Tag Archives: democrats

Matthews to Democrat: What Percentage of Republicans Would You Put In the ‘Nut Bag?’

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

Chris Matthews, on Monday’s Hardball, brought on his own personal congressman, Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen, to review how his party was going to distinguish themselves from the GOP in the midterms with Matthews asking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee head if they were focusing on all the “crazy” Republicans, or in other words “nut collecting.” Matthews then, after playing a clip of Barack Obama singling out Republicans Joe Barton, John Boehner and Roy Blunt, also reminded Van Hollen the President missed another “crazy” person with “B” name as he proclaimed: “If you’re going out looking for nuts, it would seem like you’d put [Michele Bachmann] in your basket.” Matthews even tried to pin down Van Hollen by demanding: “What percentage of the Republican Party would you put in the nut bag right now?” The following exchange was aired on the July 12 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Okay let’s take a look. Here’s the President. He’s got a new tack out there, by the way. For a long time, after a year and a half in office, he never mentioned the opponent. He was like a Chicago pol. There is no Republican Party. Now he’s starting to name names. He’s advertising your opposition. Just like you advertised the Republicans and what they would do if they got in. Here he is advertising what the Republicans, he’s using names like Boehner, these curse words. Boehner! What’s the other guy’s name? REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Boehner and Barton? MATTHEWS: Barton! Boehner, Barton and Blunt, Blunt. He’s got em, all these B’s. Let’s take a look – BP of course – here he is in Missouri. Let’s listen. (Begin clip) BARACK OBAMA: You may have read the top Republican on the House Energy committee, Mr. Barton publicly apologizing to BP…Does anybody here think BP should get an apology? Mr. Barton did. He called this a tragedy. This, this, this fund that we have set up to compensate fishermen and small business owners throughout the Gulf. That’s not the tragedy. The tragedy is, is if they didn’t get compensated. So this is the leadership that we’ve gotten from Barton and Boehner and Blunt. Sometimes I wonder if, if that no button is just stuck in, in, in, in Congress. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Well, there you heard it. Barton and Boehner and Blunt. I love the names. Here he is, let’s take a look. Here he is Gibbs, the spokesman for the President, on Sunday underlying that this is, what you just heard is going to be the spiel from now until Election Day this November. Let’s listen. (Begin clip) ROBERT GIBBS: Joe Barton started his congressional testimony of the CEO of BP by apologizing not to the people in the Gulf, but to the CEO. I think that’s a perfect window, not into what people are thinking but the way they would govern. Joe Barton, John Boehner, those are the types of things you’ll hear a lot, I think both from the President and I think local candidates about what you’d get if the Republicans were to gain control. (End clip) MATTHEWS: You guys are out there nut collecting, aren’t you? I mean you, you, the Democrats have, we’ve had a tough economy in this country, everybody’s had a hard time. A lot of people have, maybe not the oil companies. So you’re going around looking for nuts. Like, you know, Barton is crazy enough to side with BP in the worst catastrophe. Another one, Bachman. You haven’t gotten the other “B” here. If you’re going out looking for nuts, it would seem like you’d put her in your basket. You haven’t gotten to her yet. She wants to investigate you guys for anti-American activities. VAN HOLLEN: Well look what’s surprising Chris is not what they claim to do- MATTHEWS: You love these nuts don’t you? VAN HOLLEN: Well, they have told us what they’re gonna do. They have forecast exactly what they’re gonna do. Joe Barton has always been on the side of the big oil companies and he said it publicly. They’ve been on the side of the big insurance companies in fighting health care reform- MATTHEWS: Who’s the guy that yelled out in the State of Union, “You lie?” VAN HOLLEN: That was Joe, that was Joe Wilson. MATTHEWS: Where do they get these guys from? VAN HOLLEN: But, but that’s the point. See people need to focus on the fact that if you were to hand over control over to the House, these are the guys who are gonna be running the policy and there the same guys that created the problems. MATTHEWS: What percentage of the Republican Party, right now, as it has changed in our life. You’re a bit younger than me, has moved to the right. What percentage of the Republican Party would you put in the nut bag right now? The party that, not just conservatives, but people that are just really crazy out there, even beyond the tea partiers? VAN HOLLEN: Let me, let me just say- MATTHEWS: You don’t want to give me a percentage. VAN HOLLEN: No, no but the out of the mainstream caucus- MATTHEWS: Okay. VAN HOLLEN: -of the Republican Party in the House is the largest caucus in the House by far. Which is why you had these situations where you have these right wing- MATTHEWS: Do they talk like this on the floor? Do you actually hear them talking among themselves, talking like this? “Isn’t BP great?” VAN HOLLEN: Well usually, no usually they’re a little more circumspect. Which is why it’s, you know, something when, when Joe Barton gets out and publicly makes these statements. MATTHEWS: Okay, okay. VAN HOLLEN: But it’s important that people understand what these guys really do. MATTHEWS: Okay you know usually when you vote, a regular person votes with their gut. They walk in there, they vote with their money too but mainly they’re gonna go “I don’t like the way things are going.” They go in and vote against incumbents. That’s called a referendum. Now you guys are trying to change that gut instinct to “No don’t go in there and vote with your gut” because that will screw your party. “Go in there and go, now which party is the worst? Let’s make sure I don’t have the worst party at least. So the Democrats have not exactly been a great success yet but the Republicans are far worse.” Right? How do you get people to change the question from “Yes or no? Do I like things the way they are or not like the way things are?” to “Let me think Democrats versus Republicans?” How do you get people to think like that? Because clearly you’re trying to get them to think like that, Gibbs is trying to do it. And the President is trying to get us to think like that? Choice not referendum. How do you change it like that? VAN HOLLEN: Well because people, at the end of the day, have a choice between two candidates? Right? And so it’s not- MATTHEWS: But they don’t think like that, usually. They usually go yes or no? VAN HOLLEN: No what we’ve said, though is it’s not just about us. It’s us versus them. What differences do you have between the parties on these issues that are critical to Americans? And if we can get people to focus on the fact that, you know, John Boehner describes the situation- MATTHEWS: So this the frying pan into the fire kind of thing? VAN HOLLEN: Well, this is, this is let’s have a real debate on the issues. MATTHEWS: I think it’s great. VAN HOLLEN: And what’s interesting is what they’ve told us they’re gonna do- MATTHEWS: I think it’s great you’re finally advertising your opponents. Because [guys] like Boehner, and Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl have been getting a free ride in this country for months now. They just sit back like Burgers on Main Street, waiting for you guys to blow it. Then they get all the votes. VAN HOLLEN: Well they get to sit on the sidelines. They get to whine, they get to carp. And now we’re saying put up, let’s see what you guys are saying you’re gonna do. MATTHEWS: You have an interesting choice that you’re making for the American voters if they choose to make a choice, and not just go “nyah.” Anyway, thank you Chris Van Hollen, who happens to be my congressman.

