2012 Presidential Election

I had to make sure that the Conference Board, which issues one of the most closely watched consumer confidence reports each month, didn't issue some kind of update during the day after telling us in the morning that its reading for March came in at 70.2, down from 71.6 in February. Nothing changed. But, oh how the Associated Press's headlines about the Board's reported results changed in successive dispatches authored by the wire service's Anne D'Innocenzio, as seen after the jump from Google News listings: The same source report from the Conference Board went from “falls” to “dips slightly” to “roughly flat” to “rosy” in the space of roughly ten hours. You can't make this up. Here are several paragraphs from the 7 p.m. version : A later paragraph notes that “The measure is still significantly below the 90 reading that indicates a healthy economy – a level the index has not been near since the recession began in December 2007. But the current reading is a long climb from the 40 figure it hit last October, not to mention its all-time low of 25.3 in February 2009.” So why, if the reading is so far below “health,” are things so flippin' “rosy”? The survey's cutoff date was March 15. Gas prices have risen another nine cents nationwide since then, and about 20 cents since the midpoint of the February-March reporting period. If they keep going, and if seasonally adjusted job additions continue to come in at 200,000 or so, we'll see whether gas prices continue to be so allegedly unimportant. I hope that AP is done massaging its headline. I don't I could bear looking at a different headline a few hours from now, lest I lose dinner after seeing that a drop in consumer confidence — slight, but a drop — foreshadows a booming summer or something even more insufferably absurd. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View post:
From ‘Falls’ to ‘Rosy’: Headlines at AP’s Coverage of Consumer Confidence Report Improve As Day Wears On

Here's a joke for you this Tuesday morning. Did you know that hyperpartisan Democrat Chris Matthews sees himself as a “centrist?” In an aside during a conversation with MSNBC contributor Joan Walsh, the leg-thrilling pundit emphatically claimed the moderate label for himself, stating that he could understand President Obama being criticized by both liberals and conservatives on the Keystone Pipeline. “Take it from a centrist. I know what it's like,” Matthews proclaimed. Video, transcript and commentary below the break. A transcript from the exchange which occurred on the March 22, 2012 edition of “Hardball:” CHRIS MATTHEWS: Politically, I see the president in a problem area here. To be halfway for something endangers you, it makes you enemies on both sides. JOAN WALSH (guffawing): Right. It's a– MATTHEWS: Take it from a centrist. I know what it's like. WALSH: Yeah, you get kicked from both sides. You know, some days if we're centrists we say, 'Well we must be doing something right, we've got everybody mad at us,' but sometimes when everybody's mad at you, maybe you're a little bit wrong. And I think the president has a very tricky, tricky position here. It's very classic Barack Obama. He wants to be the man in the middle. He wants to be the man of moderation. He wants to split the baby (not literally) and he wants to come up with a compromise that works. I just don't think it's possible here. Beyond the fact that he has himself stated that he has ” made a commitment to covering politics in a liberal way ,” Matthews's actions have belied any claims to centrism: He began his career in journalism writing articles for an organization run by the very liberal Ralph Nader He wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter He worked on the Capitol Hill staffs of four Democratic members of Congress He ran for a U.S. House seat in 1974 as a Democrat He encouraged talk about the possibility of him running for Senate in 2010 as a Democrat, secretly being in communication with then-president-elect Barack Obama's top staff, trying to recruit them And of course, all the preposterous left-wing drivel that we've chronicled him saying over the years certainly isn't the kind of thing that a conservative or a moderate would go about spouting. Matthews's comments here remind one of something that FBN anchor John Stossel said about his time working for ABC, the unfortunate reality is that people like Chris Matthews are so utterly surrounded by liberalism, they think it's commonsense moderation : “Anyone who disagrees is seen as not just wrong, but selfish and cruel. Leftist thinking is simply the culture I swim in. More safety regulation? Who could not want that? Everyone I know wants that. When I question other reporters about bias, I get blank stares. It's like asking fish about water. 'What water?' say the fish.” Chris Matthews is firmly ensconced in his fishbowl. Quick aside: Walsh's statement that Obama is trying to craft some sort of compromise on the Keystone Pipeline is absurd considering that the campaign appearance he did in Oklahoma a few days ago was to tout the approval of a project which had already received approval long ago. There literally is nothing that Obama could do to “expedite” the process since the work will be done by private companies and is being paid for by private companies. The only decision over which Obama had any sort of influence is the one that he made to deny approval for the pipeline running from Canada into the United States, a permit request which had already been approved by the State Department. If he were truly concerned about “expediting” anything, he would have simply not disturbed the normal process which had already been completed.

