Tag Archives: msnbc live

Activist and MSNBC Anchor Contessa Brewer Lectures Mormons, Hopes for More ‘Progress’ on Gay Rights

Gay rights activist and MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer continued to insert her politics into news reports on Wednesday. The News Live host discussed changes in how the Mormons view homosexuality and lectured, ” And we hope to see more progress from the Church of Latter-Day Saints in the future .” The Mormon Church has announced it will no longer require those who

Amidst Media Battering of Boehner, MSNBC Actually Portrays His Upbringing Positively

Amidst a war of words with the White House, character attacks from the Left, and a New York Times hit piece on his connections with lobbyists, House Minority Leader John Boehner has received positive media coverage – from MSNBC of all places. The network ran a portrait of Boehner’s childhood on its 11 a.m. news hour, and again on “Andrea Mitchell Reports” at 1 p.m. “The public hears a lot of the arguments against [Boehner] from the Left,” remarked NBC correspondent Luke Russert on the 11 a.m. MSNBC news hour Monday. “They hear that he’s a country club Republican, if you will, with extensive ties to lobbyists. But it’s quite interesting. He’s a man who comes from very humble beginnings, starting out in a big Catholic family in Reading, Ohio.” Russert narrated a piece on Boehner’s upbringing in Ohio, as one of 12 children. He interviewed one each of Boehner’s brothers and his sisters, as well as his high school football coach. Words used to describe Boehner included “bossy,” “independent,” “leadership,” “charm,” and “heart.” Other highlights included his hard work for his family’s bar and for the high school football team, as well as his taking seven years to earn his undergraduate degree because he worked during the day and took classes at night. Overall, it provided quite a humane and sympathetic look into the upbringing of a prominent Republican politician – one that usually might not be expected of MSNBC. “It’ll be interesting to see how this narrative comes out in the closing weeks of the campaign,” Russert said after the clip played. ” It certainly gives [Boehner] more of a human element as opposed to just the ‘Party of No’ face, which Democrats have been trying to stick to him in recent months and weeks.” A full transcript of the segment, which aired on September 13 at 11:34 a.m. EDT, is as follows: TAMRON HALL, MSNBC Anchor: Well there is intense scrutiny on Republican Minority Leader John Boehner today, following a scathing investigative report in the New York Times detailing Boehner’s relationship with Washington lobbyists. According to the Times, Boehner has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from his campaigns from lobbyists, and helped numerous lobbyists during his time in office. Boehner’s office denies any improper relationships, but in recent weeks President Obama has repeatedly gone after Boehner’s speeches, and really tried to portray him as the face of the Republican Party. Still, the Minority Leader us unknown to millions of Americans. NBC’s Luke Russert has a closer look at the man who could become the next Speaker of the House. And it’s interesting, Luke, in that report – about 55 percent of the people surveyed did not know who John Boehner is – LUKE RUSSERT, NBC Congressional Correspondent: It is, and a lot of the public hears a lot of the arguments against him from the Left, and definitely President Obama has tried to define Mr. Boehner in the last few weeks. They hear that he’s a country club Republican, if you will, with extensive ties to lobbyists. But it’s quite interesting. He’s a man who comes from very humble beginnings, starting out in a big Catholic family in Reading, Ohio. (Video Clip) JOHN BOEHNER, House Minority Leader: …hidden from the people? Hell no, you can’t! LUKE RUSSERT: Minority Leader John Boehner has risen to political and oratorical heights on Capitol Hill. But that trip began on another hill. BOB BOEHNER, John Boehner’s brother: If you blink, you miss the street here. RUSSERT: Hill Street, in Reading, Ohio. And at the top sits the house that he shared with 11 brothers and sisters. So you had 12 people in this house? BOB BOEHNER: Yep. RUSSERT: Or 14? Right? Because you had 12 kids. BOB BOEHNER: 14. I see the – when we were younger, that addition on the end wasn’t there. Mom and dad slept on a pull-out couch. And John, Steve and I slept in one bedroom, Nancy slept in the other bedroom. RUSSERT: Maneuvering in such a big Catholic family is where a large part of his leadership skills come from today.          BOB BOEHNER: It started right there, you know. You might have wanted something done a certain way, but it wasn’t possible because there was too many people. And so you had to figure out the best way to do something and move on with it. RUSSERT: Of course, his little sister might just say he was bossy. LYNDA MEINEKE: “Make sure you do your homework,” and “Sit up straight.” “What are you doing with your clean clothes on?” RUSSERT: Lynda still works the bar the Boehner family used to own, where John mopped floors. Back then it was named Andy’s Café, after his grandfather. RUSSERT: Did you ever get angry at him because you thought he was being too harsh on you? MEINEKE: Oh yeah, because he wasn’t mom or dad. You know, it’s like “Who are you?” RUSSERT: A teenager who rode motorcycles and played football, even when he was in pain. GERRY FAUST, Fmr. Moeller H.S. Football Coach: If he could stand the pain, he could play, because it wasn’t going to hurt him. (Unintelligible) He says, “I think the team – we need to do it to win.” RUSSERT: From his mother came his independence. MEINEKE: Stand up and speak your mind. Yeah, my mother was good at that. She just, you know – she spoke what she thought. She spoke from the heart. RUSSERT: And from his father his charm, and possibly his heart. BOB BOEHNER: My dad – (Unintelligible) I think John does the same thing – connect to people. That’s why he’s been successful. RUSSERT: The beginning of an unlikely climb, which may end with him leading 435 people in a very different house on the hill. (End Video Clip) RUSSERT: And Tamron, there you go. Quite an interesting upbringing for Mr. Boehner, learning the art of compromise dealing with 12 – 11 brothers and sisters. Another interesting antidote that I picked up there on the ground in Ohio: it took Mr. Boehner seven years to get his degree from Xavier University in Cincinnati, not because he was partying, but in fact because he was working. He got his degree, a Bachelor’s of Science in night school over the course of seven years. It’ll be interesting to see how this narrative comes out in the closing weeks of the campaign. It certainly gives him more of a human element as opposed to just the “Party of No” face, which Democrats have been trying to stick to him in recent months and weeks.       

