Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Andrea Mitchell Lauds President Obama for Supporting Ground Zero Mosque; Questions Why He Changed His Tone Afterward

Not only did MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell hail President Obama’s support of the Ground Zero mosque as “politically courageous,” but she seemed disappointed when, on the next day, he walked back his comments a bit. On both her Monday and Tuesday MSNBC news hours, Mitchell seemed to emphasize that Obama once again kowtowed to the conservative media on an issue he was originally on the right side of. Mitchell told Chuck Todd that Obama’s remarks at the iftar dinner in support of the mosque were “politically courageous, in terms of domestic politics.” She then asked why Obama then changed his tone the next day. She used the “politically courageous” phrase again, later on the show. Chuck Todd, meanwhile, labeled the story as one “that was basically a creation of the conservative blogosphere in many ways.” “They amplified it nationally,” Todd complained of the conservative media. “It was a local story happening in New York, and then it got amplified by some conservative opinion leaders, including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, and they seemed to allow themselves to be forced to wade in on the debate.” On her Tuesday news hour, Mitchell remarked to a guest that Obama was “on-text” Friday night. When she asked guest Karen Finney how the President got on everyone’s wrong side over the issue, Finney answered that Obama had gone “off-text, so that’s never a good thing as we know.” Mitchell then responded that Obama was “on-text Friday night.” Mitchell also tried to throw water on the intensity of the conservative argument, when she argued that the Ground Zero site might not be so sacred – because three strip clubs already exist in the area. “And one more question about that hallowed site,” Mitchell asked at the end of the segment. “There are strip joints and tatoo parlors, and, I mean, this site is within two blocks, or two blocks away from Ground Zero. But aside from Ground Zero, this is New York. This is downtown New York. There are a lot of less-than-hallowed locations in the retail community there.”    A partial transcript of the two segments is as follows: ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS 8/16/10 1:00 p.m. EDT 1:01 p.m. ANDREA MITCHELL: Chuck, take us back to the Iftar dinner Friday night. The President made a statement and drew a lot of praise for at least taking a stand that was politically courageous, in terms of domestic politics. Why then did he seem to change the tone, if not the actual words of his endorsement the next day? (…) 1:04 p.m. CHUCK TODD: So it does come across as sort of this idea that he threw something out there to let anybody who wanted to interpret it a specific way, they could. And then, of course, that clarifying statement just added to the confusion and then extended this story. And that’s where they realized – I think that’s why you had Bill Burton, by the way, later that afternoon saying “Hey look, where the President was – he was not clarifying anything, that there is consistency here, because I think they didn’t like this idea that it looked like he was backing away.” ANDREA MITCHELL: Because then he fails to get praise – I mean he’s basically put himself in a position if he was clarifying it, then he’s angered everybody. He doesn’t get any credit, even for being politically courageous. (…) CHUCK TODD: And yet, this is a story that was basically a creation of the conservative blogosphere in many ways. They amplified it nationally. It was a local story happening in New York, and then it got amplified by some conservative opinion leaders, including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, and they seemed to allow themselves to be forced to wade in on the debate. So you do have to wonder on what they say about the media and how they react to it sometimes are two different things. (…) 1:06 p.m. ANDREA MITCHELL: You are one Republican who has initally supported – even before the President got into this – you were saying it was the right thing to say, and the wrong thing for Republicans to say. Yet fellow Republicans like Newt Gingrich, for instance, said folks who want to build this mosque who are really radical Islamists, who want to triumphally prove they can build a mosque where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists. Those folks don’t have any interest in reaching out to the community. They’re trying to make a case about supremacy. He even used the term “Nazi” to describe the analogy of, you know, we don’t let Nazis and we don’t let the Japanese build in Pearl Harbor. I mean,  he sort of all over the place. We had Sarah Palin tweeting about the President, and she said that we all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? This is not above your pay grade, Mr. President. What are Republicans doing in making – they’re playing politics with the majority base, which is against the Ground Zero location. But what are they doing long-term? (…) 1:09 p.m. ANDREA MITCHELL: And one more question about that hallowed site. There are strip joints and tatoo parlors, and, I mean, this site is within two blocks, or two blocks away from Ground Zero. But aside from Ground Zero, this is New York. This is downtown New York.. There are a lot of less-than-hallowed locations in the retail community there. ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS 8/17/10 1:46 p.m. ANDREA MITCHELL: Karen, how did the President manage to get on the wrong side of everyone’s position? You know, as I understand it, I guess he went off-text, so that’s never a good thing as we know. MITCHELL: He was on-text on Friday night.

