Tag Archives: democrats

WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

Posted on June 18, 2010 by | Leave a comment

The Washington Post ran a story slamming pollster Scott Rasmussen on Thursday on the front page of the Style section. Political reporter Jason Horowitz earnestly channeled the Democratic spin from the story’s beginning: ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Here is a fun fact for those in the political polling orthodoxy who liken Scott Rasmussen to a conjurer of Republican-friendly numbers: He works above a paranormal bookstore crowded with Ouija boards and psychics on the Jersey Shore. Here’s the fact they find less amusing: From his unlikely outpost, Rasmussen has become a driving force in American politics. Democrats surely dislike how Rasmussen’s polls (like this week’s showing Harry Reid losing by 11 points) affect the optimism of their donors and activists. But are his numbers accurate? The Post wanted its readers to know this guy Rasmussen was a scary conservative: he played guitar in a band in high school in Massachusetts called “Rebel’s Confederacy” (racist?!) and he quotes the Bible: He graduated from DePauw University and moved to Charlotte. There he married, started a family and became a devout Methodist. He is given to quoting Scripture, including the principle: “Let every man be quick to listen, but slow to speak, and slow to anger.” (James 1:19.) In the mid-1990s, Rasmussen had discovered the business model of automated polling, and folks he polled heard a recording of his wife reading poll questions. In 1998, heavy traffic crashed his site when Rush Limbaugh unexpectedly told listeners to visit. Two years later, in August 2000, Bill O’Reilly invited him onto his show. He wrote columns for the conservative site WorldNetDaily in 2000. In 2001, he wrote a book advocating the privatization of Social Security. But are his numbers accurate? The pull quote in the story as it continued on page C-9 attacked his professionalism for his newer methods: “The firm manages to violate nearly everything I was taught what a good survey should do.” — Mark Blumenthal, a founder of Pollster.com, speaking about Rasmussen Reports Then there’s this hilarious attack from Daily Kos veteran Nate Silver, soon, a new hire of the New York Times: He “faults Rasmussen for polling only likely voters, which reduces the pool to ‘political junkies.'” Adds Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center in agreement: “It paints a picture of an electorate that is potentially madder than it really is…And potentially more conservative than it really is.” Would it be wiser for a political candidate to focus on wooing unlikely voters? Jason Horowitz is dishonest for suggesting it’s Rasmussen versus the professionals — and not disclosing that Mark Blumenthal is identified correctly in others stories as a “Democratic pollster,” and not disclosing Nate Silver came from the hard-left Daily Kos, and not even hinting that the Pew Research Center is deeply invested in a series of liberal causes, and whose newest poll (also out Thursday) coos that “The president gets an enthusiastic thumbs up from the world (with the notable exception of the U.S.) for how he has handled the economic crisis.” They can even admit Rasmussen’s critics are liberals in the headline on C-9: “For some, pollster Rasmussen is a minus man.” For some? GOP pollster Ed Goeas, identified as a “Republican pollster,” defends Rasmussen but suggests he take on a Democrat to “balance his analysis” (or to please The Washington Post?) Rasmussen has a “conservative constituency” of Fox, The Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, adds pollster John Zogby insists. No one in the Post is going to suggest that perhaps a pollster for The Washington Post or The New York Times is a “liberal constituency.” How transparently odd. Just like the liberal media elite on a daily basis. For them, the playing field cannot be described as conservative professionals vs. liberal professionals — it’s upstart conservative peasants with pitchforks versus the established objective professionals who define the standards for everyone. Of course, Horowitz left out of his Rasmussen profile his latest poll showing how angry the public is with the media , that two-thirds of respondents are angry and say reporters slant the news to favor candidates they want to win. Instead, we get leftists dismissing Rasmussen numbers as “sorcery” that leads to conservative media bias:   Rasmussen said he is simply a “scorekeeper,” but his spike in clout has sharpened skepticism about how he tracks the dip in Democratic fortunes. Frustrated liberals suspect sorcery. Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos blog, has accused the pollster of “setting the narrative that Democrats are doomed” with numbers that fuel hours of Republican-boosting on talk radio and cable. Pardon conservatives if they might find it laughable that Markos Moulitsas as a polling professional, considering he concocts smear polls of “self-identified Republicans.” But are Rasmussen’s numbers accurate? The caption beneath Rasmussen’s picture brings the disturbing news for liberals: “Scott Rasmussen’s polling detected the groundswell for Scott Brown, who won the special election in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, earlier than most competitors.” That’s what has them worried about his ability to be a “driving force.”

Go here to see the original:
WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Sports, TV

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

Eminem Says He Felt Like ‘Bugs Bunny’ In Rehab

Posted on June 17, 2010 by | Leave a comment

‘I couldn’t concentrate on my problem,’ he says of getting attention from fellow patients. By Mawuse Ziegbe Eminem Photo: Getty Images Before Eminem even dropped Relapse last year, he announced plans release a follow-up called Relapse 2 — and then he totally changed his mind . Instead, come June 21, fans will be able to pick up Em’s new album Recovery (which was moved up a day after it leaked online ). Eminem recently explained the meaning behind the album title in an interview with The New York Times, revealing that it is a direct reference to managing his ongoing battle with prescription drugs. “Vicodin, Valium and Ambien and, toward the end, which caused my overdose, methadone,” Eminem told the Times when asked what he was recovering from. “I didn’t know it was methadone. I used to get pills wherever I could. I was just taking anything that anybody was giving to me.” The hip-hop superstar also opened up about his stint in rehab. “The first time I went, it was in Brighton, Michigan,” he said “The second time, I didn’t go to rehab; I just went to a regular hospital. I detoxed in the hospital, and then I came home.” Coping with addiction is a demanding process, but due to his celebrity, Em had to deal with a unique set of challenges. The always candid MC said that he later chose to detox in a hospital because his outsize stardom affected the way his fellow addicts in rehab interacted with Em. “I couldn’t go back to rehab. I felt like I was Bugs Bunny in rehab,” Eminem said. “When Bugs Bunny walks into rehab, people are going to turn and look. People at rehab were stealing my hats and pens and notebooks and asking for autographs. I couldn’t concentrate on my problem.” Did you prefer the Relapse 2 album title, or are you happy Em opted for Recovery instead? Let us know in the comments. Related Photos The Evolution Of: Eminem Related Artists Eminem

