Tag Archives: 2010 congressional

Ed Schultz Meltdown: Harry Reid ‘Ball-less’ – Won’t Shove GOP Bastards Into Ditch

The desperation on the Left — as they realize November is going to be very bad for Democrats likely ending that “Hopey Changey Thingy” — is beginning to come to a boil. On Wednesday, liberal talker Ed Schultz had a full on meltdown during his radio program as he screamed, “To hell with the Republicans! They’re anti-American!” But that was just the start, for moments later, he called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) “ball-less” once again shouting, “You won’t do the nuke option for the American people and shove the Republicans into the ditch! Shove those bastards right into the dirthole!” Apparently still speaking to Reid, Schultz said, “And if I’m too excited or too passionate for you, I’m giving you the finger right now! Because I don’t give a damn” (audio follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Twitter’s @secularstupiddd):  ED SCHULTZ: Do you think here in late July of 2010, after the 2008 election, almost two years, do you think the Democrats can finally get their freaking heads screwed on right and realize that the lefties put you in office to do something? To hell with the Republicans! They’re anti-American! They’re psycho talkers! They don’t care! How much focus has there been in the mainstream media about jobs being shipped overseas? Well, it’s happening on The Ed Show. I don’t know about anybody else’s on any other network or anywhere else. That’s the story! That’s where Americans are right now! Look, Democrats, I’m your best friend. I’ve been across the country. I take thousands of emails. Our team works 16 hours a day. We do a TV and we do a radio show. I’m trying to tell you what the hell’s going on! But you sit back, and Harry, you are ball-less! You won’t do the nuke option for the American people and shove the Republicans into the ditch! Shove those bastards right into the dirthole! This is about power! It’s about winning! It’s about saving American lives! That’s what this is about! And if I’m too excited or too passionate for you, I’m giving you the finger right now! Because I don’t give a damn! And oh by the way, the stimulus package isn’t working. That’s what O’Reilly and Ingraham, those two Nazis, are saying over on Fox News. Clearly, the panic on the Left is beginning to build. With less than four months to go before Election Day, and polls showing America’s anger at Obama and the Democrats growing by the hour, folks like Schultz know that their dream of a socialist United States is starting to crash and burn. As Brian Maloney wrote Thursday: All week, the big question has been whether Democrats are truly imploding, or simply projecting that image to reduce electoral expectations and create complacent Republicans. As on-air rants become more desperately hysterical than ever, liberal talkers are clearly building a case for the former. These guys are truly losing it. Indeed. Question is how bad will this get? As we near November, and the dream really starts turning into a nightmare, how much more unhinged will these libtalkers get? Stay tuned. 

See original here:
Ed Schultz Meltdown: Harry Reid ‘Ball-less’ – Won’t Shove GOP Bastards Into Ditch

Desperate Times Call

The only “race card” that matters, will be played in November. And it’s called a ballot.

Read the original here:
Desperate Times Call

Eleanor Clift: Obama’s Poll Numbers Down Because He Hasn’t Blamed Bush Enough

After the release of a number of polls Tuesday showing President Obama’s favorability rating plummeting, his minions in the media were out in force trying to blame the slide on something or someone else. Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift, ever the dutiful shill always at a Democrat’s service when the chips are down,  took a predictably absurd tack: Obama hasn’t blamed George W. Bush enough for all that ails the nation. “Obama hasn’t done as good a job as Reagan of blaming his predecessor,” wrote Clift after sharing some of Obama’s dismal poll numbers. For our sins Clift elaborated: Jimmy Carter for years served as the GOP’s version of Herbert Hoover while Obama let George W. Bush slip away into the ether, a former president so invisible that he might as well be in a witness-protection program. Bush’s upcoming book,  Decision Points,  won’t be released until a week after the November election, reinforcing the GOP’s decision to keep the unpopular president out of the mix in the midterms.  Readers are reminded that another Democrat media shill Bill Press told his radio listeners Tuesday that Obama’s declining poll numbers were due to Americans being spoiled, impatient children.  What do we learn from this? That no matter what the current president does, and no matter what happens to the economy, in Iraq, in the Gulf of Mexico, or anywhere on the planet, Obama has media minions that will quickly be out in force trying to deflect blame from him without regard to facts or reason. After all, as it pertains to Clift’s argument, there likely hasn’t been an administration in history that has spent more time blaming the country’s problems on the previous president. To suggest otherwise is what Hillary Clinton would say requires a willing suspension of disbelief. But Clift knows her role, and she plays it well. Of course, the magazine she writes for is in terrible financial condition desperately looking for a suitor to save it from extinction, but that’s beside the point. Despite the inanity in her position, Clift must be given an “A” for tossing such nonsense at her readers with a clear conscience and a straight face. That is certainly something she can always be counted on for. 

