Tag Archives: democrat

On Meet the Press, Host Sets Up GOP Senator to Debate on Iraq with Anti-War NBC Reporter

On Sunday’s Meet the Press , NBC host David Gregory wrapped up his interview with Sen. Lindsey Graham by setting up a debate with anti-war NBC reporter Richard Engel, who wasn’t shy this week in asserting on NBC’s Today that the Iraq war was unnecessary, that Saddam Hussein was growing more moderate and respectable by the day, and was gaining acceptance in Europe. After Gregory played a clip of that — complete with Engel calling Iraq a “giant distraction of resources” from Afghanistan, just like a congressional Democrat — Senator Graham insisted that the NBC reporter was “completely rewriting history” and that Saddam “was not becoming a good citizen, he was becoming a more dangerous dictator. The world is better with him dead.” Even as this stage of the Iraq war, as the surge seems to quite clearly brought peace and calm, never-say-it’s-a-win die-hards in the liberal media are the first line of attack on the Republican position: DAVID GREGORY:  Senator, I want to conclude by asking you a question about Iraq and Afghanistan.  The president, of course, ended Operation Iraqi Freedom with an Oval Office address, addressing the nation on that point on the end of the war.  Our own chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, who covered the war throughout and has covered the war in Afghanistan as well, offered some analysis during an appearance with Ann Curry on the “Today” show about the legacy of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  I’d like you to listen and react to it. RICHARD ENGEL:  If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power.  He was probably getting more moderate.  He was being welcomed into the–into–by, by a lot of European countries.  He was being welcomed into Eastern Europe in particular.  He as heading in a, in a direction of, of accommodation.  The, the sanctioned regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail.  So I think he would–it would be somewhat of a, a basket case, but it would still–it would be–Iran would be a lot more contained. So it would be a dictatorship that was trying to break out of its box, but Iran would not be as dangerous as it, as it is today. ANN CURRY:  And had the United States not invaded Iraq, would we be done in Afghanistan? RICHARD ENGEL:  Probably.  That was a giant distraction of resources, of intelligence assets.  That war would probably be over. GREGORY:  Senator, what do you say? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:  Completely rewriting history.  Our planes were being shot at in the no-fly zones, Saddam Hussein was violating every U.N. resolution to account for his weapons program, he was openly defying the international community when it came to controlling Iraq.  He was not becoming a good citizen, he was becoming a more dangerous dictator.  The world is better with him dead.  If we can get a government together soon in Iraq and it becomes stable and secure, we’ll have a democracy between Iran and Syria.  Iran’s biggest nightmare is to have a neighbor on their border who practices democracy.  So the 4,400 young men and women who’ve died have done this country a great service by securing Iraq and making… GREGORY:  Well, nobody’s disputing whether they’ve done the country a great service.  But even our current… GRAHAM:  We’re safer. GREGORY:  …defense secretary, who’s a Republican says, “Iraq will always be clouded by how it began.” Three-quarters of the American people think it was not worth the cost. GRAHAM:  Well, I can tell you, we will be safer by how it ends.  History will judge us, not by what we did wrong at the beginning, but what we got right at the end.  If we can get the government stable in–and, and President Obama, it is now his job to finish out Iraq.  If it finishes out well and it becomes secure and stable, allied with us on the war on terror–this is the place al-Qaeda was beat by fellow Muslims.  I can’t underestimate how important that was.  Al-Qaeda went into Iraq to topple our efforts to bring about stability and representative government, and they were, they were beaten by Muslims with our help.  That is a huge win in the war on terror.  So Afghanistan is a — we’re getting things better, we got a long ways to go, but I am glad we did what we did in Iraq.  America will be safer and history will record this as a big event in the Mideast where a dictatorship was replaced by a democracy in the heart of the Arab world. PS: I am not related to Senator Graham.

