Tag Archives: liberal

Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

Are you happy with the job that the Obama administration and the Democrats are doing? If so, then vote for Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate because Chris Matthews happily proclaimed that Crist is going to be the new star in the Democrat caucus. However, if you are dissatisfied with the direction this nation is going and want to change it, then Marco Rubio will be your choice which is why your humble correspondent won’t be a bit surprised to see this video of Matthews making his proclamation about Crist on Morning Joe end up as a Rubio campaign commercial. Here is a transcript of Matthews delivering his kiss of death product endorsement of Charlie Crist: Charlie Crist is going to be the new star of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. He’s going to be a major player in the Democratic Party down the road. He’ll be a moderate Democrat somewhere in the middle. I think he’s very shrewd and nimble. This sudden Matthews infatuation with Charlie Crist stands in sharp contrast with his attitude back in May when he was sharply critical of the Florida governor’s performance on Meet The Press where he played coy by avoiding a direct answer about which party he would caucus with and for whom he would vote for Majority Leader of the Senate as you can see in the video below: Here is a transcript of Matthews’ disgust with Crist at that time: …I used to sort of like Charlie Crist but he’s off-base on that. You have to join a party caucus before you can vote for leader. He can’t decide which leader he’s going to vote for because he’s not even voting. He must join a caucus then you get to vote for which person leads that caucus. That’s how it’s done. He doesn’t seem to know that or he rejects knowing it. What do you think? Is he just ignorant or is he playing a game here? So what changed in the past couple of months to cause Matthews to move from disgust with Charlie Crist to developing a “strange new respect” for the Florida governor? Most likely it was the realization by Matthews and fellow liberals that the likely Democrat nominees, Kendrick Meek or billionaire Jeff Greene, have little or no chance of winning the general election in November. Therefore the best chance of promoting the liberal agenda in the Senate would be to back Charlie Crist running as an independent who was too liberal to win the Republican nomination. And Marco Rubio should thank Matthews for that wonderful future campaign commercial clip reminding Florida voters (many of whom still mistakenly think of Crist as a Republican) that Charlie is a Democrat.