Go here to see the original:
Eminem Says He Felt Like ‘Bugs Bunny’ In Rehab

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Sports, TV

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

Drake’s Family Tree Extends From Childhood Pals To Kanye West

Posted on June 17, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Lil Wayne, Jay-Z, Bun B and many others are also influential in Drizzy’s hip-hop journey. By MTV News staff Hip-hop phenom Drake might only be 23 years old, but his roots in the rap world run quite deep. His debut album, Thank Me Later (which dropped this week) is the result of years of studying with a handful of masters, toiling in the mixtape circuit and traveling across North America in an effort to synthesize his unique style and build his credibility. But who is connected to the man born Aubrey Graham? As you can see in his hip-hop family tree , there are quite a few branches in Drake’s musical story. October’s Very Own (Drake’s personal crew) Noah “40” Shebib : Drake’s musical partner produced the bulk of Thank Me Later , and in the past, he served as the rapper’s road manager, engineer and lifeline as he ran up thousands of dollars on his credit card for the two to follow Lil Wayne on tour while they worked on So Far Gone. Oliver El-Khatib : Oliver functions as Drizzy’s creative director, weighing in on the majority of decisions in the lyricist’s career outside the recording booth. He posts to the OVO blog frequently, highlighting the tastes of the collective, from fashion to music. Oliver introduced Drake to the music of now tourmate Francis and the Lights. Niko : One of Drake’s longtime friends from Toronto, Niko introduced the rapper to his own barber when the former “Degrassi” star needed a fresh look. The two are often together, and in his Thank Me Later album credits, Drizzy tells his friend he thought he was an only child until he met Niko, whom he calls “my closest confidant.” Instrumental Allies (Kick-started Drake’s career) Jas Prince : The son of legendary Houston hip-hop pioneer J. Prince, the younger Jas found Drake on MySpace and urged Lil Wayne to listen to the upstart artist. Lil Wayne : The Cash Money Records superstar took Drake under his wing and offered the then-unknown rapper recording advice, telling his prot

Continue reading here:
Drake’s Family Tree Extends From Childhood Pals To Kanye West

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Sports, TV

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC Declares Barton’s Comments a Big Victory for Dems; Bring on Van Jones Afterwards