Read this article:
On Meet the Press, Host Sets Up GOP Senator to Debate on Iraq with Anti-War NBC Reporter

WaPo Publicizes Feminists Outraged at Insulting Senator as ‘Attractive’ and ‘Probably a Good Mother’

Never tell a feminist politician she’s “attractive” and “a good mother.” To some, that’s a “toxic” insult. Thursday’s Washington Post offered a story on how “Women’s groups target sexism in campaigns: Advocates monitoring what they call ‘toxic’ media environment.” Reporter Krissah Thompson never identified the groups as “liberal,” or even “feminist,” or noted that one of them, the Women’s Media Center, (foolishly) opposed an innocuous Tim Tebow pro-life Super Bowl ad as offensive without having seen it. Thompson began: The list includes the radio talk show host who called a female senator a “prostitute” for cutting a deal to benefit her state, the male challenger who referred to his female rival [as] “attractive” and “probably a good mother,” and the TV host who noted that the candidate’s wife looked like an angry woman. Those comments and others have been collected by a group of advocates for women running for office who are monitoring what they consider a “highly toxic” media environment that makes it difficult for female candidates. Thompson’s Post article never explains that the “attractive”-wielding offender was being “toxic” to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat appointed to  replace Hillary Clinton from New York. Jill Marcellus at the Women’s Media Center recently wrote up a ticket for Republican candidate Bruce Blakeman: “I think Kirsten Gillibrand is an attractive woman, I think she’s bright, and I think she’s probably a good mom herself,” Blakeman announced Tuesday at a debate with rivals Joe DioGuardi and David Malpass. If you’re experiencing some 1950s flashbacks right now, it’s not just because of the black and white photo of the candidates, arranged in height order, found at that link.  It’s 2010, and we are still judging women by ‘50s standards.  True, Blakeman’s concession that the successful leader is “bright” could bear on her qualifications as a Senator, but he sandwiches it between evaluations of her looks and of her skills as a mother. Blakeman, of course, believes this is a compliment: “I hope Senator Gillibrand will say that I’m bright, that I’m attractive and that I’m a good dad. I’d be very happy with that and I would not be offended.” He wouldn’t be offended because it would never occur to Senator Gillibrand or anyone else to say that about him at a debate.  With his comments, he admits that he sees her first as woman, and second, if at all, as a politician.  Gender never obscures Blakeman’s role in office. A comment is not a compliment if it suggests a politician shouldn’t be in the Senate because she belongs in the home. That’s funny. You might think it would be an insult to feminists if you said Gillibrand was ugly, stupid, and said she was a bad mother for having a career. But it’s an insult if you say anything personal about her at all. (For her part Gillibrand said she was much more concerned about the GOP’s Bush-trickle-down answers, and when a reporter pressed if she had cringed, she laughed and said “I smiled.” She’s obviously not feminist enough.) The irony of all this is that the GOP candidates were asked in the debate to say something nice about Gillibrand, and they’re hardly going to say they think her policy ideas are fantastic. Even “say something nice” questions are a minefield. Perhaps Blakeman should have said “no thanks. I don’t have anything nice to say about her.” Thompson’s report suggested conservative talk-show hosts were going to get pressed: “The effort to track sexist comments and put pressure on advertisers that help bankroll the media figures responsible for some of the remarks comes as women campaign in several high-profile races this year, including for governorships in South Carolina and California as well as Senate seats.” Nowhere in the story do the feminist groups cite the unsubstantiated charges of adultery against South Carolina Republican Nikki Haley, but they do express outrage that people questioned that Sarah Palin could be a good mother and be vice president. But then, those offenders included people in the liberal media who are supposedly feminist. For the record, in Thompson’s lede, she also neglected to say the talk show host tossing the “prostitute” moniker was Glenn Beck talking about Sen. Mary Landrieu being offered millions in Medicaid funds for her state in exchange for her support of ObamaCare. The talker who said a candidate’s wife looked angry was Bill O’Reilly talking about Michelle Obama.

Original post:
WaPo Publicizes Feminists Outraged at Insulting Senator as ‘Attractive’ and ‘Probably a Good Mother’

