Tag Archives: jim vandehei

Andrea Mitchell: I Thought Al Gore Settled the Global Warming Issue

One may think that someone as well connected as long-time Washington correspondent and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell might also connect the dots. After an unseasonably rough DC winter occurring right in the midst of the ClimateGate scandal, she would be aware of doubt being cast over the idea of manmade global warming. But if you want evidence her mind is made up regardless of any of this, you could detect from her reaction to a report from Politco’s Jim VandeHei that some Republican candidates are using the climate change debate to advance their campaigns. On MSNBC’s Aug. 18 broadcast of “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Mitchell expressed her surprise that candidates would invoke this issue. “Well, you might think that the link between manmade greenhouse gases and global warming is clearly established science, but some Republican candidates are challenging conventional wisdom this year,” Mitchell said. Mitchell went on to play a TV spot from California GOP Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina, blasting incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., for her stands on global warming as a national security issue, even though many would argue there are other more serious threats on that front. “Fiorina is not alone as Politico reports today,” Mitchell said. “Joining me now is Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei. Jim, I got to tell you – John Kerry, Lindsay Graham and a whole group of retired generals are part of this national security initiative on climate change, so I just don’t completely get it, especially in California. How does this work in a general election campaign in California?” Mitchell was referring to an Aug. 18 Politico story by Darrel Samuelsohn , which she obviously didn’t read because it explained the strategy behind the use of this issue in a campaign. But VandeHei explained to it her and her viewers anyway. “There’s a big block of Republican candidates in California but also elsewhere, in Wisconsin where Rob Johnson is conservative, challenging Russ Feingold,” VandeHei explained. “We see it in New Mexico. We see it in Nevada, these candidates who are really calling into the science behind global warming and also man’s role in causing global warming. This is obviously been a big debate. We had it during the energy debate on Capitol Hill. What is surprising to us is we found a large number of people on the campaign trail sounding like [Sen.] James Inhofe, who has been one of the most unspoken conservatives on this issue on Capitol Hill.” But the source of Mitchell’s confusion: She had thought that former Vice President Al Gore and “all of that” had settled this debate, as his word was final on the issue. “Well in fact, Sharon Angle said that – she said in June that greenhouse gas legislation was based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax,” Mitchell said. “It just seems that I thought that after Al Gore and all of that – that it was pretty much a settled issue . You could argue about the economics and the priorities over it, as Lindsay Graham and others have. I didn’t think that they would be arguing this year that it wasn’t settled science.” But as VandeHei said, there’s a group of people that think the issue as been used politically to get certain provisions written into legislation and that climate change created by carbon emissions isn’t the only way the globe’s temperature is impacted, as Wisconsin GOP Senate hopeful Rob Johnson said in an interview published on Aug. 16 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . “But there’s definitely a group of people who do not think it’s settled science, or at least they think that the science is being exaggerated to make a political case in favor of these caps on carbon emissions as part of the larger energy bill,” VandeHei said. “What you’re seeing now is that the feeling manifested in a lot of the rhetoric during these campaigns. Rob Johnson was very, very clear in this interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where he said, ‘I don’t buy the science. I don’t buy that argument.’ He said that global warming could just as well be caused by, he pointed up in the sky, by sun spots. It’s just a different view and there’s a lot of conservatives who hold that view.”

Continued here:
Andrea Mitchell: I Thought Al Gore Settled the Global Warming Issue

