more money; i.e., the AP has de facto merit pay): A two-tiered wage structure for "Newspersons, Photographers, Artists, Cartoonists and Retouchers," wherein people hired in after December 21, 2005 take 6 years to reach full parity with more senior coworkers; "Messengers" with over 1 year of experience earn $720 per week; "Clerks" with over 1 year of experience earn $661 per week; "Office Assistants" with over 1 year of experience earn $591 per week; "Keypunch Operators" with over 2 year of experience earn $726 per week.

 

(Page 23 — Article 13) "Employees on the Employer’s payroll on March 2, 2009 shall receive a 2 percent increase to their regular weekly salaries." All employees on the payroll got an additional one-time $500 payment in December 2009.

 

(Page 33 — Article 22, Item 2) "The employee’s birthday will be scheduled as a holiday unless the employee requests a substitute day off. An employee also may select two additional days during the year as personal holidays, to be taken at times mutually acceptable with the Employer."

 

(Page 36 — Article 23, Item 4) Employees with five or more years of experience get four weeks of vacation.

 

(Page 47 — Article 27, Item 7) Combined Basic/Premium medical and dental coverage (quite generous in each instance) with premiums of $77/$83 per month for an employee, $202/$228 for employee and spouse, $118/$133 for employee and child, and $297/$335 for employee and family.

 

(Page 49 — Article 31, Item 1) "Bylines. An employee’s byline or credit line shall not be used over his/her protest."

 

(Page 52 — Article 31, Item 10) "The Guild shall designate one member of its Human Rights Committee to be the Chairperson who will meet with the Employer twice a year to share ideas."

Last week, "hundreds of AP news workers held rallies across the country and even more withheld bylines in support for the union’s quality journalism proposals."

The Guild has been attempting to generate public support for its bargaining position in its AP negotiations, and to that end has gathered a whopping 8,390 petition signers as of 7:30 p.m. ET.

It would seem that the News Media Guild's case that AP employees are oppressed is not garnering a great deal of support.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

David Corn, the Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones, made a disgusting remark Monday that disgraced anti-Semite Helen Thomas would surely love.

Even worse, the host of "Hardball," MSNBC's Chris Matthews, laughed hysterically when Corn said it (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This coalition between the Right and Israel, the evangelical right in the United States, is not founded on personal friendships or anything like that, or even values. It’s founded on some sort of weird, rightwing thing where you just high five each other there at the Western Wall and then that’s done, they’re trip.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: But there is a theological component which Gene was referring to…

MATTHEWS: Explain.

CORN: …Which is there’s a certain brand of evangelical Christians who believe in Revelations, that Armageddon is coming, and that will happen in Israel basically.

MATTHEWS: If they hold the West Bank.

CORN: If they hold, well there’s a lot of different components to that, but that’s why they like Israel. That’s why they want Israel to be strong. It’s not because…

MATTHEWS: It’s not personal.

CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.

MATTHEWS: [Laughs hysterically]

Amazing.

Which was more anti-Semitic: Corn's comment or Matthews' laughter afterwards?

You'd like to think that in the year 2011, with an African-American in the White House, and Don't Ask/ Don't Tell having just been repealed, journalists – even liberal ones – could contain their hatred for Jews and Israelis while the cameras are rolling.

Is that really asking too much?

On top of that, Corn's remark is also insulting to evangelical Christians.

I guess this is all par for the course on MSNBC these days.