Tag Archives: democrats

Psycho Talk: Jealous Ed Schultz Claims He Could Easily Rally 300k on National Mall

There’s not really much you can say about this claim, beyond “suuuuure.” Ed Schultz, who attracts just over a quarter of Glenn Beck’s viewership (700,000 vs. 2.6 million viewers), claimed he could out-rally the Fox News host, whose “Restoring Honor” event attracted an estimated 300,000 people to the National Mall on Saturday. “I guarantee you, I could do more than 300,000!” claimed the man who just last week found out he didn’t make the cut for an MSNBC promo. “It ain’t a big deal!” Schultz also claimed that the crowd size at Beck’s rally has absolutely no bearing on Democrats’ prospects in November. Wishful thinking on both counts, it seems. Audio and transcript via Brian Maloney at the Radio Equalizer: Hold it right there! Before we get to her answer, I could get every union head in this country, I could organize every progressive group in this country, the main bloggers. This could be The Ed March. Folks, 300,000 people on the heels of six months’ promotion, that ain’t no big shakes! This is no sign that there’s going to be any big turn of events when it comes to the ballot box and there will be no Democrats in the congress. This is no tea leaf about, “well gosh, they’re coming in November.” Six months’ promotion, NBC News says 300,000 people. I bet I could do that! I bet I could do that with this radio show and my TV show and six months’ production, six months’ promotion, if I had the budget I could equal that march. I know I could! I know I could! I know that I could get Leo Gerard, i could get the Service Employees International Union, I could get AFSCME, I could get all these–I guarantee you, I could do more than 300,000! It ain’t a big deal!

View post:
Psycho Talk: Jealous Ed Schultz Claims He Could Easily Rally 300k on National Mall

Bombing in Cancun, Mexico

Several gasoline bombs were thrown into a bar in Cancun Mexico, killing eight people. added by: jimhager

Open Thread: Democrats Moving Away from Nancy Pelosi

Today’s starter topic : Does this represent a policy shift or just a campaign tactic? Some of the Democratic Party’s most endangered lawmakers are taking steps to distance themselves from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an attempt to inoculate themselves from charges that they are beholden to the unpopular House leader and supportive of the ambitious national Democratic agenda. Three vulnerable Democrats from conservative-oriented districts are already running TV ads spotlighting their defiance of Pelosi. One freshman incumbent recently joked about the possibility of Pelosi not being able to take up the gavel next year because she might pass away. Another member from a tough district suggested he might run for speaker himself. The roster of Democrats currently playing six degrees of separation from Pelosi spans the map, from the Northeast to the South and across the Midwest to South Dakota. Pelosi aides and allies said they understand that embattled members sometimes need to distance themselves from the speaker and note that she doesn’t take it personally, although they caution that how it is done is just as important as why it’s done.