Link:
Eleanor Clift: Obama’s Poll Numbers Down Because He Hasn’t Blamed Bush Enough

NBC’s Chuck Todd Trumpets Flawed Election Poll, Parrots Democratic Talking Points

NBC Political Director Chuck Todd cherrypicked a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll to dismiss the possibility that Republicans will regain control of Congress in the November election. He did this despite evidence within the same poll that the political landscape in 2010 resembles 1994, when Republicans picked up 54 seats to take control of the House. On the July 13 “Morning Joe,” Todd emphasized the finding that 72 percent of the country has either “just some” or no confidence at all in the ability of congressional Republicans to “make the right decisions for the country’s future.” “This wild card about this election cycle which makes it different from ’06, which makes it different from ’94, is this issue of the public’s view of the Republican Party,” insisted Todd. The poll is misleading for a number of reasons, none of which Todd acknowledged. First, measuring public confidence in President Barack Obama, congressional Democrats, and congressional Republicans, the pollsters grouped respondents who reported “a great deal of confidence” with “a good amount,” and “just some” confidence with “none at all.” This aggregation resulted in a higher percentage of Americans expressing some or no confidence at all in Republicans than in Obama. But grouping “just some” respondents with “none at all” respondents does not make sense because expressing some confidence is much different from expressing “none at all.” If the pollsters had grouped those who reported “a good amount” of confidence with those who reported “just some” confidence, Republicans in Congress would have received 61 percent support, 14 points higher than Obama. Second, Todd’s insinuation that the public preferred congressional Republicans to congressional Democrats in 1994 but not in 2010 contradicts the same poll he cited to advance the argument that Republicans will not maximize their gains in November. As of July 11, 2010, voters prefer congressional Republicans 47 percent and congressional Democrats 46 percent, a negligible difference. By contrast, on August 8, 1994, 49 percent of the public preferred congressional Democrats while only 42 percent of the public preferred congressional Republicans, a seven point edge. In fact, the public preferred congressional Democrats over congressional Democrats in every Washington Post-ABC News poll taken through the November election. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough challenged Todd on the preference issue, asking, “Aren’t these off-year elections really just an opportunity for Americans to vote up or down for the most part on the party in power, the party that’s running Washington?” Todd, seemingly uninterested in demonstrable trends, insisted that the White House and Democrats are capable of turning the election into something other than a referendum on their liberal agenda. An obstinate Todd continued to rain on the GOP’s parade. “Joe, I think it’s the difference between picking up 25 or 30 seats and picking up 40 seats,” he insisted. NBC’s chief political junkie was all too eager to report the results of a poll forecasting sobering prospects for Republicans without scrutinizing the data or researching relevant historical trends. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe July 13, 2010 7:24 A.M. E.S.T. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hey Chuck, let me ask you something. Of course let’s put up the polls really quickly again from the Washington Post and then I’m going to follow it up with some news you say may not as good for Republicans. First of all, let’s look at the polls. Sixty-eight percent of Americans have little confidence in Democrats; Seventy-two percent, Republicans. Of course we talk about 58 percent, Barack Obama. Now let’s go to the four reasons why you say Republicans may not take back the House in the fall. You wrote about this yesterday and it’s very fascinating. You said the favorable ratings the same as the Democrats. And you are exactly right. In fact, in this case it’s even worse for Republicans than Democrats. But I guess the bigger question is – and I want to get Mark’s thoughts on this as well – aren’t these off-year elections really just an opportunity for Americans to vote up or down for the most part on the party in power, the party that’s running Washington? CHUCK TODD, MSNBC political director: Most of the time they are, and for many voters, this will be the case. This wild card about this election cycle which makes it different from ’06, which makes it different from ’94, is this issue of the public’s view of the Republican Party. And the reason you have to sit there and not ignore it is look at what the message the White House is trying to drive. Look at the message that Democratic candidates in congressional races are trying to drive, which is saying, “okay, you may be mad at us, but look at them.” And look, when you already have 70 percent of the public having a negative view, you can sell that story – you have a better chance of selling the story. SCARBOROUGH: Does that work when Democrats – it’s a monopoly though in Washington though. I guess that’s why it’s so much harder to sell. Listen in ’94 the Republicans actually had a plan. We haven’t seen that yet from this group of Republicans. I guess the bigger question, Chuck is, can you beat something with nothing?    TODD: Joe, I think it’s the difference between picking up 25 or 30 seats and picking up 40 seats and 10 seats in the Senate. Do you see what I’m saying? I think the difference between having a good election night and the majority is somehow starting to improve their favorable rating, and starting to go out there and saying, “we have a plan.” And right now they don’t have that and I think that’s what’s keeping them from getting the entire enchilada here. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
NBC’s Chuck Todd Trumpets Flawed Election Poll, Parrots Democratic Talking Points

