Tag Archives: Barack Obama

MSNBC’s Witt: ‘I Got Chills’ Listening To Obama Immigration Speech

When it comes to Barack Obama, MSNBC is the network of thrills and chills . . . Chris Matthews famously felt a thrill going up his leg listening to an Obama speech. Now, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt has been similarly moved by Obamian oratory, declaring this morning “I got a few chills” listening to PBO’s “very powerful” speech on immigration. Witt described her sensations to MSNBC DC bureau chief Mark Whitaker. ALEX WITT: You know, Mark, I gotta say I got a few chills listening to him there. It was very powerful. But it was also pretty heavy on detail and direction.

Originally posted here:
MSNBC’s Witt: ‘I Got Chills’ Listening To Obama Immigration Speech

MSNBC’s Witt: ‘I Got Chills’ Listening to ‘Very Powerful’ Obama Immigration Speech

When it comes to Barack Obama, MSNBC is the network of thrills and chills . . . Chris Matthews famously said he felt a thrill going up his leg listening to an Obama speech. MSNBC anchor Alex Witt was apparently similarly moved by Obamian oratory, declaring this morning “I got a few chills” listening to PBO’s “very powerful” speech on immigration. Witt described her sensations to MSNBC DC bureau chief Mark Whitaker. ALEX WITT: You know, Mark, I gotta say I got a few chills listening to him there. It was very powerful. But it was also pretty heavy on detail and direction.

Excerpt from:
MSNBC’s Witt: ‘I Got Chills’ Listening to ‘Very Powerful’ Obama Immigration Speech

Essay: WaPo Needs ‘Conservative Beat’ Reporter, Not ‘Beat Conservatives’ Reporter

The ” recent unpleasantness ” at the Washington Post was, to conservatives at least, entirely predictable. What decent left-leaning journalist could live among the remote, primitive tribes known as conservatives and not be driven just a little bit mad? (If the Post’s editors were embarrassed, they could at least take comfort that their man hadn’t “gone native.”) Predictable, but no less unfortunate. The Washington Post dearly needs someone to explain conservatism to its editors and staff. Why? A look through the June 30 edition of the Washington Post gives a pretty good indication. No, not the puff piece on Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (Apparently a photo of the grown man in charge of a vast federal agency wearing a bike helmet is supposed convey competence. The caption reads – really – “Ray LaHood has worked to expand transportation safety, including emphasizing the rights of cyclists in federal transportation policy.) No, a few columns should suffice. Courtland Milloy began a piece on Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent opinion defending the Second Amendment on a promising note. Thomas, Milloy wrote approvingly, “roared to life” in the opinion, citing the legal disarming of blacks in the post-reconstruction south, which left them vulnerable to the KKK and other white supremacists. So far, so good. In fact, too good to be true, because Milloy suggested that “Thomas’s references to historical threats posed by white militias might have been dismissed,” except that those groups are at it again, inflamed by “Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president.” Although he didn’t elaborate, Millow seems to have been referring to a recent report stating that the number of militia groups in the country has nearly tripled to about 500 since Obama was sworn in. Of course, that number comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center , a left-wing 60s hold-over whose very existence depends on seeing more men in sheets than a prison production of “Julius Caesar.” Milloy worried that these groups’ actions could become as “violent as their racist rhetoric often threatens.” Again, Milloy didn’t elaborate, but since the SPLC could find violent, racist rhetoric on a cereal box , readers can be forgiven for not sharing his sense of dread. Over on the editorial page, Ruth Marcus had the goods on those dangerous right-wingers, pointing to a ridiculous campaign ad from an Alabama Tea Party candidate for the GOP nomination to congress. In the ad, Rick Barber talks to the shades of the Founding Fathers, shows images from the Holocaust and suggests that “We are all becoming slaves to our government.” “To hijack the horrors of the Holocaust and slavery in the service of a political campaign demeans the candidate and, worse, dishonors the victims,” Marcus wrote. “Decency demands that some comparisons be off-limits.” Indeed it does. Just ask George W. BusHitler, as many of Marcus’ ideological pals liked to call the last president. Marcus’ larger point is that many on the right have become “unhinged,” exhibiting “white hot vehemence.” “The concern and disagreement – over health-care legislation, over bank bailouts, over debt – are understandable,” she graciously allowed. “The slippery slope fears of decent into socialism/totalitarianism are incomprehensible.” Here’s where it might be helpful to the Post to have an honest broker on the conservative beat. That reporter could explain to Marcus, Milloy and the rest of the gang that these simple conservatives lack the grasp of nuance and the exquisite post-modern sense of irony that’s pumped into the Post’s newsroom by the HVAC system. Conservatives, he might tell them, actually took Obama at his word. They really believed he’d try to “fundamentally change” this nation, just like he promised to. They were listening when his wife admitted she’d never been proud of her country. They made the assumption, silly as it might seem, that when you associate for years with domestic terrorists and outspoken America-haters, you may be of like mind. Then, government suddenly was taking over banks and carmakers, health insurance and tuition lending. Government spent vast amounts of taxpayer money to get … more government. Only unions seemed immune to the pain the rest of the nation suffered. All that sure does look like change we can believe in – and don’t want. But Marcus, like Milloy, is concerned about just how much we don’t want it. “It does not take much to imagine the leap from bellicose talk to action,” for the “delusional but passionate” mouth-breathers. Conservative politicians and radio hosts don’t help. Marcus pointed to Sarah Palin’s “‘don’t retreat – reload’ approach” and John Boehner – John Boehner ! – talking up a “political rebellion.” So those on the right who fear the massive expansion of government and the corresponding proscribing of personal liberties are delusional, but those on the left who fear phantom acts of right-wing violence are not? War metaphors and “white-hot” rhetoric about rebellion and are irresponsible and scary. (Except when the left uses them. On that same editorial page, an op-ed from Stephanie J. Jones asserted that late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall “saved this nation from a second civil war.”) If the Post wants credibility with the majority of the electorate that consider themselves conservative, it really does need someone to play anthropologist and report back to the Post’s staffers from darkest Dixie. It’s dangerous work. Whoever they hire should wear a bike helmet.

