Tag Archives: democratic

Harsh Attacks Against Christine O’Donnell Continue on ABC: Carville Slams ‘Deadbeat’ Nominee

For the second day in a row, Good Morning America featured degrading descriptions of Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell. Democratic strategist James Carville appeared on Thursday’s show and fumed about the Republican’s past financial problems: ” Christine O’Donnell doesn’t believe in spending, particularly her own money, because, she’s a deadbeat. She doesn’t pay her loans back .” Wednesday’s GMA included host George Stephanopoulos reading quotes against the “mentally unhinged” “liar.” The show on Thursday showcased an extended conversation on masturbation and remarks O’Donnell made about the subject in 1996. Stephanopoulos played a clip and then Carville joked, “And she equated masturbation to adultery. And, boy, if that’s the case, the Iranians would be stoning a lot of people in this country.” In fairness, after playing the snippet of O’Donnell’s 14-year-old comment, the ABC host wondered, “But, I think a lot of people might watch [the clip] and say, what’s wrong with she said?” The segment also featured conservative radio host and Tea Party activist Dana Loesch who chided, “She’s talking about masturbation. It’s not like she’s wearing black socks and getting caught in hotel rooms with call girls and stuff. If we want to point fingers on bedroom antics, we can do that.” Stephanopoulos did bring up the gloom hanging over the Democrats in the midterm, but he turned to the subject of whether the “extreme views” of Tea Partiers will “cost Republican seats that they otherwise would have won.” A transcript of the September 16 segment, which aired at 7:05am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s get into the debate now. We’re joined now from St. Louis, Missouri, by radio talk show host and tea party activist, Dana Loesch. And from Washington, Democratic strategist James Carville. And, Dana, let me begin with you. You saw Joe Biden out there last night. There’s the White House message. Moderates need not apply to the Republican Party. DAN LOESCH: Well, I’ve seen several elections where moderates in the Democrat Party have been run out on a rail, like Elijah Lovejoy. What we’re seeing with the Republican Party in the particular case of Mike Castle, I think calling him a moderate is especially generous. This guy’s record was indistinguishable from the Democrat to which he wanted to run against in the general election. And what we saw- This was the people of Delaware that spoke. This wasn’t a group of Republicans. They tried to nominate Mike Castle. But, the primaries are all about getting the people’s voice out there. That’s what we saw in this primary with Christine O’Donnell. And the people made their voices heard that they were unhappy with Mike Castle’s record. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, James, there is some evidence out there that Tea Party is not just on the fringes right now. Want to show you the numbers from our latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. It shows that Tea Party supporters now make up 44 percent of the primary electorate. Those who really, strongly support the Tea Party, almost a quarter of the electorate. And these guys overwhelmingly are focused on Democrats. 92 percent Of them believe that Democrats don’t deserve re-election. That is a warning sign for the Democrats in November. JAMES CARVILLE: Well, certainly. And congratulations. The Tea Party- This comports with the research we did at the Democracy Corps. The Tea Party is more powerful to the Republican Party than African-Americans and organized labor combined are in the Democratic Party. And you’re exactly right, George. People like Christine O’Donnell are part of the mainstream Republican Party right now. If you look at what happened in New York State. Elijah Lovejoy? What about Robert Bennett? What about Murkowski in Alaska? What about Mike Castle? I mean, been these people have been going on about Elijah Lovejoy, but I know what’s happening over there. And the Tea Party is the Republican Party. This is not a fringe element of the Republican Party. This woman, O’Donnell, is right in the middle of it. And it’s exactly right. They are a very, very powerful force. And they’re running that party right now. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Dana, the Democrats are hoping that candidates supported by the Tea Party, candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada, like Rand Paul, like Christine O’Donnell, because they lack experience or have what some would consider extreme views, will cost Republican seats that they otherwise would have won. LOESCH: I don’t know if they have extreme views. I don’t think the Tea Party movement is mainstream- I think it’s mainstream America, period. We’ve seen so much data coming up from the past year, that the majority of Americans, they believe that the Democrat congressional agenda is too extreme. They identify with the individual liberty and smaller government that the grassroots movement espouses. And candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul, these are people- it’s not beltway experience or abstain that they don’t have. It’s the fact they’re standing up for principles that the majority of Americans want. I want the government out of my pocketbook and my bedroom, and everything else. And hat’s what the majority of Americans want. That’s the platform that these candidates stand upon. STEPHANOPOULOS: As someone wrote in the Wall Street Journal this morning, James, it’s the spending, stupid. CARVILLE: Well, clearly, Christine O’Donnell doesn’t believe in spending, particularly her own money, because, she’s a deadbeat. She doesn’t pay her loans back. There’s a lien on her house. We could really classify her as anti-spending . In terms of getting in the bedroom this, woman has run against masturbation. I don’t- That seems to be a lot of government intrusion, to be honest with you. It’s right in the New York Times this morning. I’m sorry. She’s really against spending. She’s not going to spend any of her own money. But again this, is the Republican Party. It’s anti-spending. It’s promoting a bunch of deadbeats. STEPHANOPOULOS: I think we have the clip that James may be referring to. So, why don’t I show that and get you to respond? Here it was, I think, in 1996 on MTV O’DONNELL: The reason that you don’t tell them that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because, again, it is not addressing the issue. You’re going to be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture? STEPHANOPOULOS: James brought it up. But, I think a lot of people might watch it and say, what’s wrong with she said? LOESCH: Yeah. She’s talking about masturbation. It’s not like she’s wearing black socks and getting caught in hotel rooms with call girls and stuff. If we want to point fingers on bedroom antics, we can do that. I mean, this is- She didn’t say anything- some of the stuff she said in her past, I don’t think anybody, if you look back at the history of everything Mr. Carville has said and, George, you and myself, not everyone is going to be perfect. Perfection, if it were required for public office, nobody would be fit to run. But, I don’t like the class warfare, sort of, angle that Karl Rove seemed to have taken when he was speaking about her. That’s something that bugged me a little bit. STEPHANOPOULOS: James, you get ten seconds to end this. CARVILLE: Well, look, again, like I said, she’s a very fiscal conservative. She doesn’t believe in paying her bills. And she equated masturbation to adultery. And, boy, if that’s the case, the Iranians would be stoning a lot of people in this country. I’ll tell you that.

