Tag Archives: democrats

CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During on interview on Saturday’s The Situation Room with independent Florida Senate candidate and Governor Charlie Crist, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer pressed the former Republican to announce which party he would choose to caucus with if he is elected to the Senate, and brought up his current associations with Democrats and flip-flops toward more liberal positions. As Crist repeatedly tried to evade acknowledging the importance of being aligned with one of the two major parties to have influence, and the likelihood that he would ultimately choose to ally with one of the parties, Blitzer was persistent in pressing for an answer, at one point quipping: “You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence.” Crist eventually seemed to hint that his decision would depend on which party holds the majority after November: “And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state.” After playing a clip of Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio accusing Crist of moving toward President Obama politically, Blitzer noted: “But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Saturday, August 14, The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: All right, let’s talk a little bit about why you’re here in Washington. Among other reasons, obviously, you want to be in the Situation Room, our Situation Room- GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST (I-FL), LAUGHING: I came here to see you. BLITZER: -but tonight you’re going to a fundraiser and some prominent Democrats are hosting this fundraiser for you, including someone very close to the former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. What does that mean? Are you now a Democrat for all practical purposes? CRIST: I think it means we have broad support, and I’m very pleased by that. I mean, from Republicans, Democrats, independents. I think everybody has the notion and the idea that they would like an independent voice in the United States Senate fighting for Floridians first. And that’s what this is really all about – being independent, putting people above the party, and making sure that they have a voice in the Senate that’s an honest broker, looks out for their interests first. And Democrats and Republicans and independents want it. BLITZER: Are you getting more support now from Republicans or Democrats? CRIST: I’d say it’s pretty evenly split. I mean, you know, a lot of friends from the Republican party have stayed with us, continued to help, and God bless them for that. New Democrats who have become very good friends and some Democrats have been friend for a long time are just stepping up in a much more significant way now. BLITZER: The fundraiser tonight’s going to be basically Democrats, though? CRIST: That’s correct, it is. BLITZER: There are two independent U.S. Senators, as you know – Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. But they both caucus with the Democrats and the Democrats are in the majority. They have chairmanship committees and committee rankings and all of that. If you’re elected to the United States Senate, will you caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans? CRIST: I’ve always said that I’ll caucus with the people of Florida. And what I mean by that is, issue by issue, whatever’s in the best interests of the people of my state, my fellow Floridians, I want to be able to be with those that are going to help Florida. BLITZER: But you got to make a decision because, if you’re not going to be caucusing with one party or the other party, you’re not going to have any committee ranking, you’re not going to have any influence in the United States Senate. You’re going to have to make a major decision. CRIST: Well, if I have the honor of winning, I’ll have a vote in the United States Senate. BLITZER: You’ll have one vote, but if you’re chairman of the committee, if you caucus with the Democrats, chairman of a subcommittee, you could have some influence, so you’re going to have to decide whether to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. You just can’t caucus with yourself, if you will, if you want to have some influence. CRIST: Well, I got to keep my eye on the ball, and the eye on the ball for me means looking at November 2 nd. I’m not going to be a chairman of anything if I don’t get elected to the Senate first. So I have to continue to work hard, campaign hard, continue to strive to earn the trust and confidence of my fellow Floridians. BLITZER: So when the Democrats at the fundraiser tonight ask you, Charlie Crist, we’re going to give you money, they’ll say. Are you promising us you’ll be with Harry Reid and the Democrats assuming he gets re-elected in the United States Senate, you won’t go with Mitch McConnell and the Republicans? CRIST: I’m not going to commit to either one because I’m only committed to the people of Florida. BLITZER: So you’ll commit after, if you’re elected. Is that what you’re saying? CRIST: Probably. BLITZER: Because you’ll have to caucus, you’ll have to make that decision down the road. CRIST: Well, I don’t know that Wayne Morris did. I think he literally took a seat in the middle of the aisle, right? BLITZER: He didn’t. You’re right. You’re right on that. He didn’t. He took a seat in the middle, but, you know, then the people of Florida could suffer if you don’t have the influence that you would like to have. CRIST: And you’ve just hit on the pivotal issue really: What is in the best interests of the people of Florida? We don’t know who’s going to be in the majority November 2 nd after the general election. And so I think it’s important to keep an open mind, to stay committed only to one thing, and that’s the people of my state. BLITZER: Your Republican challenger, Marco Rubio, was here. He was sitting in that seat in the Situation Room just a little while ago on July 20. He said this: MARCO RUBIO, FLORIDA REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I don’t believe he’s really an independent. I think there’s increasing evidence that he now is embracing the Obama agenda. BLITZER: You heard what he said. CRIST: I heard what he said. BLITZER: You’re smiling. CRIST: Well, why wouldn’t I smile? BLITZER: But are you increasingly embracing the Obama agenda? Because he’s saying you flip-flopped on a whole lot of issues where you were a Republican, but now you’re siding with the Democrats, including President Obama. CRIST: Well, that’s what you’d expect him to say. He’s my opponent after all, one of them. And we don’t know who the other one’s gong to be yet until the primary concludes on August 24. So I look forward to that. I really do. And there will be distinctions between us on a lot of issues. But that’s the kind of thing you hear from a lot of the, you know, party candidates, if you will. They like to take shots at people. I’m not here to really do that today. I’m here to offer myself to the people of Florida as an independent voice who wants to rise above that kind of back-and-forth stuff that’s driving them crazy all over the country.

