Tag Archives: liberal

New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

On Sunday, the season premiere of 60 Minutes will include an anticipated Scott Pelley report on the Ground Zero mosque. Will the story be pro-mosque, just like President Obama? The first clips displayed softballs of sympathy , that it should be seen as “a hub of culture, a hub of coexistence, a hub of bringing people together.” To underline the overwhelming sympathetic tilt of this program in the Obama era — especially all the Steve Kroft hope-and-change goo before the 2008 election — the MRC has a new special report called “Syrupy Minutes.” Here’s my executive summary:  In the last five years, CBS’s 60 Minutes has become infamous for letting its left-wing ardor get way ahead of its journalistic mission. Dan Rather destroyed his own reputation in 2004 with a 60 Minutes II “expose” of President Bush’s incomplete Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard which relied on falsified documents. A CBS-appointed panel found “myopic zeal” in Rather’s professional demise, but no one would admit a political bias. For more than 40 years, CBS has boasted of 60 Minutes as a hard-hitting news show, a weekly story of investigative gumshoes digging up dirt and accusing major business and government leaders of committing dastardly deeds against the public interest. But the history of 60 Minutes isn’t filled to the brim with brutal investigations. It has a much softer, syrupy side, and it isn’t just reserved for movie stars or rock musicians. When it comes to champions of liberalism and even the radical left, the CBS News program has rolled out a red carpet, asking softball questions and lionizing their policy stands and programs – whether they were actually “achievements” or disasters. On September 19, a week before the new season officially began, CBS’s Lesley Stahl promoted the latest book of Jimmy Carter, and insisted that Carter was a bigger success than most presidents, including Ronald Reagan: “But when all is said and done, and many will be surprised to hear this: Jimmy Carter got more of his programs passed than Reagan and Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2.” Carter’s utter failure to end the Iranian hostage standoff and crushing inflation and unemployment rates were somehow irrelevant to history. Stahl also gushed to Carter: “A lot of critics of yours, when you were President, say that you’ve been a fantastic ex-President. You hear that all the time.” She said this even as she reminded viewers that Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council telling them they should oppose the first President Bush on the need for the Gulf War. In studying 60 Minutes broadcasts from January 1, 2006 through the September 2010 season premiere, Media Research Center analysts have found a very biased pattern of soft interviews and promotional language for the American left: — Liberals were featured more than twice as often than conservatives, and were four times more likely to be awarded easygoing interviews. Since 2006, 60 Minutes has aired 35 interviews with liberal leaders and celebrities versus 17 with conservatives. Twenty-four of the 35 interviews with liberals (69 percent) were friendly and unchallenging. Only five of the 17 conservative segments (29 percent) were soft – and one unchallenged conservative was hammering Sarah Palin as utterly unqualified for national office.. — Barack Obama was a major beneficiary of 60 Minutes admiration. CBS has devoted hours of air time to the promotion of Barack Obama – five interviews before the election, and six after it, all reported by Steve Kroft. Of the 49 Kroft questions in the first four CBS interviews (before the financial crisis hit), 42 were personal or horse-race questions. Only seven focused on issues – five on foreign policy, and two on trade – with no real focus on any domestic issues. Kroft never focused a question on Obama scandals, or his record in the Illinois legislature. Even issue questions were soft and open-ended. Kroft’s interviews were even made into a DVD for nostalgic Obama supporters, Obama All Access . — Other candidates for president were not granted the same red carpet as Obama. The contrast was striking to Scott Pelley’s 2008 bailout interview with John McCain: “But why would you let the Wall Street executives sail away on their yachts and leave this on the American taxpayer?” Mike Wallace’s interview with Mitt Romney in 2007 was sharply personal, demanding to know if the Republican candidate had premarital sex with his wife and asking his five sons why none of them had ever joined the military. — Liberal journalists and celebrities were also celebrated, and conservative celebrities were hounded. Morley Safer championed Stephen Colbert for satirizing conservative talk show hosts and their “wildly inaccurate, but patriotic and combative noise…With all of their excesses, it was only a matter of time before someone came along to skewer them. Well, the eagle has landed.” Safer also felt the pain of actor Alec Baldwin having to deal with “conservative junkyard dogs like Sean Hannity.” But Mike Wallace confronted Bill O’Reilly: “You are addicted to the power, you are addicted to the money, you are addicted to the fact that ‘I am Bill O’Reilly, and everybody knows it.'” A review of the recent output of 60 Minutes should cause media historians to restrain themselves before declaring that this program is a hallmark of hard-hitting journalism, without a political axe to grind. They either carry an axe or a shoe-shine kit.