Read the original:
Harsh Attacks Against Christine O’Donnell Continue on ABC: Carville Slams ‘Deadbeat’ Nominee

Open Thread: Obama, the Musical

As Jonah Goldberg puts it, ” Oh, Dear Lord “. Hey, at least the dancing is impressive. Thoughts? 

Read the original:
Open Thread: Obama, the Musical

MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

By a wide margin — 66 percent to 29 percent, according to the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll — the public is opposed to building that proposed $100 million Islamic cultural center near the site of the destroyed World Trade Towers. This is not a lightly-held opinion: more than half (53%) told ABC news they are “strongly opposed” to building it near Ground Zero, vs. only 14 percent who report being “strongly” in favor. (Scroll to Question 30 .) So in the face of such obvious public sentiment, are the big broadcast networks reflecting such public sentiment in their coverage? Or are journalists implicitly repudiating their viewers by touting accusations that opposition to the mosque is motivated by America’s supposed “Islamophobia”? To find out, MRC analysts reviewed all 52 stories about the Ground Zero mosque on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from August 14 through September 13 — the first month after President Obama propelled the issue into the headlines with his remarks at a White House dinner. The results show that the networks have tilted in favor of mosque supporters and against public opinion, with more than half (55%) of all soundbites or reporter comments coming down on the pro-mosque side of the debate, vs. 45 percent for opponents. Even those overall numbers fail to show how the debate has grown increasingly tilted over time. During the first week (August 14-20), the networks actually provided more visibility to mosque opponents — 55 percent of soundbites, vs. 45 percent for mosque supporters. But in the following weeks (August 21 to September 13), the networks’ coverage lurched in the other direction, with mosque supporters receiving a 63 percent to 37 percent advantage. (See chart.) Our analysts tallied as “pro-mosque” all statements and soundbites that either: supported the idea of building the Islamic center on its currently proposed site; defended or praised the project’s organizers (mainly the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf); or criticized the other side as bigoted or “Islamophobic.” Anti-mosque statements/soundbites presented the other side: criticized the plans to build the center and/or the project’s organizers, or defended mosque opponents from charges of bigotry. The shift in coverage occurred after mosque proponents began tarring their opponents as bigots. A pair of protests on Sunday, August 22 — one in favor of the mosque, one against — drew coverage on all three network newscasts, and all three highlighted the accusation from pro- mosque demonstrators that a contrary stance was evidence of what Time magazine’s cover story that week dubbed “Islamophobia.” What had been a relatively even-handed debate about balancing the sensitivities of 9/11 families with America’s tradition of religious freedom morphed into a one-sided story about beleaguered Muslims facing hardship at the hands of bigoted Americans. On the August 23 Nightly News , for example, NBC’s Ron Allen picked up how “many Muslim-Americans insist this debate is more evidence of religious intolerance.” On the August 25 CBS Evening News , fill-in anchor Jeff Glor linked the stabbing of a cab driver to the mosque debate: “That alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be build near Ground Zero….Other controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question: Is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims?” Four days later, on ABC’s World News, correspondent Steve Osunsami cited “a string of recent incidents suggesting that many Americans don’t care for Muslims — the back and forth over the Islamic center near Ground Zero, the cab driver who was stabbed simply for being Muslim.” “Critics say all the rhetoric is fueling anti-Muslim violence,” ABC’s Dan Harris chimed in on the September 5 World News . ABC and CBS both touted exclusive interviews with organizers of the Ground Zero mosque project, but never gave the same privilege to mosque opponents. These interviews were hardly probing. CBS’s Scott Pelley interviewed Sharif el-Gamal, the real estate developer who bought the property two blocks from Ground Zero, excerpts of which were shown on the August 27 and August 30 Evening News . “This facility that is being debated all around the world is universally known as the Ground Zero mosque,” Pelley told el-Gamal. “What do you call it?” “It should be universally known as a hub of culture, a hub of co-existence, a hub of bringing people together,” el-Gamal enthused. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed Abdul Rauf for the September 12 This Week , with excerpts shown on the September 9 World News . She quoted Abdul Rauf as arguing that failing to proceed with his mosque concept would “strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment. This will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Muslim world. And we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism.” Seemingly deaf to what she just heard, Amanpour characterized Abdul Rauf’s statement this way: “So, he said he wasn’t making any threats or predicting any terrible worst case scenario.” Alone among the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News also offered soundbites to Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to propose that Americans were prejudiced against Muslims. (NBC’s Today on September 9 also featured a CAIR representative to speak out against Americans as bigoted.) CAIR is currently listed by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in their investigation of funding for Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas. “I’ve really never seen the level of Islamophobia that we’re experiencing today,” Hooper blasted on the August 16 World News , a soundbite that was repeated on the August 29 broadcast. A week later, on the September 5 World News, Hooper was back to condemn the “hysterical atmosphere we’re in right now.” Parsing the numbers a different way provides some insight into how the networks seem to conceptualize the issue of balance: Debate about the Islamic center itself and/or its organizers was almost perfectly balanced (57 soundbites arguing against the project, vs. 54 soundbites in favor, or a 51-49% split). But the “debate” about whether opposition reflected Islamophobia was almost perfectly one-sided: 27 soundbites (93%) leveling that accusation, with just two soundbites (7%) offering a defense. In other words, the networks permitted a balanced debate about a proposed real estate project, but allowed mosque supporters to attack the majority of Americans as “haters” and “bigots” without adequate debate. That’s yet another sign that the liberal, elite media are hopelessly out of touch with the public they ostensibly serve.  