Olbermann Mangles Another Fact, Claims Abe Lincoln Only Lost One Election

In today’s “What Fact Did Keith Olbermann Mangle Now” segment, the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown” on Tuesday hysterically mocked Arizona senatorial candidate Sharron Angle for claiming Abraham Lincoln lost “quite a few” elections. “Just for the record, do you know how many elections Abraham Lincoln lost in his lifetime?” Olbermann arrogantly asked. “Seven of eight he won,” answered MSNBC’s hottest property. Just for the record, Olbermann wasn’t even close to being right (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t The Corner ): KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: It`s Tea Time. If I asked you which Tea Partier was likeliest to compare themselves to Abraham Lincoln, could you guess? Yes, it`s Sharon obtuse Angle from Nevada, in the middle of a fawning interview with a supporter who confessed to once predicting she would not win the nomination. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL MANDERS, SHARRON ANGLE SUPPORTER: I said you`ve lost; how are you going to win this? I don`t possibly think that you`re going to win it. SHARRON ANGLE (R), TEA PARTY CANDIDATE FOR SENATE: That`s right. MANDERS: And then you surprised everybody and won this nomination. ANGLE: That`s right. MANDERS: This opportunity to run against the beast, Harry Reid. ANGLE: Well, you know, it`s just like Abraham Lincoln. He lost quite a few. But he won the big one. He won the one that mattered for this country. And really that`s what we`re in. MANDERS: Do you think you`re too — (END VIDEO CLIP) OLBERMANN: Oh, now you`re Abraham Lincoln? I`m beginning to doubt you`re even Sue Lowden. Just for the record, do you know how many elections Abraham Lincoln lost in his lifetime? The Illinois state assembly in 1832. He prevailed in four elections for state assembly, one for Congress, two for president. Seven of eight he won. Sharron Angle, I knew Abraham Lincoln`s won-loss record, and you`re no Abraham Lincoln. For those that didn’t catch it, Olbermann was spoofing that infamous moment in the 1988 vice presidential debate between Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle. Deliciously, it is the “Countdown” host that was no Jack Kennedy in this instance, for as Jeffrey Lord reported at the American Spectator Friday, Olbermann was 100 percent wrong: Here’s Abraham Lincoln’s actual score with elections. He did indeed win four state assembly elections, and lose in 1832, just as Olbermann says. In fact, Abe ran 8th in a field of 13 candidates back there in 1832. Here’s Lincoln’s record with voters, per [Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln biographer Carl] Sandburg: 1832 — Lost his first race for the state assembly 1834 — Won a seat in the state assembly 1836 — Won re-election 1838 — Won re-election 1840 — Won re-election 1842 — Lost a race for Congress to John Hardin (per biographer Sandburg. Lincoln actually came in behind a friend, Edward D. Baker — losing his own Sangamon County delegates to Baker. Later, he would name one of his sons for Baker). Lincoln structures deal that Hardin, Baker and finally himself would each serve back-to-back single terms in Congress. 1846 — Wins congressional seat, succeeding his friend Baker, who had succeeded Hardin. As per the Lincoln deal. 1854 — Elected again to the Illinois legislature, but loses a race for the United States Senate to Lyman Trumbull. Writes to a friend: “I regret my defeat moderately, but I am not nervous about it.” Mary Lincoln was so enraged at this loss that she never again spoke to Trumbull’s wife Julia — who had been a bridesmaid at Mary and Abe’s wedding. 1856 — Loses the vice-presidential nomination of the new Republican Party to William L. Dayton, a former U.S. Senator from New Jersey. Dayton received 259 votes to Lincoln’s 115, becoming the running mate of John Charles Fremont. Hearing of his defeat, Lincoln laughs and says, “It must be some other Lincoln.” 1858 — Lincoln loses a race for the United States Senate to legendary rival Senator Stephen A. Douglas. In the course of the campaign, the two travel Illinois in what are known to history as the “Lincoln-Douglas” debates. The debates help make Lincoln — and his pro-union, anti-slavery argument — famous. 1860 and 1864 — Elected and re-elected president. In other words, Keith Olbermann was not only wrong but so wide of the truth and the facts as to give Bill Clinton on Monica a good reputation. Sharron Angle, on the other hand, was right. Making her remark 100 percent factually correct. Lincoln ran 13 times, according to biographer Sandburg, not eight as Olbermann said with such assured smugness. Lincoln lost not once, as Mr. Drama Queen asserted, but, again according to the Pulitzer winning biographer, five times. Once for the state assembly, once for Congress, once for vice-president and twice for U.S. Senator. The latter Senate race famous to this day.  So, on Tuesday evening, Olbermann selectively edited and cherry picked from a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript to make the conservative talk show host look like a racist AND completely misrepresented history to smear a Republican senatorial candidate. All in a day’s work for a liberal shill at MSNBC I guess.  Adding insult to injury, the “Countdown” host Wednesday called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin an idiot. You were saying, Keith? 

