Category: CNN

Why Was NY Times Reporter Jeff Zeleny Doing Romney Campaign’s Bidding?

Posted on Comments

Rick Santorum has been using the “uniquely disqualified” line against Mitt Romney in his stump speeches for weeks to describe how RomneyCare makes the Massachusetts governor a poor choice to face Obama in November.

So, while people are making a big deal of Santorum yelling “bulls–t” at New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny for asking him about the line, they’re missing the important point: Why did Zeleny ask the question?

During an interview today with CNN’s olf Blitzer, Santorum explained the part of the story you haven’t heard: Zeleny and other reporters asked him similar questions repeatedly after being prompted to do so by a Romney staffer who attended Santorum’s speech.

“This is the kind of stuff that we’ve been seeing from the Romney spin machine. Their press secretary was back in the back of the room, out there feeding lines to the national press. . . . It’s the third time I was asked that question in the matter of four minutes,” Santorum told Blitzer on CNN’s Situation Room. “They sent a Romney person to our speech. He fed the line to all the reporters. We saw it happening. And every man in that room, even reporters [said] ‘Yes, we understand what you meant. But, you know, the Romney people said this to us, so we had asked about.’ That’s what happened.”

Think about this: The Romney campaign sends a staffer to a Santorum speech, the staffer is feeding questions to reporters at the event and — like little lapdogs — the reporters do exactly what the Romney staffer wants.

Santorum’s right: This is bullsh–t and Zeleny’s editors should be asking why their reporter went along with this “gotcha” game.

UPDATE: I’ve said before that I don’t like “gotcha” reporting, where the aim of the enterprise is to try to embarrass somebody on camera. To be doing “gotcha” reporting at the behest of an opposing campaign? C’mon.

UPDATE II: Linked by That Mr. G Guy — thanks!

Reporters shouting questions at a candidate while he’s “working the rope line,” shaking hands with supporters after an event, is a phenomenon I’ve witnessed often during the campaign, but never done myself. It just seems like such a low-yield activity as to be a waste of time: What, you think he’s going to give you a worldwide exclusive, right there on the rope line?

Zeleny has claimed Santorum blew up at him as a sort of publicity stunt, but when a New York Times reporter decides to play errand-boy for the Romney campaign, who’s zooming who?

UPDATE III: Speaking of journalistic ethics, yesterday I said on Twitter that if Santorum had punched out Zeleny, the viral video would have been worth a million dollars of fundraising.

But that’s just a Neutral Objective Fact.

Trayvon Martin Case Discussed by Noted Civil Rights Leader … David Plouffe?

Posted on Comments

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana
When I had lunch Wednesday with Ali Akbar, he was talking about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, and I had to confess that I didn’t know enough about the case to have an opinion. My main suggestions were (a) we shouldn’t “try the case in the media” by offering opinions based on incomplete knowledge provided by news accounts that might be misleading; and (b) we should urge people to calm down and let the justice system work.

Obviously, it’s a very bad thing for a kid to get shot while walking home from the store with Skittles, and it’s very difficult to understand why the cops didn’t arrest George Zimmerman, but I remember the way left-wing bloggers rushed to judgment in the 2009 Kentucky census worker case, and wouldn’t want to be a part of that kind of “trial by blog” reaction.

Besides, I’m covering a presidential campaign and I don’t need to get bogged down in . . . Wait! What’s this headline that just popped up at the top of Memeorandum?

