Tag Archives: 2010 congressional

Matthews Congratulates Coons for Beating Christine O’Donnell: ‘That Was Important for Life on this Planet’

Chris Matthews on Thursday not only congratulated Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) for beating Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell in November, but also said to him, “That was an important election, I think, for life on this planet.” It wasn't a tingle up the leg moment on MSNBC's “Hardball,” but it sure was close (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Visit link:
Matthews Congratulates Coons for Beating Christine O’Donnell: ‘That Was Important for Life on this Planet’

Chris Matthews: ‘Right-wing Press Played Up Rangel Censure,’ Left More Compassionate to GOP Wrongdoers

Chris Matthews on Friday made the absurd claim the “compassionate” Left is too soft on Republican wrongdoers, and that by contrast the Right puts it's “heel into the back of the guy's head when he's down.” The “Hardball” host – with a straight face no less – said this to guests Ron Reagan and Politico's Roger Simon with reference to how the “right-wing press played up [Charlie] Rangel's censure” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

See original here:
Chris Matthews: ‘Right-wing Press Played Up Rangel Censure,’ Left More Compassionate to GOP Wrongdoers

Charles Krauthammer Rips Liberal Media for Being Obsessed with Sarah Palin

Charles Krauthammer on Friday tore into the liberal media for being obsessed with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. After Krauthammer scolded the “editorial judgment” of the producers of PBS's “Inside Washington” for week after week prominently displaying her as the “only representative of conservatism of any importance” in this nation, the Washington Post's Colby King proved his point (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

More:
Charles Krauthammer Rips Liberal Media for Being Obsessed with Sarah Palin

O’Reilly Smacks Down Maher for Claiming Anti-Obama Sentiment is Racist

Bill O’Reilly on Wednesday smacked down Bill Maher when the comedian blamed Barack Obama’s bad poll numbers on racism. In the first part of his much-anticipated interview with the “Real Time” host, O’Reilly asked Maher’s opinion on why the public seems to have soured on the President.  After blaming Obama’s woes on everyone but Obama himself, Maher said, “Of course a lot of it is racially…” Maher didn’t get a chance to finish this pathetic thought for O’Reilly cut him off mid-sentence (video follows with transcript and commentary):  BILL O’REILLY, HOST: But there’s something more in play here, I think, and I just wondered if you had noticed anything about the President’s presentation or the way he goes about his job that you might point to? BILL MAHER: Well, obviously, people think he’s a little bloodless. I happen to like that in a president. I like a president that uses his brain and not his faith or his heart or his gut as the former president did. I kind of like that in our president. But, you know, again, they don’t brag about their accomplishments and when you downplay the economy, all of the dissatisfaction with him is about the economy. Of course a lot of it is racially — O’REILLY: You think it’s racially? MAHER: Almost all of it. O’REILLY: You’re on that bandwagon of if you don’t like him, you’re a racist and you can’t be there. Maher, that’s not you. You can’t be there. MAHER: Oh, so you don’t think it’s racially involved at all? O’REILLY: Of course not. You know, he was elected by 53% of the public and when he took office, his approval was over 70. Come on. Come on! Indeed. In fact, Obama’s favorability rating was closer to 80 shortly before he was inaugurated. Do folks like Maher think the nation suddenly turned more racist than it was in January 2009? Regardless of the answer, Maher wasn’t done saying foolish things, and O’Reilly wasn’t done smacking him down:  MAHER: But Bill, but Bill, just for example, I mean, the Teabaggers, they’re the ones that are so upset about the debt. Most of the debt came from Bush. That’s just a fact. And under Bush, Cheney said it, deficits don’t matter. Nobody was angry about the deficit when it was President Bush. O’REILLY: Because they didn’t know about it. Look, President Obama has spent more money — MAHER: They didn’t know about it? O’REILLY: No. They didn’t. It wasn’t a big issue as it is now. He’s the biggest spending president in the history of the republic, Maher. You got to know that, man! MAHER: Of course he, of, well, first of all, that’s not, that’s not a true statement. He’s not the biggest spender. Bush was the biggest spender. O’REILLY: No, Obama is the biggest — his budget is bigger than Bush’s budget. MAHER: Most — most of the money that has been sent has been trying to dig us out of the hole that Bush put us in. O’REILLY: We’re running up trillion dollars of debt. We got ObamaCare that’s going to add more to that, and I’m not any better off, and the economy is not any better off. So it’s all a waste. He’s not doing it. That, and I’m not saying that’s the right point of view. I’m saying that’s what’s inside many Americans’ brains. Indeed. As for Bush being a bigger spender than Obama, Maher was once again proving how being a liberal in America today means having to ignore facts whenever they interfere with your agenda. Bush’s final budget authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays. By contrast, Obama’s first official budget as President authorized $3.7 trillion in spending, a 19 percent increase.  Of course, with the various bailouts that occurred in ’08 and ’09, the government spent far more than originally anticipated. But at $3.5 trillion, it was still less than what Obama will spend in FY ’10. Yet that’s only part of the story, for Obama not only had a hand in creating Bush’s last budget, he also was directly involved in all the additions to it.   On March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.” When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it. This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton. But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy.  And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden? Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later. Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President. As such, Maher’s claim that Bush was a bigger spender than Obama is 100 percent false. But that shouldn’t be too surprising to NewsBusters readers, as we have regularly pointed out when Maher plays fast and loose with the facts. Recall that when he did this in front of George Will on ABC’s “This Week” in May, he ended up looking like quite the fool. PolitiFact even found what he said that Sunday false. Maybe the PF folks will look into Wednesday’s misstatement as well. Stay tuned.  

