Barack Obama

Tags ››› Barack Obama
  • No, Wall Street Journal: That's Not What Prosecutorial Discretion Means

    ››› ››› CRISTINA LOPEZ

    According to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, the Obama administration cannot exercise prosecutorial discretion in deferring deportation for certain undocumented immigrants because such discretion cannot be applied to "entire classes of people." For years, the board has misrepresented the way Obama's executive actions on immigration defer deportation for some undocumented immigrants, despite legal experts and evidence showing that the administration can apply prosecutorial discretion as it reviews deferred action cases on a "case-by-case basis."

  • Fox Dismisses Obama's Remarks On Importance Of Equal Pay Day

    Blog ››› ››› DAYANITA RAMESH

    On Equal Pay Day, Fox News devoted less than one minute of airtime to cover President Obama’s speech at the newly-designated Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument in Washington D.C., while MSNBC and CNN aired the speech nearly in its entirety.

    Obama spoke at the designation of the monument seeking to “honor the movement for women’s equality,” which coincided with the 20th anniversary of Equal Pay Day -- the day when the average woman's pay catches up with the average man's from the previous year. According to an April 2016 report from the American Association of University Women (AAUW), working women in the United States earned “just 79 percent of what men were paid” in 2014, with disparities far worse for women of color. President Obama’s speech was covered for over 10 minutes on MSNBC and CNN, nearly the entire duration of the speech. In contrast, Fox briefly noted that the speech was occurring, but never cut away to hear Obama’s remarks, which lasted almost 12 minutes. The guest host of Fox News’ Happening Now, Heather Childers, described the monument and Equal Pay Day but instead of cutting to the speech, simply noted, “We wanted to let you know it was going on”:

    HEATHER CHILDERS: We do have a Fox News alert for you, we are going to take you live to Washington D.C., that’s where President Obama is delivering remarks at the newly designated Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument there in D.C. Of course, it is dedicated to women's equality. It's a house and a museum. It includes a collection of different artifacts, suffrage banners, archives, all related to voting rights for women and equality for women. And this is coming as a matter of fact on Equal Pay Day, a day meant to symbolize how much more a woman has to work on average to earn what a man earned in the previous year, so that's going on in Washington, D.C. for you, right now. We wanted to let you know it was going on.

    This poor coverage of the gender pay gap is not new to the network that has continually dismissed the issue as “an absolute myth,” blamed womens' choices for their lack of pay equity, and targeted celebrities and athletes who spoke out about wage disparities in their industries.

  • After Obama Says He Is Not Influencing Email Investigation, Conservative Media Claim President Is “Tipping The Scale” For Clinton

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    Right-wing media, including several Fox figures, accused President Obama of “tipping the scales” in favor of Hillary Clinton in the ongoing investigation into her email practices after Obama responded to a question posed by Fox’s Chris Wallace about his influence in the matter. During a Fox News Sunday interview, Obama said he guaranteed that “there is no political influence” in the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s private email server, and right-wing media responded by criticizing Obama for even answering the question.

  • A Look Back At Fox News' Interviews With Obama Ahead Of His Sunday Network Appearance

    ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN, BRENNAN SUEN & CRISTIANO LIMA

    Chris Wallace will interview President Obama on Fox News Sunday April 10, marking Obama's first interview with the network since 2014. In past interviews, Fox figures including Wallace, Bret Baier and Bill O'Reilly have focused on Obama's ties to "radical" figures, hyped supposed scandals, lectured Obama on race, and interrupted him repeatedly.

  • Fox News Misses Important Context On Economic-Based Election Predictions To Claim GOP Victory

    Blog ››› ››› DAYANITA RAMESH

    Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. left out important context during a discussion of economic models that predict a GOP victory in the presidential election. Johnson seemed to be drawing his information from The Hill, which had reported on the models the day before, but he failed to mention the paper's point that the models "are being challenged like never before by the presence" of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

    On the April 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Johnson discussed a story first reported by The Hill, which detailed how three economic models -- from Yale University economist Ray Fair, Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz, and Moody's Analytics -- can be used to predict election outcomes. Johnson, who did not credit The Hill for the story, said that "whether it's Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump ... or any of the other candidates that are now running, the Republicans win according to these models":

    AINSLEY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): The numbers don't lie. A Republican in the White House, no matter the nominee, is a mathematical certainty--that's what two highly respected economic models are saying this morning. These models have picked the winner in nearly every presidential contest for decades, but what makes them so sure this time? Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. joins us now to weigh in on this.

    PETER JOHNSON JR.: Good morning. This is really fascinating. They're saying whether it's Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, whether it's any of the candidates that are now running, the Republicans win. So let's look at the models and why they're saying it, because you'll find it interesting. So, the first model is the Ray Fair election model. It says the GOP wins. The Alan Abramowitz election model -- he's from Emory University -- says the GOP wins. And then Moody's has a model; they say the Democrats win. Let's look at what they're saying here. The Fair election model, created by Yale professor Ray Fair, it's correctly forecast all but three presidential elections since 1916. And so, let's talk about the factors with regard to that. In his model, the per capita growth rate before the election of the GDP, inflation over the entire presidential term, and the number of quarters the per capita GDP grows. So it's all, Ainsley, economically based. Not based on individual personalities, not based on current poll numbers at all.