Originally posted here:
New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

Comments Off on New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Lib Economist: Second Great Depression a Fiction Created by Wall Street for Bailout Funds

Posted on September 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

One of the Left’s most esteemed economists, the liberal Center for Economic Policy’s Dean Baker, claimed Monday the “Second Great Depression,” the term given to what many believed the country was heading for if drastic government action wasn’t taken in the fall of 2008, was all a fiction created by Wall Street to get bailed out. In Baker’s view published at the unashamedly liberal Huffington Post, the Federal Reserve could have solved all the problems that ailed us at the time, and had some of America’s largest banks been allowed to fail, their financial loss would have been “our” gain as their money was magically redistributed to Main Street. Potentially most hysterical is that Baker never once mentioned how this all occurred weeks before Election Day, and never once mentioned Barack Obama who not only hyped the collapse to seal his ascendancy to the White House, but also continually reminds Americans to this day that his efforts averted the “Second Great Depression”: Two years ago, the top honchos at the Fed, Treasury and the Wall Street banks were running around like Chicken Little warning that the world was about to end. This fear mongering, together with a big assist from the elite media (i.e. NPR, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc.), earned the banks their $700 billion TARP blank check bailout. This money, along with even more valuable loans and loan guarantees from the Fed and FDIC, enabled them to survive the crisis they had created. As a result, the big banks are bigger and more profitable than ever. Notice the total absence of any political figures in this accusation? Much as Obama, the Democrats, and their media minions have been doing for approaching two years, it’s all Wall Street’s fault. Never mind that before Lehman’s collapse and the panic it set off, John McCain and Sarah Palin had just concluded a fabulous convention in Minneapolois-St. Paul and were actually leading in the polls. This crisis was tailor-made for the Left and the press to scare Americans into thinking the world was coming to an end, it was all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, and the solution was a huge transfer of power to Obama and the Democrats. Yet Baker never mentioned the junior senator from Illinois, the elections, or the political fear-mongering going on at the time: This was when the Wall Street boys made their mad rush for the public trough. They enlisted everyone that mattered in the effort, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The line was that the economy would collapse if Congress did not immediately rescue the banks. They were prepared to make up anything to save the banks in their hour of need. Bernanke was probably caught in the biggest fabrication when he told Congress that the commercial paper market was shutting down. Readers should notice that Baker failed to inform his readers that some of the bigger banks, most notably Wells Fargo, didn’t want the government’s assistance, and were actually forced to sign on to the TARP plan. This continued for the next several months as banks across the country were ordered to accept money they neither asked for nor needed. But this was an inconvenient truth Baker ignored: In reality, the Fed almost certainly had the ability to keep the economy going by sustaining the system of payments even if the chain of bank collapses was allowed to run its course. In the 80s Latin American debt crisis, the Fed had an emergency plan to seize the money center banks, and keep them operating, if a default by a major Latin American country pushed them into insolvency. By the time of the Lehman crisis the financial markets had been severely stressed for over a year. The first major bank collapse had occurred more than 6 months earlier. It would have required a degree of unbelievable incompetence and/or irresponsibility for the Fed not to have devised a similar emergency plan to keep the systems of payments operating in a worst case scenario. Furthermore, even if the Fed had been as incompetent as many claim, it would not have taken long for it to improvise a system whereby certain payments would be prioritized and the system of payments would again be up and running. The notion that we would be sitting in a 21st century economy and reduced to barter payments was an invention of the bank lobby to get the taxpayers’ money. To a large extent I agree with much of what Baker wrote in those paragraphs except for the culprits.  The Left in this nation were blind-sided by the injection of excitement the announcement of Palin as Vice Presidential candidate gave the McCain campaign. Suddenly, this was a horse race, and that’s not what Democrats and their media surrogates wanted. When Lehman declared bankruptcy on Monday September 15, and the financial markets around the world imploded, the Obama campaign and its friends in the press were quick to begin painting a picture straight out of a 1950s horror film. We were all destined to walk the streets forever as penniless zombies if the government didn’t rescue the banks and brokerage firms facing imminent collapse, and the nation bought into the fear hook, line and sinker. Now that the world didn’t come to an end as all of these folks forecast, it’s become good politics for the Left and their media to blame Wall Street for taking bailout money: There was absolutely nothing that we could have done back in September-October of 2008 that would have required that we experience a decade of double-digit unemployment. The specter of a “second great depression” is a fairy tale invented by the bank lobby to make the rest of feel good about having given them our money. Had it not been for the bailout, most of the major center banks would have been wiped out. This would have destroyed the fortunes of their shareholders, many of their creditors, and their top executives. This would have been a massive redistribution to the rest of society — their loss is our gain. It is important to remember that the economy would be no less productive following the demise of these Wall Street giants. The only economic fact that would have been different is that the Wall Street crew would have lost claims to hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy’s output each year and trillions of dollars of wealth. That money would instead be available for the rest of society. The fact that they have lost the claim to wealth from their stock and bond holdings makes all the rest of us richer once the economy is again operating near normal levels of output. Maybe this is all true, but it’s certainly not what Democrats and the press were telling Americans in the fall of 2008. To be fair, McCain and most Republicans were also sounding the alarms.  However, the Left and their media knew full-well that depicting this situation in the most dire terms would be bad for McCain and Republicans because it was Bush and his Party getting the blame. To this day Democrats and the press still accuse the 43rd President of causing the entire collapse despite the most pivotal pieces of deregulation occurring on Bill Clinton’s watch. Notice how Clinton’s name is also conspicuously absent from this piece as are the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Baker certainly wouldn’t want to bring either of those bills up for then he might actually have to address some of the causes of the collapse which would divert attention away from his premise that it was all Wall Street’s fault. In the end, it may take years nay decades to determine just how close to the abyss we were that fall, and exactly what actions were warranted or just enacted out of a mixture of hysteria and political expedience. Maybe things were not even close to as dire as advertised, and proper monetary manipulations by the Fed would have solved all or most of the financial system’s problems. But one thing’s for certain: the Left and the media were aggressively fanning the panic flames, and you’d have to be a fool not to connect their behavior to the election just weeks away. Although Baker in his opening paragraph gave a “big assist to the elite media,” he chose to ignore what their clear goal was. After all, it’s not like the press are in love with Wall Street. They bash banks, brokerage firms, and the associated CEOs whenever possible. No, the goal the media were after was Obama in the White House, and whatever fear they could help the Democrats instill in the population that furthered this end was exactly what the doctor ordered. Yet, the story doesn’t end there for this revisionist history has a future goal. The Left at this point incorrectly believes much of the anger in the electorate – especially the Tea Party – stems from TARP. The publisher of Baker’s piece, Arianna Huffington, made this pathetic claim on ABC’s “This Week” back on September 12 of this year. With this in mind, despite the absurdity of her view, it’s become necessary to distance Obama and the Democrats from TARP. Who better than a liberal economist from a liberal think tank writing at a liberal online publication? Makes you almost need a shower to wash away the slime, doesn’t it? 