Read more from the original source:
Amidst Media Battering of Boehner, MSNBC Actually Portrays His Upbringing Positively

Muslim Scholar on MSNBC: ‘Vocal Minority’ Spreading Fear, ‘Demonize’ Islam

During the 10 a.m. ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing spoke with Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf Hanson about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, who proclaimed: “I think there’s a lot of fear….there has been a concerted effort by a certain segment. It’s a very small minority, but their powerful and vocal, to demonize the Muslim community.”              Yusuf was on to discuss his founding of Zaytuna College in California, the nation’s first Islamic higher education school. However, Jansing introduced the segment by placing the college in this context: “…the [mosque] controversy prompted Time magazine to ask, Is America – if America is Islamophobic. A Time poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. And a small college in Berkeley, California, may become the new battleground in America’s uneasy relationship with Islam.” After briefly discussing the college, Jansing turned to the mosque: “Do you understand the unease among many Americans, and we are seeing a lot of it come out with this mosque controversy?” After denouncing opponents of the project, Hanson defended the imam involved: “Feisal Abdul Rauf, who’s the imam there, is an extremely gentle person and to frame him as an extremist means that the whole community is mad…these are people that have spent their life in interfaith dialogue…” Rauf claimed the United States was an “accessory” to the September 11th attacks during a September 2001 60 Minutes interview on CBS. Jansing again cited the Time magazine poll and asked: “I wonder what your reaction is to that poll and what can be done to turn it around?” Hanson argued Islam was one the world’s most peaceful religions: “I would look at, there’s a paper on Google called ‘Body Count,’ which shows that Islam, actually, out of the seven major religions, the only religion less violent, historically, is Hinduism. And I think people tend to forget Muslims historically have lived very well with people.” The study Hanson cited, put out by the Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, claimed that only 5.52% of war deaths in the past 2,000 years were caused by Islamic belligerents. In conflicts such as the current war in Iraq, the United States was described as the “Christian Belligerent Civilization” and the death toll listed was between 614,000 and 1,100,100, as if American forces were solely responsible for the casualties. The report concluded that Christians were the cause of 30.73% of war deaths in the past two millennia, the single largest percentage out of the seven faiths included.   Later in the 10AM ET hour, Jansing discussed the mosque controversy with construction worker Andy Sullivan, who was organizing a boycott of aiding in the construction of the proposed building. Jansing made sure to bring up the Time magazine argument: “And to people who say that we’re sort of playing into the hands of these folks because we’re displaying religious intolerance. What do you say to them?” Sullivan replied: “If it was a religious matter, September 12th, we would have went in there and stormed the place, okay? Did we? No. We didn’t….We do not want this gigantic mega victory mosque – because that’s what it’s going to be looked at from around the world, especially our enemies – built right in that location, especially when we haven’t even built the Trade Center yet.” Here is a full transcript of Jansing’s August 20 interview with Hanson: 10:13 a.m. ET CHRIS JANSING: Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean is against the plan to build an Islamic Center and mosque near Ground Zero. Dr. Dean laid out his case last night with Keith Olbermann. HOWARD DEAN: This is a very polarized topic and I think the right place for this is to really listen to what people are saying. If people have strong feelings about this – I’m not talking about bigoted, prejudice feelings – I’m talking about strong emotional objections to this, then I think we ought to hear what they are and we ought to listen to them carefully. JANSING: Meanwhile, the controversy prompted Time magazine to ask, Is America – if America is Islamophobic. A time poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. And a small college in Berkeley, California, may become the new battleground in America’s uneasy relationship with