View original post here:
CNN’s Blitzer Presses Crist on Party Preference, ‘You Just Can’t Caucus with Yourself’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After Rare Lapse Into Lucidity, Ed Schultz Reverts to Inane Conspiracy Mongering on Economy

Posted on August 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Why does Ed Schultz think Wall Street and “big business” are sitting on $1 trillion in assets? Depends on what week you ask him. Here’s what Schultz said about that during a contentious discussion on July 26 with publisher Mort Zuckerman on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” as rebroadcast the following day on Schultz’s radio show ( click here for audio) — ZUCKERMAN: And if you don’t think that the business community doesn’t feel that they’re being, you know, attacked, I’m just telling you, that isn’t the case. They do believe it. SCHULTZ: OK, they may believe that, Mr. Zuckerman … ZUCKERMAN: ‘Cause they are! SCHULTZ: …but credit is tight, money is tight, small businesses getting money is a huge issue, and Wall Street, in my opinion, the bankers, tight with a dollar because they want to see this president fail. ZUCKERMAN: That’s absolute nonsense. SCHULTZ: Well, that’s not nonsense … ZUCKERMAN: That may be your view … Earlier in the interview, Zuckerman said this about hesitancy among business owners to hire more workers after Schultz cited “big time” higher profits for J.P. Morgan and insurance companies ( audio here ) — SCHULTZ: I’m curious, with all of the Wall Street numbers that are out there, J.P. Morgan, their profits up big time, insurance companies are reporting, you know, profits big time again this year. How is that bad for business? How do you see this? ZUCKERMAN: Nobody says that that’s bad for business. Of course it’s not bad for business. And what’s happened to all big companies of America is that they’ve been in a position to significantly reduce their costs. And that, amongst other things, means cutting a lot of jobs in order to do that because they really were very concerned about what was going to happen and what was happening in the economy. A week later, when he was interviewed during his radio show by MSNBC daytime anchor Tamron Hall on Aug. 3, Schultz sang a different tune about “big business” holding tight on $1 trillion in assets — a tune eerily similar to that coming from Zuckerman on July 26 ( audio ) — HALL: I know the president says jobs saved and he says things would have been worse, but still, you’ve got millions of folks out of work who thought that perhaps they would get a boost from the stimulus that they may not see. SCHULTZ: Well, you’ve got a trillion dollars on the sideline right now from big business because they’re afraid of what might happen in the economy , they won’t invest in workers … Alas, the lucidity couldn’t last. Earlier this week, Schultz was interviewed again by Hall during his radio show on Aug. 9 ( audio ) — SCHULTZ:  No one can make the case better than President Obama when he talks about what he has been up against when it comes to Boehner and McConnell and this crowd that has just fought him at every way you possibly can. HALL: But the Republicans say all you need to do is ask, where are the jobs, and that shuts down Democrats on the spot. What do you say to that? SCHULTZ: Well, I don’t agree with that. We’re not peeling off 750,000 jobs a month any more, interest rates are great, the table is set for this economy to come roaring back. We’ve got Wall Street that’s sitting on $1.8 trillion worth of assets because they want to see this president fail. …. which Mort Zuckerman ridiculed as “absolute nonsense” — followed a week later by Schultz parroting Zuckerman.