Posted on June 17, 2010 by | Leave a comment

If you take MSNBC’s Luke Russert’s words at face value, you would think the Democrats are going to win big this November–all thanks to Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-Texas) comments on the Obama administration’s treatment of BP, and their “shakedown” of the company via the escrow fund. “A lot of Democrats see this as the ammunition they need to directly tie the Republican Party with that of big oil,” Russert summarized. Barton expressed his disapproval at the hearing for the White House’s treatment of BP in forcing them to agree to the $20 billion escrow fund, calling it a “shakedown.” MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer was visibly irritated during her news hour with the statement, and Russert called it a “really big blunder.” However, as NewsBusters reported , MSNBC’s own Ed Schultz was ecstatic yesterday over the very actions of the White House, and spoke positively of the “shakedown.” Russert mentioned comments from multiple Republicans distancing themselves from Rep. Barton’s comments, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “One Republican I spoke to said ‘This was absolutely one of the worst things that could have ever happened to us. We essentially gave the Democrats an early Christmas gift with this one’,” Russert reported. ‘This is great news for the White House,” Russert continued. “They’ve been coming under attack for not taking an authoritative leadership position–they can now spin this as a political issue.” Russert also mentioned Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) who called the escrow fund a “redistribution of wealth” fund, and essentially put her in the same camp with Barton. “A really big political victory today for Democrats on Mr. Barton’s slip-up,” Russert concluded. MSNBC then brought on Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), but lost him in the middle of his segment. The network then switched to liberal guest Van Jones, who defended the Obama administration’s response to the disaster. “There is a whole ideology at play here that says ‘We hate the federal government. The federal government is a problem’,” Van Jones added. “The last time I checked, the federal government was America’s government. America’s government does not need to be weakened and undermined.” The transcript of the segment, which aired on June 17, at 3:42 p.m. EDT, is as follows: MSNBC anchor CHRIS JANSING: BP’s CEO Tony Hayward, since 10:00 this morning, with a couple of breaks, maybe an hour and forty-five–he has been on the hot seat for four hours, give or take, and one huge piece of controversial statements that came out of this didn’t come from him but came from a Congressman Joe Barton who called the agreement to set off fund to pay the people who have been hurt by this a “$20 billion slush fund.” He accused the White House of a shakedown and he apologized to BP for what happened in setting that up. Now he came back in just about the last half hour. He said in case anything was misconstrued, he is fully behind this investigation of BP’s actions and that there is no doubt in his mind that BP is responsible for this spill. Let’s go to our Capitol Hill correspondent Luke Russert, and this has set off a storm of controversy, Luke. LUKE RUSSERT: It absolutely has, Chris. A really amazing subplot within the hearing. Mr. Barton saying that he is apologizing to BP for the White House making them set up this escrow fund. A lot of Democrats see this as the ammunition they need to directly tie the Republican party with that of big oil.  Mr. Barton’s comments have not just upset Democrats, they have upset a lot of his fellow Republicans. One Republican from Florida, Jeff Miller, someone who’s from the area that’s directly affected by this spill, calling on Mr. Barton to resign as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Also John Boehner, the Republican Majority Leader of the Republican party, the Minority Leader of the Republican party saying, quote, that he does not agree with the characterization that Mr. Barton made. He himself tried to distance himself from those comments. Really quite extraordinary, party leaders trying to keep Joe Barton away. Barton is from Texas. Records have shown that he is a friend of big oil. Since 1989, he has gotten well over a million dollars in donations from the folks attached to the oil industry, or the oil companies themselves. So it’s not too shocking he would probably make a statement like that. That being said, a huge political firestorm up here on Capitol Hill, one that is so big that even the Vice President had this to say at a press conference at the White House this afternoon. (Video Clip) Vice President JOE BIDEN: And I find it outrageous to suggest that if in fact we insisted that BP demonstrate their preparedness to put aside billions of dollars–in this case $20 billion–to take care of the immediate needs of people who are drowning. These guys don’t have deep pockets. The guy who runs the local marina, the guy who has one shrimping boat, the guy who has one small business–he can’t afford to lose ten, twelve, fifteen thirty thousand dollars a.month. RUSSERT: There you have Vice President Biden speaking out very forcefully about Mr. Barton’s comments. Now we should say that Mr. Barton just apologized at the committee hearing, saying that he was sorry if anyone misconstrued his comments earlier, and that he does–that BP is in fact responsible for this spill. But the damage has really been done. One Republican I spoke to said this was absolutely one of the worst things that could have ever happened to us. We essentially gave the Democrats an early Christmas gift with this one. A really big blunder on Mr. Barton’s part, Chris. Now Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota has also dived into this, saying that this escrow fund was a “redistribution of wealth fund.” You’re going to see Democrats in the next few days really trying to paint Republicans as the party of big oil, something they have desperately wanted to do. This is great news for the White House. They’ve been coming under attack for not taking an authoritative leadership position–they can now spin this as a political issue. They were very quick to release a statement against Mr. Barton. As you saw, the Vice President speaking out forcefully right there, this will now become “Republicans are with big oil, we’re with the residents of the Gulf, who are on the Democratic side.” A really big political victory today for Democrats on Mr. Barton’s slipup. JANSING: Thanks very much, we appreciate it, Luke.We want to talk now to Gov. Haley Barbour, he is at a new Toyota plant that is opening in Blue Springs, Mississippi. Something interesting here, because one of the groups of people we’ve seen in the past will probably have a little understanding of what the BP execs have gone through with these hearings are some of the Toyota execs who have been in the hot seat before. And I do, governor, want to ask you, of course, about what’s going on there with the Toyota plant. But let me ask you first if you have had a chance to watch any of these hearings today, and if so , what do you think about them? Gov. HALEY BARBOUR: We have had the pleasure in Mississippi of announcing that Toyota decided this morning, and announced this morning, that they will go forward with the start of operations for their new facility in Blue Springs, Mississippi, and begin it in February of 2011, just over a near from now. They will have Corollas coming off the assembly line here, 2,000 jobs for us in this plant plus more than that in supplier facilities around North Mississippi. It’s a big day for us, we have been celebrating, I haven’t been paying attention to Congress. JANSING: Well let me tell you a