A search on Travyvon Martin's name (not in quotes) at the Associated Press's main national site at 7 p.m. returned 37 items . A search on “Trayvon Martin bounty” (also not in quotes) returned one item . Here is the relevant section

Here's some good advice from Rush Limbaugh's opening monologue today : “If I were you, I would regard every AP story, particularly this year, as nothing more than a propaganda piece for the reelection of Barack Obama.” What occasioned Rush's rant is the thinly disguised propaganda today from the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, concerning President Obama's visit to Cushing, Oklahoma to pretend that he's really a fan of the Keystone Pipeline, starting with the following headline : Obama defends handling of Keystone as he puts another key oil pipeline on the fast track Rush's reax: Another! Another? When was the first one? He opposes Keystone! And what he did today — we told you yesterday this is coming — is already happening. It was already in place. He's not even authorizing anything that wasn't happening. Indeed. The AP (Awful Propaganda) continues: President Barack Obama firmly defended his record on oil drilling Thursday, ordering the government to fast-track an Oklahoma pipeline while rebuking Congress for playing politics with a larger Canada-to-Gulf Coast pipeline project. … Deep in Republican oil country, Obama said lawmakers refused to give his administration enough time review the controversial Keystone pipeline in order to ensure that it wouldn't compromise the health and safety of people living in surrounding areas. Sorry, guys. That just isn't so. All the meaningful approvals have been in place already, as CNS News reported on January 25 (HT to Maggie Thurber in an email), quoting a statement made by Texas Congressman Joe Barton (bolds are mine throughout the rest of this post): “There are 10 other agencies that have reviewed this project and – correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the Corps of Engineers approved it, the Department of Agriculture approved it, the Department of Interior approved it, the Department of Transportation approved it, the Environmental Protection Agency – believe it or not – approved it , the Defense Department approved it; the Justice Department approved it, the Homeland Security Department approved it and the Department of Commerce approved it. Only the State Department, which I believe, by law is required to look at the International implications since its trans-Canada — only the State Department did not approve it.” Rush pointed out that the President's sudden interest in oil distribution is driven by a Gallup poll showing that Americans who are following the matter closely favor the Keystone Pipeline's approval by 78%-22% . But let's get back to Rush's comments about AP and the media. Here is a sampler: Here's another one from AP: “Breaking News! US President Obama Directs Federal Agencies to Fast Track Oil Pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas.” Now, maybe I'm mistaken (that's doubtful), but has there been a huge problem getting oil from Oklahoma all the way to Texas? (Answer: No.) … I look at this, and I imagine you reading this stuff on your own, and I hope and I pray that you have the same reaction to this that I do, that it's just patently absurd. It's not even news. This isn't even journalism. This is not even a pretense of news or journalism. This is just pure campaign support propaganda from a new organization called the Associated Press. … It's journalistic malpractice. “Another Oil Pipeline on Fast Track.” The Keystone pipeline has not been approved. He still opposes it. This is a pure political move to satisfy 78% of the American people who want it done. So Obama's doing nothing, and he's got a very supportive news media out there trying to convince you and everybody else that he just today authorized the Keystone pipeline. That's what's going on. It's as dishonest as possible. It's as dishonest and misleading as possible. … Never has it been more obvious that without the media, Barack Obama would not have a chance. Without the media, Barack Obama would be a national joke. But he has the media. He has the largest propaganda arm that a president has ever had. He has people willing to lie. He has people willing to publish his lies. He has people willing to work with him against the best interests of the people of this country. I've been alive 61 years, and I have never seen anything like this. I'm telling you. There's always been media bias, and the media were sickeningly slavish to things like Camelot, to JFK and Clinton. But this is unprecedented. I know they carried the water for Clinton for a while with Monica Lewinsky and that whole event, but even they drew some lines there. This has no boundaries. Whatever it takes. … This what the Democrats do, folks. This is what the left does. There is no moral core. There's no concern for truth and there's no concern for being caught lying, because Obama knows that his number one support group's not gonna call him on it. The only people who are gonna call him on it are people like me, and they're not worried about that. They've got the AP on their side. They've got the Washington Post, the New York Times. They don't care. But what it indicates is the good news about this: They know how deep the trouble Obama is in. What Rush said explains why yours truly has been calling AP the Administration's Press for some time. Because that's what this outfit, dominated by a sorry collection of propagandists and leftist activists masquerading as journalists, really is. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more here:
Rush Rips AP’s Coverage of Obama’s Keystone Pipeline Pretense

On Monday's CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose accused GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum of focusing too much on foreign policy and social issues, instead of the economy: ” You talk about President Obama being an appeaser. You talk about [Obama] being soft on pornography and those kinds of things, rather than the bread and butter economic issues that you say are essential to who will win .” Earlier in the interview, Rose hinted at the left-leaning talking point that the Republican Party was waging a “war on women.” He asked the former Pennsylvania senator, ” Do you believe that there are particular issues of concern to women more than other voters? ” [audio clips available here ; video below the jump ] The CBS anchor's hyping of the pornography issue, which isn't even a major part of Santorum's campaign strategy, came towards the end of the segment. The Republican countered Rose's “particular issues of concern to women” issue by stating, in part, that “women are a diverse group, just like men are a diverse group. I think the idea of trying to buttonhole people into one particular group or, you know, philosophy is- has been tried. It just doesn't work .” The veteran journalist followed up by citing Santorum's website and playing up his “appeaser” accusation against the President and the pornography issue. The former senator answered that these were two issues among many, and went on the attack against his Republican opponent Mitt Romney: ROSE: …[W]hen you go to your website, you talk about President Obama being an appeaser. You talk about [Obama] being soft on pornography and those kinds of things, rather than the bread and butter economic issues that you say are essential to who will win- not only the nomination, but also the general election. SANTORUM: Well, Charlie, I mean, on our website, we have a whole lot of issues. I mean, that's important for people to know what your position is on a whole variety of issues . People write in, they ask and reporters ask- and, you know, we're very transparent about what we believe. There isn't just one issue . I mean, Mitt Romney thinks that this election is going to be about, you know, who can best manage the nanny state of Washington. No, this election is about freedom. This election is about a fundamental change in Washington, D.C. This is about, you know, reducing and- the size of government, getting government out of people's lives, particularly when it comes to their health and energy and financial services and banking. And, you know, we've got- we have a government that's trying to take over different sectors of the economy, and Mitt Romney joined Barack Obama in a lot of those takeovers. On Friday, CNN's Fredrick Whitfield did something similar on the Newsroom program. Whitfield asked Republican strategist Ana Navarro , ” Should porn, pornography, even be an issue that Santorum or any other candidate at this point should be talking about? ” The anchor then cited a former colleague of Santorum with regard to the fight over the GOP presidential race: ” At the same time, Senator McCain said recently, this is the dirtiest campaign that he's ever seen .” Rose has a record of playing up side issues in the Republican nomination fight. On January 17, 2012, the CBS anchor hinted Newt Gingrich should apologize for a supposedly racially-tinged comment. Two days later, he touted a headline from the New York Times that claimed that “[Mitt] Romney's riches are being seen as new hurdle .” During a previous interview with Rose on February 17, Santorum pushed back against the journalist's interrogating about supporter Foster Friess's “bad off-color joke” about contraception. Earlier in March, the CBS anchor wondered if Republicans had ” gone far enough in condemning ” Rush Limbaugh's controversial attack on pro-ObamaCare contraception mandate activist Sandra Fluke. The full transcript of Charlie Rose's interview of Rick Santorum, which aired 12 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour of Monday's CBS This Morning, is available at MRC.org .