Islam. Zaytuna College in Berkeley is the first accredited Muslim college in the U.S.. The first classes were held this summer. I’m joined by Zatuna College founder Hamza Yusuf Hanson. Thanks very much for joining us, good morning. HAMZA YUSUF HANSON [FOUNDER, ZAYTUNA COLLEGE]: Thank you, good morning. JANSING: Yeah, classes began this summer, I think people are just starting to hear about this. Tell us a little bit about the mission of the college, why did you find it – found it? HANSON: Well, first of all, just to clarify, it’s not actually accredited. It’s – we’re in the process of accreditation and that takes a considerable amount of time. But, I mean, basically the idea behind it is the Muslim religious community is quite extensive now in the United States and every religious community in America eventually develops institutions in order to train people and teach people and colleges, Harvard began as a seminary, Yale began as a seminary, so we tend to forget that actually many of our greatest colleges began as religious institutions. JANSING: So, let me ask you why you think that there was a need for a Muslim university. As I understand it now, if you want to be an imam and you want to have a mosque in the United States, you have to leave the country to study, right? HANSON: Well, that’s the problem. I mean, we have foreign imams that often come to the country and many of then are very fine, decent people but they don’t understand the nuances of the American society. They haven’t studied the traditions of our own country. And it’s important, I think, to have those two elements. You have to have people that are Muslim, but – here teaching. But also people that understand the culture that they’re living in, understand the community itself, the young people, the immigrant children that are born here, they’re Americans, they’re not from Cairo, they’re not from Rawal Pindi in Pakistan, so, it’s really important. JANSING: And in fact, you, yourself, grew up Christian, as I understand it. Both in Walla Walla, Washington and Northern California. Do you understand the unease among many Americans, and we are seeing a lot of it come out with this mosque controversy? HANSON: I – know you, I think there’s a lot of fear and some of it’s justifiable in that over the last ten years there has been a concerted effort by a certain segment. It’s a very small minority, but their powerful and vocal, to demonize the Muslim community. Abdul Rauf, who – Feisal Abdul Rauf, who’s the imam there, is an extremely gentle person and to frame him as an extremist means that the whole community is mad because, you know, if you take somebody like that or Daisy Kahn, I mean these are people that have spent their life in interfaith dialogue and really trying to attack the very ideology that I think people are afraid of. JANSING: You know, you heard that poll, 46% Of Americans see Muslims as more likely than other religions to be violent against nonbelievers. I wonder what your reaction is to that poll and what can be done to turn it around? HANSON: Right. I would look at, there’s a paper on Google called ‘Body Count,’ which shows that Islam, actually, out of the seven major religions, the only religion less violent, historically, is Hinduism. And I think people tend to forget Muslims historically have lived very well with people. You know, I think Muslims are not redefining America here. And there’s a lot of fear that they are. I think that we’re reasserting the original definition of this country, which is about religious freedom. So it’s really important. My own great, great-grandfather, Michael O’Hanson, his greeting to America coming from Ireland was the nativist, anti-Irish, Catholic, anti-Catholic Irish riots in 1844 in Philadelphia. But those riots actually led to the consolidation of the city of Philadelphia and the Irish Catholics now are fully enfranchised. One out of every four Americans has Catholic roots in this country now, even though they were 1% of the population at the founding of the country. So, I think Muslims now are new kids on the block and every community that comes to this country, you know, they have to really find their place at the table and I think that’s what Muslims are negotiating now. America is a process of negotiations. And I think- JANSING: And you, as you say, are part of that renegotiation process with this new university. We have to leave it at that. But Hamza Usef Hanson, thank you so much for being with us today. HANSON: Okay, well, thank you very much.