little bit about what was said there, maybe you had a chance to hear a little bit of what Luke Russert said. Because I think it certainly is relevant to your constituents who may have claims against BP. He said he thought this $20 billion in escrow was in fact a shakedown by the White House, that it’s a $20 billion slush fund, and he apologized to BP. What do you think about that? BARBOUR: Well first of all, it’s not $20 billion. I mean, when I heard this announced by the President, it concerned me that BP was going to have $20 billion taken and put into an escrow account. BP owes the people of Mississippi every bit of damage that’s been done. It’s BP’s responsibility to pay, we expect them to pay, we’re going to demand that they pay. But if the government had taken $20 billion of working capital from them, we were worried they couldn’t drill wells. Now we found out what the facts are, that it’s not $20 billion now, it’s $3 billion in the next quarter, $2 billion in the following quarter and then $5 billion in 12, $5 billion in 13, $45 billion at 14. That makes me feel much better, it makes me know that BP is going to be able to operate so they can generate the revenue to pay the people of Mississippi what BP owes them. Because BP is responsible for paying all the claims for all the legitimate damages that’s been done. JANSING: So in other words you think that what the White House has arranged, that this escrow fund– BARBOUR: She must not have liked my answer, I lost her. JANSING: Well, that was not the case, I want to make sure that he understands that it was nothing about his answer, I’m not quite sure why his ability to listen dropped out. I’m sorry, tell me again where we’re going? JANSING: We’re going to go now to Van Jones, who joins us live. Thanks very much for joining us, I’m sorry for the little bit of confusion, apparently our previous guest had some IFP problems. Have you had an opportunity to be listening to these hearings? JONES: I have. JANSING: You’ve been sitting there listening. So tell me what you think about this controversy, real controversy, false controversy, about the $20 billion fund? JONES: I think a real controversy, I mean, I was stunned and shocked. I don’t think any American official should be apologizing to this corporation that you saw all day long, here’s the head of this corporation, a multinational corporation that’s come to our country. As best we can tell, they corrupted our government. They slagged up our coastline. The criminal negligence has resulted in the death of innocent workers. America’s beauty, environment, workers, economy, all at risk. And the first thing out of the Republican leader’s mouth is to say “I’m sorry” to you? I think he has to apologize for the apology. But I think this is not just an accident. Night and day to hear the governor of Mississippi, who yesterday was attacking the first victory for America in this fight–getting this escrow fund is the first victory–you heard the governor of Mississippi who was just on this show yesterday attacking that. You have Michelle Bachmann calling it a redistribution of wealth fund. This is outrageous. This is the first glimmer of hope for the people in that region, there will be money on the table to help them get through this tough time. You have one party who is consistently, not just this official, but consistently, attacking this result. On the one hand, you’ve got the President of the United States who says he wants to kick some ass, and now you’ve got the other side saying apparently they want to kiss some ass. A pparently they believe there’s nothing a multinational corporation can do that’s wrong and nothing that the American government can do that’s right in this catastrophe. JANSING: Let me tell you what Senator John Cornyn had to say. Because he kind of gave a little bit of a defense of that statement. He said he believes that the president has made this a political issue. And he’s trying to deal with it by showing how tough he’s being against BP. He’s gone from being Commander in Chief to Claims Adjustor in Chief.  JONES: First of all, in this situation, one of the biggest catastrophes to ever hit our country, we should be proud that our President has stood up. With his address to the country, he said, “I’m going after BP. I’m going to make sure they’re responsible. The next day he brought them into the office. He said “Listen, you’re going to have put $20 billion on the table to make sure that this is going to be handled the right way. They said, “Yes, sir.” He said $100 million to make sure that our workers are going to be taken care of. Yes sir. $500 million to make sure that the help is assessed properly. Yes sir. He is getting this corporation to finally step up and do the things that they should do. Now, I cannot understand why we have people in our government who want American government to be weaker in the face of this crisis. We need America’s government to be stronger. This is not an accident. There is a whole ideology at play here that says “We hate the federal government, the federal government is a problem.” The last time I checked the federal government was America’s government. America’s government does not need to be weakened and undermined. America’s government needs to be strong enough to protect us from these kinds of predatory multinational corporations coming over here hurting the American people. JANSING: Well I’m curious about how you think, then, that these kinds of hearings play into that. I was checking out the British newspapers to see how they were covering this. And one of them said this was a public flogging of Tony Hayward. And I guess there are two general schools of thought. One is that this is nothing more than a chance for all the members of this committee to grand stand, to get their names in the local paper. Nobody thought we were going to get anything new out of Tony Hayward. Nothing is accomplished here, and they could be better, their time could be better spent working on the very real problems that have come out of this. On the other end of the spectrum is the idea that, you know what, this is an example for other CEOs. You do what BP did, and this is what’s going to happen. You, you’re going to end up sitting there and have all the nation watching you. Where do you come down on that?  JONES: Well, first of all let’s be clear. We did not know that this CEO was going to sit there and stone wall and stonewall. And he went to talk to the President and came out of that with real victories for the American people. The first glimmer of hope, the first victory for America in the past 60 days was yesterday. So there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t sit down and be forthright. He made a decision to sit there and look like he’s at the principal’s office, just waiting for for bell to ring and mom to come and get him. That was his choice. But he could have actually given the American people some comfort, some answers. We are 60 days into this process. He knows more than he said. And I think that what we’ve got to understand is that going forward, you’re going to see a big contrast. You’re going to have some people in American politics, who I hope they keep talking, that are going to make it clear. In the choice between standing with this multinational corporation, this oil company, or standing with the American people, they’re going to find every excuse to defend and apologize for–literally apologize for this corporation’s egregious, disgusting behavior. And you’re going to have other people who stand with the American people. That’s going to be the contrast going forth. It turned into theater because, again, this corporation refused, once again refused, to do the minimum, the minimum that would have been decent and respectful to the American people.