Go here to see the original:
Olbermann Mangles Another Fact, Claims Abe Lincoln Only Lost One Election

Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

Are you happy with the job that the Obama administration and the Democrats are doing? If so, then vote for Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate because Chris Matthews happily proclaimed that Crist is going to be the new star in the Democrat caucus. However, if you are dissatisfied with the direction this nation is going and want to change it, then Marco Rubio will be your choice which is why your humble correspondent won’t be a bit surprised to see this video of Matthews making his proclamation about Crist on Morning Joe end up as a Rubio campaign commercial. Here is a transcript of Matthews delivering his kiss of death product endorsement of Charlie Crist: Charlie Crist is going to be the new star of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. He’s going to be a major player in the Democratic Party down the road. He’ll be a moderate Democrat somewhere in the middle. I think he’s very shrewd and nimble. This sudden Matthews infatuation with Charlie Crist stands in sharp contrast with his attitude back in May when he was sharply critical of the Florida governor’s performance on Meet The Press where he played coy by avoiding a direct answer about which party he would caucus with and for whom he would vote for Majority Leader of the Senate as you can see in the video below: Here is a transcript of Matthews’ disgust with Crist at that time: …I used to sort of like Charlie Crist but he’s off-base on that. You have to join a party caucus before you can vote for leader. He can’t decide which leader he’s going to vote for because he’s not even voting. He must join a caucus then you get to vote for which person leads that caucus. That’s how it’s done. He doesn’t seem to know that or he rejects knowing it. What do you think? Is he just ignorant or is he playing a game here? So what changed in the past couple of months to cause Matthews to move from disgust with Charlie Crist to developing a “strange new respect” for the Florida governor? Most likely it was the realization by Matthews and fellow liberals that the likely Democrat nominees, Kendrick Meek or billionaire Jeff Greene, have little or no chance of winning the general election in November. Therefore the best chance of promoting the liberal agenda in the Senate would be to back Charlie Crist running as an independent who was too liberal to win the Republican nomination. And Marco Rubio should thank Matthews for that wonderful future campaign commercial clip reminding Florida voters (many of whom still mistakenly think of Crist as a Republican) that Charlie is a Democrat.

