Tag Archives: Barack Obama

George Will Schools This Week Panel on Tea Party Causing GOP Civil War

George Will on Sunday gave a much-needed education to the entire “This Week” panel about how the Tea Party is moving the GOP in a positive direction that could alter politics in this nation for years to come. As Christiane Amanpour and her Roundtable guests – Democrat strategist Donna Brazile, National Journal’s Ron Brownstein, and Republican strategist Matthew Dowd – all fretted about the so-called Civil War brewing in the GOP, Will was once again the voice of reason.  “At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who’s sort of not playing nicely?” asked Will. “Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he’s an independent and changes all his views overnight,” he continued. “Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she’s going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRAT STRATEGIST: But, you know, the Republicans have a great story right now to tell. Excuse my voice. I was up watching the LSU game, clearly. But the — the problem I have — and the Republicans should — should understand — is that there’s still an eternal civil war going on within the Republican Party. In Washington state, in Delaware, and Colorado, many of the mainstream Republican candidates have not endorsed the Tea Party candidates. They’ve provided enthusiasm, they’ve provided a lot of energy and organization for the Republican Party, but we don’t know yet if the Republicans can heal those wounds and provide the kind of turnout they need to beat the Democrats. MATTHEW DOWD, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think that if you gave most Democrats truth serum and they said who’s place would they rather be in, they would pick the Republicans’ place in this year’s election as opposed to their own place in this year’s election. The problem I think for this class that’s coming in for the Republicans is for Mitch McConnell, who just talked to, is his ability to herd them is going to be like herding quail, because these folks are coming to Washington and think, “I’m not going to be part of this. I’m not going to listen to the leaders. I’m going to do what the voters want me to do,” and they’re not going to be — they’re not going to be acquiescent to what the leadership wants. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: And that’s what I actually — I wanted to ask, because in today’s newspaper, there’s a quote by a senior Republican, you know, consultant that, after the elections, it’s going to be basically all-out war, a struggle for the heart and the soul of the Republican Party. You’re shaking your head. GEORGE WILL: They’ve been writing this story for eight months about what a problem the Tea Party is for the Republican Party. You know what the problem… (CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: Well, Tom Ross basically told us that they lost because of that and they might lose. WILL: On balance across the country, the Tea Party is enormous help for the Republicans. At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who’s sort of not playing nicely? Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he’s an independent and changes all his views overnight. Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she’s going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists? (CROSSTALK) RON BROWNSTEIN, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Donna, I would say, look — I mean, I think clearly this class of Republicans do not feel they are being sent here to Washington to compromise with Barack Obama or to follow the Republican leadership. So in that sense, there’s going to be tension. And I quote Ken Buck in my story as saying so. But if you look at what they are actually going to be voting on, in all likelihood, over the next two years, there is remarkable unanimity in this class. And despite all the focus on the civil war, I think that is kind of a — what the long-range vision of what the federal government should be doing or not doing is where you will see diversity. (CROSSTALK) BROWNSTEIN: But in the near term — in the — in the near term, I think — in terms — the main thing that the Republicans, I think, are being sent here to do is to block and try to roll back whatever they can what Obama did. I think the spending thing will continue to be a challenge for them, because if you want to reduce the deficits and extend the Bush tax cuts, that does point you back toward cutting Medicare and Medicaid, which is exactly the problem they got into in ’95, and they may end up in that same cul-de-sac next year. But I actually believe there is more commonality in this class than is often assumed. And in the near term, they are going to be a very formidable and, I think, cohesive force. WILL: And look at the not-so-near term. In the next two cycles, 2012 and 2014 combined, the Democrats are defending 43 Senate seats, Republicans 22. So the Republican wave that’s now starting is just starting. Indeed. As Will accurately stated, the media have been “writing this story for eight months about what a problem the Tea Party is for the Republican Party.” The liberal press are always trying to figure out a narrative that paints the GOP in the most negative light.   First we were told the Tea Party represented an inconsequential fringe of racists and homophobes that will have no impact on elections. Now that its candidates have produced shocking results across the fruited plain, and have reinvigorated conservative voters like nothing we’ve seen in many years, the movement is going to produce a Civil War within the Republican Party that will either hurt it in November or make it impossible for it to govern if its successful at the polls. This is clearly why you could see Will either shaking his head or seemingly laughing to himself as his colleagues waxed philosophically about some as yet unrealized though oft-predicted calamity associated with this movement. Less than two years after Barack Obama and the Democrat Party won a landslide victory that had the potential of being a political realignment shifting the balance of power in this country to the left for many years nay decades, the Republicans are on the precipice of shocking the world by taking back the Congress. Is it any wonder the media are doing their darnedest to figure out a way to undermine it or that Will is getting such a kick out of watching them try?