Read this article:
Lib Economist: Second Great Depression a Fiction Created by Wall Street for Bailout Funds

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Joy Behar Trashes Christine O’Donnell: ‘A Witch Who Doesn’t Masturbate’

Posted on September 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Comedian Joy Behar seemed to enjoy herself as she muckraked through exotic comments made by Republican Delaware U.S. Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell over a decade ago, refusing to leave them out of a serious discussion about O’Donnell’s candidacy. She even threw Sarah Palin into the mix. O’Donnell, in a 1999 appearance on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect,” said that she “dabbled into witchcraft” in high school but never joined a coven. Behar lambasted O’Donnell, calling her “crazy” and wondering why she was running for office. “I think it shows you how crazy the girl is, doesn’t it?” Behar asked incredulously. “How many crazy people do we have to have in office?” Behar labeled O’Donnell as a “witch who doesn’t masturbate.” Meanwhile, the show’s token conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck countered that if O’Donnell is under the gun for such comments, then President Obama should have been scrutinized more closely over his pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Even veteran liberal journalist and ‘View’ co-host Barbara Walters dismissed the notion of serious discussion of O’Donnell’s comments from 10 or 20 years ago, and argued that her current views on social issues should be scrutinized. Yet Behar couldn’t let the “witch” comment go, suddenly taking a conservative stance on Satan worship. “Dabbling is not an acceptable word, when you’re into witchcraft and Satanism,” the liberal show host preached. When Hasselbeck replied to one criticism that O’Donnell is “unique,” Behar quipped “Unique or eunuch?” Walters soon closed the debate, saying that “whether 20 years ago [O’Donnell] did this or she did that – I mean, it makes for juicy headlines, but it really is unimportant.” It still wasn’t enough for Behar, who wanted to throw Sarah Palin in with the dubious comments. “But you know, isn’t it interesting that Sarah Palin backs her up, and one of the reasons she got elected is because Sarah did those robo-calls to make sure that she got elected,” Behar seriously pointed out. “And if I recall, wasn’t Sarah exorcised in Alaska by a preacher one time? She believes in exorcism. These two are into it together. Talk about a coven. This is a coven!” Hasselbeck dismissed the absurdity of Behar’s logic. “Welcome to the politics of someone backing someone else. It’s certainly not a coven. It’s radical to say something like that.” A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on September 20 at 11:06 a.m. EDT, is as follows: BARBARA WALTERS: Republican Delaware Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell – her past came back to haunt her over the weekend, and she defended herself against comments she made back in 1999 on Bill Maher’s old show called “Politically Correct.” (Video Clip) CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: (On “Politically Incorrect”) I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven. One of my first dates with a witch was on a Satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. O’DONNELL: (Recently) I was in high school. How many of you didn’t hang out with questionable folks in high school? But no, there’s been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now. (End Video Clip) (…) SHERRI SHEPHERD: But I think – you know, in this respect, because she says she’s a conservative Christian, and the basis for being a Christian is you might have a former life – you let that go, and you don’t do it anymore. (…) ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Do you think it’s valid to then question this? Do you think this is even a valid thing to look at, that Bill’s throwing out here on his show? JOY BEHAR: I think it shows you how crazy the girl is, doesn’t it? How many crazy people do we have to have in office? HASSELBECK: Well let’s start with this. In fairness, Joy, if we’re going to investigate past religious affiliations or dabbles or high school trips here and there, why then wasn’t Billy-boy over here so interested in where President Obama was for 20 years at Rev. Wright’s church, so much so that – (Crosstalk) SHEPHERD: Nobody let that go with him. HASSELBECK: They absolutely brushed it under the rug. In fairness, in fairness – if they’re going to dig into this, they should then open that up too. BEHAR: Well here’s a girl who says that, you know, she didn’t masturbate – she doesn’t believe in masturbating, either. And she wants to make public policy about other people’s sex lives. She’s a witch who doesn’t masturbate, who has never had premarital sex. Why is she running for office? HASSELBECK: Why do you call her a girl, but anyone who’s powerful a woman? You can’t just toss her off as a girl – BEHAR: You can call me a girl anytime you want, honey. HASSELBECK: No, that’s not right. BEHAR: I love being called a girl. SHEPHERD: But are you saying that anything that anybody does back in high school should be held against them as an adult? What did you do in high school, Joy, that you might not want to talk about? HASSELBECK: What about 20 years in a row? What about 20 years listening to a man who hates this country?  (…) BEHAR: Dabbling is not an acceptable word, when you’re into witchcraft and Satanism. HASSELBECK: She wasn’t into it. She went on a date with a guy who was at an altar. BEHAR: She said she had – she did a Satanic ritual at an altar. HASSELBECK: What about 20 years straight, calling someone your mentor, who then goes on to produce hatemongering across the country. 20 years, he’s – (…) WALTERS: When you discuss past positions – and she’s a very conservative candidate, she’s a Tea Party candidate –  the fact that she’s now a candidate – were something that’s surprising. Okay, so we’re giving special attention. She has other views, I think, that she’s – SHEPHERD: Against masturbation – HASSELBECK: She’s unique. WALTERS: She doesn’t think that – BEHAR: Unique, or eunuch? WALTERS: Let me finish, okay? She doesn’t think that using condoms – that using condoms could combat AIDS. She has other points of view, and a conservative point of view – I think those are the things, if you want to discuss them, you discuss them. This has to be thought of in future voting and whatever her philosophy is. (Crosstalk) But whether 20 years ago she did this or she did that – I mean, it makes for juicy headlines, but it really is unimportant. BEHAR: But you know, isn’t it interesting that Sarah Palin backs her up, and one of the reasons she got elected is because Sarah did those robo-calls to make sure that she got elected. And if I recall, wasn’t Sarah exorcised in Alaska by a preacher one time. She believes in exorcism. These two are into it together. HASSELBECK: Does she currently believe in exorcism? BEHAR: Talk about a coven. This is a coven! HASSELBECK: You know what, though? Joy, welcome to the politics of someone backing someone else. It’s certainly not a coven. It’s radical to say something like that.

See original here:
Joy Behar Trashes Christine O’Donnell: ‘A Witch Who Doesn’t Masturbate’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

MRC’s Notable Quotables: Watch Out, GOP — It’s 1964 All Over Again!