More:
Muslim Scholar on MSNBC: ‘Vocal Minority’ Spreading Fear, ‘Demonize’ Islam

NY Daily News Reporter Touts Online Poll That 70% of New Yorkers Think Mosque Opposition Based on ‘Hatred’

Appearing in the 2:00PM ET hour on MSNBC, New York Daily News reporter Samuel Goldsmith cited a poll featured on the paper’s website , about opposition to the Ground Zero mosque: “[it] shows that 70% of New Yorkers say that they think the opposition is out of hatred and religious intolerance.” Unfortunately, Goldsmith forgot to mention that it was a completely unscientific poll that only appeared within articles on the topic and allowed people to potentially vote numerous times. The slanted poll question read: “Is opposition to the building of a mosque near Ground Zero intolerant?” The three responses offered were: “Yes, it’s pure religious bigotry against Muslims; No, you can be against because it dishonors victims of Sept. 11; Maybe, but the sensitive thing to do is to move it further from the WTC site.” Goldsmith touted the Daily News poll after anchor Jeff Rossen cited a scientific poll on the issue: “A new Siena College poll suggests – and we actually have the results right here – that 63% of New Yorkers oppose this Islamic center. Only 23% support it.” After promoting the unreliable online poll, Goldsmith argued: “…there’s a lot of voices coming out….It’s hard to really get a grasp of what the public opinion is, I think.” Here is a full transcript of the August 18 program: 2:08PM ET JEFF ROSSEN: President Obama not backing down from his comments about the Ground Zero mosque and the Islamic center. At the end of an event in Columbus, Ohio today a reporter asked the President whether he had any regrets, speaking out on the issue. BARACK OBAMA: The answer is no regrets. ROSSEN: You couldn’t hear that, he said the answer is no regrets. Samuel Goldsmith is with the New York Daily News. Thanks so much for joining us Samuel. GOLDSMITH: How are you? ROSSEN: So, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now calling for an investigation into the groups that are opposing this. What are your thoughts? SAMUEL GOLDSMITH: Well, she’s the first one to come out and say that there should be an investigation into that side of the argument. So far there have just been calls for investigations into the group behind the project. ROSSEN: There are reports that the makers – that the developers of the mosque have turned down an offer from the New York Governor David Paterson to relocate this center and this mosque. Is there any compromise left, you think – in the cards? GOLDSMITH: You know I’m not – I’m having a hard time finding out if that report’s true. I don’t think it is. They said yesterday that they were willing to meet with the Governor. Though they’re also saying they’re not interested in relocating. ROSSEN: A new Siena College poll suggests – and we actually have the results right here – that 63% of New Yorkers oppose this Islamic center. Only 23% support it. It appears that doesn’t matter to the President or to the Mayor as well. What are your thoughts? GOLDSMITH: It’s interesting, the poll, we have a poll on our website that also shows that 70% of New Yorkers say that they think the opposition is out of hatred and religious intolerance. So there’s a lot of voices coming out. The polls show one side of it. It’s hard to really get a grasp of what the public opinion is, I think. ROSSEN: At the same time, 64% of voters say the developers have the constitutional right to build the mosque. So it’s really a very interesting poll. Just as many people say they shouldn’t build it there but they also agree that they have the right to. GOLDSMITH: Which is basically what a lot of politicians have said, which is they’re not commenting on the wisdom of it, but they believe they have the right. That’s what the President said. ROSSEN: Samuel Goldsmith with the New York Daily News. Thanks for joining us, sir. GOLDSMITH: Thank you.