View post:
Chris Matthews Stars in Future Marco Rubio Campaign Commercial

MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan

So is President Obama more conservative than the late Ronald Reagan? MSNBC substitute anchor Cenk Uygur thinks so. Filling in yesterday for Dylan Ratigan on his 4 p.m. show, Uygur moderated a segment based on the preposition that President Obama’s policies have actually been more conservative than those of President Reagan. “That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard,” former Reagan White House political director Frank Donatelli said of the claims. “It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything,” he added. Uygur is a host of ” The Young Turks ,” a left-wing internet political podcast. In fact, both his guests disagreed with him, but the liberal radio show host wouldn’t budge. He provided the following as proof: – President Reagan pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens, while President Obama wants to toughen-up border security. – President Reagan negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions (in 1985, with Mikhail Gorbachev). – President Reagan decided to “cut and run” in the Middle East when troops in Lebanon were under attack. President Obama, on the other hand, called for a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. – President Obama refused to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. President Reagan, however, raised taxes every year of his Presidency after 1981. – President Reagan hosted an openly gay couple at the White house overnight. Uygur, taken aback at the challenge to the accuracy of his claims, wouldn’t let Donatelli get too many words in during the remainder of the segment. Uygur then turned to MSNBC political commentator David Weigel, who confessed that his own views on the matter leaned more toward those of Donatelli. “By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President,” Weigel stated. “But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to,” he added. “[Obama] is not a conservative, come on,” he countered Uygur. The guest host also opposed Weigel on whether the American populace is generally center-right or center-left.Weigel admitted that America is center-right overall, while Uygur argued that polls show America as a center-left country. “This is a — at least in rhetoric — a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like change,” Weigel stated. “This is not a center-right country,” Uygur countered. “You look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. Perhaps Uygur missed this poll . “I totally disagree with both of you,” Uygur wrapped up the segment, thus disagreeing with both of his guests from both sides of the political spectrum. The transcript of the segment, which aired on July 6 at 4:33 p.m. EDT, is as follows: THE DYLAN RATIGAN SHOW 7/6/10 4:33 p.m.-4:43 p.m. EDT (Video Clip) RONALD REAGAN: I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. BARACK OBAMA: And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. (End Clip) CENK UYGUR, MSNBC NEWS ANCHOR: Yes, you heard that right. Conservative hero President Ronald Reagan pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants, while our Democratic President calls for a border crackdown. Welcome back, I’m Cenk Uygur in for Dylan Ratigan. The immigration debate, just one reason Obama-Reagan comparisons are abounding right now. We’re breaking it down. Siena College out with its new ranking of the Presidents. Historians put our current President at 15th, with the Gipper ranked 18th. That is going to drive conservatives crazy, but maybe it shouldn’t. So time for a little pop quiz we’re calling “Who’s more conservative?” I’ll give you the policy decision, you decide whether it was President Obama’s or President Reagan’s. We start with foreign policy. Which president negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions? Was it President Obama, or President Reagan?  If you said President Obama, that is incorrect, though he says he’s open to it at some point. (Clip of CNN 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate) Question: Would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea? CNN Debate Moderator: Senator Obama? SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I would. (End Clip) UYGUR: Republican hawk Ronald Reagan actually did it in March, 1985. At the height of the Cold War, Reagan invited newly-appointed Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the “Evil Empire,” for a summit in Geneva without preconditions. You will recall President Reagan’s administration was also responsible for trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair. That would be negotiating with terrorists, literally. Next, which President is famous for his decision to “cut and run” when our troops were attacked in the Middle East? Yep, that would be President Reagan. He withdrew immediately from Lebanon in 1983 after Hezbollah murdered 243 U.S. servicemen in Beirut. Contrast that decision with President Obama’s 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. Next, the fiscal policy. Which president refused to raise taxes for anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars. Yeah, that would be President Obama. On the other hand, and counter to Reaganomics, President Reagan, after initially lowering taxes, raised them nearly every year after 1981, with four significant tax increases. Finally, which President was the first to host an openly-gay couple at the White House for an overnight stay? Well that’s got to be Obama, right? Nope, that would be family-values icon Ronald Reagan. So which President is the real conservative here? Joining us now is David Weigel, politcal reporter and MSNBC contributor, and Frank Donatelli, former White House political director for President Ronald Reagan, and most recently, the chairman of GOPAC. So let me start with you, Frank. Those sound like interesting comparisons. Is there some chance that Obama is actually more conservative than Reagan? FRANK DONATELLI: Well I’m glad the MSNBC interns had something to do for the last couple of weeks. Those are the – that’s the silliest thing that I’ve ever heard. The fact is, that – UYGUR: Which part is untrue? If you say it’s silly, which part is untrue? DONATELLI: It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything. UYGUR: So all of that is true, let’s start with that, all of that is true, right? DONATELLI: It’s not all true – UYGUR: Really? Which part is not true? DONATELLI: Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev, but at the same time he built up our armed forces. So to say that he negotiated with Gorbachev without preconditions is silly. It was part of an integrated strategy. It was part – UYGUR: Not it’s not silly, it’s absolutely correct. It’s absolutely correct. Furthermore, Obama has also increased Pentagon spending, and he did a surge in Afghanistan when Reagan ran from Lebanon. That’s got to be true, right? DONATELLI: Not as a part of GDP. Reagan wanted to cut government, he wanted to make government smaller, he wanted to make the private sector stronger. UYGUR: He wanted to. Did he? DONATELLI: Yes. Absolutely. UYGUR: Really? The deficit went up tremendously under Reagan, from 700 billion to 3 trillion. DONATELLI: And some of the taxes went down — [the deficit] wasn’t a trillion dollars every year like Obama’s. UYGUR: No, that’s actually Bush’s, but – DONATELLI: And he won the Cold War, too. Reagan won the Cold War. What did Obama win? Obama hasn’t won anything. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Reagan single-handedly won the Cold War. DONATELLI: [Obama] hasn’t created any jobs. 10 percent unemployment. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Right. I know Reagan won the Cold War single-handedly, nobody had anything else to do with it. DONATELLI: With a lot of other people, including Republicans and Democrats. UYGUR: Let me go to David. David, is it unfair to Obama to say he’s more conservative than Reagan is? Have we stated anything wrong on that count? DAVID WEIGEL: Well I’m going to come closer to Frank than you might expect here. By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President. We remember in the Nevada caucus, in the run-up to that, he gave an interview saying Reagan had been a transformative President, Bill Clinton hadn’t. He was going to be a transformative President. He said liberals had never had someone like this, and then he ran for President saying, as you pointed out, he wasn’t going to raise taxes on anybody. But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to, whereas Reagan, apart from the couple reversals early on, you know after ____ when he had to raise taxes again, with amnesty, he was always moving the debate further to the right. I think Obama ran more conservative than he really has been, and had been dealt more reversals as a liberal than Regan was dealt as a conservative. Now you brought up the deficit, that’s true. Regan had the highest deficits since we had since World War II. Obama’s had much higher deficits. And he’s much more apologetic about the reasons he did. Conservatives are still able and willing to say that taxes were lower, that government shrank in some ways. If they can’t defend it at every level, Democrats can’t really defend the way they’ve governed based on the way they ran on. It’s fun to compare a couple of these different, these different issues, and certainly Obama deserves a bit more credit on foreign policy and immigration, if not attacking the very traditions with which the Republican was founded. But he’s not a conservative, come on. UYGUR: No, not come on. You make a good point in that Regan pushed the spectrum further to the right. I hear you on that. But the flip side is the spectrum has already moved, and it’s not like Obama is pushing it back to the left. So I mean, since the spectrum has moved so much, let me ask of you a follow-up question. At this point, when Reagan did it, I don’t know, was it conservative to do amnesty? Now, you know, they’d go ballistic if Obama did amnesty for illegal immigrants and that’s it. Wouldn’t they? WEIGEL: Yeah, I mean, I’d like to see Frank’s answer to that. Because this is something that conservatives wrestle with, explaining why in the year 2010, we’ve actually got better border control than we had two years ago, why this is unthinkable. And I guess there’s space to say – it’s unfair to say that every single thing Obama does is antithetical to liberty. You know, his healthcare plan was not the healthcare plan liberals wanted. It was a variation of the plan Republicans proposed in 1994 as a compromise. So yeah, he’s adapted to a spectrum that’s been shifted to the right. But he’s trying to govern as liberal as possible, and not doing a great job of it, as far as liberals are concerned. UYGUR: I gotta be honest with you, I don’t agree with either one of you. I don’t think he’s being as liberal as he can at all. You know, they are already calling him a socialist, why not actually do the public option, let alone single payer health care? But David asked me a good question. Frank, let me ask you. I think the spectrum has moved. Do you agree that Reagan did amnesty – what now conservatives think is unthinkable? And do you agree that he negotiated with terrorists, which now Republicans think is unthinkable? Didn’t he do those, what you would characterize as very liberal, policy positions? DONATELLI: In 1986, the problem of integration – of immigration – was not nearly what it is in 2010. UYGUR: So it was okay to do amnesty? DONATELLI: The estimates were we had 3 million illegals living in the United States. We now have between 10 and 20 million. So the idea of amnesty didn’t work in 1986, and it’s not going to work in 2010. We need border security, and then we can move onto the other issues. Again, I think the seminal point to be made here is that at every opportunity, Ronald Reagan tried to knock down the size of the federal government. He said in his inaugural address in 1981, government is the problem, it is not the solution. Barack Obama, in just 16 months, has governed in the opposite direction. He believes in making government bigger. UYGUR: I think that, Dave, you say that he tried to make government smaller. He failed utterly then. And David said Obama tried to be liberal. Well, look at the record. It appears he failed. I mean, if Regan had – a final question for you, David. If Reagan had come in and said “I’m going to give the drug companies an absolute monopoly. They get a 12-year patent, nobody gets to import any drugs, and the government can’t even negotiate with them – that would have never worked. That would have been far too right-wing, wouldn’t it have? And now Obama does it, and nobody blinks. WEIGEL: Oh, I think a lot of people blinked. I think a lot of protesters on the right and a lot of liberals on the left blinked about it. No, the point is he’s had to talk more conservative, because Republicans are right. This is a – at least in rhetoric – a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like rapid change. So Obama’s been more hamstrung. But the debate you’re trying to start, I think, is helpful, because it’s not helpful when we pretend that everything Obama does comes not from liberals trying to adapt with a pretty center-right country we’ve got, and are instead trying to pull us back to the progressive, Saul Alinsky socialist tradition. In reality, Obama I think, is a pretty liberal guy who’s operating within these contours, and making a lot of compromises, the way that Ronald Reagan did. But we get completely off track both times, it’s good to take it off track into a different direction like this. UYGUR: Alright, well that was fun, because I totally disagree with both of you. This is not a center-right country, you look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. The problem is, our politicians tell us they’re going to vote in that direction, and they don’t. And yes, Obama was elected to change the contours. That’s exactly the problem, David. He said “I’m going to bring you change,” and then what did he bring us? He brought us policies that, on the record, that neither one of you can dispute, that are more conservative than Ronald Reagan’s. But it was a fun conversation, and David and Frank, thank you for both coming on here.

