2012 Presidential Election

As of 11:55 a.m., a search at the Associated Press's national site on “Cleaver” returns nothing related to an April 6 story reported at the Kansas City star (HT Nice Deb via Gateway Pundit ) that Bank of America has sued Missouri Congressman and Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver for repayment of a $1 million-plus loan relating to a car wash. The KC Star didn't exactly provide exemplary coverage in its report. One would think from reading the story's headline and first two paragraphs that Bank of America and the congressman are having some kind of difficult conversation. In paragraph 3, we finally learn that there really is a lawsuit involved. It took the Star seven paragraphs to indicate that taxpayers may be on the hook and eight paragraphs to tag Cleaver as a Dem (impact-minimizing words in bold): (headline) Bank wants Missouri Rep. Cleaver to pay $1.5 million on car wash loan U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's car wash headache is raging once again. The bank that loaned the Kansas City congressman and his wife $1.3 million in 2002 to buy the Grandview Auto Wash at 12204 Blue Ridge Extension is now demanding payment of more than $1.5 million, after the Cleavers repeatedly fell behind on repaying the loan. The suit, filed last week in Jackson County Circuit Court, said the demand for repayment came after three attempts to delay foreclosure. Bank of America also is seeking attorney’s fees and a receiver to protect collateral. “The Cleaver Company failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to pay the outstanding obligations due and owing … under the note and other loan documents,” the lawsuit said. In an email statement, Cleaver said, “This is a business dispute. The business has been run by an outside manager for years.” He said because it was a legal matter, he would have no further comment. According to court documents, the outstanding principal totals $1.2 million with interest totaling $240,545 as of March 6. Late fees have reached $54,587. Both Cleavers had personally guaranteed the debts, according to the suit. The loan was originally part of a Small Business Administration program. It was not clear Thursday how much money, if any, taxpayers will have to provide if the loan defaults. The car wash became a hot topic when Cleaver, a Democrat and former Kansas City mayor, ran for the U.S. House for the first time in 2004. Awww, the poor guy. He has a “headache” because a bank “wants” a loan to be repaid. The Start never identified Cleaver as CBC Chairman. Those who followed the run-up to the passage of ObamaCare in the House in March 2010 may recall that Congressman Cleaver was among those who originally claimed to have been spat upon by Tea Party-inspired protesters. Despite mountains of videos taken of the march through the protesting crowd by Cleaver and others, no definitive evidence supporting Cleaver's claim ever materialized. A $100,000 pledge by the late Andrew Breitbart promised to anyone who could provide such proof was to my knowledge never claimed. There is virtually no doubt that a Republican or conservative in similar circumstances would have had his or her party tagged early, would have had his or her congressional leadership capacity promptly identified, and would have been the recipient of national AP coverage. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post:
Kid Glove Treatment For Emanuel ‘Car Wash’ Cleaver at KC Star; AP Has No National Story