    EARHARDT: What about some of the other models? What are the factors?

    JOHNSON: There's another model, Professor Abramowitz's election model, he's an Emory professor. He's predicted every presidential election, since it launched in 1992, accurately. And his factors include an incumbent president's job approval rating, the economy's growth during the first half of the year, how long the incumbent party has been in the White House. And based on those factors, he says he's able to predict that the Republicans will win. Now, there's a lot of volatility obviously in this race. We have two of the highest negative presidential campaigns that we might see as nominees in the end, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They both carry a lot of negatives. So what effect will that have on the economics?

    EARHARDT: And they don't predict which Republican candidate will win; they just say a Republican.

    JOHNSON: It's based on income. It's based on economic growth. It's based on voters being affected by the statistics in a visceral way. In a real way. The final look at it is Moody's. Moody's says they're going to judge it by electoral college votes, income growth by state, home gasoline prices by state, and presidential approval numbers currently. Their particular model says that the Democrat wins. So most of these models are pointing to the Republicans, but Moody's say it's a Democrat. So by the numbers, the Republicans win, according to these models.

    But The Hill notes that this year's unusual campaign is casting uncertainty on the economic models, saying that Trump's presence has "shaken up politics," and that his fights with his opponents "have electrified his supporters but have turned off other voters."

    Supporting that point, Ray Fair told The Hill, "If there's any time in which personalities would trump the economy it would be this election." The New York Times also recently reported on his prediction, noting that Fair "says his model may well be wrong about this election. 'Each election has weird things in it, yet the model usually works pretty well,' he said. 'This year, though, I don't know. This year really could be different.'"

    Regarding the Abramowitz model, The Hill pointed out that "the Democratic candidate can expect to receive 48.7 percent of the vote -- with Obama's approval rating at 50 percent," but it also mentioned that since Abramowitz's last prediction, President Obama's approval rating has gone up to 52 percent. The article even cited a recent quote from Abramowitz in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, where he noted that the president's rising approval rating may be "significant for the general election."

    The Hill also quoted economist Dan White from Moody's, who explained that "there's a lot more uncertainty" in this election "that could upset the balance and the historical relationship of how marginal voters vote." The Moody's model predicts that "the Democratic nominee would take 332 electoral votes compared to 206 for the Republican nominee," The Hill explained -- the same Electoral College outcome witnessed in 2012. White told the paper that a factor in the prediction was the president's increased approval rating, which he said may have been boosted by "the unruly GOP."

  • Des Moines Register Castigates Sen. Chuck Grassley For Refusing To Hold Hearing On Garland

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The Des Moines Register editorial board excoriated Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for his "simple stubbornness" in refusing to hold hearings on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. The board slammed Grassley for his willingness to leave the court "weakened' calling his position purely partisan and "un-American."

    On March 16, President Obama nominated Garland, the chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Conservative media have urged Republican senators to refuse to even consider any Obama nominee, and the GOP lawmakers have said they will not even give a nominee a hearing, an unprecedented obstructionist move. However, Iowa newspaper editorial boards including the Register, have been steadfast in their criticism of Grassley's "obstructionism" since he initially announced opposition to holding hearings for an Obama nominee.

    The Register's April 4 editorial condemned Grassley -- head of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- for refusing to give Garland a hearing, calling the move "pure partisanship -- and simple stubbornness," and noting that while the Supreme Court is functioning, it's "not to its full effectiveness." The editorial lectured Grassley, noting, "Senator, this seat needs to be filled, regardless of whether the presidency and your own seat is up for grabs in November," and concluded by castigating his refusal to give Garland a chance as "unsatisfying" and "un-American":

    Ties are unsatisfying, even un-American. Nothing against sports like soccer and rugby, but most U.S. sports fans prefer contests in which draws rarely if ever happen. We want a winner.

    Americans might need to get used to deadlocks, thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee seems just fine with stalemate.

    [...]

    The Supreme Court will continue to function, but not to its full effectiveness as a third branch of government. There are already signs that the pace of rulings has slowed in the last two months.

    How long should the nation's highest court be weakened, and in some situations, effectively neutered? For more than a year, according to Grassley and other Republicans.

    Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has argued that the appointment should be delayed until a new president is sworn in 2017 -- even if Democrat Hillary Clinton wins in November.

    He calls it a waste of time to consider President Barack Obama's nominee for the court, Merrick Garland. Even though few disagree that Garland's resume is superb. Grassley even said so in 1997, when the Senate was considering Garland for an appeals court nomination: "He seems to be well-qualified. He would probably make a good judge in some other court ... where the seat needs to be filled."

    Senator, this seat needs to be filled, regardless of whether the presidency and your own seat is up for grabs in November.

    We have admired Grassley's principled stands on issues in his 35-year tenure as U.S. senator. In most cases, these stands have ensured government works more effectively and efficiently for his constituents and taxpayers.

    But refusing to hold hearings on Garland is pure partisanship -- and simple stubbornness.

    Grassley won't give Garland a chance, to even let him in the game.

    That's unsatisfying. And un-American.