Go here to read the rest:
MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan

CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour

In covering Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, CNN and MSNBC have repeatedly lauded the Supreme Court nominee for her “flashes of humor” and “disarming ease.” In tune with the reverberations of the network morning shows’ echo chamber , correspondents like CNN’s Dana Bash and anchors like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday praised Kagan for her ability to inject humor into otherwise “hollow and vapid” hearings and charm hostile Republican senators into docility. “But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans,” noted Bash. Maddow’s guest, Dahlia Lithwick of the liberal Slate magazine, gushed over Kagan’s “gut-wrenching” sense of humor, her masterful ability to balance “seriousness and levity and humor,” and her “disarming and charming and kind of likeable” personality. “A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know,” quipped Maddow. Anchoring the live coverage of the hearings, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews turned to Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief, who applauded Kagan’s performance: You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. On her eponymous program, CNN’s Campbell Brown aired Kagan’s playful banter with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) before querying CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin: “So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan?” Over on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” substitute host Christopher Hayes, editor of the left-wing magazine The Nation and husband of a White House counselor, reckoned that the most newsworthy part of the hearings so far has been Kagan’s charm: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. On Wednesday’s “American Morning,” Bash continued to push the humor narrative, noting, “Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor…and Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments.” MSNBC “The Daily Rundown” co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd wrapped up the Wednesday program with a recap of the hearing’s most “humorous” moments, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) discussing the latest installment of the Twighlight saga. (H/T MRC intern Matt Hadro ) There’s nothing wrong with color commentary, but the media’s emphasis on humanizing Kagan is coming at the expense of critical reporting on her nomination hearings and what little she’s willing to shed in the hearings about how she’ll approach constitutional issues on the bench. Transcripts of the relevant portions of the cited programs can be found below: MSNBC NewsLive 6/29/10 10:54 a.m. CHRIS MATTHEWS: And this came out in the president’s State of the Union where he took a swipe at the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito and other justices there and they didn’t like it. SUSAN PAGE, USA Today Washington bureau chief: They didn’t. You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the Senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. If she gets confirmed that’s an issue where she’ll have some real issues with her colleagues. CNN Newsroom 6/29/10 12:24 p.m. DANA BASH, CNN correspondent: Well, first, just on substance, I want to point out what John did just at the beginning of this conversation, that what Elena Kagan revealed or maybe more to the point, clarified, was in the memo that she had scribbled notes, “KKK, NRA,” as a bad organization. That has been flying around conservative circles as an ah-ha moment. And when they saw these documents I think about a week or two weeks ago when they were released by the Clinton library as proof that she is just a liberal, what she told us just now, what she told Senator Kyl, is that she was taking notes on somebody else’s conversation. So if that’s the case, that certainly appears to deflate that particular argument that conservatives have been making. But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans. And Jeff knows her, so this may not seem a surprise to him. But just for example, when John Kyl came out after the break, there nobody was in the room and he said “I guess nobody wants to hear my questions” and without missing a beat, she said “maybe nobody wants to hear my answers.” And another time, Senator Hatch was talking about the fact that he and Senator Leahy were having a little disagreement. They’re kind of like an old married couple, and I say this respectfully and they would probably agree, and Elena Kagan again without missing a beat saying, “don’t worry go ahead, it takes the spotlight off of me.” I don’t remember seeing that certainly from recent confirmation hearings at this level, not from Sonia Sotomayor, and at least at the beginning, you know, as these nominees are getting comfortable. But it just seems to me the kind of charm she has. MSNBC The Ed Show 6/29/10 6:17 p.m.      HAYES: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. Of course, beyond that, we still didn’t get that much of an indication of what kind of justice she’d make, although she does support letting cameras into the Supreme Court. CNN Campbell Brown 6/29/10 8:24 p.m. BROWN: It was a long day on Capitol Hill for Elena Kagan. It was day two of her confirmation hearing. It just wrapped up a little while ago. She faced some tough questions on everything from the War on Terror to her politics. Listen to this exchange with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. Sen. JON KYL (R-Ariz.): Do you agree with the characterization by some of my colleagues that the current Court is too activist in supporting the position of corporations and Big Business? ELENA KAGAN, Supreme Court nominee: Senator Kyl, I would not want to characterize the current court in any way. I hope one day to join it. KYL: And they said you are not political, right?                      BROWN: So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan? MSNBC Rachel Maddow 6/29/10 9:30 p.m. RACHEL MADDOW: And how do you think that Kagan is doing, thus far, as a nominee? Obviously, today was the first day she took questions. It’s clear that just from what I saw of the hearings today, that she seems very relaxed. DAHLIA LITHWICK, Slate senior editor: Relaxed, funny. You know, she brought the room to a standstill, just gut-wrenching laughter. At some point, Lindsey Graham asked her, what were you doing when the Christmas Day bomber was caught on Christmas Day? And she said, like pretty much all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. I mean, you know, people were applauding. She`s very funny, Rachel. She`s very disarming. But at the same time, I think she does a good job of saying, look, I take the law very seriously. At one point, she was questioned about her passions and she couldn’t get passionate about anything but the law. So, she’s doing a good job of balancing seriousness and levity and humor, and I think real charm. The thing I really am enjoying this time around is it sometimes feels like these hearings shrink the nominee down to a smaller version of who they are. This is actually letting someone who looks good on paper but is hard to love in paper become quite human and warm and big luminous smile. And so I don’t know if that’s working for everyone, but it’s quite clear that the senators are finding her disarming and charming and kind of likeable. MADDOW: A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know. She won`t call herself liberal but the press is going to have a hard time understanding how to report on this. Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate magazine, I always really appreciate your insight on days like this. Thanks a lot, Dahlia. CNN American Morning 6/30/10 7:17 a.m. BASH: Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor. Sen. TOM COBURN (R-Okla.): This is softball. KAGAN: You promise? COBURN: I promise. Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) I just ask you where you’re at on Christmas. KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. BASH: And Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments. And you know, it really did change the tenor of things, for example, when one of her starkest opponents, Senator Tom Coburn, who sits here was trying to ask her some questions she wouldn’t answer it. Instead of really going after her, he made a joke. He followed her lead and said “maybe you’re dancing so much, maybe you should be on ‘Dancing with the Stars.'” John and Kiran. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour

Time’s Scherer Gratuitously Blogs About ‘Ten People Killed by Guns’ in Light of Supreme Court Ruling

Reacting to colleague Alex Altman’s brief, just-the-facts-styled Swampland blog post “SCOTUS Solidifies Gun Rights,” Time’s Michael Scherer responded a few hours later with the following post : Meanwhile, in Chicago, the source of the lawsuit decided today by the Supreme Court, ten people were killed by guns after 54 people were shot over the weekend. The victims included a baby girl, who suffered a neck graze wound at a midnight barbecue, early Monday morning. To read all the details, the Sun Times has the story . Something tells me Scherer’s observation isn’t that the Chicago gun ban has been a horrendous failure, especially given his attribution of violence in the brief blog post on the guns themselves — “ten people were killed by guns” — not the criminals who used them.

Read the original post:
Time’s Scherer Gratuitously Blogs About ‘Ten People Killed by Guns’ in Light of Supreme Court Ruling

Democrats and Double Standards at the NYT: ‘Respected Voice’ Robert Byrd vs. ‘Foe of Integration’ Strom Thurmond

The New York Times marked the death early Monday morning of veteran Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who served a record 51 years in the U.S. Senate, with an online obituary by former Times reporter Adam Clymer. While acknowledging Byrd’s Klan past and his pork-barrel prodigiousness, Clymer’s lead also emphasized Byrd’s proud fight as the keeper of Congressional prerogatives. The obituary headline was hagiographic: ” Robert Byrd, Respected Voice of the Senate, Dies at 92 .” While Clymer’s opening statement on Byrd wasn’t exactly laudatory, it did not match the paper’s hostile treatment of the passing of two veteran Republican senators accused of racial prejudice: Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Clymer’s lead paragraph: Robert C. Byrd, who used his record tenure as a United States senator to fight for the primacy of the legislative branch of government and to build a modern West Virginia with vast amounts of federal money, died at about 3 a.m. Monday, his office said. He was 92. The bulk of Clymer’s obituary for Byrd may have been written some time ago, as is customary. Clymer retired from the Times in 2003, after a career of bashing President Bush and prominent conservatives , while defending old-guard Democrats like Sen. Ted Kennedy. Clymer acknowledged what he called Byrd’s changing perspective, moving from conservative to liberal over the years, and in the 16th paragraph brought up Byrd’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and his filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mr. Byrd’s perspective on the world changed over the years. He filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supported the Vietnam War only to come to back civil rights measures and criticize the Iraq war. Rating his voting record in 1964, Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal lobbying group, found that his views and the organization’s were aligned only 16 percent of the time. In 2005, he got an A.D.A. rating of 95. Mr. Byrd’s political life could be traced to his early involvement with the Ku Klux Klan, an association that almost thwarted his career and clouded it intermittently for years afterward. …. Mr. Byrd insisted that his klavern had never conducted white-supremacist marches or engaged in racial violence. He said in his autobiography that he had joined the Klan because he shared its anti-Communist creed and wanted to be associated with the leading people in his part of West Virginia. He conceded, however, that he also “reflected the fears and prejudices” of the time. After noting criticism from watchdog groups over Byrd’s reputation as the “king of pork,” Clymer followed up: West Virginians were grateful for the help. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and the state’s junior senator since 1985, said Mr. Byrd had meant “everything, everything” to the state. Mr. Byrd knew, he said, that “before you can make life better, you have to have a road to get in there, and you have to have a sewerage system and all those things, and he has done that for most of the state.” Bob Wise, a Democrat who was West Virginia’s governor from 2001 to 2005, once said that what Mr. Byrd had done for education — “the emphasis on reading and literacy” — mattered even more than roads. And Clymer’s dubious observation that Byrd “was never a particularly partisan Democrat” would surprise many familiar with Byrd’s non-stop excoriation of Bush over the Iraq War. Byrd authored a 2004 book titled “Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency.” Clymer mentions the book but leaves off the provocative subtitle, simply calling it “Losing America.” He was never a particularly partisan Democrat . President Richard M. Nixon briefly considered him for a Supreme Court appointment. Mr. Dole recalled an occasion when Mr. Byrd gave him advice on a difficult parliamentary question; the help enabled Mr. Dole to overcome Mr. Byrd on a particular bill. In contrast is the Times’s treatment of veteran Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who died on Independence Day 2008. The headline: ” Jesse Helms, Unyielding Beacon of Conservatism, Is Dead at 86 .” Steven Holmes’s obituary for Helms began: Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86. Clymer’s Byrd obituary didn’t mention that Byrd, like Helms, voted on a measure to bar the National Endowment for the Arts of funding “obscene” or “indecent” work. Clymer also wrote the obituary for centennial Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond, who died on June 26, 2003. Like Byrd, Thurmond was a former segregationist (he made his mark as the States’ Rights Candidate in 1948 and became a Republican in 1964) who later reconciled with blacks and became proficient in earning pork for his state. The Times’s headline the following day left no room for doubt: ” Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100 ,” although Clymer’s lead sentence didn’t mention race. (Hat tip Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters .)

