Tag Archives: dan rather

Dan Rather: GOPers ‘Seek to Cut Out President Obama’s Heart & Throw His Liver to the Dogs’

Disgraced Dan Rather Touted as Motivational Speaker, as ‘Always Ready to Deliver the Truth’

The Washington Post has repeatedly featured a full-page ad in recent days for a Get Motivated! Business Seminar in Washington in October. One of the big names at the event (alongside Colin Powell, Steve Forbes, and Rudy Giuliani) is disgraced former CBS anchor Dan Rather, teaching “How to Communicate Effectively.” Then the ad copy gets ridiculous: Dan Rather, Legendary News Anchor and Journalist, has covered every major story of the last 50 years, with distinction and a fierce dedication to hard news. He is always ready to deliver the truth the way it is! [Emphasis mine.] Hello, Better Business Bureau? Someone’s misleading the public about Dan Rather’s record of “distinction” in trying to sell fraudulent documents about President George W. Bush’s military service in the fall of 2004. His “fierce dedication” wasn’t to hard news. When his story was exposed as phony, he refused to admit he’d mangled the truth. The ad continues: Now the ‘hardest working man in journalism’ will teach you how to be successful: How to Develop an Action Play that Really Works Maintaining Excellence While Avoiding Burnout 4 Powerful Insights to Take Charge of Your Career Rather’s points ought to be something more like “Signs of Burnout: When You Don’t Care About Accuracy.” Or “4 Powerful Insights to Avoid Ending Your Career in a Closet Called ‘HDNet.'”

Read more:
Disgraced Dan Rather Touted as Motivational Speaker, as ‘Always Ready to Deliver the Truth’

Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

On Sunday’s syndicated Chris Matthews Show, after host Matthews asked if electing a President whose middle name was “Hussein” had “opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity?” the panel mostly agreed that Obama’s election was more of a “net plus” for America’s relations with the Muslim world. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius had a dissenting view that “President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous.” After former CBS News anchor Dan Rather contended that “I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation,” the BBC’s Katty Kay agreed and implicated President Bush in damaging America’s relations with the Middle East. Kay: “I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East.” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell concurred: “: I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius had a more negative take: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. The discussion was framed around the liberal premise that President Bush had not only harmed relations with the Muslim world by being too aggressive in the war on terrorism, but that those negative relations outweighed such positive accomplishments as overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 12 syndicated Chris Matthews Show: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s get back to the question of our country. We, as a country, elected Barack Hussein Obama. We knew his name was Hussein. We knew of his background from his parentage going way back. The Arab world liked that. The Islamic world said, “Hey, this country’s interesting.” Overall, has the election of Barack Obama opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity? DAN RATHER: I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation. MATTHEWS: Okay. Katty, you agree with that? KATTY KAY, BBC: I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS : I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus. DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. MATTHEWS: I think a grown-up response and childish response are always going to be different. Grown-ups are going to say, “Well, it’s an interesting country. They elect a guy named Barack Hussein Obama.” … (INAUDIBLE) country. IGNATIUS: Don’t look for grown-up responses in America or anywhere else.

More here:
Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

Chris Matthews: ‘Is Sarah Palin The Most Important Republican In The Country?’

A truly extraordinary thing happened on this weekend’s “The Chris Matthews Show”: the host asked his panel if former Alaska governor Sarah is the most important Republican in the country right now. What made this even more surprising was how his guests — CNN’s Gloria Borger, Politico’s John Harris, the BBC’s Katty Kay, and former “CBS Evening News” host Dan Rather — seemed to feel she was. Most bullish on Palin was Rather who said, “I wouldn’t underestimate her…If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination.” For his part, Matthews played a little bit of a misdirection with his viewers by predictably bashing Palin during the program’s introduction (multiple videos follow with highlights and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: She was a governor that couldn’t take it anymore. Ridiculed as a Bozo, all she could do was cash in get what she could on the way off the stage. But a year later, with zillions in her pocket, she’s an even better bet to run. As the opening segment about President Obama and Generals McChrystal and Petraeus came to an end, Matthews told his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Before we break, it was a year ago that Sarah Palin called that surprise news conference out there in the lawn in Wasilla to announce she was quitting as Alaska governor. David Letterman had a lot of fun with that. What followed was one of Letterman’s typically derogatory “Top Tens” about Palin: After the commercial, Matthews played a clip from Palin’s resignation speech last July: SARAH PALIN: With this announcement that I’m not seeking re-election, I determined it is best to transfer the authority of governor, to Lieutenant Governor Parnell. MATTHEWS: Transfer the authority? Well, she quit. A lot of people thought that was a short-sighted move, that quitting would end her career as an elected politician. Well, a year since then Palin’s made well over $12 million. Her first book “Going Rogue” was the year’s number one best-seller, made her $7 million in the advance. She gets $100,000 a speech, and Fox signed her to a TV deal. Besides getting to be rich, has she become, I would ask you open-ended, is she the most important Republican right now in the country? Kay was the first to answer, making some surprisingly positive comments about the former Governor and her success assisting Republican candidates in recent primaries.  When Matthews commented that Palin seems to be only backing winners, Borger countered that maybe they’re winning BECAUSE of her support.  For his part, Harris was a little less enthusiastic, but also gave an uncharacteristically upbeat view of the former vice presidential candidate. But the best was yet to come when Rather got his turn: DAN RATHER: Well, she’s not running at the moment for President. But I wouldn’t underestimate her. She’s a version now of a Deacon with four aces. She can go a lot of different ways. She is playing an almost perfect hand. If she wants to stay a power in the Party, make a lot of money and not run, she can do that. I wouldn’t underestimate her even for 2012 for one second. If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination. MATTHEWS: Good point. Is she Richard Nixon? Is she going around and picking up chits, proving that she can deliver, carefully selecting winners, avoiding losers when they’re on the right, so that day after this election, like Nixon did in ’66, “Look what I did for the party, I should be the nominee?” RATHER: And goes into the convention with maybe thirty percent of the votes. Imagine that. For approaching two years, America’s press have been mercilessly eviscerating this woman with every opportunity. Now, with Obama plummeting in the polls, and Democrats looking like they’re in a lot of trouble in the upcoming midterm elections, suddenly Palin is not only possibly the most important Republican in the country, but is also a legitimate candidate for President. Is hell freezing over, or is something else at play here? 

View post:
Chris Matthews: ‘Is Sarah Palin The Most Important Republican In The Country?’