Plouffe calls out GOP candidates
over Obama reaction
“Reprehensible.” “Irresponsible.” “Hard to stomach.”
White House senior adviser David Plouffe did not mince words Sunday when talking about the reaction by Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to President Barack Obama’s comments on the Trayvon Martin shooting.
“Those two comments are really irresponsible. I would consider them reprehensible,” Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think those comments were really hard to stomach, really, and I guess trying to appeal to people’s worst instincts.” . . .
A somber Obama on Friday commiserated with the Martin family and urged authorities to fully investigate the shooting.
“If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “I think (his parents) are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”
Santorum said the president politicized the events, while Gingrich characterized Obama’s comments as “nonsense.”
“What the president of the United States should do is try to bring people together, not use these types of horrible and tragic individual cases to try to drive a wedge in America,” Santorum said Friday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” a radio program.
“Is the president suggesting if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it wouldn’t look like him? That’s just nonsense,” Gingrich said Friday on conservative host Sean Hannity’s radio show, “The Hannity Show.” “I mean dividing this country up, it is a tragedy this young man was shot.”
But Plouffe, who served as Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, said the Republican reaction is evidence of a circus-like primary.
“I don’t think there’s very many people in America that would share that reaction. You know, this Republican primary at some points has been more of a circus show and a clown show,” Plouffe told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley.

Earth to CNN: David Plouffe is a Democrat. David Plouffe is a top political strategist. David Plouffe thinks it’s “reprehensible” anytime anybody says a negative word about Obama. Also, in case you didn’t notice, David Plouffe is whiter than a slice of Wonder Bread.

At a time like this, does America really need pious partisan sermons from self-righteous white liberals? I don’t think so.

And that is my opinion on the Trayvon Martin case.

Update: linked by That Mr. G Guy

Santorum’s Sunday Schedule Includes Appearances on ABC and CNN

Posted on Comments

Was Rick Santorum exaggerating when he accused Fox News of having a pro-Romney bias? We report, you decide: The “fair and balanced” network doesn’t have him scheduled for any interviews today. Santorum will appear on two other Sunday shows on ABC and CNN, while campaigning today in Louisiana before going to Illinois for a series of Monday rallies, including one in Ronald Reagan’s hometown of Dixon, Illinois.

SANTORUM CAMPAIGN PRESS RELEASE

Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum will hold the following open press events. All times are local.

Sunday, March 18:

Senator Santorum will appear on ABC News’ “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” Check your local listings for times in your area.

9:30am CT Senator Santorum will provide his personal testimony to the First Baptist Church of Bossier, LA.
Location: First Baptist Church of Bossier
2810 East Texas Street
Bossier City, LA

10:50am CT: Senator Santorum will attend the Calvary Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA.
Location: Calvary Baptist Church
9333 Linwood Avenue
Shreveport, LA

12:45pm CT: Senator Santorum will attend the LSU/Mississippi State baseball game in Baton Rouge, LA. All media must show press identification (business card, station identification, etc…) and enter through Gate 2.
Location: Alex Box Stadium
Corner of Nicholson Drive and Burbank Drive
Baton Rouge, LA

6:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will take part in community service at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Greenwell Springs, LA.
Location: Greenwell Springs Baptist Church
19421 Greenwell Springs Road
Greenwell Springs, LA

Senator Santorum will also appear with Tom Bevan and “Beyond the Beltway with Bruce DuMont” on WLS in Chicago, IL. Times of airing to be determined.

Monday, March 19:

9:00am CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Rockford, IL.
Location: Venetian Club
2180 Elmwood Road
Rockford, IL

12:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Dixon, IL.
Location: Ronald Reagan Statue
Dixon Waterfront
Dixon, IL

3:00pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Moline, IL.
Location: Moline Club
513 16th Street
Moline, IL

7:30pm CT: Senator Santorum will hold a “Rally for Rick” in Peoria, IL.
Location: Davis Bros Restaurant
2402 East Washington Street
East Peoria, IL

Busted by Twitchy: @Soledad_OBrien Loves Her Some ‘Critical Race Theory’

Posted on Comments

Hey, remember when CNN’s Soledad O’Brien melted down on TV and tried to depict Joel Pollak as a racist? Wasn’t that awesome?

Well, here’s some more awesomeness: Much like Barack Obama, Soledad O’Brien is a huge fan of Professor Derrick Bell, the “critical race theory” guy the Breitbart.com video was all about.

The Internet doesn’t forget, and the new site Twitchy has aggregated Soledad O’Brien’s Tweets and re-Tweets paying tribute to Professor Bell when he died last October. So:

It’s all about the “narrative,” as somebody used to say.

(Hey, this Twitchy thing is pretty cool, considering it was invented by a “mashed up bag of meat” who doesn’t seem to be in much of a mood for Keith Olbermann’s pathetic self-serving “apologies.” I’m going to say something about this “civility” and “war on women” stuff at some future point, but don’t want to distract any further from the narrative. See, there was this guy who always kept talking about the importance of the narrative, and he wouldn’t want me to distract you from that.)

UPDATE: More for the narrative via Twitter (specifically Jana_1977‘s re-Tweet of CFHeather): Discover the Network’s file on Professor Bell, which explains that critical race theory is “an academic tradition in which race plays the same role as class plays in the Marxist paradigm.”

Exactly so and, I would add, the ideologies of feminism, gay rights and environmentalism are also “boutique Marxism” in this way.

CNN ARIZONA DEBATE

Posted on Comments

10:05 p.m. ET: It’s over. I actually nodded off for a few minutes there. The important thing, I think, is that Santorum was in the cross-hairs all night, and didn’t really sustain any serious damage.

9:27 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich talks Iran and Ahmadinejad.

9:25 p.m. ET: Santorum reminds us that we have civilian control of the military for a reason. He escapes damage on a question that was specifically aimed at him.

9:23 p.m. ET: Remember when “Your mother wears combat boots” was a put-down? I’m just sayin’ …

9:18 p.m. ET: Another commerical break.

9:12 p.m. ET: Newt talks about border control.

9:10 p.m. ET: Mitt is an E-Verify evangelical.

9:08 p.m. ET: Newt talks fences and illegal immigration.

9:04 p.m. ET: Santorum: “RomneyCare!” Romnney: “Arlen Specter!” That was good, wasn’t it?

8:58 p.m. ET: When Ron Paul accuses Santorum of voting for Planned Parenthood funding. Santorum explains that this was actually a vote for the appropriations bill for the entire Department of Health and Human Services.

8:56 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich sounds an awful lot like Ron Paul on this “government coercion” stuff. So how come when Ron Paul says it, he’s treated like a radical extremist?

8:54 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney sounds an awful lot like Rick Santorum on this “family values” stuff. So how come when Santorum says it, he’s treated like a radical extremist?

8:50 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum name-checks Charles Murray and talks about out-of-wedlock births.

8:48 p.m. ET: Mitt defends the right of conscience against Barack Obama.

8:46 p.m. ET: CNN asks about contraception and gets booed. Newt takes on the elite media and gets cheered.

8:45 p.m. ET: We’re back from commercial, during which here in Ohio we saw another Rick Santorum commercial.

8:40 p.m. ET: Santorum defends himself, and then Newt slams UAW. So if you’re UAW . . . vote Santorum!

8:38 p.m. ET: Mitt slams the UAW.

8:36 p.m. ET: Rick rips Mitt on bailouts. Mitt begins his response, “First, let’s look at the facts.” Which means he’s about to lie.

8:32 p.m. ET: Newt just made Mitt look like an idiot.

8:28 p.m. ET: Mitt admits that he sought earmarks for the Salt Lake City Olympics, which he compares to the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

8:27 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum defends earmarking.

8:24 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich takes a question and turns it into a lecture.

8:22 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney defends his claim to be a “severe conservative.”

8:20 p.m. ET: Santorum mentions this Weekly Standard article that defends his record as a fiscal conservative.

8:17 p.m. ET: John King lobs a softball to Ron Paul, inviting him to repeat his attack-ad arguments against Santorum.

8:16 p.m. ET: We’re a quarter-hour into the debate before Newt gets a chance to speak. He wants to balance the budget by opening federal lands to oil exploration.

8:14 p.m. ET: Santorum comes right back at Romney, which means Romney gets a chance to rebut.

8:12 p.m. ET: On his first question, Santorum draws cheers for saying he wants to end ObamaCare. Then it’s Mitt Romney’s turn, and he opens with attack-ad chatter against Santorum.

8:06 p.m. ET: National anthem sang by Arizona State University symphonic chorale. Classical, not all Whitney Houston-like.