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

National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

Chris Matthews this weekend actually invited a real conservative on to the syndicated program bearing his name, and what transpired was a thing of beauty. National Review’s Rehain Salam did such a fabulous job of educating Matthews and his guests – especially Time’s Joe Klein – that I imagine him quickly becoming a NewsBusters favorite. The initial topic of discussion was Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally scheduled to occur after this was taped. Between Matthews’ disrespectful introduction, and Klein calling the conservative talk show host “a paranoid lunatic,” one had the feeling this would have devolved into a full on hate-fest if not for Salam’s presence. Fortunately, the National Reviewer was there to set the record straight (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):  JOE KLEIN, TIME: Newt Gingrich should be embarrassed by the way. He’s much smarter than this. Glenn Beck something different. The guy’s obviously a paranoid lunatic who is a great entertainer. And He is exploiting something that always happens in our country when the economy is bad and when we’re at war. During World War I, if people were caught speaking German in the street, other people would beat them up. During World War II, we interned the Japanese. And now there, the combination of bad, bad economic times over the last couple of years and, and, you know. the terrorism, has, has led to this wave that Glenn Beck and his puppet master Rupert Murdoch are exploiting. Amazing. So geniuses like Klein actually think folks going to Tea Party rallies are akin to people that beat up Germans during World War I or had anti-Japanese tendencies during World War II. Is this really what qualifies as enlightened thinking from so-called journalists today? Regardless of the answer, after opinions from the BBC’s Katty Kay and NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, Matthews turned to his lone conservative guest (readers are strongly encouraged to watch the videos to see just how well Salam takes control of the panel and the discussion): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Reihan Salam, this, this whole thing I think it gets ethnic, I think it gets tribal. I listened to Rush Limbaugh this week saying, you know, “We’re not Islamophobic. We elected Barack Obama. That proves we’re not Islamophobic.” That’s saying he’s Islamic again when the guy’s a Christian. REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: I don’t that’s quite what it’s saying. MATTHEWS: What is it saying? SALAM: I think what it’s saying is that Barack Obama is someone who comes from a very different kind of background and America has embraced him in large numbers. I also think the idea, respectfully, that Glenn Beck is being controlled by Rupert Murdoch as a puppet master gets things wrong. KLEIN: He hired him. He hired him. SALAM: When you look at Glenn Beck, when you see someone, for example, remember Louis Farrakhan the Million Man March? What was the Million Man March about? A lot of people were terrified about it. It caused a lot of consternation from liberals and conservatives. But ultimately what you saw was an event where tons of African-American men got together and it was really about identity and pride. And I think that when you’re looking at our politics right now, it’s true that in an economic downturn, you see a lot of confusion. You see a lot of uncertainty. And there is a decent number of people who feel not like have-nots, but they feel like are-knots. They feel that they’re not being respected in their public life and they want to assert themselves. For those interested, Salam wrote an article about this on Sunday. But I digress:   MATTHEWS: Who are the Glenn Beck constituency? SALAM: I think that it’s a lot of folks. It’s a lot of people from smaller cities, rural areas, small towns, tend to be white, tend to be Christian-identified. MATTHEWS: Okay, who is their villain? SALAM: I don’t think they necessarily have a villain so much as there’s a lot of confusion… KLEIN: Oh, come on. SALAM: …and anger and resentment. KLEIN: No, listen, the anger is the key here. The one thing that the Million Man March has in common with the Glenn Beck march is anger. And, this is the greatest Democracy and the most prosperous country in the history of the world. Sooner or later you got to ask people, “What are you so damned angry about?” Stop the tape! Isn’t that what Republicans could have asked unhappy voters in 2006? The economy was still booming. Unemployment was under five percent. Yet Democrats had an historic midterm election transfer of power. Now, with unemployment at 9.5 percent and likelihood heading higher, this pathetic liberal “journalist” doesn’t understand what people are “so damned angry about”: SALAM: Anger is what united those men who gathered during the Million Man march. I think it goes back to… KLEIN: Anger at white people, yes! Yes, that’s not an error in transcription. Klein really said the Million Man March was about African-Americans angry at white people:  SALAM: I’m pretty sure that’s not true. KATTY KAY, BBC: When you say, when you say that they’re not have-nots, they feel they are-nots, they are not what? They are not what they see represented in Washington? SALAM: That’s, that’s certainly a part of it. Also, a lot of these people felt disaffected during the Bush years as well. There’s a large number of voters… KAY: But they weren’t angry and they weren’t speaking out against Washington. SALAM: Oh, they certainly were angry, but that anger, that anger wasn’t part of the narrative. Right now that anger fits a media narrative, if I may, that’s very compelling and exciting for people to talk about, and it fits a lot of preconceived notions. KLEIN: And where is that coming narrative coming from? SALAM: It’s coming from a lot of folks, including some of the folks around this roundtable not intentionally, but I think it’s the prism through which we see the world. Ouch! Talk about your shot to the heart! Of course, what Salam was saying was 100 percent true. The disaffected conservative voters have been showing their displeasure since Ross Perot began educating people about the perils of fiscal indiscipline in 1992.  More recently, this anger manifested itself when conservatives didn’t show up to vote in 2006 due to their disgust with the out of control spending by a Republican-controlled Congress. Not that shills like Klein would ever want to admit it, but conservative anger at Republicans had just as much to do with the Democrats’ victory in 2006 as did liberal anger at Republicans. But this lesson wasn’t over, for Matthews asked Salam another great question: MATTHEWS: Here’s my question: There’s a big differential between Republicans attitudes towards Islam and Democratic attitudes. There’s some animus from both parties. But only 27 percent of Democrats say they have a problem with Islam. 54 percent of Republicans do. Explain the differential. As a little background, Matthews has been harping on this issue since the Pew Research Center released these numbers on August 19. Now, the liberal host was finally going to understand the data:  SALAM: I will happily explain it. 25 percent of Americans identify as Republicans. 42 percent identify as conservatives. When you look at those conservatives who don’t identify with the Republican Party, they have different views on a whole host of issues including gay marriage and what have you. And I think that when you’re looking at that 25 percent, that smaller group, then it stands to reason that they’re going to have somewhat different views. Another thing is… MATTHEWS: Why are they anti-islamic. SALAM: One way of saying “I have an unfavorable view of Islam” is to say that “I devoutly believe my own religious views, and I do not accept those views as true.” The view that a lot of Americans have, you know, Buddhists and Hindus and Christians are all going toward the same God, that is the eccentric view in the history of Abrahamic religion. MATTHEWS: Right. SALAM: And I think that, you know, if you asked this several years ago, you would have gotten a pretty similar answer. It’s just that it didn’t connect with the political narrative. Exactly, for the narrative today is that anyone that doesn’t agree with Barack Obama is racist and anybody that doesn’t support the Ground Zero mosque is anti-Islamic. As such, people like Matthews, Klein, and all the Left’s media minions are using any polling data that arises to further this narrative in the hopes the electorate will buy into it before Election Day. Nicely played, Reihan. Bravo!  Readers are encouraged to also review Brad Wilmouth’s ” Joe Klein & Matthews Link Anti-Muslim ‘Attitude’ to ‘Deranged Muslim’ Violence, Small-Town Whites Miss ‘Ethnic Purity’ of Past .”