Read the original here:
Andrea Mitchell Lauds President Obama for Supporting Ground Zero Mosque; Questions Why He Changed His Tone Afterward

CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

While teasing an upcoming report on President Obama campaigning for Democrats on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Chris Wragge touted: “…plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country.” Later, White House correspondent Chip Reid observed: “You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats.” Reid went on to declare: “President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote.” A campaign sound bite was played of the President attacking Republicans: “We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future.” Reid concluded: “President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season.” Only at the end of his report did Reid briefly notice the money raised by the GOP: “Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office.” In addition to the President’s fundraising efforts, the segment also focused on political fallout from the Ground Zero mosque controversy, though only in terms of how the issue would impact the elections. Reid explained how Obama was “now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom.” Reid continued: “President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party.” He noted how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid disagreed with the President’s position and added: “Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns.” Following Reid’s report, fill-in co-host Erica Hill asked Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and Republican strategist Bay Buchanan about the issue. Speaking to Acker, Hill wondered: “President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue?” Acker argued: “I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution….Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about.” Hill then turned to Buchanan: “Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.” Buchanan challenged Acker’s assertion: “This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground.” Acker shot back at Buchanan: “I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table….to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong.” Here is a full transcript of the August 17 segment:  7:00AM TEASE CHRIS WRAGGE: In-fighting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid breaks with President Obama over the proposed Ground Zero mosque. HARRY REID: I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. WRAGGE: But the controversy and plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country. We’ll have a live report. 7:01AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: We want to take a look at politics now. It is day two of President Obama’s cross-country campaign-style fund-raisers. Today he will be in Seattle for the first time since he was a candidate. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President. He joins us this morning from Los Angeles before heading north. Chip, good morning. CHIP REID: Well good morning, Erica. You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats. But at the same time, he’s now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mosque Controversy; Top Dem Breaks Ranks With Obama] President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party. The latest, the Senate’s top Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid, breaking ranks with the President. HARRY REID: The Constitution gives us freedom of religion. I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. CHIP REID: Reid’s comments come after the President’s speech Friday night. BARACK OBAMA: But let me be clear. As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns. But so far, President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote. OBAMA: We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future. REID: President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season. UNIDENTIFIED MAN [POLITICAL ANALYST]: People want access to the President. They’re excited to be in the room with the President and if they can get a couple minutes to whisper in his ear, they’ll pay a lot of money for it. REID: Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office. Erica. HILL: Chip, thanks. CBS’s Chip Reid in Los Angeles this morning. Also joining us from Los Angeles this morning, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and in Washington, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan. Good to have both of you with us this morning. BAY BUCHANAN: Thanks, Erica. TANYA ACKER: Good to see you. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Countdown to Midterms; Assessing the Impact of Obama’s Mosque Comments] HILL: Tanya, I want to start with you. Forget the should he, shouldn’t he have said it. It’s been established, President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue? ACKER: I think that it’s very important for Democrats, frankly, and look, I would expect – I don’t think this should simply be a partisan issue, I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution. And I think that whether or not the President should have stepped into this fray – I think he should have – Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about. And if Democrats lose seats because they took a stance for religious freedom, then we’ve got far bigger problems than simply winning elections, frankly. HILL: Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.              BUCHANAN: There – well, it’s going to be hard to beat the economy when it comes to the election, but I got to tell you, this is an important issue because it just shows a complete lack of understanding of what is happening here. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground. We don’t want malls built next to Manassas, we don’t want casinos built next to Gettysburg. It has nothing to do with us being against development. What we want is this hallowed ground to be respected. And it does not respect or honor those that died to build a mosque, the very kind of statement to those who died, it’s an insult to them. HILL: But – but how much- ACKER: Well, I’m pleased to know that- HILL: Go ahead, Tanya. ACKER: I’m sorry. HILL: Go ahead. ACKER: I was just going to say, I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table. But talking about what this issue really means, of course it’s hallowed ground, but to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong. And as Americans, we should not be, we should not be propounding that message. It’s just wrong. So, of course it’s hallowed ground- HILL: Well, we know that this is a debate that will continue, but I do have to move on to this, ladies, before we let you go. We’ve seen so much this primary season, there’s been so much talk about the fact that what Americans really want is a change, that the incumbents are going to be on their way out. Bay, I’ll start with you. Can either party or any one candidate really change the way things are done in Washington? BUCHANAN: One person can change a lot. By just speaking out, being bold. In representing the millions of Americans that are expecting that. But what we’re going to find in November is it’s not just going to be one. We’re going to have dozens upon dozens of new fresh faces coming to Washington with one intent and that is to represent the will of the American people, to be there to fight for them, to stop this outrageous spending and to try to turn the country back to a safe and sound course. That’s where you’ll find real change. HILL: We’re going to have to leave it there. Bay Buchanan, Tanya Acker, always good to have your perspective. Don’t worry, Tanya, I promise you’ll be back. You both will. Thank you.