Visit link:
Matthews to Democrat: What Percentage of Republicans Would You Put In the ‘Nut Bag?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights

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

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer on Monday appeared baffled as to why more U.S. politicians weren’t ‘standing up’ to demand the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” touting it as “a civil rights issue.” In the span of two hours, the cable network featured a gay member of the military and a conservative to discuss the issue. It was hardly a case of hearing two sides, however. Both guests favored allowing gays to serve openly. Talking to Richard Grenell , a former spokesman for Ambassador John Bolton, Brewer editorialized, ” It is a civil rights issue…Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? ” Earlier, Brewer cited a survey sent out to service members asking them questions such as whether they’d be comfortable showering with an openly gay individual. The cable host dismissed, “Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay?…Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights?” At the end of the segment, Brewer read viewer e-mail on the issue. Two such messages favored repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. These she recited without comment. When she read a letter disagreeing with gay rights, Brewer could hardly disguise her opinion: “Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.’ Well, you know what Jesus said: ‘Let he who is without sin.'” In the 11am hour, MSNBC featured openly gay veteran Daniel Choi to dismiss the survey. Grenell is also gay. So, the network hardly sought out a variety of voices on the subject. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 12:43pm EDT, follows: 12:20 tease CONTESSA BREWER: Another traditionally safe [makes quotes marks] constituency for Democrats also angry, this time over a survey about the potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, many say has incendiary and homophobic language. The President said he wants Congress to repeal the law and Pentagon is in the process of studying the issue. But, a new survey sent out to service members asks questions that many find offensive. So, here’s the problem: Critics say the survey assumes a position of homophobia. For instance, here’s one of the questions: “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities with open bay showers with a gay or lesbian service member, would you take no action or use a shower at a different time?” Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay? This is a pivotal civil rights issue. My big question today: Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights? You can share your thoughts on Twitter, Facebook. You can get me on e-mail. Contessa@MSNBC.com We’re going to have a lively discussion about this in the next half hour. 12:43 BREWER: A new Pentagon survey is stirring up the controversy because it asks very pointed questions about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Some groups even suggest the survey uses homophobic language. 400,000 members of the armed forces got the question via e-mail asking questions about living with gays and using the same showers and same-sex couples in military housing.  The Pentagon is defending the questions. Rick Grenell is a conservative columnist, former spokesman to John Bolton and three other U.S. ambassadors and believes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. We knew that the survey would happen. Claire McCaskill, actually, Rick, brought up her concerns about how the questions would be framed. When public policy pollsters conduct surveys to gain credibility and validity they have to formulate truly open ended questions. Do you have a problem with these questions? RICHARD GRENELL: Well, I think the key to this is having questions at all for a civil rights issue. What’s most surprising is President Obama and Nancy Pelosi that they are actually trying to say that this isn’t a civil rights issue, because clearly by having a questionnaire, they’re not so sure themselves. And I think the troubling thing for me and for a lot of conservatives is that they campaigned on this issue, that it was a civil rights issue and they were elected, they would end this. You know, when Barack Obama was a senator, he spent a lot of time telling people that it should just be taken care of with an executive order. Now that he’s president, the executive order excuse goes away and he’s blaming Congress. So, I think it’s really a difficult issue for the Democrats and they campaigned like it was an easy issue. BREWER: So, to drive this point home and it’s the argument that I made further, that if you put in instead of same-sex or homosexual and used, say, black, here would be the way the sample question would read. “If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, birth or field tent with someone you believed to be- insert here black- service-member which are you most likely to do?” And goes on to how you take action. You’re right. That question to service members would never be considered. And, in fact, when they integrated the military, my understanding is there was no general survey taken to see how service members would feel about it. It was done because it was the right thing to do. That being said, after I asked my big question today, Rick, I got a bunch of E-mail responses in. And you have people, viewers here who are writing and arguing that it’s not a civil rights issue because being born black is not a choice but being born gay is. GRENELL: Well, look, what I would say there is I’m a conservative. I think it’s outrageous that we are spending so much money, $4.5 million alone on this survey to investigate someone’s personal life. Whether you believe this is a choice, whether you believe that someone is born gay, I think it goes to the question of why are we wasting so much money to go after someone’s personal life, to investigate? It’s a national security issue when you’re encouraging people to actually lie. I’ve held a top secret security clearance. They want to know everything about you. They want to know that you’re truthful. BREWER: Right. GRENELL: At the end of the day people have to remember that individuals in the military are already showering with gay military folk. BREWER: And, again, regardless of what you think about homosexuality as an issue, that is like arguing you get to choose what region you are as an adult and you still can’t discriminate on the basis of that. I agree with you fully. It is a civil rights issue. Let’s talk about the leadership here. Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? GRENELL: Well, I agree. I think, yes, the answer is a definitive yes. However, it’s outrageous to me that this has been dragged through the political sphere. The Democrats are raising money off this issue. They want it to be a political issue. They are making this a political issue. They are choosing to make this a non-civil rights issue. They want this issue to go into the fall. They want to raise money and they want to make sure that Americans are constantly talking about this issue. And I think that that’s outrageous. BREWER: Rick, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate your time. I appreciate you weighing in. A lot of folks have been weighing in online about why our nation’s leaders aren’t embracing gay rights as is civil rights issue. Clinton Hancock responds, “The politicians are too fearful of their constituents. Sometimes you have to teach your constituents, not just listen to them. Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.” Well, you know what Jesus said: Let he who is without sin. Paul Heimsath writes, “It’s 2010, people. This should not even be an issue.” You can reach out to me. Let me know your thoughts.