ABC’s Stephanopoulos Highlights Obama Blaming Media For Muslim Myth

On Monday’s Good Morning America, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos played up how President Obama “blamed many in the media for perpetuating…myths” such as he was born outside the United States, isn’t a Christian, and/or is a Muslim. “You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away.” Stephanopoulos raised the President’s remarks about “these kind of myths,” as he put it, near the end of a panel discussion with Democratic strategist James Carville and Charles Schwab chief investment strategist Liz Ann Sonders eight minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. He noted how “a third of Americans believe- question whether he is Christian- a fifth now believe he’s Muslim” before playing a clip of Mr. Obama from his recent interview with NBC’s Brian Williams , where the Democrat gave a light reply to Williams’s statement referencing these poll numbers: “Mr. President, you’re an American-born Christian, and yet, increasing and now significant numbers of American in polls…are claiming you are neither.” The President answered, in part, “I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” Moments earlier in the interview, Obama stated that “there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation, that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly,” and this is the remark that the ABC anchor zeroed-in on: “You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away. He also blamed many in the media for perpetuating these kind of myths. But is there anything more he has to do affirmatively to address this, or just hope that it goes away?” Somewhat predictably, Carville lashed out against those who believed in any of those: “That people are willing to go out and promote this kind of thing- it’s unfortunate. But the most unfortunate thing is that people are stupid enough to believe that out there.” Exactly two months earlier, on June 30, Stephanopoulos brought on liberal columnist Maureen Dowd who bashed the President as “thin-skinned” and unhappy with his media coverage. This prompted the anchor to acknowledge, ” And his press hasn’t been nearly as bad as he thinks .” One wonders if the former Clinton communications director would still admit that. The transcript of the relevant portion of the segment from Monday’s Good Morning America, starting at the 12 minutes into the 7 am hour mark: STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring James Carville back in here. James, before we go, the President did get those questions from Brian Williams about how- you know, a third of Americans believe- question whether he is Christian- a fifth now believe he’s Muslim. Let’s show again what the President said. OBAMA (from NBC News interview): Well- look, Brian, I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead. (laughs) It is what- the facts are the facts. And so, it’s not something that I can, I think, spend all my time worrying about. STEPHANOPOULOS: You can’t blame the President for wanting this to go away. He also blamed many in the media for perpetuating these kind of myths. But is there anything more he has to do affirmatively to address this, or just hope that it goes away? CARVILLE: I think Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect that we know that the Lord loves poor people because he made so many of them. I think the President should have said we know the Lord loves stupid people because he made so many of them. (laughs) I mean, what can you do, if somebody like- contrary to every piece of evidence known to man, doesn’t think that he was born in the United States, or, contrary to all the evidence known, that he’s not a Christian. There’s nothing that can be done, and I think he was saying as much to that. That people are willing to go out and promote this kind of thing- it’s unfortunate. But the most unfortunate thing is that people are stupid enough to believe that out there. STEPHANOPOULOS: All right. James Carville, Liz Ann Sonders, thanks very much.

More:
ABC’s Stephanopoulos Highlights Obama Blaming Media For Muslim Myth

Open Thread: More Corruption Exposed

Today’s starter topic: Another congresscritter exposed for corrupt dealings with government money : Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes. The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member’s district. Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.”

Read this article:
Open Thread: More Corruption Exposed

WaPo Finds It Scandalous Beck Would Challenge Obama’s Religious Beliefs

The Washington Post found it newsworthy that “Beck challenges Obama’s religious beliefs after rally in D.C.,” but emphasized how Glenn Beck’s views could cause a backlash, and papered over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s wild-eyed radical sermons as merely focusing on “the importance of empowering the oppressed.” In the story on page A-4, Post reporter Felicia Sonmez made no mention of the president’s avoidance of church services while she repeated the White House assertion that he’s a “committed Christian.” Here’s the summation:  During an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” which was filmed after Saturday’s rally, Beck claimed that Obama “is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor-and-victim.” “People aren’t recognizing his version of Christianity,” Beck added. Beck’s attacks represent a continuing attempt to characterize Obama as a radical, an approach that has prompted anxiety among some Republicans, who worry that Beck’s rhetoric could backfire . The White House has all but ignored his accusations, but some Democrats have pointed to the Fox News host to portray Republicans as extreme and out of touch . Notice that the Post doesn’t suggest that Rev. Wright’s rhetoric can, and has been used to portray Obama and his Democrat supporters as extreme and out of touch. Here’s how Sonmez summarized the rants of Wright: The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the onetime pastor of Obama’s former church in Chicago, is an adherent of black liberation theology, which centers on the struggles of African Americans and the importance of empowering the oppressed. Obama severed ties with Wright during the presidential campaign after some of the minister’s inflammatory language drew controversy. Beck, on his Fox News show last Tuesday, said that liberation theology is at the core of Obama’s “belief structure.” “You see, it’s all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed; reparations, not repentance; collectivism, not individual salvation. I don’t know what that is, other than it’s not Muslim, it’s not Christian. It’s a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it,” Beck said. Sonmez didn’t note that Wright’s “liberation” theology has roots in Marxism . She also ignored that Wright suggested just days after 9/11 that America deserved the terrorist attack for its imperialism or his kooky view that the federal government created AIDS as a tool of black genocide. But editing those specifics out is a common media practice .