View post:
George Will Schools This Week Panel on Tea Party Causing GOP Civil War

Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Stimulus Jobs Created or Saved

For the second week in a row Charles Krauthammer has gotten into a heated debate with the Washington Post’s Colby King on the PBS program “Inside Washington.” This time it was about the effectiveness of President Obama’s stimulus plan.  “These guys have had a year and a half and people are not happy with the results,” said Krauthammer. “$1 trillion of stimulus it disappeared and there is nothing to show.” King responded, “They had 3 million jobs to show for it.” The fun really started after Krauthammer marvelously replied, “Yeah, saved, saved, how do you measure a saved job?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Is Axelrod right, or is he just looking for an excuse to talk about the President’s bad numbers? EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: Is that a binary question? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, the correct answer is “b.” (LAUGHTER) KRAUTHAMMER: Let’s go on to something else. I mean, it’s so damned obvious, come on. I mean, he’s whining in advance, he’s looking for an excuse. He ran, look, these guys have had a year and a half and people are not happy with the results. $1 trillion of stimulus it disappeared and there is nothing to show. With the healthcare reform people don’t want… COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: They had 3 million jobs to show for it. KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, saved, saved, how do you measure a saved job? KING: Go out and ask the teachers. Go out and ask the teachers. Go out and ask the cops whose jobs were saved. Ask them about it. They’ll tell you. KRAUTHAMMER: The net loss of jobs is staggering under this administration. KING: Well… KRAUTHAMMER: Yes… KING: Given the eight years of mismanagement it was bound to happen. KRAUTHAMMER: There has been a half a million increase… KING: The eight years of mismanagement it was bound to happen. KRAUTHAMMER: …government jobs have gone up and the private sector has cratered. KING: Charles, that’s speaking a lie, you know exactly what I am talking about because you are a straight shooter. PETERSON: If you’re Axelrod, Evan, what do you say to the President at this point? KRAUTHAMMER: I’m leaving. [Laughter] KRAUTHAMMER: Which he is. I’m leaving in spring. That’s what you say. THOMAS: Yeah, I think that they are really exhausted and, and a little bit down and they’re just kind of, I think they’re, they don’t know what to do. I don’t, I don’t think they are having happy, optimistic, this is all going to work out conversations in the Oval Office. I think they’re just trying to get… NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Do you have any good ideas? KRAUTHAMMER: They made a choice early on that they were going to push an ideological agenda on healthcare instead of addressing the American economy and that is the major complaint against them. And that’s why they’re going to get swept in November. Indeed. Nicely done, Charles. These weekly smackdowns are becoming something to look forward to on Friday nights. Almost better than high school football.  Readers are encouraged to review last week’s fight .  

Excerpt from:
Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Stimulus Jobs Created or Saved

ABC’s World News Runs White House Produced Pro-ObamaCare Video as ‘News’

Back in 1992, ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings told viewers his network would skip coverage of “routine” campaign events, unless they actually contributed new information that viewers could use. In an effort to keep ABC from being used as a propaganda arm for politicians, Jennings declared “there will be less attention to staged appearances and sound bites designed exclusively for television.” He later elaborated to the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz, saying he did not want to be “‘seduced by pictures as we’ve been so easily seduced in the past. I don’t think any of us ever wants to be in the flag factory situation again,’ referring to a 1988 Bush campaign event.” Evidently, times have changed. On Thursday’s World News, ABC anchor Diane Sawyer ran as a “news” item a White House-produced video — complete with schmaltzy background music — of President Obama taking a phone call from a cancer patient who, Sawyer informed viewers “is now able to get health insurance” thanks to ObamaCare. “This is an honor. I want to thank you, so much,” Gail O’Brien told the President. The video is not even new — Sawyer identified it merely as a conversation that took pace “recently,” but “today we got to listen in,” indicating that Thursday was the day the White House chose to drop this out there for sycophantic news networks to plug into their newscasts. For the record, CBS and NBC refused to take the bait (at least on Thursday night’s broadcasts). Here’s the transcript of the brief item, which set up a story about how the new provisions would lead to higher premiums for many customers: DIANE SAWYER: This is the day significant changes in health care insurance go into effect in America. And today we got to listen in on a phone call — President Obama talking recently to Gail O’Brien, a cancer patient in New Hampshire who is now able to get health insurance. PRESIDENT OBAMA [On screen: “White House video,” background music playing]: Hi, Gail? VOICE: Hello. OBAMA: How are you? GAIL O’BRIEN: I’m doing really well, thank you. This is an honor. I want to thank you, so much.