Continue reading here:
CBS’s Rose to Santorum: Why Are You Focused on Porn, Obama as ‘Appeaser’?

ABC's Dan Harris trumpeted the ” bromance between President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron ” on Thursday's GMA. Harris noted the presence of Vogue magazine head Anna Wintour at Wednesday's state dinner, but omitted that she is a major donor to Obama's campaign . Instead, he gushed over how ” Michelle Obama and Samantha Cameron [were] both looking very regal in blue, floor-length gowns .” The same morning, NBC's Today show chose to play up the ” little star power from George Clooney … and movie mogul Harvey Weinstein ” at the dinner, but failed to mention Weinstein's $500,000 contribution to the President's campaign . CBS This Morning did report that ” many of the guests included some of the President's top fundraisers ,” but anchor Charlie Rose, who attended the function, and correspondent Bill Plante, spent more time talking about the wines that the White House served [audio clips available here ; video below the jump ]. ABC and NBC gave only a news brief each on the state dinner, compared to CBS, who understandably gave more coverage to the event due to Rose's attendance. Besides his “bromance” and “regal” exclamations, Harris spotlighted that ” celebrities in attendance included George Clooney, who came solo, ladies. He sat next to Mrs. Obama ….Also, the star of the star of TV drama Homeland, Damian Lewis was there. The President says that's his favorite show .” The ABC journalist also attempted to inject some humor into his brief near the end: “Prime Minister Cameron said the celeb he most wanted to see was Chevy Chase, but it turns out the only Chevy Chase on the guest list was a reference to Chevy Chase, Maryland, which is a city right outside of Washington D.C. ” Harris emulated former colleague Martin Bashir with his “regal” superlative about the first lady and Mrs. Cameron. On the April 28, 2009 edition of Nightline, Bashir raved about Mrs. Obama's ” regal embrace and those arms. Michelle Obama has been a very busy first lady . Everyone is talking about his [the President's] first 100 days. Tonight, we look at hers.” A Nexis search found that no one at ABC ever used the “regal” term about former first lady Laura Bush during her eight years in the White House. On NBC's Today, news anchor Natalie Morales gave a shorter brief than Harris, but like him, touted how ” both first ladies dazzled in beautiful blue gowns .” Just before this, Morales gave her “star power” line, which included the mentions of Clooney and Weinstein, along with “Grammy winner John Legend.” Rose actually interviewed Weinstein just after the bottom of the 7 am Eastern hour of CBS This Morning, but only made one brief mention of the White House dinner at the beginning of the interview, before helping the “movie mogul” promote his latest documentary about bullying in schools: ROSE: Harvey Weinstein [is] with us, fresh from last night's state dinner- although, some say it's not a state dinner because the prime minister was there being honored, not the queen. They could have fooled me. WEINSTEIN: (laughs) It's pretty nice. It was a fabulous evening . The CBS personality, along with co-anchors Erica Hill and Gayle King, then did a full segment at the top of the 8 am Eastern hour about the state dinner, including the requisite gushing over Mrs. Obama and getting to meet the President: ROSE: …Let me just tell you this about this. You have been there. It's just extraordinary to be in that house…There's George [Clooney] and there's Warren Buffett and a lot of- people who are part of politics in Washington are there….So it's- really is a coming together here, in what I still like to think of as the people's house…. KING: You know, I totally agree with you, Charlie. I have such a great reverence for the White House. I know that the first lady has always called it the people's house . And when you