Tag Archives: democrats

We Call Bullshit!…Black Members of Tea Party Dispute Racist Claims

WASHINGTON (AP) – Black members of the tea party movement on Wednesday rejected charges that the group’s activists are racist, saying they oppose President Barack Obama because of his policies not his skin color. The members gathered at a Washington news conference in the wake of allegations about its rank and file, heightened by the recent split with a Tea Party Express leader who had posted a letter on his blog written from “Colored People” to Abraham Lincoln. The post suggested that black people would choose slavery over having to do real work. The black members said the racism that has been attributed to the tea party movement came from outsiders who infiltrated the groups to discredit their work and it should be rejected. “These people do not oppose Barack Obama because of his skin color. They oppose him because of his policies,” said Lloyd Marcus, a spokesman for the group. The NAACP last month approved a resolution condemning racism within the tea party movement and called on activists to “repudiate the racist element and activities” within the political movement. At the news conference, several members assailed Obama and the Democrats, often in harsh terms. “Democrats have re-enslaved America,” said Kevin Jackson, president of the Black Conservative Coalition. He said tea party activists, if successful, would reduce the size of government and set in motion another Emancipation Proclamation, the document that President Abraham Lincoln signed that effectively ended slavery. “This time, even the white folks get freed,” said Jackson, who accused Obama of viewing fellow blacks as “mongrels.” Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan declined to respond to the tea party leaders’ criticism. The White House also declined to comment. http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/08/04/ap-black-members-of-tea-party-disput… added by: congoboy