Read the original here:
MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

ABC’s Crystal Ball: Defeat of ‘Mainstream’ Castle ‘Eliminates’ GOP Chances for Winning Senate

Good Morning America’s Juju Chang switched into prognostication mode on Wednesday and proclaimed that, along with other Tea Party wins, Christine O’Donnell’s upset victory in Delaware ” pretty much eliminat[es] the Republicans’ chances of taking back the Senate .” [MP3 audio here .] She trumpeted, “We begin with an upset victory for the Tea Party and maybe for Democrats.” The news anchor announced, “Christine O’Donnell has defeated a mainstream Republican candidate for the Delaware Senate seat, thanks to help from Sarah Palin.” Mainstream? Mike Castle’s lifetime American Conservative Union score is 52 . He has an F grade from the NRA, supported cap and trade and is aggressively pro-abortion. These are generally not known as “mainstream” GOP positions. Chang closed by predicting, “Most [tea party candidates] are not expected to prevail in the general election, pretty much eliminating the Republicans’ chances of taking back the Senate.” It’s not clear what the journalist is basing this on. Senatorial candidates such as Joe Miller and Rand Paul are ahead of their Democratic opponents. Sharron Angle in Nevada is tied with Majority Leader Harry Reid. Additionally, isn’t it the job of a supposedly straight news anchor to simply tell what has happened, not predict events 48 days in the future? A transcript of the segment, which aired at 8:02am EDT on September 15, follows: JUJU CHANG: We begin with an upset victory for the Tea Party and maybe for Democrats . Christine O’Donnell has defeated a mainstream Republican candidate for the Delaware Senate seat, thanks to help from Sarah Palin. Tea Party candidates have now defeated establishment ones in at least seven Republican Senate primaries, with New Hampshire undecided. But, most are not expected to prevail in the general election, pretty much eliminating the Republicans’ chances of taking back the Senate.

The rest is here:
ABC’s Crystal Ball: Defeat of ‘Mainstream’ Castle ‘Eliminates’ GOP Chances for Winning Senate

NBC Reporter Throws Around Conservative Label but Can’t Call Rangel A Lib

NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, on Wednesday’s Today show, in reporting about the results from yesterday’s primaries threw around the conservative label around as she identified several Republicans that way but for some reason when it came to reporting on Democrat Charlie Rangel’s win couldn’t manage to attach the “liberal” label to the ethics challenged Congressman. O’Donnell began her piece noting that “Democrats are suddenly very excited” about their chances of winning the Delaware primary seat due to “the conservative rebellion” that led to Republican Christine O’Donnell’s win in that primary, adding that “conservative Christine O’Donnell was propelled by several Tea Party groups.” And later O’Donnell even relayed the Democratic spin that O’Donnell was “an ultra right wing extremist.” However when it came to talking about Rangel’s primary win, the NBC correspondent, didn’t bother to attach an ideological label, merely calling him “20-term Congressman Charlie Rangel.” In total, Kelly O’Donnell used the “conservative” label five times in her piece but never once labeled any of the Democrats brought up in her story a liberal. The following is the full O’Donnell story as it was aired on the September 15 Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: But let’s begin with the results of the final primaries before November’s midterm elections and what they mean for both parties. We’re gonna talk to Christine O’Donnell about her surprise victory in Delaware, in just a moment. But first NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell has the latest. Kelly, good morning to you. [On screen headline: “Life Of The Tea Party, Upset Win In GOP Race For Biden’s Senate Seat”] KELLY O’DONNELL: Good morning, Meredith. Well the Tea Party has toppled conventional wisdom again and here in Delaware, the result is both shocking and convincing because it wasn’t close. The most popular Republican in the state, Mike Castle, he is out. Democrats are suddenly very excited and O’Donnell says don’t count her out in a fight to get the seat that Joe Biden held for 36 years. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Delaware have spoken. KELLY O’DONNELL: The conservative rebellion rolled over Delaware’s Republican Party brass. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Don’t ever underestimate the power of we the people! KELLY O’DONNELL: An upset hard to imagine just a few weeks ago. Conservative Christine O’Donnell was propelled by several Tea Party groups and that movement’s most famous figure. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: You betcha! There’s another woman I gotta thank. You betcha! Thank you Governor Palin for your endorsement. KELLY O’DONNELL: O’Donnell was ridiculed and written-off by other Republicans as unelectable. She had never won before, but knocked out Congressman Mike Castle who had never lost in a dozen races. Castle did not offer his congratulations. REP. MIKE CASTLE: The voters in the Republican Party have spoken and I respect that decision. KELLY O’DONNELL: Castle had called O’Donnell unqualified. (Begin ad clip) ANNOUNCER: She didn’t pay thousands in income taxes. (End clip) KELLY O’DONNELL: Animosity was so intense, the state Republican Party paid for robo-calls where O’Donnell’s past campaign manager attacked her. (Begin clip of robo-call) UNIDENTIFIED CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I found out that she was living on campaign donations, using them for rent and personal expenses while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt. (End clip) KELLY O’DONNELL: O’Donnell denies misusing funds. She claims her own financial hard times actually help her understand voters’ anger. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: A lot of people have already said that we can’t win the general election. I know. KELLY O’DONNELL: Democratic officials are gleeful and called her an ultra right wing extremist. Ironically, her supporters used an Obama slogan to predict victory in November. O’DONNELL SUPPORTERS AT RALLY CHANTING: Yes We Can! KELLY O’DONNELL: Turning to New Hampshire’s GOP Senate primary, a tight race too close to call. Former state attorney general, Kelly Ayotte, the choice of both the Republican establishment and Sarah Palin against a Tea Party endorsed conservative activist Ovide Lamontagne. On to New York, where the Republican nominee for governor is another Tea Party conservative . Real estate developer Carl Paladino over the party favorite former Congressman Rick Lazio, while New York Democrats stood by 20-term Congressman Charlie Rangel who’s accused of House ethics violations. Rangel beat back several challengers. REP. CHARLIE RANGEL: I go back to Washington stronger than I have ever been. KELLY O’DONNELL: And back here in Delaware, Democrats didn’t have a primary fight for the Senate seat, so Chris Coons is their candidate in November. O’Donnell who has worked as a media consultant for conservative non-profit groups says that she is hoping to get donations, even though the national party is reluctant to get behind her. And she also hopes to get the endorsement of Mike Castle. That has not happened. She is calling for unity, isn’t sure if she can expect it but says the Tea Party is behind her.