See more here:
O’Reilly Smacks Down Maher for Claiming Anti-Obama Sentiment is Racist

CNBC’s Kernen Challenges Pa. Governor on Tea Party ‘Fruit Loops’ Label and Pass Given to MSNBC’s Schultz

As we near the midterm elections, left-wingers will be reading from the same tired playbook – the attempted marginalization of the Tea Party movement, but just more of it. But more and more, they are discovering the tactics are tougher to defend, as their side has their own fringe, loose-cannon elements. On CNBC’s Sept. 29 “Squawk Box,” hosts Joe Kernen and Michelle Caruso-Cabrera went after Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell for what seems to be hypocrisy – a willingness to attack one side for extremism, while ignoring extreme elements on the left. Rendell was asked by Kernen to elaborate on remarks he made earlier this month, that some Republicans are “fruit loops,” “whackos,” and “flat-out crazy.” KERNEN: I want to talk to you about something, later about — you’re calling Tea Party people wing nuts and fruit loops? RENDELL: Not all of them. KERNEN: Not all of them? You saw the president, the president basically said that most of them, most of the Tea Party “are directed and financed by powerful and special interests lobbies,” this is in the Journal today. That’s most of them and the rest of them are bigots. So you’re either directed by special interests … RENDELL: I don’t believe it. KERNEN: Seventy-one percent of Republicans, according to this poll today in the Journal identify – so, you’ve just trashed the entire half of the country. CARUSO-CABRERA: He says slowly but surely, the GOP is taken over by whackos. RENDELL: There’s no question about that. But Kernen pressed Rendell on this and asked why some on his side, including Ed Schultz, of CNBC’s sister network MSNBC’s “The ED Show” was held to a different standard. KERNEN: But, Ed Schultz calls Gov. [Chris] Christie a cold-hearted fat slob and he’s not a fruit loop? He’s fat himself. He’s not a fruit loop? RENDELL: We didn’t nominate Ed Schultz to be a United States Senator or Governor. There’s a big difference. KERNEN: Blowhard. RENDELL: No, no look – I think there’s too much name-calling and I think Gov. Christie, by and large is doing the right thing. Caruso-Cabrera, author of the forthcoming book “You Know I’m Right: More Prosperity, Less Government,” insisted that Rendell explain why, if he thinks there is “too much name-calling,” he name-called. CARUSO-CABRERA: But, why did you name-call? KERNEN: Yeah RENDELL: Because there are some people who are and you can’t deny it. CARUSO-CABRERA: You’ll stand by that – that they’re still being taken over by whackos? RENDELL: Yeah and let me give you an example. KERNEN: Wing nuts and fruit loops are in the eye of the beholder and I guarantee you – you have half the country looking at the other side saying there’s fruit loops and wing nuts. They use different words. Almost laughably, Rendell insisted that the fringe elements on the left-wing progressive side weren’t as extreme. Rendell made this assertion, despite the backlash Obama has received from the so-called “professional left,” despite Obama admittedly being the most “progressive” president in the history of the United States . RENDELL: Maybe. I don’t think they’re quite as extreme. KERNEN: Oh my – are you kidding me?!? RENDELL: One of our candidates – KERNEN: Can you imagine President Obama is being pilloried by people who think he hasn’t been liberal enough? Can you believe there are people that exist like that? He just said he is the most progressive, he just he passed the most progressive agenda in this history of the country. He concedes to that and yet it’s not progressive enough for most of these people? What does this alleged wizard-of-smart do on a business network to backtrack out his tough spot? He went straw-man and invoked some of the candidates’ stances on social issues. RENDELL: Well look, I tell you absolutely. There are people on both sides of the political spectrum that are saying stuff that doesn’t make sense. But we haven’t nominated him nor senator or governor. You have people out there saying you must have the child of someone who rapes you, you must have the child. That is insane. CARUSO-CABRERA: You’re focusing on the wrong issues. RENDELL: No, no. CARUSO-CABRERA: This is about fiscal issues and you want to try to take it somewhere else. RENDELL: I think that’s important. Look, I think that is so important. Kernen pointed out Rendell was probably glad to have Delaware ’s GOP nominee for U.S. Senate, Christine O’Donnell with all her stances on social issues as a distraction. And Rendell showed his willingness to go to that well by referring to other left-wing favorite targets – conservative women including Sharon Angel and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. KERNEN: We have to go. You are so lucky for the O’Donnell with the monkey brain, witchcraft. She is your dream candidate. RENDELL: It’s not just O’Donnell. It’s Sharon Angel, it is Michele Bachmann. KERNEN: She is your dream candidate. RENDELL: I want to ask you something about Michele Bachmann. Rendell didn’t get to ask about Bachmann, but Caruso-Cabrera did urge viewers to reply to Rendell’s seeming double standard by e-mail at squawk@cnbc.com .