NB Bonus: Obnoxious Liberal Quotes that Couldn’t Fit in Our Labor Day Edition

It’s happened again! Collecting quotes for the Labor Day edition of MRC’s bi-weekly Notable Quotables, I found more outrageous liberal eruptions than could fit into the normal newsletter. So, just for NewsBusters readers, here are 12 worthy quotes that just couldn’t squeeze into the regular issue (although hopefully a couple of these gems will find their way into our upcoming September 20 edition): Obama Opponents Pine for “Ethnic Purity” “First of all, we have a mixed race President who has a middle name ‘Hussein.’ And a good part of the anxiety that’s going on in small-town white America isn’t just the plain old black and white stuff of the past. It’s the fact that South Asians are moving in and running the local motel or, you know, I don’t want to deal in those sorts of cliches, but there are a lot of Latinos about who are moving into these areas that their grandchildren are coming out as gay or intermarrying. The purity of, the ‘ethnic purity,’ to coin a phrase, that they grew up with no longer exists….” — Time ’s Joe Klein on the Chris Matthews Show , August 29. It’s “Baffling” Stabbing Suspect Not Stereotypical American Bigot “It is the knife attack that’s cut deep into a national debate over faith and fear…The suspect, 21-year-old Michael Enright, has a baffling profile. An honors film school student, he volunteers with a church group that promotes peace and understanding….Still, the attack, some Muslims are certain, was fueled by what they call fearmongering over the Islamic cultural center and mosque planned for this site near Ground Zero….There is one other note about that suspected stabber that muddies the water even further. That peace group he volunteered with, they actually support putting that Islamic center down here near Ground Zero where we are tonight.” — ABC correspondent Jeremy Hubbard on World News , August 26. Burden Should Be on Everybody but the Mosque Builder “Some would say that it is really for Americans, for majority of Americans to be more sensitive to minority communities. It’s not really the obligation for the imam to, you know — he talked to members of the Jewish community, the JCC, the Jewish Community Centers were a model. And there’s a rabbi who has been helping. He talked to some members of the 9/11 families, not all clearly. Why is the burden on him?” — NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell to former Pakistani ambassador Akbar Ahmed on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports , August 24. GOP Candidates: “Very Far to the Right” and “Ultraconservative” “Some of these candidates who are very far to the right, the one — many of the ones who are backed by the Tea Party — are they going to be Kryptonite come November?” “When it comes to Rick Scott, who ran as an ultraconservative against Bill McCollum, does he now have to run slightly to the center, if he wants to win in November?” — CNN’s John Roberts filling in as anchor of Anderson Cooper 360 , August 24. Upset Democrats Can’t “Demonize” George W. Bush Again “The problem for the Democrats is this, that the energizer bunny for the 2006, 2008 campaigns has disappeared because of George W. Bush’s being a circumspect and discreet former President it makes it very difficult for Democrats to demonize him again. He’s become a non-person.” — Columnist Mark Shields on Inside Washington , August 27. Only Liberal Women Are “Compassionate” Host Chris Matthews: “Margaret, it looks like liberals are in trouble this year, progressives, if you will. That includes a lot of women.”… Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson: “There’s a certain kind of woman that’s gonna do okay. I mean you have the momma grizzlies but it’s the grizzly part of it, not the momma part that’s working….It’s the corporate titan bear — Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman as you say. So that is the kind of woman. It is not the kind of — it’s not a compassionate women year.” — MSNBC’s Hardball , August 30. GOP = “The Party of Hate” “Tonight, we start with the party of hate. The Republican Party in this country has been running on hate and division for the last 50 years. First, it was the southern strategy meant to discriminate against African-Americans in order to gain white southern votes….Then there’s the vitriolic fight against immigrants, undocumented ones and in Arizona just people who happen to look undocumented. And, of course, there’s the grand daddy of all prejudice, fear and hatred stoked up against Muslims in this country….What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim American in their right mind would vote for the Republican Party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying ‘I hate myself.’” — Fill-in host Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Ed Show , August 26. “The Republican method for winning elections is hate. Hate somebody. Anybody will do. We have seen it this year with immigrants and now, Muslims….They do it to win and did it in 2004 and 2006 against gay Americans…. Think the GOP has run out of minority groups to target and smear? No. Next, John Boehner attacks those federal bureaucrats with fattened salaries and pensions. Federal bureaucrats, like John Boehner.” — Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown , August 26. Times Prefers Their Editorial Line to Actual Laws “The Justice Department decided last week not to bring charges against Tom DeLay, whose unethical conduct represented a modern low among Congressional leaders….Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House Majority Leader, crowed that he had been ‘found innocent.’ But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.” — From a New York Times editorial , August 22. Host Sees Plot to “Harvest and Incarcerate” Young Black Men “How much of that [the cycle of poverty] in your opinion is family-planning driven, how much of that is a function of systematic racism in our country and laws that are enforced to basically pick-up, harvest and incarcerate young black men — particularly in New York with the Rockefeller laws — and how much of it is a complete abandonment of education as a value system period in this country, unless you’re rich?…Because it, in my opinion, has been a default position to incarcerate black men as opposed to educate and integrate black men into our economy.” — MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on the August 23 Dylan Ratigan Show , talking to a blogger promoting more “family planning” counseling for young African Americans. People Are Against Destroying Embryos Because They Love Ignorance “I have the greatest respect for those who disagree, but to me putting restraints on stem cell research is not far from those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they believed their doctrines and tradition had already told them what they would see. Their beliefs, too, were deeply held, but where would the store of knowledge be had their view prevailed? As we again try to untangle the arguments over stem cells, let us also consider this: No civilization, no society, has survived if its people came to believe they knew enough and needed to know nothing more.” — Bob Schieffer’s closing commentary on CBS’s Face the Nation , August 29. Are We Being Unfair to You, Sir? “It’s getting baked in a little bit in the media that [the] BP [oil spill] was President Obama’s Katrina. And it’s also getting baked in that the administration was slow off the mark. Is that unfair?” — NBC’s Brian Williams to Obama in an interview shown on the August 29 Nightly News .

