Tag Archives: clinton

Time Editor to Obama: Don’t Go to Church! It’s a ‘Piety Trap’!

Time executive editor Nancy Gibbs, the writer of many ridiculously gooey leg-thrill sentences about Democratic politicians, is now begging President Obama to avoid going to church — it’s “The Piety Trap.” Her headline continues: “Sure, we want to know what a president believes in…but that doesn’t always mean he should tell us.” Obama is much more likely to end up in a sand trap than a piety trap on Sundays, but Gibbs doesn’t want him to go to church anyway: Many a pundit has predicted that we are sure to see the Obamas attending some nice, safe church one day soon, the girls in their Sunday best, Obama with a big Bill Clinton Bible under his arm or explaining what Glenn Beck calls Obama’s “version of Christianity.” I devoutly hope the President resists this advice or, if  he feels the call to worship, that he finds a way to do it that meets his private needs rather than his political ones. This is a funny passage coming from Gibbs, who found some poetic equivalence two years ago between the birth of Jesus Christ and the birth of hopes for Obama after the election: “Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope.” It won our “Obamagasm Award” as the gushiest pro-Obama quote of the election year.   Sentences like this should be kept in mind when Time’s top editor Rick Stengel declares “No one personifies TIME more than Nancy Gibbs…As a journalist, Nancy is timely and timeless.”   Gibbs also won our “Carve Clinton Into Mount Rushmore Award” in 1998 for her infamous “naked in a sharp dark suit” tribute to Bill Clinton:  He invited his exhausted audience to take a holiday from Lewinsky and spend a refreshing hour and 12 minutes feeling like a country again. For once the talk on the screen was not of oral sex, but of our lives and fortunes and sacred happiness. He had become all human nature, the best and the worst, standing there naked in a sharp, dark suit, behind the TelePrompTer. That which does not kill him only makes him stronger, and his poll numbers went through the roof….That may have been a miracle, but it was no accident: Americans are less puritanical and more forgiving than the cartoon version suggests, and this President is never better than in his worst moments.” — Time magazine Senior Editor Nancy Gibbs, February 9, 1998 issue. Gibbs clearly doesn’t like her presidents to be overtly religious. She declared “We’ve seen what happens when it serves a president’s interest to flaunt his faith — which is almost inevitably does, since every poll affirms that Americans want their leader to submit to some higher power.” So what happens? She never elaborated. She lamented “Religious tests, a constitutional taboo, are a political tradition.”  Her liberal hero, naturally, is John F. Kennedy, who declared in 1960 that he came to Protestant pastors to talk about “now what kind of church I believe in , for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.” She insisted “That was an America where church and state were absolutely separate and priests and preachers did not tell parishioners how to vote.” Clearly, Gibbs doesn’t really mean that progressive Reverends like Jesse Jackson (or even Reverend Wright) can’t tell their parishioners how to vote. She simply doesn’t like it when priests and preachers tell parishioners not to vote straight-ticket Democrat, like most well-coached Time magazine staffers.  

Link:
Time Editor to Obama: Don’t Go to Church! It’s a ‘Piety Trap’!