More here:
MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

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

Channeling her inner Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow on Sunday actually said extending unemployment benefits is “the most stimulative thing you can do” to help the ailing economy. Appearing on the panel discussion of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Maddow boldly presented a liberal view of economics that only the current House Speaker would be proud of. “I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works.” Indeed, for moments before she falsely stated that Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. But Maddow’s best remark Sunday had to be, “If you really want a stimulus, do what we — what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits…It’s the most stimulative thing you can do” (video follows with transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Well, you end, you end up with the situation which again you’re back to choice vs. referendum because Republicans, like great strategists like Mr. Gillespie, can argue about how it’s all about spending, it’s all about debt. But it’s not just talking about the past to say, “When Republicans have had the reins, this is what they’ve done: two wars not paid for, prescription drug benefit not paid for, two tax cuts that mostly benefited the rich not paid for.” They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as–in a deficit when Obama took over, after the previous Democratic president had handed him a surplus. If you talk about–if Republicans want to run as this fiscally responsible party, it’s neat, but it’s novel. It’s not how they’ve actually governed. DAVID GREGORY, HOST: And, David, you know, more on that argument, though. I spoke to senior Republicans this week in the party who said, “Look, sometimes we are afraid that we do take the majority back because are we, as Republicans, in a position to offer a policy for how to grow the economy, to offer real policies to create jobs?” There’s a lot of fear out there that, in fact, they don’t have great alternatives at the moment to be able to do that. DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I, I actually agree with that. I’m a little scared myself. You know, you look at what happened in Britain, the Conservative party took over after a long period out of power. They, they have a real austerity program. They’re really cutting spending, putting the country, which was much worse debt shape than us, on a long-term path to some sort of fiscal sanity. I’m not sure the Republicans are ready there, so I’m a little nervous about that. But the question people are going to ask us is, “What did President Obama offer, and are we satisfied with that?” And they’re not getting there. And to me the big picture is that if Harry Hopkins, the great liberal from FDR’s administration, came back and said, “I’m going to create a perfect liberal moment. We’re going to have a big financial crisis caused by Wall Street, sort of; we’re going to have the biggest natural disaster in American history caused by an oil company; we’re going to have a very talented Democratic president; we’re going to give him some money to spend to create a lot of programs.” And after all that, it’s still not a liberal moment, it’s a conservative moment, that makes me think liberalism isn’t quite going to sell in this country at any moment. If it’s not selling now, it’ll never sell. And I think… MR. GREGORY: But doesn’t that assume that this is a conservative moment? Do you assume that? ED GILLESPIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Oh, I think, I think there’s a great opportunity for conservative policies, and I think the public is open to hearing from us on that. And I just disagree with David. Look, in New Jersey and Virginia, we have two Republican governors just been elected, one in a purple state, Virginia, one in a deep blue state, or at least royal blue, New Jersey, who are acting on what they said they would do, they’re governing as they campaigned. In New Jersey, Governor Christie is trying to change the tailspin, turn things around in New Jersey, taking on the government employee unions there. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell as governor eliminated a $4.2 billion deficit, the largest in the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We will govern as we said we would. And I think, you know, Harold just pointed to these rising capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. You can call them tax increases on the, on the wealthy. I think most will say it’s tax increases on investment at a time when we need to be creating jobs. They’re going to kick in January 1, 2011. The first thing Republicans will do is say, “No. We’re going to keep them in place for a while until we can get the economy growing again.” And I think most Americans reject the notion that spending equals jobs. They think spending equals temporary government jobs. MS. MADDOW: I think that, I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works. If you’re going to talk about tax cuts–I mean, Harold, you, as a Democrat, proposed some very significant tax cuts when you were thinking about running for Senate in, in New York, a huge corporate tax cut, a big payroll tax holiday, and then said simultaneously, “And we got to get serious about the deficit.” HAROLD FORD, FORMER DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE: Well, Rachel, in all fairness, the payroll tax… MS. MADDOW: Tax cuts hurt the deficit. REP. FORD: Right. But the payroll tax cut–in order to, in order to pay down the debt, you got to do two things. You got to get your spending in order and you got to grow. When Bill Clinton was in office, the real advantage we had was that the economy grew. They made–they took–they made some tough choices around spending. I was in Congress for a good part of that. But at the same time, we had this IT explosion and growth in the country, which created millions of jobs. My only point is, if you cut the payroll tax for small businesses, you keep money in those communities. If you really want a stimulus, cut the payroll tax at a hardware store, cut the payroll tax at a sundry, cut the payroll tax at a… MS. MADDOW: If you really want, if you really want a stimulus, do what we–what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits, which is something that Republicans are completely blocking. REP. FORD: Which I… MR. GREGORY: But let me, let me… MS. MADDOW: It’s the most stimulative thing you can do. Yep. She really reiterated one of the most inane statements ever uttered by a House Speaker in American history: Does Maddow actually BELIEVE that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, or was she just mimicking Pelosi and repeating Democrat talking points? Before you answer, consider the absurdity in her other comment concerning Obama inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.  After all, on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.” When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it. This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton. As such, when Maddow says, “They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as — in a deficit when Obama took over,” the “They” were Democrats INCLUDING Obama.   How is this possibly something he inherited when his Party ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval — save Bush’s signature, of course — and the highest members of the current Administration — including the president himself!!! — supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House? Sadly, Maddow’s math doesn’t incorporate this inconvenient truth. But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn’t Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure? And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden? Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later. Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President. That Maddow has the gall on national television to blame this on Republicans is the height of hypocrisy. But what are you going to expect from a woman that believes unemployment benefits stimulate the economy? 