See the original post:
NB Bonus: Obnoxious Liberal Quotes that Couldn’t Fit in Our Labor Day Edition

NYT Bemoans Republican’s Fake Candidates, Ignored Nearly Identical Democratic Ploy

At the New York Times, Republican ploys to get ringer candidates on the ballot are front page news. Attempts by Democrats to do the same thing – on a larger scale – are not worth covering at all. “Republican Runs Street People on Green Ticket” blares the headline on the front page of today’s Times. Arizona GOP operative Steve May has recruited three “street people,” as the Gray Lady calls them, to run as Green Party candidates, which will likely siphon votes from Democrats running for the same seats. “The political establishment here views him as nothing more than a political dirty trick,” Times reporter Marc Lacey wrote of one of the street people. The paper’s new-found concern for political dirty tricks was nowhere to be seen, however, when a Democratic Party official ran 23 candidates on the specious “Tea Party” ticket in Michigan. The state Supreme Court recently ruled that The Tea Party cannot appear on the ballot in November. The Times helpfully offers the Democratic position on the controversy in Arizona: The Democratic Party is fuming over Mr. May’s tactics and those of at least two other Republicans who helped recruit candidates to the Green Party, which does not have the resources to put candidates on ballots around the state and thus creates the opportunity for write-in contenders like the Mill Rats to easily win primaries and get their names on the ballot for November. Complaints about spurious candidates have cropped up often before, though never involving an entire roster of candidates drawn from a group of street people. “It’s unbelievable. It’s not right. It’s deceitful,” said Jackie Thrasher, a former Democratic legislator in northwest Phoenix who lost re-election in 2008 after a Green Party candidate with possible links to the Republicans joined the race. “If these candidates were interested in the democratic process, they should connect with the party they are interested in. What’s happening here just doesn’t wash. It doesn’t pass the smell test.”… Besides the Mill Rat candidates, the Democrats smell a rat in other races, including one in which a roommate of a Republican legislator’s daughter ran as a Green Party candidate in a competitive contest for the State Senate. They cite a variety of state and federal election laws that the Republicans may have violated in putting forward “sham” candidates for the Green Party. Meanwhile, about 2000 miles away, Jason Bauer, a Democratic Party official in Oakland County, Michigan, resigned after being caught red-handed in his role stacking the ballot for his party in 23 races. His plan: to create a “Tea Party” – with no ties to any group associating with the tea party movement or any other conservative cause – to draw voters away from Republican candidates in those races. Jonathan Oosting reported at Mlive.com: The Oakland County Democratic Party says it has requested and accepted the resignation of operations director Jason Bauer in the wake of accusations he notarized campaign filings for a fake Tea Party candidate. “We are saddened by this situation, but cannot condone his alleged actions,” the OCDP said Sunday in a released statement. “For the sake of the organization, we must part ways effective immediately.” Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson, a Republican candidate for secretary of state, announced the allegations against Bauer on Friday, noting she had turned over documents to the county prosecutor and Michigan Attorney General’s office for further investigation. Was a crime committed? Well, the Detroit Free Press reminds us that “Misusing notary public designation is punishable by suspension or revocation of the notary status and a civil fine of up to $1,000.” Aaron Tyler, one of the 23 “Tea Party” candidates, said his name was filed without his knowledge. “I believe a fraud was committed,” he told the Free Press. Despite these facts, the New York Times has yet to run a single story on the Michigan controversy – a controversy that has already claimed the job of one Democratic Party official, and could, like the case in Arizona, lead to some form of legal action. Is the Times only concerned about “political dirty tricks” when Democrats stand to take the hit?

Continued here:
NYT Bemoans Republican’s Fake Candidates, Ignored Nearly Identical Democratic Ploy