View post:
Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Complains About Blogs Pointing Out Her On-Air Gaffes

In part two of her interview with TVNewser editor Kevin Allocca on MediaBistro.com’s Media Beat , MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer discussed a incident last year in which she mistakenly introduced Reverend Jess Jackson as Al Sharpton: “…those things make me crazy…. I really hate that something like that can paint your whole career.” Brewer specifically called out blogs for reporting the gaffe: “…when I was younger in my career, if I had made a mistake like that, there were no blogs to keep it perpetuity.” Allocca replied: “Are you looking at me? I do have a blog that keeps things in perpetuity.” Brewer responded: “Whether you do or not, there will be someone else to pick up that slack, so I won’t hold it against you in particular.” The TVNewser blog did indeed report the incident on October 21, 2009, as did NewsBusters .                          Brewer explained: “…the best thing I can do at the point is just to apologize and the Reverend has been very gracious and accepted my apology.” She then added how the gaffe “turned into a great opportunity to develop a relationship with someone that I admire,” referring to a subsequent meeting with Jackson. While discussing the issue with Allocca, Brewer declared: “I’m the final gate keeper, I’m the last person to try and make sure that the facts are right, that what we’re moving forward and we’re putting out there is, most importantly, factually correct.” That has not always been the case with Brewer. In August of 2009 she fretted over “racial overtones” of “white people showing up with guns” at anti-ObamaCare protests but failed to mention one such man she cited was actually black. During the first part of the Media Beat interview, Brewer described her MSNBC audition as “like a Marine Corps obstacle course” and criticized “difficult” guests that “come on with an agenda.” Here is a transcript of the second part of the Media Beat interview:   KEVIN ALLOCCA: And speaking of spending a lot of time on air, when you’re on air a lot, it’s live television, there are mishaps and – that happen. CONTESSA BREWER: Really? ALLOCCA: Yeah. And there have been some that have happened with you and I’m wondering – you know, I’m speaking, for example, you know, recently, not that recently, but the Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton incident that happened. [BEGIN CLIP] CONTESSA BREWER: Joining me now to talk about this and the nation’s real problem of joblessness, the Reverend Al Sharpton. What’s your reaction to hearing someone say, ‘you know, when it comes to income inequality, all’s well, the rising tide floats all boats?’ JESSE JACKSON: I’m Reverend Jesse Jackson. BREWER: Right, I don’t – you know, I’m so sorry, the – the script in front of me said Reverend Al Sharpton. I’m looking at your face, I know who you are, Reverend Jackson, we all do. I’m sorry.         [END OF CLIP] ALLOCCA: Do you feel like those kind of gaffes get – get more attention from you than other people or do you feel like it’s sort of standard for the industry? BREWER: I don’t know, because I don’t Google everybody else, but I do Google myself, and yes, I think that I get a lot of attention for that. And the reason why those things make me crazy is because, you know, this is what I was saying about juggling, this job is really about how many balls do you have in the air at once. And when something shows up in the Teleprompter that’s wrong, I’m the final gate keeper, I’m the last person to try and make sure that the facts are right, that what we’re moving forward and we’re putting out there is, most importantly, factually correct. And in that case, I missed it, I didn’t see it, didn’t catch it, didn’t realize I’d said it. And once it became very obvious that I had said it, the best thing I can do at the point is just to apologize and the Reverend has been very gracious and accepted my apology. And actually, his – it’s turned into a great opportunity to develop a relationship with someone that I admire and I think he’s – he always brings an interesting perspective on current events. The part that is still a bitter pill to swallow, I really hate that something like that can paint your whole career with ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know who you’re talking to.’ I hate that. And you know, when I was younger in my career, if I had made a mistake like that, there were no blogs to keep it perpetuity. ALLOCCA: Are you looking at me? BREWER: Well, I’m just- ALLOCCA: I do have a blog that keeps things in perpetuity, but- BREWER: I’m just – whether you do or not, there will be someone else to pick up that slack, so I won’t hold it against you in particular. ALLOCCA: Well, thank you for that. BREWER: You’re welcome. 

