Showing posts with label post-dispatch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label post-dispatch. Show all posts

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Guy Who Said Conservatives Should "Kill The Claire Bear" Can't Figure Out Why Democrats Think Akin's Views Are Outside the Mainstream


When we last heard from St. Louis-based tea party activist Scott Boston, he was telling a Missouri tea party audience the following about Senator McCaskill:
“She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.” “We have to kill the Claire Bear,” he added.
This prompted additional security at Senator McCaskill's events and a harsh rebuke from the Post-Dispatch.

Today, as you can see from the above tweet, Boston is absolutely shocked about a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee email that stated the following:
From his record to his rhetoric, everything about Todd Akin’s Tea Party policies are outside of the mainstream and dangerous for Missouri families.
Noting first that the email was referring to Todd Akin's policies, rather than "conservatives," why would anyone think that Akin's policies are "dangerous" and "outside the mainstream"?  Well, aside from the fact that Akin refused to condemn Boston's "kill the Claire Bear" comments, here are a few reasons:

  • The Hill: Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) voted against the creation of a national sex offender registry and against reauthorizing a program that assists runaway and homeless children.
  • On CSPAN: In March 2011, Akin said he doesn't like Social Security. "Now, Social Security through the years, for many, many people, has been a terrible investment. It's really a tax, that's all it is. Social Security is a tax. The government has taken the tax. There's been more money coming in than going out. And we spend it. That's not been responsible. I don't like it. I didn't design Social Security. It actually came from Bismarck, FDR put it in place." [CSPAN Washington Journal]
  • Fired Up Missouri: ...when giving an interview to Greg Knapp on KCMO, republican extremist Todd Akin stated that he would ban emergency contraception because he "believes it is abortion," and he would ban it for everyone, with no exceptions.
  • The Washington Post: In 2012, Akin was one of 24 to vote against the Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act; 147 Republicans voted for it. A GOP press release described this as an effort to “advance training and education for autism service providers” so that “autistic children and adults can lead fuller, happier and healthier lives.”
  • And: In 2010, Akin was one of only 13 to vote No on a motion “expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program.” 155 Republicans voted for it.
  • And: In 2009, Akin was one of 11 to vote against a measure “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that providing breakfast in schools through the National School Breakfast Program has a positive impact on classroom performance.” 152 Republicans voted for it.
  • Buzzfeed: Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin drew fire from fellow Republicans in the '90s for praising a private militia group associated with extreme anti-abortion actions, according to a 2000 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article.
  • MediaiteRep. Akin, a veteran and father of three Marines, clues us in about his confusion on the issue with very inarticulate language:
    There is a misunderstanding. If people are gay, they can serve in the military now. It’s just that they can’t allow their ‘gayness’ to get in the way of getting the mission done.

I could go on, but life is too short.

So yeah, even if you don't think that conservatives are "dangerous" and "outside the mainstream" you certainly have reasons for thinking that Akin's policies are.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

National Journal Criticizes Kinder's Tweets: Where was the Post-Dispatch?

The National Journal blog Hotline On Call came out with a list yesterday of the 5 biggest "Twitter Losers" among politicians in 2011. Out of all of the politicians in the country, Kinder came in #2 on the list, right behind Anthony Weiner. Here's what they had to say about Kinder:
Kinder never seemed to learn from his social media missteps, tweeting on multiple occasions about questionable things. In November, he re-tweeted a message about free wings at Hooters on Veterans Day while he was still considering a run to challenge Missouri Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. It was far from the first time Kinder's tweets were scrutinized. He had previously urged his followers to "vote for [a] hot wife in the Top 25 Political Mom blogs" a day after Missouri was hit by the deadliest tornado in nearly 60 years and tweeted about "hostage situation" in a government building in 2009 only to later discover the incident never occurred.
Fired Up Missouri has a lot more about Kinder's unprofessional tweets over the years. But what I find strange is that national outlets like National Journal and Politico were so willing to call out Kinder's ridiculous tweets, but the Post-Dispatch remained largely silent on them for the past several years. In fact, in 2010, the Post-Dispatch actually edited out any references to Kinder's tweets in a column by Tony Messenger.

Unprofessional behavior online or elsewhere from politicians of any political party should be fair game for the media.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

This Week in Wagman

Post Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman has been on a roll lately, even by his already generally low standards. First he started out writing a cheap shot piece claiming that tickets to an Obama event in St. Louis were "reduced" and suggesting that organizers were "slashing prices". Wagman wrote:
Maybe President Barack Obama isn't the draw he once was in the Gateway City.
But the tickets were actually part of a promotion made available to young professionals. Wagman would have known that if he bothered to act like a reporter and check. But he didn't. And now his inaccurate story has now become part of Wingnut Gospel. (by the way, who begins a news story with the word "maybe?")

And, as I already mentioned, Wagman also wrote a dumb story about one of Russ Carnahan's staffers selling her house, writing,
...any development, however small and potentially unrelated, will be subject to political scrutiny.
I guess he was testing the limits of that theory by writing something absurdly small and completely unrelated, and of course did so without bothering to actually speak with the people in the story.

Wagman skipped the first debate between Ed Martin and Ann Wagner, leaving it to pros like Jo Mannies at the Beacon and the local Patches. (coincidentally, there was a Cardinals game that night)

Then Wagman wrote about Obama's visit. He noted a couple protesters but couldn't be bothered to find out anything about them. This is especially remarkable considering that the protesters wrote a letter to the Post-Dispatch that was published that morning! But it wasn't on the Sports Page so Wagman missed it.

And finally, today he wrote about a letter that Congressional Candidate Ed Martin's mom sent to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Yes, a real life story about Martin's mom sending a letter complaining that Christie should have endorsed Martin because Martin is from New Jersey. It seems like a legitimate article for a gossip column, but this really isn't the kind of content a political reporter at a city newspaper should be writing about. And as Fired Up Missouri points out, in the article Wagman hilariously calls his BFF Ed Martin, the former Chief of Staff for Governor Matt Blunt, an "anti-establishment" candidate.

Now, I don't suppose we should expect Post-Dispatch Political Editor Christopher Ave to do anything about this. In general, the Post-Dispatch's reporting crew does amazing work: Virginia Young, Jason Hancock, David Hunn, and Joel Courier (just to name a few that I'm familiar with) all clearly work hard at their jobs and produce great material. And even Wagman occasionally does some solid work. But why put something as important as statewide races solely in the hands of a guy who generally seems to have no interest in getting to the bottom of stories and fact-checking? It's a drag on the reputation of the paper. Or, to put it in Wagman's terms, why keep starting a guy who only hustles to first base a couple times a season?