Read the original here:
After Rare Lapse Into Lucidity, Ed Schultz Reverts to Inane Conspiracy Mongering on Economy

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gallup Poll Finds Continuing Mistrust of Newspapers, Television News

Posted on August 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Lymari Morales at Gallup reports that confidence in the news media remains low. Remember when they suggest high negatives for politicians, they are hardly popular, either. They’re “on par with Americans’ lackluster confidence in banks and slightly better than their dismal rating of Health Management Organizations and big business .” The report began: Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news — with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007…. The decline in trust since 2003 is also evident in a 2009 Gallup poll that asked about confidence and trust in the “mass media” more broadly . While perceptions of media bias present a viable hypothesis, Americans have not over the same period grown any more likely to say the news media are too conservative or too liberal . One of the ironies of Gallup’s annual Confidence in Institutions survey is that young Americans express the most trust in newspapers — while they’re the least likely to read them. That certainly paints a picture of blind trust:   Confidence is hard to find, even among Democrats and liberals, who have historically been the most trusting of the news media. While 18- to 29-year-olds express more trust in newspapers than most older Americans, Gallup polling has found they read national newspapers the least . Younger Americans also expressed more confidence than older Americans in several other institutions tested, including Congress, the medical system, and the criminal justice system, suggesting younger Americans are more confident in institutions in general. Perhaps the most interesting part of this survey comes in the chart. If you look at 1993 and compare it to 2010, newspapers haven’t fallen too far, from 31 percent with “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence then to 25 percent now. But television news has fallen much harder: from 46 percent in 1993 to 22 percent now.

Read this article:
Gallup Poll Finds Continuing Mistrust of Newspapers, Television News

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

How Crazy? Actress Boasts She’d Kick Limbaugh In His Lady Parts, Michelle Malkin in the ‘Nut Sack’

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

After her ranting against Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday’s Larry King Live, actress Aisha Tyler tried to sound high-minded after she was accused by Dana Loesch of playing the race card: “Look, I’m a progressive, but I have a lot of conservative friends. When we have a conversation, we’re not screaming at each other about who is wrong and who is right. We trying to figure out how we’re going to move the country forward.” Really? Because when Tyler appeared that morning on Stephanie Miller’s liberal talk radio show — the oh-so-dignified radio home of slavish Obama talking points and crotch humor — she was joking that she would like to kick Michelle Malkin in her “nut sack” (“wear a cup, lady.”) And she’d kick Limbaugh in his “vagina.”   JIM WARD, Miller sidekick: I’m not sure, which is worse, if he actually believes all the crap he [Limbaugh] says, or if it’s just an act? TYLER: I actually felt that way about Ann Coulter. She says the most outrageous things and I think sometimes she says them because she knows they’re going to get on —  MILLER: Of course, of course. TYLER: — I don’t know. I can’t decide either because okay it’s theater, so maybe there’s some kind of sophistication involved.  MILLER: I knew her years ago. I’ve said this many times on the air. She at some point went “oh, I have to say crazier bleep to sell books.”  TYLER: Yeah, but now she’s being out-crazied by Michelle Malkin, who by the way I would kick right in the nuts if I met her. (Miller and staff laughing) So Michelle, don’t let me catch you at the Beverly Center cause right in the nut sack is where my foot’s going. Wear a cup, lady.   MILLER: Well, unless they get rid of the 14th Amendment and then all the anchor babies are gone so you’ll have to go somewhere else to kick her. 29 minutes after the hour. TYLER: If I ever meet Rush Limbaugh, I’m kicking him in his vagina. This is just the latest way in which the Stephanie Miller show proves liberals can manufacture the exact opposite of high-minded National Public Radio. PS: On his show Tuesday morning, Bill Press explained that right-wing talk show hosts are slavish “kiss ass” repeaters of the Republican line, while the liberals are fancy-free: The difference between the right and the left is, the right will– they will, they’re lock-step, you know? They will go right down the line, it doesn’t care. They may disagree, but they will zip their lip and they won’t say anything, and that’s what you’ll hear on right-wing talk radio, is just talking points, talking points, talking points, kiss-ass, kiss-ass, kiss-ass. That’s not who we are on the left! That’s not who Democrats are, that’s not who Liberals are, whether you’re on the radio like me at the microphone or you’re out there like all the rest of you and most Americans just listening.