8:04 p.m. ET: Moderator John King introduces the candidates. I heard a rumor today that the Romney campaign was trying to pack the audience with their supporters.

** PREVIOUSLY (7:31 p.m. ET) **

JOHNSTOWN, Ohio
My brother-in-law just brought me a Blue Moon Summer Honey Wheat, and I’m ready to live-blog tonight’s CNN Arizona debate, which Howard Kurtz previews:

When Santorum takes the stage Wednesday night, the glare of the spotlight will be unusually harsh.

CNN: Satan’s Cable News Network!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin’s in Rick’s corner:

Look for the liberal CNN debate “moderators” tonight to force their frame around Santorum.
And look for Santorum to cheerfully cast off their narrow-minded narrative and do the same thing he’s done successfully to challenge Mitt Romney’s front-runner status:
Offer no apology for his social conservatism, while sticking to his core fiscal conservative attacks on the Obama White House . . .

Read the rest. I should perhaps explain why I’m in Ohio instead of Arizona. I got credentialed for the debate, and had hoped to fly out, but transportation plans fell through. So I decided instead to drive to Michigan, and stopped here at my wife’s sister’s house for the night, where the debate blogging will begin at 8 p.m.

UPDATE II: Steve Eggleston has details of today’s Wisconsin poll showing Santorum ahead of Mitt Romney by 16 points.

BTW, in the past 15 minutes here in Ohio, I’ve seen two Rick Santorum ads on CNN.

UPDATE III: Barbara Espinosa is at the debate in Mesa. This is the 20th nationally televised Republican debate and may very well be the last this year.

Dick Armey on Newt Gingrich: ‘Taking a Second-Rate Campaign and Turning It into a First-Rate Vendetta’

Posted on Comments

The Hill has a short story based on what Dick Armey said today on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley, but CNN sent me the complete transcript, so here’s more from the interview, excerpted to focus on Armey’s answers (Tony Perkins of FRC was also a guest):

CROWLEY: If you look at strong tea party supporters, South Carolina , Mitt Romney got 21 percent of these strong tea party support, but by the time we got to Nevada , it was 39 percent. He bested everybody in the field.
So my first question, as Mitt Romney’s support among tea party conservatives, among the very conservative, seems to be growing, and certainly is besting others in the race, could you — and let me start with you Congressman Armey, could you see your way clear to support a Mitt Romney nomination?
ARMEY: Well, first I’ve got to point out, South Carolina was an aberration because Newt Gingrich had — was likely to be in final analysis his best moment in South Carolina. Now the fact of the matter is we know we’re not going to get a…
CROWLEY: Do you think that Newt Gingrich is done in terms of the nomination, getting it?
ARMEY: I don’t think Newt will be able to replicate that magic moment he had in South Carolina, because he had a confluence of circumstances that came. And he had just one masterful moment where he transformed himself from perpetrator to victim, attacked the media, which, Candy, as you know, is always popular with our base, and just sort of took that momentary surge. But I think he has played that string out. Now in the meantime, Mitt continues to work along. The governor continues to work along at a steady pace, and we are left with a dilemma that we are not going to get a reliable, small government conservative out of this nominating process.
That’s why we’ve focused our attention on the House and Senate. Our notion is, we will get the legislative initiative coming out of a conservative-dominated House and Senate, we will build a legislative wall.
We’ll either be walling a Republican president in or walling a Democrat president out. But we will — our aim is to make the legislative initiative come from the House and the Senate, not wait upon the White House. . . .
CROWLEY: Congressman Armey, could you support Mitt Romney? Could you work for Mitt Romney . . .
ARMEY: Oh yes.
CROWLEY: . . . in whatever way you could be helpful?
ARMEY: If he gets the nomination, remember this, whoever is in the White House always is going to be drawn to his base. We would rather have a Republican president that’s not fully the guy we adore wanting our affections than a Democrat president who despises us and covets the affections of our mortal enemies on public policy.
So clearly it’s in the best interests to our policy objectives to support whatever Republican president might want to take the office and then seek our respect and admiration. . . .
CROWLEY: I want to play both of you something that Newt Gingrich said last night in the news conference he held after the results were in, in Nevada.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: If you can’t tell the truth as a candidate for president, how can the country possibly expect to you lead as president? And I frankly was stunned, I make no bones about this, in the second Florida debate, I had nothing to say because I had never before seen a person who I thought of as a serious candidate for president be that fundamentally dishonest and it was blatant and it was deliberate and he knew he was doing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: He being Mitt Romney. Congressman Armey, I know the party line is oh, this kind of primary, no matter how long it goes, it just strengthens us but I cannot believe that you believe that this sort of rhetoric aimed at Mitt Romney is at all helpful for you all in the fall.
ARMEY: I don’t think it’s helpful even to Newt. I feel bad for him. I think he’s digressed into a state of taking a second rate campaign and turning it into a first rate vendetta. And I think he’s putting himself out of the game because he can’t get over his obsession about his own hurt feelings over the campaign in Iowa . He needs to get beyond that and get to the nation’s people’s business, if he expects to have any chance whatsoever.
I thought that last night was really sad for him, and quite frankly, again, so much of Newt’s whole life is overstates. He overstates the case is in a hyperbolic fashion, it just looks vindictive. . . .
CROWLEY: OK. And Congressman Armey I am totally out of time, but I want to make sure I gave you a chance, was I correct in the way I described your relationship with Newt Gingrich because I sort of said it and left you. And I wanted to make sure, you’re not close friends, let’s put it that way.
ARMEY: Well we worked well together during the time we worked together. But you know I’m sure we both had disappointments in one another. But I think right now the question is, is Newt going to have an effective campaign that presents the best of his ideas for America , or is he just going to have a constant patter of attacking Romney.