Read more from the original source:
NBC Reporter Throws Around Conservative Label but Can’t Call Rangel A Lib

Naoto Kan wins Japan election results 2010

Prime Minister Naoto Kan is all smiles after he was re-elected as president of the ruing Democratic Party of Japan during the party convention in Tokyo Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2010. Kan survived a challenge from a veteran powerbroker and sparing Japan another leadership change as it deals with a sluggish economy. Naoto Kan, leader of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and Japan#39;s incumbent prime minister, speaks at the election assembly of DPJ, in Tokyo Sept. 14, 2010. DPJ started electio

See the original post here:
Naoto Kan wins Japan election results 2010

John Lloyd and Shaina photo

Star Magic, who is handling the careers of both stars, has debunked a rumor saying that John Lloyd and Shaina were both rushed to St. Luke’s Hospital 2 weeks ago due to a medical condition called “pe-nis captivus.” ABS-CBN’s Star Magic has branded as a big lie the recent controversy hounding celebrity couple John Lloyd Cruz and Shaina Magdayao, “The Buzz” reported Sunday. According to Wikipedia, pen-is captivus happens when the muscles in the vagina clamp down on the pen-is much more firmly th

View original post here:
John Lloyd and Shaina photo

Another Fact Ignored in NYT Boehner Hit Piece: Pelosi Gets Far More Lobbyist Cash