go there- I don't care who is in the office- I have great respect and reverence for the office of the presidency. But I'm wondering, was it a fun night for you last night? That what I want. Was it fun? ROSE: … I had a great time. And, by the way, the first lady said say hello to both of you – KING: Oh, nice! HILL: Aw! ROSE: When we went through the receiving line. So she's watching- we hope. The President came by at the table that I was [at]. But he did come by- because I was sitting with [White House Press Secretary] Jay Carney- just to say something about basketball- so, knowing that I love it. And, also, that he likes my home state a lot- loves North Carolina, in fact . So it was a great evening. And when you thought the gushing over the Obamas couldn't get any worse, the three anchors discussed the matter again at the bottom of the hour, and brought in Plante to talk about the wines. Both Rose and Plante just barely touched on the campaign donor issue: ROSE: …Bill Plante knows a lot about the kinds of wines they serve and stuff like that. So we'll hear all that of from Mr. Plante, and talk about some of the other people there from Warren Buffett, to George Clooney, to lots of people who've helped the President in his campaigns were there as well . And some Brits, too. KING: Did you have a highlight, Charlie? Is it hard to pick a highlight from last night? Can you do? ROSE: Well, for me, just to have the President stop by and talk basketball was a highlight for me. And so, that was pretty good – HILL: So who is he picking?

On Monday's CBS This Morning, correspondent Michelle Miller highlighted one of the 77 married Catholic priests in the U.S. who converted from the Episcopal Church in recent years and boosted a favorite pet cause of left-leaning dissenting Catholics: ordaining married men. Miller trumpeted that Father Doug Grandon's example ” begs the question: should all Catholic priests have the option to marry? ” Father Grandon himself leaned towards that concept when he stated that “the most we could say is that having a married priest…allows them to look and see how it would work if they wanted to change it.” The morning show's religious and faith contributor, Father Edward Beck, also acknowledged that the several dozen former Episcopalian clerics are ” bringing a whole liberal notion with them ,” but also noted one of the main reasons for Catholic clerical celibacy – that parish priests can devote all 24 hours of each day to their ministry. The media's common ignorance of Christianity- and Catholicism specifically- was apparent from the beginning of Miller's report, which aired at the bottom of the 8 am Eastern hour. The CBS journalist admitted in her introduction that the concept of married Catholic priests ” certainly surprised me. A number of priests are living lives that are not very different from the family men in their own parishes .” If the correspondent needed to find a married Catholic priest, instead of going all the way to Denver to where Father Grandon lives, she could have looked no further than the many Eastern Rite parishes in the New York City metro area. Eastern Catholics , which number in the hundreds of thousands in the U.S. (out of a total Catholic population of about 77 million), have a long tradition of married priests. The journalist omitted any mention of this different, but fully Catholic faith tradition during her report. Later in her report, Miller gave a misleading impression of the 77 converts who became Catholic priests as she outlined Father Grandon's journey into the Church: MILLER (voice-over) Married for thirty years, Doug has fathered six children, and enjoyed a successful career as an Episcopal pastor in the Protestant church . But in 2003, he realized his calling was with the Catholic Church. GRANDON The Catholic Church is the fullest expression of what Jesus meant Christianity to be, and I wanted to be a part of that. MILLER: Pope