Read more from the original source:
How Crazy? Actress Boasts She’d Kick Limbaugh In His Lady Parts, Michelle Malkin in the ‘Nut Sack’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

George Stephanopoulos Touts Obama’s Liberal Achievements: ‘What More Could the President Have Done?’

Posted on August 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday interviewed liberal Congressman Dennis Kucinich and defended Barack Obama’s left-wing achievements. Stephanopoulos touted, ” Congressman, what more could the President have done? You’ve got this almost $800 million stimulus bill. You’ve got a financial reform package .” [MP3 audio here .] The GMA host was trying to make peace between Obama and those who had been derided by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs as the “professional left.” The former Democratic operative turned journalist trumpeted, “[Obama] did something that…no Democratic president in 50 years has been able to do, lay the groundwork for universal, national health care. That is quite a legislative record, isn’t it?” This isn’t the first time co-host has attempted to mediate a dispute between liberals. On March 13, 2010 , Stephanopoulos lobbied wavering Democrat Bart Stupak to support the health care bill. Using similar language, he cajoled, “What more do you need?” Stephanopoulos also pressed, “Did he say anything to change your mind that could move you from no to yes?” A transcript of the August 12 segment, which aired at 7:08am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more on this, let’s go down to Washington. Congressman Dennis Kucinich called out there by Robert Gibbs, joins us this morning. He, of course, ran for president the last two around, I believe. So, Congressman, how did you take Mr. Gibbs’ comments? An insult? REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No. I think that Mr. Gibbs and the White House needs to realize that liberals support the President, but there’s still- the criticism is really a measure of the hopes that have not been realized. And I don’t think they ought to take it in the manner in which Gibbs, and apparently, the rest of the White House does take the criticism. STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman, what more could the President have done? You’ve got this almost $800 million stimulus bill. You’ve got a financial reform package. He did something that no president in- no Democratic president in 50 years has been able to do, lay the groundwork for universal, national health care. That is quite a legislative record, isn’t it? KUCINICH: Well, you can’t take away from the president his accomplishments, and I certainly don’t. But, there is this factor at the beginning of yours news show, you demonstrated, the economy is in a deep trough. We’re looking at a double dip recession. We have 9.5 percent of Americans out of work, over 15 million American has out of work. You have the trade deficit which is the largest it’s been in the last two years. We have to do something about the joblessness. It’s a key issue. And until the administration effectively addresses that, then those of us who call ourselves liberals are going to continue to insist, look, we should be talking about a full employment economy. We should be talking about getting America back to work. We shouldn’t be capitulating to the Fed or Wall Street with this false notion that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. We have to get America back to work. That is the key and central issue to all of this. And, in addition, if I might add, don’t forget about getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq, because that also inevitably has a drag on the economy. STEPHANOPOULOS: I know those are all big- The President has been pushing, though, very hard for more job creations programs. But the votes just aren’t there in the House and Senate, are they? KUCINICH: Well, you know what, though? The kind of tremendous hope that America felt in January of 2009 with the election of Barack Obama, an election which I supported after the- they’re still out there. People still want to believe that government has this transformational power. And it does. But we need the leadership that can make it happen. Franklin Roosevelt recognized in 1933 that America needed not just a New Deal, but we will to put America back to work. Rebuild the economy, rebuild America. We still have the capacity to do that now. And that’s what I say, the criticism is about hopes that have not been realized and the intention to make sure they get realized while we have a President we do want to support. STEPHANOPOULOS: Democratic governor Ed Rendell said the other day at that President is vulnerable to the primary challenge from the left. Are you considering on running again? KUCINICH: No. And I think it’s, you know, what we have to do is focus on coming together for the purpose of getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, the news is they want to slow down the movement out of Afghanistan. We have to focus on creating jobs. And, you know, it’s important who’s president, yes. But it’s also important that we as Democrats come together on mainstream economic ideas and try to paint as out of the mainstream, people who want a full-employment economy. People who want peace, people who want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s the mistake that Mr. Gibbs made. He’s missing exactly what’s happening out there across America.