View original post here:
CNBC’s Kernen Challenges Pa. Governor on Tea Party ‘Fruit Loops’ Label and Pass Given to MSNBC’s Schultz

Time’s Joe Klein Profiles Liberal Vineyard Owner Practically Pining for Days of Higher Taxes

With its dwindling readership, Time magazine is fast becoming a museum piece.  What better way is there to celebrate than for the publication to bring to its few readers’ attention other strange curiosities? Three weeks into his cross-country Election Road Trip , Joe Klein filed a Swampland blog post  shortly after noon Eastern time today from Sebastopol, California, where he found a true rarity, a businessman practically pining for the days of heavier federal taxation (emphasis mine): Barry [Sterling, founding partner of Iron Horse Vineyards] said he was deeply worried about the country. “I was born on the day of the 1929 stock market crash, so I’ve lived from the Great Depression to the Great Recession,” he said, “and I must say I’m amazed by how little progress we’ve made. We stopped regulating. We dropped taxes to unsustainable levels. I spent a good part of my life in the 70% tax bracket. It didn’t discourage me from working,” he said, referring to the supply-side argument that lower tax rates spur enterprise. “It made me work harder. My father lived with 90% rates during World War II. I’m actually mystified by the greed now. I don’t understand families like Koch brothers,” he said referring to the Republican Tea Party bankrollers. “They have so much money. Why do they need more?” No wonder Joe Klein found Barry to be delightful dinner company.

See the original post:
Time’s Joe Klein Profiles Liberal Vineyard Owner Practically Pining for Days of Higher Taxes

CNN’s Chetry, Newsweek’s Miller Agree: ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Phenomenon Misleading Because Candidates Largely Oppose Liberal Policies