John Paul II issued a little known edict that said Protestant priests wishing to become Catholic should not break their marriage vows. It took five years of schooling, and a blessing from Pope Benedict, to make Father Doug one of 77 priests in the U.S. who have converted allegiance to the Vatican. Actually, the “edict” was only extended to married Episcopalian ministers who converted, not to Protestants in general. After asking Father Grandon's wife about her initial reaction to his intent to convert, Miller added that ” in giving up his Protestant ministry, Father Doug took a considerable pay cut. The Catholic Church hasn't quite figured out how much to pay a priest with a family. It's a good thing Lynn runs the Denver Diocese Respect Life office. She's the breadwinner now .” Besides obviously casting aspersions on the Catholic Church (not to mention the long experience of Eastern Catholicism with married priests), Miller failed to explain that a diocese's Respect Life office handles a bishop's pro-life ministries, which includes reaching out to women in difficult pregnancies, and counseling post-abortive women. Near the end oft he report, the CBS correspondent gave her boost to the dissenting Catholics' agenda: “Father Doug says his marriage in the Church gives him a unique perspective….Which begs the question: should all Catholic priests have the option to marry?” Instead of finding a priest who seems open to changing the centuries-old discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin rite, Miller could have turned to another convert from the Episcopal Church, Father Dwight Longenecker, who took down many of the dissenters' common arguments in favor of the married priesthood in a 2009 blog entry . Co-anchors Erica Hill and Gayle King then brought in Father Beck and asked slanted questions about the priesthood debate. King even began by cheering on the convert priest: KING (live): … I have to say, I love this story; I love this story- go Father Doug. And I'm wondering for you, Father Beck, does it bother you that Father Doug can get married and you cannot? … BECK: At a time in my life, but I think I chose a path that precludes it. And so, no, not at this stage in my life….But I think what's interesting is you have these gentlemen coming from other traditions- like the Episcopalian Church mostly- and they're leaving because they think their traditions are too liberal. Usually, it's about women priests, gay marriage- they don't agree with it. So they want to come to the Catholic Church, but they come with their wives and kids- really putting into question this whole traditional notion of celibacy in the Catholic Church. So I think it's ironic that they're coming to be more conservative- yet, they're bringing a whole liberal notion with them …. HILL: You've also said to us, though, before on this program- you've said to us, part of the beauty, in some ways, of taking this vow of celibacy is that you're not distracted by those other things. Does it go both ways here? Is it sort of whatever works? … KING: You said single-minded, single-focused. Does it lead- and not being disrespectful or impolite- does it lead to a lot of frustration? It just seems so unnatural, to me, for so many people . BECK: …It is hard. There's no doubt about that. But I think you get something else. I become members of families in my parishes. I become intimately involved with people. And I think a wife and kids would resent the involvement that I have and the commitment to it if they were part of my life. Now, some guys can just do it on the weekend. It's a weekend job for them. But Catholics aren't used to that. Catholics are used to 24 hours- you're there. And you know, right now, we can. While King's final question is understandable coming from a non-Catholic, one can imagine that two homosexuals in a same-sex “marriage” would never have a similar question asked of them by a major media journalist.