As former Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) railed against political extremists whom he termed “cannibals,” CNN's Piers Morgan actually encouraged him to “start taking a few of them out for us” and “Bury a few more bodies.” Specter had specifically referenced the Tea Party and the Club for Growth as “cannibals” he wrote about in his new book “Life Among the Cannibals” and repeatedly took shots at the conservative wing of the Republican Party, on Tuesday's Piers Morgan Tonight. Just last week CNN's Piers Morgan condemned bigoted jokes and slammed conservative actor Kirk Cameron for his ” deliberately inflammatory ” rhetoric against homosexuals. However, he not only allowed Specter to label his enemies “cannibals” but joined in on the act. [Video below the break. Audio here .] After Specter had lamented the “buried” bodies of former Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), who lost to more conservative candidates in their respective 2010 senate primaries, Morgan engaged him with more gruesome rhetoric. He asked Specter about presidential candidates who are still in the running – “the bodies who are still hanging on in there, you know, dangling maybe, from the meat hooks.” And he lauded Specter's new book “Life Among the Cannibals” at the end of the interview. “If the book lives up to the title, I reckon you've got a best-seller on your hands,” he flattered the former senator. On Friday morning, CNN hosted Specter and again let him excoriate Tea Party “extremists” and “cannibals.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on March 27 on Piers Morgan Tonight at 9:32 p.m. EDT, is as follows: [9:32] ARLEN SPECTER, former senator (D-Pa.): Piers, this book characterizes and describes what is wrong with extremism in Washington, what has caused the gridlock, and has a suggestion on how to deal with it. This book is about cannibals devouring senators. And I'm very specific. Bob Bennett was devoured in Utah, couldn't win a Republican primary notwithstanding the fact that he had a 93 percent conservative rating. On the Democratic side, excellent senator like Joe Lieberman couldn't win a Democratic primary. The experience of Senator Lisa Murkowski in Alaska shows the way out. Lisa Murkowski – PIERS MORGAN: Who are the cannibals? SPECTER: The cannibals are the Tea Party, are the Club for Growth. I'm very specific in this book, led by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. They have – they beat Lisa Murkowski in the primary. She then ran a campaign on a write-in, unprecedented in American history, especially with a name like Murkowski. You misspell it with a Y instead of an I, the ballot is thrown out. But she was able to demonstrate that if you acquaint the electorate with the problem and you motivate them to come out, they can take back the center. And you can get a Congress which will be functional. And – (…) SPECTER: The primary process on the Republican nomination, for example, has driven so far to the right, they're off the boards. And I know what goes on behind the scenes. I've been in both caucuses, Democrats and Republicans. I know where the bodies were buried. And there – and there is a way out. But people have to understand how Washington works. And this book is a description of the problem and a solution as to where we go from here. MORGAN: Well, where are these bodies buried? SPECTER: These bodies are buried in ended careers. Bob Bennett's body is (Unintelligible) at a Washington law firm. Mike Castle – MORGAN: Let's talk – SPECTER: Go ahead. MORGAN: Let's talk about the bodies who are still hanging on in there, you know, dangling maybe, from the meat hooks. But what do you make of the Republican race in terms of, is it a done deal now for Mitt Romney, do you think? Is it time for Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul or Rick Santorum to throw the towel in? SPECTER: I think it is plainly going to be Romney's as the nominee. What those other fellows want to do is up to them. It's a free country. What I'm concerned about is what we do beyond the presidency. That is one office. You can't run America if you have a Congress which is gridlocked, if you have a Tea Party where they run on a platform of no compromise, where you have people afraid to express themselves. Listen, independence is a twin brother of integrity. And you don't have any independence in the Congress today. There's not a moderate in the Republican Senate caucus. We had a terrible decision by the Supreme Court on Citizens United, allows corporations and unions to have unlimited anonymous expenditures. The Supreme Court left a narrow avenue for Congress to legislate on disclosure. If you're going to have these billionaires like Sheldon Adelson buy South Carolina for Newt Gingrich, at least let's know who's putting up the money. Fifty nine senators – (Crosstalk) MORGAN: Arlen, I've got to – I could speak to you all night about this. SPECTER: Let me finish just one thought, one sentence. MORGAN: Okay. SPECTER: Fifty nine senators on one side of the aisle voted for cloture to move the bill ahead. Not one senator on the Republican side of the aisle, neither Snowe nor Collins, who had been moderates, would advance the bill. And that's what has led to the turmoil in the election process and to the gridlock. MORGAN: Well, I think the secret, Arlen, is you're going to have to get into those cannibals and start taking a few of them out for us. Bury a few more bodies. (Laughter) SPECTER: Well, if – if my ideas are followed, if enough people will read the book, if enough people will show indignation, as the Alaska electorate did – we'll move ahead. MORGAN: If the book lives up to the title, I reckon you've got a best-seller on your hands.