The rest is here:
CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

Ex-Dem Aide Stephanopoulos and Ex-Dem Congressman Discuss Impact NY Mosque Will Have on Democrats

Rather than focus on the rightness of building a mosque near Ground Zero, or investigating the potential funding of the construction, Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday spent an entire interview with Harold Ford Jr. focusing on how it could damage the Democratic Party. Stephanopoulos began the segment by asserting, “They really hope this goes away at the White House. ” Talking to the former Democratic Congressman, the GMA co-host highlighted Barack Obama’s comments on the issue and speculated, “But, is this something that’s going to linger through November or go away with- once everyone’s back from Labor Day break?” Stephanopoulos zeroed in on the political ramifications, wondering, “And, Harold, I know you think that the President did the right thing on this issue, has the right position. But did he do it in the right way?” Highlighting the mosque and other potential problems for the Democrats, Stephanopoulos closed by quizzing, “Put the campaign hat back on. How do you run as a Democrat in this environment?” To recap, Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic operative, interviewed a former Democratic Congressman about the impact this issue could have on the Democratic Party. A transcript of the August 17 segment, which aired at 7:07am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: They really hope this goes away at the White House . Thank you, John. For more on this, we’re joined by former Congressman Harold Ford, now chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and the author of a new book, More Davids Than Goliaths: A Political Education. Excellent title. Thanks for joining us this morning. HAROLD FORD JR.: Thanks for having me. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Harold, I know you think that the President did the right thing on this issue, has the right position. But did he do it in the right way? FORD: He probably could have spoke more artfully the first day and more clearly. STEPHANOPOULOS: How so? FORD: I think that- Well, if he believed that there’s a right to build, but perhaps it should not build in that location, he probably should have just said that. I think the follow-up has created some confusion. And probably will create some consternation in political circles within the party. Harry Reid announcing his opposition to building the cultural center- it’s interesting. The terms of the debate has been defined by the other side- It’s not a mosque, but a cultural center that’s going to be built- has now said that he’s opposed to building it there. What looks like could happen, George, is a consensus could build around maybe building it a few blocks away- moving the construction of the cultural center or the locating of the locating of the center, a few blocks from where they have planned it now. It might be- STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, there was a rumor yesterday, that that came up. That the leaders of the Senate were thinking about that. It was first reported in Israeli press, but they came out and said no way. Would that take the issue off the table for Democrats now? FORD: Well, it might. If you take Reid at the core of what he’s saying. He saying, “I support it, but just not there.” So, you might be able to find some agreement around it. I think Mayor Bloomberg will obviously play a lead role in brokering this. He’s been such a staunch- and I think had the right position on this. Not only for New York, and for the country. If you can’t build this in Manhattan and New York City, if we can’t foster a center, build a center that fosters conversation about tolerance and understanding, here, where else can you do it? What better place to do it? But, it may be that the politics have gotten so intense, that you may have to consider moving this, just a few blocks away. Perhaps you can find Democrat, Republican, liberal support for this. STEPHANOPOULOS: How big a deal do you think this issue is? I mean, obviously, you saw the President’s opponents pounce hard over the weekend, which is part of the reason he seemed to backtrack on Saturday. You see Reid breaking away from it. But, is this something that’s going to linger through November or go away with- once everyone’s back from Labor Day break? FORD: Well, jobs and the economy are foremost in people’s minds. This is, in lot of ways, a distraction. Not that it’s not an important issue. But it’s a distraction in that regard. But, as you and I know in politics, these kind of distractions can define campaigns in the last eight weeks. New York City, we are approaching the anniversary of 9/11. Obviously, from what I hear, Newt Gingrich and others plan to speak that day at the sight, where the cultural center is planned to be built or plan to be located. It certainly will- Politics will certainly be around this until election day. I think Reid’s comments yesterday opened the door for all Senate candidates to be asked about this- STEPHANOPOULOS: And break with the President most likely. FORD: Exactly. Reid has given his colleagues and those running for office covert in saying that we sport the right to build. But this may not be the place to build. STEPHANOPOULOS: Put your old campaign hat back on. You ran for Senate back 2006 and write about it in More Davids Than Goliaths. This is a tough, tough environment for Democrats right now. You’ve got this job situation, high unemployment. You’ve got ethics problems. You’ve got the former chairman of the Ways and Means committee, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters facing trial in the House. Now you’ve got this issue. Put the campaign hat back on. How do you run as a Democrat in this environment? FORD: I think Democrats, when they return in the fall, and I talk about this in the book, when I ran for leader in 2002, about how the message has got to lead. I think the tax cuts should be extended. Make the middle-class ones permanent. Phase in the top level. I think, two, I think you- STEPHANOPOULOS: So, break with the President on that? FORD: Well, the President’s given some wiggle room there. He has indicated that he’d like to make these middle-class rates permanent. But, I do- I have some different opinions about some of the other rates, particularly the business rates.  I don’t think you out to add more uncertainty to the marketplace now, particularly for any size business. Two, take some of the unused stimulus and apply it to deficit reduction, to apply projects, infrastructure projects that are read to be moved on. And, finally, I think you have got to come out with some of the deficit reductions of that commission right away. If raising the retirement age is on the table, if there’s consensus with Simpson Bowles, you got to be willing to do that for people under 45, including myself STEPHANOPOULOS: So, get spending- Okay, Harold Ford. Thanks very much.