Read more from the original source:
CBS Touts Dissenting Catholics’ Agenda in Favor of Married Priesthood

It's bad enough when items which should so obviously be leading the news aren't. It's worse when you realize that one of the reasons for the deliberate avoidance is that the press is allowing itself to be coopted into treating insignificant orchestrated political stunts to chew up scarce time and resources. Readers who are wondering why outfits like CNN (covered yesterday by Matt Hadro at NewsBusters), the New York Times (as noted by NB's Clay Waters ) and the Associated Press (caught Tuesday by yours truly ) would bother to prepare reports on a dozen-person anti-Mitt Romney demonstration at the Westminster Dog Show can stop wondering. At Polititicker , Hunter Walker and Colin Campbell report that Americans United for Change ( home page ; Facebook page ), a Democratic Party-connected group, is driving it (bolds are mine): … while much of the coverage of Dogs Against Romney characterized the group as a purely grassroots movement, its recent notoriety got a substantial boost from the behind-the-scenes support of Americans United for Change, a super PAC-like group with extensive ties to the Democratic establishment. Dogs Against Romney spokeswoman Kitty Hendrix admitted the group’s much talked about protest outside the Westminster Kennel Club dog show in Manhattan last Tuesday was planned and executed with a discreet push from AUC. “They basically wanted more grassroots people with dogs to talk about this issue, because it just made sense. It’s always suspect when someone is a professional political operative getting in front of the camera trying to pull emotional content out of anyone,” Ms. Hendrix said. “People are always a little more suspect of that.” Dogs Against Romney does indeed have grassroots origins. … … AUC, on the other hand, is hardly a grassroots operation. Its Executive Director Tom McMahon was previously the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee, and its Deputy Executive Director Caren Benjamin was an aide to Nancy Pelosi during her time as Speaker of the House. FactCheck.org describes AUC as a “liberal group whose message closely mirrors that of the Obama White House.” According to its website, AUC aims to use “aggressive earned and paid media outreach, grassroots and online organizing” to “build broad public and congressional support for policies that move America in a new, better direction.” … Members of Dogs Against Romney said AUC encouraged them to hold the Westminster protest and aided with media outreach. Kitty Hendrix, a spokeswoman for Dogs Against Romney, said AUC “was definitely interested in us having a little demonstration.” “They knew this organization existed and it could be a powerful organization,” Ms. Hendrix said. “They got the ball rolling and, certainly, the press probably paid a little more attention, but this is very much an organic organization that was created by dog lovers who felt it was important for people to understand what kind of man Mitt Romney is.” AUC’s media efforts on behalf of the protest were an unqualified success as more reporters attended the event than protesters. Indeed. An 11:30 p.m. Google News search on “Romney Westminster dog” (not in quotes, sorted by date with duplicates) returned 456 results . When AUC, with likely Obama campaign coordination, throws the establishment press a bone, its reporters can be counted to salivate at the opportunity to take a shot at a conservative or Republican with greater likelihood than Pavlov's canines before their food arrived. What a pathetic, irresponsible pack of lapdogs. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post here:
Anti-Romney Dog Show News Boomlet Dem Activist-Driven

New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny reported Saturday from Mitt Romney’s speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C., “Romney’s Record as Governor Resumes Central Role in Nomination Fight ,” and noted that Mitt Romney used the “conservative” label “at least 25 times during a 25-minute speech.” Funny Zeleny should mention that, considering a Friday Times report from CPAC contains 23 instances of the word “conservative” in a 28-paragraph story, making it as popular a word choice as the conjunction “and.” Zeleny's Saturday dispatch was only slightly less label-happy, using the word 12 times, not counting quoted material or the name of the conference itself. (Is the name Conservative Political Action Conference not a sufficient giveaway?) Mitt Romney sought on Friday to expunge the lingering skepticism and unease that conservative activists have raised about his presidential candidacy, pledging in a speech that he would not betray their trust or abandon their principles if he challenged President Obama as the Republican nominee. As the Republican presidential race intensifies, Mr. Romney’s record as Massachusetts governor has resumed a central role. He introduced himself at a speech here as a “severely conservative governor,” but one of his leading rivals, Rick Santorum, warned voters not to settle for “a hollow victory” by nominating an impure conservative. …. The spotlight was squarely on Mr. Romney, who is working to regain the upper hand in the Republican nominating contest. He went to great lengths to showcase his conservative core, using a variation of the word “conservative” at least 25 times during a 25-minute speech. But he did not dramatically change his tone or signal that he was poised to make urgent adjustments to his message. While commentators had built up his appearance at the conservative forum as a make-or-break moment for his candidacy, he seemed to confront it with the same methodical approach he has taken to his campaign. At the conference here four years ago, in the same ballroom of the Marriott Wardman Park hotel, Mr. Romney announced that he was ending his presidential bid. The crowd roared in disapproval, a sign of the well-known dislike among conservatives for Senator John McCain.