Andrew trusted me to tell the truth about the media when he first started this web site, Big Journalism . I owe him much more than this small tribute. When Andrew first started this site and asked me to be a contributor  I had no hesitation. He wanted a media guy who could tell the “inside stories” on the business, and I have been proud to do that. Thanks to the First Amendment the media is supposed to police itself. They have stopped doing that, if they ever have, and Andrew spotted that early on. I knew this problem with the media years ago, but had no outlet. This became my outlet. I was with Andrew in Chicago September 2010 at a conservative convention when he simply, boldly approached a group of liberal protesters . You’d think Satan himself had confronted them. Satan might have had a warmer reception. Andrew was yelled at, screamed at, and homophobic slurs were hurled at him from the “progressives” in the crowd. We spoke afterwards before he addressed the convention, and he still seemed surprised that this group would do this while he had a full TV crew with him. We were two west coast guys sweating from the Chicago humidity that day, and we spoke of the fearlessness that it would take to expose the left with a media unwilling to do so. With my small, hand held camera, we spoke of Liberty. His answer to my simple question, “What does Liberty mean to you?” has new meaning today. We were together in Searchlight, Nevada for a rally in Harry Reid’s hometown when eggs were thrown at a tea party bus , and Andrew was on top of that story as well–exposing those on the left for their anger towards political opponents. He pointed out brilliantly how the media template on the tea party was 180 degrees from reality. We had seen it together and we knew what we saw. The fact that Big Journalism later exposed that it was a Democrat operative who threw the eggs was no shock to either of us. I recall a 7:00am phone call on a Sunday morning from Andrew while he was at LAX waiting for a flight to Washington DC. This was smack-dab in the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal. Weiner was still denying the photos were his and Andrew was being called a “liar.” His credibility was openly challenged. Andrew told me he had proof the photos were Weiner’s and he was headed back east to expose the truth , and we discussed the story. Every time I have talked to Andrew there was excitement and energy in his voice, and this day was no different, but I was a bit surprised that he had that energy at 7:00 on a Sunday morning. He went non-stop. Because the media refuses to do its job, there was a need for Andrew Breitbart. The template of the media will not be changing any time soon, so for the foreseeable future there will be a need for “Andrew Breitbart.” Yes, he was first a great family man and a loving husband and father–we talked often about our kids. We both have three boys and a daughter, and you could tell they were the spark that motivated him. That was the personal side that meant so much to him, but the world will know him as the guy who dared put his thumb on the media and press hard. Actually, he used much more than his thumb; he used everything he had. What scared the left the most about Breitbart was that he “storm trooped” his way straight into what previously had been their protected turf–Hollywood, government, the media, pop culture, comedy, music. We talked often about how he felt conservatives needed to take their message to all sectors of society and do it without fear. He was right, and his timing was perfect. Like a Southern California surfer, you can have all the preparation, but if you don’t catch the right wave you won’t enjoy the ride. When it was all said and done, Andrew didn’t ride the wave; he created the wave. In Common Sense , Thomas Paine wrote, “the time has found us.” Paine knew that forces much greater than man were at work in the American Revolution. You got that sense with Andrew. The time had found him. The Internet, the politics, and the person had aligned at the right time to make great things happen. Of course, like with Paine, it still requires brave men and women step forward to preserve Liberty for all. Paine and Breitbart were not just passengers on a ship; they were guiding that ship, they were fueling that ship, and they were headed in the right direction. I will always miss a dear friend and a fearless fighter, but I will move forward with a renewed passion towards truth.

View original post here:
Andrew Breitbart: A Warrior, A Fighter, A Friend

It seems the onetime political news website Politico is edging toward a Daily Kos-like experience. January 14th we see yet another step in Politico’s journey toward left-wing extremes with a fake poll that claims that no one in South Carolina likes the tea party movement. Did I mention it was a “Facebook poll?” The headline ways it all, really: Facebook/POLITICO poll: South Carolina users cool to tea party . If the fact that this “poll” is just some posting on a Facebook page doesn’t make you laugh at its validity, the hilarity continues as Politico goes on to treat this silliness as real news. “Almost two-thirds of adult Facebook users in South Carolina say they aren’t fans of the tea party, according to a Facebook poll conducted today with POLITICO,” the “news” website begins. Come on. Does anyone imagine that Politico reached “almost two-thirds” of the Facebook uses in South Carolina? Does anyone even imagine that Politico reached even a representative number of Facebook users in South Carolina? Was there any scientific method at all to this or was it just some posting that a handful of South Carolinians saw on Facebook? Bet you can guess. But let’s not let science get in the way of a good liberal meme, OK? Politico has decided that everyone in South Carolina hates the tea party movement and that is that, you see? Sixty-two percent of those surveyed said they are “not at all supportive” of the tea party, compared with 20 percent who were “somewhat supportive” and 18 percent who were “very supportive.” Of those surveyed, women were slightly less supportive of the tea party. Just 35 percent were either “somewhat” or “very” supportive of the movement, compared with 42 percent among men. Politico does admit that this poll has some, er, limitations. The results only represent the sentiment of South Carolina users on Facebook, not registered voters or likely GOP primary voters that tend to be more reliable barometers of primary elections. The Facebook poll, for instance, doesn’t exclude Democrats or independents. How many Facebook respondents were Democrats? How many were white, black, or Asian? How many were actual voters? How many really lived in South Carolina ? How do we quantify these results? Who needs scientific controls on a poll, anyway? At least Politico notes that their little Facebook poll that I am sure all the denizens of the local progressive movement were all about gaming was “at odds” with a recent study that showed that 85% of registered South Carolina voters had favorable views of the tea party. But forget that other poll. It had scientific controls so it isn’t worth nuthin’ . All we need to know is Politico’s 12 Facebook uses that it found at a local coffee house in Charleston really hate the Tea Party and that’s news, ya know? Oh, and this “news” isn’t at all timed to negatively affect the GOP primary in South Carolina. Don’t you worry about that.