Visit link:
Essay: WaPo Needs ‘Conservative Beat’ Reporter, Not ‘Beat Conservatives’ Reporter

MSNBC Host Calls Leftist Advocacy Group Co-Founded By Obama ‘Non-Partisan’

ROTF, laughing my Demos off . . . Barack Obama is president.  Oil is gushing in the gulf.  America was eliminated from the World Cup.  Looking for a laugh break? Try this: MSNBC has described DEMOS as “non-partisan.”  OK, I hadn’t heard of them, either.  But their web site just happens to mention that Barack Obama is “a founding Board member of Demos.” But that didn’t stop Chris Hayes of the lefty Nation mag, on MSNBC this evening subbing for Ed Schultz, from, yes, describing DEMOS as “non-partisan” in introducing the group’s Washington, DC director, Heather McGhee.  And who is Heather?  From the DEMOS site: “previously, she was the Deputy Policy Director, Domestic and Economic Policy, for the John Edwards for President 2008 campaign.” View video here . Predictably, McGhee spoke in favor of the Dems’ financial regulation bill.  Her argument included this pro-Obama gem: “People understand that we’ve now got someone in Washington watching out for the consumer,” etc.  Don’t you sleep better at night knowing Barack Obama’s in the White House? Poking around the DEMOS web site, we find this  description of the group’s “four overarching goals”:     *  a more equitable economy with widely shared prosperity and opportunity;     * a vibrant and inclusive democracy with high levels of voting and civic engagement;     * an empowered public sector that works for the common good;     * and responsible U.S. engagement in an interdependent world. Shall we translate?: income redistribution, lax voting enforcement, bigger government, weaker defense. Yup, sure sounds non-partisan to me! Note: My first instinct was to Google “DEMOS” + “Soros,” and while I can’t independently verify it for the time being, sure enough I got some hits, as here , listing the group as being funded by the far-left’s biggest financier.

