Tag Archives: bush

Bozell Column: Bush’s ‘Gulag’ Now Acceptable

Our liberal scribes and pundits savaged the Bush administration as being a privacy-shredding, terrorist-suspect-abusing tyranny on the march. Now that President Obama is in charge, they lamely suggest that “the government” has failed, but with no president’s name attached in the blame game. For years, the media insisted that the terrorist holding pen at Guantanamo was a horrific stain on our global reputation. It was a “cancer” (CBS’s Bob Schieffer) and the networks uncritically aired Amnesty International quacks denouncing it as “the gulag of our times.” Any denunciation had the words “Bush” and “Cheney” inexorably attached. But now the outrage has died, and the story is being downplayed, since the Evil Bush is no longer the target. Take the case of Gitmo prisoner Ahmed Ghailani, who participated in the U.S. embassy massacre in Tanzania in 1998. When the federal judge crippled his trial in mid-October by omitting a witness, ABC and NBC skipped over it. “CBS Evening News” offered an anchor brief, with Couric calling it a “big setback for federal prosecutors.” Nothing was attributed to the Obama administration. read more

See the original post here:
Bozell Column: Bush’s ‘Gulag’ Now Acceptable

NPR Game Show Aired Fake Interview With Bush Audio Book, Smeared Bush as White House Drunk

Since National Public Radio somehow missed out on an author interview with George W. Bush — they did portray his presidency as a horror film — NPR's Chicago-based weekend game show Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me!

George Stephanopoulos Chides Michele Bachmann: Why Is It ‘Okay’ to Extend Tax Cuts?

For the second time in two days, Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday lobbied for tax increases, wondering why it's “okay” for the “wealthiest Americans” to continue to receive a tax cut. The GMA host pushed Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to accept a deal in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts. After the conservative leader expressed skepticism about extending unemployment benefits, Stephanopoulos complained, ” But, why is it okay for the wealthiest Americans, earning over $250,000 a year– And remember, the President has called for extending all tax cuts for those under $250,000.” He continued, worrying about why it's acceptable for the wealthy to get “tax cuts extended, but for people who are out of a job and needing unemployment benefits not to have their benefits extended?” read more

See the original post here:
George Stephanopoulos Chides Michele Bachmann: Why Is It ‘Okay’ to Extend Tax Cuts?

Olbermann Responds to Koppel, Claims Criticized Obama More in a Week that FNC Did Bush in 8 Years

Top Bush Aide Denounces Mark Levin, Malkin, Others as ‘Unhinged…Bolshevik’ Party-Line Enforcers

Former top Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson is a Washington Post columnist, and there is never a better time for right-leaning columnists to lean left than in the last weeks of an election season. (See George Will trashing Sen. George Allen in the last weeks of 2006.) His rant also may have granted Gerson a seat on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. Gerson not only denounced Christine O’Donnell as a wacky candidate like Alan Keyes, he denounced “the childish political thought of the Tea Party.” He insisted conservatives were like Bolsheviks. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin and talk show hosts like Mark Levin were “unhinged” against Karl Rove: While Rove’s critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it “might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC.” Mark Levin pronounced Rove at “war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives.” “In terms of the conservative movement,” wrote Dan Riehl, “we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us.” Gerson didn’t explain in this short blog how it was “unhinged” to see Karl Rove’s fierce attack on O’Donnell as like an Olbermann moment. (In fact, it was: Olbermann reran large chunks of it on MSNBC.) He didn’t explain how it was “unhinged” to say Rove was at war with the Tea Party when they won a surprise victory, and he denounced the winner in the strongest terms. But the attacks were just getting started: This reaction is revealing — and disturbing — for a number of reasons. First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O’Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted . It is not enough to dispute Rove’s critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn’t consistently take one side is a traitor. Gerson doesn’t consider that the anger on the Mike Castle side of this election — the losing side — is based on the view that  the Tea Party deviated from the party line that Castle should march to the general election undisturbed. They implied only traitors would throw a “slam dunk” election in doubt. This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment — which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else’s ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media : Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line — the Tea Party line. Gerson wants to suggest that the Tea Party people are unhinged in their rhetoric, and then he compares them to murderous Russian communists. Remember this the next time Gerson agrees with a liberal that Obama shouldn’t be smeared with foreign associations. 60,000 is Delaware does not make the Tea Party movement predominant in the Republican Party, or even in the conservative movement. If Tea Party activists believe they can win in a political coalition so pure that it doesn’t include strong, mainstream conservatives such as Karl Rove, they are delusional. And they are hurting their own cause. Third, some conservatives seem to display special venom for those who are “compromised” by the experience of actually winning and governing . Rove, according to Malkin, is an “establishment Beltway strategist.” Actually, he is a former high-level policy aid to the president of the United States and the primary author of two presidential victories. This does not make him always right. But it means he has had responsibilities bigger than running a Web site. This is an advantage for a commentator, not a drawback. Here is Gerson’s arrogance on display, for it’s very easy to remind the Bush people that “winning” wasn’t what happened in 2006 and 2008. Rove and Gerson and their team drove the GOP into a deep hole. This is the spot where the liberals secretly point fingers and laugh — before they invite these Bushies in front of the cameras to denounce the conservatives. The ending was just as petulant: In Tea Party theory, inexperience is itself seen as a kind of qualification. People like O’Donnell are actually preferable to people like Rove, because they haven’t been tainted by public trust or actual achievement. This is the attitude of the adolescent — the belief that the world began on their thirteenth birthday. It is also a sign of childish political thought.