Posted on September 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Just posted this morning over at MRC.org, our latest edition of Notable Quotables , a bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media. Topics this week include: CBS’s Bob Schieffer absurdly suggesting Republicans could face a landslide defeat this year, “very much like 1964,” while Katie Couric frets (again) how “moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species.” Also in this issue, NBC’s Meredith Vieira declares that the Bush tax cuts “didn’t succeed, so what’s so good about them,” while CBS’s Harry Smith lobbies for “a second stimulus” or even “something like a new WPA.” Oh, and Chris Matthews gets another “thrill” from hearing Obama speak — this time, it’s “all over me.” Video of that confession, plus three other clips after the jump. [Click here to view/download the three-page, fully-formatted, full-color PDF ] Now the quotes from recent weeks, as featured in the September 20 Notable Quotables : Watch Out, Republicans: This Is 1964 All Over Again “It is very much like 1964. In 1960, Republicans lost narrowly with an establishment candidate, Richard Nixon. They got to 1964, they threw out all the establishment candidates, they threw out their party leaders and they nominated Barry Goldwater who — fine man — but he was far to the right of most of the people in his party, and they lost in a landslide. And that’s why you have establishment Republicans worried about what’s going to happen now in November.” — CBS’s Bob Schieffer on the September 15 Evening News . Liberal Media-Speak for “Congratulations, You’ve Won” “You are going to have to answer some questions. We saw that the Republican Party chairman in Jon Karl’s piece there, he went on to say that you’re ‘not a viable candidate,’ that you ‘cannot be elected dog catcher in Delaware.’ He went on to say that you’re either a liar or mentally unhinged.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to Senate primary winner Christine O’Donnell on Good Morning America , Sept. 15. “Tea Party nutbag/Senate nominee from Del. was on CNN w/me in ’96. Forget her ignorant nonsense until I saw this.” — Former CNN anchor Miles O’Brien in a September 15 Twitter posting, referring readers to an anti-O’Donnell article posted on the left-wing Talking Points Memo blog site. Correspondent Nancy Cordes: “Polls show O’Donnell’s ultraconservative social views-” Old clip of Christine O’Donnell: “Lust in your heart is committing adultery.” Cordes: “-make her a decided underdog in this blue-leaning state.” — CBS Evening News , September 15. “She needs to watch some porn and get some tips, is what she needs.” — Host Joy Behar on CNN’s Headline News Joy Behar Show , September 15. Are Republicans “Miscalculating At Their Own Peril”? “You’ve got Delaware, you’ve got Kentucky, you’ve got Alaska, you’ve got Utah, one after another after another. Are all of these Tea Party victories good for the Republican Party?…Even Karl Rove came out and said last night this is — that’s not going to help us get the seat in the long run….I wonder if you’re making a miscalculation at your own peril at, you know, this perceived enthusiasm gap, these people are literally changing the face of a party.” — CBS Early Show co-host Harry Smith to GOP consultant Dan Bartlett, Sept. 15. Katie Frets: Are “Moderate Republicans…an Endangered Species”? “The party crashers. Big primary victories by fringe candidates open a rift in the GOP….Does this mean moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species?” — Anchor Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News , September 16. Flashback : “[Senator Arlen] Specter’s a Republican who favors abortion rights, is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and is a vocal supporter of embryonic stem cell research. [to Specter] Do you feel like an endangered species these days?” — Couric to then-Republican Senator Arlen Specter on NBC’s Today , May 13, 2005. “What’s So Good About” Bush’s Failed Tax Cuts? “One of the key issues also heading into the midterm elections, is this expiration of the tax cuts, Bush’s tax cuts….These tax cuts have been in existence for quite a while, these Bush tax cuts. If they were designed to stimulate the economy and to create jobs, they didn’t succeed. So what’s so good about them?” — Co-host Meredith Vieira to GOP Representatives Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy on NBC’s Today , September 14. In the five years after the full tax cut package was passed in 2003, the economy added more than 8.3 million new jobs. Sawyer: Not Raising Tax Rates = “Tax Cut” “Good evening. It will be the big battle to the finish line in November, and this is the question: How big a tax cut will you get next year?” — ABC’s Diane Sawyer opening World News , September 8, talking about the debate over whether to maintain current tax rates or let them rise to Clinton-era levels. Was $862 Billion Stimulus “Big Enough?” How About “a New WPA?” “Gretchen Morgenson, I want to go back to the stimulus….People complain about the size of government, they’re complaining about the deficit, they’re complaining about TARP and who knows what all else. As we’re standing here looking at it right now, just if you can step away, was the stimulus big enough?” “There are plenty of