Visit link:
Politico’s Fake South Carolina Poll Slams Tea Party

I suppose we couldn’t get past the one-year anniversary of the crime against Democrat Representative Gabrielle Giffords without some Old Media outlet blaming the supposed “heated” political rhetoric of the day for her shooting. On Sunday we saw NPR doing just that. The fact is, no matter how many times they say it, politics and the “heated rhetoric” thereof had absolutely nothing at all to do with Giffords’ shooting. The linking of the crime to politics is just not legitimate. On this one-year anniversary, NPR’s Linton Weeks was all about the improvement of our “civil discourse,” and full of lament that it just isn’t happening. Perhaps it is a noble sentiment, but he marred that nobility by beginning his piece with a false allusion once again tying the Giffords shooting to the “political atmosphere” of the day. “When a gunman opened fire on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,” Linton wrote, “some people were quick to blame the episode on the overheated political climate.” With that false allusion we also know what NPR meant to do. It meant to blame conservatives for Giffords’ shooting. He went on to say: At the time of the attack, there was a high tide of political rhetoric across America and a low ebb of social civility. The New York Times reported that the shootings “raised questions about potential political motives” and that the Pima County, Ariz., sheriff was blaming the tragedies on “the toxic political environment.” According to The Times, national reaction was immediate. “Democrats denounced the fierce partisan atmosphere in Gifford’s district and top Republicans quickly condemned the violence.” To the extent that “some people” did indeed immediately jump to the conclusion that the rhetoric of the Tea Party, conservatives and the Republican Party was at fault for the Giffords shooting, Linton is correct. The second news of the shooting went nation wide, liberals and the Old Media (but I repeat myself) began blaming the right’s political passion for causing shooter Jared Lee Loughner to lose his mind and perpetrate the murderous rampage that resulted in Giffords’ shooting. Shockingly, one Democrat group even began to use Giffords’ shooting as a fund raiser , blaming conservatives for their “violent imagery” during the political debate. This false linking of Giffords’ shooting to conservatives has not stopped, either. Only a few months ago ABCs Diane Sawyer began a report on Giffords with the false analogy of the “Tea Party hate” to the crime as if conservatives somehow caused the shooting. But it is all an illegitimate linkage. When the facts later became known about shooter Loughner, we found out that he had absolutely no political ideology at all. He was not a Tea Partier, he was not a conservative, and he had no connection to the political right. The truth is he had no coherent political ideology at all and he was not involved in the political debate of the day. In fact, we found out he had been obsessed with Giffords for several years before the Tea Party even started. A mental disorder fueled his obsession with Giffords not politics. The truth is, despite the constant refrain from the Old Media, the purported “violent rhetoric” of America’s center right had no affect on Loughner’s criminal actions at all. So, the whole point here is that linking the “political atmosphere” in 2011 to Loughner’s crime is not a legitimate one to make. But there is a reason why this same meme is added to the recounting of Giffords’ shooting every time it is brought up. It redounds harshly on conservatives because it is their political rhetoric that always becomes the thing to blame for the crime. And the Old Media loves to pin the blame, falsely, on the conservative right.