Are “Mama Grizzlies” who oppose state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP) and teachers’ unions unfaithful to their maternal name? CNN anchor Kiran Chetry joined Newsweek’s Lisa Miller Monday in wondering if that is so. Miller appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” to feature her most recent piec e on “Mama Grizzlies,” prominent female conservatives in the vein of Sarah Palin. “All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific,” reported Miller, a senior editor for Newsweek. “There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.” Miller ultimately concluded that the “Mama Grizzlies” movement will fall short of its political goals, because “the issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not.” “Do we really want bears to solve our problems?” Miller quipped at the end of the segment.   Kiran Chetry agreed that the candidates’ positions may contradict their maternal title. “I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids.” Among the examples of “Mama Grizzlies” failing to help America’s children? Both Miller and Chetry noted the candidates’ opposition to S-CHIP programs, teachers’ unions, Pell Grants, and Obamacare as evidence. Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle’s opposition to a domestic violence bill in the Nevada state legislature and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s vote against a federal parental-leave policy drew some attention as well. So who on the Democratic side would make a good “Mama Grizzly?” Miller said Hillary Clinton would, being a “powerful woman and a mom,” although she wouldn’t admit it. A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on September 27 at 8:14 a.m. EDT, is as follows: KIRAN CHETRY: It’s interesting, because when you take a look at some of the candidates she’s referring to, and we can talk about some of them, they aren’t necessarily all on the same page with each other when it comes to some of these issues. I mean, is this sort of a coherent set of ideas, or is it more of a marketing tool? LISA MILLER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Right, well, I mean, I would say – and we say at the end of the story that it is really more of a marketing tool. It’s a very compelling image, right? Everybody who’s a parent has that feeling of wanting to protect their kids. And if we make it America’s kids, or our kids, you know, our future, it’s a very powerful image. On the other hand, you know, Christine O’Donnell for example isn’t a mom. So she talks about our grandchildren in speeches, but she’s not actually a “Mama Grizzly.” And then on things like education, the “Grizzlies” are really all over the place. You know, Sarah Palin is actually quite progressive on education. She has always talked about paying teachers more. In Alaska, she ramped up the budget for the Department of Education over and over again before she left the position of Governor of Alaska. She promised a big infusion of money to the schools. Whereas Angle and Bachmann are known for sort of hating the teachers’ unions, fighting back against lobbyists. All of them, many of them, have this anti-Department of Education position, you know, parents know what’s good for kids, and administrators and bureaucrats should get out. CHETRY: Right, but just because you’re against the Department of Ed doesn’t mean you’re not for kids getting a better education. MILLER: I guess that’s true. On the other hand, you know, a lot of them have voted for – against things like Start, programs for poor kids, Pell Grants, which are to help, you know, poor kids get college education – CHETRY: Right, and this is the interesting part. Because, I mean, I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, is they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids. We have Bachmann, Michelle Bachmann in the Congress, and Nickie Haley who are both against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, that provides health care to poor children. MILLER: All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific. There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.   CHETRY: Yeah, the other issue that you talked about is the voting against – was it Angle who voted against a Domestic Violence bill in the Nevada legislature? MILLER: Yes, and Bachmann voted against a federal parental-leave policy for federal employees. So when you have a new baby, time off. That seems like a good thing for kids. CHETRY: Is there a Democratic equivalent to the “Mama Grizzly” phenomenon on the other side? MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, you could call Hillary Clinton a “Mama Grizzly,” right? She’s a powerful woman, she’s a mom. But I don’t think she would ever call herself a “Mama Grizzly.” She doesn’t fit in to this demographic. CHETRY: You wrote in an interesting line at the end of the article that said in the wild, real “Mama Grizzlies” are known to be aggressive, irrational, and mean. The issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not. So what is the upshot of this? MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, it’s a great marketing tool, as we said at the outset. You know, calling upon women’s primal maternal instincts is a good thing, but let’s think about it. I mean, this is a very divided country, and we have some big problems to solve. Do we really want bears to solve our problems?

Follow this link:
CNN’s Chetry, Newsweek’s Miller Agree: ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Phenomenon Misleading Because Candidates Largely Oppose Liberal Policies

Media Bistro’s Shister: CNN Under Klein Failed Despite ‘Non-Partisan Programming’