Continue reading here:
Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

President Obama’s recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick – a controversial advocate of socialized medicine and of the rationing of health care, particularly for the elderly – as head of the Medicare program – (a decision criticized even by some Democrats) – has so far received no attention on ABC’s World News or the CBS Evening News, while the NBC Nightly News devoted only 38 seconds to the President’s controversial move on Thursday’s show, barely touching on the nature of Berwick’s beliefs and their possible implications for the elderly. CNN’s The Situation Room devoted a full story to the appointment on Wednesday, but did little better in informing viewers of Berwick’s beliefs. By contrast, FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on Wednesday relayed to viewers that Berwick has not only advocated the type of socialized medicine that currently limits access to health care in Britain – favoring a non-free market system based on wealth redistribution – but he has also spoken in favor of further limiting access to some health care procedures for the elderly. FNC correspondent Jim Angle quoted Berwick as contending that “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane, must, must redistribute wealth.” The FNC correspondent further filled in viewers: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Angle also touched on Berwick’s admiration for Britain’s infamous national health care system: JIM ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. On the NBC Nightly News Thursday anchor Brian Williams devoted 38 seconds to the topic and noted that “One top Democrat called the recess appointment ‘troubling,’” but barely touched on Berwick’s beliefs as Williams briefly relayed that “Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.” On Wednesday’s The Situation Room on CNN, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced his show’s report noting that “Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this.” Like NBC’s Williams, CNN correspondent Dan only barely touched on Berwick’s support for “rationing” wihtout delving into its implications for the availability of health care, especially for the elderly: “Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care.” Below are transcripts of the relevant portions of the Wednesday, July 7, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, the same day’s The Situation Room on CNN, and the Thursday, July 8, NBC Nightly News : #From the July 7 Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC: SHANNON BREAM: Good evening. I’m Shannon Bream in tonight for Bret Baier. There is outrage in some quarters tonight because of President Obama’s use of a recess appointment to install his controversial pick to run Medicare and Medicaid. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle tells us why the reaction to Dr. Donald Berwick is so emotional. JIM ANGLE: Donald Berwick will run the largest insurance program in the country because Medicare and Medicaid cover 100 million Americans and spend some $800 billion. But Berwick has said some things that are definitely not part of the administration’s pitch on health care . “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane,” he said, “must, must redistribute wealth.” Republicans suspect President Obama didn’t want a confirmation hearing where such statements were bound to come up and think that’s why the President waited 17 months to nominate anyone. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He didn’t want somebody to have to answer questions of members of Congress during the whole debate on health care this year. DAVID WINSTON, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: And his entire testimony is going to reinforce all the negative aspects of the bill. And that’s why they didn’t want him up there. They just pulled the plug on the hearings. ANGLE: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Some elderly do prepare advanced directives should they become incapacitated, but critics say Berwick seemed to be saying something else. WINSTON: He made it kind of sound like those decisions would be made by government bureaucrats and not the individuals. ANGLE: And any talk of rationing care has enormous political implications. WINSTON: What American people hear is this. Those people who have health care give up some of it to those people who don’t. And so the quality of their health care is going to get worse. ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. BARRASSO: He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. ANGLE: The White House argues Berwick is just one of 189 nominees waiting for confirmation. ROBERT GIBBS: The President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. ANGLE: And Gibbs notes that two Republicans who once held the same post have more positive views. GIBBS: The last two people who have run CMS for the Bush administration both strongly supported Dr. Berwick’s appointment. ANGLE: Recess appointments have been used with frequency by presidents of both parties. President Clinton made 139. President George W. Bush 171. President Obama has made 18 so far. Dr. Berwick will now hold his position until the end of 2011, but if he wants to stay, he’ll still have to face Senate confirmation. #From the July 7 The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: The White House is defending the President’s decision to sidestep Congress to install his choice to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this. Republicans, I should say, are fuming. Even the top Democrat, though, says he is troubled by the move. Let’s bring in our White House correspondent Dan Lothian. Dan, why did the White House go ahead with what’s called this recess appointment? DAN LOTHIAN: Well, Wolf, the President really thought it was important to move forward on this position because this is the person who plays a key role in implementing the new health care law. Now, all presidents obviously have the right to make these recess appointments, but they’re always quite controversial. And Republicans, as you pointed out, are criticizing the President, saying that he’s circumventing the American people, it’s an insult to the American people. Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care . Robert Gibbs’ White House spokesman saying that he doesn’t believe that’s the case. But what’s also interesting about this controversy, as you pointed out, that also some top Democrats are criticizing the President . Senator Max Baucus – chairman of the Senate Finance Committee – saying he is troubled that rather than going through the standard nomination process the President has decided to go down this route. The bottom line for the White House here is that they decided to move forward because they believe that Congress has been throwing up a lot of road blocks. ROBERT GIBBS: I think it’s the type of politics that demonstrates just how badly broken the appointments process is, and the President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. In this case, because the appointments process is clearly broken, he did so through a recess appointment. LOTHIAN: Republicans also saying here that the White House simply did not want to have a confirmation hearing because they did not want to have some tough questions asked. By the way, this appointment lasts until the end of 2011, Wolf. BLITZER: If there had been a confirmation hearing, a formal confirmation hearing and testimony and all of that, does the White House believe he would have been confirmed? LOTHIAN: Very good question, and Robert Gibbs was asked that today at the briefing. He says, yes, they believe that he would have been confirmed, but I’ll tell you there are some key Republicans who had been looking to put up some road blocks during that hearing, so it’s unclear hether or not there would have been enough votes there to get him through the Senate. BLITZER: Very sensitive and controversial issue. Thanks very much, Dan Lothian, for that. #From the July 8 NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: In this country, a new political skirmish in Washington over health care. It’s about an appointment President Obama made while Congress was out for the July Fourth break – a so-called recess appointment – naming Harvard professor Dr. Donald Berwick to manage Medicare and Medicaid, skipping the usual Senate confirmation process. Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic. One top Democrat called the recess appointment “troubling,” but the administration fired back, saying this was one of many appointments being blocked by the Senate. Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.

