Tag Archives: face-the-nation

For Discussion: Former DNC Chair Says Women And Latinos Are Terrified Of The GOP, Call Michele Bachmann “Ridiculous”

Howard Dean Says Women And Latinos Are Terrified By The GOP Any women here plan on voting for Mitt Romney?? Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean said Sunday that the policies promoted by the Republican Party have women and Latinos “terrified.” “Women are terrified of what the Republicans are talking about. They’re talking about basically stripping away their ability to have insurance pay for their birth control pills,” Dean said on “Face the Nation.” “Latinos are terrified of the Republicans, because they seem to have a total tin ear when it comes to the basic needs of treating people with dignity. “For Michele Bachmann to go on there and claim that women are going to vote for Mitt Romney is perfectly ridiculous,” Dean said, referring to the Republican congresswoman who also appeared on “Face the Nation” Sunday. Dean also suggested that “the average American thinks that Mitt Romney doesn’t care about them. Here’s a guy who’s building, during a campaign, a mansion in Malibu with an elevator for his car,” Dean said to Bob Schieffer. “He had a Swiss bank account and he invests in the Cayman Islands. I don’t think we’ve ever elected a president who has invested in the Cayman Islands as a tax dodge before. “This candidacy is a shipwreck”, Dean said, “and for Michele Bachmann to go on there and claim that woman are going to vote for Mitt Romney is perfectly ridiculous.” Responding to Bachmann’s charge that President Obama will be running on a record of “broken promises,” Dean defended the president, saying he has been successful in both the economy and foreign policy. “I think we’ve made some real progress,” he said. “Osama Bin Laden is dead. We have our troops out of Iraq. Our troops are coming out of Afghanistan. These are things that are important to the United States.” The former governor added: “The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has created jobs, 4 million of them since he became President. The economy is in much better shape than it was when he took office.” “I think that’s a pretty good record for President Obama to run on.” Thoughts on this?? Sidenote: $MH at “Money” Mitt Romney. He got it all the way poppin!!!! Source

Go here to see the original:
For Discussion: Former DNC Chair Says Women And Latinos Are Terrified Of The GOP, Call Michele Bachmann “Ridiculous”

Schieffer Asks Dem Guests: Why Is Your Party So Mad They’re Saying F-words About the President?

It only took three days, but someone at CBS News finally realized that at least one House Democrat on Thursday vulgarly referred to the President of the United States. Unlike most of his colleagues in the media, Bob Schieffer was so disturbed by this revelation that he asked two different Democrat guests about it on the most recent installment of “Face the Nation” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Read more from the original source:
Schieffer Asks Dem Guests: Why Is Your Party So Mad They’re Saying F-words About the President?

Schieffer Asks Dem Guests: Why Is Your Party So Mad They’re Saying F-words About the President?

It only took three days, but someone at CBS News finally realized that at least one House Democrat on Thursday vulgarly referred to the President of the United States. Unlike most of his colleagues in the media, Bob Schieffer was so disturbed by this revelation that he asked two different Democrat guests about it on the most recent installment of “Face the Nation” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Continue reading here:
Schieffer Asks Dem Guests: Why Is Your Party So Mad They’re Saying F-words About the President?

Kyl Repeatedly Corrects Schieffer: No Tax ‘Cuts’ for Rich, Just Extending Existing Rates; Schieffer: ‘I Gotcha’

On Sunday’s Face the Nation, Republican Senate whip Jon Kyl kept correcting host Bob Schieffer about how extending tax “rates,” not “cuts,” is what is being debated, leading Schieffer to conceded “I gotcha” and even prompted Schieffer to let Kyl fill in for him the correct term. Schieffer: “Are the votes there now in the Senate, in your opinion, to extend these tax ah-“ Kyl: “Rates.” Schieffer had asked: “Is the Senate going to get down to business and resolve this whole business of the tax cuts?” Kyl chastised: “Nobody is talking about tax cuts. We're talking about extending the rates that have been in existence for the last decade.” Nonetheless, Schieffer stuck with his terminology: “Why is it so important to Republicans to extend the tax cuts for the upper-income people?” Democratic Senate whip Dick Durbin matched Schieffer’s framing: “I'm not voting for any permanent tax cut for the people of the highest income categories” and Kyl felt compelled to again correct Schieffer and Durbin: “First of all we're not talking about tax cuts.” Schieffer interjected “I gotcha” as Kyl continued: “We're talking about extending, for another period of time, the rates that have been in existence for the last decade.” read more