Go here to see the original:
NPR Again Falsely Blames Giffords’ Shooting on Uncivil Political Rhetoric

Times Watch’s end-of-year awards issue celebrates the best of the worst quotes that appeared in the paper or were uttered by Times reporters and columnists during 2011. The New York Times spent much of the year in pro-Obama defense mode, excoriating the Tea Party and conservative opposition to Obama's agenda. Yet the paper found one movement it could embrace wholeheartedly – the leftist campouts known as Occupy Wall Street. And sometimes – as when China-loving columnist Tom Friedman spouted, “If this were China they would have walked to the game in the snow, and doing calculus along the way,” Times journalism was just too ridiculous to take seriously. Paul Krugman made his usual sterling showing as well, using the tragedies of 9-11 and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to attack conservatives. This year there were three categories of bias: • Occupy Wall Street’s “Athenian Democracy” vs. Tea Party “Terrorists” • Blaming Conservatism, not the Shooter, for the Rampage in Arizona • Just Plain Bizarre Ira Stoll is our guest judge. The editor of newstransparency.com and futureofcapitalism.com , Stoll offered his take on the“best” quotes from the Times for the 2011 edition. His “winner” in the category, Occupy Wall Street’s “Athenian Democracy” vs. Tea Party “Terrorists, ” was this poison dart from columnist Joe Nocera on August 2: “You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took….For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.”

Larry O’Connor’s well-caught “sound bite for the day” yesterday deserves further elaboration. Yesterday, on MSNBC, left-wing journalists Chris Hayes of The Nation and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post – no strangers to Democrat-media collusion –revealed that they had been part of an off-the-record White House briefing in which it was made clear that President Barack Obama planned all along to let the temporary payroll tax holiday expire, and then blame Republicans. The meeting may have been the one first revealed on December 19, 2011 by ABC News’s senior White House correspondent, Jake Tapper, who tweeted that day that “a group of progressive media stars” had attended a private meeting at the White House with the President. However, if Hayes is to be believed, the message of that meeting may have extended far beyond the “progressive” media niche at MSNBC, and reached a broader audience in Washington. According to Hayes, “everyone in Washington” knew that Obama wanted the payroll tax extension to fail–and yet the same journalists eagerly covered the subsequent payroll tax debate as if Republicans were the only obstacle to an extension. The result of the media’s collusion was a year-end political victory for Obama and the Democrats at the expense of House leaders, the Tea Party, and Republicans in general. Here is the exchange between Hayes and Klein (0:44 to 1:04), with MSNBC contributor Melissa Harris-Perry chiming in encouragingly (transcript follows): Hayes : You and I went to the White House and, you know–off-the-record conversation, but it was very clear– Klein : (Laughing) Shhhhh! Hayes : –it was very, it was very clear– Harris-Perry : You know, this will be on the record (laughs)– Hayes : OK. And this was nothing that wasn’t reported. Klein : That’s right. Hayes : They [the White House] were willing to let them [payroll tax cuts]. They were willing. Klein : Yeah. Hayes : Everyone knew that. Everyone in Washington knew it, [House Speaker] John Boehner knew it–everyone knew they were willing to let them expire. That’s the one confrontation they won. The fact that even Republicans may have known that Obama did not intend to extend the payroll tax holiday strengthened the White House’s negotiating position. It is also, however, a glaring indictment of the mainstream media, which knew of Obama’s true plan while encouraging Americans to blame the Tea Party and the Republicans , eagerly echoing Democrats’ accusations that the Tea Party had held the nation “hostage” for political gain. In fact, as Hayes and Klein admit–laughingly, and why not?–Obama was the one holding a gun to the heads of the American people , knowing that a dutiful Washington press corps would erase his fingerprints.

See the original post here:
Ezra Klein, Chris Hayes Reveal What DC Media Knew: Obama Was Willing to Let Payroll Tax Cut Expire