At Media Bistro on Friday, Gail Shister transcribed Jonathan Klein’s post-mortem spin on why he was let go from CNN/US. You see, Klein’s problem was that he “was unable to stop the prime-time bleeding with non-partisan programming.” In case any readers here might be tempted to take Klein’s contention or Shister’s transcription seriously, here are NewsBusters links to posts about Rick Sanchez , Larry King , CNN Headline’s Joy Behar , Christiane Amanpour ( before she went to ABC ), and Aaron Brown , who left CNN in late 2005. Here are several paragraphs of Shister’s schtick (bolds are mine), which you’ll see at least has an inadvertently accurate title: CNN Shift: Jon Klein on his dismissal: ‘It came out of left field’ Getting shot as a way of being fired isn’t always a bad thing, says Jonathan Klein. “It’s like a sudden ’Sopranos’ ending to your job,” says Klein, who earlier today had compared his sudden departure as CNN/U.S. president to getting shot. “There’s something to be said for quick and painless. It was surprising, but certainly quick. There was no rancor associated it.” During his six-year run, Klein was unable to stop the prime-time bleeding with non-partisan programming. Conversely, his replacement, HLN’s Ken Jautz, found great success by wrangling big-buzz opinion-makers Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Klein says it is still possible for a cable news network to succeed in prime time without having a political spin a la Fox (right) or MSNBC (left). The key is in finding the right talent. “Other networks might be amusing or entertaining, but how many are truly essential viewing,” Klein says. “The challenge is to be interesting when you follow that non-partisan path and you really nail it. Then you become essential, like ’60 Minutes.'” “You need the right people in the right format. When CNN was at its best, we were essential viewing.” … CNN remains committed to non-partisan programming, Klein says. Otherwise, management would have made its move earlier, before the new schedule was locked in, he explains. Klein’s citation of ’60 Minutes’ as ‘non-partisan’ is about as ridiculous as it gets ( here’s a link to previous NewsBusters posts about “60 Minutes,” which contains over 200 entries, the vast majority of which are not complimentary), and Klein of all people should know it. In September 2004 , shortly before he joined CNN, Klein, who left CBS after 17 years in 1999, went on Fox’s O’Reilly Factor to defend a ’60 Minutes’ report on George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard (TANG) service. During that interview Klein criticized bloggers and others in the alternative media who had exposed clearly fraudulent documents used in that report, saying that “you couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances, and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing what he thinks.” Klein’s reference to “60 Minutes” in the above excerpt would appear to indicate that he hasn’t gotten the message that the guys in pajamas were proven right, CBS was proven wrong, and the substance-free Bush-TANG report was a blatantly partisan pre-election hit piece. That kool-aid Klein is drinking must be really powerful stuff. A commenter at Shister’s Media Bistro post responds to Klein’s claims of non-partisanship thusly: “Just saying it over and over has never made it true and saying it now as you’re walking out the door is hilarious.” Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more here:
Media Bistro’s Shister: CNN Under Klein Failed Despite ‘Non-Partisan Programming’

Dowd: ‘Christine O’Donnell Better Hope They Don’t Bring Back Witch Burning’

As we get closer to the midterm elections, and liberals in the media foresee the Democrat destruction about to commence, the scorn being tossed at conservatives and Tea Party members is reaching a fevered pitch. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is a perfect example. Her “Slouching Toward Washington” piece published Sunday is nothing but a personal attack on those possibly interfering with her dream of a United States Socialist Republic. Even more despicably, she used HBO’s Bill Maher to assist her: Bill Maher continued his video torment of O’Donnell by releasing another old clip of her on his HBO show on Friday night, this time showing one in which she argued that “Evolution is a myth.” Maher shot back, “Have you ever looked at a monkey?” To which O’Donnell rebutted, “Why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?” The comedian has a soft spot for the sweet-faced Republican Senate candidate from Delaware, but as he told me on Friday, it’s “powerful stupid to think primate evolution could happen fast enough to observe it. That’s bacteria. “I find it so much more damaging than the witch stuff because she could be in a position to make decisions about scientific issues, like global warming and stem cells, and she thinks primate evolution can happen in a week and mice have human brains.” Isn’t   it quite telling that the Left has become so devoid of quotable thinkers amongst its political ranks that media members now have to seek the opinion of comedians? It shouldn’t be at all surprising that Democrats are in so much trouble when the most important liberal figures in the nation other than the President appear to be Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. But I digress: Sarah Palin will believe global warming is a hoax until she’s doing aerial hunting of wolves underwater. And in a 2009 clip, Sharron Angle, the Republican Senate candidate from Nevada, suggested that autism – a word she uttered with air quotes – is a phony rubric. She suggested that people are taking advantage of such maladies to get extra health benefits, adding that she doesn’t see why she should have to subsidize maternity benefits for other people either, especially since, as she said, she’s not having any more babies. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Jim DeMint and some Tea Party types don’t merely yearn for the country they idealize from the 1950s. They want to go back to the 1750s. Joe Miller, the Palin-blessed Republican nominee for Senate in Alaska, suggests that Social Security is unconstitutional because it wasn’t in the Constitution. The Constitution is a dazzling document, but do these originalists really think things haven’t changed since then? If James Madison beamed down now, he would no doubt be stunned at the idea that America had evolved so far but was hemming itself in by the strictest interpretation of his handiwork. He might even tweet about it. Actually, if Madison could see what has happened to this country since it began dabbling with socialism in the ’30s, he’d likely be far more shocked by that then the technological advancements that have occurred since he passed away. Most of our Founding Fathers would likely disapprove of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, and ObamaCare, but folks like Dowd and her ilk don’t care. As for the Right wanting to take America back to the ’50s, from a political standpoint Dowd is close. As Tea Partiers have been saying for over eighteen months, the socialist policies enacted since the Depression are a large cause of this nation’s problems. They have negatively impacted us both financially and economically creating a constantly growing juggernaut that soaks more and more dollars from the system as it makes workers less motivated and our country less competitive in a global structure. If Dowd thinks many Americans are yearning for a bygone era when folks were rewarded to fend for themselves and their families rather than be penalized for their success she’s 100 percent right. But that’s not her   goal:  Evolution is no myth, but we may be evolving backward. Christine O’Donnell had better hope they don’t bring back witch burning. Not so, Ms. Dowd. Your side has had it their way for approaching 80 years. The leaders you admire promised a New Deal and a Great Society. Looking at the current landscape while one tries to gaze into the future, America today looks neither new nor great .  Of course, your side wants to blame all the problems on George W. Bush and the Republicans. Alas, it is you that are stuck in the past thinking that Depression Era concepts are today’s magic elixir. One more thing, Ms. Dowd: If James Madison were alive today, he’d be a Tea Partier.