More here:
Ex-Dem Aide Stephanopoulos and Ex-Dem Congressman Discuss Impact NY Mosque Will Have on Democrats

ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

It’s one thing to acknowledge that the Muslim world has had a negative reaction to America ‘s war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, but, when one starts referring to “the previous eight years” before the Obama administration, it starts to sound like partisan Democratic talking points. As ABC’s Christiane Amanpour appeared on Sunday’s Good Morning America to talk about President Obama’s predicament regarding his speech on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, Amanpour at one point recounted that relations with the Muslim world had suffered during the “previous eight years” before Obama became President. After host John Berman queried as to “how is this playing in the Muslim world,” Amanpour at one point asserted: “But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years.” The war in Afghanistan was only seven years old when Obama took office, so her “previous eight years” crack could only be interpreted as a reference to the entire Bush presidency rather than the war itself. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, August 15, Good Morning America: JOHN BERMAN: There is, of course, another audience here, the international audience, how is this playing in the Muslim world? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, all of this will inevitably play. How precisely these last two days of comments and change in comments will play, we’ll wait to see. But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years . He not only mentioned that in his inauguration speech, in his first interviews, but also with that big speech in Cairo, and obviously, talking about trying to get moderate Muslims also to stand up for their faith and to stand against extremism. And, in fact, the people who are in charge of building this have spoken out against 9/11, have condemned terrorism and are viewed as those in the moderate community. So it’s clearly something that has come a cropper, if you like, since they were able to build this and protests have started. But the question, is vital. What does it actually mean, how far away is suitable? Can a mosque be built there? There are other mosques in that general area. What does it precisely mean when you strip it all down, this political furor that’s been started over this?

Read more:
ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

Sunday Funnies: Obama Brings His Teleprompter On Vacation

As President Obama headed to the Florida Panhandle for a vacation with the family, he felt the need to drag his teleprompter along (h/t Freedom’s Lighthouse ):   Swimsuit? Check.  Sunscreen? Got it. Insect repellent? Yep . Teleprompter? Teleprompter?   The Teleprompter of the United States: Don’t leave home without it!  

Go here to see the original:
Sunday Funnies: Obama Brings His Teleprompter On Vacation

CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

During on interview on Saturday’s The Situation Room with independent Florida Senate candidate and Governor Charlie Crist, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer pressed the former Republican to announce which party he would choose to caucus with if he is elected to the Senate, and brought up his current associations with Democrats and flip-flops toward more liberal positions. As Crist repeatedly tried to evade acknowledging the importance of being aligned with one of the two major parties to have influence, and the likelihood that he would ultimately choose to ally with one of the parties, Blitzer was persistent in pressing for an answer, at one point quipping: “You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence.” Crist eventually seemed to hint that his decision would depend on which party holds the majority after November: “And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state.” After playing a clip of Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio accusing Crist of moving toward President Obama politically, Blitzer noted: “But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, August 14, The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: All right, let’s talk a little bit about why you’re here in Washington. Among other reasons, obviously, you want to be in the Situation Room, our Situation Room- GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST (I-FL), LAUGHING: I came here to see you. BLITZER: -but tonight you’re going to a fundraiser and some prominent Democrats are hosting this fundraiser for you, including someone very close to the former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. What does that mean? Are you now a Democrat for all practical purposes? CRIST: I think it means we have broad support, and I’m very pleased by that. I mean, from Republicans, Democrats, independents. I think everybody has the notion and the idea that they would like an independent voice in the United States Senate fighting for Floridians first. And that’s what this is really all about – being independent, putting people above the party, and making sure that they have a voice in the Senate that’s an honest broker, looks out for their interests first. And Democrats and Republicans and independents want it. BLITZER: Are you getting more support now from Republicans or Democrats? CRIST: I’d say it’s pretty evenly split. I mean, you know, a lot of friends from the Republican party have stayed with us, continued to help, and God bless them for that. New Democrats who have become very good friends and some Democrats have been friend for a long time are just stepping up in a much more significant way now. BLITZER: The fundraiser tonight’s going to be basically Democrats, though? CRIST: That’s correct, it is. BLITZER: There are two independent U.S. Senators, as you know – Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. But they both caucus with the Democrats and the Democrats are in the majority. They have chairmanship committees and committee rankings and all of that. If you’re elected to the United States Senate, will you caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans? CRIST: I’ve always said that I’ll caucus with the people of Florida. And what I mean by that is, issue by issue, whatever’s in the best interests of the people of my state, my fellow Floridians, I want to be able to be with those that are going to help Florida. BLITZER: But you got to make a decision because, if you’re not going to be caucusing with one party or the other party, you’re not going to have any committee ranking, you’re not going to have any influence in the United States Senate. You’re going to have to make a major decision. CRIST: Well, if I have the honor of winning, I’ll have a vote in the United States Senate. BLITZER: You’ll have one vote, but if you’re chairman of the committee, if you caucus with the Democrats, chairman of a subcommittee, you could have some influence, so you’re going to have to decide whether to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence. CRIST: Well, I got to keep my eye on the ball, and the eye on the ball for me means looking at November 2 nd. I’m not going to be a chairman of anything if I don’t get elected to the Senate first. So I have to continue to work hard, campaign hard, continue to strive to earn the trust and confidence of my fellow Floridians. BLITZER: So when the Democrats at the fundraiser tonight ask you, Charlie Crist, we’re going to give you money, they’ll say. Are you promising us you’ll be with Harry Reid and the Democrats assuming he gets re-elected in the United States Senate, you won’t go with Mitch McConnell and the Republicans? CRIST: I’m not going to commit to either one because I’m only committed to the people of Florida. BLITZER: So you’ll commit after, if you’re elected. Is that what you’re saying? CRIST: Probably. BLITZER: Because you’ll have to caucus, you’ll have to make that decision down the road. CRIST: Well, I don’t know that Wayne Morris did. I think he literally took a seat in the middle of the aisle, right? BLITZER: He didn’t. You’re right. You’re right on that. He didn’t. He took a seat in the middle, but, you know, then the people of Florida could suffer if you don’t have the influence that you would like to have. CRIST: And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state. BLITZER: Your Republican challenger, Marco Rubio, was here. He was sitting in that seat in the Situation Room just a little while ago on July 20. He said this: MARCO RUBIO, FLORIDA REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I don’t believe he’s really an independent. I think there’s increasing evidence that he now is embracing the Obama agenda. BLITZER: You heard what he said. CRIST: I heard what he said. BLITZER: You’re smiling. CRIST: Well, why wouldn’t I smile? BLITZER: But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama. CRIST: Well, that’s what you’d expect him to say. He’s my opponent after all, one of them. And we don’t know who the other one’s gong to be yet until the primary concludes on August 24. So I look forward to that. I really do. And there will be distinctions between us on a lot of issues. But that’s the kind of thing you hear from a lot of the, you know, party candidates, if you will. They like to take shots at people. I’m not here to really do that today. I’m here to offer myself to the people of Florida as an independent voice who wants to rise above that kind of back-and-forth stuff that’s driving them crazy all over the country.