Read the original here:
ABC’s World News Runs White House Produced Pro-ObamaCare Video as ‘News’

New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

On Sunday, the season premiere of 60 Minutes will include an anticipated Scott Pelley report on the Ground Zero mosque. Will the story be pro-mosque, just like President Obama? The first clips displayed softballs of sympathy , that it should be seen as “a hub of culture, a hub of coexistence, a hub of bringing people together.” To underline the overwhelming sympathetic tilt of this program in the Obama era — especially all the Steve Kroft hope-and-change goo before the 2008 election — the MRC has a new special report called “Syrupy Minutes.” Here’s my executive summary:  In the last five years, CBS’s 60 Minutes has become infamous for letting its left-wing ardor get way ahead of its journalistic mission. Dan Rather destroyed his own reputation in 2004 with a 60 Minutes II “expose” of President Bush’s incomplete Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard which relied on falsified documents. A CBS-appointed panel found “myopic zeal” in Rather’s professional demise, but no one would admit a political bias. For more than 40 years, CBS has boasted of 60 Minutes as a hard-hitting news show, a weekly story of investigative gumshoes digging up dirt and accusing major business and government leaders of committing dastardly deeds against the public interest. But the history of 60 Minutes isn’t filled to the brim with brutal investigations. It has a much softer, syrupy side, and it isn’t just reserved for movie stars or rock musicians. When it comes to champions of liberalism and even the radical left, the CBS News program has rolled out a red carpet, asking softball questions and lionizing their policy stands and programs – whether they were actually “achievements” or disasters. On September 19, a week before the new season officially began, CBS’s Lesley Stahl promoted the latest book of Jimmy Carter, and insisted that Carter was a bigger success than most presidents, including Ronald Reagan: “But when all is said and done, and many will be surprised to hear this: Jimmy Carter got more of his programs passed than Reagan and Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2.” Carter’s utter failure to end the Iranian hostage standoff and crushing inflation and unemployment rates were somehow irrelevant to history. Stahl also gushed to Carter: “A lot of critics of yours, when you were President, say that you’ve been a fantastic ex-President. You hear that all the time.” She said this even as she reminded viewers that Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council telling them they should oppose the first President Bush on the need for the Gulf War. In studying 60 Minutes broadcasts from January 1, 2006 through the September 2010 season premiere, Media Research Center analysts have found a very biased pattern of soft interviews and promotional language for the American left: — Liberals were featured more than twice as often than conservatives, and were four times more likely to be awarded easygoing interviews. Since 2006, 60 Minutes has aired 35 interviews with liberal leaders and celebrities versus 17 with conservatives. Twenty-four of the 35 interviews with liberals (69 percent) were friendly and unchallenging. Only five of the 17 conservative segments (29 percent) were soft – and one unchallenged conservative was hammering Sarah Palin as utterly unqualified for national office.. — Barack Obama was a major beneficiary of 60 Minutes admiration. CBS has devoted hours of air time to the promotion of Barack Obama – five interviews before the election, and six after it, all reported by Steve Kroft. Of the 49 Kroft questions in the first four CBS interviews (before the financial crisis hit), 42 were personal or horse-race questions. Only seven focused on issues – five on foreign policy, and two on trade – with no real focus on any domestic issues. Kroft never focused a question on Obama scandals, or his record in the Illinois legislature. Even issue questions were soft and open-ended. Kroft’s interviews were even made into a DVD for nostalgic Obama supporters, Obama All Access . — Other candidates for president were not granted the same red carpet as Obama. The contrast was striking to Scott Pelley’s 2008 bailout interview with John McCain: “But why would you let the Wall Street executives sail away on their yachts and leave this on the American taxpayer?” Mike Wallace’s interview with Mitt Romney in 2007 was sharply personal, demanding to know if the Republican candidate had premarital sex with his wife and asking his five sons why none of them had ever joined the military. — Liberal journalists and celebrities were also celebrated, and conservative celebrities were hounded. Morley Safer championed Stephen Colbert for satirizing conservative talk show hosts and their “wildly inaccurate, but patriotic and combative noise…With all of their excesses, it was only a matter of time before someone came along to skewer them. Well, the eagle has landed.” Safer also felt the pain of actor Alec Baldwin having to deal with “conservative junkyard dogs like Sean Hannity.” But Mike Wallace confronted Bill O’Reilly: “You are addicted to the power, you are addicted to the money, you are addicted to the fact that ‘I am Bill O’Reilly, and everybody knows it.'” A review of the recent output of 60 Minutes should cause media historians to restrain themselves before declaring that this program is a hallmark of hard-hitting journalism, without a political axe to grind. They either carry an axe or a shoe-shine kit.