Read more here:
Top Bush Aide Denounces Mark Levin, Malkin, Others as ‘Unhinged…Bolshevik’ Party-Line Enforcers

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Just Help The Rich

For almost ten years, the Bush tax cuts have been depicted by media as only helping rich people. Now, with them set to expire, and a Democrat in the White House desperately needing a stronger economy to help him and his Party’s political fortunes, the Associated Press is telling readers the truth with the following headline: Expiring Tax Cuts Hit Taxpayers at Every Level     If you think that’s amazing, wait until you see the contents : A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500. Wealthier families face even bigger tax hikes. A family of four making $500,000 a year would pay $10,800 more in taxes. The same family making $1 million a year would get a tax increase of $53,200. The estimates are based on total household income, including wages, capital gains and qualified dividends. The estimated tax bills take into account typical deductions at each income level. Okay, so putting this in reverse, doesn’t that mean that when these tax cuts were first implemented – you know, when that awful Republican named George W. Bush was president! – a typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year saved $2,900 per annum as a result ? And a family making $100,000 a year saved $4,500?  Gosh, that means these tax cuts weren’t just for the rich as virtually every media outlet in America has been claiming since they were first proposed. Makes you wonder how such organizations can stay in business when they do such a terrible job. 

See the original post here:
AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Just Help The Rich

PBS Ombudsman Bizarrely Claims Pitting Dick Armey vs. Arianna Huffington is Right vs. Center