Politico’s VandeHei Takes NAACP to Task for Labeling Tea Party Racist

Appearing on Wednesday’s Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC to discuss the Shirley Sherrod controversy, Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei pointed out the NAACP’s role in fueling racial accusations: “If you think about this, where this thing started, the NAACP comes out and makes this charge against the tea party movement.” VandeHei rejected the NAACP’s claim of racism in the political movement: “It’s a very, very diffuse group. You cannot say that they are racist anymore then you can say the Republican Party’s racist or the Democratic Party is racist, so it creates this culture and it’s a dangerous topic, it’s a dangerous fire to light, and then when it happens this is the outcome.” Explaining how the NAACP charge led to the accusations against Sherrod, VandeHei observed: “I’m not defending Breitbart. But conservatives are outraged, they feel like ‘listen, you’re – because I’m part of the tea party movement you say, therefore, I’m racist.’ And so what Breitbart’s arguing is ‘I want to push back.'” Opposite VandeHei was Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart, who tried to excuse the civil rights organization: “The NAACP went to great lengths to say they were talking about racist elements within the tea party movement….Very nuanced thing here. He’s not broad-brushing the movement.” VandeHei countered: “…very nuanced but very explosive. They knew exactly once you make that statement, whether you’re trying to add nuance to the statement or not, you know exactly what’s going to happen when you make that charge.” Here is a transcript of the July 21 exchange: 4:18PM JIM VANDEHEI: Can I talk about the NAACP for one second. DYLAN RATIGAN: Go for it. VANDEHEI: Because I do think they’re getting off the hook a little bit. RATIGAN: I agree with you. VANDEHEI: If you think about this, where this thing started, the NAACP comes out and makes this charge against the tea party movement. RATIGAN: Yeah. VANDEHEI: We’ve probably written more stories about the tea party movement than any other organization. We’ve really tried to study this group. It’s a very, very diffuse group. You cannot say that they are racist anymore then you can say the Republican Party’s racist or the Democratic Party is racist, so it creates this culture and it’s a dangerous topic, it’s a dangerous fire to light, and then when it happens this is the outcome. So conservatives- JONATHAN CAPEHART: But Jim- VANDEHEI: I’m not defending Breitbart. But conservatives are outraged, they feel like ‘listen, you’re – because I’m part of the tea party movement you say, therefore, I’m racist.’ And so what Breitbart’s arguing is ‘I want to push back.’ Now I’m not saying what Breitbart did was right because clearly it wasn’t right and the outcome was awful for this woman, but both sides, I think, come off looking very, very bad and that’s why Joe Biden and – and Steny Hoyer both said they didn’t agree with the NAACP’s charge. RATIGAN: Go ahead, Jonathan. CAPEHART: Jim, but here’s the thing. The NAACP went to great lengths to say they were talking about racist elements within the tea party movement and even Ben Jealous said point blank that he did not say – think that the entire tea party movement was racist. He wanted leaders of the tea party movement to disavow those racist elements. Very nuanced thing here. He’s not broad-brushing the movement. VANDEHEI: Very nuanced, but Jonathan – but very nuanced but very explosive. They knew exactly once you make that statement, whether you’re trying to add nuance to the statement or not, you know exactly what’s going to happen when you make that charge, whether it’s elements or how nuanced they’re trying to be. CAPEHART: So then- VANDEHEI: Especially – this is a terrible issue to be talking about. CAPEHART: But then we can- VANDEHEI: And it’s the reason that Barack Obama does not want to talk about it. Barack Obama has tried very- CAPEHART: But then we can never have a conversation about race if – I mean, you have – it’s all about nuance. VANDEHEI: I feel like we’ve been having a conversation p about race for a long, long time in this country- CAPEHART: We always will.

Visit link:
Politico’s VandeHei Takes NAACP to Task for Labeling Tea Party Racist

Time vs Politico: Halperin Rebukes VandeHei for Characterizing GOP Group as ‘Shadowy’