Originally posted here:
New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

Misread and Misreported: Tea Party Activism Bullish for Economy

One of the most common threads in the media recently has been how bad the Tea Party movement has been for this United States . It has been derided for lacking racial diversity , promoting policies outside the so-called mainstream and blamed for creating a civil war within the Republican Party. The media often stress those “negatives” at the expense of the positive basic tenets of the Tea Party movement: smaller government, fiscal responsibility and free markets – tenets that, when highlighted, are in fact bullish signals for an ailing economy. This is a phenomenon Larry Kudlow, host of CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” explained. “Tonight, free-market capitalism on the comeback trail,” Kudlow said on his Sept. 15 program . “That is one of the messages of the Tea Party power. We saw a lot of that power last night in the primaries. I tell you what folks, that Tea Party power, that free-market capitalist power is so totally bullish for the stock market.” And it has been bullish as of late, both as a forward-looking indicator and in gauging investor sentiment in general with each Tea Party candidate victory. Tea is good for the markets. However, this trend is being missed largely by the media. Charting the course of the Tea Party movement chronologically, from the 2008 presidential election cycle prior to its birth up to today, Kudlow’s hypothesis looks solid. ‘08’s Conventional Wisdom Comes Up Lame Going back to the pre-Tea Party days, in late 2008 before the presidential election, one of common media themes was that an ailing economy boded well for then-presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. That was because of the notion Democrats, the theory held, would do better fixing the situation. Part of that stemmed from the idea Obama would take on the excesses of Wall Street, which would make things better as former “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw explained Oct. 13, 2008 . “I mean you’re seeing that right now in the polls. Look, one of the reasons it helps him win is that this is Main Street versus Wall Street,” said NBC’s Tom Brokaw at the time. “ Main Street ’s furious because they think they’ve been hosed by Wall Street and that they’re paying for the excesses of Wall Street.” It’s automatically a mark in the “win” column for Democrats, according to Brokaw, when there’s an anti-Wall Street sentiment. “And when that happens, that of course, I think, generally accrues to the asset side for a Democratic candidate,” Brokaw continued. “Now whether it can be sustained or not, I don’t know.” Others speculated that the public just trusted Democrats more on all things economy, which CNBC’s John Harwood claimed on Sept. 15, 2008 to “Squawk Box” co-host Becky Quick. “We don’t know who’s going to come out ahead in the end, but I’ll speculate this guess Becky – it probably helps the Democratic ticket for this reason: Polls show that voters right now trust Democrats more than Republicans on the economy and John McCain has prospered in the last couple of weeks as the ground has shifted onto culture issues away from economic issues,” Harwood said. “[T]his puts the debate right back on the economy that Barack Obama is uh, has wanted it – not lipstick on a pig or the whole range of culture issues that has lifted John McCain.” However, if you chart some of the economic metrics of the time and compare them to now, that reasoning has proved faulty. Unemployment numbers and U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) have both steadily deteriorated, despite Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and control of the White House. In November 2008, unemployment was at 6.9 percent, after having spent nearly half the Bush administration under 5 percent. Nearly two years later, unemployment is at 9.6 percent and it has been above 9 percent for the last 15 months. Charting GDP over roughly that same time period since September 2008 , it has actually decreased overall as a percentage, even though it has been on an inconsistent roller coaster-like trajectory, with significant gains and significant losses in that same time period. And although these metrics show Obama’s liberal policies to be ineffective, they haven’t come cheap for the taxpayers. According to CNSNews.com , in the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.526 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. Bottom line: Appears the media got it wrong. Democrats haven’t fared well turning a weakened economy around over the course of two years. Birth of the Tea Party and a Renewed Optimism Although you can’t credit any one variable for the increase of the stock market, a forward-looking indicator – the rise of the Tea Party movement – appears to be running parallel to the Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ). CNBC’s CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli’s “rant heard around the world” on Feb. 19, 2009 , was the spark that ignited the Tea Party movement. That day, Santelli railed against what was thought to be a forthcoming proposal and the inevitable move to bailout struggling homeowner unable to pay their mortgages. The Dow was trading around 7,300 points and would eventually fall to 6,626 on March 6, 2009. But since then, as the Tea Party has grown and shown it has electoral muscle, the market has rebounded. After victories a Massachusetts , New Jersey and Virginia in late 2009 and early 2010, the Dow has rallied back, even trading above 11,000 for a brief few weeks starting last April. As the Tea Party movement has shown power throughout the 2010 primaries, the markets have been on a steady climb going back to July. Thus, the momentum behind the prospects of limited government, fiscal discipline and free-market appears to be working – if using the stock market as a barometer. There are also indications this momentum will continue. As this Tea Party movement has made strides with candidates in Delaware , Alaska , New York , etc. in just the past few weeks, investor optimism has increased as Alan Abelson noted this in the Sept. 18 issue of Barron’s . “In like vein, but even more emphatically, as Doug Kass of Seabreeze Partners points out, has been the turnaround by members of the American Association of Individual Investors ( the so-called little guys, although their ranks include many folks over six feet tall when unshod),” Abelson wrote. “Three weeks ago, these worthies were as a group 20.7% bullish and 49.5% bearish. Last week, in striking contrast, the bulls among them were 50.9% of the total, the bears a meager 24.3%.” Media Emphasize Politics, Ignore Tea Party Principles This bullish trend in the financial markets has been largely ignored by the media. Instead the focus has been on the Tea Parties’ negatives, as a recent Culture & Media Institute story pointed out. All three broadcast networks have described the Tea Parties as “overwhelmingly white,” CMI found. So have CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the Agence France Presse, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Journal and US News & World Report. Many of those organizations are the very ones the news industry discusses as having failed to make diversity goals for staff. Other recent reporting in the media has focused on the rise of the Tea Party as 1964 Goldwater phenomenon, which suggests this isn’t democracy at work, but instead something that is strategically debilitating for the Republican as a whole – a theory Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, subscribes to. “The Tea Party is now the Republican Party,” Beinart said on ABC’s Sept. 19 “This Week.” “I mean I think what we’re seeing in the Republican Party is something akin to what happened to the Democratic Party between 1968 and 1972 in which the forces of George McGovern took over the Democratic Party, overthrew the Democratic Party establishment and moved it substantially to the left.” But whatever it means for the GOP, this ideological change suggests that a shift in control of Congress, whether it is one or both chambers, would likely mean gridlock in Washington . That, as far as business and the markets are concerned, is good news. Stephen Slivinski, author of “ Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government ,” was bullish in an article for the Washington Examiner on Sept. 15 . “So, can gridlock put a cap on spending in the future? I’m optimistic,” Slivinski wrote. “Stimulus programs and corporate welfare spending are proving increasingly unpopular (and ineffective). And the one thing that Republicans seem to have proven over the years is that they are more likely to be opposed to big government when they can turn a Democratic president into the poster child for excessive spending. The GOP pulled their punches during the Bush presidency because to take a swing at the federal behemoth at that point meant taking a shot at their own teammate.” And as Kudlow maintains, the gridlock created by the Tea Party movement would put the brakes on the growth of government, which is a win for the American economy . “They are talking free markets – lower spending, lower taxing, lower regulations, even constitutional limits to government, and you heard me talk about this last week in my free market 12-step plan for prosperity ,” Kudlow said. “The rise of the Tea Party people – they are going to win the vast majority of those Senate races and we are going to see a sea change in American policies, back to freedom and entrepreneurship, and that is bullish.”

Read more from the original source:
Misread and Misreported: Tea Party Activism Bullish for Economy

Will Jon Stewart’s Oct. 30 Rally on the National Mall Hurt the Dems on Election Day?

Originally posted here:
Will Jon Stewart’s Oct. 30 Rally on the National Mall Hurt the Dems on Election Day?