Visit link:
Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

MSNBC Fill-In Host: Conservative Liberal Media Claims Based On Racism

Posted on July 7, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Cenk Uygur, host of the left-wing internet talk show ‘The Young Turks,’ filled in for MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan during the 4PM ET hour on Wednesday and decried the nation’s “shift to the Right.” He lamented: “…when I started out I was a liberal Republican. No such thing exists anymore.” [Audio available here ] He wondered why the media hadn’t reported on the supposed radical shift in American politics and quickly came up with this explanation: “Why the media didn’t challenge it is because they [conservatives] kept calling them the liberal media, and why did they call them that? Because during civil rights, they [the media] said ‘yeah, black people and white people are the same’ and the conservatives at the time said ‘damn liberal media,’ and, you know, that intimidated the media into not recognizing this trend.” Uygur’s liberal guests, author Linda Monk and Wesleyen University professor Claire Potter did not disagree. In fact, Monk made sure to criticize President Eisenhower for his views on civil rights: “…let’s not be too celebratory of Eisenhower. He did stand up for the desegregation decisions. He did his job as president. But privately he was known for saying that racial desegregation was social disintegration, so he perhaps wasn’t as progressive on the race issue as some would interpret his actions to be.” Here is a transcript of the July 7 exchange: 4:43PM CENK UYGUR: And Claire, why do you think the spectrum has shifted so much, and another question is why is the media apparently not noticed it at all? CLAIRE POTTER [PROFESSOR, WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY]: Well, I think one of the things you have to look at is the context. A figure like Eisenhower, for example, was a politician during a period in which the Republicans and the Democrats had a horror of extremism. I think in the 15 or 20 years after World War II, there was a kind of centrist consensus that both extremes were to be avoided and that cooperation should be the norm. Now the only place that didn’t really work is race, until the Johnson administration. But for- LINDA MONK [AUTHOR, THE WORDS WE LIVE BY]: I think you’ve got McCarthy, though, coming along in the Eisenhower time, and certainly that was within the Republican Party, and that was a strong ideological bent, so I hear what you’re saying about there’s a concern about extremism, but certainly it had a place during the Republican Party at that time. POTTER: Sure. I mean, I don’t think you’re wrong about that, but I think one of the things that you see between 1948 and 1970 is a seismic shift in relation to who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. MONK: Right. POTTER: So that there is an enormous liberal block in the Republican Party the Democratic northern liberals are working with. MONK: Right. POTTER: And that southern Democrats, who are conservatives and can be brought along with a variety of Democratic initiatives, eventually moved to the Republican Party. MONK: Right. POTTER: Over desegregation and busing. UYGUR: Linda and Claire, I agree with both of you, and by the end of it, you know, I remember, even in my lifetime, when I started out I was a liberal Republican. No such thing exists anymore. POTTER: You and Nelson Rockefeller. UYGUR: Yeah. That’s wiped off the face of the earth, and so we see how – and part of the movement I think is because – and why the media didn’t challenge it – is because they kept calling them the liberal media, and why did they call them that? Because during civil rights, they said ‘yeah, black people and white people are the same’ and the conservatives at the time said ‘damn liberal media,’ and, you know, that intimidated the media into not recognizing this trend, I think. MONK: Well, and let’s not – let’s not be too celebratory of Eisenhower. He did stand up for the desegregation decisions. He did his job as president. But privately he was known for saying that racial desegregation was social disintegration, so he perhaps wasn’t as progressive on the race issue as some would interpret his actions to be. POTTER: Well- UYGUR: That’s a very fair point. We got to wrap it up right there. Linda and Claire, thank you, both of you, for joining us. Really appreciate it. MONK: Thanks, Cenk. POTTER: Thank you.

The rest is here:
MSNBC Fill-In Host: Conservative Liberal Media Claims Based On Racism

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

MSNBC Scarborough Slams Republican Sharron Angle as a ‘Jackass’

Posted on July 6, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Tuesday’s edition of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and his panel discussed the 2010 midterm elections and trashed Republican candidate Sharron Angle as a “mental patient” and a “jackass.”   The conversation, which included Chris Matthews and Mike Barnicle, began innocently enough when MSNBC contributor Mike Halperin said Angle is “vulnerable” in the race because “she has extreme positions that are out of step with the mainstream.” One doesn’t have to be fan of Angle’s to question the rude, demeaning outbreaks hurled in her direction.   Barnicle boldly stated that Angle was “embarrassing” to the residents of Nevada and ” sounds like a mental patient .” After this incident, Chris Matthews began to misquote Angle’s radio interview with Lars Larson asserting, “She understands why people think of and resort to second amendment solutions to the Democrats in Congress they don’t like.”   Here’s the actual quote in full: You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, you know, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

USA Today Spins Liberal Lincoln Chafee as a ‘Centrist’ and a ‘Moderate’

Posted on July 6, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

According to USA Today’s Susan Page, Lincoln Chafee, a Republican who left the party and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, is simply a “moderate.” A cover story for Tuesday’s edition of the paper features the misleading sub-headline: ” Centrists Fuel Big Crop of Contenders This Year. ” Nowhere in the 1800 word piece does Page describe Chafee as a liberal. Instead, Chafee, now running for governor of Rhode Island as an independent, is part of a “rebellion in the middle.” Page sympathetically described the politician’s exit from the Republican Party after losing his 2006 reelection bid: “Chafee felt rejected by the GOP, which no longer seemed willing to include moderate Republicans like himself.” Of course, Chafee’s lifetime American Conservative Union score was a meager 34. (To repeat, this was when he was a Republican.) Such a number put him to the left of Democrats such as Ben Nelson and only slightly less liberal than Robert Byrd. Yet, Page touted Chafee not as a liberal, but as a truth teller: He may be testing voters’ appetite for honesty: In his announcement speech, he suggested addressing the state’s daunting budget gap by levying a 1% sales tax on food, clothing, over-the-counter drugs and other items now exempt from the state’s 7% sales tax. In a six-way debate on WPRI-TV in June — among two Democratic candidates, two Republicans and two independents — Chafee’s tax proposal was the first question raised by moderator Tim White and the prime target of attack. “He wants to raise taxes and I want to cut spending,” Democrat Frank Caprio, the state treasurer and Chafee’s leading competitor, said after the debate when asked about his strategy. “That’s the difference between us.” Consider the facts here: The Democratic candidate is attacking Chafee for lobbying to raise taxes. Shouldn’t that be enough for Page to describe Chafee as a liberal? Later, Page returned to the concept of raising taxes as simple honesty: Chafee acknowledges that suggesting the tax hike is a calculated risk. He’s counting on voters to reward a straightforward discussion of the options ahead. If they don’t, he says, the fault will be his own failure to communicate and convince them. The USA journalist also touted other party switchers as examples of moderation: “There are more signs of centrists stirring as national politics remain sharply polarized, a factor some candidates cite for leaving or being pushed from their old allegiances.”