See the rest here:
MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Complains About Blogs Pointing Out Her On-Air Gaffes

WaPo for Macaca: ‘Democrats Digging Harder Than Ever for Dirt on Republicans’

“The Democratic Party is moving faster and more aggressively than in previous election years to dig up unflattering details about Republican challengers. In House races from New Jersey to Ohio to California, Democratic operatives are seizing on evidence of GOP candidates’ unpaid income taxes, property tax breaks and ties to financial firms that received taxpayer bailout money.” So began a Washington Post article published Wednesday with the provocative title, “Democrats Digging Harder Than Ever for Dirt on Republicans.” As one reads Philip Rucker’s piece , you can almost feel the entire Post staff wishing for Democrats to produce a “macaca” moment that just might save them from a devastating defeat in the upcoming midterm elections: In recent weeks, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has circulated information to local reporters about Republican candidates in close races. Among the claims: — That Jim Renacci of Ohio once owed nearly $1.4 million in unpaid state taxes. — That David Harmer of California received $160,000 in bonus and severance pay from a firm that got a federal bailout. — That Jon Runyan of New Jersey got a legal break in property taxes for his 25-acre homestead by qualifying for a farmland assessment thanks to his four donkeys.  To paraphrase Samuel Beckett, the Post appears to be waiting for macaca: Democratic officials are advising campaigns to hire trackers to follow their Republican opponents to public events with video cameras, ready to catch any gaffe or misstatement. And the Democratic National Committee last week issued a call to the public to submit any embarrassing audio or video of Republicans, as well as copies of their direct-mail advertisements. Readers should notice that nowhere in this piece was anything about Republicans trying to dig up dirt on Democrats, or any implication that such dirt exists. Also absent was any criticism concerning this strategy. Instead, the Post seemed to be applauding it while hoping it worked: Some years you ride the wave, and other years you paddle your canoe,” Democratic strategist Paul Begala said. “Democrats, they’ve got to paddle like hell. So what you do when you’re paddling is, as the Republicans seek to nationalize, you localize and personalize.” Localize and personalize. I guess the Post feels personalize is just fine when Democrats are doing it. Would it be so if Republicans were manning the oars? Somehow one imagines the picture would be painted with the GOP in that proverbial brown-colored creek: their efforts would be depicted as macaca without the ma.  

Read this article:
WaPo for Macaca: ‘Democrats Digging Harder Than Ever for Dirt on Republicans’

USA Today Spins Liberal Lincoln Chafee as a ‘Centrist’ and a ‘Moderate’

According to USA Today’s Susan Page, Lincoln Chafee, a Republican who left the party and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, is simply a “moderate.” A cover story for Tuesday’s edition of the paper features the misleading sub-headline: ” Centrists Fuel Big Crop of Contenders This Year. ” Nowhere in the 1800 word piece does Page describe Chafee as a liberal. Instead, Chafee, now running for governor of Rhode Island as an independent, is part of a “rebellion in the middle.” Page sympathetically described the politician’s exit from the Republican Party after losing his 2006 reelection bid: “Chafee felt rejected by the GOP, which no longer seemed willing to include moderate Republicans like himself.” Of course, Chafee’s lifetime American Conservative Union score was a meager 34. (To repeat, this was when he was a Republican.) Such a number put him to the left of Democrats such as Ben Nelson and only slightly less liberal than Robert Byrd. Yet, Page touted Chafee not as a liberal, but as a truth teller: He may be testing voters’ appetite for honesty: In his announcement speech, he suggested addressing the state’s daunting budget gap by levying a 1% sales tax on food, clothing, over-the-counter drugs and other items now exempt from the state’s 7% sales tax. In a six-way debate on WPRI-TV in June — among two Democratic candidates, two Republicans and two independents — Chafee’s tax proposal was the first question raised by moderator Tim White and the prime target of attack. “He wants to raise taxes and I want to cut spending,” Democrat Frank Caprio, the state treasurer and Chafee’s leading competitor, said after the debate when asked about his strategy. “That’s the difference between us.” Consider the facts here: The Democratic candidate is attacking Chafee for lobbying to raise taxes. Shouldn’t that be enough for Page to describe Chafee as a liberal? Later, Page returned to the concept of raising taxes as simple honesty: Chafee acknowledges that suggesting the tax hike is a calculated risk. He’s counting on voters to reward a straightforward discussion of the options ahead. If they don’t, he says, the fault will be his own failure to communicate and convince them. The USA journalist also touted other party switchers as examples of moderation: “There are more signs of centrists stirring as national politics remain sharply polarized, a factor some candidates cite for leaving or being pushed from their old allegiances.”