See the article here:
Democrats and Double Standards at the NYT: ‘Respected Voice’ Robert Byrd vs. ‘Foe of Integration’ Strom Thurmond

Rosie O’Donnell Getting New Show On NBC?

The rumor mill concerning Rosie O’Donnell landing a new daytime show heated up Monday when Gossip Cop reported the comedienne is in talks with NBC. Apparently, the stumbling block is that the broadcasting company wants an out clause in case Rosie has a blow up like she did on ABC’s “The View.” As NewsBusters reported on May 23, 2007, O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck got into quite a fight about the war in Iraq that was so caustic it ended up being Rosie’s last day on the show. She and ABC agreed to terminate her contract days later. With this in mind, according to Gossip Cop, NBC isn’t taking any chances: The show, as we  previously reported , is looking to launch in the fall of 2011, and will be produced by  Robert F. Kennedy ‘s documentary filmmaking daughter,  Rory Kennedy , along with TV veterans  Dick Robertson   and  Scott Carlin . But there’s one sticking point, says our impeccable insider. According to our source, “NBC wants an out if she implodes like she did on ‘The View.'”  If this is correct, one certainly can’t blame NBC for wanting to hedge its bet. On the other hand, if you’re concerned about the behavior of someone you’re entering into a contract with, isn’t the wisest move to NOT put yourself in a position where said individual could end up embarrassing your organization? As such, why is NBC even considering this risk given O’Donnell’s background? Maybe the folks at NBC ought to watch this before they sign:

See more here:
Rosie O’Donnell Getting New Show On NBC?

AP for Apple Polishers : Elena Kagan ‘Excelled by Dint of Hard Work, Smarts…and Good Situation Sense’

Are the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings an occasion for media explanation…or celebration? The Washington Post Express tabloid ran this headline Monday: “Kagan’s Big Day Finally Arrives.” The copy underneath by AP reporter Nancy Benac sounds like a proud mother more than an objective journalist. She suggested “it may be her own words that best explain her success at charting an undeviating course to the front steps of the high court.” She elaborated about Kagan’s career, in sympathetic tones:  She’s excelled by dint of hard work, smarts and what she describes as good “situation sense” – the ability to size up her surroundings and figure out what truly matters, as she put it during confirmation hearings for her last job, as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, the government’s top lawyer. It’s what allowed Kagan to channel the thinking of legal giant Thurgood Marshall when she was a “27-year-old pipsqueak” clerk to the justice. It’s what allowed Kagan to navigate through the land mines of government policy on abortion, tobacco and other contentious issues as an adviser to President Bill Clinton. It’s what allowed Kagan to thrive as the first female dean of Harvard Law School and even foster detente within its famously fractious faculty. Now, 50-year-old Elena Kagan stands before the Senate, confident she will be judged ready to join the justices whom she’s calls “fabulously smart, fabulously interesting people.” Only in the last paragraph of the seven-paragraph Express item is there an admission that “Republicans have done plenty of grumbling about her liberal views,” but “all sides anticipate she will be confirmed.” Earlier: AP’s Nancy Benac Excited ‘Bold Colors’ and ‘Squiggly Lines Have Arrived’ on Obama White House Walls

Here is the original post:
AP for Apple Polishers : Elena Kagan ‘Excelled by Dint of Hard Work, Smarts…and Good Situation Sense’