Here is the original post:
NY Daily News Reporter Touts Online Poll That 70% of New Yorkers Think Mosque Opposition Based on ‘Hatred’

For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage. Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition. On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council. On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon. Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. “Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family,” she remarked on her Thursday news hour. “So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?” When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would “mess up the child development for life,” Brewer cynically quipped “I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.” On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials,” she summarized. “So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?” she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement. A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows: MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today. Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here. BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church? SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said “Yes, all these are legal.” So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends. BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage? SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say “It doesn’t matter to me.” What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships. BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church? SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, “You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are.” When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say “Welcome home.” BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month. SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are. (…) 12:05 BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America? (…) 12:52 BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says “I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life.” I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.   MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some. (Video Clip) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so “in your face,” that once again, “no you can’t.” (End Video Clip) (…) 12:01 BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? (…) 12:02 BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied? JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.   BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in. PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there. BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California? ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution. KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us. BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.

See original here:
For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Rants: The Tea Party Is the ‘Cancer’ of the GOP

MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur railed against the Tea Party on Friday, attacking their members as the ” cancer of the Republican Party .” The liberal radio host was completing his final day as guest anchor of the 3pm hour of News Live. During each show’s program he would offer three short commentaries railing against conservatism or President Obama for not being liberal enough. Uygur, the host of the liberal Young Turks radio show, asserted that the Tea Party will “kill” Republicans after 2010, allowing that the midterms might result in a “slight bump up for the GOP.” In contrast, the Cook Report currently predicts a 32 to 42 seat pickup for the Republicans in the House. In a second commentary, Uygur hit Obama for not being liberal enough: “We challenged the Republicans and the President all week long. We took Obama to task for TARP Elizabeth Warren, civil liberties and many other issues. But, I did want to give the President some parting advice. Please, no more half measures!” He then dismissed Obama’s left-wing accomplishments, scoffing, “Instead we got pocket change.” Fox News’ 3pm host is the low key Shepherd Smith. MSNBC now seems to be experimenting with hard left anchors for midday as well as primetime. A transcript of Uygur’s two August 6 commentaries follows: 3:45pm EDT MSNBC Graphic: My Take CENK UYGUR: Now, look, I like to make predictions, so here’s a nice controversial one for you. The Tea Party is the cancer of the Republican Party . If they were actually fighting against corruption in government, it would be a positive movement as I just explained. But if all they do is drive the GOP further and further to the right, they’re going to kill the party. 2010 might be a slight bump up for the GOP given the circumstances, but that will only hurt them more in the long run as they become convinced that radicalism is the right answer. After 2010, the long, sad decline of the Republican Party will begin and we will look back and say it started at a party, the Tea Party. We’ll be right back. 3:54pm EDT MSNBC GRAPHIC: Cenk’s Takeaway UYGUR: At the beginning of the week I told you we would be challenging the government on the show. And I think we delivered. We challenged the Republicans and the President all week long. We took Obama to task for TARP Elizabeth Warren, civil liberties and many other issues. But, I did want to give the President some parting advice. Please, no more half measures! This country elected you because you ran on the message of change. They gave you huge majorities in the House and Senate. It was a clear mandate. And what did you use it for? Health care reform with the private insurers are still the only option. Yes, there were positive parts to the bill. But the system remains the same. And how about financial reform? Where the banks are still too big to fail. Don’t you get it? If and when they crash the economy again, they’re going to blame you! And that’s my point. If banks and insurance companies and t he Republicans and conservative media all attack you with 100 percent ferocity no matter what you do, why didn’t you try for 100 percent change? Instead we got pocket change. And now if it’s not good enough to pull us out of the rut, then they’re going to say progressive ideas didn’t work. But it ain’t over. You still have two and a half years to take the fight to them. Remember when you did you didn’t want to play the same old Washington games a little better? You wanted to change the game, I’m sorry, but right now the game is exactly as it was before. So, I’m asking for your own good and from now onto have the courage to give the American people the change you promised them.