WaPo’s Cohen: Obama Needs To Fire Key People Or Americans Will Fire Him

This really is the summer of media’s discontent. As Barack Obama’s poll numbers collapse along with the fate of Democrats in November, more of the President’s fans are calling for heads to roll at the White House. Just four days after Chris “Tingle Up The Leg” Matthews called for both Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to be given their walking papers, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen warned that if Obama doesn’t fire some key people, Americans are going to fire him. Readers are advised to strap themselves in tightly, for ” Obama’s Shrinking Presidency ” provides some dangerous changes in cabin pressure: One of the unintended results of the redecoration of the Oval Office was the downsizing of Barack Obama. In last week’s prime-time address to the nation, the president sat behind a massive and capaciously empty desk, looking somehow smaller than he ever has — a man physically reduced by sinking polls, a lousy economy and the prospect that his party might lose control of Congress. Behold something we never thought we’d see with Obama: The Incredible Shrinking Presidency. This is an amazing and, to me, somewhat frightening, turn of events. The folks who ran a very smart presidential campaign in 2008 have left the defining of the Obama presidency to others, in this case people on the edge of insanity. After running through some of the poll numbers, and discussing the Birther issue, Cohen drilled home the point that must really be making September feel like the dead of winter for liberal media members across the fruited plain: Obama is not all that liked and not very much known. He has become a polarizing figure — irrationally hated by Republicans and lacking much of his original support. Among whites, for instance, if the election were held now, Obama would get just an alarming 28 percent of the vote. We are once again two nations. Cohen next addressed how some of Obama’s unpopularity is caused by the lousy economy, which, of course, was all blamed on George W. Bush despite Democrats controlling Congress since January 2007. But the Post columnist employed what conservatives would call “tough love”: His stutter-step approach to certain issues — his wimpy statements regarding the planned Islamic center in Manhattan, for instance — erodes not just his standing but his profile. What we thought we knew, we do not. Like a picture hung in the sun, he fades over time. Then came the recommendations: But what Obama can do — what he must do — is get some new people. His staff ill-serves him so that he presents a persona at odds with his performance. The president needs better speechwriters. The president needs a staff to tell him not to give an Oval Office address unless he has something worthy of the Oval Office to say. The president needs someone to look into the camera so that, when the light goes on and he says, “Good evening,” he looks commander in chiefish: big. In other words, the president needs to fire some key people. Either that, or the way things are going, the American people are going to fire him. Indeed, but first they’re going to fire Obama’s accomplices in Congress, a fact that likely bothers Cohen greatly despite him ignoring it in this piece. But there’s another issue at play here: the junior senator from Illinois was sold to the American people during the campaign as being one of the most intelligent presidential candidates ever. Fawning media members gushed over his Ivy League education and his intellectual prowess.  Now, after approaching 20 months in office, his problems are all his staff’s fault. This seems hypocritical of liberals that always want to blame problems in the society on America’s CEOs. I guess even as they criticize the object of their affection, so-called journalists need to assign the real responsibility for this adminstration’s failure to others. Unlike their normal modus operandi, media members are now dutifully protecting the captain as this ship sinks. It really is amazing the number of rationalizations necessary to be a liberal these days. 

Read the original:
WaPo’s Cohen: Obama Needs To Fire Key People Or Americans Will Fire Him