Networks Defend ‘Consensus Builder’ Kagan; Downplay Military Recruiter Ban

The Monday morning shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC all worked to portray President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a moderate and open-minded legal scholar, downplaying her liberal views. All three network programs also minimized her controversial decision to ban military recruiters on campus while Dean of Harvard Law School. On CBS’s Early Show, legal correspondent Jan Crawford touted Kagan as “an intellectual heavyweight and consensus builder.” Crawford noted how Republicans had “several lines of attack” against Kagan and would “try to paint her as a liberal activist.” Crawford herself recently described Kagan as having “stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left.” On ABC’s Good Morning America, correspondent Claire Shipman did a fawning segment on Kagan in the 8AM ET hour, describing the former Dean as “intellectual” and “full of personal charm” during her tenure at Harvard. Shipman claimed that Kagan had “a determination to be open-minded,” despite banning military recruiters from the university’s campus over the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. On that issue, Shipman explained that despite Kagan’s decision being unpopular “among student military vets…. Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan’s persistent outreach , another example of her political skills.” Shipman failed to mention that White would be testifying on Kagan’s behalf during the confirmation hearings. Shipman went so far to portray Kagan as open-minded that she touted how “though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice.” Shipman even argued: ” It’s an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan’s style is just what the Court needs.” NBC’s Today did not provide quite as strong a defense of Kagan, but a report by legal correspondent Pete Williams did feature a soundbite from Kagan supporter and SCOTUS blog founder Tom Goldstein declaring: “Elena Kagan isn’t a political partisan.” Williams, like Shipman, attempted to downplay the military recruiter ban: “Republicans also accuse Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was dean of Harvard Law….But student military veterans say she made them feel welcome at Harvard and praised them for their service, even though she strongly opposed the policy on gays in the military.”   Here is a full transcript of Shipman’s June 28 segment on Good Morning America: 8:15AM GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is preparing to take the stand for Senate confirmation hearings this afternoon, and they’re meant to tease out the nominee’s judicial philosophy. Well for some clues, Claire Shipman talked to some people who knew Kagan during the most substantial legal job of her career, the first woman dean of Harvard Law School. CLAIRE SHIPMAN, ABC correspondent: Good morning, George, well that’s right. We decided to look for clues at Harvard Law School where she had a very distinctive style. She was only there for six years, made a large number of changes. She was intellectual, yes, but also full of personal charm, say colleagues, and a determination to be open-minded. It’s an institution usually resistant to change, some might say an immovable object, until it was confronted with the irresistible force of Dean Elena Kagan. ELENA KAGAN: This is a wonderful time, and it’s so good to be with you. LAURENCE TRIBE, Harvard Law professor: I’ve watched Harvard Law School go through lots of transitions, but there has never been anything like Elena Kagan. MARTHA MINOW, Harvard Law dean: She was going to turn over every stone at this institution and figure out a way to make it better. SHIPMAN: She thinks big. MINOW: She thinks big. SHIPMAN: But she was savvy enough at times to start small, offering perks like free coffee for students. Then bigger battles, fighting to hire more conservative professors like John Manning.   JOHN MANNING, Harvard Law professor: She felt that her job as dean was to foster an atmosphere in which all sorts of ideas would be presented. SHIPMAN: And selling a total curriculum overhaul, the first in a hundred years. KAGAN: For the most part, a first year curriculum now looks like what it looks like back in 1880. SHIPMAN: Some say her meteoric rise is impressive, but also suggests a calculating careerism. Two of her best friends, roommates at law school, say she’s just always just reveled in the work. JOHN BARRETT, friend of Kagan: A visual that I have, a memory, is her sitting at her desk with a cigarette and a pen and a book and a little desk lamp, and she could kind of grind it out for a long time. UNIDENTIFIED FRIEND OF KAGAN: I think what was clear was that she really loved the law, and reading about it, and thinking about it, and talking about it. SHIPMAN: Her time as dean wasn’t without controversy. She decided to renew a ban keeping military recruiters from using the career services office because of opposition to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Support was high on campus, but not among student military vets. KURT WHITE, Harvard Law student: It didn’t seem like banning military recruiters from the law school campus was going to be something that was likely to lead to a change in this law. SHIPMAN: Still, Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan’s persistent outreach, another example of her political skills. WHITE: It was really her showing her appreciation for the military and being very supportive of us. SHIPMAN: And though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice. MANNING: She as dean was able to recognize his accomplishments and celebrate them without reservation. SHIPMAN: It’s an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan’s style is just what the Court needs. TRIBE: I think that her ability to find common ground, bring people along, see long-term implications, will make a very large impact on the Court. SHIPMAN: It’s certainly a good place to start hearings as a potential liberal justice when you have the support of a conservative justice, like justice Scalia. George, but of course the hearings will still be heated, they’ll look at that military recruitment issue, and also try to pin her down specifically on how she might rule on some controversial issues. STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s right, and in an election year, likely to get a lot of no votes as well. Okay Claire Shipman, thanks very much.