Follow this link:
National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

CBS’s Schieffer Hits Miller for ‘Extreme Positions,’ Ridicules GOP Field as ‘Kind of an Exotic Crew’

Republicans are “exotic” and “extreme,” and against science too, CBS’s Bob Schieffer contended on Sunday’s Face the Nation. “You have also taken some fairly controversial, some would say very extreme, positions,” Schieffer lectured Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller , citing “you want to phase out Medicare, you want to privatize Social Security.” Miller countered: “I would suggest to you that if one thinks that the Constitution is extreme then you’d also think that the founders are extreme.” Next, picking up on Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim Democrats are “are centrist” while Republicans “are really off on the right wing fringe,” Schieffer pressed Republican Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour “about that,” highlighting Miller’s “controversial stands” before asserting:  Isn’t that going to make it harder for some of these Republican candidates to get elected because down in Kentucky you have Rand Paul, who’s got the nomination for the Senate there, talking about, well, maybe we ought to rethink the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’65. You’ve got Joe Buck, who won the nomination up in Colorado, who’s talking about bicycle paths being a, might lead to UN control or something other. It seems to me that you do have kind of an exotic crew out there this time. Barbour shot back: “Well Bob, the administration and the Democratic Congress have taken the biggest lurch to the left in policy in American history.” As for bicycles and the UN, Schieffer was apparently referring to an early August comment by Dan Maes, Colorado’s Republican gubernatorial candidate who is running against Denver’s Mayor, not Ken Buck the Senate candidate. According to an August 4 Denver Post article, “ Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns ,” he was making an argument about “Denver’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.” The CBSNews.com summary post, on this edition of Face the Nation, also pivoted from Wasserman Schultz’s perspective: “ Tea Party Making It Harder for GOP: Fla. Dem .” Schieffer ended the show with a commentary decrying a federal judge for issuing an “injunction placing limits on stem cell research, an area that holds the greatest possibilities for medical breakthroughs since penicillin.” Without regard for the moral issues or how the latest breakthroughs have come from unimpeded research using adult stem cells (the ruling blocked only federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), Schieffer insisted “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.” He painted opponents as being against gaining knowledge: “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.” After Schieffer repeatedly marveled about Miller’s pledge to work to cut federal payments to Alaska, in return for the federal government turning land over to the state, this exchange took place: BOB SCHIEFFER: You have also taken some fairly controversial, some would say very extreme, positions. First you say you want to phase out Medicare. You want to privatize Social Security. I have to say there are a lot of people in Alaska who are on Medicare and are getting Social Security. Isn’t that position going to be a problem for you in the election, in this general election? JOE MILLER: I would suggest to you that if one thinks that the Constitution is extreme then you’d also think that the founders are extreme… Later: DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: …Americans really are going to have a very clear choice set up in November between moderate Democrats who are centrist, where the country is, and Republicans who are really off on the right wing fringe. And there’s countless examples of that across the country. SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask Governor Barbour about that. What about that, Governor Barbour? Because you just heard Joe Miller, who may wind up as the nominee for the Republicans up in Alaska, saying he’s go out and campaign on less money for Alaska, less federal dollars coming in. He has taken several controversial stands like that and, I must say, to his credit he didn’t back off of them when I asked him about it this morning. But isn’t that going to make it harder for some of these Republican candidates to get elected because down in Kentucky you have Rand Paul, who’s got the nomination for the Senate there, talking about, well, maybe we ought to rethink the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’65. You’ve got Joe Buck, who won the nomination up in Colorado, who’s talking about bicycle paths being a, might lead to UN control or something other. It seems to me that you do have kind of an exotic crew out there this time. HALEY BARBOUR: Well Bob, the administration and the Democratic Congress have taken the biggest lurch to the left in policy in American history… Schieffer’s commentary at the end of the August 29 program: Finally today, last week two people I know were diagnosed with colon cancer, one of the deadliest of all cancers. Because my wife and I are cancer survivors, because my mother died of cancer because she was afraid to go to the doctor, I’ve come to know a little about the disease. My friends have a serious illness, but there is a path to recovery that was not there not so long ago. As I talked to them last week, I was again struck by the remarkable progress science is making to give them that path. Being told we have cancer no longer means we’ve been given the death penalty. Like all scientific breakthroughs, advances in cancer research began and depend on basic research — science’s ability to go not where doctrine or tradition dictates, but where research takes it. Ironically, my friends were diagnosed about the time a federal judge issued the injunction placing limits on stem cell research, an area that holds the greatest possibilities for medical breakthroughs since penicillin. 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.