View original post here:
CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

John King Asks Quayle: You Really Think Obama’s the Worst President Ever?

John King on Friday went after Arizona Congressional candidate Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, for claiming in a campaign commercial that Barack Obama is the worst president in history. In case you missed it, Quayle released an ad (embedded right) on Wednesday saying that as a result of Obama’s policies, “my generation will inherit a weakened country.” As this has struck a nerve with Obama-loving media across the fruited plain, King asked his guest: You’re a Republican in a crowded 10-candidate Republican primary. So going after President Obama is not a surprise. But the worst president ever? He’s been in office less than two years. Not Nixon, not Harding, not anybody else? Why Barack Obama? After Quayle answered, King followed up by asking him about his postings to a “racy website, DirtyScottsdale.com” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOHN KING, HOST: A congressional race in Arizona is suddenly getting national attention and quite a bit of it. Partly because of a campaign ad that’s gone viral and partly because it’s from a candidate with a famous name. Ben Quayle, a Republican running in Arizona’s third district, joins me now to go “One-on-One.” And Ben Quayle, I want to get to this ad. First tell our viewers, if they don’t know, you’re the son of the former vice president Dan Quayle. You’re running for an open Republican seat in the Scottsdale-Phoenix area of Arizona. And the reason that you’ve generated such a national controversy is this ad. Let’s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BEN QUAYLE (R), ARIZONA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Barack Obama is the worst president in history. And my generation will inherit a weakened country. Drug cartels in Mexico, tax cartels in D.C. What’s happened to America? I love Arizona. I was raised right. Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out of the place. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) KING: Now, you’re a Republican in a crowded 10-candidate Republican primary. So going after President Obama is not a surprise. But the worst president ever? He’s been in office less than two years. Not Nixon, not Harding, not anybody else? Why Barack Obama? QUAYLE: Well, John, this is a claim that — I’ve thought about long and hard. And it was something that I wasn’t happy about. But President Obama, through his ideology and his policies, has fundamentally changed our country for the worst. And I think that he’s taken a country, which was admittedly in bad shape, but he has made it worse and his policies are actually going to affect future generations in a negative way. And the future that he has created for my generation and other generations is pretty terrifying. It seems like right now he’s starting to destroy the American dream. KING: Now, because of what you’re saying in this ad, which is quite provocative, and because of who you are, there are a number of — shall we say — parodies of your ad already popping up online. Some of them are just funny and some of them are pretty pointed and they go right after you. I want you to listen to one of them from a standup comedian. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s why I want whatever job Ben Quayle had before he decided to run for Congress. I don’t know what it was, but I know I’ll be better at it than that schmuck. I love America and I was raised right. By which I mean neither of my parents ever forgot how to spell potato. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) KING: A chance to respond. I want to ask as you do — you’re getting a lot of attention because of this. Some of it’s not necessarily polite. But are you benefiting from it? QUAYLE: Well, you know, John, having the last name of Quayle, we’re used to being made fun of and has some parody and having things that aren’t true being said about you. So, you know, it stings but you know that’s the way that politics goes nowadays. KING: And as you know, many of your rivals there and many people who’ve covered politics for a — long time like myself say, well, why would he do this? And some people think you’re trying to change the subject because you’re in a bit of a dust-up of first saying no, that wasn’t me, and then acknowledging that you had submitted some postings to a pretty racy Web site, DirtyScottsdale.com. A, why did you say no when it was you? And B, why did you do it? QUAYLE: John, I have been consistent with my story from the beginning. The Web site that is currently smearing me is a despicable Web site. And I have had no affiliation with that Web site. This is a smear campaign that’s being pushed by one of my opponents. And, you know, it’s the type of gutter politics that we really are trying to get away from and the people here in CD-3 are sick of. I mean if you look at what’s happened since this commercial, it’s been 36 hours. We’ve