DeGette Pushing Poll-Negative Embryonic Stem Cell Research Spending Bill

Ignoring the current political reality for wishful thinking of bygone days, Politico’s Richard Cohen wrote a nice bluff piece today for Democrat anti-life CO Rep. Diana DeGette , strongly pushing a bill to force taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. Such legislation would render mute the August 23 federal court ruling that escr violates federal law by killing that law. Cohen has either not seen or is ignoring (would bet it’s the latter) the August 27 Rasmussen poll that showed a stunning reversal of American thought on paying for escr. While 17 mos. ago a slight majority (52%) supported President Obama’s now-enjoined executive order authorizing public-funded escr, 57% today oppose it. Now, only 1/3 of America (exactly: 33%) support what DeGette is pushing. I’m sure DeGette knows about the poll but is attempting a bluff, wanting her shaky colleagues and leadership to think public-funded escr is in the bag and that it would be to their political benefit to have a hand in this done deal. From the article : As Congress prepares to return for a limited pre-election agenda… DeGette… said she has picked up wide support for her bill to permit embryonic stem-cell research and expects it will pass this month. Although it has been strongly opposed by anti-abortion activists, she voiced confidence that the measure will be a political boost for its backers as well as good policy. Working with her bipartisan allies and with Democratic leaders who want to make sure the bill does not raise objections from pro-life Democrats, DeGette has not resolved all details of the measure. But “the stars are pretty well aligned,” she said. “ This is a positive wedge issue. Supporters can use it in an election because there is strong public support and its opponents look extreme. “ I refer DeGette’s colleagues back to the Rasmussen poll . Interestingly, the poll indicates Americans don’t have such a moral issue with escr as a fiscal issue with spending their tax dollars on it. So people are not now arguing about whether embryos are human and even if so whether it would be for the greater good to experiment on them. They’re saying it’s fiscally irresponsible right now to throw money at it, since we have none. (“They” being the critical independent vote.) And so, in fact, public funded escr is a negative wedge issue that enjoys overwhelming public opposition . As for DeGette’s “bipartisan allies,” way down in Cohen’s piece, in the 2nd-to-last paragraph, we learn those amount to a whopping 2: DeGette has worked closely with Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) and cites the bipartisan support for her bill. But the 51 cosponsors include only 2 Republicans : Castle and Mark Kirk (R- IL ). Coincidentally, both are running for the Senate. Currently Kirk is losing in the polls to his Democrat counterpart with absolutely zero conservative support. His support of this issue puts him in the negative-zero range, meaning he should begin to anticipate cat calls at rallies. Meanwhile Castle is much in the news as a Tea Party primary target, with he and DE Republican leaders “scrambling to prevent the possibility” of a “seismic upset.”  Daily Kos reported August 30 that with conservative Christine O’Donnell breathing down Castle’s neck, a debate over public-funded escr “puts Castle in a spot.” I expect Castle is wishing right about now DeGette would shut up and go away. I equally expect pro-life Democrats – you know, the ones our groups are targeting and beating for supporting Obamacare – are privately telling DeGette the same thing. To help them along: Call your congressperson today and tell him or her to oppose DeGette’s bill or any measure authorizing taxpayer funding of escr. [Photo via Politico ]

See original here:
DeGette Pushing Poll-Negative Embryonic Stem Cell Research Spending Bill

Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel ‘Sad’ Israel-West Bank Wall ‘Has Actually Worked’

In Time Magazine Managing Editor Rick Stengel’s mind, it’s really “sad” that the wall between Israel and the West Bank – intended to keep murderous terrorists in the Palestinian territory – has been a success. Stengel apparently considers Isreali deaths worthwhile if they lead to more productive peace talks. In a “Morning Joe” segment yesterday titled “Why Israel doesn’t care about peace” – after the upcoming Time cover story – Stengel posited that the lack of violence in Isreal is responsible for that country’s supposed reluctance to reach a peace deal. Stengel stated (video below the fold – h/t Jim Hoft ): They haven’t had a car bombing in two and a half years. And the sad truth really is that the wall with the West Bank has actually worked . I mean, most Israelis in the course of their lives don’t come into contact with any Palestinians at all. The wall is functioning. And the Gaza strip is so small and so isolated they feel that those folks, the Hamas folks are not that big of a threat… I mean, the Israelis feel like, you know what? The status quo isn’t so bad and we don’t mind is there is no peace at all. So the truth is sad, presumably, because the deaths of innocent Israelis would be a worthwhile price to pay for the progression of Middle East peace talks, by Stengel’s account. That is what Stengel is saying: the wall has succeeded, but at the price of impeding the peace talks. He says that fact is sad, meaning no wall, or a less effective wall would be preferable. More Israelis would die from car bombings, but at least the peace talks would move forward. Stengel believes it would be preferable for more Israelis to be killed by Palestinain terrorists, if it meant that those murderers would get Israeli leaders to the negotiating table. Good to know. This is not a commentator saying this, mind you. This is the managing editor of Time magazine opining that more Israeli deaths would be preferable to the status quo. If this does not convince you that the mainstream media is decidedly anti-Israel, nothing will. The contention that Israel is less interested in peace talks because it does not have much to fear from the belligerent territory to its west is a valid concern, and does not require one to weigh in on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But Stengel made a value judgment on that statement, claiming that more Israeli deaths (how many more he didn’t specify) are an acceptable sacrifice. That speaks volumes about Time’s ability to weigh in objectively on the issue.