View original post here:
MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Rants: The Tea Party Is the ‘Cancer’ of the GOP

Image Of Impotence: Obama Admin Can’t Get Sherrod On The Phone

Operator, oh could you help me place this call? You see the number on the matchbook is old and faded.  Jim Croce, ‘Operator,’ 1972 The Obama administration, the folks that want to run our health care and who knows how much else of our economy and our lives, can’t get a simple phone call through to one of its former officials. In this afternoon’s press conference, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs repeatedly said that the Obama administration, through the person of its Agriculture Secretary, has tried but failed to have a phone conversation with Shirley Sherrod, the USDA official it forced out yesterday. ROBERT GIBBS: Secretary Vilsack is, has tried and is trying to reach Ms. Sherrod. When the Secretary reaches her, he will apologize for the events of the last few days, and they will talk about their next steps. . . . . GIBBS: The Secretary is trying to reach Ms. Sherrod . . . The next step that has to happen is the Secretary needs to speak with her. And he’s tried to reach her and we hope that they [inaudible]. What an image of impotence.  Will the MSM note it?

Visit link:
Image Of Impotence: Obama Admin Can’t Get Sherrod On The Phone

Luke Russert Touts Financial Bill as ‘Huge Victory’ for Dems, Fulfills Obama’s Promise of ‘Change’

Reporting Thursday from Capitol Hill, MSNBC congressional correspondent Luke Russert touted a likely win for Senate Democrats on the Financial Reform Bill, saying it would be a “huge victory.” “Obviously, [President Obama] ran on the slogan ‘Change you can believe in,’ with health care reform and financial regulatory reform,” Russert commented, thus tying the passage of the financial reform bill with success of Obama’s message of “change.” Using the 60-38 result of the Senate vote in favor of cloture, Luke Russert said the final vote would come late Thursday afternoon, probably resulting in a Democrat victory for financial reform, thus accomplishing a task President Obama began last year. Russert, however, had a bit of trouble identifying two of the major players in the financial crisis. Republicans, he reported, said the bill wasn’t “going far enough in terms of reforming Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac , two facets of the government they say were very much responsible for that meltdown in 2008.” The transcript of Russert’s segment, which aired on July 15 at 12:04 p.m. EDT, is as follows: CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: Luke, here we’ve seen more than a year of political wrangling, and it looks like this bill will cross the finish line. LUKE RUSSERT, MSNBC congressional correspondent: It absolutely will indeed, according to sources from the Democratic side, Contessa. The first procedural vote just happened in the past hour, 60-38 Republicans, three of which – Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins from Maine – joined with 57 Democrats to bring forth cloture. That’s the first procedural matter here. Then we will have a final vote this Thursday afternoon and most likely deliver President Obama a huge victory that he set out to do last year. Obviously he ran on the slogan “Change you can believe in,” with healthcare reform and this financial regulatory reform. The administration and the Democratic Party feels they’ve accomplished two amazing things. It’s going to be interesting to see how much the Democrats will pump this out in terms of their messaging for the next month heading into the August recess. They obviously are going to try to frame it as they’re standing with Main Street, while Republicans stand with Wall Street. Republicans have been very harsh on this bill, saying that it’s way too much government regulation, and will restrict lending at a time when people desperately need lending from small community banks. They also say it’s not going far enough in terms of reforming Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac , two facets of the government they say were very much responsible for that meltdown in 2008, September of that year, Contessa.

Read more here:
Luke Russert Touts Financial Bill as ‘Huge Victory’ for Dems, Fulfills Obama’s Promise of ‘Change’

MSNBC Looks to Lefty Ed Schultz for Reaction on Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Firing of McChrystal