Read the original:
MSNBC Declares Barton’s Comments a Big Victory for Dems; Bring on Van Jones Afterwards

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Sports, TV

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

ABC Focuses Oil Spill Blame on BP and Coast Guard, Not Obama; CBS Gives President ‘C’ for Response

Posted on June 17, 2010 by | Leave a comment

On Thursday’s Good Morning America on ABC, co-host George Stephanopoulos laid blame on BP and Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen for mishandling the Gulf oil spill response but depicted the Obama administration as having done everything it could. In contrast, on the CBS Early Show, guests from both sides of the aisle gave the President a ‘C’ grade for his response.   At the top of Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos described how BP CEO Tony Hayward would be facing a “public execution” in Thursday’s congressional hearings and how Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak promised to “slice and dice” Hayward. In a report that followed, correspondent Jonathan Karl furthered the theme of courageous Democrats standing up to the big oil villain: “Tony Hayward may be the most hated man in America. And he’s heading right into a buzz saw of congressional outrage. In his prepared testimony, Hayward declares, ‘I am deeply sorry.’ But the chairman of the committee says that’s not enough.” A clip of Democratic committee chairman Henry Waxman was played. Minutes later, Stephanopoulos interviewed Louisiana Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser and wondered: “…with everything the President and BP announced this week, do you think this is on the right track now?” After Nungesser expressed doubt about local fisherman being reimbursed for financial losses and a lack of organization in the response, Stephanopoulos deflected any criticism away from President Obama and suggested another target: “The White House has approved the building of berms, they’ve sent the boom down there, Admiral Allen is on the scene every day. Are you saying he is not giving you the help you need? And do you think he should keep his job?” Nungesser replied: “I don’t know if it’s Admiral Allen. I don’t know if the chain of command. Something’s not working.” Stephanopoulos pressed further: “So how does it get done? Is Admiral Allen the right man for the job right now?” The headline on-screen during the segment read: “Desperation On the Gulf; Residents Want More Action.” Meanwhile, on the Early Show, co-host Harry Smith invited Republican strategist Dan Bartlett and Democratic strategist Rob Zimmerman to grade President Obama’s handling of the disaster. Bartlett replied: “Well I think, Harry, anything above maybe a C-minus would be difficult to score.” Smith joked: ” ‘Gentleman’s C,’ we’ve heard that before.” Zimmerman actually graded on the same curve: “Harry, I’d have to agree with Dan. I’d give him a C on this, a C at this point.” Unlike the more generic ABC headline, the on-screen headline on CBS read: “Disaster in the Gulf: Day 59; What’s Next Step for Obama Administration?” Barlett later questioned the wisdom of the White House using the crisis to push controversial cap-and-trade energy legislation. Smith agreed with that concern, asking Zimmerman: “…you have to confess….At the end of the speech he says, ‘Well now it’s time for us to think about energy policy and this is a perfect, perfect jumping-off point,’ was that, as you watched, were you thinking, ‘Boy that’s a good idea,’ or were you thinking, ‘Not now, not now!'”   Zimmerman argued: “But unless we, in fact, put in place an aggressive energy policy, we run the risk of this tragedy happening all over again.” Smith agreed: “That goes without saying.” However, he reiterated: “But from a political standpoint, it’s not as if he’s saying, ‘Okay, I’ve solved all the problems, I have got the bully pulpit, I’ve got the momentum. Now’s the time to jump on this.'” On Tuesday, while the Early Show and NBC’s Today challenged White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the administration’s response, former Democratic strategist Stephanopoulos lobbed softballs to the Obama staff member. 

Read the rest here:
ABC Focuses Oil Spill Blame on BP and Coast Guard, Not Obama; CBS Gives President ‘C’ for Response