Read more from the original source:
Networks Defend ‘Consensus Builder’ Kagan; Downplay Military Recruiter Ban

WaPo Applauds Obama for Not Choosing ‘Outspoken Liberals’ for Supreme Court

On the day confirmation hearings begin for Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, The Washington Post stresses on the front page that Kagan has been an “elusive GOP target.” The Post website summarized: “Republicans have struggled to find a compelling line of attack to take against the Supreme Court nominee. But their efforts have largely failed.” When Republicans nominate a Supreme Court justice, it’s the liberal media that aids their favorite activists in creating “compelling lines of attack.” But when Democrats do it, the journalists not only skip over the attacks, they also praise the Democrats for their political skills. Post reporters Anne Kornblut and Paul Kane suggested that the oil spill and the McChrystal hubbub have pushed Kagan out of attention, but also lauded the “skilled operatives” of Team Obama:   But it is also a measure of how skilled operatives have become at managing the process — and choosing nominees who are notable in part for their political blandness….  In part, the attention has been muted because Obama has not chosen outspoken liberals in either of his first two opportunities to influence the makeup of the court. Kagan, who would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, would not tilt the court’s ideological balance. So the stakes are lower than if she had been picked to replace a conservative, participants on both sides said. She is also an especially elusive target: a politically savvy operator who has no record of judicial rulings and has spent much of her career carefully positioning herself for the next step. Who else is elusive to the Post? Conservative activists, who are nowhere to be found in the Kornblut-Kane story — unlike a liberal lobbyist for People for the American Way. (Sen. Jeff Sessions is the only opposition figure quoted.) This claim, that Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are baronesses of “blandness,” too “elusive” to be identified as liberals, is simply bizarre. To say that Sotomayor’s lobbying at left-wing Latino organizations or Kagan’s clerking for ultraliberal Justice Thurgood Marshall isn’t identifiably liberal is counter-factual. For contrast, please see The Washington Post’s front page story on Bush Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito on the first day of his confirmation hearings on January 9, 2006. He was a staunch Reaganite. The story relentlessly repeated how conservative he was. “Blandness” was not on the menu. Reporters Jo Becker and Dale Russakoff began:  The captains of the Reagan revolution at the Justice Department had two big concerns about a bookish new recruit named Samuel A. Alito Jr., who arrived in 1981: his blank slate as a conservative activist and his pedigree from a perceived bastion of legal liberalism. “I wouldn’t let most people from Yale Law School wash my car, let alone write my briefs,” said Michael A. Carvin, a political deputy at the department. Six years later, the revolutionaries saw Alito as one of them, tapping him to become U.S. attorney in New Jersey in 1987 and eventually, they hoped, a judge. Speaking on a New Jersey public affairs television program, the young prosecutor showcased the philosophy that had won the confidence of his Washington mentors. Asked his opinion of President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court, Alito gave a ringing defense of the conservative icon he said had been “unjustifiably rejected” by the Senate in one of the most ideologically polarizing nomination battles in decades. There weren’t any professional liberal activists in the piece — other than the Post reporters themselves.

More here:
WaPo Applauds Obama for Not Choosing ‘Outspoken Liberals’ for Supreme Court

Pseudo-Journalist/Anti-Blackwater Jihadist Jeremy Scahill’s Anti-Americanism: ‘I Hate When People Chant U-S-A’

You would think that if there were one thing people could agree on, despite their politics, it would be cheering for the United States in a sporting event. But no, not for Jeremy Scahill. Scahill, a regular contributor for left-wing The Nation magazine , has dedicated the past several years of his life to an obsession over the defense contractor Xe Services LLC, formerly known as Blackwater. But apparently Scahill can’t overcome his politics and take pride in his country’s World Cup soccer team. In a series of posts on his Twitter account , Scahill vented his frustrations over cheering for the United States in the World Cup: I hate when people chant U-S-A. #FalseNationalistCrap If a night raid in Afghanistan was televised, would these drunk asses chant U-S-A, U-S-A when civilians are killed? I like the US players, I just think it’s gross to chant U-S-A when we are killing people daily #worldcup Obviously Scahill has a problem differentiating U.S. foreign policy from U.S. athletics, but it could make you question his motives in general as an esteemed member of the liberal media.

See the original post:
Pseudo-Journalist/Anti-Blackwater Jihadist Jeremy Scahill’s Anti-Americanism: ‘I Hate When People Chant U-S-A’