The PBS NewsHour tried to balance a conservative Republican with a liberal Democrat when it interviewed (on two different Thursdays) Dick Armey and Arianna Huffington . Left-wingers complained to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler that NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff failed to press Armey about the Tea Party’s funding from corporate billionaires. The far-left media monitors at FAIR wanted Woodruff to bash Armey as a hypocrite who benefits from government entitlements, like Bill Moyers did.  Getler’s response was jaw-dropping. He claimed that PBS had failed to achieve balance, since Armey is conservative and Arianna Huffington is a centrist “and her widely viewed website strike me, as a reader, as an equal-opportunity critic. Armey is not. There are plenty of sharp, critical assessments of the Democratic Party and administration on her site.” Doesn’t it matter that those critics are banging away that Obama isn’t socialist enough? Worse yet, Getler said this should be “remedied” by bringing on another leftist, author Will Bunch of Media Matters for America, because Arianna was clearly not left-wing enough or critical enough of the Tea Party. Getler lamented that PBS has lost left-wing shows like Now and Bill Moyers Journal that are “not in the safe comfortable center.” Getler has granted points to conservative letter writers on occasion (and it seems apparent from his report that he didn’t get conservative letter writers in his latest batch). But Getler holds the liberal opinion that was mandtory for his hiring: that public television is not a forum that should be balanced because it’s taxpayer-funded. Instead, because it is “public,” it should rip on conservatives from the left, because the “safe comfortable center” is already represented by ABC, CBS, and NBC. “Public” television should be anti-corporate and anti-militarist and be so boldly. Arguing that Arianna Huffington’s “beyond left and right” palaver makes her a centrist is truly unsophisticated. In her media criticism like in her less-than-centrist-sounding book Right Is Wrong, that has meant the conservatives should be dumped, since the left is correct and it’s unfair (and dangerous) to “balance” that with inaccurate conservatism, like on global warming. In her PBS interview with Gwen Ifill, it’s quite clear that while Huffington may have posed rhetorically as going beyond ideology, she is not a centrist. She’s lamenting that Team Obama is pandering to centrists instead of being fully progressive when Democrats have total control of Washington: [T]his has been obviously a failure of the Bush years that put their faith in free market economics and deregulation, but also the Democrats during the Obama years, when they had control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, but, instead of going forward with bold proposals that would address the fundamental problems in the country, they tried to basically do what they can to bring everybody along, sort of flirt with Olympia Snowe, and bring Larry Summers to head the economic team in a way that put Wall Street ahead of Main Street. Getler is only correct in that when Ifill asked Huffington to critique or attack the Tea Party movement, she declined and used “beyond left and right” palaver to pose as above ideology (like, well, Obama). NewsHour tried to balance the segments. It was Huffington who failed the leftists’ desire to have someone accuse the Tea Party of being the toy soldiers of billionaires.   But while Woodruff gently pressed Armey that liberals say his proposals to make Social Security and Medicare voluntary would destroy these entitlement programs, Ifill offered no critique of Huffington’s left-wing viewpoint from conservatives, that her proposed solutions would kill chances for a recovery (or that conservatives would say she’s a phony for her pose, or question her funding from left-wing billionaires). Both interviews were gentle, in the Jim Lehrer tradition. It seems as if Getler wants NewsHour to be anchored by Bill Moyers. Here’s the gist of Getler’s mystifying complaint: In the segment with Armey, NewsHour correspondent Judy Woodruff told viewers that this was the first of a two-part series of book conversations with thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum and that “a very different perspective … a conversation with liberal Democrat Arianna Huffington” about her new book would be coming soon. The Huffington interview with correspondent Gwen Ifill aired Sept. 16. One of the benefits of the NewsHour is that it has the time for this kind of series, allowing more in-depth exploration of supposedly opposing views, and I’ve always advocated that viewers judge a news program or publication on the continuity of its coverage of a subject rather than on an individual segment. But this time it didn’t work, in my view. Woodruff is a good interviewer and managed to get in some brief but telling questions, although there was no discussion of Tea Party funding that was the focus of most of the e-mail to me. The “series” turned out, it seemed to me, to be a big public relations win for Armey as mostly a platform for his views, while Huffington’s main point was that “the solutions are beyond left and right” and spent as much or more time bashing the Obama administration, aside from noting that the problems grew from “obviously a failure of the Bush years.” One is that Huffington may be labeled as “a liberal Democrat,” but she and her widely viewed website strike me, as a reader, as an equal-opportunity critic. Armey is not. There are plenty of sharp, critical assessments of the Democratic Party and administration on her site. For me, this fits into a purely anecdotal sense that I have that much of mainstream television coverage for some time now is more from a center-right starting point than left-center-right, where far more talking heads and pundits that are described as liberal or left-of-center, actually are closer to the center and just as likely to criticize the left as the right. That is usually not the case, at least as it seems to me, with conservative or right-of-center guests and pundits. Another point goes to something I posted back in May in the aftermath of the shutting down of two major PBS public affairs programs — Bill Moyers Journal and NOW on PBS. I said: “Both provided an outlet for people and subjects that are not in the safe, comfortable center of what passes for most public affairs programming on television. Rather, they often presented guests and topics that rarely get an airing, although what they have to say is of interest to many people who live and think outside that safe comfort-zone.” Both Armey and Huffington, even though controversial, are in what I’d consider that comfortable, or familiar face, zone. Both have many friendly TV and web platforms where their views and books can be, and are, promoted. Coincidentally, between the Sept. 9 and 16 programs, The New York Times featured a review of a probing new book about the Tea Party by Will Bunch, a senior writer at The Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow at the left-leaning research group Media Matters for America. Why not have him, or someone else who has spent time looking into this movement, as a guest who clearly seems apt to present a different view? The Tea Party is important and detailed arguments that challenge it need to be heard and answered. Feel free to contact Getler online here or call 703-739-5920. Be calm and polite, as he is.