Original post:
USA Today Spins Liberal Lincoln Chafee as a ‘Centrist’ and a ‘Moderate’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

CBS Legal Correspondent: Senate Democrats Can Blame Themselves for Kagan Confirmation Difficulties

Posted on July 5, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

There have been a lot of complaints from the left over the opposition Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan has faced from Senate Republicans in her battle to win confirmation. But Kagan proponents should have seen this day coming when Democrats in the Senate did the same things to try to slow the confirmations of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. On CBS’s July 4 “Face the Nation,” CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford explained why. Previously throughout these types of confirmation processes, the Senate would approve a President’s nominee, assuming the candidate was qualified. But President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. all set a new precedence when George W. Bush was president. “Historically, [Kagan] would have been confirmed like Justice Ginsburg was, 96-3, or Justice Breyer, 87-9, but things changed. I mean, things changed 10 years ago, when Democrats started filibustering President Bush’s qualified nominees,” Crawford said. “I had a talk about all this — I guess, what, five or six years ago with Mitch McConnell. You know, he said memories are long in the U.S. Senate. People remember what the Democrats — including President Obama, Vice President Biden, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy — did. ” According to Crawford, this will ultimately change the public’s perception of the Supreme Court. “They not only voted against Sam Alito, who is just as qualified as Elena Kagan in really every way, had liberal support. They voted to block his nomination. So in some ways, what goes around comes around. She’s going to get confirmed, but there’s also a little bit of payback here, and she’s not going to get 96 votes like Justice Ginsburg. And the – – the — the problem with that is that it damages — ultimately, the loser, it’s not Elena Kagan. She’s going to get confirmed. It’s the courts. I mean, it makes the Supreme Court look in the people’s mind politicized. When you have these bipartisan votes on qualified nominees, the danger is the court itself looks political. And I think that’s a real problem long term.” And Crawford said she thinks this partisan gridlock needs to stop, regardless who is to blame. “But, you know, I mean, listen, I mean, in some ways, it’s like, you know, my 9-year-old will say, ‘You know, she started it,’ referring to my 6-year-old,” Crawford said. “At some point, somebody has got to be a grown- up and say, ‘Listen, I don’t care who started it. We’re going to stop it, and let’s realize what the stakes are here.'”

Here is the original post:
CBS Legal Correspondent: Senate Democrats Can Blame Themselves for Kagan Confirmation Difficulties