See the original post:
MSNBC Host Calls Leftist Advocacy Group Co-Founded By Obama ‘Non-Partisan’

NYT’s Maureen Dowd Critiques: ‘Thin-Skinned Obama’ Doesn’t Like Media Portrayal

Appearing with Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos, liberal journalist Maureen Dowd derided Barack Obama as “think-skinned” and not happy with media coverage. This prompted Stephanopoulos to admit, ” And his press hasn’t been nearly as bad as he thinks. ” Dowd prefaced her critique by analyzing Obama’s self image: “…I cut him a lot of slack here, because many presidents like JFK and W have rich daddies. And so, they have a lot of confidence. But he’s had to develop a lot of shields.” The New York Times columnist continued, “So, he’s thin-skinned. And when you’re thin-skinned, you like to control the image. And he doesn’t often like the image that the media has of him.” In regards to other problems the President has run into, she theorized, “Well, he can’t connect at moments. He wants to ride to the rescue. So, he holds back too much. And he doesn’t connect when he could.” As for journalists not being too tough on Obama, Stephanopoulos would know. During the 2008 campaign, for instance, he declared the Democratic presidential ticket the winner in all four debates. A partial transcript of the June 30 segment, which aired at 8:33am, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Before I let you go, speaking of President Obama, your Pulitzer Prize-winning colleague at the New York Post, Kathleen Parker, has a pretty provocative column out calling him our first female president. And I was wondering your take on it. Because, you have columns that go into a similar vein to that. DOWD: I love Kathleen. And I would agree with her that President Obama has female management traits. Consensus, compromise, and listening to everyone. Whereas people like Hillary and Sarah Palin have traditional male traits, which is alpha, “my way or the highway.” But, I don’t think his main problem is a gender one. It’s more of a humanoid one. STEPHANOPOULOS: Humanoid? DOWD: Well, he can’t connect at moments. He wants to ride to the rescue. So, he holds back too much. And he doesn’t connect when he could. He waits. It’s more like his mother is an anthropologist. He has that anthropologist side of just waiting and looking. That’s not really a male or female trait. It’s a problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s fascinating. And I’m sure you know that this kind of analysis drives him nuts. DOWD: I know. He’s told me many times I’m irritating. I’m so proud. STEPHANOPOULOS: What’s irritated him most about your columns? DOWD: Oh, he doesn’t- He’s- he’s very unlike- You know, it’s funny and I cut him a lot of slack here, because many presidents like JFK and W have rich daddies. And so, they have a lot of confidence. But he’s had to develop a lot of shields. He’s come up, you know, basically, as Michelle says, he was raised by wolves. So, you know, he has a lot of shields. So, he’s thin-skinned. And when you’re thin-skinned, you like to control the image. And he doesn’t often like the image that the media has of him. STEPHANOPOULOS: And his press hasn’t been nearly as bad as he thinks. DOWD: No. But, he thinks it’s been bad. STEPHANOPOULOS: All presidents do. It comes with the territory. Maureen Dowd, thank you very much.

Original post:
NYT’s Maureen Dowd Critiques: ‘Thin-Skinned Obama’ Doesn’t Like Media Portrayal

Chris Matthews Highlighted Faulty Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll on Hardball

With the news that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas is suing the polling group Research 2000 for providing “bunk” results that his Web site published, the question has to be asked: Will those figures in the media who’ve advanced Daily Kos poll results, like MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews, let their viewers know of the suspect data? Back on the February 2, 2010 edition of Hardball, Matthews as part of his Sideshow segment, alerted viewers to the results of “a wild new poll of Republicans” that showed 58 percent of them didn’t believe or weren’t sure that Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and 64 percent of GOPers agreed or weren’t sure that the President was a “racist who hates white people.” Matthews granted the poll so much credence he cited Research 2000’s discovery that 68 percent of its Republican respondents wanted Obama impeached as that day’s “Big Number.” The following is from the “Sideshow” segment aired during the February 2 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Next, a wild new poll of Republicans came out. It’s conducted by Research 2000 and sponsored by the progressive blog Daily Kos. Catch these figures. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans polled say no or not sure when asked if President Obama was born in the U.S. Whoa! Seventy-nine percent say yes or no or not sure, rather, to the question of whether he’s a socialist. Sixty-four percent, about two-thirds, say yes or not sure on if the President’s a racist who hates white people. And 57 percent of Republicans say yes or not sure on whether he wants the terrorists to win. And here’s the wildest number of them all, tonight’s Hardball “Big Number.” How many Republicans in this poll think President Obama should be impeached? Sixty-eight percent said yes or not sure to the question of whether Barack Obama should be impeached now. I guess, if you think the guy’s an illegal immigrant, you figure he’s got to be impeached. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans say either yes or not sure on impeachment on this president. Tonight’s hard-to-fathom “Big Number.”