WaPo Tries to Bury Their Own Depressing Poll Numbers for Dems Off the Front Page

The Washington Post doesn’t avoid the bad news for Democrats on Tuesday’s front page, but it noticeably tried to hide the worst of it. The headline on the new ABC/Post poll was “Republicans making gains ahead of midterm elections; parties nearly even on trust; Obama’s overall rating is at new low, poll finds.” There is no graphic illustration of any poll result — unlike their misleading GOP-maligning July 13 story . The Post did announce that inside their polls merely “shows Republicans with the edge as independents slide away from the Democrats.” But the story by Dan Balz and Jon Cohen saved all the most depressing numbers for inside the paper on A5: — Republicans lead Democrats 47 to 45 percent on the basic ballot question, but “among those most likely to vote this fall, the Republican advantage swells to 53 percent to the Democrats’ 40 percent .” — “Voters were also asked whether they think it is more important to have Democrats in charge of Congress to help support the president’s policies or to have Republicans in control to serve as a check on Obama’s agenda. Here, 55 percent say they prefer Republicans, while 39 percent choose Democrats . The GOP’s 16-point edge is double what it was in July.” — “Obama’s overall job rating is at a new low in Post-ABC polling, with just 46 percent of all Americans giving him positive marks and 52 percent negative ones . On two big issues, disapproval of the president’s performance has reached new highs: Fifty-seven percent now disapprove of his handling of the economy and 58 percent give him low marks on dealing with the deficit.” — ” Forty-five percent now consider the president’s views on most issues ‘too liberal,’ another new high. In previous polls dating to early 2008, consistent majorities said they found Obama’s positions ‘just about right’ ideologically.” Karen Tumulty’s story on the left side of the top of the front page didn’t hide the pessimism. Before looking at the state of play in Wisconsin, it began: “Democrats in Congress are no longer asking themselves whether this is going to be a bad election year for them and their party. They are asking whether it is going to be a disaster.” The Inside box in between the front page stories did suggest “President Obama announces $50 billion in new road, rail, and runway improvements. A2” At least the story itself (by Peter Slevin) noted this is a “proposal,” not an announcement, as if the president just spends public money without Congressional approval. The inside box didn’t note Obama’s strange notion that Republicans “talk about me like a dog,” or that he bizarrely claimed “If I said the sky is blue, they’d say no. If I said fish live in the sea, they’d say no.” They were in the A2 story.

View original post here:
WaPo Tries to Bury Their Own Depressing Poll Numbers for Dems Off the Front Page

Cynthia Tucker: Voter Anger Is About Racism – ‘Fear of a White Minority’

Are you sick and tired of being called a racist because you don’t agree with Barack Obama’s policies? If you are, you shouldn’t read any further, for Cynthia Tucker this weekend claimed the voter anger that threatens the Democrat majorities in the House and the Senate is all a function of racism. With the opening segment of the syndicated program “The Chris Matthews Show” focusing on the strong position the GOP has going into the midterm elections, Tucker said, “We haven’t talked about the elephant in the room, and I don’t mean the Republicans: race. Changing demographics. Fear of a white minority.” She disgustingly continued as host Chris Matthews agreed, “Obama’s election has suddenly made many white Americans aware of the loss of a white majority. That’s what this crazy summer has been all about” (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):   CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well I think it may help the Democrats in some races this time, Chris, because some of the Tea Party candidates are so extreme. But there is another issue. There is, as Norah said, a whole lot of voter anger, discontent out there. We haven’t talked about the elephant in the room, and I don’t mean the Republicans: race. Changing demographics. Fear of a white minority. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: That’s so interesting.  TUCKER: Obama’s election has suddenly made many white Americans aware of the loss of a white majority. MATTHEWS: That’s so interesting.  TUCKER: That’s what this crazy summer has been all about. Anti-mosque construction. Anti-immigrant ravings. It, that fear is very difficult for Obama to overcome. That fear is very difficult for Obama to overcome? You find that interesting, Mr. Matthews?  Well, then why did 43 percent of white Americans vote for  Obama in November 2008? And why did Obama have a 78 percent favorability rating in January 2009 according to Gallup? Did all of these white folks that voted for Obama and previously adored him suddenly become concerned with losing their majority status? It’s one thing that despicable race-baiters like Tucker get to go on shows like this and make such racially-charged comments. But that not one of the people on that panel or the host brought up how popular this same man used to be before he started implementing unpopular policies is deplorable. To be sure, we expect this kind of nonsense from Tucker; she’s been doing it for years. That Matthews along with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, NBC’s Norah O’Donnell, and Time’s Michael Duffy didn’t offer any resistance whatsoever to her disgraceful comments is what really should anger people on both sides of the aisle. Shame on all of you for continually adding to the racial divide in this nation despite your liberal pretense to the contrary.