See original here:
Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel ‘Sad’ Israel-West Bank Wall ‘Has Actually Worked’

Revolving Door Spins as Peter Orszag Takes NYT Columnist Gig

The massive revolving door between the mainstream media and the Obama administration has spun once again, this time as former White House budget director Peter Orszag signs on as a New York Times op/ed columnist. Orszag is the eighteenth individual ( that we know of ) to transition between the White House and the mainstream press. He will surely not be the last. That amazingly high number again underscores the ideological similarities between members of the Obama administration and members of the press. The New York Times Co. broke the news in a press release today: “We welcome Peter Orszag’s expertise and insight to our Op-Ed lineup,” said Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times. “As a Washington insider and one of the most recognizable names in economics, his writing will provide a unique perspective on the national landscape.” Mr. Orszag is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. As President Barack Obama’s first budget director, he worked on the 2009 stimulus package and helped craft the health care legislation passed in 2010. He was an outspoken proponent of the idea that reducing health care costs would be key to maintaining the federal budget and preparing for the country’s economic future. Presumably, the Times feels that Orszag can be a fair judge of economics – a field in which he is certainly proficient. Orszag’s partisan affiliations don’t seem to bother the Gray Lady. That was a benefit of the doubt the paper would not afford to some Republican pols-turned-pundits. Take Karl Rove, for instance. After he took a gig with Fox News, the Times stated in a headline, ” Rove as a pundit raises suspicions “. “Rove’s new role as a media star marks another step in the evolution of mainstream journalism,” wrote Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jacques Steinberg, “where opinion, ‘straight news’ reporting and unmistakable spin increasingly mingle, especially on television.” The Times has either adapted to this new reality, or was really only terribly concerned when Republicans spun the revolving door. We’ll leave that for you to decide.

View original post here:
Revolving Door Spins as Peter Orszag Takes NYT Columnist Gig

ABC’s Shipman Gushes Over Hillary the ‘Political Celebrity’

ABC’s Claire Shipman waxed ecstatic over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday’s Good Morning America, as she reported on Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in the Middle Eastern peace process. Shipman exclaimed how the Secretary had a ” distinct, quite public moment of triumph ” in her meetings with leaders from both sides, and noted how Clinton has become an ” international political celebrity .” Anchor George Stephanopoulos, former communications director for President Bill Clinton, introduced the correspondent’s report, which aired 44 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. Stephanopoulos noted past administrations’ failure “to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and then proclaimed how it was Mrs. Clinton’s ” turn to try to make diplomatic history .” Shipman began by highlighting how Hillary “remains one of the most popular members of the administration” and how she was now “squarely center stage” with the possibility of bringing “something different to this Middle East process.” After using her “moment of triumph” line, the ABC correspondent emphasized how Secretary Clinton was apparently “hard on the trail of a dream that has eluded so many before her, and those who know her well say she brings a special touch to wooing both sides back to the table .” She also underlined Clinton’s reported modus operandi in the peace process: “It’s a trademark recipe of pragmatism and discipline over ego- no high-profile shuttle diplomacy for her, for example.” Shipman used three sound bites from the liberal Brooking Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon and one from former Clinton administration official and current Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P. J. Crowley to heap praise on Mrs. Clinton. After O’Hanlon highlighted how the Secretary apparently “chose to really marshal her resources and guard them jealously, and wait for the right moment,” the correspondent added her own lauds: ” The other asset she wields: a bit of female EQ, and an astute political instinct .” The high point of the gushing language over the senior diplomat came near the end of the report: SHIPMAN: It doesn’t hurt, of course, that over the years, she’s perfected her ability to shift gears in an instant . Hard-working Hillary, suddenly transforms once again into international political celebrity . O’HANLON: She’s a multi-dimensional public figure. She’s part global rock star, part everybody’s friend, because she goes by Hillary more than Secretary Clinton . Shipman even remarked about the Secretary’s new hairdo: ” Her hair is even back in the headlines. She’s getting rave reviews on her longer, cool, new do .” Earlier this year, on the June 9 edition of GMA, ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas credited Mrs. Clinton for the primary success of Republican women candidates: “So many women saying- doing so well, and many saying perhaps Hillary Clinton helped by running for president. All these other women about to possibly take office, high office, in those states.” The full transcript of Claire Shipman’s report from Friday’s Good Morning America: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Henry Kissinger got the two sides of the Middle East conflict to stop fighting for a time. Jimmy Carter forged the Camp David agreements. But every administration since then has tried and failed to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Now, it’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s turn to try to make diplomatic history. And Claire Shipman joins us from Washington with more. Hey, Claire. CLAIRE SHIPMAN: Hey, George. This is a big moment for Hillary Clinton. Her poll numbers show she remains one of the most popular members of the administration, but she’s tended to avoid the spotlight. Now, she’s back, squarely center stage, and we took a look at how she may bring something different to this Middle East process. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: Want us to stand here? SHIPMAN (voice-over): For a secretary of state whose style has been very much head down, nose to the grindstone, it was a distinct, quite public moment of triumph. CLINTON: I fervently believe that the two men sitting on either side of me- that you are the leaders who can make this long-cherished dream a reality. SHIPMAN: Peace talks back on track, she’s hard on the trail of a dream that has eluded so many before her, and those who know her well say she brings a special touch to wooing both sides back to the table. ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The people of Israel, and I, as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road. PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS (through translator): The road is clear, in front of us, in order to reach peace. SHIPMAN: It’s a trademark recipe of pragmatism and discipline over ego- no high-profile shuttle diplomacy for her, for example. MICHAEL O’HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Secretary Clinton, unlike some of her predecessors and unlike some previous presidents, chose to really marshal her resources and guard them jealously, and wait for the right moment. SHIPMAN: The other asset she wields: a bit of female EQ, and an astute political instinct. P. J. CROWLEY, STATE DEPARTMENT: She’s been in the arena. She’s been bruised- you know, in that arena. And this gives her a credibility that helps relate to leaders. SHIPMAN: And it doesn’t hurt, of course, that over the years, she’s perfected her ability to shift gears in an instant. Hard-working Hillary, suddenly transforms once again into international political celebrity. O’HANLON: She’s a multi-dimensional public figure. She’s part global rock star, part everybody’s friend, because she goes by Hillary more than Secretary Clinton. SHIPMAN: And her hair is even back in the headlines. She’s getting rave reviews on her longer, cool, new do. CLINTON: And now, it’s time to get to work. SHIPMAN (live): Well, George, not the hair again- but, of course, ultimately, she will be judged not by her appearance, but by results in this process. There is a lot of hard work to be done. The two sides are hoping to talk to each other as frequently as every week, and Hillary Clinton is hoping to have another high-profile meeting in the Middle East as early as September, but we’ll see. STEPHANOPOULOS: And they’re facing a real deadline at the end of September on whether or not to continue- to start building those settlements again. SHIPMAN: Exactly, and a lot of people worry that that could put this process, so new, in jeopardy again. STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. Claire Shipman, thanks a lot. 

Originally posted here:
ABC’s Shipman Gushes Over Hillary the ‘Political Celebrity’

Obama’s Oval Office Is Beige And Could Have Been Green

New York Times Everyone in the red state is piling on the redesign of the oval office, complaining it is not patriotic enough, even though George Bush took Bill Clinton’s red, white and blue garish extravaganza and turned it into a muted southern living room (and lost the red, white and blue) showing more taste than patriotism. But since… Read the full story on TreeHugger

The rest is here:
Obama’s Oval Office Is Beige And Could Have Been Green

Aspiring Talk Show Host Martha Stewart Wants Interview With ‘Phenomenal,’ ‘Beautiful’ Nancy Pelosi

What two words come to mind when you think of Speaker Nancy Pelosi? If you said “phenomenal” and “beautiful,” you will probably be a fan of Martha Stewart’s new talk show. That’s how Stewart described the speaker, who she told reporters she’d like to have as her first guest. The comments indicate that Stewart’s new show will be yet another addition to daytime TV’s liberal talk lineup. “She’s a phenomenal woman – look at what she’s done,” Stewart said on a conference call, referring to Pelosi. “And she’s absolutely beautiful.” Stewart went on to state, “I’m an American. I’m involved as much as anyone in the political fabric of the country.” That may be true, but her Pelosi statement suggests she doesn’t share the general sentiments of the nation (hardly surprising, given she’s worth almost a billion dollars ) – only 11 percent of the nation has a favorable view of the Speaker. And though she aspires to replace retiring talkers Barbara Walters and Larry King as the nation’s premiere political and cultural interview, Stewart doesn’t exactly emote political proficiency. She referred to President Barack Obama’s Tuesday Oval Office address as “his State of the Union Speech.” As for the “beautiful” claim…well, it’s in the eye of the beholder I suppose. Stewart also expressed her desire to interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But she did not heap the praise on Clinton that she did on Pelosi. She obviously has a deep affinity with the Speaker. Which, again, raises the question of how in tune with the political attitudes of the nation she really is. All signs point to her show being yet another politically liberal addition to daytime television.

Follow this link:
Aspiring Talk Show Host Martha Stewart Wants Interview With ‘Phenomenal,’ ‘Beautiful’ Nancy Pelosi

Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

It will be “very difficult for Democrats to demonize” George W. Bush “again” during this campaign season, liberal nationally syndicated columnist Mark Shields despaired on Friday’s Inside Washington, because he’s “a circumspect and discreet former President.” Quite unlike, he didn’t say, the often boorish Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Reacting to Vice President Joe Biden’s indictment of the supposed disastrous results from the Bush administration’s economic policies, Shields fretted: The problem for the Democrats is this, that the energizer bunny for the 2006, 2008 campaigns has disappeared because of George W. Bush’s being a circumspect and discreet former President it makes it very difficult for Democrats to demonize him again. He’s become a non-person. He shows up at a ball game once in a while, he greets soldiers coming back. He hasn’t said anything controversial and that makes it a tougher fight for Joe Biden to make. Charles Krauthammer is a regular on the weekly program, so I’ll use that as a hook to highlight his latest column, “ The last refuge of a liberal ,” which includes this well-framed observation: Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking. Krauthammer elaborated: — Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. — Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. — Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. — Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Another great formulation, about how those tricky Tea Party activists weren’t clever enough to fool the liberal media: When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.   ( Inside Washington is a weekly show produced by ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate, which airs it Sunday morning after it runs Friday night on DC’s PBS affiliate, WETA-TV channel 26, and Saturday on local cable’s TBD TV .)

See original here:
Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

New York Times Faults Gov. Candidate Rick Lazio for Mosque Opposition, Downplays Firefighter Protests

The front page of Monday’s New York Times featured a story on how Rick Lazio, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, is gaining voter appeal from his strong opposition to the building of a mosque two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks: ” Lazio Finds an Issue in Furor Over Islamic Center .” Reporter Michael Barbaro, while conceding the popular appeal of Lazio’s opposition, managed by tone to suggest Lazio was somehow engaged in inappropriate politicking, confirmed by the story’s text box: “Commercials that appeal to some may risk the alienation of moderates.” Mr. Lazio’s relentless opposition to the project — he again attacked the imam behind it during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” — is, above all, aimed at Republican primary voters, analysts say. But it risks alienating moderates who could prove crucial in a general election. And it certainly is infuriating many Muslim leaders, who say he is preying on the worst fears of voters; and provoking a backlash from some influential voices in the community of Sept. 11 emergency workers, who say he is exploiting the tragedy. Nevertheless, Mr. Lazio is pushing ahead with the strategy, even breaking what has been, until now, something of an unwritten rule of politics in New York: never to use images of Sept. 11 in campaign advertisements. The Times drug up an incident from 10 years ago to make Lazio into some kind of anti-Muslim campaigner: This is not the first time that Mr. Lazio has thrust Islam into a political campaign. In his 2000 bid for the United States Senate, Mr. Lazio attacked his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for raising money from a Muslim group, some of whose members had defended the radical Islamic group Hamas. Mrs. Clinton eventually returned the donations. But in the waning days of the campaign, Mr. Lazio’s supporters in the State Republican Party made a telephone calls to voters that linked Mrs. Clinton’s donors to the terrorism attack on an American warship in Yemen, angering many voters, who considered the tactic over the top. Also on Monday, reporter Michael Grynbaum covered the fiery protest and counter-protest that took place Sunday near ground zero over the proposed mosque: ” Proposed Muslim Center Draws Protesters on Both Sides of the Issue .” Although a front-page photo featured firemen and hard-hat construction workers protesting the mosque, only one firefighter made it into the story, quoted three paragraphs from the end. The Times has been very supportive of the health needs of September 11 first responders like the firefighters and police and has attacked Republicans for allegedly short-changing them. Why would the Times downplay their concerns now? Instead, Grynbaum led with a flattering anecdote about a tolerance martyr attacked by an angry, red-cheeked mosque opponent. Around noon on Sunday, Michael Rose, a medical student from Brooklyn, approached some of the hundreds of protesters who had gathered near ground zero to rally against a mosque and Islamic center planned for the neighborhood. Mr. Rose, 27, carried a handwritten sign in favor of the mosque — “Religious tolerance is what makes America great,” it read — and his presence caused a stir. An argument broke out, punctuated by angry fingers pointed in the student’s face. One man, his cheeks red, leaned in and hissed that if the police were not present, Mr. Rose would be in danger. Before any threats could be carried out, the police intervened, dragged Mr. Rose away from the crowd and insisted that he return to the separate area, one block away, where supporters of the project had been asked to stand. Minutes later, as Mr. Rose was still shaking off the encounter, he turned to find the red-cheeked man back at his side. The man had followed the student up the street, and the two now stared at each other for a tense moment. Then the man stuck out a hand and, in a terse voice, said, “I’m sorry.” “You have a right,” he told Mr. Rose. (He would not give his name.) “I am sorry for what I said to you. I disagree with you completely, but you have a right.” Here’s a tidbit about firefighter opposition that was picked up by the New York Post but ignored in the Times on Monday: Opponents of the project began with a 9 a.m. motorcycle ride, led by several firefighters, to Ground Zero and then proceeded to an 11 a.m. rally around the corner from the Park Place site of the planned 13-story mosque and community center.

Read more:
New York Times Faults Gov. Candidate Rick Lazio for Mosque Opposition, Downplays Firefighter Protests

On Letterman, Brian Williams Cheers ‘Fruits’ of ‘Clinton Economy’ and Ridicules Tea Party

Appearing on the Late Show on Monday night to plug his Friday night Dateline on the 5th anniversary of Katrina, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams bizarrely asserted “we’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy,” claimed Tea Party activists who say “we want our country back” want it back “from the Trilateral Commission” and ridiculed their presumed hypocrisy as he insisted “you see a lot of signs, ‘Federal Government Out of My Social Security,’ ‘Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid.’ But for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist.” Plus, he passed along how “I’m hearing a few people say” that President Barack Obama won’t run for re-election because he “wants to somehow transcend the presidency,” citing a British columnist who contends he was “never supposed to be an ordinary President.” Williams considered the possibility Obama could be as consequential as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton: “Jimmy Carter converted the post-presidency, redesigned the idea of an ex-President. Solving diseases and bad elections around the world. Bill Clinton with the Clinton Global Initiative trying to do the same thing.” When David Letterman raised the disparity between gluttonous Americans and kids starving around the world, Williams rued self-centered Americans as he incongruously touted: “We’ve had a good run here. We’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy.” Huh? The current economy is doing well? And I thought the line was that Bush drove the economy into the ditch and we’re all being saved by Obama? (Or was he saying the Clinton years made us selfish?) Letterman soon wondered: “When they say ‘we want our country back,’ who, what, what are they talking about?” That prompted an answer from Williams which sounded more like derision than impartial reporting: “If you ask them, they would say from, ‘from the Trilateral Commission, from the big bankers, from the Council on Foreign Relations.’” Williams sounded like he’s still living in the 1980s. The condescending duo soon latched on to supposed Tea Party hypocrisy, which really just proved their hostile naivete as Williams showed quite an imagine as to the signs held up at Tea Party events and dismissed it all as simply anger caused by people upset by the bad economy: DAVID LETTERMAN: And again the popular inconsistency that is cited is “we don’t want the nationalized health care. But by god we still want our Medicare and our Medicaid.” How do they reconcile that? BRIAN WILLIAMS: Well, you see a lot of signs, “Federal Government Out of My Social Security,” “Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid.” But for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist. A lot of it is just raw anger being translated onto signs and in slogans because people are on the downside of a bad economy. So much for “still enjoying the fruits of the Clinton economy.” From the Monday night, August 23 Late Show with David Letterman on CBS: DAVID LETTERMAN: There are two food channels, two food networks. One’s motto is “Stay hungry.” “Stay hungry.” There are cupcake shows, there are cupcake wars, there are cake shows, there are let’s build a cake. “Who can build a cake that looks more like a reclining chair?” And then there’s one show where a guy goes out and eats as much as can. “Bring me all the food in your house. I’ll eat it.” Three million people in this country do not get enough to eat and every six seconds, an infant in this world dies of starvation. How, how do you explain the disparity? BRIAN WILLIAMS: Ask your friends at the World Food Program and they’ll tell you the same thing. We’re a highly generous nation. And we like to think of ourselves as a very generous people. But we’ve had a good run here. We’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy. And an ethos — I still come back to this that says you’re the star. It’s about you. Listen to the commercials on all those channels and the message is all in the first person in ways we never ever used or would dream of in the time of say Mad Men, for a modern television reference. So I think it’s that. I think out of sight, out of mind, however, is what sends children around the world to bed hungry and kills them ultimately. …. LETTERMAN: Now when the Tea Party formed, or when I think it formed, or when I read about the formation of it, I thought this is great. This is great. People have gotten together and said “holy god, we’ve lost all our money, our pension funds are gone. Nobody seems to know where the money goes. The government raises all this money to bail out huge corporations, our money is still gone. Our retirement funds, everything is gone. We don’t like this. We think we can do a better job. We’re going to form another political party.” That’s great. That’s all part of the luxury of being born in this country. You can do that. You should do that. We thrive on that sort of thing. Now I hear them saying things like “we want our country back.” And I’m having trouble deciding who took it, where did it go. You know, when they say “we want our country back,” who, what, what are they talking about? WILLIAMS: …You’ve latched on Dave, in what is Topic 5 for those playing our home game, you’ve latched on to sloganeering, which is as fine as an American tradition as any Tom Jefferson was involved in. And it makes people feel better to say “take our country back.” If you ask them, they would say from, “from the Trilateral Commission, from the big bankers, from the Council on Foreign Relations.” …. LETTERMAN: A friend of mine, I said there’s going to be a Tea Party convention up the road. I said go there and let me hear what they’re saying. Do they have a platform? Do they have solutions? And she said “well, no, not so much. It was more about we want our country back and are you with us and this and that and attracting support.” Which I understand is part of a growing movement. But to get any kind of traction, don’t you want to hear, oh here’s what we’re going to do different. I mean let’s face it, you could get elected, Harry Truman could get elected, and because of the politics of the day and the bureaucracy, it’s going to be a pretty tough slog for anybody. WILLIAMS: …People’s anger goes to their money. They do kind of generically want control back. They see a government so big and yet a government that says, “wait a minute, stop an oil leak a mile down under the water. Oh, we have nothing for that, that’s BP’s technology. We’re going to put an admiral here in charge and watch BP for you, but I swear we’ve got this covered.” LETTERMAN: And again the popular inconsistency that is cited is “we don’t want the nationalized health care. But by god we still want our Medicare and our Medicaid.” How do they reconcile that? WILLIAMS: Well, you see a lot of signs, “Federal Government Out of My Social Security,” “Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid,” but for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist. A lot of it is just raw anger being translated onto signs and in slogans because people are on the downside of a bad economy. …. WILLIAMS: I think you’re going to see anger, in some form or fashion, translated at the ballot box. LETTERMAN: And projecting from that, are we looking at a one-term President? WILLIAMS: You know what, and I think the British Telegraph last night online there was a column saying he wants to be. And I’m hearing a few people say this, that he wants to somehow transcend the presidency. He was never supposed to be, or so this columnist’s theory goes, never supposed to be an ordinary President. And so this would be extraordinary to not do the expected thing and run for a second term. To kind of be a different kind of figure. Jimmy Carter converted the post-presidency, redesigned the idea of an ex-President. Solving diseases and bad elections around the world. Bill Clinton with the Clinton Global Initiative trying to do the same thing. So I’m not putting any credence in this column. I think we have to assume, because he’s a politician and he’s an incumbent President, he is running for re-election.

See the original post:
On Letterman, Brian Williams Cheers ‘Fruits’ of ‘Clinton Economy’ and Ridicules Tea Party