NBC to Interview Obama Monday, Show It Across NBCU Networks, from USA to to Bravo to Syfy

As part of their “Education Nation” summit, NBC is granting a half-hour Matt Lauer interview on education to President Obama in the 8 am hour of Today on Monday. But that’s not the half of it: TV Newser reports the chat “will be roadblocked across various NBCU Networks including MSNBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, Oxygen, Chiller, Sleuth, UNI HD and Universal Sports.” Please start your “Obama on Syfy” jokes now. We haven’t seen this kind of all-out NBC-networks promotion for a politician since Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts in 2007. This is the second NBC-U forum for Obama in days, coming right after a cozy CNBC hour-long session with John Harwood and disappointed Obama backers. 

Read more:
NBC to Interview Obama Monday, Show It Across NBCU Networks, from USA to to Bravo to Syfy

George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Old Boss Bill Clinton: What New Project Excites You?

Interviewing Bill Clinton for Tuesday’s Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos’ nine minute segment mostly amounted to a strategy session that was devoid of tough questions. Stephanopoulos stuck to softball comments, such as inquiring of the Clinton Global Initiative: ” And I began by asking President Clinton, which new project most excites him? ” Some people, if they were interviewing their former boss, might feel an extra responsibility to ask probing, grueling questions. Instead, Stephanopoulos brought up Sarah Palin: “Is she qualified to be president?” He followed up, “What’s your gut on that?” The former Democratic operative turned journalist could have pressed the ex-President about the details of his charity, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). Considering that the international group deals with several world leaders, he might have asked if there was any conflict of interest for Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State wife. Stephanopoulos could have queried as to the funding for CGI. He did not. The two did discuss how Barack Obama could win back his falling popularity: “You and President Obama get set up as polar opposites. Everybody used to hit you for ‘Mr. I feel your pain.’ And everybody says now, the conventional wisdom, he’s too remote. Too detached. How does he get that gut connection with the American people back?” This interview with Bill Clinton, broken over two parts, ran for nine minutes and 19 seconds. On September 9 , Stephanopoulos donated four segments and 16 minutes to Obama. That’s 25 minutes to two former Democratic presidents in less than two weeks. A transcript of the September 21 segment can be found below: 7:06 7:06:35 to 7:13:44 7 minutes and 9 seconds (Total: 9 minutes and 19 seconds ) ABC GRAPHIC: Bill Clinton One-on-One: His Mission to Help the World STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, to my exclusive interview with President Clinton. He understands exactly what President Obama is going through right now, after experiencing a midterm mine field of his own in 1994. When I sat down with him, he weighed in with some advice for President Obama and some praise for Sarah Palin. But, we begin with the Clinton Global Initiative. Now in its sixth year, the initiative has raised $60 billion to help more than 200 million people around the world. And I began by asking President Clinton, which new project most excites him? CLINTON: The new commitments I’m most excited about I’d say fall in two categories. I gotta say, first, the fact that these business people still want to invest money in Haiti and help Haiti come back. And this, we have what are called action networks, now that meet on subjects that people really care about all year long. The Haiti Action Network, they’re roaring back with a new set of business commitments. So, I’m very excited about that. The other things I’m excited about relate to ideas that will create jobs here in America and around the world. STEPHANOPOULOS: You may have seen the front page of The New York Times. Heartbreaking letters from the 1.3 million homeless. CLINTON: Yeah. STEPHANOPOULOS: In Haiti. And the letters all boil down to, when is the help going to get there? What are you going to do? Why isn’t it getting through? CLINTON: First, we had a meeting today of this Haiti reconstruction commission. And the United States has got their money through. So, their money will be coming forward. I pointed out to them that we approved $1.6 billion in investment. And $750 million of it is not funded. And that we’re going to be approving a lot more. And we’re going to have a huge housing expo in October, which will enable us to begin massive redevelopment. Moving people out of the camps into the homes. Housing always takes the longest. Secondly, there’s a lag in the aid that’s been promised and the aid that’s been released because of the economic problems in the donor countries. And, so, what I told them today, I said, Look. Just pick one of these things you want to do. And tell us when you’re going to give the money and all the Haitian members who came up from Haiti. And I said, look at them. They know what economic hardship is. They will be okay if you don’t give everything you promised. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, they have to know it’s coming. CLINTON: Just tell them what you’re going to give and when you’re going to give it. And then we can give some hope to the people in the camps and we’ll start building. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me talk more broadly about the economy. President Obama did a whole town meeting today. And one woman got up and just said, simply, “I’m exhausted of defending you.” A lot of Democrats, a lot of supporters of the President, feel that way. What does he do about it? What does he say? CLINTON: I would say, I know a lot of people are mad. And a lot of people are tired, apathetic. And I respect that because we’re not yet out of the hole we got in. It’s okay to be mad. But make a choice based on what should we do now? And who is more likely to do it? They want to repeal the financial oversight bill, which is designed to keep this disaster from occurring again. I think our choice is better. We have plans to help small business, manufacturing and clean energy. We know they don’t believe in clean energy. And so far, they’re not for my small business plan. I think our choice is better. Do what’s best for you. That’s what I think he should say. STEPHANOPOULOS: You and President Obama get set up as polar opposites. Everybody used to hit you for “Mr. I feel your pain.” And everybody says now, the conventional wisdom, he’s too remote. Too detached. How does he get that gut connection with the American people back? CLINTON: First of all, I think he’s doing the right thing by going out here and explaining things by going out there and explaining things. I think the problem is not that he’s empathetic. I think the fact that he is out here taking this grief. You know, taking the grief of the country on himself. Letting people show they’re anger, show their disappointment. I think that’s a good way to do it. The truth is, that it’s the similarities between us that is getting him in trouble. I knew I had done the right things in ’94. I would like to see him do something I didn’t do. I would like to see him say, “Here’s what this election is about. The only thing that matters is what we do now. Here’s the three things I want to do now. Here’s why I think our side’s more likely to do it. And let me tell you something. We couldn’t get out of the $3 trillion hole in 21 months. Give us two more years. Don’t go back to the policies that dug the hole. But, if we don’t do better,” this is the last thing, “if we don’t do better, you can vote against us all and I’ll be on the ballot, too. Vote against us all if it’s not better.” STEPHANOPOULOS: So, give people permission to vote against you? CLINTON: Absolutely. In other words, I think people feel disempowered. They’re angry because they think they’re doing every, single thing they know to do. And nothing makes it better. STEPHANOPOULOS: There’s a big debate out there about Sarah Palin. I think a lot of Democrats believe she’s the best thing to happen to President Obama in 2012. But, Mark Halperin actually disagreed in Time magazine today. I want to see what you think about this. He wrote, “Most of all, she is much like Bill Clinton. What doesn’t kill Sarah Palin makes her stronger. Palin is very much alive and despite what you think, extraordinarily strong.” Is he right? CLINTON: Well, I do think she’s a resilient character. And we may be entering sort of a period in politics that is sort of fact-free, where experience in government is a negative. I mean, even though I was actually slightly younger than President Obama when I was elected, I was the longest-serving governor in the country. I thought it was important to do these jobs and show results and to be able to acknowledge that you made mistakes and learn from them. So, I don’t think we know what’s going to happen in 2012. But in the Republican primaries, she’s very popular with the conservative base. You know, she’s a compelling, attractive figure. STEPHANOPOULOS: Is she qualified to be president? CLINTON: Well, that’s up- The American people can elect whomever they want. But she served, you know, not a full-time term as governor. And she went out and did this. We don’t even know she’s going to run for president. STEPHANOPOULOS: What’s your gut on that? CLINTON: But, I think she’s clearly a public figure who is- who speaks well and persuasively to the people who listen to her. And she’s somebody to be reckoned with. And she’s tough. Look, I remember when people were making fun of her, I read that her husband broke his arm in the middle of the Idatarod race and finished a 500-mile race with a broken arm. Now, where I come from, people like that. They think that’s pretty good. So, I- My view is, it’s always a mistake to underestimate your opponent. And it’s also virtually always a mistake to attack them personally, as opposed to disagreeing with them on what they want to do. STEPHANOPOULOS: I also asked the President about walking Chelsea up the aisle. He reflected on that. We’ll have that our next hour. ROBIN ROBERTS: He is as passionate as ever. STEPHANOPOULOS: Oh, yeah.   8:01 8:01:19 to 8:03:29 2 minutes and 10 seconds STEPHANOPOULOS: But first, we have a little more of my interview with former President Clinton. Earlier, we were talked about his global initiative, Obama’s midterm funk and also on Sarah Palin. But what really lit him up was his daughter, Chelsea. I was looking at those pictures of you at Chelsea’s wedding. And the look on your face just said it all. I mean, it was the love and pride of a lifetime. And, you know, Chelsea seems to have avoided all of the traps that so many sons and daughters of politicians fall into. How did she do it? CLINTON: She’s a fine person. And I give her mother a lot of credit for it. But from the time she was, you know, a little girl, she knew her father was a governor. And then, she had her- the White House years. And then her mother was a senator. All I can say is that we always thought she was our most important job. And there’s lots of research which shows, even among kids that grow up without their parents, and miserable conditions, and wind up doing well, that the most important thing in a child’s life is that they have to believe in critical years that they’re the most important person in the world to somebody. And then, if you grow up in a famous home or you’re in a rich home, you also need to be reminded that, in all the ways that matter, you’re no different than anybody else. She believes that. So, yeah. I was happy that day. That’s a big passage in your life, you know, when you hand over your child in marriage. And for Hillary and me, it was a very special day. And one I suppose I’ll remember until the day I die. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, congratulations. Thanks, Mr. President. CLINTON: Thank you. STEPHANOPOULOS: One proud father. Tomorrow, we’ll have a lot more on the Clinton Global Initiative. But, yeah. It’s just- He could have talked about that forever. ROBERTS: It’s evident that he could have. Just looking in his eyes, George, when he was talking about that. STEPHANOPOULOS: Big, big moment for his only daughter. And, tomorrow, as I said, we’re going to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative. They have a great program creating jobs to get small loans to get those businesses up and running. Important stuff in this economy.