Here is the original post:
George Stephanopoulos Touts Obama’s Liberal Achievements: ‘What More Could the President Have Done?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ed Schultz, Clueless as Usual, Angered by Allegedly Unprecedented Criticism of First Lady

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Is Ed Schultz determined to make his mark as the dumbest man in media? Hardly a day passes without the lib radio host and MSNBC action hero providing more fodder for the premise. On his radio show Monday, Schultz rushed to the defense of first lady Michelle Obama for criticism of her winging off to an opulent Spanish resort hotel during — as Schultz and other liberals oft remind us — the worst economy since the Great Depression. Here’s Schultz defending Mrs. Obama after first talking about a campaign ad that mocks House Minority Leader John Boehner as an out-of-touch elitist golfer ( click here for audio) — I think the Democrats, as far as setting the tone, I don’t know why the White House isn’t all over this. I think that the criticism that Michelle Obama is getting for being overseas is absolutely disgusting. She is the first lady of the United States, the assumed ambassador, someone who can do nothing but goodwill for America and its allies and its image in the world. And I think it’s important. I’ve never, ever seen a story like this where the first lady is criticized. This is a great chance for the White House to go on the offensive. It is true that Michelle Obama’s overseas and she’s not running for anything, but she’s not on the golf course 119 times the way John Boehner is. Then again, Boehner isn’t bringing 70 Secret Service agents in tow on the public dime when he hits the links (his office denies that Boehner has golfed anywhere near as often as alleged by Blue America). Schultz claims he’s “never, ever seen a story like this where the first lady is criticized.” The sentiment of a Democrat, no doubt, but surely not a democrat. I’ll attempt to jog Schultz’s memory with the first obvious example that comes to mind. Just out of curiosity, Ed, did Hillary Clinton undergo much criticism in the eight years she was first lady? (I remember it well, from back when I was a Democrat). Unless Schultz was also in a coma during the decade before that, surely he recalls that first lady Nancy Reagan withstood similar slings and arrows during her husband’s two terms in office. Nancy Reagan and her astrologer — ring a bell? How about Mrs. Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign against drug abuse, the one liberals raved about? Any of this strike a chord? If Schultz were an inquisitive sort, he might be familiar with what is arguably the closest parallel to Michelle Obama’s vacation in Spain and its cost in political capital to her husband — then-first lady Jacqueline Kennedy yachting in the Mediterranean with — wait for it — her future second husband, Aristotle Onassis. As described by Laurence Leamer in his 2001 book, “The Kennedy Men: 1901-1963” — The president clearly would have preferred not to have his wife sailing around the Mediterranean with Onassis, but there was no other luxury yacht in the world like the Christina, and he figured it was just the tonic that Jackie might need before facing the rigors of re-election. To keep up a pretense that the journey had some other purpose than amusement, and to watch over his wife, he asked Franklin Roosevelt Jr., his undersecretary of Commerce, and his wife, Suzanne, to go along. Kennedy was consumed enough by the idea of his wife going off with the Greek magnate that while staying at the Carlyle Hotel on September 20, he doodled on a notepad ‘Jackie-Onassis.’ … Jackie sailed off on October 5 from Athens, along with a crew of sixty, including two coiffeurs and a dance band. The ship had hardly left port when the previously sacrosanct Jackie became the subject of criticism. Was it ‘improper for the wife of the president … to accept [Onassis’s] lavish hospitality?’ asked Congressman Oliver Bolton, an Ohio Republican. With his re-election campaign less than a year away, Kennedy was attuned to even the most subdued criticism. He knew that the Republicans would attempt to create an image of the White House, in the words of the GOP national chairman, as a scene of ‘twisting in the historic East Ballroom … [and] all-night parties in foreign lands.’ ‘Well, why did you let Jackie go with Onassis?’ Kennedy was asked at a private party while the boat sailed the Aegean, bad publicity traveling in its wake. ‘Jackie has my blessing to go anywhere that will make her feel better,’ he replied, leaving the matter at that. … Jackie’s European sojourn had created headlines that might please a king, but not a democratic leader — ‘Mrs. Kennedy Aegean Island-Hopping,’ ‘Jackie Follows Script as Hollywood Wrote It,’ ‘Jackie Sails in Splendor.’ Betty Beal, a Washington social columnist, reported that Jackie’s European trip had caused ‘complaints … to pour in from all quarters and it may hurt politically.’ Marianne Means, a Hearst columnist and reporter, wrote: ‘During her three years in the White House, she had consistently refused all invitations to appear with the president at political functions and most public events, outside the realm of the arts. She did not once accompany him last fall as he campaigned for Democratic congressmen up for re-election. And she has never traveled with him on any of his trips around the country.’ Jackie had a radiant popularity all her own that would help create the almost frenetic excitement that would translate into votes next November. In 1960 Kennedy’s advisers had thought Jackie might be a liability; in 1964, in a close campaign, she might prove a crucial asset. Later that fall, Mrs. Kennedy decided to accompany her husband on a campaign swing for the first time since 1960, to Texas where JFK sought to broker peace between feuding Democrats.

