THE DAILY BLADE: If Looks Could Kill
Politico reports that in President Barack Obama's second news conference, he broke with White House protocol by not calling on reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal or USA Today, opting instead to take questions from “Spanish-language television, a military news outlet, and black-oriented media”:
Here's the list of reporters in order: Jennifer Loven (AP), Chuck Todd (NBC), Jake Tapper (ABC), Chip Reid (CBS), Lourdes Meluza (Univision), Kevin Baron (Stars and Stripes), Ed Henry (CNN), Major Garrett (Fox News), Mike Allen (POLITICO), Kevin Chappell (Ebony), Ann Compton (ABC Radio), Jon Ward (Washington Times) and Stephen Collinson (AFP).
This is not the first time Obama has dissed the Wall Street Journal colleagues of MarketWatch senior columnist Jon Friedman, and he is fine with it: “[H]e is getting the hang of controlling the media, or rather not letting the media control him.” The Stiletto cannot recall Friedman praising former president Bush’s attempts to limit press access. In any case, Friedman shouldn’t be surprised if one of the Journal’s reporters - who are under orders to “break news” (or else) – gives him a wedgie.
Friedman and other pundits zeroed in on this frosty exchange between CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry (“the self-appointed tough cop on the beat”) and Obama:
Ed Henry: So on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York in the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we’re outraged. Why did it take so long?
President Obama: Well, it took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak. (Laughter.) All right?
Guess Henry has now joined The Journal’s reporters on Obama’s sh*t list. The others are “under control,” as Friedman would put it, and can expect to be allowed to ask a question at the next press conference.
Yahoo! Buzz noted Obama’s “icy stare” when he answered Henry’s question, about 3:53 minutes into this clip (courtesy of lefty blog Crooks And Liars, hence that cockroach reference):
Is it just The Stiletto, or did Obama look like he wanted to wish Henry into the cornfield (click here for part 2 and here for part 3)?
For his part, National Review’s Andy McCarthy takes exception to this Q&A between Obama and Jon Ward of the Washington Times:
Jon Ward: In your remarks on stem-cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. I’m just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic?
President Obama: Okay. No, I - I think it’s a - I think it’s a legitimate question.
McCarthy’s objection:
Obama does this a lot - instinctively, and in response to questions or comments directed to him that contain any hint of criticism. He has been so immune from media scrutiny, and his supporters have been so thuggish in shouting down critics … that a disturbing presumption has taken hold - at least in Obama's own mind. Namely, questions that imply even mild dissent from or disfavor of Obama are not legitimate unless he personally decides they are within the ambit of proper inquiry. The questioner has to get over the legitimacy hurdle before he or she gets an answer - so better be careful about your topic and your tone.
American Bar Association Ratings Of Judicial Nominees Biased: Study
A study by political scientists Richard Vining of the University of Georgia, Amy Steigerwalt of Georgia State University and Susan Smelcer, an Emory University doctoral candidate finds that the American Bar Association's ratings of potential judicial nominees are biased against conservatives, reports The National Law Journal:
The three academics, all of whom specialize in studying the intersection of the courts and politics, examined every nominee to the federal courts of appeals from 1985 to 2008, regardless of whether the nominee was confirmed or had a confirmation hearing.
Their study examined two hypotheses: First, the ratings are biased and favor nominees nominated by Democratic presidents, and, second, key professional qualifications affect the ratings - for example, whether the nominee has judicial experience, or is a practicing attorney or law professor. They looked at the party of the appointing president and constructed an ideology measure for the nominees and a model to explain the roles of experience, career path, education, race/gender and political affiliation in ABA evaluations.
"[W]e conclude that the ABA plays an important role in rating the professional qualifications of potential nominees, but that it must also work to ensure that its ratings remain free from any type of ideological bias," said Steigerwalt.
In 2001, the Bush administration stopped submitting names to the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary for vetting, but the committee is reprising role in evaluating Obama administration judicial nominees.
Ed Henry better be careful, he might end up on a missing persons poster...
Reply to this