CNN JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA DEBATE

Posted on Comments

JACKSONVILLE, Fla.
CONCLUSION 1 a.m. ET: Excuse my long absence. Had to go to the spin room for the post-debate action, then write a column for The American Spectator. I was hesitant to say this earlier but, did Rick Santorum kick butt or what?

Because I wanted to believe he did well, I felt that maybe I was prejudiced. But then I saw Guy Benson’s post at Townhall:

What a night for the former Pennsylvania Senator … he definitely made a very serious case that he might be the best Not Romney in the race.

No argument. Newt was off his game tonight, and I’d score Romney the winner — that is to say, I think Mitt did what he needed to do to win here Tuesday. But I suspect a lot of people watched that debate and said to themselves, “Hey, that Santorum kid’s pretty feisty.”

9:30 p.m. ET: Newt talks about the “Romney attack machine,” defends his claim to being a latter-day Reagan.

9:25 p.m. ET: Admit it: Rick Santorum won the Best Wife competition.

9:16 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum wants Marco Rubio in his cabinet. Newt wants Rubio as VP. Romney recites the names of lots of Latinos who haven’t self-deported.

9:12 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney: “We’re insisting on personal responsibility.” This is good for Santorum to be able to go back-and-forth with Romney, thus ending the Mitt-and-Newt Show. Also, he name-checked Scott Plakon.

9:07 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum slams Newt and Mitt for their records on health care.

9:03 p.m. ET: Lynn Frazier is unemployed and wants health insurance. Ron Paul blames government for inflating medical costs.

8:59 p.m. ET: Newt accuses Santorum of being “cheap.”

8:58 p.m. ET: Mitt says, “You’re fired.” Accuses Newt of pandering. “We’ve got to say no to this kind of spending.”

8:57 p.m. ET: Newt warns of Chinese dominance of space.

8:55 p.m. ET: Ron Paul wants to send Newt to the moon.

8:50 p.m. ET: Question about NASA and manned space flight, because all politics is local. And galactic.

8:49 p.m. ET: Wolf Blitzer asks Ron Paul, age 76, if he’s willing to release his medical records. Paul makes a joke about age discrimination.

8:48 p.m. ET: Ron Paul talks about currency. Sound money.

