Howard Stern Creates ‘Speech Impediment Crossfire’ (explicit language)

Joe Biden Explains The Moderate Terrorist

Some foreign policy brilliance from VP Joe Biden.

BIDEN: Five percent the Taliban [sic] is incorrigible not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another 25% or so are not quite sure, in my view, the intensity of their committment to the insurgency and roughly 70% are involved, because of the money.

The Washington Times reported today that Vice President Biden said that negotiations with the Taliban were likely. After all the heavy lifting the George W. Bush administration did against a much more powerful Taliban, it is not surprising the new Obama administration is shying away from taking on a now out of power Taliban.

Matthews Squish of the Week, Frum, Agrees Rush Has ‘Race Problems’

Perhaps David Frum is jealous of all the media adoration Kathleen Parker now receives. Knowing he would be challenged on other media outlets, as he was previously on Mark Levin’s radio show, Frum appeared with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews tonight. He talked about his recent column in Newsweek titled on the magazine’s cover as "A Conservative’s Case Against Rush Limbaugh."

Appearing on Hardball to plug his anti-Limbaugh Newsweek article denotes that Frum knew he would be addressing not only the Obama White House but also the mainly liberal fans of MSNBC.

If Frum was truly interested in endearing his article to a right of center audience, obviously, he would have been all over Fox News before he went to MSNBC. Just the fact that Frum wrote his piece in Newsweek and not a conservative publication will make conservatives wonder if Frum will do a political 180 ala Arianna Huffington.

Matthews jumped on the opportunity to prod Frum to say (or at least imply) that Limbaugh is a racist. (My emphasis added throughout) VIDEO :

MATTHEWS: Do you think he has a race problem?

FRUM: He sometimes talks that way.

MATTHEWS: Lean over grab your ankles… that thing.

FRUM: Sometimes, he talks that way. I don’t know whether it’s conscious art, but I went through how many times between inauguration day to the present that he’s made a comment about President Obama being invulnerable to criticism because of his race. I found five instances…one a week. That’s sort of a lot.

It seems as if Frum is more than happy to elaborate on Limbaugh’s so-called "race problem." Matthews jumps in with the Donovan McNabb brouhaha over Limbaugh, while Frum cedes Matthews.

MATTHEWS: There’s sort of a nag he does. He does that with Donovan McNabb…the Eagle quarterback, like he’s only given praise because he’s black.

FRUM: That’s one time.

MATTEWS: He plays this sort of weird…

FRUM: As we all know, I’ve said on-air things I wish hadn’t said thirty seconds later.

You mean like just now, Mr. Frum, or will you proudly proclaim later that you were pretty much calling Limbaugh a racist on MSNBC? Such an exchange is amusing right before Frum later complains that the GOP has “this image of being a party that’s unsympathetic to minorities.”

MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know, we all make mistakes, but there’s a theme there. He’s like saying, ‘Don’t give the guy a break.’ It’s almost like he’s benefiting from some quota system. Barack Obama won the election against a guy. He didn’t get any appointment here.

FRUM: Whatever is in his head, I don’t know. This is not…this is ,again, dangerous. The Republican Party has this image of being a party that’s unsympathetic to minorities, and Michael Steele works fiendishly in order to overcome that negative energy.

Here’s a clue for Mr. Frum and others like him. When he trashes Limbaugh, he is essentially insulting millions of people who share Limbaugh’s sentiment. Frum is attacking a large segment of the GOP, while claiming he is trying to help. If this is Frum’s idea of helping the Republican Party, many will not want to see what his idea is for hurting the GOP.

Excited he is able to add another token squish as a probable program regular, Matthews demands that Frum not apologize over the Newsweek article.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know what I said when I came out here, David. You have changed your life with this article. You will be the man that shot Liberty Valance. You will be the guy that took on Rush Limbaugh. Just don’t apologize.

For those not acquainted with western movie classics, Liberty Valance is the title character of a 1962 western film. Valance, played by Lee Marvin, is a criminal who terrorizes the town folk and is eventually killed in a shootout by attorney Rance Stoddard, played by Jimmy Stewart. This is a predictable comparison coming from Matthews, but Frum, once again, wilts.

FRUM: I’m going to be the face under (inaudible)

MATTHEWS: Do me a favor. Don’t apologize. You’re a journalist… you don’t have to. You can make mistakes, but just don’t do that thing. Anyway… thanks, David Frum. Congratulations, you’ve written an article. You’re a literary politician at least.

Matthews is unapologetically proclaiming that it’s okay for journalists to make mistakes so long as a liberal agenda is delivered to the audience. Apparently, Frum is delivering just that message.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Denies Having Conference Calls With White House Staff

I met up with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos at the National Capital chapter of the Society of Financial Service Professionals’ Annual Professional Night this evening and asked if he had strategy session conference calls with aides in the White House as reported by Politico’s John F. Harris.