economists out there, Mark Zandi, who say what’s really needed is is a second stimulus.” “Laura Tyson, what about a more significant stimulus, beyond the things, these, you know, a block here, a block here, a block here, but another say couple hundred billion dollars, what about, say, something like a new WPA?” — Fill-in host Harry Smith interviewing a panel of economists on CBS’s Face the Nation , September 5. Applauding Obama’s Four-Star Attorney General Correspondent Rita Braver: “Ignoring political pressure is Holder’s constant message as he talks to Justice Department lawyers in places like Mobile, Alabama….When he took office last February, [cheering crowd] he got a hero’s welcome. It was in part, he believes, a reaction to cronyism and questionable policies advocated in the Bush-era Justice Department….[to Holder] Because you’re the first African American Attorney General, do you put any extra pressure on yourself?” Attorney General Eric Holder: “Yeah, I certainly feel that. I feel there’s a certain responsibility I have….” — CBS’s Sunday Morning , September 12. George’s “Tough Questions” for President Obama “Now, in his first post-summer interview, President Obama takes on George Stephanopoulos and the tough questions.” — ABC promo aired during the September 8 Nightline , touting Stephanopoulos’ interview with Obama. vs . “I wonder what this must feel like from behind your desk. You’re President of the United States. You have to deal with the fallout. And he’s a pastor who’s got 30 followers in his church. Does it make you feel helpless or angry?” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asking President Obama about the Florida pastor who threatened to burn Korans, in an interview segment shown on Good Morning America , September 9. The GOP = “The Party of Hate” “Tonight, we start with the party of hate. The Republican Party in this country has been running on hate and division for the last 50 years….What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim American in their right mind would vote for the Republican Party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying, ‘I hate myself.'” — Fill-in host Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, August 26. Is America’s Islamophobia Suppressing Muslims’ Freedom? “The plans to build an Islamic center close to Ground Zero have whipped up anti-Muslim sentiment….Not since 9/11 has the country seen such anti-Muslim fervor….[to Feisal Abdul Rauf] In the latest poll that ABC’s conducted, only 37 percent of those who were asked expressed a positive feeling about Islam. Do you think that Muslims, people such as yourself, others here, can actually have a place to practice their religion freely, to live freely as Americans, given that figure?” — Host Christiane Amanpour interviewing the imam organizing the Ground Zero mosque on ABC’s This Week , September 12. Columnist Mimics Jennings’ 1994 Tirade Slamming Voters’ “Temper Tantrum” “According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans — for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an ‘electoral wave,’ it’s a temper tantrum….The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.” — Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, September 3. Flashback : “Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week….Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.” — ABC’s Peter Jennings in a November 14, 1994 radio commentary after the GOP congressional victories that year. “Well-Meaning” Hostage Taker “May” Have Gone Too Far “He’s an activist, may be very well-meaning, but he’s now put himself in a situation where he, the police officers and his hostages’ lives are endangered….He’s a bit of an activist, a guy who truly believes, seemingly, in his heart that he needs to do all he can to save the planet. Most watching this would argue he may have taken it way too far on this day….” — CNN’s Rick Sanchez during live coverage of the Sept. 1 stand-off at the Discovery Channel. The hostage-taker claimed human beings were “parasites” and demanded the network shows programs talking about “ways to disassemble civilization.” Incoming CNN Host Will Fit Right In “I’d love to do President Obama. I like what he’s done for the reputation of America abroad, which I’m not sure many Americans fully understand.” — British journalist Piers Morgan, who has been hired to replace Larry King as host of CNN’s 9pm ET hour starting in January, on the September 9 CBS Early Show talking about people he would like to interview. Now, Chris Admits to Thrills “All Over” Clip of Barack Obama from 2008: “My family gave me love. They give me an education. And most of all, they gave me hope. Hope, hope that in America, no dream is beyond our grasp if we reach for it, and fight for it, and work for it.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “I get the same thrill up my leg, all over me, every time I hear those words. I’m sorry, ladies and gentlemen, that’s me. He’s talking about my country and nobody does it better. Can President Obama stir us again and help his party keep power this November?” — Setting up a segment on MSNBC’s Hardball , September 7.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Joliet Herald-News Ignores Story of Demonstrators With Nazi Signs From Local Congresswoman’s Campaign Office