Read the original here:
PBS Ombudsman Bizarrely Claims Pitting Dick Armey vs. Arianna Huffington is Right vs. Center

Harry Reids Dream Act – Cap and Gown Amnesty for Votes

The so-called DREAM Act would create an official path to Democratic voter registration for an estimated two million college-age illegal aliens. Look past the public relations-savvy stories of “undocumented” valedictorians left out in the cold. This is not about protecting “children.” It's about preserving electoral power through cap-and-gown amnesty. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this week that he's attaching the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. With ethnic activists breathing down his neck and President Obama pushing to fulfill his campaign promise to Hispanics, Reid wants his queasy colleagues to vote on the legislation next week. Open-borders lawmakers have tried and failed to pass the DREAM Act through regular channels for the past decade. That's because informed voters know giving green cards to illegal alien students undermines the rule of law, creates more illegal immigration incentives and grants preferential treatment to illegal alien students over law-abiding native and naturalized American students struggling to get an education in tough economic times. This bad idea is compounded by a companion proposal to recruit more illegal aliens into the military with the lure of citizenship (a fraud-ridden and reckless practice countenanced under the Bush administration). DREAM Act lobbyists are spotlighting heart-wrenching stories of high-achieving teens brought to this country when they were toddlers. But instead of arguing for case-by-case dispensations, the protesters want blanket pardons. The broadly drafted Senate bill would confer benefits on applicants up to age 35, and the House bill contains no age ceiling at all. The academic achievement requirements are minimal. Moreover, illegal aliens who didn't arrive in the country until they turned 15 — after they laid down significant roots in their home country — would be eligible for DREAM Act benefits and eventual U.S. citizenship. And like past amnesty packages, the Democratic plan is devoid of any concrete eligibility and enforcement mechanisms to deter already-rampant immigration benefit fraud. The DREAM Act sponsors have long fought to sabotage a clearly worded provision in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” Ten states defied that federal law and offered DREAM Act-style tuition preference to illegal aliens: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington. The last time DREAM Act champions tried to tack their scheme onto a larger immigration proposal, they snuck in language that would absolve those 10 states of their law-breaking by repealing the 1996 law retroactively — and also offering the special path to green cards and citizenship for illegal alien students. Despite the obvious electoral advantage this plan would give Democrats, several pro-illegal alien amnesty Republicans crossed the aisle to support the DREAM Act, including double-talking Sens. John McCain, Richard Lugar, Bob Bennett, Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mel Martinez and Olympia Snowe, as well as presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (who champions even greater illegal alien student benefits than those proposed by Democrats). After paying lip service to securing the borders, McCain promised DREAM Act demonstrators this week that he supported the bill and would work to “resolve their issues.” Out-of-touch polls might want to pay attention to the world outside their bubble. A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows that Americans across the political spectrum favor tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws over rolling out the amnesty welcome wagon. When asked, “Do you think immigration reform should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or in the direction of stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?” solid majorities of registered Republicans, Democrats and independents chose stricter enforcement over greater integration of the illegal alien population. Democrats outside the Beltway have grown increasingly averse to signing on to illegal alien incentives — especially as the Obama jobs death toll mounts and economic confidence plummets. Here in Colorado, a handful of Democrats joined Republican lawyers to kill a state-level DREAM Act amid massive higher education budget cuts and a bipartisan voter backlash. Asked why she opposed the illegal alien student bailout, one Democratic lawmaker said quite simply: “I listened to my constituents.” An alien concept in Washington, to be sure. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1170564 added by: ReverandG