See the rest here:
NYT Goes to "Great Lengths" to Call People at Conservative Political Action Conference "Conservative"

On February 2, Blake Ellis at CNN Money (HT to a NewsBusters tipster), in an item which treated minor regulatory changes relating to annuities as some kind of “rescue plan” for retirees, gave President Obama credit for “measures … (he) has put in place to help Americans save for retirement, including automatic enrollment in 401(k)s.” There's no word on whether Ms. Ellis also believes that Obama hung the moon , but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Somebody needs to tell Ms. Ellis that a “History of 401(k) Plans” published by the Employee Benefits Research Institute seven years ago tells us that the critical dates relating to employers' ability to automatically enroll new and eventually existing employees in their 401(k) plans (subject to the employee's ability to proactively decline if he or she chooses) go back to 1998 and 2000, many years before Obama was sworn in as a U.S. Senator (bolds are mine): 1998⎯IRS issued Rev. Rul. 98−30, which gave a stamp of approval for employers to make “negative elections” (i.e., automatic enrollment) into 401(k) plans for newly eligible employees (“negative election” allows workers to be automatically enrolled in their employer's retirement savings plan if they take no action). … 2000⎯IRS Rev. Rul. 2000−8 provided additional guidance on “negative elections” by allowing automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans for already-eligible employees who are deferring at a rate that is less than the automatic enrollment rate. Here are excerpts from the rest of Ms. Ellis's report : Obama's latest retirement rescue plan: Annuities The Obama administration proposed new rules Thursday to help retirees make their savings last throughout their lifetime — by investing in annuities. By taking out some of the regulatory roadblocks that have made annuities less attractive for employees and employers to add them to their retirement plans, the government is hoping to give more Americans ways to keep income flowing later in life. Annuities are investments that pay out fixed amounts of income at a future date. Depending on the type of annuity, you can receive payments on a monthly, annual or lump-sum basis. The retirement rescue plan, which was announced in a joint press release by the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department, comes at a time when an increasing number of Americans are being forced to wait longer to retire and find themselves without enough money to live comfortably once they do reach their golden years. … Partial annuities: The first proposal would offer employees more options when it comes to how they cash out their pension plans at retirement. Upon retirement, employees typically face the option of either cashing out their pension or getting a lifetime income stream through an annuity. For many retirees, it's often much more appealing to just take the lump sum. Yet, this option often leads them to come up short on funds later on in retirement. … Longevity annuities: The government also wants to make it easier for employees to invest in longevity annuities through their 401(k)s and IRAs. To do so, it wants to provide relief from minimum distribution requirements that could cause them to run out of money in retirement. Two points: Even if it's not available from the employer's plan, retiring employees have always had the ability to partially annuitize their retirement fund by first directly transferring their money to an IRA and then deciding how much to annuitize. Given that fact, one could argue that telling employer plans that they must allow for partial annuitization might needlessly increase the costs of plan sponsorship. The only reason the minimum distribution rules exist is that the government wants to start taxing money which has legally avoided tax until the age at which a retiree has to start taking such distributions (usually 70-1/2). It would be interesting to know just how much accelerated tax is collected because of these rules, because they are cumbersome, confusing, and often inadvertently violated. If the amount of tax involved is as negligible as I believe it is, why not just scrap the rules entirely (especially because the tax becomes due once the person retiree dies, and normal estate tax-related exemptions usually don't apply)? A final note to Ms. Blake: Characterizing the proposed annuitization regs as some kind of “rescue plan” is a grandiose exaggeration of what they are and what they accomplish, and giving Obama credit for conceiving them is ludicrous (as doing so would be for any president). This is relatively mundane stuff presidents leave to the bureaucracy to conceive and implement. It's likely that Obama didn't even know the regs were coming until just before they were issued. So please stop it already with the knee-jerk glorification of Dear Leader. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Originally posted here:
CNN Money Reporter Says Obama ‘Put in Place’ Automatic 401(k) Enrollment Provision Originating in 1998