Bush Caused "Permanent Damage"; Daschle Wants to Poison Kids Too; Missile Defense "Feared and Reviled"; Media "Sucking Up" to Bush
1) Without contradiction, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on
Monday night featured a left-winger who made the preposterous claim that
in its arsenic decision "the Bush administration is really risking
millions of lives by not implementing the new standards." Instead,
Mitchell focused on how "Republicans worry" about "the more
permanent damage to the environment" Bush has caused.
2) "What is it about poisoning the nation's children
that Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle enjoys?" National Review
Editor Rich Lowry asked in employing the media’s overheated rhetoric as
he pointed out how last year Daschle voted to give the EPA "more time
to implement a new rule on arsenic in drinking water." FNC’s Brit
Hume picked up on Lowry’s disclosure.
3) Tom Brokaw on Bush’s missile defense proposal:
"This is a concept that’s at once feared and reviled, from Beijing
to Moscow, from within Washington, D.C. to European capitals."
4) Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief Jim Warren
complained after Saturday’s White House Correspondents Association
Dinner: "It was the perfect example of all the sucking up to Bush
that's been going on every day in this town since he was elected."
Speaking of sucking up, with a wax Bush figure "many of the women
took the opportunity to position themselves so they could compromise Bush
in Clinton-esque ways."
5) Los Angeles Times television critic Howard Rosenberg
relied on a religious proponent of Armageddon as a media bias source and
evaluated Bush coverage by watching CBS’s This Morning, a show cancelled
long before Bush took office.
provided a forum Monday night for unlabeled left wing environmentalists to
denounce President Bush’s environmental policies, but in presenting a
distorted story the network deserved a lower grade than the ones liberal
activists assigned to Bush. NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw set up the
review of Bush’s environmental record by declaring, without any
consideration for conservative environmental groups, that
"environmentalists...take a dim view of President Bush’s first one
hundred days in office."
Reporter Andrea Mitchell, in a piece also
aired on MSNBC’s The News with Brian Williams, relayed how
"Bush’s decision to suspend and probably relax new standards Bill
Clinton set for arsenic in water outrages environmentalists." FNC’s
David Shuster reported last Friday, as detailed in the April 30 CyberAlert,
that the Clinton administration projected their lower arsenic level would
save only 28 lives per year, but Mitchell did not challenge an
environmental extremist who made the preposterous claim that "the
Bush administration is really risking millions of lives by not
implementing the new standards." Instead, Mitchell found a "past
supporter" of Bush’s who has decided that "his policy is
bad." She concluded by relating how some "Republicans worry Bush
may have already lost pro-environment Republicans and independents,"
but she ominously added, that’s "to say nothing...of the more
permanent damage to the environment."
NBC tied its story to Vice President
Cheney’s speech in Toronto previewing the administration’s energy
policy plan to soon be announced, an event both ABC’s World News Tonight
and, surprisingly, the CBS Evening News, managed to cover in an unbiased
manner. Both ran pieces (ABC’s by Terry Moran and CBS’s by John
Roberts) Monday night which relayed Cheney’s main points and featured a
critical soundbite from a liberal environmentalist.
On the April 30 NBC Nightly News Tom Brokaw
used Cheney to segue to Mitchell’s distorted report: "Vice
President Cheney gave a preview of the administration’s energy policy
today, saying more production, not conservation, is the answer to problems
such as the energy crisis in California. And he also said that one new
power plant will needed to be added each week for the next twenty years to
meet the rising demand. That probably will not sit well with many
environmentalists who take a dim view of President Bush’s first one
hundred days in office."
Mitchell began her review with the media’s
favorite subject: "Albuquerque, New Mexico: rich in arsenic and
ground zero for the battle over the Bush environmental record. Here
arsenic seeps naturally from the rocks into the water supply. Bush’s
decision to suspend and probably relax new standards Bill Clinton set for
arsenic in water outrages environmentalists."
Jeanne Bassett, New Mexico Public Interest
Research Group: "The Bush administration is really risking millions
of lives by not implementing the new standards."
Mitchell: "No one questions that arsenic
causes cancer, but Bush wants proof that the new limit needs to be as low
as Clinton ordered. Albuquerque’s Mayor agrees."