Posted on September 18, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Joliet, Illinois must be a community absolutely bursting with newsworthy events. Why? Because the Herald-News newspaper in that city was (conveniently) unable to cover a local news story that has become a sizzling hot topic in the blogosphere. All one has to do is enter the name of the Illinois 11th Congressional District Congresswoman, Debbie Halvorson, into Google Blog Search and you will get results chock full of a shocking incident a few days ago, including this video . The Frugal Café Blog Zone, which is but one of many sites covering this, explains : Would MSNBC or CNN have featured this shocking story if the vile protesters at the Nazi-themed protest were CONSERVATIVES or REPUBLICANS or if left-wing extremists had dressed up like Nazis and crashed a tea party posing as conservatives or Republicans? Why do you even ask? Of course they would. When interviewed in the video below, these anti-conservative protesters in Joliet, outside Chicago — proudly carrying Nazi-esque signs slamming GOP congressional opponent Adam Kinzinger and other well-known conservatives, like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin — denied several times being there in support of, or affiliated with, Democrat Rep. Debbie Halvorson. Congresswoman Halvorson is running against Kinzinger in the November election. … Much later, these bogus grassroots protesters were videotaped returning to the congresswoman’s campaign office in the dark of night. Obviously, they’re part of the liberal congresswoman’s camp. Unless Halvorson had NO IDEA that these left-wing extremist folks had her campaign office keys and gained access to her office. They look pretty darned cozy in there in the video with Julie Merz, Halvorson’s campaign manager. Many prominent blogs are now covering this shocking story of dirty campaign tactics including InstaPundit , Riehl World View , and The Other McCain . What will it take to get the Herald-News to cover this unfolding story in its own backyard of Joliet? A banner headline at the top of the Drudge Report linking to the video of the demonstrators with the Nazi themed signs returning home to the Debbie Halvorson campaign headquarters? Meanwhile a sampling of headlines in the current edition of the Herald-News that they found to be more important than this local political scandal that has heated up the blogosphere: Joliet couple power up for solar energy Yorkville swears in first deputy chiefs Plan set to spend proposed taxes USF to honor alumni at homecoming event

The rest is here:
Joliet Herald-News Ignores Story of Demonstrators With Nazi Signs From Local Congresswoman’s Campaign Office

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O’Donnell Will Win in November