Time Magazine Annoyed at Limited Reach of Class Warfare on Views on Tax Cuts

“Good News, Rich People: Poor People Don’t Want to Raise Your Taxes” That’s the snarky headline for Kayla Webley’s 5-paragraph NewsFeed item filed earlier today at Time.com. “Nearly half of the lowest earners among us want the rich to stay rich,” complained Webley, adding: As Congress debates whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows the country is as divided as Washington when it comes to increasing taxes for the wealthiest Americans. According to the poll, 54% support raising taxes on the rich, while 44% are opposed. Meaning that while the tax increases proposed by President Obama would affect only a minority of Americans (Obama says just 2%), nearly half of Americans — despite being completely unaffected by the proposed increases — don’t want to see anyone’s taxes increased. To accompany the story, Time editors included a stock photo by Getty Images of a man wearing a gray blazer with crisp $20 bills tucked in his breast pocket (see screencap above, click image for full size). In her rush to complain about nearly half of “poor” Americans favoring tax cuts for the “rich,” Webley neglected to pass along an interesting quote from a Democrat featured in the AP story to which she linked. Noted reporter Alan Fram: While about three-fourths of Democrats favor raising taxes on the rich, about half of independents and nearly two-thirds of Republicans oppose the idea. Support for cutting everyone’s taxes exceeds four in 10 people in every region of the U.S. except the Midwest, where one-third back the proposal. Even among people earning under $50,000 a year — mainstays of the Democratic Party — 43 percent want to continue the tax cuts for all. “You shouldn’t be penalized for making a good living,” said Charles Ricotta, 55, a Democrat from Dunkirk, N.Y. “If you feel the government is cutting your throat, you might feel hesitant about hiring people.” Watching the government soak the rich may temporarily make you feel good by proxy, but in the long run it kills economic growth and the jobs that come from that.  That’s the sentiment some 43% of “poor” taxpayers seem to subscribe to. It’s a shame that Time magazine doesn’t, or worse, refuses to, get it.

See the rest here:
Time Magazine Annoyed at Limited Reach of Class Warfare on Views on Tax Cuts

CBS Slams O’Donnell as ‘Ultra-Conservative’ and Sees Repeat of 1964, Touts Public Siding with Obama on Economy and Taxes