Viewers then heard from Mayor Jim Baca (D) who
did not make any point about safety or science, just cost: "It would
cost us $150 million a year and double the water rates for the citizens of
Having failed to note how Clinton’s rule
would not have gone into effect until 2006 and without raising any
question about the soundness of the science, Mitchell only hinted at how
Clinton didn’t get around to it until his last week in office:
"Arsenic only the best known in a series of Bush steps reversing
last-minute Clinton environmental rules."
Robert Kennedy. Jr., Natural Resources Defense
Council: "His record is one of the worst of any President’s in our
history, in modern history."
Mitchell: "During the campaign Bush sounded
like an environmentalist."
Bush, June 1, 2000: "It’s our duty to use
the lands well, and sometimes not use them at all."
Without shame Mitchell evaluated Bush from the
liberal environmentalist scorecard: "And early on he upholds Clinton
restrictions on diesel fuel pollution, but since then Bush suspends a ban
on new roads in national forests, proposes canceling new mining rules,
reconsiders Clinton wilderness designations, considers opening the Arctic
wilderness to oil drilling, reneges on a campaign promise to lower carbon
dioxide emissions and now is about to cancel a plan to save endangered
grizzlies by re-introducing them to wilderness areas out West, a
concession to Idaho’s Governor. Bush’s argument for all his
Bush, April 24: "We’re going to make
decisions based on sound science, not some environmental fad."
Mitchell countered: "Even this past
supporter says, overall, his policy is bad."
Theodore Roosevelt IV, League of Conservation
Voters: "I’d probably give him a C-/D+ right now."
Mitchell concluded: "The political fallout
in the polls, dramatic. So lately, damage control. Bush approves stricter
monitoring of lead, a treaty restricting toxic chemicals, wetlands
protection. But concerned Republicans worry Bush may have already lost
pro-environment Republicans and independents, voters crucial to the
success of his presidency. To say nothing, they say, of the more permanent
damage to the environment."
Come on, nothing Bush has decided has yet gone
into effect or changed any condition that would exist if Gore had taken
office on January 20, so could not possibly have in any way "have
already" caused "more permanent damage to the environment."
NBC News has embarrassed itself by becoming a conduit for heated rhetoric
from liberal political activists without any reality check.
Check out item #2 below for Democratic
hypocrisy on arsenic which NBC naturally skipped.
is it about poisoning the nation's children that Senate Majority Leader
Tom Daschle enjoys?" National Review Editor Rich Lowry asked in
employing the media’s overheated rhetoric as he pointed out how "Daschle
was one of 18 Democratic Senators in October 2000 who voted to give the
Environmental Protection Agency more time to implement a new rule on
arsenic in drinking water."
Monday night FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume
picked up on the bit of liberal hypocrisy otherwise ignored by the
networks in gleefully relaying Democratic condemnation of Bush’s
decision to further evaluate Clinton’s rule to lower arsenic levels in
five years. Hume noted during his "Grapevine" segment:
"It turns out that none other than Senate
Democratic leader Tom Daschle was among 18 in his party who voted last
October to postpone the effective date of new arsenic regulations from
January until late June of this year. But after the Bush administration
delayed the date Daschle has been complaining that, quote, ‘now we have
to fear arsenic in our drinking water.’"
An excerpt from Lowry’s April 27 piece for
National Review Online:
Daschle's Love Affair with Arsenic
What is it about poisoning the nation's children that Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle enjoys?
Daschle was one of 18 Democratic senators in October 2000 who voted to
give the Environmental Protection Agency more time to implement a new rule
on arsenic in drinking water. Barbara Boxer had offered an amendment to
the VA-HUD appropriations bill that would have forced the EPA to finalize
its new rule by January 1st, 2001, instead of giving it until June 22,
If one accepts the terms in which Democrats have attacked Bush on
arsenic recently, the Boxer amendment would have meant six fewer months
for innocent Americans to drink corrupted and dangerous water. Yet, 18
Democrats -- 42 percent of the caucus -- voted against it.
Yes, there were procedural reasons for the Democrats to oppose the
amendment -- any changes might have killed a House-Senate deal -- but what
are such considerations when the nation's health is at risk? And 25
Democrats voted for Boxer.