View original post here:
Cynthia Tucker: Voter Anger Is About Racism – ‘Fear of a White Minority’

Monica Crowley Smacks Down Eleanor Clift Over Racism in the Tea Party

Conservative radio host Monica Crowley on Friday smacked down Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift over racism in the Tea Party. In the second segment of “The McLaughlin Group,” the host addressed July’s controversial resolution by the NAACP condemning so-called racist elements within the Tea Party. Liberals Clift and Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune predictably supported the NAACP while bashing the conservative organization. Crowley with the support of Pat Buchanan defended the Tea Party while calling the NAACP irrelevant. With McLaughlin surprisingly taking Crowley and Buchanan’s side, sparks flew in an oftentimes heated discussion (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  MONICA CROWLEY: Look, the Tea Party has an issue with the content of Obama’s policies, not the color of his skin, and I find it amazing that the NAACP would waste its time on nonexistent racism in the Tea Party when there are so many problems that still plague the black community like black on black violence, like fatherlessness, like education and drugs and guns in the inner cities. And so it seems to me to be a straw man that the NAACP set up because they are less willing to really confront all of those vexing problems in the black community. JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Exit question. CLARENCE PAGE: I think they are confronting them, but they don’t get the publicity until they attack the Tea Party. But believe me, they are dealing with those problems. ELEANOR CLIFT: Let’s have you do a radio show on what they’re doing on all those other issues. CROWLEY: And I have, Eleanor, I have. But you clearly don’t listen to it. After McLaughlin asked what kind of damage has the NAACP’s resolution done to race relations in this country, the sparks really flew: CLIFT: The NAACP is not hurting race relations. We have a very active faction on the right using racial issues as a wedge to try to defeat Democrats and a black president and I think that is where… CROWLEY: Oh boy. CLIFT: You’re gonna say that’s not true? CROWLEY: Well, I’m saying that you are making our point that when the left goes out there and stokes these kinds of racial issues when they don’t exist, what happens is it dilutes real racism and that’s the danger. CLIFT: Oh, so this is called stoking? CROWLEY: Yes. After some crosstalk, Page pressed the issue: PAGE: Well, I was just going to say, these are, these are kind of a smokescreen, they’re kind of totems. The NAACP is as important to the base of the Democratic Party as the Tea Party is to the base of the Republican Party and so that so never the twain shall meet. But, for you to say racism is not a problem anymore, that’s exactly the kind of thing… CROWLEY: No, that’s not what I said. I said nonexistent racism in the Tea Party. I didn’t say racism doesn’t exist in America. PAGE: Nonexistent racism in the Tea Party. That’s the same thing. From the vantage point of African-Americans and most liberals, they would say, “No way.” And that’s the real problem, Clarence. This comes from the vantage point of African-Americans and most liberals despite  lacking evidence to support that position:  CROWLEY: That’s not what I said. Let’s be clear. MCLAUGHLIN: Can we restore order here? CROWLEY: My point was that when we start slapping on the racist label, whether it’s on the right or the left, we end up diluting real racism. MCLAUGHLIN: President Obama said he was introducing a post-racial America. Do you think this action by the NAACP… PAGE: When did he say that, John? MCLAUGHLIN: …has torpedoed that? PAGE: When did he ever say that? MCLAUGHLIN: In his speech, in his speech on race. PAGE: No, no, he was introducing a post-racial America. CLIFT: The media announced that. PAGE: The media said that. MCLAUGHLIN: On the basis of his speech. That’s correct! Whether Obama specifically said that in his March 2008 speech in Philadelphia is somewhat irrelevant if that’s the way media reported it at the time:   PAGE: No, this is important, John, because Barack Obama… MCLAUGHLIN: You mean he doesn’t stand for a post-racial America? PAGE: Throughout Barack Obama’s campaign, I defy you to find me where he ever said it. No, he only talked about race when he had to, and that was after Reverend Wright.  MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he gave a 35, 45-minute speech on race, remember that? PAGE: Yes he did, he never said anything about a post-racial society. MCLAUGHLIN: I think he said it. PAGE: Go back to that speech and find me the bite. MCLAUGHLIN: Does he in the mind of Americans stand for a post-racial America? The answer is yes. PAGE: That’s different. MCLAUGHLIN: The NAACP torpedoed it, yes or no? PAGE: They did not torpedo it, not at all. MCLAUGHLIN: I think they torpedoed it. PAGE: Americans still view Barack Obama basically as the embodiment of racial progress. He didn’t have to say it. BUCHANAN: John, you’re right. Stick to your guns, you are exactly right. It damaged the whole idea of a post-racial America for no reason whatsoever. PAGE: We’ll be post-racial when we’re post-racist. MCLAUGHLIN: How much damage, on a ten scale? Is it cataclysmic damage? BUCHANAN: I think the series of things that’s not only Rev. Wright, but it’s Sgt. Crowley and this and the Black Panther thing has severely damaged what everybody hoped would be a post-racial America. (CROSSTALK) CLIFT: When a political party stops using race as a wedge, not because that party is racist… BUCHANAN: You all don’t use race as a wedge? For heaven sakes. CROWLEY: Eleanor, come on! In the end, what happened on that set was the embodiment of the condition of race relations in this nation today, as Left and Right have a diametric view of the problem as well as the causes. Yet, maybe most telling was how both Clift and Page blamed the media for the perception that Obama was going to create a post-racial America. They, of course, were quite correct in their accusation, but neither chose to accept responsibility despite their shameless. I wonder why that is?