Original post:
USA Today Spins Liberal Lincoln Chafee as a ‘Centrist’ and a ‘Moderate’

Oh, No! On Independence Day, CBS Frets Congress Becoming ‘Paralyzed’ Over ‘Fear of the Deficit’

West coast viewers got to see a July 4 CBS Evening News on Sunday, and those who tuned in saw CBS’s interim “report card” on Congress’s performance so far. Under the headline of “unfinished business,” correspondent Wyatt Andrews and his sole expert, Politico’s Jonathan Allen, both fretted how Congress is now “paralyzed” due to a “growing fear of the deficit.” Many Americans are probably wishing Congress had become “paralyzed” a few trillion dollars ago. Andrews rued that supposedly job-creating “stimulus spending” may be sacrificed if enough congressmen feel deficit spending is now “political Kryptonite.” Many members of Congress especially those in tough re-election campaigns are home right now, trying to figure out the spending issue: Will voters support more stimulus spending if it directly leads to jobs, or has deficit spending itself become political Kryptonite? CBS’s main example of congressional indecision, however, was an urgently-needed Afghanistan war funding bill that the Senate has nearly doubled with additional spending, pushing it from $33 to $60 billion, and that has ballooned in the House to $80 billion. That doesn’t sound like a Congress that is becoming cowed by the need to throttle back spending. Here’s the transcript of the piece from the July 4 Evening News; you can watch video at CBSNews.com: ANCHOR RUSS MITCHELL: Congress has had some notable successes this year in health care and education reform along others. But members have a lot of catching up to do when they return from their holiday recess in a week and a half. Wyatt Andrews has more. CORRESPONDENT WYATT ANDREWS: As members of Congress streamed from the Capitol Thursday night, they were leaving for a ten-day break, but escaping a long list of unfinished business. Despite repeated demands for final action- REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LEWIS: Do not be afraid to vote with your heart, and your conscience. ANDREWS: -action was hard to find. The extension of unemployment benefits, funding for the war in Afghanistan, funding for 100,000 teachers, Wall Street reform, and campaign finance reform were all either stuck, or stalled, or rejected and presumed dead. [to Jonathan Allen] How much of that did they get done? The POLITICO’s JONATHAN ALLEN: They got absolutely none of it done before the July 4th break. ANDREWS: Zero? ALLEN: Zero. WYATT ANDREWS: Jonathan Allen of Politico, who’s covered the Hill for eleven years, calls Congress unusually paralyzed this time because of a growing fear of the deficit. ALLEN: You see that paralysis in Congress where there are these sort of conflicting impulses of, ‘We’ve got to do something to help,’ but ‘We can`t do that because it cost too much money.’ ANDREWS: The latest example is funding for Afghanistan. The administration asked for $33 billion, but the Senate bill totaled $60 billion by tacking on spending for veterans — and the House bill, by adding extra money for teachers, totaled $80 billion. Because the two bills are different and bitterly contested, money the Defense Department said it needed to fight the war now is on hold. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES: We begin to have to do stupid things if the supplemental isn’t passed by the Fourth of July recess. WYATT ANDREWS: Many members of Congress especially those in tough re-election campaigns are home right now, trying to figure out the spending issue: Will voters support more stimulus spending if it directly leads to jobs, or has deficit spending itself become political kryptonite? Wyatt Andrews, CBS News, Capitol Hill.

Read more here:
Oh, No! On Independence Day, CBS Frets Congress Becoming ‘Paralyzed’ Over ‘Fear of the Deficit’