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Sports, TV

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

Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer

Posted on June 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Wednesday’s Joy Behar Show, HLN host Behar led a discussion of President Obama’s Address to the Nation with left-wing actress Janeane Garofalo and liberal commentator Ron Reagan, all of whom had some criticisms for President Obama regarding the BP oil spill and his speech on the subject. Garofalo started off complaining that “the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time.” After Behar pointed out that Obama had blamed Mineral Management Service members who were still in place from the Bush administration, Garofalo did not give Obama a pass: “Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office?” Reagan complained that his speech was “too little too late,” and that “he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was.” While Behar was generally more inclined to defend Obama, at one point even she asserted that President Obama’s failure to meet with the head of BP was “so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way,” prompting Garofalo to lament: “I don`t know who’s giving him the worst advice in the world. I don`t know, I don`t know why this presidency has been as disappointing as it has been. I really feel like he`s being advised terribly.” After Behar fretted that “some Sarah Palin clone” who would be “even worse” might replace Obama, Reagan pessimistically concluded that “you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama”: BEHAR: And who`s going to take the place? Who are we going to get instead of him? Some Sarah Palin clone, or she herself? It`ll be even worse. REAGAN: That`s the dilemma. BEHAR: Isn`t that`s a scary thought? REAGAN: That`s the dilemma for liberals. That`s the dilemma for progressives and liberals is you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama, even though Barack Obama isn’t doing what we want him to do. Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Wednesday, June 16, Joy Behar Show on HLN: JOY BEHAR: President Obama appears to be doing everything he can to make sure Americans know that stopping the oil spill is his main priority. He met with BP executives today, and last night he delivered a speech on the disaster from the Oval Office. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: But make no mistake. We will fight this spill with everything we`ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused, and we will do whatever is necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. BEHAR: Well, let`s just hope the next time Malia says, “Daddy, did you plug the hole?” she isn`t 47 years old. So was this speech enough to please his critics or did it just give them more material? Here with me to discuss this are Ron Reagan, liberal commentator, and actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo. … Janeane, start with you, did you like the speech? JANEANE GAROFALO: No, I didn`t feel that it was a strong speech, and I felt that the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time. BEHAR: Anti-intellectual? He’s considered, like, overly intellectual? GAROFALO: He himself is. BEHAR: Yeah. GAROFALO: When politicians use that prayer stuff, it is anti-intellectual. It has nothing do with what has happened, it has nothing to do with any real way to solve a problem. You know, I felt this speech was not very effective. You know, fighting, fighting it with all that they`ve got, what would have been good is to undo the Bush policies that brought this. You know, Ken Salazar should not have been the Interior Secretary. That people from Mineral Management Services should not still have been able to work. BP has a terrible track record. It`s amazing that the Bush policies were allowed to still flourish, that the “drill, baby, drill” policy was still going. That any of these disasters could had been avoided because it wasn`t, it wasn`t unknown what could have gone wrong. BEHAR: Okay, well, he did blame a lot on the agency that was still in place. He did say that it was ineffective. GAROFALO: Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office? BEHAR: A good question. Ron, what do you think? RON REAGAN: Well, too little too late I agree with Janeane, he did bring up the Mineral Management Services, of course, and that really is the crux of this, to me. You know, BP was doing what BP could be expected to do – cut corners, act recklessly, all in the name of profits. But Mineral Management Service, which was supposed to be regulating them and overseeing this, had fallen asleep on the job. Actually, that`s not even the right way to put it. Fallen asleep on the job suggests they actually wanted to do the job somehow in the first place, but they didn`t, of course because they`re all former or, you know, prospective oil company employees there. That`s the criminality here, it`s not just BP, it`s the MMS. BEHAR: Do you think it would have been any different if a Republican was in office now? Be the same thing or worse? GAROFALO: Oh, no, the exact same because these are these type of conservative anti-regulation policies and also all this kind of oil culture of oil cronyism. I’m not going to say that Democrats don`t partake in that. Obviously they do. But it might be worse if Bush was in office in maybe more hiding scientific facts or maybe they would do that thing they always say about no fingerprinting, now`s not the time for the blame. Yeah, they always say that. BEHAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whenever they’re to blame. GAROFALO: But the policies are still the same unfortunately. BEHAR: Yes. GAROFALO: The same Bush policies that we`ve been laboring under have been continued. There is no reason why MMS has been allowed to thrive the way they have. There`s no reason Ken Salazar should be at the Department of the Interior, and there`s no reason that BP should still be doing what they`re doing right now as we speak with other rigs. BEHAR: The left is very hard on him, though, I think. The left is going very hard. Part of the frustration, I think, with, on the left and the right, probably is that he can`t fix it. He can`t do it. People say he should do it. What do they want him do? GAROFALO: Well, there’s many, many things a President could and should do to make sure these types of things- BEHAR: Isn`t he doing some of it? GAROFALO: I would hope so, but there should had been regulation. You know, I mean, there should had been regulatory reform as he came into office. BEHAR: When he came into office. GAROFALO: Yes. BEHAR: Yeah. Why didn’t, Ron, why didn`t he do that? REAGAN: Well, because he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was. He`s a little less obvious about it. I think maybe his heart isn’t quite as in it. He`s not an actual oil man himself, but listen, he`s between a rock and a hard place here. He just proposed that we open up a lot of our coastline to deepwater drilling here, to offshore drilling. Completely ignoring the fact that any dependence on oil by America is dependence on foreign oil. That`s the thing that I think a lot of people don`t understand here. You can drill all- BEHAR: It`s kind of shocking in a way. It`s kind of shocking to me. REAGAN: Well, of course, but you can drill all that you want for oil on American territory, it goes into a global market. We`re going to sell it to China just as much as we`re going to sell it to, you know, American drivers here. There`s no such thing as American oil. It`s all fungible. It`s all global, so any dependence on oil is dependence on foreign oil. BEHAR: Well, he used the opportunity to bring up energy policy. Do you think that he was effective at all? Because I was a little disappointed in that. You know, we need alternative energy and there`s no question about it, and the American people are so lackadaisical about it that even now no one seems to see the urgency of the situation. GAROFALO: I think there’s many people who do see the urgency. They just aren’t given a forum to speak about it. There’s many people who are very concerned about this. There should have been clean energy reform made years and years ago. There`s many people who have tried to do this and because oil runs everything it keeps getting thwarted. There`s no reason why we shouldn`t have more clean energy and more reform in that area, too. It`s just, it`s one of those things it just keeps business as usual, it just keeps going and going and going. BEHAR: I know. Well, he met with BP men today. Ron, do you think that he kicked their butts today at all? REAGAN: No, I don`t think it`s about kicking their butts. No, of course not. It`s nice that there’s going to be a $20 billion fund to pay people off- BEHAR: Right. REAGAN: -but who says when the people actually get the money? There are people that are still waiting for a payoff from the Exxon Valdez, you know, I mean, you know, just because there`s money in a fund doesn`t mean it`s actually going to be going to people. I will imagine that BP will litigate every claim. BEHAR: He said, originally he didn`t want to meet with them because he didn`t want to hear their talking points. That is so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way certainly.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Senators propose granting president power to shut down Internet in times of crisis

Posted on June 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet. The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined. That emergency authority would allow the federal government to “preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people,” Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats. Because there are few limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition. TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about “unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach” and “the potential for absolute power.” And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems.” The idea of an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites. On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said “I commend” the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that “we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources.” Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also “relies on” the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. “information infrastructure” would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security. The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to “conduct surveillance” of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized. Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies–cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.” A new cybersecurity bureaucracy Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including “no less” than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.) The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the “security status” of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide “situational awareness of the security status” of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm. Selected private companies would be required to participate in “information sharing” with the Feds. They must “certify in writing to the director” of the NCCC whether they have “developed and implemented” federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been “approved by the director.” The NCCC director can “issue an order” in cases of noncompliance. The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. “This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction,” says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker.” To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalizing offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable. If there's an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the president has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab. Another sweetener: A new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardize their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products. Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticizing the Lieberman bill, calling it a “very important piece of legislation.” McAfee is paying attention to “a number of provisions of the bill that could use work,” Gann said, and “we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions.” added by: samantha420

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Networks Democratic Congressman’s Street Scuffle, But ABC Pounced on Catty Crack About Boxer’s Hair