More here:
Ed Schultz, Clueless as Usual, Angered by Allegedly Unprecedented Criticism of First Lady

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scarborough to Rep. Weiner on 9/11 Responders Controversy: ‘You’re Not Going to Demagogue This Issue!’

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Love him or hate him as a “conservative,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough just showed he hasn’t been completely brainwashed at his network. On his Aug. 11 program, Scarborough demonstrated just how thin the veil is over the parlor tricks going on with in the U.S. House of Representatives controlled by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi. At the center of this was the back-and-forth between Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., over Sept. 11 responders compensation legislation. Their disagreement has been well documented dating back to Weiner’s late-July outburst on the House floor accusing House Republicans of playing politics with this legislation. The two had one more dust-up on Fox News a day later , but since then it has been a he-said, he-said situation. Weiner alleges this was a non-controversial bill that should have been passed easily with a two-thirds vote. King argues the Democratic House leadership could have offered it up and it would have passed with a simple majority. But there were some issues with offering the bill up under normal House procedure with the Hispanic Caucus. Video and Partial Transcript Below Fold According to MSNBC congressional correspondent Luke Russert, it was Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., who said the Hispanic Caucus would walk away from the legislation if Republicans were allowed to offer amendments, which would force an up-or-down vote on whether or not illegal immigrants would be eligible for these benefits. Highlight starts about five minutes into the clip below. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy “Nydia Velázquez of New York echoed her thoughts to the leadership according to my sources that the Latino Caucus, Hispanic Caucus would walk if this motion, if this language was not in the original bill,” Russert explained. “Thus, in the motion to recommit the Republicans would bring up the illegal immigration language, it would have forced a lot of Blue Dog Democrats, a lot of moderates to have to take a very difficult immigration vote.” After Russert offered his explanation, the debate deteriorated between Scarborough and Weiner: WEINER: Do you have any idea hoe mind-numbingly tedious this sounds to most Americans? SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no – you’re not going to demagogue this issue. You demagogued it before. The fact of the matter is this – WEINER: Dial it down, buddy. SCARBOROUGH: Whoa, Anthony Weiner is telling me to relax. WEINER: Just relax, joe. SCARBOROUGH: No, because you know you are nailed. You came on my show and demagogued.

Read the rest here:
Scarborough to Rep. Weiner on 9/11 Responders Controversy: ‘You’re Not Going to Demagogue This Issue!’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

NBC’s Chuck Todd on Hardball Ponders: Is Ken Buck, ‘Sharron Angle in Drag?’