Only 70 minutes after President Obama explained his decision to fire General Stanley McChrystal, Wednesday, MSNBC turned to leftist host Ed Schultz for analysis. Schultz gushed that the decision proved Obama is “brilliant on the basics.” He enthused, ” Well, as commander in chief, I think it’s probably President Obama’s finest hour ,” because it displayed toughness. Host Tamron Hall knocked McChrystal, referencing his role in the investigation of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. She derided, ” So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card. ” Hall and Schultz continued to frame the discussion from how it impacted the left. She worried, “For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he’s emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he’s committed to the direction he’s chosen with this unpopular war?” Later in the hour, Hall brought on Ryan Grimm of the liberal Huffington Post to discuss McChrystal. MSNBC apparently spans the spectrum of the left and the far left. A transcript of the June 23 segment, which aired at 2:22pm EDT, follows: TAMRON HALL: We’re getting more reaction to the breaking news that top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his command. He’s said to be replaced by General David Petraeus. Let’s bring in MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, the host of the Ed Show to react to it. Ed, I know you’re listening to a lot of callers on your radio show. You’ve got thoughts on this. What do you make of the President’s decision and what are the callers saying? ED SCHULTZ: Well, as commander in chief, I think it’s probably President Obama’s finest hour, because he’s answering a lot of critics with about how you wasn’t tough enough or couldn’t make a decision. Didn’t have any experience. This man went back to the basics. The President showed us that he’s brilliant on the basics. It’s about team. It’s about the civilian control, it’s about the democracy and how we work. And we’re not going to have anybody in a position of leadership and authority to go off and do what President- do what General McChrystal did. So I think the President was very clear and I personally got a sense in watching the President today that, you know, it just wasn’t the Rolling Stone article. It’s like there was other stuff there. That there’s a lot of stuff- HALL: Well, we know what happened last fall in London with the remarks made there. Also, the Pat Tillman investigation and what it has revealed, as well. So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card. SCHULTZ: True. And- But even beyond those as we know publicly there’s somewhat of a pattern there, I just got a sense that there was a little bit more and the President had somewhat of an angst about him. You know, I’ve had enough of this. He actually went back and paralleled a quote of President Truman about, you know, it’s not one person, not one war, something like that. But the President went to the basics: Trust, loyalty, the conduct code, deep rooted with the privates. All the way through, the discipline. You lose the discipline, you lose the break down of completing the mission and you compromise the mission. And now of course the story is General Petraeus, who I think, ironically, is probably going to get more bipartisan support than anything else in Washington. HALL: [Laughs] And you very well may be right on that as he’s been praised by Republicans many times over and some Democrats. But, let me ask you this: People talked about and have talked about the President’s response to the oil disaster. The critics say he’s shown weakness. His numbers show that most Americans are not confidence in the way he’s handled this. Where does this position him now? I know there are two very different issue, but it is about leadership with both. SCHULTZ: Well, I think the President personally did show leadership in the gulf from day one. He’s dealing with a multinational. There were contracts in it place that had to be adhered to when there is an oil spill and certain mechanisms had to kick in. No one predicted early on what this was going to evolve to. HALL: right. SCHULTZ: The administration was lied to by BP. First they said there wasn’t that much coming out and it grew as the days went on. And I thought the proper reaction was there by the President. So, I think he’s being wrongly criticized for it. The President goes out and gets $20 billion from a company that’s butchering our environment and the Republicans are criticizing him for it. I find it absolutely amazing. It just goes to show how divided we are in this country. HALL: And let me bring up something the President said regarding the transition from McChrystal to Petraeus. He said, “This has nothing to do with policy, nothing to do with personal insult.” For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he’s emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he’s committed to the direction he’s chosen with this unpopular war? SCHULTZ: The President wants a successful mission. He’s going to get the right people in the right place to finish the job. And I’m sure that he probably turned to General Petraeus and said this is what the mission is, can you get it done. Petraeus went along with it, obviously. It’s about team, it’s about working together. The President was very clear that he encourages debate, but he does not want division. And you certainly don’t go out and air dirty laundry. Now, your question about the left. There are a lot of Americans out there who believe that this mission is a fool’s errand in Afghanistan. We’ve got a lot of issues at home, we’re gutting our infrastructure. But the President, to me, seemed very committed today to knowing that this is the strategy that we have to follow in his best judgment to make sure that we fight the terrorists on their turf. And so I thought the President was very clear on where he’s going on this.

Continued here:
MSNBC Looks to Lefty Ed Schultz for Reaction on Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Firing of McChrystal

MSNBC on Etheridge Assault: An ‘Ambush Interview,’ GOP ‘Set Up’