8:46 p.m. ET: Santorum on 28% top tax rate: “If it’s good enough for Reagan, it’s good enough for me.” Get’s a laugh with, “I wish I made as much money as Mitt Romney.”

8:45 p.m. ET: Newt says he’s “the opposite of Obama.”

8:43 p.m. ET: More talk about personal finances. Newt gets caught trying to say he didn’t say what he said. Newt’s in a hole, but won’t stop digging.

8:36 p.m. ET: Ron and Rick get to have their say about Fannie and Freddie. Santorum draws cheers for demanding that they “focus on the issues.”

8:34 p.m. ET: Newt defends himself ably against the lobbying charge. But what was he paid $1.6 million for?

8:33 p.m. ET: Mitt stings Newt on mutual funds, draws cheers.

8:31 p.m. ET: Newt says Romney “has been attacking me inaccurately, and he knows it.” It’s getting nasty again.

8:30 p.m. ET: Mitt Romney gets a question about Fannie and Freddie, and starts talking about Newt Gingrich.

8:28 p.m. ET: Now it’s the Ron and Rick Show. These guys really don’t like each other.

8:25 p.m. ET: Rick Santorum talks about Honduras, accuses Obama of supporting Marxists in Latin America.

8:24 p.m. ET: A lady named Vasquez has a question about trade with Latin America. Ron Paul loves him some free trade.

8:22 p.m. ET: It’s turning into the Mitt-Newt Show again.

8:21 p.m. ET: Newt wants everybody to learn English.

8:20 p.m. ET: Mitt: “Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers.”

8:19 p.m. ET: Romney: “I am pro-immigrant. . . . I want them to come here legally.”

8:18 p.m. ET: Romney accuses Newt of “over-the-top rhetoric,” invokes Marco Rubio twice, gets a big cheer from the audience.

8:17 p.m. ET: Newt Gingrich won’t answer a direct question about his accusation that Romney is “anti-immigrant.”

8:16 p.m. ET: Ron Paul panders to the Vaguely Incoherent.

8:14 p.m. ET: Mitt defends self-deportation. Did you know his father was from Mexico? It’s true. Look it up. Anyway, Romney’s answer is long and complicated.

8:12 p.m. ET: Newt is in favor of a “guest worker” program.

8:11 p.m. ET: On immigration, Rick Santorum wants to enforce the law. This is radical extremism!

8:09 p.m. ET: Candidates say a few words. Rick Santorum introduces his 93-year-old mom, who’s a senior citizen, kinda like Ron Paul.

8:04 p.m. ET: The candidates have been introduced.

8:02 p.m. ET: That was some good pre-debate hype, huh?

8 p.m. ET: And we’re LIVE!

* * * PREVIOUSLY (7:29 p.m. ET) * * *

We’re on the scene here at the University of North Florida where, at 8 p.m. ET, the four remaining Republican presidential candidates will debate on CNN. A few quick headlines for discussion:

Angry Newt Gingrich Attacks
Mitt Romney in Florida
— ABC News

Romney paints Gingrich
as mentally unstable
— Washington Post

4 Sentences: Why Tonight’s Debate Matters
— National Journal

Santorum guarantees he’s
a candidate ‘for a long time’
— CNN

I’ll be live-blogging tonight and I’ll back with more in a bit.

UPDATE: When I walked up tonight, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was being interviewed outside the filing center:

And here’s video of the media walk-through at the debate hall today:

Rick Perry Has Replaced Jon Huntsman in the Coveted ‘Gov. Asterisk’ Position

Posted on Comments

Marginal poll numbers, yet deemed debate-worthy:

According to CNN’s criteria for inclusion, a candidate must get at least 4th place in either Iowa or New Hampshire, or get 7% support in at least three national Republican or three South Carolina primary polls released in January. The requirements were posted online last Tuesday afternoon, several hours before the Iowa caucuses began later that night.
Perry came in fifth place in Iowa, and sixth in New Hampshire. And currently, his national and South Carolina poll numbers do not show him meeting that threshold, either.

Never mind, says CNN, they’re including Perry anyway.

Because to do otherwise would be . . . well, heartless.