View post:
Kyl Repeatedly Corrects Schieffer: No Tax ‘Cuts’ for Rich, Just Extending Existing Rates; Schieffer: ‘I Gotcha’

Schieffer Bashes White House’s ‘Snarky’ Response to Boehner’s Tax Cut Comment

CBS’s Bob Schieffer on Sunday bashed the White House for how it responded to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Oh.) tax cut comment uttered on “Face the Nation” a week ago. As readers are likely aware, Boehner made news – if not friends amongst conservatives! – by telling Schieffer that if the only thing that came out of the House was an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all but folks that make $250,000 or more per year, he would grudgingly support it.  After reading the White House’s official response to Boehner during this Sunday’s final segment – “Time will tell if his actions will be anything but continued support for the failed policies that got us into this mess” – Schieffer scolded, “I can remember when the first move by a president like Lyndon Johnson or maybe a smart aide in the Eisenhower White House would not have been a snarky press release.” “I`m guessing LBJ would have been on the phone to Boehner in five minutes after seeing him on TV saying something like, if you`re serious, why don`t you come over here quietly and we`ll try to work out something good for both of us and the folks out there,” continued Schieffer. “As we saw, no chance it could happen today. And we`re right back to the partisan war” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Finally, House Republican Leader John Boehner did a rare thing on this broadcast last week. He got off the talking points. I asked him about extending the Bush tax cuts that expire this year. Boehner gave me the GOP line: We should extend those cuts for all Americans, rich and poor, Democrats want to extend the cuts only to those making less than $250,000 a year. And when I pressed Boehner, he carefully said that was just bad policy, but if it came down to tax cuts only for the lower and middle income groups or no tax cuts at all, he said, he would reluctantly vote for just the lower and middle income cuts. That was big news all across the country. And it set off a thunder bolt of reaction in both parties. By mid-afternoon the White House acknowledged Boehner`s change in position but added in a written press release: “Time will tell if his actions will be anything but continued support for the failed policies that got us into this mess.” Blame it on a long memory, but I can remember when the first move by a president like Lyndon Johnson or maybe a smart aide in the Eisenhower White House would not have been a snarky press release. I`m guessing LBJ would have been on the phone to Boehner in five minutes after seeing him on TV saying something like, if you`re serious, why don`t you come over here quietly and we`ll try to work out something good for both of us and the folks out there. Call me a romantic, but I believe that might have happened. As we saw, no chance it could happen today. And we`re right back to the partisan war. Too bad really. Nicely done, Bob, but isn’t this possibly another instance of you not being as aware of things going on in Washington, D.C., as you should be? After all, it was only two months ago that Schieffer interviewed Attorney General Eric Holder and not only didn’t ask him about the New Black Panther Party controversy at the Department of Justice, but also admitted to CNN’s Howard Kurtz that he hadn’t heard anything about it.   Regardless of the media’s pathetic echoing of the Democrat talking point that Republicans are the Party of No, GOP members in the House and the Senate have been offering legislative ideas since Obama was inaugurated. Problem is the Party currently controlling Congress and the White House has wanted to implement its policies without any input from Republicans relying instead on their majorities in both chambers. As such, it’s by no means surprising the Obama administration didn’t immediately jump on Boehner’s comments from last Sunday to try to use them as a means of coming to a resolution on this matter. That’s not been this White House’s modus operandi since January 20, 2009, and Schieffer would have known this if he wasn’t accepting the administration’s talking points as the Gospel truth. Why he didn’t this time is anybody’s guess unless like so many folks on the Left he’s beginning to come out from under the Hope and Change ether. Stay tuned. 