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

None of the three broadcast evening newscasts had even a few seconds last night for video of Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge physically grabbing and yelling at an unidentified student attempting to ask him whether he supports President Obama’s agenda. But last Thursday, after Republican senate candidate Carly Fiorina was caught making a flip remark about Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer’s hair, ABC’s World News ran a full report on that “caught on tape political moment.” Worth noting: Back on June 10, George Stephanopoulos was sitting in for Diane Sawyer. But last night, Sawyer was back in the anchor chair. In introducing last week’s report from correspondent Jonathan Karl, Stephanopoulos touted the Fiorina flap as “ the latest caught off guard, caught on tape, all too candid political moment.” The Etheridge scuffle would surely fit that same standard, but ABC’s World News had no time on Monday to mention that embarrassment for the Democrats. Fiorina’s campaign had previously been mentioned by World News in round-up pieces about this year’s elections, but Thursday’s item about her gaffe was the first report focused exclusively on her candidacy, a Nexis search reveals: FILL-IN ANCHOR GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And now, to the latest caught off guard, caught on tape, all too candid political moment. Just hours after she became California’s Republican nominee for the Senate, Carly Fiorina forgot that for candidates, the camera is always hot. Here’s Jon Karl on an old lesson, learned again. CORRESPONDENT JONATHAN KARL: Year of the woman, maybe. MEG WHITMAN, GOP NOMINEE for CA GOVERNOR: What a great night. KARL: Year of the political outsider, undoubtedly. CARLY FIORINA, GOP NOMINEE for U.S. SENATE: Yeah, anyway, that’s what they said. KARL: But even if your name is Carly Fiorina and you’ve never run for office before, there’s one old rule that still applies: Beware of the open mike. FIORINA, SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING ON HER BLACKBERRY: I can’t find this thing. KARL: Still basking in her primary victory, Fiorina was waiting for an interview on KXTV in Sacramento when she started musing about her opponent’s hair style. FIORINA: Lauda (sp?) saw Barbara Boxer briefly on television this morning and said what everyone says, “God, what is that hair?” So, yesterday. KARL: But it happens. Even to political pros. Jesse Jackson, talking about cutting off a part of Barack Obama’s anatomy. [on screen: “I wanna cut his n_ts off.”] George W. Bush calling a reporter a CLIP OF GEORGE W. BUSH, 2000: (bleep). CLIP OF DICK CHENEY, 2000: Oh, yeah. Big time. KARL: Judging from Fiorina’s reaction when she realized the mic was on, that won’t be happening again. Jonathan Karl, ABC News, Washington. STEPHANOPOULOS: That lesson is burned in.

See the original post:
Networks Democratic Congressman’s Street Scuffle, But ABC Pounced on Catty Crack About Boxer’s Hair

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC on Etheridge Assault: An ‘Ambush Interview,’ GOP ‘Set Up’

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

In the 2PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Tamron Hall did a news brief on Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge assaulting two students attempting to ask him a question last week, proclaiming: “…there are some Democrats that are blasting the people allegedly behind this video….some would catagorize that as an ambush interview…” Hall played a clip of the video showing the assault and afterwards quoted an written apology from Etheridge. She described how the video “first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s conservative blog BigGovernment.org,” remarking that he “was partly responsible for that notorious ACORN video featuring conservative James O’Keefe.” Hall made sure to also mention that “O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for entering Senator Mary Landrieu’s office under false pretenses.” Hall then suspiciously noted about the Etheridge video: “One of these so-called camera men at one point reportedly identified himself as a student, so there’s discrepancy over who these individuals really are.” In the 3PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing spoke with NBC correspondent Luke Russert about the altercation and explained to viewers: “…in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious.” Russert replied: “…nobody knows who these, quote, ‘students’ are” and cited Democratic Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse claiming they were actually Republican Party operatives. He concluded: “So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party.” Russert admitted: “We obviously don’t know if that’s true or not,” but quickly added, “it’s quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You’d think they’d want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda.” After noting that Etheridge’s  House seat was “fairly safe,” Russert made the obvious observation that “…at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it’s never a good idea to physically assault somebody who’s trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age.” Here is a transcript of Hall’s June 14 news brief: 2:37PM EST TAMRON HALL: And North Carolina Representative Bob Etheridge is apologizing for a video that is all over the internet, people are buzzing about it. The video shows him confronted by two camera men as he leaves a fundraiser. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Confrontation on Camera; NC Rep. Apologizes for Confrontation Caught on Video] [VIDEO OF CONFRONTATION] HALL: So in a written statement just a short time ago, the Congressman said, quote, ‘I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina I’ve always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become. This does not justify a poor response. I have and will always work to promote a civil public discourse.’ Meanwhile, though, there are some Democrats that are blasting the people allegedly behind this video. It first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s conservative blog BigGovernment.org. Breitbart, you might recall, was partly responsible for that notorious ACORN video featuring conservative James O’Keefe, when he dressed as a pimp. After a separate video project, O’Keefe pleaded guilty to misdemeanor for entering Senator Mary Landrieu’s office under false pretenses. One of these so-called camera men at one point reportedly identified himself as a student, so there’s discrepancy over who these individuals really are. But for the record, the Congressman has made this an official conversation by releasing this written statement of apology, at least regarding his actions. Not certainly those of the people who, some would catagorize that as an ambush interview, ambushing him. Here is a transcript of Jansing’s later exchange with Russert: 3:15PM EST CHRIS JANSING: Republicans and Democrats are getting fired up over a new viral video posted today on a right-wing website. It shows Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina in a sidewalk confrontation with someone who identifies himself as a student. [VIDEO OF CONFRONTATION] JANSING: An edited version of the tape first showed up on websites run by well-known conservative Andrew Breitbart, of the ACORN tape controversy. NBC News’s Luke Russert is on Capitol Hill for us. Alright, let’s start with the Congressman himself. I know you reached out to his office, what did you hear from them? LUKE RUSSERT: Yeah, so the Congressman was ready and willing. It had become quite a problem for him politically and he issued an apology saying, quote, ‘I have seen the video posted on several blogs, I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect no matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become. This does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.’ So Congressman Etheridge realizing this has become a very bad political story for him, realizing that he had to get out and make a comment. It took a few hours. This obviously happened last week, it was just put into the public sphere now for the mass media to see. Etheridge realizing that it had been politically damaging, coming out and saying that he regretted it. And quite frankly, just admitting that he really had a bad moment here, I mean, a physical altercation on the street in D.C., Chris. JANSING: Yeah, and in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious. RUSSSERT: There’s a few interesting things here, one is the face of the reported student is blurred out. At this moment, nobody knows who these, quote, ‘students’ are. The Breitbart folks have said that this video was submitted to them anonymously. Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic spokesman, said this in a memo that was obtained by Politico, quote, ‘This was a Republican Party tracking operation. If it wasn’t a party tracker or an intern, why is the face blurred and why is the source hidden? You know if it had been a right-wing blog that identified themselves, they’d be booking this person on TV all day.’ So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party. We obviously don’t know if that’s true or not, but it’s quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You’d think they’d want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda. So it’s going to be interesting to see what happens from here on out. Politically, Bob Etheridge, though, is fairly safe. He won his district with 57% of the vote back in 2008. Obama actually won his district 53% to 47% in North Carolina, in the Raleigh area. So politically, he should not lose his seat from this. However, at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it’s never a good idea to physically assault somebody who’s trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age. Chris. JANSING: Note to self. Thank you, Luke. RUSSERT: Yup.