See the article here:
WaPo Finds It Scandalous Beck Would Challenge Obama’s Religious Beliefs

Matthews and Maddow Bash ‘Racist Tea Party Blogger’ Who Contributes to Democrats and Gay Rights Groups

Those crack researchers at MSNBC have done it again! Last week, hosts Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow both did stories about a blogger whose travel instructions for folks going to Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally got posted at the Maine Tea Party Patriots website. Included were warnings about what stops to avoid on the DC Metro. Predictably, the liberal blogosphere had a field day with this citing it as another “example” of racism within the Tea Party. There’s only one problem: the culprit, a Washington, D.C.-based realtor, is a major contributor to the Democrat Party as well as gay rights groups. But before we get there, here’s what Rachel Maddow reported Monday with the help of the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson (videos follow with transcripts and commentary, h/t Seton Motley): RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: This weekend is the anniversary of “I Have a Dream” speech, one of the most famous speeches, one of the most famous moments in America history. This year, on the 47th anniversary of the speech, a FOX News Channel TV host has decided to use the anniversary as an occasion for a rally of conservatives in Washington at the site of the speech at the Lincoln Memorial. I don`t purport to understand revising civil rights history so people will think conservatives were form civil rights and not against. I do not purport to understand these revisionist efforts. I`m just telling you that`s what they`re doing. But a Tea Party group based in the great state of Maine has put out a guide for any Tea Party minded folks who might be planning on attending the rally in D.C. It`s sort of a tea partiers rough guide “I`m from out of town” guidebook for visiting our nation`s capital — parts of it at least, parts of our nation`s capital, very specific parts of it. Right before they list the exact home addresses for a number of Democratic politicians — nice — they give tea partiers traveling to D.C. for this big rally, they give them some safety advice for how a visiting tea partier protestor should visit our nation`s capital. Quote, “If you are on the subway, stay on the red line between Union Station and Shady Grove, Maryland. If you are on the blue or orange line, do not go past Eastern Market, Capitol Hill, toward the Potomac Avenue stop and beyond. Stay in northwest D.C. and points in Virginia. Do not use the green line or yellow line. These rules are even more important at night.” There is, of course, nothing wrong with many other areas, but you don`t know where you are, so you should not explore them. Do not use the green line or the yellow line. It is dangerous. It is scary. The whole lines. Don`t — don`t — if you`re coaching the turnstile and you feel like — is it nighttime? Yes. Don`t do it! As you can see, the green and yellow lines are two of D.C.`s central metro lines. In fact, you make it harder on yourself if you don`t take those lines, especially if you`re coming in from Maryland or, say, Virginia. I wonder if it`s rough for the people going, say, to the Pentagon, right? Not being able to ride the blue line because the yellow line is so scary. Protecting yourself from the evil green and yellow lines would also protect you, of course, from Howard University, the country`s most prominent historically black college — aahh! Or maybe it`s the U Street stop, the U Street stop where you`ll find Ben`s Chili Bowl, a historic restaurant that attracts luminaries and laymen alike with its sloppy beefy goodness, and at which I gained five pounds in two weeks while once renting an office across the street. Perhaps it`s another attraction only accessible on the yellow and green lines could be the National Archives where the Constitution is? Be afraid, Constitution is there, especially at night. Look at this other map of D.C. Here`s another map of D.C. You see the big rectangular part? If you follow the Tea Party tour guide, you will limit yourself to that little sliver — see that tiny sliver in the middle of it? Little tiny, little thing looks like a flag on its side — that`s it. That`s the part of D.C. you`re advised to segregate yourself within if you are visiting Washington, D.C. for the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. Joining us now is Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist of “The Washington Post” and MSNBC contributor and D.C. resident Eugene Robinson. Gene, thanks very much for your time. EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here, Rachel. MADDOW: If you avoided all the places in D.C. that the main Tea Party wants you to avoid, what would your experience of Washington, D.C. be like? ROBINSON: It wouldn`t — you wouldn`t see much of the city, obviously. You would — you`d spend a lot of time trying to get to places accessible only on the green and yellow lines by way of the red line, but only the red line to Union Station. So, I don`t know what you`re supposed to do when you get to Union Station. Get on a train and get out of town immediately. Look, this is — this is obviously “scaring white people” part two, and what they have done is essentially try to put off-limits any parts of the city where these main tea partiers believe you might be more likely to encounter, dare I say, black people. MADDOW: What are some of the things that you would miss if you were sincerely going to cut the green and yellow lines out of your life? ROBINSON: Well, let`s see. You couldn`t — you couldn`t go to the D.C. waterfront or the Arena Stage, one of the great theaters in the nation`s capital. If you took seriously their prescription about where to go on the red line, of course, you couldn`t go to Catholic University, to the National Shrine, the grandest Catholic basilica in Washington. You know, I could go on and on. You`d miss the whole U Street scene, which is the most happening nightlife and restaurant scene in town. And, of course, you would miss the newly gentrifying Eighth Street corridor, which is the kind of really hippest, most cutting edge part of town. But you don`t want to see any of that. You want to be afraid and you want to stay in this little — this little kind of safe zone. MADDOW: Well, you can tell my feelings about this by the way I introduced it. I know, rare. But it does seem particularly amazing to me to have this “stay away from all the parts of the city where you might encounter black people” instruction when they are going to a rally that is on the occasion of the 1963 march on Washington and the “I Have a Dream” speech. I have to ask your reaction to the overall setting here, hosting a sort of conservative take back civil rights rally on this occasion. ROBINSON: I have — I have two reactions, I guess, Rachel. Number one, you know, this is being put on by Glenn Beck, who I think his main purpose here is self self-aggrandizement on an almost Napoleonic scale. I mean, and so, I think that`s really a large part of what this is about. Now, a lot of people will come, be like a Tea Party rally, I think, in that there will be some racist elements, there will be some crazies, and there will also be a lot of people who are animated by perhaps a diffused sense of grievance who just happen to have picked the wrong pied piper. And so, those are the people for whom I guess I feel a bit sorry because I think in the end, Glenn Beck is out for himself and they`re going to be kind of left with their grievances unaddressed and feeling worse about the political process and worse about everything than before. MADDOW: And not to mention strict instructions not to visit the Constitution. ROBINSON: They`re not going to have any fun in Washington. Then again, we`ll all be able to eat the Ben`s Chili Bowl because there won`t be any out-of-towners there. So, there will be more for us. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: You know, Mr. Silver Lining does it again. Well-done, Eugene Robinson. Thanks a lot, Gene. I really appreciate it. ROBINSON: Good to be here, Rachel. MADDOW: Gene, of course, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for “The Washington Post” and an MSNBC contributor. Yes, he sure is. Too bad neither Rach nor the Pulitzer Prize winner thought to look further into the background of the blogger before making fools of themselves. After all, as the Daily Beast reported Saturday, Bruce Majors throughout his life has almost exclusively contributed to Democrats (h/t Broliath ): According to OpenSecrets.org , he’s donated about $15,000 to Democrats since 2000, including a $10,000 donation to the DNC in 2000, a $500 donation to Howard Dean in 2003, and a $1,000 donation to John Kerry in 2004. His only recent contribution to a Republican candidate was $250 in 2002 to retired Rep. Jim Kolbe, then lone openly gay Republican in Congress.  Being a naturally suspicious sort, I decided to check OpenSecrets.org for myself. Here’s what I found : There could be many Bruce Majors in D.C. How do we know this is the same one? Well, this is what he told the Daily Beast: “I kind of wish I hadn’t given tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats, especially with the real-estate business what it is today,” he said. “Now I can only give a few hundred a year to libertarians to try to make up the balance.”  