Politico’s Michael Calderone recently reported that Kerry Smith, ABC News Sr.VP for editorial quality, wrote that Stephanopoulos "speaks to Mr. Emanuel, a friend he has known for nearly two decades, as a source, just as he speaks to countless sources across the political spectrum each and every day. That is his job as an anchor and reporter and one that he does according to the highest standards."

Stephanopoulos seemed adamant that the conference calls between himself and White House aides have never happened. The video transcript of the exchange is below.

STEPHANOPOULOS: There are no strategy sessions at the White House. None at all. Never had one. Not once.

PICKET: So you haven’t called up Mr. Emanuel or Mr. Begala?

STEPHANOPOULOS: No conference calls never–not once…ever.

Stephanopoulos could very well be playing with semantics, but even his casual communications, as clarified by ABC’s Smith, with high ranking White House personnel is not something one should feel comfortable with. So what’s really going on here? From the side of the aisle that wants a truth commission and transparency in government this is neither truthful nor transparent.

FNC’s Cavuto Shows Montage of Obama Blasting Earmarks-Video

Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto showed a montage of President Obama claiming he was against any kind of earmark, yet the current spending bill has almost 9000 earmarks in it. Here is another example of Obama going back on his word.

Rep. Henry Waxman Wants To Apply Censorship Doctrine To The Internet

If Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is not trying to investigate conservatives, he is trying to squelch their voices. Waxman has jumped into the so-called Fairness Doctrine discussion as of late. Waxman, however, has added another dimension to the issue recently…the internet (h/t The Prowler).

Media Research Center’s Jeff Poor spoke with FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell last year about the internet and the Fairness Doctrine. McDowell talked about a real possibility of internet content being regulated in the near future.

According to The Prowler, Waxman and his staff are already looking at ways to police content on the web. (Bolding is mine throughout)

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It’s all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

Waxman and his staff are also thinking about creating congressionally mandated advisory boards to police both radio and TV programming:

One idea Waxman’s committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.

What about policing internet content? According to The Prowler, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is already looking into this.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we’re seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We’re at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."

This is all hardly a surprise, as liberals have never liked that internet content is not regulated in someway.

Hillary Clinton made her views known on this issue back in 1998, when her husband was embroiled in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Matt Drudge reported on Clinton’s comments about regulating internet content.

Hillary Clinton Continued:

I don’t have any clue about what we’re going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically – I don’t have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I’m a big pro-balance person. That’s why I love the founders — checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be — political, economic, technological –out of balance, you’ve got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people’s rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we’re going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to –"

In 1999, then Deputy Attorney General (now Attorney General) Eric Holder talked about “reasonable restrictions” on internet content following the tragedy of the Columbine Massacre. VIDEO

Last November, I asked FCC Commissioner and Fairness Doctrine cheerleader Michael Copps about his thoughts on applying the Fairness Doctrine to the internet. VIDEO:

I think we do have to have an expectation that the internet, if that is going to become the primary vehicle for even broadcast over the years not tomorrow or the next day, but over the years, There has to be some discussion about how the internet encourages a civic dialogue that’s adequate to the needs of the country, but I think that’s way premature too say exactly this. We haven’t even teed up the question. I’m trying to get people to talk about it. If we can talk about it then maybe we can come up with some intelligent answers.

However, government regulation of private citizen’s speech is un-constitutional. Waxman and company may be biting off more than they can chew on this one.

Liberals only quieted down some about internet content regulation, when they found how the internet could benefit themselves in elections.

Angering a liberal base that enjoys reading websites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Democratic Underground would be risky. After all, if Waxman is insistent that all internet content is to be policed for so-called balance, that should include liberal sites as well….right, Congressman Waxman?

Photo Credit: PBS

UPDATE 3/6/09 – A spokesman for Acting Chairman Copps has denied that any plans for regulating internet content is happening.

Deborah Burlingame: Obama Said He Was Not Worried About Safety Of U.S. In Bringing Gitmo Detainees To American Soil

Deborah Burlingame, a 9/11 family member who lost her brother Charles “Chic” Burlingame during the 9/11 attacks, spoke to media at the National Press Club today about her meeting with President Obama last week. Burlingame was joined by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Move America Forward’s Melanie Morgan. Inhofe presented proposed legislation that would keep U.S. taxpayer funds from going towards transferring any detainee (like those in Guatanamo) anywhere in the United States or its territories for the purpose of housing and incarceration.

Burlingame relayed Obama seemed comfortable and not worried about security by having Guantanamo detainees in a federal lock up (emphasis mine):

He said he was not at all worried about the security of the American people in bringing the detainees here. Not in the least worried about that. His reasoning was this:

‘ Al Qaeda doesn’t have a conscience they’re not interested in going back and springing these guys. They’re forgotten once they are put away in our federal facilities. He said, furthermore there are so many soft targets in the United States, like a shopping mall, why would Al Qaeda go after a hard target like a federal lock up or military prison, when they could choose a soft target.’

Burlingame later added that Obama was “non-committal” about visiting Guantanamo Bay when she asked him.

Newt Gingrich Talks About Future of the GOP