Read more:
MSNBC on Etheridge Assault: An ‘Ambush Interview,’ GOP ‘Set Up’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Network News Shows Largely Skip President’s $50 Billion Spending Request

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

The network morning and evening news shows have all but ignored President Obama’s Saturday letter to congressional leaders asking for $50 billion in additional spending to prevent the “massive layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters.” Only Sunday’s Good Morning America on ABC has covered the President’s request so far. The chief executive’s June 12 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader John Boehner urged “swift action” on the multi-billion dollar proposal to prevent the public sector layoffs and “give our nation’s businesses added impetus to hire and grow.” ABC anchor Bill Weir brought up the President’s letter with White House correspondent Jake Tapper 13 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of Sunday’s Good Morning America: WEIR: And then, I guess, slightly more difficult than stopping the leak is keeping open the flow of federal stimulus money- I understand the President [is] asking for another $50 billion? JAKE TAPPER: Another $50 billion, and this has been a tough sell for Democrats on Capitol Hill, not to mention, of course, Republicans. President Obama made the request in a letter yesterday . I will be sitting down today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner to see if they have any willingness to pass an additional $50 billion. The President says this is needed as emergency aid to state and local governments, to make sure there aren’t massive layoffs of teachers and policemen and firemen. But, so far, Congress has shown no inclination to pass any more spending bills. Neither Sunday’s Today show on NBC nor CBS’s Sunday Morning program mentioned the spending request. This omission continued on all three networks Sunday evening news programs. The networks’ morning shows on Monday also failed to mention the push for further spending by the President. By contrast, CNN’s Christine Romans devoted an entire segment to it on American Morning: JOHN ROBERTS: Twenty minutes now after the [7 am Eastern] hour- Christine Romans here ‘Minding Your Business’ this morning. And we heard mantras of ‘drill baby drill’- now, I guess this one is ‘spend baby spend,’ right? CHRISTINE ROMANS: Right, the President- KIRAN CHETRY: But don’t call it ‘stimulus.’ ROMANS: Don’t call it- whatever you do, do not call new spending in the economy ‘stimulus’ because we have mid-term elections coming up and Republicans and- you know, frankly, a lot of Democrats are not real keen on spending a lot more money. But the President this weekend sending a letter to congressional leadership, saying this is not the time to pull back on some important emergency spending measures because the economy is really at a critical juncture, he says, in the path to recovery. The President, in this three-page letter to Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, saying basically, we cannot afford to slide backward, that we must take emergency measures. All told, maybe up to $50 billion in new spending for things like keeping teachers on the job, for helping people pay their premiums for health care insurance, for making sure that first responders have money so that they are out there actually being able to answer 911 calls and the like. Here’s the issue that the President points out in his letter. We have an economy that is in a recovery, but that recovery seems to be pretty fragile. You look at the number of people unemployed- it’s still 9.7 percent. You look at the most recent retail sales number- retail sales fell 1.2 percent in the most recent month. That was a surprise to people. And you have you a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of an unbelievable 4.81 percent. Folks, that is so low for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. But you still have a lot of concerns with the housing market. It’s just not going to recover until you see the job situation recover. So the President is asking for some- you know, solidarity behind some new spending. The letter went over like a lead balloon with Republicans- ROBERTS: I’m sure. ROMANS: And even some Democrats are concerned. Look, they can’t support anything in the next few months that’s going to turn up in a campaign ad against them as some kind of a new stimulus or spending money we don’t have. So it’s a tough fight the President has here. CHETRY: All right. Christine Romans, thanks so much. ROMANS: Sure. CHETRY: Oh, what’s your numeral? Sorry about that. ROMANS: Oh, the numeral is 300,000. And this is one of the reasons why the President really makes it personal about this spending- 300,000. CHETRY: This is how many people sign up for unemployment benefits each month? ROMANS: This is- according to David Axelrod, if you don’t spend more money, you’re going to have 300,000 teachers out of work- 300,000. That means if you don’t find the money to spend- ROBERTS: That’s true, yeah. ROMANS: You’re going to notice this in your school, in your classroom. This is something- ROBERTS: State and local budgets. ROMANS: It affects you, and the President noted that in his letter, that state and local people are really in big trouble here. ROBERTS: Okay. And now it’s time to say goodbye to all our company. ROMANS: Or walk. CHETRY: All right, Christine.

See more here:
Network News Shows Largely Skip President’s $50 Billion Spending Request

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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