had over 300,000 YouTube hits. This is the thing that people are looking at. The issues that President Obama is trying to take our country towards a social welfare state and that we need to get people into office who are actually going to combat that. That’s what people want to focus on. KING: Well, I won’t dispute that except I do want to be very clear. DirtyScottsdale.com. This is a quote from you, “I just posted comments to drive — try to drive some traffic.” You did post some things to DirtyScottsdale.com? QUAYLE: I posted a — this is what I’ve said from the beginning. I posted a few comments on a Web site that doesn’t exist anymore. They’re innocuous. And, you know, these are the types of smear campaigns that have been pushed against me about nothing. This is much ado about nothing and, you know — but since it’s a famous last name, people want to focus on that. So — but I’ll be tough and then I’m just going to be staying focused on the issues and focusing on bringing our country back from the brink right now. KING: Well, to a degree, you’re right about the criticism. And I want to read you something from one of your opponents, Pam Gorman. Again, there are 10 Republicans seeking this nomination. She says there’s 10 people in this race, there’s nine of us that may not agree on anything. But we all agree that it’s completely offensive that Dan Quayle is trying to buy his little boy a seat in Congress. How would you respond to that? QUAYLE: Well, that’s what I’ve been dealing with since day one on this campaign. They know that they can’t attack me on the issues because I’m — I have a much better future — vision for the future of our country. I know the issues better than they do and I have a better campaign right now than they do. And so they just attack me on that sort of things that doesn’t make any sense. So she can say what she wants, but in the end, we will take the nomination and move on to the general election. KING: You are in a state right now. Let’s talk about some of those issues. You’re in a state that is ground zero in the border security and immigration debate in the United States right now. You’ve written letters critical of the Obama administration, tried to nudge your former governor, Janet Napolitano, now the Homeland Security secretary. The president signed into law today a new border security measure, $600 million. He was already sending National Guard troops. This does a bit more beefing up the Border Patrol, beefing up customs and the like. Is it a positive step? QUAYLE: I believe it is a positive step. But we need more. We need more troops at the border. And we need them right now. We were supposed to get the National Guard troops on August 1st, and now it’s not going to be until the end of September. If you go down to our southern border and see what’s happening to the ranchers down there and see the devastation that happens from the drug cartels and the human smuggling, it’ll rip your heart out. It is absolutely impossible to not see the problems we have with the poorest border. KING: We speak on the 75th anniversary of Social Security. Just about everybody agrees if you’re going to deal with the deficit long term, structurally, you have to do something with the big entitlement programs. What would Ben Quayle recommend to do to change Social Security? QUAYLE: Well, with Social Security, we would protect those who are in or near retirement today. But for people of my generation and younger, we would actually have to reform it which would be to start to gradually increase the retirement age up to 70 and allow a portion of the people to allow — take a portion of their Social Security and actually invest it into private accounts. These sorts of things need to be done because our entitlement programs are unfunded liabilities related to those are between $16 and $100 trillion which will freeze out all other spending and eventually bankrupt our country. KING: Let me close where I began. The worst president in history. Nineteen months into office. You at the age of 33. You’re sure you can make that conclusion? QUAYLE: He — what he has done in a year and a half, he’s actually changed the country dramatically for the worse. More so than any president in our history. And I stand by my statement. KING: Ben Quayle is a candidate — Republican candidate for Arizona. Mr. Quayle, thanks for your time today. QUAYLE: Thank you. KING: Thank you. So King began with this issue, and ended with it. Hadn’t Quayle sufficiently answered King’s question the first time? Did it require a follow up minutes later? After all, you could make the case that Quayle’s position is premature considering Obama has been in office for less than nineteen months. However, this is a campaign ad, and candidates make all kinds of intentionally inflammatory remarks in such commercials; King should know that. Exit question: Would a Democrat have been questioned twice in such an interview about a campaign ad in which he or she called George W. Bush the worst president in history?