“Mr. Boehner’s ties to lobbyists seem especially deep,” New York Times reporter Eric Lipton wrote of the House Republican Leader yesterday. Well, they’re not, and therein lies the problem: Lipton apparently premised his article not on facts and data, but on what he thought seemed reasonable. Had Lipton stooped to investigate some of the serious claims he was making, he might have discovered that Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this cycle as has Boehner. He might also have revealed that Sens. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Blanche Lincoln all raised more money from lobbyists this cycle as Boehner has since 1999. Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney, who did the legwork on these numbers, also noted that Boehner’s name does not appear on the Center for Responsive Politics’s list of the top 20 recipients of lobbyist cash. Eighteen House Democrats have received more such money than Boehner has this cycle. “Sure, Boehner is too close too lobbyists,” Carney writes, “but the money trail says he isn’t closer than Nancy Pelosi.” So why didn’t this (quite obvious) fact make it into Lipton’s Sunday article? It doesn’t fit the narrative. As I wrote yesterday , the Times has spent the past two years playing up GOP connections to lobbyists, while all but ignoring prominent Democrats’s blatant connections to powerful industry groups and their paid representatives. The Times’s omissions are all the more shady given the timing of Lipton’s piece – it came mere days after the Democratic attack machine set its sights on Boehner. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs heavily promoted the piece on the White House press office’s Twitter feed. This week, the DNC is slated to run a series of television ads targeting Boehner’s lobbyist ties. Hypocrisy in the political realm is nothing shocking. Politicians are not “objective,” and they don’t claim to be. But the New York Times seems to be throwing its weight, and its self-proclaimed mantle of non-partisanship behind a political attack ground in total hypocrisy. Perhaps the Gray Lady should adopt a strict policy of reporting what is, not what “seems” to be. Isn’t that the purpose of the news media?

Excerpt from:
Another Fact Ignored in NYT Boehner Hit Piece: Pelosi Gets Far More Lobbyist Cash

CBS: Eric Holder ‘Ignoring Political Pressure;’ Given ‘Hero’s Welcome’ After Bush ‘Cronyism’