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

Chris Matthews on Wednesday departed from the liberal media conventional wisdom that Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell’s defeat of Republican favorite Mike Castle was good news for Democrats and President Obama. Quite the contrary, the “Hardball” host has become extremely pessimistic about Democrat chances to retain Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, so much so that he likened his Party to the Titanic. “The boat is sinking,” he told fellow liberal David Corn. “The establishment is sinking.” When Corn tried to push back on Matthews’ view, the devout liberal said, “I take O`Donnell. How many points are you going to give me?” (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):  DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Two points. First, you have — we have to see how these Tea Partiers do with a general election audience. And the second point — CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Oh, you`re taking the – CORN: No, no, no. MATTHEWS: You are trying to deny — (CROSSTALK) CORN: See what happens. MATTHEWS: You`re still denying it. CORN: I was on last night. You know I`m not denying it. I think they`re major threats to the Democrats. But we got to see what happens. MATTHEWS: Well, let me get this straight. As the Titanic sinks and it`s all the way up to the top decks, and it`s already up to the top decks, well, let`s see how it affects the first class passengers. The boat is sinking. The establishment is sinking. CORN: Listen, Leonardo is still holding on tight. And we see how — what happens to him. (LAUGHTER) CORN: But the other point is, you know that presidential primaries are like family holiday gatherings. All of the internal dysfunctions get played out. And so, really what happens right now, whether the establishment comes and supports people like Christine O`Donnell or not, those passions are going to be really stirred up and if you see Karl Rove continuing to battle with the Tea Party forces, then I think it will put more pressure and create more anger on the far right that will turn into explosive. MATTHEWS: OK. CORN: You know — it will be explosive. MATTHEWS: You`re using a lot of words, David. Usually, you`re much more punchy. The reason you`re taking a lot of words — CORN: I`ll make it simple — (CROSSTALK) CORN: I think it`s still hard for the Republicans. MATTHEWS: I look at Rand Paul, that the guy is going to win. I look at Pat Toomey now and I hate to say, this is a guy who`s going to win. I think the right has got the upper hand now going into this general election. And I`m looking at these numbers — CORN: But they always — they always did. MATTHEWS: They have the upper hand. Your thoughts. Wow! Matthews now thinks Paul and Toomey are going to win. But it gets better: MICHELLE BERNARD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: But if you look at the people who have been basically sent running from the Republican Party this year, we`ve got Crist, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski — there is definitely a lot of dissension within the Republican Party, and, quote-unquote, “establishment people,” could literally see themselves completely knocked out of Republican politics by the time we get to 2012. CORN: But at the same time — but at the same — MATTHEWS: So, the establishment lost every one of these races, they`re at the bottom of the league. The people that are winning are all the challengers. And I just — every night it happens, I say, this can`t happen. Castle can`t lose. Specter can`t lose. They all lose. The establishment of the politics of America is playing defense now and they`re losing. CORN: The Republican establishment — all those Republicans who are beaten, most of them would probably have done very well in general election. What we`re worrying about now, what some people are worrying about is that — is that Castle would have done better than Christine O`Donnell. I mean, Murkowski would have an easy walk to re-election, right? Joe Miller probably will win, but he has a smaller chance of winning, at least that`s the constitution wisdom at the moment. MATTHEWS: I take O`Donnell. How many points are you going to give me? CORN: How many points will I give you? MATTHEWS: Yes, how many you give. Because you keep acting like this is all over, that she`s going to lose. CORN: No, but I don`t believe it`s all over. MATTHEWS: Right. CORN: But I do believe that the Republicans have this internal split — MATTHEWS: OK. OK. I get back to this. CORN: — that they still haven`t dealt with. MATTHEWS: I can`t see the Republican convention meeting, wherever they`re going to meet, in Tampa, right? They`re down there and they`re thundering in there with delegates, one of these Tea Partiers after another, storming the gates, all excited about they`re going to get rid of the 14th Amendment, get rid of, what, the 17th Amendment, energize the 10th Amendment, love the Second Amendment, and then they go pick Romney, Tim Pawlenty. CORN: But who`s the Tea Party candidate? MATTHEWS: I don`t see how it happens. CORN: But who`s the Tea Party candidate? Sarah Palin? Who else? MATTHEWS: Yes. CORN: Well, what if she doesn`t run? MATTHEWS: Well, I don`t know what happens. CORN: What happens to them? MATTHEWS: I don`t see what — I`m asking the question. BERNARD: I don`t — I don`t think this is the death now for, quote- unquote, “establishment people,” like Mitt Romney. He`s a good guy. I think — we just don`t know. I know you think it`s funny — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think you like establishment-type Republicans. BERNARD: I do. CORN: He also knows — he knows how to change his skin. He already sent money to Christine O`Donnell. BERNARD: But he`s also never going to campaign like Christine O`Donnell. We are never going to see that type of a flip-flop, I hope, from Mitt Romney or others, I hope. (CROSSTALK) BERNARD: We`re not going to see someone like Christine O`Donnell — MATTHEWS: — abortion rights. CORN: These guys run the way they run and then they look to the vice president to sort of send that message. BERNARD: We will not see a Christine O`Donnell on the Republican ticket in 2012. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: The tea point is boiling and steaming and it`s going to make that whistle sound when it`s ready to coffee. BERNARD: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: The whistle is making that sound. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You try to put a lid on that (INAUDIBLE). In the final segment of “Hardball,” Matthews really drove this point home: MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a question. Just where do you think this explosion of voter anger we saw last night in Delaware and have seen growing in voters in Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and in just about every poll across the country is going to take us? Last night, as the dust began to clear, I heard progressive glee that the anger was on the verge of burning itself out, that the victory of Christine O`Donnell in Delaware like that of Sharron Angle in Nevada, was throwing away the election. How could voters in the general election go so far as to elect one of these candidates the angry primary voters have kicked pup? I supposed I had my eyes on something different. While others were seeing dead people, the defeated Mike Castle, who was supposed to be strong this November, I saw the strength of the flames that consumed him and will consume many others this rapidly approaching election night. I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn`t know it would come from the right and center. 2010 could be the first year in modern times when being in office in Washington and part of Washington is the worst possible credential when facing voters. I don`t know how far the fire will burn. Based upon last night`s returns, I expect it has a long way to go. It could topple the House and, yes, the U.S. Senate. It could bring the defeat of people who feel even now they are not endangered. It could produce an election night spectacle of name brand politicians standing before stance supporters saying their careers are kaput. Why is this happening? Because this economic system is failing to produce the security and opportunity people have come to expect in this country. In this middle-class country, the middle class are scared and when people are scared, they get angry. They sense a rot at the top and are ready to chop it off. If the plan of those in power to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can`t vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed — I expect the voter will say, “Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out there, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down as you have? If that is what you`re telling me, that I have no choice, well, Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait — stay up late election night and see what I have done.” Wow! It appears Mr. Matthews is starting to understand just how strong this anti-Democrat, anti-big government movement is. The only question remaining is when will the rest of his liberal colleagues in the media? Will they get it before Election Day? Stay tuned. 