See the rest here:
John King Asks Quayle: You Really Think Obama’s the Worst President Ever?

Open Thread: Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: President Obama backs the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Thoughts?

Link:
Open Thread: Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque

Reporters Visiting WH for Off-the-Record Visit Work For Pubs That Demanded Transparency During Bush 43

File the news in this report filed late yesterday afternoon by Michael Calderone and John Cook at Yahoo’s Upshot Blog under “D” for Double Standards: White House reporters mum on Obama lunch, even as papers back transparency White House reporters are keeping quiet about an off-the-record lunch today with President Obama — even those at news organizations who’ve advocated in the past for the White House to release the names of visitors. But the identities of the lunch’s attendees won’t remain secret forever: Their names will eventually appear on the White House’s periodically updated public database of visitor logs. … The Obama White House began posting the logs in order to settle a lawsuit, begun under the Bush administration, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which sought the Secret Service’s White House visitor logs under the Freedom of Information Act. … And guess who filed briefs supporting that argument? Virtually every newspaper that covers the White House. The Washington Post filed an amicus brief in in February 2008 arguing that the names of White House visitors should be released, and it was joined by the Associated Press, Reuters, the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones, USA Today, the Hearst Corporation, the New York Daily News, the Newspaper Guild, the Society of Professional Journalists, and a host of other news outlets. It’s unclear, of course, whether reporters for any of those newspapers attended the lunch — because none of them will say. Calderone found out anyway, and in a post early this afternoon , told us who was there: Ben Feller (Associated Press), Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler (Wall Street Journal), Michael Shear and Scott Wilson (Washington Post), Caren Bohan (Reuters), David Jackson (USA Today), Carol Lee (Politico), Peter Nicholas (Tribune Co.), Margaret Talev (McClatchy) and Julianna Goldman (Bloomberg). Several reporters on this list gave “no comments” to The Upshot on Thursday. The New York Times was invited but did not attend. White House reporter Peter Baker told The Upshot that the paper “politely declined because we’d like very much to talk on the record.” Readers here likely have memories of certain of the above reporters going out of their way to protect Barack Obama or to bash Bush 43. The appearance of Weisman’s name reminded me of an absolutely pathetic massage job he did when he was at the Washington Post . In August 2005, as seen here , Weisman turned what had been an upbeat item about July’s unemployment report by another Post reporter (“Job Growth Strongest in 3 Months”) into a co-written hit piece on Bush (“Economic News Isn’t Helping Bush; Job Growth Up Sharply in July, but Polls Show Dissatisfaction”). Here were most of the report’s three opening paragraphs: U.S. job growth jumped last month and the unemployment rate held steady … the government reported yesterday, the latest economic data to show the economy picking up steam. Yet President Bush’s economic approval ratings remain low, weighed down by anger over Iraq and concerns about lackluster wage increases and stubbornly high gasoline prices. “I feel the economy is just not as good as it should be,” said Adam Judis, 40, a Pasadena, Calif., computer consultant and political independent. “We’re spending too many lives, resources and money on Iraq. There has to be a point where we say we can’t help everybody. We need to help ourselves.” My reax at the time : The Post feels it’s their duty to massage the news for their print subscribers. They just couldn’t let the story go to print without throwing cold water on it, so they found one guy to change the subject to Iraq, and then presented poll results to “prove” that Bush really isn’t handling the economy well (even though the objective evidence says his administration is). This is a clearly conscious, obvious, and disgraceful effort to turn good news into bad news. You may be wondering what the economic news was that left Weisman unimpressed because of Iraq, gas prices, and supposedly flat wages: In July 2005 , the economy added 207,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate was 5%. Yeah, that bad (/sarc). Watch what Weisman writes at the WSJ warily. It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to keep an special eye on each of the lunch’s attendees for the next few months. One other thought: Things are pretty bad in journalism when the security-leak sieve known as the New York Times leads the way in ethics by choosing not to participate in the off-the-record luncheon. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more here:
Reporters Visiting WH for Off-the-Record Visit Work For Pubs That Demanded Transparency During Bush 43