The rest is here:
Schieffer Bashes White House’s ‘Snarky’ Response to Boehner’s Tax Cut Comment

Mark Levin: Christine O’Donnell is ‘Smart to Bypass’ Sunday Talk Shows

Conservative radio host Mark Levin thinks Delaware Republican senatorial nominee Christine O’Donnell is “smart to bypass” the Sunday talk shows she was scheduled to appear on this week. As the Associated Press reported Saturday, O’Donnell canceled her appearances on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and FNC’s “Fox News Sunday”: Campaign spokeswoman Diana Banister cited scheduling conflicts and said O’Donnell needed to return to Delaware for commitments to church events and afternoon picnic with Republicans in a key county where she has solid backing.  Sunday morning, Levin told his Facebook followers this was a good decision: Christine O’Donnell is smart to bypass these shows and the O’Donnell-hating media. All they’ll do is try to rip her with cherry-picked clips and the rest. They’ll use Rove, Krauthammer, Weekly Standard, National Review, Powerline, Castle, etc., quotes against her. She owes them nothing. Her goal is to get elected. Now that she’s raised nearly $2 million, she can tell the voters who she is and what she believes, rather than subjecting herself to the frenzy and bias of the media which clearly seek her personal destruction.  As the media are in a full-court press to dig up dirt on Tuesday’s surprise winner, it seems a metaphysical certitude they’ll attack her no matter what she does. With this in mind, was this a good decision on O’Donnell’s part, or are political candidates better served to face the press regardless of their biases? 

Here is the original post:
Mark Levin: Christine O’Donnell is ‘Smart to Bypass’ Sunday Talk Shows

CBS’s Smith Pressures GOP to Sign On to ‘Obama’s New Deal’