In a puff piece on Attorney General Eric Holder on CBS’s Sunday Morning, correspondent Rita Braver praised his professionalism: “…ignoring political pressure is Holder’s constant message as he talks to Justice Department lawyers…. Though he was a key advisor to the Obama campaign and considers the President a friend, Holder says he now keeps it purely professional.” [Audio available here ] Throughout the interview, Braver portrayed Holder as lacking any political agenda: “And when he took office last February, he got a hero’s welcome. It was in part, he believes, a reaction to cronyism and questionable policies advocated in the Bush-era Justice Department.” As Braver mentioned Bush “cronyism,” a photo of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared on screen. Holder proclaimed: “Waterboarding, things like that, from my perspective, inconsistent with the great traditions of this department.” Braver began with some gentle criticism of Holder: “And with controversies over everything –  from his pushing to quickly close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo to his very public condemnation of the new Arizona law that cracks down on undocumented immigrants – even some Holder fans are saying, ‘he’s honest, he’s smart but sometimes he can be a little tone deaf about how things play out in public.'” That gave Holder the opportunity to declare: “I don’t have the same latitude that other politicians might have to put my finger up to the wind and figure out what’s going to be popular….So it’s not tone deafness. It’s a commitment to justice and a commitment to the law.” Braver then touted Holder “ignoring political pressure.” Near the end of the segment, Braver noted how “Holder raised a lot of eyebrows with his own comments on race last year.” After playing the clip of Holder calling America a “nation of cowards” on racial matters, Braver announced: “But he says he stands by those remarks.” Holder argued: “I mean that comment was really urging people to get out of what I call their – the safety of their cocoons.” Braver never questioned the offensive and unprofessional nature of the comment nor did she ever bring up the Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute members of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation during the 2008 election. Instead, she continued with a more sympathetic tone: “Because you’re the first African-American attorney general, do you put any extra pressure on yourself?” Braver concluded the interview by wondering: “And as for Eric Holder’s legacy? Is there one thing that you kind of keep in mind about how you see this job all the time?” Holder replied: “It’s what I tell the people in this department all the time. Do the right thing.” Here is a full transcript of Braver’s interview with Holder, aired on September 12: 9:33AM ET SEGMENT: CHARLES OSGOOD: This weekend’s anniversary of the 9/11 attacks focuses our attention once more on America’s war against terrorism. Attorney General Eric Holder plays a key role in that fight. And this past week he fielded questions from our Rita Braver. ERIC HOLDER: It’s something that I start my day with. It’s something that I end my day with. It’s the thing that I spend most of my time on. RITA BRAVER: For Attorney General Eric Holder, it’s not just ceremonies like this one- HOLDER: Today as we read the names of these fallen heros- BRAVER: Honoring law enforcement officials who died on September 11. Every day for him is a reminder of terrorist threats. So this is where you meet with your staff and what else here? HOLDER: We have a meeting every morning. BRAVER: But outside the confines of the Justice Department, Holder has been subject to criticism for his handling of trials of accused terrorists. JEFF SESSIONS: I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it’s misguided. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I think you’ve made a fundamental mistake here. BRAVER: Especially for the decision he announced – and then had to retract after it provoked an outcry – that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged September 11 plotters would be tried in New York City. HOLDER: I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheik Mohammed has to say at trial. BRAVER: The trial date and place are now in limbo. And with controversies over everything –  from his pushing to quickly close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo to his very public condemnation of the new Arizona law that cracks down on undocumented immigrants – even some Holder fans are saying, ‘he’s honest, he’s smart but sometimes he can be a little tone deaf about how things play out in public.’ HOLDER: No, I’m not tone deaf. But I understand what the nature of being attorney general is. I don’t have the same latitude that other politicians might have to put my finger up to the wind and figure out what’s going to be popular. BRAVER: Does the criticism- HOLDER: So it’s not tone deafness. It’s a commitment to justice and a commitment to the law. It is not tone deafness. BRAVER: That got you. HOLDER: Yeah, it does. Because I think that is a criticism that is fundamentally unfair and is political in nature. We want to make sure that this department of justice is true to its great traditions. BRAVER: In fact, ignoring political pressure is Holder’s constant message as he talks to Justice Department lawyers in places like Mobile, Alabama. HOLDER: The only thing that I want you to do is to make sure that you do justice. BRAVER: At 59, Eric Himpton Holder Jr. is the first U.S. attorney general to spend most of his career at the Justice Department. Starting just out of Columbia Law School. HOLDER: I mean, this Department of Justice formed me as a lawyer. BRAVER: And when he took office last February, [cheering crowd] he got a hero’s welcome. It was in part, he believes, a reaction to cronyism and questionable policies advocated in the Bush-era Justice Department. [ON-SCREEN: PICTURES OF ALBERTO GONZALES] HOLDER: Waterboarding, things like that, from my perspective, inconsistent with the great traditions of this department. And when I say traditions, I really want to stress under Republican as well as Democratic attorneys general. Let’s go look. BRAVER: May we go see? So in Holder’s personal office- HOLDER: As you can see, it’s not very large. BRAVER: -there’s a portrait of Attorney General Janet Reno, the Democrat for whom he served as deputy. HOLDER: He is the ultimate symbol of independence. BRAVER: But in his conference room, Holder has a portrait of Republican Elliott Richardson, fired by President Nixon when he refused to stop the Watergate investigation.                                              HOLDER: There are times when you have to do what Elliott Richardson did, which is too simply to say, no. And resign. BRAVER: Though he was a key advisor to the Obama campaign and considers the President a friend, Holder says he now keeps it purely professional. Do you and the President ever get into it? HOLDER: Without characterizing what they are, I will say we have heated conversations. BRAVER: Holder says the person who keeps him on an even keel is his wife, Dr. Sharon Malone, an OBGYN. And he cheerfully admits that she made a lot more money than he did for many years. HOLDER: You know, I’m a 21st century guy, secure in who I am. And so I was more than happy to have these great government jobs while she was bringing in all the money that she made and was giving birth to three children. BRAVER: Holder says his sense of what is right comes from his parents, immigrants from Barbados. You have said that your father faced discrimination. How so? HOLDER: While he was in the service in the South and in Oklahoma, he was refused service at a couple of places where he was in uniform and was told that African-Americans, blacks, negros, were not served. And in spite of that, I have never known a man who loved this country more than my father did. BRAVER: Holder raised a lot of eyebrows with his own comments on race last year. HOLDER: In things racial, we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. BRAVER: But he says he stands by those remarks. HOLDER: I mean that comment was really urging people to get out of what I call their – the safety of their cocoons. BRAVER: Because you’re the first African-American attorney general, do you put any extra pressure on yourself? HOLDER: Yeah, I certainly feel that. I feel there’s a certain responsibility I have, a pressure that I feel that I think is not something that’s been imposed on me as much as it is internal. BRAVER: And as for Eric Holder’s legacy? Is there one thing that you kind of keep in mind about how you see this job all the time? HOLDER: It’s what I tell the people in this department all the time. Do the right thing.