In the “secret” underworld of Republican fundraising, Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie use “cloaked” donor lists to “dig up dirt” on Democrats and funnel campaign contributions to Republican candidates. At least that’s the impression left by Politico’s Jim VandeHei. On the June 21 “Morning Joe,” Time magazine’s Mark Halperin challenged VandeHei’s characterization of American Crossroads GPS, a Republican political organization that finances issue ads designed to promote conservative positions on policy issues. “With all due respect to Jim and the folks at Politico, you know, they make this these shadowy donors, this shadowy group, I mean, these are citizens who, under the law, are able to give anonymously to a group like this and to fund political activity to help them win races,” complained Halperin. Highlighting the fact that American Crossroads, classified as a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, is not required to disclose its donor list, the Politico piece lead Halperin, who is no champion of conservative causes , to conclude that VandeHei and his colleagues believe the Rove – Gillespie operation is a “shadowy” organization. Halperin also accused VandeHei of promoting a double standard: “I’m not sure if this were a Democratic group people would look at this as something sinister but rather an attempt to fight for what they believe in the marketplace of political ideas.” “I think there’s been a big push of late to try to get at least more disclosure of donors I think from both sides,” countered VandeHei. It’s hard to believe Politico’s executive editor would paint other 501(c)4 organizations like the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, or the Natural Resources Defense Council as clandestine operations. But when it comes to a non-profit organization run by prominent Republicans, Politico cast a menacing shadow over the organization. The transcript of the program can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe July 21, 2010 8:23 A.M. E.S.T. WILLIE GEIST: With us now, Executive Editor of Politico, Jim VandeHei, he’s back with a look at the Playbook. Hey, Jim. JIM VANDEHEI, Politico executive editor: Hey, how you doing? GEIST: Good. Let’s pick up on something we were talking about earlier in the show and that’s Karl Rove, had been having trouble apparently raising cash from donors because they don’t want to get their names out there so he did something about it. VANDEHEI: Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, some other prominent Republicans have put together a group they were trying to get a bunch money to run attack ads and go after Democrats. They weren’t having much luck because the way they set it up donors had to disclose their names. Now they’ve created a new organization that allows them to cloak the identity of donor names. Money is pouring in and they’re saying they’re going to put that money in to some dirt-digging against Democrats and also painting what’s happened in the Gulf as Obama’s Katrina. GEIST: Hey Mark Halperin, is this a new concept? Has Karl Rove tapped into a new idea here? We’re going to give him a mic too, it’ll be great. MARK HALPERIN, Time magazine: There are new groups based on this Supreme Court decision from January but I have to say, with all due respect to Jim and the folks at Politico, you know, they make this these shadowy donors, this shadowy group, I mean, these are citizens who, under the law, are able  to give anonymously to a group like this and to fund political activity to help them win races. I’m not sure if this were a Democratic group people would look at this as something sinister but rather an attempt to fight for what they believe in the marketplace of political ideas. VANDEHEI: I disagree with you, Mark. I think there was a tremendous amount of coverage back when George Soros and others were starting to do this for Democrats if you recall back in 2006, which helped them take back control of power and I think there’s been a big push of late to try to get at least more disclosure of donors I think from both sides. And there still exists this caveat in tax law – 501(c)3 or 4 – which allows you to do some of this activity anonymously. So I think certainly both sides do it. I think it’s most interesting right now for Republicans because they desperately need this infusion of cash to be able to win back the House and Senate because they’re suffering when it comes to money. HALPERIN: I agree, I just like to get under Jim’s skin when I can. VANDEHEI: You sound better when you didn’t have a mic, Mark. GEIST: The page and Politico in a smack down. Judge Buchanan would you like to render your ruling? Who’s right in this case? –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Follow this link:
Time vs Politico: Halperin Rebukes VandeHei for Characterizing GOP Group as ‘Shadowy’

MSNBC’s Matthews Compares Conservative Candidates to Suicide Bombers

“Being a suicide bomber is the new political role model,” Chris Matthews told his Friday “Hardball” audience. “Just kill everything, destroy everything, blow it up, nothing gets done. You’re dead, but who cares?” he added, referring to conservative Republicans running against Democrats in the 2010 midterms. The comment came at the end of a segment featuring Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Politico’s Jim VandeHei. Matthews had complained to the latter that the congressional minority Republicans were intent not merely on tinkering around the edges of the majority Democrats’ policy proposals but on “destroy[ing] the United States government every time it gets up in the morning” all to the applause of “its cheering section back home say[ing] good work, keep trying to destroy the government.” [MP3 audio available here; WMV video available here ] VandeHei didn’t agree with Matthews’s “destroy the government” rhetoric about the GOP, although he agreed that the GOP was intent on “destroying” policies that President Obama supports. For his part, the Politico writer argued that the political system as it stands now is just geared towards extreme partisanship because in part moderates had been “purged” from the GOP but also because “right now we have an entire system, we have a media system, we have a culture, we have technology that really rewards the incendiary, [that] rewards conflict.” Given Matthews’s hyperbolic invective about “The Rise of the New Right,”   VandeHei might unwittingly be on to something, at least when it comes to the incendiary media.

More:
MSNBC’s Matthews Compares Conservative Candidates to Suicide Bombers