See more here:
CBS’s Schieffer Hits Miller for ‘Extreme Positions,’ Ridicules GOP Field as ‘Kind of an Exotic Crew’

Olbermann Ties Stabbing to Ground Zero Mosque Opposition, GOP Strategy is ‘Hate’

On Thursday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann tied together Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, the Ground Zero mosque, and illegal immigration, as he charged that “the Republican method” for electoral success is “hate.” The MSNBC host opened the show: “The Republican method for winning elections is hate. Hate somebody. Anybody will do. We have seen it this year with immigrants and now, Muslims. And now, in our fifth story tonight: for the first time, we have a former head of the Republican party confirming that, yes, his party does it. They do it to win and did it in 2004 and 2006 against gay Americans. He said this even though he himself is no longer denying that he, too, is gay.” Without evidence, Olbermann also blamed the stabbing of New York City cab driver Ahmed Sharif on those who oppose construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Although he later admitted that the mosque was not mentioned by the suspect, the MSNBC suggested a link as he teased the show: KEITH OLBERMANN: Karl Rove and the GOP targeted a minority group with fear and hate and legislation in 2004 and 2006 – gays, like Ken Mehlman. And now, the GOP is doing it again – same tactics, different group. CLIP OF AD: For centuries, Muslims built mosques where they won military victories. Now, they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero. OLBERMANN: An ad by Larry McCarthy, who was behind the Willie Horton commercial. And the newest ads’ metaphorical newest victim. AHMED SHARIF, STABBING VICTIM: I see his face. There`s so much anger and mad at me, and hate. I asked him, “Please, don`t kill me. Why do you have to kill me? What I did?” Unlike Olbermann, on the same day’s World News on ABC, correspondent Jeremy Hubbard noted that the suspect, Michael Enright, was involved with a peace group that supports building a mosque near Ground Zero. As he discussed with columnist Dan Savage former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman’s recent admission that he is gay, Olbermann and Savage both dismissed Mehlman’s contention that Republicans should get credit from homosexuals for opposing radical Islam because of the movement’s anti-gay nature: OLBERMANN: Mr. Mehlman`s suggestion that gay voters ought to vote Republican to oppose the greatest anti-gay force in the world, he`s not out of several other closets of self-delusion, is he? DAN SAVAGE, COLUMNIST: No. The Bush administration did nothing in the wake of the fall of Baghdad and toppling the Saddam Hussein regime to stop the anti-gay death squads that were roaming Iraq in the first five or six years of the war, murdering gays and lesbians, mostly gay men, with impunity all over Iraq. So, no, and Mehlman didn`t speak out, didn`t say anything about that at the time either. No credibility there either. Later in the same segment, Olbermann also erroneously showed a clip of the Willie Horton ad from the 1988 campaign which showed Horton’s mugshot, suggesting that the ad was a product of the George H.W. Bush presidential campaign when, in reality, the Bush ad that referenced Horton never used his image. Olbermann: The same party that gave us the Mehlman strategy, that gave us the Southern strategy of race-baiting that lived on in campaigns like the Willie Horton ad the first President Bush ran against Mike Dukakis, is today using the same tactic against Muslims, using anti- Muslim hysteria to drum up votes. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, August 26 Countdown show on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold : KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? The other revelation of the former chairman of the Republican National Committee: Karl Rove and the GOP targeted a minority group with fear and hate and legislation in 2004 and 2006 – gays, like Ken Mehlman. And now, the GOP is doing it again – same tactics, different group. CLIP OF AD: For centuries, Muslims built mosques where they won military victories. Now, they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero. OLBERMANN: An ad by Larry McCarthy, who was behind the Willie Horton commercial. And the newest ads’ metaphorical newest victim. AHMED SHARIF, STABBING VICTIM: I see his face. There`s so much anger and mad at me, and hate. I asked him, “Please, don`t kill me. Why do you have to kill me? What I did?” OLBERMANN: Our guest, Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. The GOP`s next targeted group: JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: It`s just nonsense to think that taxpayers are subsidizing the fattened salaries and pensions of federal bureaucrats who are out there making it harder to create public sector jobs. OLBERMANN: Federal bureaucrats like his staff and himself, and “John of Orange” himself. … OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York . The Republican method for winning elections is hate. Hate somebody. Anybody will do. We have seen it this year with immigrants and now, Muslims. And now, in our fifth story tonight: for the first time, we have a former head of the Republican party confirming that, yes, his party does it. They do it to win and did it in 2004 and 2006 against gay Americans. He said this even though he himself is no longer denying that he, too, is gay. Ken Mehlman, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, is the most powerful Republican confirmed to be gay, Mehlman outing himself. In an interview with the Atlantic magazine`s Web site, Mehlman also confirming years of accusations that the Republican party, when he was the Bush/Cheney campaign manager in 2004 and again as RNC chief in 2006, used a strategy of putting anti-gay measures, specifically limiting the right to marry, on state ballots around the country. Mehlman, the Atlantic reports, quote, “was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush`s chief strategic advisor, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans. Mehlman telling Advocate.com, quote, “There were a lot of people, including people that supported the federal marriage amendments, for example, that worried about this being divisive.” Mehlman today told the Advocate, quote, “I think if you look at the 11 states where there were marriage amendments on the ballot in terms of numbers, Bush`s relative improvement versus the 2000 campaign was less than in the other states. I think President Bush won, in my judgment, because of, most importantly, national security.” Of course, marriage amendments only got on the ballot in states that were primarily Bush country anyway. But one state can tip an election – like Ohio did – Ohio, which had one of those 11 marriage initiatives on the ballot, a fact political analysts said in 2004 was essential to Mr. Bush`s victory there. Mr. Bush only won Ohio by 136,000. It gave him the presidency. Family Research Council president, Tony Perkins, telling the Washington Post in 2004 that gay marriage was, quote, “the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the President to a second term.” Rove had famously predicted that Mr. Bush, having lost the popular vote in 2000, would need four million more evangelical Christian votes in 2004. Prior to the election, Rove and Mehlman held weekly conference calls with leaders from the religious right. By Election Day, they had anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballots in 11 states, most of the states Bush would have won anyway, but also in states like Ohio and in Kentucky, where Republican Senator Jim Bunning was in jeopardy, and, without Mr. Bush campaigning heavily in the state considered safe Bush territory, an anti-gay marriage initiative helped turn out evangelical voters who also propelled Bunning to victory. Mr. Mehlman today is an investment executive. He`s now an advocate for gay marriage but remains a Republican, telling the Atlantic that gay people should support Republicans because Republicans oppose Islamic jihad, which is, quote, “the greatest anti-gay force in the world.” Let`s turn to syndicated columnist, Dan Savage, editorial director for the Seattle newspaper, the Stranger, and author of “The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family.” Dan, good evening. DAN SAVAGE, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good evening, Keith. OLBERMANN: How does the history of 2004 look now that we have this admission from Mr. Mehlman? Both admissions, I should say. SAVAGE: Well, this admission doesn`t shock anybody in the gay community. This is really on the par with Ricky Martin coming out if Ricky Martin had had a hand in the insanely homophobic Bush campaign in 2004, which of course, he did not. Wake me when Levi Johnston comes out. OLBERMANN: Mr. Mehlman says about critics of his role in that, what is bluntly an anti-gay strategy: “If they can`t offer support, at least offer understanding.” Over to you. SAVAGE: We understand. We understand that Ken Mehlman had a chance to come out when he could have made a difference. And now, he`s only out and needs to make amends and has a great deal of amends to make. We understand that he rose quickly through the ranks in the Republican party and wound up at the top. And, like a lot of gay people, perhaps was closeted and suppressing his desires and channeling all of his energies into work. That doesn`t excuse his role in fomenting anti-gay bigotry in this country and putting off the day when gay and lesbian people in America enjoy our full civil equality. He has a lot of amends to make. And one fund-raiser for a marriage equality organization isn`t going to do it. OLBERMANN: Mr. Mehlman`s suggestion that gay voters ought to vote Republican to oppose the greatest anti-gay force in the world, he`s not out of