More:
Monica Crowley Smacks Down Eleanor Clift Over Racism in the Tea Party

Boorish Ed Schultz Decries Republican ‘Orgasm’ Over Tax Cuts

Doing his best in a desperate bid to become relevant, the ever-classy Ed Schultz said this on his radio show yesterday about Republicans and taxes ( link here to audio) — They have nothing on the table for the middle class. They have no development whatsoever for the country other than they orgasm over these tax cuts that they just have to have! That’s their whole thing! That’s their whole pleasure! Something tells me more Democrats will share in the joy as the midterms approach. Other examples of Schultz idiocy this summer include referring to “partitioners” instead of “parishioners” — this from a man who speaks often of his reverence for the Lord — and, along the same lines, confusing “pedestal” with “pulpit.”

See the rest here:
Boorish Ed Schultz Decries Republican ‘Orgasm’ Over Tax Cuts

David Brooks Writes Alternate History in Which Obama Cuts Taxes, Vetoes Big Spending Bills

This is a sad time to be David Brooks, the New York Times house conservative. The souring economy (along with other poor administration decisions) has caused a big drop in the popularity of his beloved Barack Obama with his party facing electoral disaster at the polls this November. So what to do? Why, engage in fantasy by writing an alternate history in which an all-wise Obama cuts taxes and vetoes big spending plans passed by the Democrat congress. Here is some of the comedy gold Brooks dreamed up in his alternate history universe: …He told his aides to put away the history books and reject the New Deal comparisons. Unlike in 1932, Americans today have a raging distrust of Washington, he observed. Living through a crisis caused by excessive debt, they will viscerally recoil at the prospect of federal debt without end. “Somehow,” Obama concluded, “we have to address the crisis without further terrifying the American people.” The stimulus package, he continued, should rely heavily on cutting payroll taxes. This, he argued, will send a quick jolt to the economy without concentrating power in Washington. It will deliver a sharp psychological boost to the middle class. It might even be bipartisan. Obama noted that John McCain had a $445 billion stimulus plan along these lines and his fellow Republican senator, Mel Martinez, a $713 billion plan. Yes, in this Brooksian alternate history the same Barack Obama who won’t even extend the Bush tax cuts will go completely against his proven character and cut taxes. And now more from the fantasy world whirling around inside of Brooks’ fervid imagination: In March, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill, stuffed with earmarks. Obama vetoed it. As for ObamaCare, it was put on the backburner by the politically savvy Obama in this alternate history: April brought the cruelest fight: whether to spend the rest of the year getting health care reform or a new energy policy. Obama decided to do energy first. The economy was uppermost on everybody’s mind. Americans were wondering where new innovations would come from, what new jobs would emerge.   Left out of this alternate history is Brooks’ real history of gullibly swallowing the economic excuses of this administration in early 2009. Here is how Brooks was wooed with his very own wall chart by Obama bigwigs back then after he very briefly objected to the policies back then: The White House has produced a chart showing nondefense discretionary spending as a share of G.D.P. That’s spending for education, welfare and all the stuff that Democrats love. Since 1985, this spending has hovered around 3.7 percent of G.D.P. This year, it’s about 4.6 percent. The White House claims that it is going to reduce this spending to 3.1 percent by 2019, lower than at any time in any recent Republican administration. I was invited to hang this chart on my wall and judge them by how well they meet these targets. (I have.) In my own alternate history, a skeptical David Brooks tells the Obama insiders: You expect me to buy into your absurd projections because they are on a chart? That’s really laughable so why don’t you take your chart and stick it where the moon don’t shine. Of course, that happened only in the alternate history. In real life, that chart could still be on David Brooks’ wall.