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

Posted on July 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Back in April, as ABC’s Jake Tapper took over as interim host of This Week (pending the arrival of ex-CNNer Christiane Amanpour in August), the show asked the fact-checkers at PolitiFact to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made on the show . After nearly three months, the results show far more Democrats and liberals earning a “False” rating, with most of the “True” ratings going to Republicans and conservatives. The discrepency remains even if you take into account that about two-thirds of the evaluated statements came from Democrats in the first place. From April 11 through June 20, PolitiFact has handed out seven “False” statements — six to Democrats/liberals, one to a Republican. During that same time, seven “True” labels were handed out — four for Republicans/conservatives, just two for Democrats (one, ironically, going to former President Bill Clinton). Retired General Colin Powell also picked up a “True” for a statement about the number of troops President Obama has deployed to Afghanistan, but it’s hard to say which side Powell represents these days. PolitiFact is a project of St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief Bill Adair, who is a frequent “fact check” guest during election years. Some of the statements hardly seem worthy of a fact-check (such as Clinton’s assertion that he never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; who ever said that he did?), but here are the 14 instances of “True” and “False” labeling of statements made on This Week, along with a short quote from PolitiFact’s verdict: Democrats/Liberals : Charles Schumer, April 11: “No one questioned that she (Judge Sotomayor) was out of the mainstream.” FALSE : “We recalled that phrase came up a lot during the Sotomayor confirmation debate, so we did some checking. To start, we direct your attention to a July 13, 2009, AP story under the headline, ‘Sessions: Sonia Sotomayor “out of mainstream.”‘…And Sessions wasn’t the only Republican to invoke the ‘out of the mainstream’ claim….We understand that ‘out of the mainstream’ is a subjective term, but the fact is that a number of Republican senators used that exact phrase.” Former President Bill Clinton, April 18: “I never had a filibuster-proof Senate.” TRUE : “Senate records show Republicans held 43 seats when Clinton came into office, and they added another seat in June of that year with the election of Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas….Republicans won a majority of seats in the Senate in the 1994 elections and retained control of both houses throughout the remainder of Clinton’s presidency.” Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, April 25: “Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP … The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP.” TRUE : “Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True.” HBO Host Bill Maher, May 2: “Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years.” FALSE : “In 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world’s countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day….It’s also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration. Brazil is hardly ‘off oil.'” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, June 6: “Every major study that has been done by a legitimate group … shows that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be created if you pass our (cap-and-trade) legislation. And if you wind up pricing carbon.” FALSE : “The fact is that other ‘legitimate groups’ have performed studies and reached different conclusions. Kerry’s statement suggests there is some unanimity of opinion among legitimate organizations about cap-and-trade’s effect on jobs. And that’s just not so.” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, June 6: Turkey is an Arab country. FALSE : “The one thing that Turkey has in common with the Arab world is religion: An estimated 99.8 percent of the Turkish population is Muslim….Moulitsas has graciously copped to his error (and even invited us to ding him), but the Truth-O-Meter doesn’t cut any slack for confessions.” Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, June 13: The Obama administration “has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem.” FALSE : “In fact, the Oil Pollution Act specifcially gives the federal government the authority to decide who’s in charge of the clean-up — the polluter or the government. The company, in this case BP, will pay for the clean-up response. But the federal government can give the orders if it chooses.” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, June 20: “In the case of General Motors, the (Bush) administration wrote a check without asking for any conditions of change.” FALSE : “The Bush administration did put specific requirements on the auto companies that included paying down debt, limits on executive compensation, and negotiated reductions in wages and benefits for autoworkers. It also required the companies to submit detailed restructuring plans by Feb. 17, 2009, that would show how the company planned to achieve and sustain ‘long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency.'” Republicans/Conservatives : Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, April 11: “President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice Alito, who now sits on the Supreme Court.” TRUE : “We found that Obama did join a broader Democratic effort to filibuster Alito. Democrats said Alito opposed abortion and was too deferential to executive power. But in what’s become Obama’s trademark on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style, he joined the filibuster while at the same time saying he thought it was a bad idea.” Jon Kyl, April 11: Says he did not say Republicans would filibuster immigration reform. FALSE : “Kyl’s staff provided us with a transcript and video; they said it showed more context for Kyl’s statement. We reviewed the material; here’s an extended version of Kyl remarks: ‘My guess is, neither (card check and immigration reform) will have the votes to pass. But because political promises have been made to key constituency of the party that is in power, that they’re going to do something about these problems, they will bring up very partisan legislation. Republicans will, primarily Republicans, will vote it down, that is to say we will prevent it from coming up through the filibuster….'” GOP Chairman Michael Steele, May 23: In Hawaii, “they don’t have a history of throwing incumbents out of office.” TRUE : “Depending how you count it, that puts the re-election rate in Hawaii between 98 percent and 100 percent, which is higher than the national average over the same period….No incumbent has ever lost a November congressional election in Hawaii.” Michael Steele, May 23: The Republican Party “fought very hard in the ’60s to get the civil rights bill passed, as well as the voting rights bill.” TRUE : “The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time.” House Minority Leader John Boehner, June 13: “The House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era.” TRUE : “According to the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, the House has indeed passed a budget every year since the Congressional Budget Act first took effect for fiscal year 1976.” Goes Both Ways : Retired General Colin Powell, May 30: “The president has added close to 68,000 troops in the last year, since he came into office, not just the 30,000 you hear, but the others that were added before that.” TRUE : “Obama took office with about 34,000 troops. There are now 94,000 troops and closing in on 98,000 troops by summer. When you count small additions by NATO, that gets us close to 68,000.” As with many political statements, there were many “Mostly True” (5 Dem vs. 2 GOP, plus Joe Lieberman), “Barely True” (2 Dem vs. 1 GOP, plus a BP official), and “Half True” assertions (9 Dem/Lib vs. 2 GOP/Con) catalogued over the past three months. You can see the whole list at PolitiFact.com .

See the original post here:
Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

Posted on July 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker on Sunday said that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele “is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black.”  Chatting with ABC’s Jake Tapper during the Roundtable segment of today’s “This Week” about Steele’s recent remarks concerning Afghanistan, Tucker went even further with what many would consider overt racism.  “The irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Cynthia, you once called, let me underline “You” once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad. What’s your take on this? CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason. A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos. So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy. If this were said about a black Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, or any high-ranking black Democrat, the media, the NAACP, and the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be up in arms demanding that person’s resignation. But because Steele is a black Republican, this kind of talk is completely acceptable. In fact, nobody on the panel including the host even batted an eye when Tucker made these disgusting remarks. Yet there’s a potentially even more striking hypocrisy here: didn’t Tucker with her accusation admit that some incompetent black people are hired exclusively because of the color of their skin, and they don’t get fired for exactly the same reason? As such, wasn’t Tucker accidentally making a case AGAINST affirmative action?  Somehow you imagine she missed this while she was eviscerating Steele on national television. 

Continue reading here:
Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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