From a May 28 New York Daily News op-ed by Robert Morgenthau:
No sooner had President Obama announced his nomination of Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor than conservative partisans began calling for her defeat. These so-called pundits have pronounced her a "radical," an "activist," part of the "far left," an "affirmative action case" and, most astoundingly, a "racist." We were not long left in suspense as to whether this administration's judicial nominees can expect to be vetted with objectivity and due civility.
I have known Judge Sotomayor for decades, and I know how absurd these charges are. I doubt that anyone will be fooled by them, but let me state for the record my views on her nomination.
Assistant District Attorney Sotomayor was no "liberal." Rather, she was a tough and effective prosecutor. Young prosecutors are sometimes picked on by judges and defense attorneys, but no one successfully pushed this ADA around. Within a short time she had come to the attention of trial division executives as someone who was a step ahead of her colleagues, one of the brightest, an immediate standout who was marked for rapid advancement.
The judge's work since she left this office confirms that she is a strong champion of the law. In particular, she has served with distinction on what I consider to be the second most important appellate court in the world, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. To be sure, she is in favor of civil rights, in the sense that she believes there should be fair treatment for all. But that is, of course, the law. And she understands poverty, and does seem willing to accept government action that provides a safety net to the poor. But that is not exactly "radical."
Numerous media figures have compared President Obama and his administration to the mafia, frequently referencing films and television shows such as The Godfather, Goodfellas, and The Sopranos.
The New York Daily News reports:
He said WHAT?!
CBS golf analyst David Feherty sparked outrage after he asserted that U.S. soldiers, given the chance, would kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"If you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama Bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and Bin Laden would be strangled to death," Feherty wrote in a magazine piece.
Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami ripped into Feherty for his eye-popping remarks in the April issue of D magazine, a Dallas publication.
"Such comments are unacceptable and beyond the pale and an insult to our patriotic men and women in uniform," Elshami said.
Jim Manley, a senior communications adviser for Reid, called Feherty's statements "irresponsible."
"I understand that he thought that he was trying to be funny with the article," Manley said. "If that is the case, it was a pretty pathetic attempt at humor."
Feherty's outrageous claim appeared in a first-person piece about how former President George W. Bush's return to Texas might affect Dallas residents.
The comments drew the ire of Washington and media groups after Feherty's column was read on conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh's radio show Friday.
Eric Burns, president of Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, called the statements "disgusting."
Several media outlets echoed the assertion of a Drudge Report headline that President Obama's March 24 press conference was "boring."
Several media outlets touted President Bush's purported candor during an ABC interview with Charles Gibson in which Bush said the "biggest regret" of his presidency was the "intelligence failure" regarding the absence of WMD in Iraq and declined to "speculate" whether the administration would have invaded Iraq if the intelligence had shown no WMD. But none of these reports noted the substantial evidence that Bush had already decided to invade Iraq regardless of the available intelligence, or mentioned the substantial uncertainty about the evidence the administration cited in support of the war.
New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin falsely suggested that former President Bill Clinton has not disclosed "the paid speeches that he gives around the world." In fact, the sources and amounts of Clinton's speaking fees are disclosed annually in Hillary Clinton's Senate disclosure forms.
Numerous media outlets uncritically reported the assertion by Sen. John McCain's campaign that Sen. Barack Obama "voted against funds for American troops in harm's way." However, none of these outlets noted that McCain himself has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor did they mention that Obama has voted in the past to provide funds for troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A New York Daily News editorial endorsing Sen. John McCain asserted that McCain "has delivered 'straight talk' and risked the consequences of unpopular positions," citing as an example McCain's "forceful advoca[cy] of comprehensive immigration reform," claiming that "[c]haracteristically, he has held his ground against an anti-immigrant fervor that rivals ... have exploited." In fact, McCain has reversed his position on a key element of the immigration debate and has offered inconsistent statements on whether he would support his own comprehensive immigration bill.
In a New York Daily News column, Michael Goodwin claimed that a Democratic amendment that "condemn[ed] all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization" was "almost identical" to an alternative Republican amendment "except that [the Democratic amendment] did not mention MoveOn." Though the Democratic amendment did not refer to MoveOn.org by name, it did specifically criticize MoveOn's ad about Gen. David Petraeus.
Supporters of the Iraq war -- rather than waiting for testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the effect of President Bush's troop increase in Iraq -- have engaged in a campaign to convince the media and public that progress is being made in Iraq and that the "surge" is "working." Media Matters has compiled some of the most pervasive myths and falsehoods advanced by opponents of withdrawal in service of the "surge is working" message, which many in the media have been complicit in perpetuating.
In recent articles, The New York Times and the New York Daily News falsely characterized Sen. Clinton's vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq as a vote "for the Iraq war." However, prior to her vote, Clinton said that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the resolution as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism."