Tag Archives: democrat

WaPo Buries Story with Obvious Palin Point: Tuesday Results Show Emerging Year of the GOP Woman

While most media outlets obsessed over the liberal theme that Republicans keep “suicidally” nominating “ultra-conservatives,” Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut, who authored a book earlier this year called Notes from the Cracked Ceiling, noticed a different trend. Her story was headlined “GOP gains the lead in female politicians’ steps forward.” Tuesday’s victories of Palin-endorsed GOP women Christine O’Donnell and Kelly Ayotte underline an emerging Year of the Republican Woman. Too bad the Post buried it on Page A-6 of the paper, and it hasn’t been linked on the Post’s homepage today, either. Kornblut began: Democrats used to own the field of women running for higher office. Not anymore. Nearly two years after an anticipated gender bounce – with predictions that women in both parties would rush into politics inspired by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin — it turns out that the momentum is on the Republican side. If there is a Palin effect, it is not being matched by any Clinton effect at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Since this is the liberal Washington Post, Kornblut then turned to a cast of liberals and Democrats to assess whether this can be verified:  Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said it is “very fair” to argue that the energy for female candidates is trending Republican, a view several other Democratic strategists shared. “I’ve been struck by it,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former White House press secretary and author of “Why Women Should Rule the World.” “All the momentum is on the tea party side, so why wouldn’t it also be with the women on the tea party side?” Other Democrats dispute the notion of a conservative “year of the woman,” saying that the numerical advantage is slight, if it exists at all. They also note that some of the Republican nominees, including Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, are seen as fringe candidates unlikely to win their general elections. Stephanie Schriock, the head of Emily’s List, which is dedicated to electing [ahem, Democrat] pro-choice women, said the “candidates that are making it through these primaries are more and more extreme, radical right-wing folks” who, even though they are female, do not appeal to independent and moderate women. A Republican expert wasn’t quoted until the story’s final paragraph, although Kornblut credited Palin: Palin has unquestionably played an outsize role in upping the Republican numbers, endorsing several women, including Haley and O’Donnell, who might never have gained sufficient attention otherwise. She has brought to the Republican Party what some members had once complained did not exist: a concerted effort to tap female candidates for promotion and lift them out of obscurity. And then there is this: The woman most capable of counteracting a Palin bounce for Democrats – Secretary of State Clinton- is not available to campaign. Add to that a general sense of malaise among Democrats, a volatile electorate angry at the status quo and a growing acceptance of female politicians in both parties, and the trend is hardly a surprise, strategists said. “Who better to say, ‘I’m not part of the establishment’ than a Republican woman?” said Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. “If you want to convey you are not of the firmament of Washington, D.C., and ergo of all the problems and out-of-control spending and corruption, you have to say, ‘I’m a Republican woman,’ because so few of them have ever been involved at that level.” You can see why the rest of the Post would want to bury this story. But the rest of the media ought to acknowledge it. They can’t say it’s not The Year of the Republican Woman because they’ll probably lose: several primary winners (the “Year of the Woman” when liberals ascended with an “Anita Hill effect”) lost in November. 

Read more:
WaPo Buries Story with Obvious Palin Point: Tuesday Results Show Emerging Year of the GOP Woman

WaPo Slips Liberal Dogma Into Report on Tax Cuts: GOP Trying to ‘Deprive’ Treasury

In general, there are two major sides to the tax cut debate. One believes that Americans are entitled to keep what they earn, but that they cede some money to the government with the understanding that funding is necessary to enable the state to safeguard citizens’ rights – the state’s most fundamental function. The opposing side holds, in short, that Americans are entitled to their wealth only to the extent that the rule of the majority – i.e. the government – allows them to keep it. The Washington Post has apparently adopted and endorsed this latter view, also known as liberal tax policy, not only in its editorial stance, but throughout its “straight news” reporting operation. WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery, for instance, believes that every dollar not collected in taxes is a dollar of which the federal government has been “deprived.” Or, put another way in her Wednesday article, she rejects the notion that every dollar collected in taxes is a dollar of which taxpayers have been deprived: Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made. The measure, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) this week, would permanently extend the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts that benefit virtually every U.S. taxpayer, rein in the alternative minimum tax and limit the estate tax to estates worth more than $5 million for individuals or $10 million for couples. Aides to McConnell said they have yet to receive a cost estimate for the measure. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That’s more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama’s health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined. The key word in the lede is “deprive.” In order for congressional Republicans to deprive Treasury of tax revenue, the federal government must have either already been collecting that revenue, or it must have been entitled to it. Sympathetic voices will no doubt howl that Montgomery was only noting if the GOP plan passes, the federal government will get less revenue – Treasury will be deprived of tax dollars. But again, that point frames the issue as one of the government’s claims to taxpayers’ wealth, not those taxpayers’ claims to their own wealth. Haven’t the latter been deprived by taxation? We know Treasury has not been taking in this revenue, and much of the confusion about what exactly Congress is debating derives from a failure to grasp this fact. Ed Morrissey explains : The extensions would simply continue the status quo, not deduct revenue the government receives now. These are not tax cuts, as the bill doesn’t change the current tax rates at all. The bill would instead prevent a massive $4 trillion tax increase. The extensions don’t force the government to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next decade, either. Instead, they could simply cut spending, an option that apparently escapes the imagination of Ms. Montgomery. A freeze at the spending level of the last Republican Congress budget of $2.77 trillion per year (FY2007) could save more than a trillion dollars each year over the next decade. A freeze at the level suggested by John Boehner (FY2008, $3.1 trillion) would save more than $700 billion per year, almost twice as much as Montgomery claims we would need to borrow because of the tax extensions. Since Treasury hasn’t already been taking in this revenue, Montgomery’s use of the word “deprive” implies that Treasury is entitled to it, even if the cash hasn’t been flowing. In other words, she has endorsed the notion that the distribution of wealth is a legitimate function of the federal government, and that citizens only have a secondary claim to their earnings. The Post apparently takes for granted this attitude towards tax cuts. The paper is framing the issue in a manner decidedly more amenable to the Democrat position on tax cuts not in its editorial pages, but among its purportedly-objective news content. Let there be no more doubt concerning the paper’s bias on this issue.

Visit link:
WaPo Slips Liberal Dogma Into Report on Tax Cuts: GOP Trying to ‘Deprive’ Treasury

Maher: ‘I’m Against a Church Anywhere’

Comedian Bill Maher took his anti-religion, anti-conservative views off HBO and into the mainstream Sept. 13 during an appearance on NBC’s “Tonight Show.” Maher told host Jay Leno he’s against the Ground Zero Mosque, because he’s “against a mosque anywhere. I’m against a church anywhere, or a Hindu temple or a synagogue.” Maher declared that houses of worship are “places that people go to retell nonsense stories from a time before men understood what a germ or an atom was, or where the sun went at night. They try to telepathically communicate with their imaginary friend. These are places that fleece people, and scare people and they perpetuate mass delusion. We shouldn’t build any of them.” But Maher conceded that because the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, “they should be able to build them anywhere.” He also attacked conservatives and Sarah Palin, calling her an “evil dingbat.” Maher, 54, referred to the Tea Party as “the Pee Party,” describing members as “nativist bed-wetters who somehow control our national dialogue.” “They’re just, they’re afraid of a mosque being built inNew York,” he said. “They’re afraid of guns. You know, they think Obama, who like every other pussy Democrat, has never said a single word about gun control, but they’re very sure that he, he and his negro army are coming after, coming after their guns. You know what? If you think he’s coming after your guns, you need to get out of your chat room, and have your house tested for lead. He’s not coming after your guns or your Bible or your fishing pole or your chewing tobacco and there’s not a monster under your bed. That’s the ab lounger you ordered and never used.” Maher did acknowledge one difference between Christians and Muslims many in the media overlook. “They have nuts and we have nuts,” Maher said, talking about Muslims and presumably non-Muslims. “Their nuts are a lot more numerous and lot more violent. That mouth breather down inFlorida who was going to burn a Koran, what would have happened? Nothing. To retaliate, you know, they could have burned our most sacred book, ‘Eat, Pray, Love.;” No, they could have burned the Bible and nothing would have happened, okay? So you have to recognize that difference, too.”

Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

A new study by the Pew Research Center found that Barack Obama gets his highest approval ratings from people that watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, as well as from readers of the New York Times. The numbers are rather staggering, as 84 percent of regular viewers of MSNBC’s “Countdown” give the President high marks for his job performance. This compares to 80 percent for regular viewers of “The Rachel Maddow Show” and 79 percent for regular readers of the Times. But that’s just one of the interesting findings in the Pew survey released Sunday: Americans are spending more time with the news than was the case a decade ago. As was the case in 2000, people now say they spend 57 minutes on average getting the news from TV, radio or newspapers on a given day. But today, they also spend an additional 13 minutes getting news online, increasing the total time spent with the news to 70 minutes. This is one of the highest totals on this measure since the mid-1990s and it does not take into account time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices . Only about one-in-four (26%) Americans say they read a newspaper in print yesterday, down from 30% two years ago and 38% in 2006. Meanwhile, online newspaper readership continues to grow and is offsetting some of the overall decline in readership. This year, 17% of Americans say they read something on a newspaper’s website yesterday, up from 13% in 2008 and 9% in 2006. Overall, cable news continues to play a significant role in peoples’ news habits – 39% say they regularly get news from a cable channel. But the proportions saying they regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and CNBC have slipped substantially from two years ago, during the presidential election. The partisan divide in cable news is stunning if not shocking: Only Fox News has maintained its audience size, and this is because of the increasing number of Republicans who regularly get news there. Four-in-ten Republicans (40%) now say they regularly watch Fox News, up from 36% two years ago and just 18% a decade ago. Just 12% of Republicans regularly watch CNN, and just 6% regularly watch MSNBC. As recently as 2002, Republicans were as likely to watch CNN (28%) as Fox News (25%). The share of Democrats who regularly watch CNN or Fox News has fallen from 2008. Interesting. So both Democrats and Republicans are reducing their viewership of CNN. Doesn’t say much for the supposedly must trusted name in news, does it? Eight-in-ten Americans (80%) who regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity are conservative – roughly twice the national average of 36%. And at the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and Rachel Maddow have regular audiences that include nearly twice the proportion of liberals than in the public. News audiences also vary widely when it comes to opinions about current issues and topics. For instance, those who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement make up disproportionately large proportions of the audiences for Limbaugh’s radio show and Fox News opinion programs. This also is the case for supporters of the NRA (National Rifle Association). By contrast, supporters of gay rights make up large shares of regular New York Times readers, viewers of the Colbert Report and NPR listeners. Several ideologically divergent news audiences – including Wall Street Journal readers and viewers of the Colbert Report and Glenn Beck show – include larger-than-average percentages of self-described libertarians. Here’s where things really got interesting: Overall, the share of Americans who say keeping up with the news is something they enjoy a lot has dipped, from a consistent 52% in recent biennial news consumption surveys, including 2008, to 45% in 2010. The decline is linked to partisanship and ideology: in 2008 67% of liberal Democrats said they enjoyed the news a lot, compared with just 45% today. By contrast, about as many conservative Republicans say they enjoy keeping up with the news today as did so two years ago (57% now, 56% then). This has resulted in a switch in news enjoyment. Today, conservative Republicans enjoy keeping up with the news more than any other ideological and partisan group; just two years ago it was the liberal Democrats who held that distinction. How much of this is economic? After all, the news was far better when Pew last did this study in 2008. There certainly is less to “enjoy” today. On the other hand, that doesn’t explain the ideological divide. Maybe liberals liked things better when Bush and the Republicans were being blamed for all the problems in the world, and just can’t stand watching their politicians take any heat at all. By contrast, it seems conservatives enjoy keeping up with the news regardless of which Party is getting scrutinized. That says something, doesn’t it? Search engines are playing a substantially larger role in people’s news gathering habits – 33% regularly use search engines to get news on topics of interest, up from 19% in 2008. This is a predictable but yet concerning finding, for it makes it essential that search engines don’t have their own biases. As conservatives have pointed fingers at Google’s algorithms for years, the more people rely on search engines to guide them to news sources, the more impartial such engines better be, especially for the following reason: About eight-in-ten (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage; by a 43% to 23% margin, more say it is a liberal than a conservative bias. This makes search engine neutrality essential or conservatives are really going to have a hard time leveling the playing field. That said, we’ve saved the best for last: Among news audiences, Obama gets his highest approval ratings among regular viewers of Keith Olbermann (84% approve) and Rachel Maddow (80%); his rating is nearly as high among regular readers of the New York Times (79%). Obama gets his lowest ratings among regular Sean Hannity viewers (7%) and Rush Limbaugh listeners (9%). So Obama gets his highest approval ratings from folks that watch Olbermann, Maddow, and read the New York Times. What does this say about the journalistic standards at MSNBC and the Gray Lady? After all, depending on which poll you look at, half or less of the nation currently approve of the job Obama is doing.  If Olbermann and Maddow watchers, along with Times readers, have such a drastically different view of the President than the rest of the nation, these entities must be doing a horrible job of reporting the news to their patrons.  Is there any greater example of the dangers of liberal media bias and the need to aggressively combat it? 

Read this article:
Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

MRC-TV: Brent Bozell on Hannity: ‘Obama Needs the Media to Pull His Chestnuts Out of the Fire’

MRC President and NewsBusters founder Brent Bozell appeared on Friday night’s Hannity and knocked a soft Obama interview by George Stephanopoulos and Harry Smith ‘s contention on CBS that the stimulus bill wasn’t “big enough.” He quipped, “Obama needs the media to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.” Tackling the media’s most egregious examples of liberal bias, Bozell joked, “Just a couple hundred billion dollars more.” He added, “Only a liberal Democrat like Harry Smith believes that a spending bill of $862 billion isn’t big enough.” The Media Mash segment also featured a clip of Stephanopoulos deriding House Republican leader John Boehner for his “deep tan.” Bozell wondered why reporters, on the eve of the 2006 elections, didn’t ask Nancy Pelosi “where she got her botox?” Other topics discussed, Richard Engel’s musing on the Today show that Saddam Hussein was becoming “more moderate” before the Iraq war.

Continued here:
MRC-TV: Brent Bozell on Hannity: ‘Obama Needs the Media to Pull His Chestnuts Out of the Fire’

Mark Shields: Obama Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did In Eight Years

Mark Shields on Friday demonstrated just how far a liberal media member is willing to go to support President Obama and the Democrat Party. Appearing on PBS’s “Inside Washington,” Shields actually made the case that despite a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, and growing fears of a double dip recession, Americans should be uplifted by the fact that more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration. Showing just how adept he is at repeating Democrat talking points, Shields even said this with a straight face (video follows with transcript and commentary):  MARK SHIELDS: I think the President’s task right now is compared to the situation the nation is comparable to a subway train that has stopped suddenly between two scheduled stops and the lights go out. And what the American people are looking for just as the passengers on that train are looking for is a voice that comes on and says, “This is what happened, this is what’s being done about it, and this when we are going to get out.” And, I mean, just the simple fact that more jobs in the private sector have been created in this year, 2010, this terrible year, then were created in the eight years of George W. Bush’s administration is something to think about and to mention. To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, any American buying this nonsense would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief. After all, when Obama took over the White House, the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. There are now almost three million more Americans out of work than when the 44th President was sworn in. As for the private sector, it has shed over 3 million workers since January 2009. Does Shields really believe the 763,000 employees added to such payrolls in the past eight months is something to brag about given that with population and labor force growth, the economy has to produce at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate from rising? Or is it necessary for the most highly-skilled liberal shills to ignore such facts when they’re inconvenient? 

Read more:
Mark Shields: Obama Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did In Eight Years

Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

CNN offered a sneak preview of their upcoming Parker-Spitzer program on Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper 360 with the new hosts, pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker and “Client Number Nine” Eliot Spitzer agreeing that the “well-spoken” Imam Feisal Rauf changed few minds with his recent interview. The two also forwarded their network’s charge that “Islamophobia” is growing in the U.S . Anchor Anderson Cooper began the segment by asking the two about Soledad O’Brien interview of Rauf, which took place the previous hour. Parker, the ” Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator ,” as Cooper called her, endorsed his appearance and went on to characterize the two sides of the debate over the planned Ground Zero mosque. In her view, those who oppose it “were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was…trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist .” On the other hand, the supporters of the mosque ” understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say .” The former New York governor agreed with his future co-host: SPITZER: I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in…Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. Later, the CNN anchor brought up some of the wider controversies involving Islam in the United States and raised the “Islamophobia” charge: “We’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that?” Spitzer went further than just accusing people of “Islamophobia.” He all but said that the country has always had a streak of bigotry: SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said …..I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do . The Democrat actually erred with his history, as the U.S. wasn’t three years old in 1790, but fourteen years old, if you date it from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. His future co-host raised another common liberal argument, that many were just ignorant of Islam and Muslims: “We keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? …I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.'” One might surmise from this appearance, given the former governor’s liberal credentials, and Parker’s swipes at conservatives, as she did earlier in September against Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin , that CNN’s upcoming program is going to be less like Crossfire and more like an Amen corner. The full transcript of the segment from Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper, which began 38 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour: COOPER: Joining me now are Elliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, and Kathleen Parker, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator. In October, their new program begins right here on CNN at 8 pm. Welcome, thanks very much for being with us- good to have you here. KATHLEEN PARKER: Thanks, Anderson. Thanks for having us. COOPER: What did you think of the imam tonight? PARKER: You know, I thought it was very good that he came out and spoke and that people could see him in person and hear his voice. I think he probably changed very few minds. I think people are going to see exactly what they were already prepared to see. If you’re against it, you were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was playing some role- you know, in trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist. And then, if you were for it already, then you understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say. I doubt that he really changed many hearts and minds, but maybe, it’s a start, as he says, toward a conversation that needs to take place. COOPER: Elliott, do you think he changed minds? ELLIOT SPITZER: No, I don’t think. I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in, and you saw that on your panel earlier in the show. Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. And I think he was well-spoken, but- COOPER: The lines are so clearly drawn, right? SPITZER: The lines are so rigid, and the views about this are so deeply ingrained and the passion- when you’ve lost somebody on 9/11, and the pain is so real, it’s very hard to change minds. COOPER: So, are we beyond a place where there is dialogue or possibility of coming together to- you know, David Gergen talked about some sort of solution of having- you know, a multi-faith center, is it- or are we beyond that? PARKER: I think that’s a great idea. I think that’s a great idea. I don’t think we’re beyond that. But I do think we have to be so careful as we give attention to these people who are, essentially, crackpots, okay? Let’s talk about this fellow- COOPER: You’re talking about- not the people who oppose the mosque? PARKER: No, no, no. Not, not- certainly not. I mean, look- COOPER: The Koran burners? PARKER: There is some crackpot-ism involved in this. I mean, there was a time when the headlines were fairly rational and straightforward and news-oriented, and you can see that was last December, as he said. And then, if you look at the headlines beginning last May, then they get increasingly inflammatory. And so- you know, I think that the rhetoric has been highly exaggerated in many cases. The media- you know, we all have a role in that and we have to be so careful, because when we do give attention to people like- for example, this fellow in Gainesville who’s threatening to burn the Koran. I was talking to a friend of mine earlier tonight who lives in Gainesville. And I said, ‘Do you know this character?’ And she said, ‘Yeah, my church is about a quarter mile down the road from his.’ His church is a metal building. He’s got approximately 50 followers. COOPER: And sells used furniture on eBay. PARKER: Yeah, and I would like for the Muslim world to understand that this is just one individual who doesn’t represent anyone but- you know, a handful of folks. That’s just- and that feeds, though, and builds this sort of- the sense that this is an awful thing going on. SPITZER: We need for time to pass. When emotions are this raw, you cannot address the issues rationally, because emotion overwhelms rationality. Andy [Sullivan], in your prior panel, said something very interesting and very important. He said this was the last straw for a middle class that is disenfranchised. Now, this issue is one of many that has led to an outbreak of anxiety, anger, venom- in many cases, legitimate because of emotions that derive from 9/11. In other instances, it is just a focal point for an upset with the way our economy and our national politics is playing out. And so, we need to understand this in that context, and I think when you view it that way, you understand how hard it is to bridge this chasm right now. COOPER: There’s- you know, we’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that? SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said. COOPER: This is just the newest group? SPITZER: This is (unintelligible)- COOPER: From Catholics to Jews to the- SPITZER: Precisely, the newest incarnation- and, in fact, before I came on the show, I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do and what David Gergen spoke to, which is to get people together and say, ‘wait a minute, let us not’- COOPER: But that’s not what our political life is about now. PARKER: But we keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ COOPER: Pat Robertson saying that (unintelligble)- PARKER: You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? You know, there seems to be- I just feel like this has become a misunderstanding on a broad scale. And while- absolutely, when you talk to people whose families died in this and- you know, on 9/11, you can’t not take that seriously. I mean, that emotion is real, and it’s still raw. But I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.’ COOPER: We’ve got to take a quick break. Elliot Spitzer, Kathleen Parker, appreciate you being with us. Thanks very much.

See the original post here:
Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

ABC Donates 16 Minutes to Obama; George Stephanopoulos Puffs: Does Pastor Make You Feel ‘Helpless?’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday trumpeted his exclusive interview with Barack Obama and rewarded the President with 16 minutes of air time, just as the midterm election season kicks off. Stephanopoulos served up several softballs during the four part interview. Speaking of the pastor in Florida who intends to burn a Koran on 9/11, he sympathized, “I wonder what this must feel like from behind your desk. You’re President of the United States. You have to deal with the fallout. And here’s a pastor who’s got 30 followers in his church. Does it make you feel helpless or angry?” The host informed viewers that the issue is “of deep concern too him as President, as a Christian and as Commander in Chief.” Pointing out criticism of Obama, Stephanopoulos highlighted the President’s children: “You know, and you have had the chance to have dinner at home a lot. You know, when you’re going through these hard times, how much of it bleeds through to them? And how do you protect them from it?” Perhaps because of the extensive running time, 16 minutes and 15 seconds, and because of Stephanopoulos’ past a Democratic campaign operative, the host did offer some tough questions. Stephanopoulos repeatedly challenged the Democrat on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. At one point, he asserted, “It’s not just Republicans, though, Mark Zandi independent economist says that right now the economy, the recovery is just too fragile to take any risk. Don’t have any tax increases at all.” Later, he chided, “More Americans seeing you as liberal. And when you ask questions like, ‘Does he share my values?'” Stephanopoulos told the President that some Americans think he doesn’t “get it.” In 2007, leading up to the presidential elections, GMA devoted 64 minutes to town halls featuring Democrats and zero for Republicans. A partial transcript of the September 9 segment can be found below: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And, as you said, Robin, And the FBI worried also very worried about that possible backlash if this Koran warning goes forward on Saturday. When I spoke with the President about it, it is very clear that this has seized his attention at the highest levels of government. It’s of deep concern too him as President, as a Christian and as Commander in Chief. Let me ask you about Pastor Terry Jones. He gave a press conference today. Says he’s going to go through with burning the Korans. Is there anything you can say to him to convince him not to? OBAMA: If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. That this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We’re already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he’s making. STEPHANOPOULOS: What more could happen? What are you worried about? OBAMA: Well, look, the- this is a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda. You know, you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who’d be willing to blow themselves up in American cities, or European cities. You know and so you know, I just hope that, he says he’s- he’s someone who is motivated by his faith. STEPHANOPOULOS: And he says he’s praying on it. OBAMA: Yeah. I hope he listens to those better angels and, and understands that this is a destructive act that he’s engaging in. STEPHANOPOULOS : I wonder what this must feel like from behind your desk. You’re President of the United States. You have to deal with the fallout. And here’s a pastor who’s got 30 followers in his church. Does it make you feel helpless or angry? OBAMA: It, well it is frustrating. Now, on the other hand, we are a government of laws. And so, we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning. But that’s the extent of the laws that we have available to us. You know, part of this country’s history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we’re following the laws. And that’s part of what I love about this country. 7:07 STEPHANOPOULOS: We also spoke to President Obama about the economy. He has come out swinging the last few months before the midterm election. And now he’s putting a face on his opponent. That’s House Minority Leader John Boehner. Of course, he was here yesterday. The President mentioned Boehner’s name eight times in that speech in Ohio. Of course, that’s Boehner’s home turf. And I began by pointing out that he seems determined to make Boehner the most well-known Republican in the country. OBAMA: Well, you know Congressman Boehner is saying that Republicans have a good chance of winning the House. STEPHANOPOULOS: I talked to him this morning. He seemed pretty confident. OBAMA: And he thinks he may be Speaker. And I think it’s very important that the American People understand what the Republicans are offering, which is essentially more of the same. STEPHANOPOULOS: He said he was open to the ideas on tax cuts that you talked about, today. But he had two of his own. And I want to know if you’re open to those. He said, “Freeze spending at the 2008 levels and extend all of the Bush tax cuts for two years.” I know you’re against any permanent extension, but what about two years? OBAMA: But keep in mind that they said back in 2001 and they said back in 2003 that these tax cuts for the rich would stop at 2010. That’s why we’re in the predicament that we’re in now. And when you ask them why not just go ahead and give 97 percent of Americans a tax break, which is what we’re prepared to do tomorrow, they say no. And the reason is they’re holding- all those middle class folks who need tax relief hostage right now in order to provide tax breaks for the top two percent, wealthiest Americans, who don’t need a tax break, aren’t asking for a tax break. STEPHANOPOULOS: Your own budget director up until a month ago, Peter Orszag wrote in the New York Times yesterday that it was a good compromise. OBAMA: No, what, what Peter Orszag said was he’d like to eliminate all these tax cuts, but that politically the best you may be able to do is to get the Republicans to agree to only extend them for two years. STEPHANOPOULOS: But he said it was a good compromise. He said it made sense. OBAMA: But, that’s something we can’t afford. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no compromise? No short term extension? OBAMA: We’ve got to make some decisions now that are gonna have huge ramifications over the long term. Now, if Mr. Boehner and the Republicans want to help small businesses right now, which is the rationale that they’ve provided for trying to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, if they want to help them right now, we’ve got a small jobs bill. Bipartisan bill- written by Democrats and Republicans that provides tax cuts to small businesses. It eliminates capital gains for small businesses. Provides loan assistance to small businesses. And we could vote on that immediately. The reason it’s been held up is because we haven’t seen compromise from the other side. When you look at what the Republicans are offering, it is exactly the same as what landed us in this mess in the first place. STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s not just Republicans, though, Mark Zandi independent economist says that right now the economy, the recovery is just too fragile to take any risk. Don’t have any tax increases at all. OBAMA: But what, what every economist that I’ve talked to has said is that if you’re gonna spend, say $95 billion, even just for two years for these tax cuts, probably the least efficient way of actually giving the economy a boost is to provide that $95 billion to millionaires and billionaires. I mean, if Warren Buffet gets a tax break, that’s not gonna change his spending patterns. If those families that I were talking to out in, out here in Cleveland or across the country get a tax break, that may mean a new computer for their kid. It may mean that they’re able to make their mortgage payments. It may mean that they can buy a new coat for winter. And that’s where our money should be going. STEPHANOPOULOS: How deep is your commitment to this fight? Are you saying that if Congress passes a short term extension of all the tax cuts, you’re gonna veto it? OBAMA: You can’t have Republicans running on fiscal discipline that we’re gonna reduce our deficit, that the debt’s out of control, and then borrow tens, hundreds of billions of dollars to give tax cuts to people who don’t need them. STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean you will veto an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy? OBAMA: What I am saying is that if we are going to add to our deficit by $35 billion, $95 billion, $100 billion, $700 billion, if that’s the Republican agenda, then I’ve got a whole bunch of better ways to spend that money. STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’re not saying you’re gonna veto it? OBAMA: I, there are a whole bunch better ways to spend the money. STEPHANOPOULOS: How come you don’t want to say veto? OBAMA: There are a whole bunch better ways to spend the money. … 8:01 STEPHANOPOULOS: But, first, we’re going to have more of my interview with President Obama. 60 Days to the election right now. Less than 60 days. And Democrats are pulling out all of the stops. And for President Obama, that means to pull out a little campaign trail deja vu and calling on his secret weapon. Now, you’re going to have the First Lady’s help out on the campaign trail, we’re reading. OBAMA: Well, you know, she is far more popular than me. And rightly so. She spent most of this week making sure that the girls start off well in school. They had their first day of school on Tuesday. And I guarantee you, we get more requests for her than just about anybody else. STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you bring up- you bring up the girls. You know, and you have had the chance to have dinner at home a lot. You know, when you’re going through these hard times, how much of it bleeds through to them? And how do you protect them from it? OBAMA: You know I think they are still young enough where they don’t watch the nightly news. I apologize for that, George. But- STEPHANOPOULOS: They might get some on the Internet, right? OBAMA: But, you know, I , when we’re sitting around the dinner table, we’re talking about them, and their lives … STEPHANOPOULOS: They’re not worried? They don’t, they don’t hear things? OBAMA: No, I think, well, first of all, people are very gracious to them. It’s not like somebody’s going up and saying, you know, I think your dad is a bum. That has not yet happened to them. I think people understand that kids are off limits on these issues. I do think that they know that we’re going through a tough time. They know that we’re involved in two wars. They know that we had a big oil spill in the Gulf. And so, we talk about those issues. And what I try to explain to them is that the issues that we’re dealing with are really tough. Daddy’s making the best decisions that he can to help the most people in this country. Some of ’em are going to work. Some of ’em aren’t going to work exactly the way we want. But, what I try to describe to them and instill in them are the same values that I inherited from my mom and from my grandparents, and that Michelle inherited from hers. And that is what I talked about today. Hard work, responsibility, looking out for other people. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, remember at that last press conference, the President did say that Malia came up to him and said, “We need to plug the hole, daddy?” ROBERTS: Oh, I remember that, right. Yeah. But, it’s nice to know that people are being gracious to the kids, as you would imagine. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, it is good to hear. It is good to hear that.

Originally posted here:
ABC Donates 16 Minutes to Obama; George Stephanopoulos Puffs: Does Pastor Make You Feel ‘Helpless?’

Democrats Imply a Publisher Promoting Republican Books Could Be Illegal

Over at stopnetregulation.org , Seton Motley reports that if the Democrats can’t ban books, they’ll try to ban book promotion. Democrats are furious that the conservative Threshhold imprint of Simon & Schuster (a corporate cousin of CBS) published a book by three House Republicans titled “Young Guns,” and included a promotional video:    That was too much free speech for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which lawyered up and sent the publishing house an ominous letter intimating it may be in violation of several campaign finance laws – claiming the video was an in-kind contribution to Republicans. This despite the fact that… Corporations are permitted to make independent expenditures with no coordination with candidates… Or the simple possibility that Simon & Schuster has printed tens of thousands of copies and would now like to, you know, sell them. The DCCC’s attorneys suggest it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that in turn directs viewers to Rep. Eric Cantor’s ERIC-PAC website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress. But consider this: if Simon & Schuster really wanted this book to fly off the shelves, or Republicans to be helped, wouldn’t they offer a much more prominent video presentation — on a CBS property like 60 Minutes? It wouldn’t be the first time. (They put Simon & Schuster-published  The Big Short by liberal author Michael Lewis in that promotional slot.) Seton continued: Never ones to let the facts get in the way of a good beating…. The DCCC is looking for an “assurance” that the book will be promoted legally. This is chilling language and a chilling move coming from the Party that is (for now still) in control of Congress – what with their ability to hold “investigative” hearings and haul anyone they wish before them for intimidation purposes disguised as interrogative ones.  Not to mention a Democrat President with the keys to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and what is quickly becoming the most ideological and partisan Justice Department in our nation’s history.  It doesn’t occur to Democrats and liberals that they too can write a book and get it published and promoted – in just the same manner as have the Republicans?  You know, meet free speech with free speech. Apparently not.  Instead they seek to drop the censorship hammer.  Again.

Here is the original post:
Democrats Imply a Publisher Promoting Republican Books Could Be Illegal

Labor Day Open Thread: SEIU Exec Says Immigration Reform Could Add 8 Million Dem Voters

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point this Labor Day: an SEIU executive vice president earlier this year said immigration reform could add 8 million Democrat voters. Thoughts?

Go here to see the original:
Labor Day Open Thread: SEIU Exec Says Immigration Reform Could Add 8 Million Dem Voters