Excerpt from:
Dowd: ‘Christine O’Donnell Better Hope They Don’t Bring Back Witch Burning’

Ed Schultz Falsely Claims GOP ‘Pledge To America’ Doesn’t Address Jobs

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz on Wednesday falsely claimed the newly released Republican “Pledge to America” doesn’t address job creation. Speaking with Ohio Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown on “The Ed Show,” Schultz said, “This was just released a few moments ago from the Associated Press. They’re calling it the ‘Pledge to America.'” He continued, “The ‘Pledge to America’ is to cut taxes, cut federal spending, repeal healthcare, and ban federal funding for abortion. Nothing in there about job creation…Those are the four main points.” Actually, there are five main points in this 21-page document, the first of which is titled, “A Plan to Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty, and Make America More Competitive” (video of Schultz’s remarks follows with transcript, commentary, and full text of the Pledge): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: This was just released a few moments ago from the Associated Press. They’re calling it the “Pledge to America.” Back in the ’90s it was the “Contract With America.” This is the big Republican story this week. They are vowing to, and this is being circulated on Capitol Hill amongst the lawmakers and the GOP. The “Pledge to America” is to cut taxes, cut federal spending, repeal healthcare, and ban federal funding for abortion. Nothing in there about job creation, nothing in there about saving Social Security, nothing in there about public education. Those are the four main points in the “Pledge to America.”   As you can see, Schultz claimed his source for this was the Associated Press. For the record, the first piece the AP released concerning the Pledge was published at 4:58 PM EDT, a full hour before Schultz went on the air. It was a brief piece by Julie Hirschfeld Davis with only four paragraphs. Here are paragraphs one and three: House Republicans are vowing to cut taxes and federal spending, repeal the health care law and ban federal funding of abortion. It’s all part of a new campaign manifesto designed to propel them to victory in midterm elections Nov. 2. It emphasizes job creation and spending control, as well as changing the way Congress does business. As you can see, Schultz got his “four main points” from the first sentence in the first paragraph.  However, once again proving how many Americans never get beyond the first paragraph, the third paragraph made it quite clear that the “Pledge” emphasizes job creation. Got that, Ed? Can’t you or anyone on your staff read beyond the first paragraph of a four paragraph article? Or was there not enough time to do that in the 62 minutes before you want on the air? Now, if Schultz’s crack staff had actually done just a little bit of homework simply using any search engine on the Internet, they could have found – as I did – that at 5:38 PM EDT, fully 22 minutes before he went on the air, CBSNews.com published the entire text of the Pledge. Readers should be reminded that MSNBC considers itself to be a cable news network, and, therefore, should have some people available to actually uncover the facts rather than allow their hosts to completely misrepresent a breaking story. This is especially important as the following PDF clearly shows “A Plan to Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty, and Make America More Competitive” is prominently addressed as the very first agenda item in the Foreword to the Pledge on page four, and then is detailed in pages six through nine: GOP Pledge to America That’s some nice work there, Ed. Your employers at MSNBC, NBC, and parent General Electric must be so proud of you and your staff.

More here:
Ed Schultz Falsely Claims GOP ‘Pledge To America’ Doesn’t Address Jobs