NPR marked Christmas morning by whacking at the Tea Party. NPR anchor Audie Cornish handed over her Weekend Edition Sunday microphone to American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman Ornstein, who gave the Tea Party a B if the goal was to “try and keep government from functioning,” but in “actually trying to make things happen in a constructive fashion, we’re down in the D-minus level, and that’s being generous in the Christmas season.” Ornstein was much happier a year ago. On the morning of December 23, 2010 , he told NPR’s David Welna the country had the “most productive lame-duck session” since the 1940s and Welna added “Ornstein says this lame-duck session was a fitting climax for an amazingly productive 111th Congress.” Ornstein went on to crow “This is really a very big fat cherry on the top of the whipped cream of a quite nutritious filling, maybe even fat-producing, sundae. [Harry] Reid deserves a lot of credit for what was a masterful performance as leader.” Sadly, NPR’s Welna described AEI as a “conservative think tank,” which certainly does not fit Ornstein even if it fits many AEI experts. This year, Ornstein was all thumbs down: AUDIE CORNISH: Let's run through some of the legislative debates that turned into struggles this year. We had the bill funding the federal disaster assistance for hurricane victims; multiple threats of government shut down throughout the year; of course, the supercommittee for deficit reduction; and the debate over raising the debt ceiling.What grade would you give Tea Party freshmen this year on their report card? NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Well, if their goal was to disrupt Washington and try and keep government from functioning – even in its basic levels – you got to give them a B or a B-plus. If the goal is, as Harry Reid alluded to, governing – actually trying to make things happen in a constructive fashion – we're down in the D-minus level, and that's being generous in the Christmas season. CORNISH: At the same time, Norm, I remember being at protests with Tea Party activists and there was a real feeling that they wanted to send lawmakers to Congress who would put a halt to all of what they considered over legislating by the previous Congress. So, you know, I was really surprised to see the way The Wall Street Journal or Karl Rove or these folks were coming out against the move by the House here. ORNSTEIN: Well, what Karl Rove and the Wall Street Journal editorial writers – John McCain, Mitch McConnell and so many others – were saying is basically pick your fights. And this is a really stupid place to pick a fight. Their goal is more a political one of trying to make sure that they can both defeat Barack Obama but also win a majority in the Senate and hold a majority in the House. Early on, the kind of push from these Tea Party members, to basically say to the president: We'll bring the temple down around all of our heads unless you give in, had worked. And this time it didn't. And a lot of the old pros in this process didn't want to stick with it. CORNISH: So, how does this change the atmosphere for these lawmakers in 2012 and for Tea Party activists in 2012? ORNSTEIN: Well, the first thing to remember here is we're going to be back to the bargaining table. And if anything, the Tea Party freshmen are going to be more intent on holding the line and getting a better deal if this is going to go for the full year. Boehner's headaches aren’t over. And for many of these freshmen, some of them are going to divert from the path of saying take no prisoners, no compromise. The rest of them will hold onto it. And it'll be very interesting to see what kind of damage there is in the end to them and their election chances, as well. It would not be hard to imagine that Ornstein is rooting for “damage” to the Tea Party's political viability, or that NPR wouldn't like to see any threat of a defunding from Republicans vanish at the ballot box.

Read the original here:
NPR Offers Tea Party a ‘D-Minus’ on Christmas Morning

Time magazine's editor-in-chief Richard Stengel was asked on Sunday's Reliable Sources to respond to NewsBusters criticizing the inclusion of the Occupy Wall Street movement into Time magazine's “Person of the Year” award, given to “The Protester.” In contrast, the Tea Party which helped the Republicans win a landslide election victory in 2010 earned only runner-up status in Time that year. CNN host Howard Kurtz asked Stengel straight-up about criticisms of the magazine's bias: “Now, some of the criticism of this cover selection comes from the right, the conservative site, NewsBusters saying, 'Time is so liberal that it could not consider the Tea Party protest as a 'Person of the Year' entry, but that's not true with Occupy Wall Street.' Your response?” [Video below the break.] Stengel defended the selection by lamely acknowledging the Tea Party as the “antecedent” of the Occupy Wall Street movement and adding that the worldwide protests are non-partisan. But Kurtz kept pressing Stengel on the inclusion of OWS into the worldwide protests. The Arab Spring, he argued, toppled regimes in the Middle East, but “when you pull the camera back a bit and look at Occupy Wall Street, which is a significant part of this story because it's kind of the American angle – ultimately, what did it accomplish?” Stengel answered that he sees the “Occupy” movement influencing the 2012 election – even though it remains to be seen that they will accomplish that. “And I think the protester in the U.S. is going to influence the election this year, influence a lot of the way we think about our issues,” he asserted – even though the same was asked of the Tea Party in 2009, which ended up having a large influence in the 2010 elections. [Video below.]

For months NewsBusters has been reporting the absurd double standard regarding media's coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement versus the Tea Party. On Friday, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tx.) wrote an op-ed for Accuracy in Media concerning this matter asking, “Why have the mainstream media vilified the peaceful Tea Party all the while praising and celebrating Occupy Wall Street despite violence, clashes with police, and general lawlessness?”: Tea Party organizations and rallies were initially ignored by the press and then dismissed as radical zealots as the Occupy Wall Street crowd was immediately recognized as leading the voice of “the 99%.” Our national media should be held accountable for their performance, just like any other institution.