Read more:
Chris Matthews Highlighted Faulty Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll on Hardball

Obama: Energy Bill Must Price Carbon

Photo via the San Francisco Sentinel Despite all the recent talk about how the clean energy and climate bill is moribund in the Senate, there are still some serious signs that it may be worth holding out hope yet. Yesterday, Obama gathered two dozen senators to discuss the prospects for the legislation — in the meeting, he yet again stressed that any such bill must include a mechanism that prices carbon …… Read the full story on TreeHugger

More here:
Obama: Energy Bill Must Price Carbon

Scarborough Blames ‘American Apathy’ and Republicans for the Continued War in Afghanistan

Joe Scarborough on Monday continued to spin for Barack Obama, this time defending the President’s war strategy in Afghanistan and placing blame on the American people. Citing a New York Times columnist, the Morning Joe host complained, “And as Frank Rich said, the President’s best political ally on Afghanistan is apathy. Americans don’t care that their sons and daughters are going off to fight and die for a war that really has no end game.” Co-host Mika Brzezinski agreed. She derided, “Maybe if most Americans actually cared beyond the ones that have to go and serve we would have different outcomes.” While Scarborough reacted with some criticism, he was empathetic with the President because, “If Barack Obama takes the troops out and does what I’m saying he should do, Republicans will kill him. Every time a poppy is grown in Afghanistan, they will blame Barack Obama. Every time a woman is tortured inside Afghanistan, they will blame Barack Obama. Every time anything goes wrong, they will blame Barack Obama.” In all fairness, it was unacceptable for the media or Democrats to blame President Bush for any of our country’s problems. Except if you include all of them. Including, during the previous administration, the media saw the rise of the insurgency as an indictment of Bush’s lack of foresight, leadership and military acumen. Not to mention that the media and Democrats made stars of those who were critical of Bush’s policies. Nevertheless, Scarborough believed that the troops should get out of Afghanistan immediately because it is an “un-winnable war.” The former Republican Congressman has been sounding increasingly pro-Obama in recent months. Apparently, he’s now attacking the President from the left, parroting anti-war liberals. Since, the Afghanistan war is now the Obama administration’s war to own, it is now acceptable for the media to make excuses and avert blame to anyone but the current administration. Furthermore, if you criticize the Obama administration you are derided as a partisan who is just trying to blame Obama for another problem he inherited from the Bush administration. The host and anchors of MSNBC certainly weren’t as understanding of no-win situations when it came to the Bush administration. Based upon the actions of the current administration and its supporters, one would think passing the buck, not baseball, is our national pastime.

MRC-TV: Bozell on Fox Biz Discussing NYT Columnists Attacking Obama From the Left

“Has the mainstream media — which turns left — have they abandoned the president on his economic policies?” Stuart Varney asked NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell in a brief interview held shortly after 10 a.m. today. The Media Research Center founder answered in the affirmative, noting that staunch liberals in the mainstream media think Obama is too conservative on his spending plans: BRENT BOZELL: It’s the columnists, particularly for the New York Times. It’s the four horsemen of the apocalypse from the Times. It’s Paul Krugman, it’s Frank Rich, it’s Maureen Dowd, it’s that crowd, they are out to get Obama now. Not from the right, from the left. STUART VARNEY: Yeah. I mean Bob Herbert, I think it was just yesterday, talking about the failure of the president’s policy. Missed opportunity. He wants another trillion dollar stimulus program. So does Paul Krugman. To watch the full interview, watch the embedded video above at right.