On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith touted President Obama’s economic proposals and portrayed Republicans as obstructionist: “Obama’s new plan. The President proposes to spend $50 billion on roads, airports, and railways and offers businesses a $200 billion tax cut. But the GOP says not so fast.” Later, Smith introduced a report by senior White House correspondent Bill Plante: “With unemployment at 9.6% and the midterm elections just two months away, President Obama is out and about this week promoting new ideas to get the economy moving again.” Plante proclaimed: “Pumped up in full campaign mode before a crowd of union members in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama celebrated his administration’s accomplishments and announced a new project to repair the nation’s infrastructure.” A headline on screen read: “Obama’s New Deal; Announces $50 billion Infrastructure Plan.” Following Plante’s report, Smith spoke with CBS economics and business correspondent Rebecca Jarvis and political analyst John Dickerson about the President’s plans. As Jarvis promoted the idea that more spending would create jobs, Smith asked Dickerson about Republican opposition: “…almost anything that the White House talks about, say over the last couple months or so, has met – had been met with a raspberry, I suppose we should assume this will be met with the same kind of reaction?” Dickerson had earlier used the “raspberry” image to dismiss GOP criticism as pure politics: “Well, the resounding sound was a huge raspberry from all Republican corners to the President’s proposal. You know, they – it’s almost as if these press releases are pre-written.” In reply to Smith, Dickerson suggested a strategy for Obama: “So then does the President have an issue, can he take it on the stump and say, ‘look, I’m even trying to give Republicans things that they want, that they’ve said they’ve wanted, they’re still saying no,’ and that’s going to be his message for the next two months.” Smith followed up: “Is there any chance any of this stuff the White House is talking about is going to get any support from Republicans?” Dickerson remarked: “No….in the end, the President’s going to have to try to rally his troops around the idea that the Republicans are really trying to block anything that’s sensible.” On Sunday’s Face the Nation , Smith filled in for host Bob Schieffer and asked a panel of liberal economists: “was the stimulus big enough?” He also pushed for a “second stimulus,” questioned extending the Bush tax cuts, and proposed the creation of “something like a new WPA” to create jobs. Here is a full transcript of the September 7 segment: 7:00AM TEASE HARRY SMITH: Obama’s new plan. The President proposes to spend $50 billion on roads, airports, and railways and offers businesses a $200 billion tax cut. But the GOP says not so fast. 7:06AM SEGMENT SMITH: Now to the economy and politics. With unemployment at 9.6% and the midterm elections just two months away, President Obama is out and about this week promoting new ideas to get the economy moving again. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has the latest on that. Bill, good morning. BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. The stalled economy has fueled voter discontent and Democrats fears of losing control of Congress. So the President will be on the campaign trail for much of the next two months trying to turn things around. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s New Deal; Announces $50 billion Infrastructure Plan] BARACK OBAMA: I am going to keep fighting every single day, every single hour, every single minute, to turn this economy around and put people back to work and renew the American dream. Not just for your family, not just for all our families, but for future generations. PLANTE: Pumped up in full campaign mode before a crowd of union members in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama celebrated his administration’s accomplishments and announced a new project to repair the nation’s infrastructure. The proposal would rebuild 150,000 miles of roads, construct 4,000 miles of rail, and reconstruct 150 miles of runway as well as modernizing the air traffic control system. Administration officials insist this isn’t another stimulus, but the President says it will be a big boost to the economy. OBAMA: This will not only create jobs immediately, it’s also going to make our economy hum over the long haul. PLANTE: House Minority Leader John Boehner shot back in a statement, saying ‘we don’t need more government stimulus spending. We need to end Washington Democrats’ out-of-control spending spree, stop their tax hikes, and create jobs.’ Administration officials propose to pay for the infrastructure rebuilding by eliminating some tax breaks for oil and gas production. And the President will soon propose another tax break for small business. He wants to eliminate taxes on capital investment for the coming year until the end of 2011. Harry. SMITH: Alright, Bill Plante at the White House this morning, thank you. Here now to talk – take a closer look at the President’s plans are CBS News business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis. And in Washington, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. Good morning to you both. REBECCA JARVIS: Good morning. SMITH: Rebecca, let’s start with you, let’s go through these two plans. The $50 billion, sort of, stimulus junior, as it were, to all of this infrastructure work. JARVIS: Infrastructure- SMITH: This is supposed to be kind of a seed, really, for a much larger idea of addressing infrastructure needs across the country. JARVIS: Absolutely, and well we’ve had these infrastructure needs, obviously, in the very first stimulus, which was about $800 billion, some of the stimulus needs were supposed to be addressed. And if you look at those numbers, that original stimulus dollars, that original 800 billion or so stimulus dollars, that created – according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan group – that created 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs. So if you think about this infrastructure plan which is $50 billion – that’s the proposal – that, if it’s an apples to apples comparison, it’s a 1/16 of the size of the original plan, could create about 88,000 to 206,000 jobs in a year. SMITH: That’s not a lot of jobs, although it is being welcomed, politically, in some corners and being shunned by – in other quarters. Let’s get John Dickerson on board here to just talk a little bit about the reaction to this. What was the resounding sound, especially from Republicans? JOHN DICKERSON: Well, the resounding sound was a huge raspberry from all Republican corners to the President’s proposal. You know, they – it’s almost as if these press releases are pre-written. They see this as a last-minute desperate attempt by the President. They say more big government spending going to balloon the deficit, this was right into their existing playbook. SMITH: Alright, and let’s talk about this two – this other- DICKERSON: The $200 billion. SMITH: Exactly. Which is a whole – kind of putting a different template on the way businesses sort of write down their own investment in their business. JARVIS: Yeah, as Bill Plante mentioned, it’s an original for two years businesses won’t have to wait to write down their investments in new things. Instead, they’ll get to take off their books, they’ll get to take the deductions in taxes. It’s a $200 billion plan. And some economists estimate it will help grow business investment by 5% to 10%, which could be a boost to some new businesses, as well as new jobs. SMITH: Alright. And John Dickerson, we haven’t heard so much reaction to that yet, but sort of overall, almost anything that the White House talks about, say over the last couple months or so, has met – had been met with a raspberry, I suppose we should assume this will be met with the same kind of reaction? DICKERSON: It will be. And the problem is the President’s got to get these things through Congress and particularly in the Senate, that requires Republican votes and his – the President’s allies in the Senate say that just isn’t going to happen. So then does the President have an issue, can he take it on the stump and say, ‘look, I’m even trying to give Republicans things that they want, that they’ve said they’ve wanted, they’re still saying no,’ and that’s going to be his message for the next two months. SMITH: Because that really ends up being the question. Is there any chance any of this stuff the White House is talking about is going to get any support from Republicans? DICKERSON: No. And though there may an tiny bit of support for this $30 billion small business bill, because small business is something everybody loves. But in the end, the President’s going to have to try to rally his troops around the idea that the Republicans are really trying to block anything that’s sensible. SMITH: Yeah, okay. And finally, last but not least, all through this then, the Bush tax cuts has become this sort of mantra of sorts that the Republicans say, ‘do not touch this. Do not touch this.’ What’s the news on that today? JARVIS: Well, this $200 billion tax credit for businesses throughout the country, some are viewing it as a potential alternative to the Bush tax cuts for the upper earning income earners. SMITH: Alright, thanks very much, Rebecca Jarivs, John Dickerson. Thank you very much for joining us and your insights this morning.