Read more from the original source:
David Brooks Writes Alternate History in Which Obama Cuts Taxes, Vetoes Big Spending Bills

Richest lawmakers grew wealthier as economy faltered

The rest of the country is still struggling with high unemployment amid a sluggish-at-best economic recovery — but the wealthiest members of Congress are in high cotton. Indeed, the top 50 wealthiest lawmakers saw their combined net worths increase last year, according to the Hill's annual analysis of financial disclosure documents. Combined, the 50 lawmakers were worth $1.4 billion in 2009 — an $85.1 million increase over their 2008 total — the Hill reports. The members' total combined assets depreciated by nearly $36 million last year — but Congress' well-to-do set also reduced their debts by a combined $120 million. The list of 50 lawmakers spans both parties (27 Democrats and 23 Republicans) and both chambers of Congress (30 House members, 20 senators), the Hill reports. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts topped the list for the second year in a row; Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas made his debut in the top 10. Here are profiles for the 10 most flush Hill power-and-money brokers: 1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million. Kerry's worth, which grew by $20 million in 2009, stems from his wife's assets. Teresa Heinz Kerry, of the Heinz ketchup family, inherited hundreds of millions upon the death of her previous husband, Sen. John Heinz. 2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million. Issa actually saw his minimum net worth drop by $4 million, partly due to the poor performance of a single investment fund. Issa's fortune stems from investments he and his wife made in the electronics market. Their company eventually became the largest producer of car anti-theft devices in the country. They sold the business in 2000. 3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million. Harman is married to audio-equipment mogul Sidney Harman; stock holdings from his company, Harman International Industries, helped Harman's net worth grow by $40 million last year. Sidney Harman is in the process of purchasing Newsweek; the magazine's massive debts will presumably drag down Harman's 2010 disclosure numbers a bit. 4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.): $83.7 million. No surprise here: The Rockefeller family name has for generations been a byword for fabulous riches. (Rockefeller's great-grandfather John Rockefeller was an oil magnate; inflation-adjusted figures still peg the founder of the Rockefeller fortune as the wealthiest man in history.) But the senator's uptick in personal wealth last year came mainly from his wife's investments. 5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million. McCaul saw his net worth double last year, mostly owing to stocks held by his wife. McCaul's father-in-law founded the radio empire Clear Channel Communications. 6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.): $70.2 million. Warner made millions through investments in the cell phone industry, including the Nextel company. 7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.): $56.5 million. Before his 2008 election to Congress, Polis made a fortune in online enterprises, transforming his family's greeting card company into BlueMountain.com and founding ProFlowers.com. 8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.): $53.5 million. Buchanan grew wealthy as the owner of multiple auto dealerships in Florida. 9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): $49.7 million. Lautenberg co-founded a payroll services company in the 1950s that became one of the industry's global leaders. 10. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): $46.1 million. Most of the California lawmaker's wealth comes from real-estate holdings and investments made by her husband. You can review the full list here… http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/116491-the-hills-50-wealthiest-list-slideshow added by: KSirys