Of course, there were substantive reasons as well to oppose the Boxer
amendment, reasons that will sound familiar to defenders of the original
Bush arsenic decision. Cut to an account of the debate produced at the
time by the Republican Policy Committee:
"In 1996, Congress set a schedule under which the EPA was to
update the arsenic standard for drinking water. The EPA is behind schedule
in developing that rule. It is currently required to issue its final rule
by January 1, 2001, but it says it will not be ready until April or May,
2001. It has not had time to evaluate the concerns that have been
expressed about the proposed rule it issued this summer (6 months behind
schedule). Many small communities are especially worried about that
proposal because, if it were implemented, it would prove prohibitively
expensive for their customers. For instance, the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality found that the cost of water for residents in the
Heartland Mobile Home Park would be $230 per month per customer under this
proposed rule. It is very likely that in some areas this rule would just
end town water service and people would drill their own wells, and end up
drinking water that was much less safe for them."....
To read all of Lowry’s piece, go to:
environment wasn’t the only topic on which NBC Nightly News offered a
hostile reception to President Bush’s conservative policies on Monday
evening. Previewing Bush’s expected Tuesday speech on missile defense,
anchor Tom Brokaw stressed how it’s an idea which is simultaneously
"feared and reviled."
Brokaw announced on the April 30 program:
"President Bush is preparing a major speech on another controversial
space program, the so-called missile defense shield designed to shoot down
incoming missiles in space. This is a concept that’s at once feared and
reviled, from Beijing to Moscow, from within Washington, D.C. to European
And, apparently, from within NBC News.
Washington press corps is being too nice to President Bush, complained
Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief Jim Warren after Saturday’s
White House Correspondents Association Dinner. Warren complained to
Inside.com: "It was the perfect example of all the sucking up to Bush
that's been going on every day in this town since he was elected." He
lamented how "we've made a virtue out of his shortcomings."
Jim Romenesko's MediaNews, http://www.poynter.org/medianews/,
highlighted the Inside.com report from David Carr which carried the
heading, "White House Correspondents Dinner: Pushing Through the
Existential Gloom of a Post-Clinton Era; They came, they bloviated, they
cackled like loons, but this year's event and after-party demonstrated the
brutal bereftness of a Bill-less Beltway."
Carr’s piece ended:
"But it was all very much well intended -- a
little too well intended for the taste of Jim Warren, Washington bureau
chief of the Chicago Tribune. ‘It was the perfect example of all the
sucking up to Bush that's been going on every day in this town since he
was elected,’ he said, working on a cigar of his own. ‘I mean, c'mon,
the comedian didn't even have the balls to take a single shot at Bush.’
"‘We have been effectively emasculated,’
he said. ‘It's a natural tendency of people, including reporters, to
want to be liked, and that, combined with some pretty impressive early
discipline from the Bush people, means that he is having a great
honeymoon. So far, we've made a virtue out of his shortcomings."
There might have been more anti-Bush comedy if
the association had secured as its entertainment the Saturday Night Live
performer who impersonates Bush instead of Darrell Hammond, who
impersonates Gore and who used the dinner as a waning opportunity to make
fun of Gore.
The paragraph preceding the two graphs
quoted above, however, revealed at least some journalists and/or their
quests enjoyed some bawdy anti-Bush humor at a post-dinner party, as Carr
seemed to suggest some mock fellatio poses:
"The closest anybody has gotten to the
43rd President of the United States may have been the wax likeness of Bush
imported for the Bloomberg party from Madame Tussaud's Times Square
museum. Pictures with the life-size George were given away as party
favors, and many of the women took the opportunity to position themselves
so they could compromise Bush in Clinton-esque ways. I won't go into
specifics because some of the posers were drunk as goats, but let's just
say that the wax version of George W. is a pretty frisky guy. Not to be
left out, Bill Press of CNN slipped a martini glass into the mannequin's
outstretched hand before getting his shot."
To read all of Carr’s piece, go to: http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=29657&pod_id=7
the media are biased for or against George Bush, the television critic for
the nation’s fourth largest circulation paper would have no idea since
he relied on a religious expert on Armageddon as a media bias source and
evaluated Bush coverage by watching CBS’s This Morning, a show cancelled
long before Bush took office.