Visit link:
CBS’s Smith Pressures GOP to Sign On to ‘Obama’s New Deal’

CBS’s Harry Smith on Face the Nation: No Time to ‘Continue Cutting Taxes,’ So ‘What About, Say, Something Like a New WPA?’

Filling in for Bob Schieffer as host of Face the Nation , Early Show co-host Harry Smith brought his liberal sensibilities to the Sunday show, pressing his economic panel to agree the Bush tax cuts should not be extended, the stimulus was too small and so another would be wise – even suggesting a return to an FDR-era government make-work jobs program: “What about, say, something like a new WPA?”   Presuming the pre-2003 levels are the real rates, Smith questioned Gretchen Morganson of the New York Times: “Is now the time to continue cutting taxes if there is this overwhelming deficit out there?” He soon cued up White House economic adviser Laura Tyson to agree with his premise: “Should the Bush tax cuts stay in place for the middle class but be rescinded for the top wage earners?” Turning back to Morganson, Smith showed exasperation with public opposition to government spending programs as he wondered if the stimulus wasn’t big enough: I want to go back to the stimulus because as so many of these Congress folks are going back out of their districts and people complain about the size of government, they’re complaining about the deficit, they’re complaining about TARP and who knows what all else. As we’re standing here looking at it right now, just if you can step away, was the stimulus big enough? Morganson afirmed “the stimulus was not big enough” and Smith next pushed Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Analytics: “There are plenty of economists out there, Mark Zandi, who say what’s needed is is a second stimulus. Could those words cross your lips?” After Zandi’s reply, Smith arrived at his Works Progress Administration idea: All right. Laura Tyson, what about a more significant stimulus, beyond the things, these, you know, a block here, a block here, a block here, but another say couple hundred billion dollars, what about say something like a new WPA? Tyson used that as a cue to advocate more “infrastructure” spending. The CBSNews.com posting summarizing the program reflected Smith’s agenda, “ Economists: Second Economic Stimulus Needed .” From the Sunday, September 5 Face the Nation on CBS, picking up a few minutes into the segment: HARRY SMITH: Gretchen, let me ask you this. This whole idea of the President talking about moving in the right direction, wanting to pick up the pace. Is there a pre-dominant idea of what it is that is hindering the economy from catching fire? GRETCHEN MORGANSON, NEW YORK TIMES: Definitely. It is debt. We had a debt binge the likes that we have hardly ever seen before. Frankly, Harry, it just takes a long, long time to get that out of the system. We’re still really working down the debt that homeowners took on. And it’s a difficult and really excruciating process. You can’t do it overnight. SMITH: Which brings up the whole idea, Gretchen, of this debate: Is now the time to continue cutting taxes if there is this overwhelming deficit out there? MORGANSON: Well, I think what you have to worry about immediately is job creation and let’s just forget about the deficit for the moment because when you have the unemployment rate where it is now and you have incomes really being stretched, I think that that is the key to any kind of activity and economic activity by consumers is an enormous part of our economy. That is really why we are in such dire straits. SMITH: Which is maybe one of the ideas that has to be in play is do we have the wrong model to begin with? I want to get back to that in a second. First, though, I want to talk about the Bush tax cuts which are due to expire in January. Laura Tyson, should the Bush tax cuts stay in place for the middle class but be rescinded for the top wage earners? LAURA TYSON: I think that is the right thing to do… …. SMITH, TO MARK ZANDI: Because you hear small business owners say if those tax cuts come back, I’m not going to hire a single person. I mean, that’s anecdotal, but is that really the predominant feeling among small businessmen? …. SMITH: Gretchen Morganson, I want to go back to the stimulus because as so many of these Congress folks are going back out of their districts and people complain about the size of government, they’re complaining about the deficit, they’re complaining about TARP and who knows what all else. As we’re standing here looking at it right now, just if you can step away, was the stimulus big enough? MORGANSON: The stimulus was not big enough… SMITH: One of the things you write so much about for the Times is the housing market. One of the other ideas that’s out this this week is this notion of giving people whose homes are underwater, mortgage holders whose homes are underwater, the opportunity to get out. People who are paying their mortgages, but to get out from underwater and basically handing the federal government the bill. In the short term, or even in the long term, Gretchen, does that seem like a viable option? And oh, by the way, we should say the government’s efforts on some of these levels have not been particularly good in the last two years. MORGANSON: That’s right. I mean, I think that the devil is in the details. The HAMP program has been a big disappointment. That was the helping homeowners, the initial program that treasury put out there. It’s been very disappointing. I think these matters are so complicated with so many different people and debt, second loans, first loans, it’s really very complex. And I just don’t see how it’s going to provide immediate help, the kind that we really need. SMITH: So is it time — it’s crazy to even talk about — but there are plenty of economists out there, Mark Zandi, who say what’s needed is is a second stimulus. Could those words cross your lips? MARK ZANDI: Well, we are talking about other stimulus, right? I mean, An r&d tax credit, payroll tax holiday. Job tax credit. All these things are different forms of stimulus. In fact, the federal government has provided a couple hundred billions dollars in additional stimulus beyond the recovery act stimulus that we put in place a year-and-a-half ago. We are doing that. In my view the recovery needs more help. It would be prudent, I think, to provide some additional help through some of the things that we’re talking about. SMITH: All right. Laura Tyson, what about a more significant stimulus, beyond the things,  these, you know, a block here, a block here, a block here, but another say couple hundred billion dollars, what about, say, something like a new WPA? LAURA TYSON: Well I believe that we should look at infrastructure because we know before the recession, before the great recession, we know that we were vastly underspending on the nation’s infrastructure. You can sort of, therefore, start with the notion that infrastructure spending is terrific in two ways. It creates demand right away when you go out and get the project start and get the worker started. It also creates the ability to grow and be productive in the future. SMITH: Although Japan tried that and they don’t have a lot to show for it.

See the original post here:
CBS’s Harry Smith on Face the Nation: No Time to ‘Continue Cutting Taxes,’ So ‘What About, Say, Something Like a New WPA?’