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

NBC’s chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd, substitute hosting for Chris Matthews, on Wednesday’s Hardball, managed to question the political viability of two Republican candidates in one sentence as he asked his guest panelist, Jonathan Martin of the Politico, “Is Ken Buck, you know, Sharron Angle in drag?” Going over the results of yesterday’s primary races with Martin and Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, Todd claimed the “Democrats are doing a touchdown dance” because of Buck’s victory in the Republican primary contest for the Senate seat in Colorado and also relayed some rather colorful descriptions of Buck, as seen in the following exchange, aired on the August 11 edition of Hardball: CHUCK TODD: Hey Jonathan Martin it seems as if Democrats are doing a touchdown dance about Ken Buck and they’re trying to turn him into Sharron Angle and Rand Paul’s, somehow hidden brother in the basement. JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO: Right. TODD: Is Ken Buck, you know, Sharron Angle in drag? MARTIN: Chuck it’s funny you mention that. I’m actually doing a story right now about, what I call the race to define Ken Buck. And it just started last night, right after the results came in. Both the GOP and Democrats are in this furious battle now to see who can set the narrative of who is Ken Buck? Is he sort of this Princeton graduate, mainstream conservative, county prosecutor, respected pillar of the community? Or is he, like you said, is he the Rocky Mountain version of Sharron Angle? Which is what Democrats are saying, focusing on some of the controversial things that he said during the course of the primary that were not about spending, that were not about those sort of issues that Howard mentioned, that are winners for, for the Republicans this time around. I think it’s still an open question. I don’t think he has vulnerabilities, day in and day out, that a [Rand] Paul or, or an Angle has- TODD: Right. MARTIN: -who are pure libertarians. Who really have a strong philosophical view of, of the role of government. I think he’s more of a pragmatist, Buck is. But there’s no question about it, he went pretty far in some of his comments- TODD: Right. MARTIN: -during the course of the primary.

Visit link:
NBC’s Chuck Todd on Hardball Ponders: Is Ken Buck, ‘Sharron Angle in Drag?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NYT Worries Rich Win Even If Bush Tax Cuts Expire Just For Them

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In today’s “It Took You Long Enough To Figure It Out” segment, the New York Times is seriously worried that if the only Bush tax cuts that expire in January are those for the wealthiest Americans, the rich still win. Not surprisingly, Jackie Calmes’ piece on Wednesday also referred to extending existing law as “tax cuts,” a neat little trick the Left employ to give the appearance new cuts are being discussed when in fact the only thing on the table is whether what’s on the books will continue to be so. But facts aren’t important in this debate. Scaring folks into believing rich people are taking money away from them is: Given the progressive nature of the federal income tax system, in which tax rates increase with income, even the richest households would continue to pay the four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income, under the approach being pushed by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress. What Calmes was doing here was explaining to most of the likely ill-informed Times readers – after all, they probably only get their “news” from this propagandist source! – that marginal tax rates go up with income and that higher wage earners pay at those same lower rates on their initial earnings that qualify. As such, they pay ten percent on earnings up to a defined amount, then fifteen percent up to another, then 25 percent, etc. As the President is proposing extending all of the Bush tax cuts except the ones on the two top brackets, those in these upper brackets would still benefit by the lower rates applied to the lower brackets: Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001, according to the analysis, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee. That compares, however, with the roughly $100,000 average tax cut that households with more than $1 million in income would receive under current rates. Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained. Of course, the other way of putting this is that if the President gets his way, those making over $1 million a year on average would see their taxes rise by $93,700; those making between $500,000 and $1 million on average would see their taxes increase by $10,800. Can’t you just hear all the cheering from the nicer neighborhoods in America? To give you an idea of how the far-left views this, the Huffington Post offered its readers the following headline and picture to get them to read Calmes’ piece: This is from a woman that believes income and taxes have nothing to do with a business owner’s decision to hire more employees. So, what do you expect?  On the other hand, if the “rich” benefit from cuts in those lower brackets, doesn’t that mean the Bush tax cuts weren’t just for the rich and that lower-income folks benefited from them, too? As always, this ironically inconvenient truth was lost on Calmes just as it is Obama, the Democrats, and a media that have been misrepresenting this from the day it was first proposed.  Think about it: if these cuts really were just for the rich when they were implemented in 2003, why bother keeping any of them now? If the poor and middle class are going to benefit from them being extended, doesn’t that mean they benefited when these cuts were first implemented, and that these weren’t just tax cuts for the rich? Of course, if the Times and its colleagues were honest about this in 2003, maybe Americans would have a far different view of the Bush tax cuts – but that would be too much like journalism for these shills. 