More here:
George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Old Boss Bill Clinton: What New Project Excites You?

Matthews Scolds Obama: ‘Stop Saying Cutting Taxes Is Giving People Money – It’s Their Money!’

A truly shocking thing happened on Monday’s “Hardball”: Chris Matthews, the man who once proudly boasted about getting a thrill up his leg when Barack Obama speaks, actually scolded the President on national television. Maybe even more surprising, the MSNBCer told the object of his affection, “Stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money!” The unashamed liberal host continued, “A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have one small tweak to make to what the president said today — he should stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money! A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction. He talked today, for example, about people getting a check from the government in the form of a tax cut. That`s not the way it works. If tax rates are kept lower, it`s a matter of the check going to the government being smaller. Again, it`s an important distinction. Wouldn’t it be nice if others on the Left along with their media minions understood this basic principle? After all, the way Democrats and press members have been talking about extending the Bush tax cuts lately, it’s as if we all work for the government and any money it deigns to give us we should be thankful for. That an unapologetic liberal like Matthews not only gets this but is also willing to say it on national television makes you wonder why all so-called journalists don’t agree. Errr – maybe not.

Follow this link:
Matthews Scolds Obama: ‘Stop Saying Cutting Taxes Is Giving People Money – It’s Their Money!’

Dems Will Love Morning Joe’s Odd Manifesto Against ‘Angry Voices’

Not sayin’ Rahm wrote it, but . . . In a strange departure from Morning Joe’s typical spontaneity, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski issued what was clearly a scripted, teleprompted, manifesto this morning.  The statement purported to be non-partisan condemnation of “angry voices” and a call, citing a WWII poster, to “keep calm and carry on.”  But even a cursory analysis reveals that the manifesto’s message suits Dem themes to a ‘T’ , and carries clear echoes of a recent partisan speech by Pres. Obama at a political event. The manifesto amounted to a condemnation of the “angry voices” and the “political extremists” who, claimed Scarborough, “are dominating the airwaves and dominating the national debate.” But at this juncture in American political history, the anger is understandably more present on the right. The Dems, after all, control both houses of Congress and the White House, and have used their power to promote a big-government agenda on everything from health care to trillion dollar spending schemes to higher taxes.  You’re darn right we’re angry!  In instructing us to calm down, Joe and Mika are really seeking to sap the vitality from the political movement that threatens to sweep Dems from office. Scarborough approvingly cited recent comments by NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg that “anger is not a government strategy . . . It’s not a way to govern.”  But Bloomberg was in turn echoing comments by PBO at a recent political fundraiser . . . CNN reported PBO’s words in an article entitled “Obama: GOP relying on fear, frustration instead of offering new ideas,” and quoted him as saying: “In a political campaign, the easiest thing the other side can do is ride that anger all the way to Election Day . . . people are hurting and they are understandably frustrated. A lot of them are scared and a lot of them are angry . That dynamic makes it easier to run on a slogan of “cast the bums out . . . but it’s not a vision for the future .” Let’s recapitulate: Obama says anger bad, not a vision for the future.  Scarborough says anger bad, not a way to govern. I’m sure the folks at the White House and the DNC will be delighted by Morning Joe’s manifesto.  They couldn’t have said it better themselves.

View post:
Dems Will Love Morning Joe’s Odd Manifesto Against ‘Angry Voices’