Broadcast Networks Ignore Racist Comments At NAACP Meeting

Despite all the attention given to last week’s National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s resolution against the Tea Party, all three broadcast evening news programs completely ignored Monday’s revelations of racist comments made at one of the civil rights organization’s meetings in March. At 8:18 AM Monday, Big Government reported that on March 27, Shirley Sherrod, the USDA’s Rural Development director for the state of Georgia, delivered a racism-laden address at the NAACP’s 20th Annual Freedom Fund Banquet.  Here’s a taste of what the so-called news divisions at ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored Monday (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): SHIRLEY SHERROD, USDA: The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing, but he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter] I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough, so that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him. As most readers are aware, this video has gone viral over the Internet. The Drudge Report posted its first piece concerning this matter at 5:28 PM. Yet, according to closed caption dumps, the three broadcast evening news programs completely ignored the story. This seems particularly hypocritical of ABC and CBS which both did detailed reports on the NAACP resolution against the Tea Party during their respective morning, evening, and Sunday political talk shows last week. For its part, NBC also focused a lot of attention on this matter on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” I guess these news outlets are only interested in the NAACP when it’s accusing others of racism and NOT when they’re exhibiting it. As a sidebar, CNN also seems nonplussed by this development. Having done scores of reports on the NAACP-Tea Party resolution last week, the only mention of this new controversy Monday was by St. Louis Tea Party head Dana Loesch who brought it up on “Larry King Live.” As such, according to LexisNexis, the supposed most trusted name in news hasn’t fully covered this story yet, although transcripts are still coming in. I can also find no wire service reports either.  Moving forward, as this matter was serious enough for Sherrod to resign late Monday, will it get more attention in the coming days, or will NAACP-loving journalists continue to ignore this story much as they did last year’s ACORN controversy? Stay tuned.

Continue reading here:
Broadcast Networks Ignore Racist Comments At NAACP Meeting

CBS Legal Correspondent: Senate Democrats Can Blame Themselves for Kagan Confirmation Difficulties

There have been a lot of complaints from the left over the opposition Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan has faced from Senate Republicans in her battle to win confirmation. But Kagan proponents should have seen this day coming when Democrats in the Senate did the same things to try to slow the confirmations of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. On CBS’s July 4 “Face the Nation,” CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford explained why. Previously throughout these types of confirmation processes, the Senate would approve a President’s nominee, assuming the candidate was qualified. But President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. all set a new precedence when George W. Bush was president. “Historically, [Kagan] would have been confirmed like Justice Ginsburg was, 96-3, or Justice Breyer, 87-9, but things changed. I mean, things changed 10 years ago, when Democrats started filibustering President Bush’s qualified nominees,” Crawford said. “I had a talk about all this — I guess, what, five or six years ago with Mitch McConnell. You know, he said memories are long in the U.S. Senate. People remember what the Democrats — including President Obama, Vice President Biden, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy — did. ” According to Crawford, this will ultimately change the public’s perception of the Supreme Court. “They not only voted against Sam Alito, who is just as qualified as Elena Kagan in really every way, had liberal support. They voted to block his nomination. So in some ways, what goes around comes around. She’s going to get confirmed, but there’s also a little bit of payback here, and she’s not going to get 96 votes like Justice Ginsburg. And the – – the — the problem with that is that it damages — ultimately, the loser, it’s not Elena Kagan. She’s going to get confirmed. It’s the courts. I mean, it makes the Supreme Court look in the people’s mind politicized. When you have these bipartisan votes on qualified nominees, the danger is the court itself looks political. And I think that’s a real problem long term.” And Crawford said she thinks this partisan gridlock needs to stop, regardless who is to blame. “But, you know, I mean, listen, I mean, in some ways, it’s like, you know, my 9-year-old will say, ‘You know, she started it,’ referring to my 6-year-old,” Crawford said. “At some point, somebody has got to be a grown- up and say, ‘Listen, I don’t care who started it. We’re going to stop it, and let’s realize what the stakes are here.'”

Here is the original post:
CBS Legal Correspondent: Senate Democrats Can Blame Themselves for Kagan Confirmation Difficulties