several other closets of self-delusion, is he? SAVAGE: No. The Bush administration did nothing in the wake of the fall of Baghdad and toppling the Saddam Hussein regime to stop the anti-gay death squads that were roaming Iraq in the first five or six years of the war, murdering gays and lesbians, mostly gay men, with impunity all over Iraq. So, no, and Mehlman didn`t speak out, didn`t say anything about that at the time either. No credibility there either. OLBERMANN: He was widely praised for acknowledging and regretting the Republican Southern strategy, which, of course, stoked white racial hatred and particularly fear against blacks to turn out the white vote, ‘60s, ‘70s to some degree, maybe the ‘80s, maybe the ‘90s. We now know he was saying this at the same time that he has executing the same strategy, just a different target group: gays. And now, he wants Americans to vote for the party that is currently doing the same exact thing, using the same exact strategy, with a new fill in the blank, only it`s, you know, earlier this year, immigrants, now, more Muslims. We may come back to immigrants. It`s hard to tell. How does this cycle end if it does, Dan? SAVAGE: I think it ends six years ago from now in 2016 when then-former RNC chair, Michael Steele, comes out as a Muslim. I don`t know when it ends. Will they ever run out of people to hate and to campaign against and to vilify? They can`t run on their economic record. Whenever the Republicans are in charge, they drive the car into the ditch, as President Obama is running around saying. So they have to hate and they have to stoke hate to drive voters and to scare voters, to scare their evangelical white Southern shrinking base to the polls. It`s disgusting and it needs to stop. And I`m in despair of really it ever stopping. OLBERMANN: And I shouldn`t diminish the importance of this particular nature, this particular example of this strategy because it also involves people directing hatred towards a group to which they belong but cannot or will not say they belong. There`s an extra dimension that really is tragic to it, is it not? SAVAGE: It is tragic. And it`s a particularly gay tragedy, because we have the option of coming out or not coming out. Living with integrity or not living with integrity. Selling our souls as Ken Mehlman did, or not selling our souls. And it`s Ken Mehlman`s personal tragedy, but it`s also, the damage he inflicted, the role he played, it`s inexcusable. And, again, as I said earlier, he has a lot of amends to make, more than one fund-raiser. And, hopefully, he is confronting not just his own conscience but people in his political party, his so-called political allies, about their homophobia, about the Republican party`s homophobia. OLBERMANN: Columnist Dan Savage, also of Seattle`s newspaper, the Stranger, author of “The Commitment,” thanks as always for your time, Dan. SAVAGE: Thank you, Keith. OLBERMANN: The same party that gave us the Mehlman strategy, that gave us the Southern strategy of race-baiting that lived on in campaigns like the Willie Horton ad the first President Bush ran against Mike Dukakis, is today using the same tactic against Muslims, using anti- Muslim hysteria to drum up votes. In this case, a new ad you`re looking at now, false and misleading, about the proposed Islamic center, Park 51, near Ground Zero, targeting Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, introduced by, literally, the same GOP firm that made the Willie Horton ad. Intentionally divisive? Openly divisive? Listen to Republican Congressman John Fleming talk about his Democratic opponent, an opponent who is literally a Methodist pastor. REP. JOHN FLEMING (R-LA), AUDIO: He`s going to say, you know, we need to get along better. We need to work and we need to stretch across the aisle. We have two competing world views here, and there is no way that we`re going to reach across the aisle. One is going to have to win. We`re either going to have to go down the socialist road and become like Western Europe and create, I guess, really a godless society, an atheist society, or we`re going to continue down the other pathway where we believe in freedom of speech, individual liberties, and we remain a Christian nation. So we`re going to have to win that battle- OLBERMANN: So, there you have it, Christian or atheist. In New York today, we learned that the man who attacked a Muslim cab driver here did not mention the Islamic center proposed for just over two blocks from Ground Zero. But the religion that has been vilified by mosque opponents, vilified by Republican politicians heading into this year`s election, that religion, the knife-wielding attacker certainly did mention that religion. SHARIF: He asked me where I`m from. I answer him, Bangladesh. Then question, am I Muslim? Yes, I am Muslim. Then he told me, Assalamu Alaikum, I return, Wa Alaikum Assalam. And said this month of Ramadan, how I`m doing. I said, I`m doing good today. And