In an April 30 piece for the Los Angeles
Times, the paper’s TV critic, Howard Rosenberg, cited an Armageddon
promoter’s claim about media bias against Bush and then sarcastically
denigrated the concept by reviewing TV coverage on one single morning
which was two mornings after the ABC, CBS and NBC morning shows aired
their interviews with Bush, the kind of content any credible reviewer
would have included in any assessment.
The MRC’s Rich Noyes alerted me to the
column highlighted by Jim Romenesko’s MediaNews. An excerpt from
It's 100-day scorecard time for the president and those who are
determined to destroy him.
That would be the leftist media. You know, the anti-capitalist Marxist
revolutionaries working for companies owned by some of the biggest,
richest corporations in the U.S.
Yup, us again. We're all in it together, pinking up the news and
conspiring as a group to undermine George W. Bush and the democratic
nation he was elected to serve. Caring only about pushing our subversive
agenda, we've given him 100 days of grief.
I learned this Thursday night from that unimpeachable source, Hal
Lindsey, author of "The Late Great Planet Earth" and other books
preaching an Armageddon theology....
He does it in a smooth, low-key, scholarly manner, most visibly during
"International Intelligence Briefing," his weekly half-hour on
the Santa Ana-based Trinity Broadcasting Network....
He reserved his strongest words about the media, though, for their
reporting on domestic matters, charging them with "nonstop negative
coverage" of Bush. Mentioning the president's high job-approval
ratings in the polls, he added: "It seems the harder the press tries
to make him look bad, the higher his ratings go."
Surely Lindsey would cite examples of the media huffing and puffing to
make Bush "look bad." But he didn't, so I decided to find some
I went first to "CBS This Morning" and immediately discovered
exactly the kind of insidious bias that Lindsey must have had in mind. By
craftily filling much of its news hole with nonstop talk about
"Survivor II," the program was leaving no room for the
accomplishments of Bush, a de facto indictment of his performance in the
There is no program on CBS titled "CBS
This Morning," an error I’m sure Rosenberg would make fun of if
made by anyone claiming there is liberal bias since it would raise a
question about how attentive they are about TV news content. CBS This
Morning was replaced in October of 1999 by CBS’s The Early Show.
The situation was about as ugly on ABC's "Good Morning
America," which spent so much time quizzing Barbara Walters about her
interview that night with Denise Rich that Bush's own historic
achievements were excluded.
I switched to NBC's "Today," where William Bennett,
co-director of Empower America, was responding to Bush critics charging
that the president had gone back on his campaign pledge and stiffed
environmentalists. Bennett said: "Only from somebody who is the most
biased toward the environment could you say George Bush has not been
There it was, subtle yet devilish, an endorsement of Bush on NBC so
ungrammatical that it was bound to rub off on the president and undermine
his own credibility. Satan clearly had the left in his hip pocket.
Would CNN be as prejudiced against Bush? Would it ever. I was just in
time for a story with Bush making fun of his own malapropisms while
speaking at a literacy benefit in Houston. "In my sentences," he
said, "I go where no man has gone before. The way I get it, I'm a
boon to the language by coining new words." He mentioned one: "Misunderestimate."
Lindsey was right again. While pretending to make Bush look good, CNN
was making Bush look bad by televising him making himself look bad when he
was trying to look good.
Would the coverage be as malodorous on the Fox News Channel, which is
owned by famously conservative Rupert Murdoch and boasts of reporting the
news fairly, and letting "you decide"?
I clicked on in time to hear Bush's first 100 days being debated by a
Democrat and a Republican, with the Fox host aggressively siding with the
Republican, making it 2 to 1 for the president. There also was a promo for
that evening's Fox assessment of Bush's first 100 days, three of four
announced panelists being Elizabeth Dole, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and
Gary Bauer, former president of the Family Research Council....
To read the entirety of Rosenberg’s wacky
reasoning, go to: http://www.latimes.com/print/calendar/20010430/t000036395.html
For a more reasoned look at TV network
hostility to Bush’s conservative policies, with actual evidence cited,
refer back to #1 above or any
CyberAlert this year.