Liberal HuffPoster Smacks Down Ed Schultz’s GM Success Story

A liberal Huffington Post contributor and board member of the website’s Investigative Fund rained on Ed Schultz’s GM success story victory parade on Thursday. After the MSNBC host crowed about the positive earnings report from the government-owned car company, he clearly expected that left-leaning guest Leo Hindery was going to join him in the celebration. Quite to the contrary, the admittedly “progressive” Hindery, who has contributed almost $1.5 million to Democrats in the past ten years, quickly threw a heapin’ helpin’ of cold water on this party before it got started. “I love being on this show. But I`m going to push back a little bit on your accolade for GM,” he marvelously began.  “There will be more jobs created in Mexico by the Big Three automobile manufacturers than will be created here in the United States” (video follows with transcript and commentary, pay particular attention to the smile being washed off Schultz’s face): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Well, the automobile loan program seemed to have worked. General Motors also known as “Obama motors,” “government motors,” raked in over $33 billion in revenue last quarter. It`s G.M.`s strongest performance in six years. To top it off, the company is set to go public again, possibly as soon as Friday. Now, this is I think an unbelievable success story. This was a great American company on the brink and the ripple effect would have been unbelievable. And what did President Obama do? He put a team together that came in and fixed it. The bottom line: government intervention sometimes works. Folks in Washington should be looking at how they can do the same thing in other sectors of the economy but, of course, the Republicans aren`t for that. And, you know, it`s interesting, we don`t hear any Republican naysayers today. They`re out there being so quiet because this is a successful story. The ripple effect if the government had not loaned G.M. the money, it would have been so strong, there would have been hundreds of thousands of jobs lost across our economy. Joining me now is populist hero, Leo Hindery, managing partner of Intermedia Partners. Mr. Hindery, good to have you with us tonight. We have — we`ve had quite a battle with the White House in recent days about the professional left. I would say that this is a pretty good story to start off on to go in a different direction, wouldn`t you think? This is what they ought to be talking about. LEO HINDERY, INTERMEDIA PARTNERS: You know, Ed, I think I was labeled one of the professional left earlier this week, but, you know, I love being on this show. But I`m going to push back a little bit on your accolade for G.M. And we should take pride as a nation that the bailout did produce the profits that you describe. But we`ve got to be real honest about what`s going to happen here over the next decade. There will be more jobs created in Mexico by the Big Three automobile manufacturers than will be created here in the United States. So, these profits are important. But we didn`t put — we didn`t put any quid with the quo so to speak and we didn`t demand that the growth in these three companies, the recovery of these three companies be found here in American workers. And you and the Reverend Jackson just spent a compelling 10 minutes or so pointing out that the only thing that matters right now is the real employment, and in converse, the real unemployment of Americans. And I`m distressed when I hear that G.M., especially, just committed in the last week or so, $500 million more to yet another one of its plants in Mexico. So, give them a pat on the back for sure. But don`t give them too big a pat because they`re not creating jobs here in the United States. SCHULTZ: Well, but they are saving jobs, are they not, Leo? They did save a ripple effect of plastics, of electronics, of upholstery, of tire and glass that would have been even more devastating than the economy that we saw? HINDERY: Right. And there is — there`s a sharp line, a bright line, Ed, between saved jobs and created jobs. SCHULTZ: Yes. HINDERY: We need both. But what we didn`t get out of G.M. or Chrysler is a commitment to create jobs here in the United States. And that`s why I pat them on the back for saving a bunch of them, and I couldn`t be happier for the state of Michigan, the state of Ohio, and the state — Upstate New York. SCHULTZ: But moving forward is your concern, and moving forward, it should be a concern based on the news that came out today. The CEO of General Motors, Ed Whitacre, is going to be stepping down and he`ll be replaced by Daniel Ackerson. He is a managing director of the Carlyle Group. Now, the Carlyle Group is known for one thing, and that is shipping jobs overseas. How troubling is this move in your opinion? HINDERY: Well, it`s very troubling because that is Dan`s modus operandi. And nothing we`ve heard in the last several weeks and we were all surprised by Mr. Whitacre`s announcement today. But we`ve not heard a single word out of this company about committing to American jobs. So, they`re going to grow and they`re going to grow based on taxpayer money, tens of billions of dollars. SCHULTZ: So, what should the president do at this juncture? Get a commitment? Try to get a commitment or where do we go? Where is the loyalty? HINDERY: Well, I think Secretary Geithner let the nation down when he just gave them money and didn`t demand that they create U.S. jobs. Again, I like the fact that we saved a bunch of `em. But we need to find, Ed, 22 million jobs to put this nation back at full employment. And we need our big manufacturers to be stable and growing here in the United States. And G.M. and Chrysler made no such commitment when they took our money. SCHULTZ: Mr. Hindery, always a pleasure. You do great work. I love reading your stuff on “Huffington Post.” I appreciate your time tonight. HINDERY: It`s always a privilege to be here, Ed. Thanks. SCHULTZ: You bet. For the record, Hindery is quite left of center. Last week he admitted in a HuffPo piece that he is on the “progressive side.” According to Wikipedia, his name was being tossed around in 2004 as a successor to Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe. He served as senior economic policy advisor to presidential candidate John Edwards, and is even an advisor to the Obama administration. As such, Schultz probably wasn’t expecting any push back on his celebration. Wasn’t it glorious?

Follow this link:
Liberal HuffPoster Smacks Down Ed Schultz’s GM Success Story