he started making fun of the month of Ramadan. Then I decided to keep my mouth shout. He started yelling and screaming, “This is the check post, this is the check post, you mother (BLEEP). I have to put you down.” This is the time. I have to take King Abdullah to the check point. I said, “What are you talking about? What check point? What are you talking about?” In this time, I saw the knife coming to my neck. OLBERMANN: Let`s turn to Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. Congress. Congressman, thank you for your time tonight. REP. KEITH ELLISON (D-MN): Pleased to be here, Keith. How are you? OLBERMANN: Oh, disturbed, I guess that`s a good word for it. ELLISON: Yeah. OLBERMANN: Mr. Fleming of the House says our choice is between a society that is officially godless, or being a Christian nation. Isn`t that a choice that we made already a couple of hundred years ago, or am I misreading documents? ELLISON: Yeah, well, I`ll tell you, I think that Thomas Jefferson would be shocked to hear that`s the choice in front of us. I think we have a choice between religious freedom or religious intolerance. And unfortunately, Mr. Fleming is choosing intolerance. You know, it`s so important, I mean, look, they have created a social, political cultural environment where somebody thinks it`s a good idea to attack a person with a knife because they`re Muslim . You know, political rhetoric has consequences. And I believe that we are, they are lighting a match on a very dangerous set of circumstances, one of which we just heard about. OLBERMANN: The Southern strategy that we talked about, the Mehlman strategy, the anti-immigrant strategy, anti-Hispanic strategy from earlier this year, now, anti-Muslim. What, what is this? ELLISON: Well, this is distraction and diversion. I mean, it`s true, it`s true agitation of people`s hatreds, but really, it`s because, you know, they have a failed economic program and they don`t want people to look at it. So what they do is they appeal to people`s worse most base instincts, which is to hate the other. And this is something that, as you correctly point out, is tried and unfortunately true. But, you know, you remember, Reagan was talking about welfare queens. And now, and then we went on to Willie Horton. And then we went on to, I mean, just the, just the divisive thing that they come up with a new one every single election. And when the vast majority of Americans wake up to this and reach out to each other and not on each other, then they will not be able to pull it. OLBERMANN: Is that the only solution of this? Because it does seem that this pattern is repeating, just with a different “fill in the blank” here. I mean, if Republicans swap out a different group to target every year, why haven`t Democrats figured out a way to beat it every year? ELLISON: Well, because I think that we have too many Democrats who operate on a basis of fear. You know, if we would just stand up and say, look, you know, we have a First Amendment and a heritage of religious tolerance that we are proud of and we are not going to back off of that, we would win. That would be winning election strategy. It would be good policy, it would be good politics. But so often, they catch us by surprise, and we end up trying to triangulate and capitulating. And it`s just a sad thing. I ask Democrats, progressives, liberals, to stand up and be proud of our Constitution and be proud of our heritage of equality, liberty. And because if we don`t stand up for these ideals, the people who want to divide us and whip up hate and division, they will be active, and, unfortunately, they may be successful. OLBERMANN: Where we started this segment, Congressman, with Ken Mehlman, not so much his personal revelations but his revelations about what was strategitized in terms of putting these anti-gay measures on the ballots in `04 and `06 to bring out the Republican base and a little more. Do you have any response to what he also said in this, which, where he said gay people should vote for Republicans because Republicans oppose Islamic jihad, which he called the greatest anti-gay force in the world? ELLISON: You know, that just says to me that Mr. Mehlman still has not woken up. He still is stuck on trying to vilify and scapegoat people. I mean, I would hope that he would make a real change and really turn over a new leaf and say, you know what, scapegoating gays is wrong, scapegoating Muslims is wrong, Catholics, let`s just get out of that and really get a public ethic where we try to get Americans to come together around these basic issues of identity and respect. So, you know, he still hasn`t gotten it. And, unfortunately, you know, he`s still suffering some similar delusion that kept him being dishonest for so long. OLBERMANN: Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, it`s always a pleasure. Thanks for your time. ELLISON: Thank you. OLBERMANN: 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.