The night after a Tea Party candidate in Delaware stunned the GOP establishment, the CBS Evening News blamed voter “anger,” tried to marginalize Christine O’Donnell as an “ultra-conservative,” relayed the contention of establishment Republicans that Tea Party wins will lead to a re-run of the GOP’s 1964 debacle, and highlighted how more Americans blame George W. Bush over President Barack Obama for the economy followed by how most side with Obama on not extending the current tax rates for those earning $250,000 or more. All in a day’s work for Katie Couric. She led by declaring “American voters are in one angry mood” as “nearly three out of four registered voters say they’re dissatisfied with or angry about what’s going on in Washington,” though the new CBS News/New York Times poll actually found just as many “satisfied” as angry and twice as many “dissatisfied but not angry” over “angry.” In the lead story, Nancy Cordes described how Christine O’Donnell “beat a veteran moderate Congressman who was considered a general election shoo-in” while “polls show O’Donnell’s ultra-conservative social views make her a decided underdog in this blue-leaning state.” Her proof of O’Donnell’s “ultra-conservative” views: a vintage video clip in which O’Donnell sounded eerily like Jimmy Carter: “Lust in your heart is committing adultery.” Following a soundbite of a Delaware Republican saying he’ll vote for the Democrat, Cordes identified O’Donnell’s November opponent sans any ideological tag: “And that’s giving new life to the Democrat in the race, Chris Coons.” Up next, Bob Schieffer ruminated about another 1964-like debacle for Republicans. “It is very much like 1964,” Schieffer contended, when Republicans “threw out all the establishment candidates” and nominated Barry Goldwater who “was far to the right of most of the people in his party, and they lost in a landslide.” So that’s why, Schieffer insisted, “you have establishment Republicans worried about what’s going to happen now in November.” Looking at the public’s views on the economy, Dean Reynolds highlighted how “the country still blames the Bush administration [37%] for the condition of the economy followed by Wall Street [5% blame Obama], and only 27 percent believe congressional Republicans are doing more to improve things, compared to 49 percent who say that about the President.” Plus: “Nor, apparently, is the country with the Republicans on taxes. While the GOP favors extending tax cuts for all income brackets, 53 percent of Americans believe tax cuts should end for those with incomes above $250,000, as the President has proposed.” Unmentioned by Reynolds: The 53 percent level is down nine points since February when it stood at 62 percent. PDF of the survey results . CBSNews.com summary of the “anger” question . CBSNews.com look at the tax cut numbers . Portions of the Wednesday, September 15 CBS Evening News, gathered by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth: KATIE COURIC: Good evening, everyone. American voters are in one angry mood. It’s evident at the polls and in the polls. Look at this: A CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight finds a record 55 percent of American voters say it’s time for their representative in Congress to go. They don’t like what the incumbents are doing – 58 percent disapprove of the Democrats; 68 percent disapprove of the Republicans. Nearly three out of four registered voters say they’re dissatisfied with or angry about what’s going on in Washington. And some of that feeling was reflected in yesterday’s primaries with victories by candidates supported by the Tea Party…. NANCY CORDES: …O’Donnell becomes the seventh Tea Party-affiliated candidate to defeat a more mainstream Republican in a Senate primary this season. Six Tea Partiers have won primaries for governor. Carl Paladino of New York joined their ranks last night. But Republican leaders are keeping their distance from him, too, after he named his dog his chief of staff and proposed that welfare recipients be housed in unused prisons. CARL PALADINO, NEW YORK REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE: New Yorkers are as mad as hell, and we’re not gonna take it anymore! CORDES: In Delaware, O’Donnell beat a veteran moderate Congressman who was considered a general election shoo-in. Polls show O’Donnell’s ultraconservative social views- CHRISTINE O’DONNELL, DELAWARE REPUBLICAN SENATE NOMINEE, IN OLD VIDEO: Lust in your heart is committing adultery. CORDES: -make her a decided underdog in this blue-leaning state. STEVEN DAVIS, DELAWARE REPUBLICAN RESIDENT: Given Christine O’Donnell’s background, I have a very difficult time supporting her. I think I’d be more likely to cross party lines in this situation. CORDES: And that’s giving new life to the Democrat in the race, Chris Coons. CHRIS COONS, DELAWARE DEMOCRATIC SENATE NOMINEE: Christine O’Donnell is a different sort of Republican in the general election than I expected. CORDES: Republicans have a narrow window to take back the Senate, and it involves picking up 10 seats. If they don’t win in Delaware, that window is all but closed, Katie.  … COURIC: And, Bob, as Robert Gibbs said, and other people have asked, is this going to be a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican party? BOB SCHIEFFER: Oh, I think it very much is just that. I mean, it is very much like 1964. In 1960, Republicans lost narrowly with an establishment candidate, Richard Nixon. They got to 1964, they threw out all the establishment candidates, they threw out their party leaders and they nominated Barry Goldwater who – fine man – but he was far to the right of most of the people in his party, and they lost in a landslide. And that’s why you have establishment Republicans worried about what’s going to happen now in November. … DEAN REYNOLDS: …Other sobering findings for the White House: Only 38 percent think the President has a clear plan for creating jobs, and some 46 percent think the Obama stimulus package has had no impact – 20 percent think it made matters worse. But 63 percent say Mr. Obama is doing about as well as they expected. DOLORES CLARK, POLL PARTICIPANT: It’s too soon to make any final assessment of his presidency. I think he will be better and better as time passes. REYNOLDS: Actually, the country still blames the Bush administration for the condition of the economy followed by Wall Street, and only 27 percent believe congressional Republicans are doing more to improve things, compared to 49 percent who say that about the President. Sam Greco is a retired Chicago detective. Do you think the Republicans have a plan? SAM GRECO, RETIRED DETECTIVE: Nothing that comes to the forefront. And this is what bothers me. REYNOLDS: Nor, apparently, is the country with the Republicans on taxes. While the GOP favors extending tax cuts for all income brackets, 53 percent of Americans believe tax cuts should end for those with incomes above $250,000, as the President has proposed. A mixed report card with the midterms approaching. Dean Reynolds, CBS News, Chicago.

Continue reading here:
CBS Slams O’Donnell as ‘Ultra-Conservative’ and Sees Repeat of 1964, Touts Public Siding with Obama on Economy and Taxes