Continue reading here:
NYT Worries Rich Win Even If Bush Tax Cuts Expire Just For Them

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Ohio Dems Try to Revive Debunked Smear Against Hannity-backed Charity

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Democratic Party of Ohio has recycled a thoroughly debunked smear against Fox News host Sean Hannity and Freedom Alliance, a charity he works with regularly that raises money to educate the children of American servicemen. A release  from the Ohio Dems claimed that Rep. John Kasich, Republican candidate for governor, “promote[d] Hannity’s scandal-ridden ‘Freedom Alliance’ concerts that are under investigation for misappropriating charitable donations.” The Ohio Dems cited a complaint by the technically non-partisan, but ideologically liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW claimed that the charity, Freedom Alliance, had “awarded $2,147,750 in scholarships,” only half of what they spent on salaries, and a quarter of what they spent on shipping expenses, according to their complaint to the Federal Trade Commission. But this line of attack on Freedom Alliance is bogus. CREW fails to note that since most servicemen are relatively young, most of money Freedom Alliance raises is put in a trust fund until soldiers’ children are old enough to take advantage of it. Hence, while the charity raised roughly $2.1 million for scholarships in 2008 alone, according to its 990 form ( pdf ), it only spent about $800,000 that year, putting the rest into the trust. CREW’s claim that the charity only spent $2.1 million on scholarships over five years is disingenuous. While the number is technically correct, the scholarship fund contained $15,919,391 as of 2008, according to the 990 linked above, all slated to be spent on educating the children of servicemen when they reach the appropriate age. Jon Soltz, chairman of the left-wing advocacy group VoteVets.org, which according to Politico “is backing CREW,” claimed “80 to 90 percent” of funds raised should benefit veterans and their families. But there is no indicator that Soltz was referring to any funds other than the money spent directly on scholarships the year they were raised. As noted above, that number does not tell the full story. Also noted in the Democratic release is Freedom Alliance’s “F” rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. But the release does not delve into AIP’s criteria for that grade. According to the organization’s website , top-rated charities “generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive ‘open-book’ status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to AIP.” Accorfing to its 990 form for 2007 (the year it got that rating, according to the release – pdf ), Freedom Alliance spent $1,011,501 on fundraising, and raised $10,762,256 in public support. That means it spent less than $10 on fundraising for each $100 it raised, well below the $25 threshold set by AIP. Of Freedom Alliance’s $7,461,350 budget that year, $6,084,474, or roughly 81.5 percent, was spent on programs. The remaining two criteria – a charity’s open-book status and the size of its reserves – are the only factors that could have earned it the “F” rating. But as discussed above, Freedom Alliance keeps massive reserves (compared to the amount it pays out annually) so that it can afford to pay for scholarships when the young children of currently twenty-something servicemen come of age (the average soldier is in his mid-twenties). So either the nature of the Freedom Alliance charity earned it the “F” rating – a completely benevolent reason – or AIP does not enjoy “open-book” status with it (or both). In any case, it hardly seems that Freedom Alliance is deserving of the “scandal-ridden” label given it in the Ohio Democrats’ release. In all, the release contains nothing more than baseless accusations against Hannity and Freedom Alliance. The Democratic Party is apparently trying to revive it in an effort to damage a political opponent. It’s a shame that Hannity and Freedom Alliance are caught in the middle of this political game.

See the article here:
Ohio Dems Try to Revive Debunked Smear Against Hannity-backed Charity

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,