Continued here:
Olbermann Ties Stabbing to Ground Zero Mosque Opposition, GOP Strategy is ‘Hate’

Open Thread: Big Labor to Pool Resources Against ‘Right-wing Group Labor Assault’

Apparently sensing that November could spell disaster for union-friendly candidates, some of the heaviest hitters have agreed to team up.  The leaders of the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have agreed to coordinate spending millions of dollars in the midterm elections to support pro-union candidates, most of them Democrats. The two labor organizations say they have a combined $88 million or more to deploy in this year’s election cycle. It’s not clear how much of that money they will pool together. The renewed alliance between the two big labor groups comes as Democrats are battling to retain control of both houses of Congress. The AFL-CIO and SEIU plan to target elections in 26 states, all but five of which they consider battleground territory, including California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio… “It’s unclear to what extent you’re going to see the labor and other groups be able to match the right-wing group labor assault,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “I think labor’s main message will be that things have clearly begun to improve and the biggest mistake now would be to return to the failed Bush economic policies.” Putting aside for a moment Van Hollen’s ridiculous proclamations, do you think Big Labor’s cooperation will produce results?

View original post here:
Open Thread: Big Labor to Pool Resources Against ‘Right-wing Group Labor Assault’

Media Nearly Silent as ObamaCare Proponents Drop Deficit, Cost Savings Claims

It has now been five days since Politico’s Ben Smith published a powerpoint presentation created by an amalgamation of powerful left wing interest groups, conceding that two of the central arguments for passing ObamaCare – that it will lower the deficit and will reduce health care costs – have failed. For a group of organizations integral to the passage of the law, that was a stunning admission. And yet, the mainstream press is nearly silent on the issue. Searches on Nexis and Google News reveal no coverage from the major television networks, the cable news channels (with the exception of Fox), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, NPR, PBS, or Newsweek. To their credit, Time Magazine and the Washington Post published a blog post each on the revelation. Even while discussing ObamaCare and its potential effects on the deficit and health care costs, some media outlets managed to avoid any mention of a fact Democrats now seem to be conceding: “the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed,” as Smith notes. The powerpoint, created by an umbrella organization called the Herndon Alliance – which includes left-wing power brokers such as the SEIU, MoveOn, La Raza, and the Center for American Progress – specifically instructs those still trying to sell ObamaCare to the American public to avoid claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficits.” Of course those paying attention already knew that. Even the White House’s own Medicare Actuary has acknowledged that ObamaCare will increase, not reduce, the amount the nation spends on health care over the law’s first 10 years. Optimistic projections beyond the 10 year window “may be unrealistic,” the Actuary stated ( pdf ). Not only will the bill raise the amount the nation as a whole spends on health care, it will also raise individual Americans’ insurance premiums, according to the Congressional Budget Office . Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin concurred with that assessment . Neither will the law reduce the federal deficit. Once one strips away all of the accounting tricks and budgetary gimmicks, one finds, in the words of the New York Times’s Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.” So the liberal organization’s admission that controlling costs and trimming the deficits are rhetorical dead ends when it comes to selling ObamaCare is hardly a surprise. To say otherwise would contradict the facts, and Americans are not stupid. The group also recommended that ObamaCare’s remaining proponents stop trying to sell the law as an undeniable success. Instead, the presentation suggests they tell skeptical voters that “The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work to improve it.” (Emphasis in the original.) Byron York explains the significance of Herdon’s recommendations: It’s a stunning about-face for a party that saw national health care as its signature accomplishment. “This is the first time we’ve seen from Democrats that they clearly understand they have a serious problem in terms of selling this legislation,” says Republican pollster David Winston. The reluctance to defend Obamacare as a cost-cutter and deficit-reducer is particularly telling. Wasn’t that the No. 1 reason for passing the bill in the first place? “This legislation will … lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” President Obama said when he signed the bill into law on March 23. Now, Democrats are throwing that argument out the window… The story might be even worse than that for Democrats. Everyone knows the public’s top issue is the economy. It has been since before Obama took office. So when the president and Democratic congressional leadership devoted a year to passing national health care, Republicans charged they were ignoring the public’s wishes. Now, when Democrats admit that Obamacare won’t cut costs or reduce deficits, they open themselves up to a more serious charge: they spent a year working on something that will actually cost jobs and make things worse. The liberal interest group coalition’s recommendations speak volumes about the political and policy failures of the administration and the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. And yet virtually all major media players are silent on the admission. Democrats are making a key shift in strategy in their efforts to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, but if you get your news from most of the nation’s major news outlets, you are most likely unaware of that fact, or its implications for the policy.

Here is the original post:
Media Nearly Silent as ObamaCare Proponents Drop Deficit, Cost Savings Claims