See the rest here:
MRC-TV: Bozell on Fox Biz Discussing NYT Columnists Attacking Obama From the Left

Bozell Column: The ‘Elusive’ Truth About Kagan

It’s not cute when reporters play dumb. Last year, when Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, CBS anchor Katie Couric said labeling her “won’t be easy.” CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews found “no clear ideology” in her public record. This week, the Washington Post embarrassed themselves with a front-page story claiming “Obama has not chosen outspoken liberals in either of his first two opportunities to influence the makeup of the court.” That ridiculous sentence collides with a June 8 report by liberal Los Angeles Times legal reporter David Savage. “The early returns are in, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor is proving herself to be a reliable liberal vote on the Supreme Court. Cases this year on campaign speech, religion, juvenile crime, federal power and Miranda warnings resulted in an ideological split among the justices, and on every occasion, Sotomayor joined the liberal bloc.” That verdict came before Sotomayor voted with the gun-controllers in the Chicago gun-rights case; before Sotomayor voted for allowing public universities to deny recognition to Christian student groups who dare to oppose homosexuality; and before Sotomayor voted as part of a 6-3 minority that it shouldn’t be illegal to provide material support to groups defined by our government as foreign terrorists. Now match that record with what the liberal media claimed about Sotomayor. “You know, for a Democrat, she has a pretty conservative record,” NPR reporter Nina Totenberg announced on PBS’s “Charlie Rose” show last year. “In fact, on a lot of criminal law issues, you could say that she’s more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia.” If Totenberg sold shoddy diet pills that fraudulently, she’d be a red-hot case for the Federal Trade Commission. So why should anyone believe the media are telling the truth now when they suggest Elena Kagan cannot be called liberal? Kagan’s views are “elusive,” the media chant in unison. They all tried to evade Kagan’s vivid writing as a college student in the Daily Princetonian in 1980, about how she cried and got drunk when Ronald Reagan won and “ultraconservative” Al D’Amato defeated her candidate, ultraliberal Democrat Liz Holtzman. She wished that “our emotion-packed conclusion that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused” would be replaced by the hope that the Reagan era would be “marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.” Unbelievably, our journalistic geniuses can read that and say Kagan’s political views are “elusive.” In their deference to Obama, the networks barely mentioned Kagan for the six weeks between her nomination and her confirmation hearings. Conservative interest groups putting out complaints that she’d be a radical justice on abortion and “gay marriage” are not newsworthy, even though liberal interest groups ranting about “far right” Bush nominees were tenderly solicited by the same networks. One TV reporter filed one story that broke the mold. On June 3, CBS legal reporter Jan Crawford said documents in Thurgood Marshall’s papers in the Library of Congress showed that, “Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.” The White House was furious that Crawford would dare tell the truth about such a thing. “Their reaction has been to push back so strongly on allegations, as they would put it, that she’s a liberal,” she revealed. “Like there’s something wrong with that, like it’s a smear to say their nominee is a liberal.” When the hearings began, ranking Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions offered a devastating opening statement documenting Kagan’s extreme liberalism. He ran through her college thesis on socialism that worried about socialism’s demise, and her master’s thesis praising the activism of the Earl Warren Court. He noted how she worked for the Michael Dukakis for President campaign, and took a leave as a law school professor to help Joe Biden get liberal Justice Ruth Ginsburg confirmed.      If that’s ancient history, Sessions added that in 2005, Harvard Law School Dean Kagan joined three other leftist law school deans to write a letter in opposition to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s amendment on determining who was an “enemy combatant” in the War on Terror. She compared Graham’s amendment to the “fundamentally lawless” actions of “dictatorships.” The networks skipped those facts in brief, perfunctory news reports. Liberal partisans expect the “objective” media to spout obvious lies that there are no liberals to be found in Obama’s Supreme Court selections, that they have been far too “elusive” to be categorized. That is why Americans are turning away in droves: they’re not finding the media’s biases to be “elusive.”

Visit link:
Bozell Column: The ‘Elusive’ Truth About Kagan