Majors says he also donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT advocacy group, and once won a role as an extra in the sitcom Will & Grace at one of their charity auctions. “I was going to a lot of lesbian cocktail parties raising money for Gore and then Kerry/Edwards,” he said. “I’m sure they’re all horrified this week.” With this in mind, do you think Maddow and Robinson would have been yucking it up at Majors’ expense if they knew he was such a large contributor to Democrats as well as LGBT causes? But the fun doesn’t end there, for on Tuesday, Chris Matthews covered the story with the Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page: CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Ahead of Glenn Beck`s rally this Saturday on the Lincoln Memorial, Tea Party activist Bruce Majors posted online a primer on how out-of-towners should navigate D.C. during that event. The guide was then circulated through a main Tea Party site. In this section of this blog, or whatever, entitled “Safety and Mores,” Major`s first sentence reads, quote, “D.C.`s population includes refugees from every country. Most taxi driver and many waiters, waitresses especially in local coffee shops, like the Bread and Chocolate chain, are immigrants. Frequently from east Africa or Arab countries. As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African- Americans, and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country, for example, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia.” Joining me to discuss the Tea Party guide to the capital, fellow D.C. resident, Clarence Page. You know, this is — I don`t know, I`m going to laugh, because it`s absurdity. CLARENCE PAGE, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: This is absurd. MATTHEWS: But this is telling white folk how to get through an ethnically diverse town with a lot of African-Americans, which has been African-American in its majority I think since the Civil War. You know, I`ve lived there since I got out of the Peace Corps. These people need a special guide. It`s a regular big city, folks. Your thoughts? PAGE: I thought this was a satire, at first, though. MATTHEWS: Yes. PAGE: It looks like a liberal satire or stereotyped view of what Tea Party people think. MATTHEWS: Yes. PAGE: But it`s — it`s essentially a guide for — this is the sort of thing you hear from every small town person who is afraid of big cities. MATTHEWS: Yes. PAGE: Coming from a small town, I can say this. I grew up in John Boehner`s district, as you know. MATTHEWS: Right. PAGE: Middletown, Ohio. And I want to tell you, we`re not all hicks out there, Chris, but — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Use your common sense when you come to a big city. But here he is, here`s Majors, also outlined — he outlined that areas of this city we`re in right now to avoid certain metro rail lines that means subway lines and neighborhoods far from the Capitol and the National Mall. D.C. blog took Major`s restrictions and blog. Look how they showed it. They took it. Look at the map. They Googled the map and shown it. See the little blue area? That`s the only place in Washington, according to this blogger, it`s safe to go in Washington. I got to tell you. It`s an awful boring trip if you only do the — that`s basically the Washington Mall from what I can tell. PAGE: There`s also your neighborhood, in the pink zone, I believe. MATTHEWS: No. I`m up in the far northwest up there. But anyway. PAGE: Look how absurd this, though. I mean, the normal street life in D.C. is, you know, stay to the west of the park — MATTHEWS: Right. PAGE: — or Rock Creek Park. Now, east of the park has gotten largely gentrified. This city defies `60s stereotypes from the old Clint Eastwood movies. But this is still Dirty Harry city. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You and I know that the zestiest part of the town are the areas that are most mixed — PAGE: Oh, yes. MATTHEWS: — edgy, the most fun for young people. All the young people now live on 14th Street. PAGE: And he does give props to Silver Springs and some other nice suburbs and some neighborhoods (INAUDIBLE) Capitol Hill. Delicious. For the record, these weren’t the only mainstream media figures to take the bait. The Associated Press did a number of articles about Majors as well. Would he have gotten any attention if they would have known he’s lived in D.C. for thirty years and given so much money to liberals? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.