See original here:
CBS: Eric Holder ‘Ignoring Political Pressure;’ Given ‘Hero’s Welcome’ After Bush ‘Cronyism’

Conservative Funders Furious Over New Yorker Hit Piece

Conservative businessman David Koch told Elaine Lafferty of  The Daily Beast that a recent hit piece in The New Yorker has him steaming. “It’s hateful. It’s ludicrous. And it’s plain wrong.” The object of his ire is a 9,963 word story in The New Yorker magazine, published last week which accuses David, his brother Charles, and Koch Industries of…well, just about everything: Secretly funding the Tea Party movement, secretly manipulating the Smithsonian, along with, not-so-secretly polluting the planet, stealing oil from Native American land, denying the existence of climate change, and promoting carcinogens — all in the self-interest of making further billions. The title of Jane Mayer’s story is “Covert Operations.” That upsets Koch: “If what I and my brother believe in, and advocate for, is secret, it’s the worst covert operation in history,” Koch says, in reference to the New Yorker headline, adding that a lengthy letter to the magazine, rebutting nearly every allegation in the story is in the works… The origins of “the Billionaire who Secretly Funds the Tea Party” narrative seems to be his connection to Americans for Prosperity, an organization he founded six years ago, whose message is indeed aligned with the Tea Party movement’s message of less tax and more-efficient government. But, he says, no one from the Tea Party movement has ever approached him for money, and when I ask him straight up if he’s funding the Tea Party, all he says is, “Oh, please .” But despite being demonized by liberal magazines and the Obama White House, David Koch isn’t uniformly conservative in his political donations: While they have been politically active for more than 30 years, largely funding Republicans, they have never been identified with conservatives on hot-button issues such as gay marriage or abortion. He and his wife Julia have contributed $74,900 to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s Democratic campaign for governor, according to Ira Stoll at www.FutureofCapitalism.com. Politico.com reported that KochPac has contributed $196,000 to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle alone, including $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lafferty noted that none these accusations — “covertly supporting the Tea Party movement, polluting the planet, stealing oil and being a climate-change denier” — bother him as much as the suggestion that his position as a member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, an arm of the National Cancer Institute, presents a “conflict of interest” because Koch Industries has lobbied against the classification of formaldehyde as a carcinogen. Koch has struggled with prostate cancer for 20 years. A statement the Koch brothers put out included these paragraphs: We provided the New Yorker with a tremendous amount of information in hopes it would enable the publication to produce a balanced and accurate portrayal of our company. Unfortunately, that information was largely omitted or ignored, resulting in inaccuracies and misstatements. A catalog of all these errors would take up more space than the article itself. For a more accurate review of the issues, please go to www.kochfacts.com … Unfortunately, some of those who disagree with a market-based point of view continue to try to demonize the Kochs’ 40 years of unwavering, well-known, lawful and principled commitment to economic freedom and market-based policy solutions. The Kochs have steadfastly supported the benefits of economic freedom, the importance of the rule of law, private property rights, the proper and limited role of government in society and warned against the perils of excessive government spending. We see escalating efforts to discount and mischaracterize important and authentic citizen efforts, as well as dismiss and degrade our support of education and human services programs. The New Yorker article, and those pieces that have echoed it, rely heavily on innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions. Unnamed sources and those with a strong philosophical opposition to the Kochs – many of whom have no current or first-hand knowledge of Koch Industries, Charles Koch or David Koch – go unchallenged. Supporters of the Kochs are largely ignored (as evidenced by the fact that the reporter chose not to include the vast majority of supportive comments made by a number of people who know the Kochs and were interviewed for this article). On the other hand, those who support the reporter’s preconceptions are given a free pass.

Visit link:
Conservative Funders Furious Over New Yorker Hit Piece