In the 2PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Tamron Hall did a news brief on Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge assaulting two students attempting to ask him a question last week, proclaiming: “…there are some Democrats that are blasting the people allegedly behind this video….some would catagorize that as an ambush interview…” Hall played a clip of the video showing the assault and afterwards quoted an written apology from Etheridge. She described how the video “first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s conservative blog BigGovernment.org,” remarking that he “was partly responsible for that notorious ACORN video featuring conservative James O’Keefe.” Hall made sure to also mention that “O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for entering Senator Mary Landrieu’s office under false pretenses.” Hall then suspiciously noted about the Etheridge video: “One of these so-called camera men at one point reportedly identified himself as a student, so there’s discrepancy over who these individuals really are.” In the 3PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing spoke with NBC correspondent Luke Russert about the altercation and explained to viewers: “…in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious.” Russert replied: “…nobody knows who these, quote, ‘students’ are” and cited Democratic Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse claiming they were actually Republican Party operatives. He concluded: “So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party.” Russert admitted: “We obviously don’t know if that’s true or not,” but quickly added, “it’s quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You’d think they’d want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda.” After noting that Etheridge’s  House seat was “fairly safe,” Russert made the obvious observation that “…at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it’s never a good idea to physically assault somebody who’s trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age.” Here is a transcript of Hall’s June 14 news brief: 2:37PM EST TAMRON HALL: And North Carolina Representative Bob Etheridge is apologizing for a video that is all over the internet, people are buzzing about it. The video shows him confronted by two camera men as he leaves a fundraiser. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Confrontation on Camera; NC Rep. Apologizes for Confrontation Caught on Video] [VIDEO OF CONFRONTATION] HALL: So in a written statement just a short time ago, the Congressman said, quote, ‘I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina I’ve always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become. This does not justify a poor response. I have and will always work to promote a civil public discourse.’ Meanwhile, though, there are some Democrats that are blasting the people allegedly behind this video. It first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s conservative blog BigGovernment.org. Breitbart, you might recall, was partly responsible for that notorious ACORN video featuring conservative James O’Keefe, when he dressed as a pimp. After a separate video project, O’Keefe pleaded guilty to misdemeanor for entering Senator Mary Landrieu’s office under false pretenses. One of these so-called camera men at one point reportedly identified himself as a student, so there’s discrepancy over who these individuals really are. But for the record, the Congressman has made this an official conversation by releasing this written statement of apology, at least regarding his actions. Not certainly those of the people who, some would catagorize that as an ambush interview, ambushing him. Here is a transcript of Jansing’s later exchange with Russert: 3:15PM EST CHRIS JANSING: Republicans and Democrats are getting fired up over a new viral video posted today on a right-wing website. It shows Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina in a sidewalk confrontation with someone who identifies himself as a student. [VIDEO OF CONFRONTATION] JANSING: An edited version of the tape first showed up on websites run by well-known conservative Andrew Breitbart, of the ACORN tape controversy. NBC News’s Luke Russert is on Capitol Hill for us. Alright, let’s start with the Congressman himself. I know you reached out to his office, what did you hear from them? LUKE RUSSERT: Yeah, so the Congressman was ready and willing. It had become quite a problem for him politically and he issued an apology saying, quote, ‘I have seen the video posted on several blogs, I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect no matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become. This does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.’ So Congressman Etheridge realizing this has become a very bad political story for him, realizing that he had to get out and make a comment. It took a few hours. This obviously happened last week, it was just put into the public sphere now for the mass media to see. Etheridge realizing that it had been politically damaging, coming out and saying that he regretted it. And quite frankly, just admitting that he really had a bad moment here, I mean, a physical altercation on the street in D.C., Chris. JANSING: Yeah, and in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious. RUSSSERT: There’s a few interesting things here, one is the face of the reported student is blurred out. At this moment, nobody knows who these, quote, ‘students’ are. The Breitbart folks have said that this video was submitted to them anonymously. Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic spokesman, said this in a memo that was obtained by Politico, quote, ‘This was a Republican Party tracking operation. If it wasn’t a party tracker or an intern, why is the face blurred and why is the source hidden? You know if it had been a right-wing blog that identified themselves, they’d be booking this person on TV all day.’ So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party. We obviously don’t know if that’s true or not, but it’s quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You’d think they’d want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda. So it’s going to be interesting to see what happens from here on out. Politically, Bob Etheridge, though, is fairly safe. He won his district with 57% of the vote back in 2008. Obama actually won his district 53% to 47% in North Carolina, in the Raleigh area. So politically, he should not lose his seat from this. However, at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it’s never a good idea to physically assault somebody who’s trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age. Chris. JANSING: Note to self. Thank you, Luke. RUSSERT: Yup.

Read more:
MSNBC on Etheridge Assault: An ‘Ambush Interview,’ GOP ‘Set Up’