Follow this link:
Matthews and Maddow Bash ‘Racist Tea Party Blogger’ Who Contributes to Democrats and Gay Rights Groups

Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

Ed Schultz may have finally lost it. He has reportedly been neglected by MSNBC brass. The last straw came yesterday when Schultz found out he would not appear on MSNBC’s election night promo. He went absolutely berserk, according to people on the scene. “I’m going to torch this f***ing place!” he screamed during a meeting in the MSNBC newsroom according to the New York Post . “F***ers!” he added for good measure. According to an unnamed source, Schutlz was dragged into a meeting with MSNBC president Phil Griffin, where Schultz was told that he would be fired if he did it again. He broke down in tears. The Post has the full scoop (h/t Treach ): A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” Fuming Schultz was immediately dragged in for a meeting with NBC News President Steve Capus and MSNBC President Phil Griffin following his Aug. 12 meltdown. Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.” Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. A second MSNBC source said, “Ed never gets any attention and love, and he finally snapped.” Poor Ed. If it’s any consolation, we hope MSNBC includes Schultz in its election night coverage. With blowups like this, it’s hard to top the entertainment value.

See the original post:
Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

The New York Times editorial board on Thursday called successful Tea Party candidates insurgents. For those not intimately familiar with the term, despite having several meanings, it has in the years since 9/11 become largely synonymous with terrorists. With that in mind, the imagery in ” The Wrong Kind of Enthusiasm ” was unmistakable:  Republican insurgents from the far right did well in Tuesday’s primaries. What their campaigns lack in logic, compassion and sensible policy seems to be counterbalanced by a fiercely committed voter base that is nowhere to be seen on the Democratic side. In fairness, there are two meanings to insurgent: 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel. 2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.   On cross-examination, the authors might make the case that their intent was to depict these illogical, compassionless and senseless conservatives as the latter. But the imagery and implication throughout was clearly to brand these “insurgents” as something far worse:   In Alaska, Joe Miller, a little-known lawyer from Fairbanks, has a lead for the G.O.P. Senate nomination over Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent. The race is too close to call, but Mr. Miller’s possible victory shows the power of his mentor, Sarah Palin, and the misguided popularity of his anti-immigrant, pro-gun message. Among other dubious positions, he has questioned the constitutionality of unemployment benefits. Then, the Times predictably took sides: The good news is that the anti-immigrant message may not play as well in Florida in the general election. Good news? Good news for whom? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of Americans that support Arizona’s new immigration law. But the Times wasn’t done displaying its deplorable biases, for even a victory by a moderate mainstream candidate left a sour taste: Insurgents did not triumph everywhere. In Arizona, Senator John McCain easily fended off a challenge by a former congressman, J. D. Hayworth. But he did so by throwing his principles overboard. Gone was the stalwart voice for campaign finance reform and a humane, bipartisan overhaul of immigration laws. In his place was a man calling himself “Arizona’s last line of defense,” strutting along the Mexican border in a campaign ad, telling a county sheriff that all we had to do to fix immigration was “complete the danged fence.” Yes, McCain is the Times’ darling when he tacks far-left to help pass legislation that makes conservatives sick. But defending Arizona’s border is “throwing his principles overboard.” Not surprisingly, a good Republican to these shills is really one with no principles at all.  Disgracefully, this editorial ended with more terrorist imagery: Much of the G.O.P’s fervid populist energy has been churned up by playing on some people’s fears of Hispanics and Muslims, by painting the president as a dangerous radical, by distorting the truth about the causes of the recession. Far too many Republican leaders have eagerly fed that destructive anger. Yes, the desire of the majority of Americans to defend the borders from illegal immigrants while doing everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack is “destructive anger.” Makes you wonder if former President Jimmy Carter is heading up the Times editorial board. But the larger point is that the Obama-loving liberal media are in a full state of panic about Democrat prospects in the upcoming elections. As such, the goal now is to paint every GOP candidate as too scary to hold political office.  That even the formerly lovable McCain, who has been in Congress since 1983 and is currently one of the most moderate Republicans up for re-election, is being depicted as equally frightening should clue readers in to just how far the Times is willing to go to help Democrats this cycle. Ironically, as this editorial board clearly is way on the wrong side of public opinion concerning the issues herein addressed, aren’t they behaving like insurgents rather than the objects of their disaffection? The only question is whether their actions fall under definition one or two. We’ll let you decide that.

Go here to see the original:
NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

Worst Candidate Interview Ever

Well, this is awkward and quite embarrassing. Chris Young is running as a Democrat for the mayor-ship of Providence, R.I. I'm willing to bet the local TV station didn't quite expect “Coffee with the Candidates” to go this poorly. added by: punman

Washingtonians ‘Furious’ at Opening of ‘Barack Obama Elementary School’

Today marks the first day of school for students in Prince George’s County, Md. The county borders Washington, D.C. to the east and is true blue liberal Democrat in its politics, so it’s no wonder that its brand new elementary school would be named after President Obama. Local NBC affiliate WRC-TV has the story at its website , NBCWashington.com, where at the time I wrote this post, some 69% of readers were “furious” at the news, compared to 8 percent who were “thrilled.” It’s not a scientific survey by any stretch, but it is amusing, particularly given the site’s largely local-to-D.C. readership. “There have been other schools named after President Obama in the country, but this will be a first in his own backyard in the D.C. region,” NBC Washington’s Megan McGrath noted.

Excerpt from:
Washingtonians ‘Furious’ at Opening of ‘Barack Obama Elementary School’