Read more:
Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O’Donnell Will Win in November

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

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

At certain schools across the country, parents possessed the authority to pull their children from class Tuesday so as not to witness President Obama’s address to students nationwide – and Ed Schultz believes that constitutes an “opt-out for Right-wing whackos.” Schultz seemed to be not in favor of academic freedom – in this case. Decrying opposition to the speech as “perverse conservative hatred” for Obama and “motivated by race,” Schultz was apparently doubly-mad about this, as he hit the issue hard for two nights in a row on his MSNBC show. “I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students,” he insisted. Some public schools notified parents if their children would be watching the speech, while others left the decision to the teachers whether or not to show it. “If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed,” Schultz raged. “It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country.” “Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama,” he warned, sounding somewhat like a fear-mongering political TV ad. “The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle.” And why should students be forced to listen to the speech? “This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves,” Schultz claimed. However, he argued that parents should not even have a say in whether their child listens to the speech. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter agreed with him, appearing on Schultz’s Monday evening show. Alter asked if the same teachers provided an opt-out clause for parents when President Bush and President Reagan were in the White House. If not, they should be “ashamed,” he admonished. “That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President,” Alter said of conservatives’ opposition to Obama’s speech. “He’s the ‘Other.’ He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.” “Conservatives, well – they hate public education,” Schultz snarled on his Tuesday show. He added that their opposition is “motivated by race,” and that “there are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black.” A partial transcript of the two segments, which aired on September 13 and 14, at 6:48 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. EDT respectively, is as follows: THE ED SHOW 9/13/10 6:48 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama. (…) SCHULTZ: And I’m sorry to say folks across America are still suffering from the effects of Righty fear-mongering after the President – and so concerned about the President indoctrinating students. Now in flyover country, let’s take for instance in West Fargo, ND – parents have to be notified if their kids will be watching the speech. And they have to have the option to remove their child from class during the address. Down in Texas, students – well they’ve got to get their parents to sign permission slips to watch the President of the United States. This is absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Last year we saw the same kind of garbage that was thrown out there by the Righties that infiltrated into the public schools. But all the President did was urge students back then to stay in school and work hard. There was no agenda, no socialist indoctrination. The President of the United States is a prime example of how far you can go if you’re willing to work hard. Treating it as a controversial event with an opt-out for Right-wing whackos I think is appalling. I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students.   (…) SCHULTZ: Jonathan, is this a product of a lot of fear-mongering that has taken place surrounding the Obama presidency? What do you think? JONATHAN ALTER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Oh absolutely. Look, you could barely understand it last year, I mean, even though it was outrageous then, too, because you could argue, okay, maybe some of the far-Right believed some of the right-wing propaganda that he would use the occasion to indoctrinate. But then, as you said, he gave the speech, “Stay in school, work hard, follow your dreams.” So they know what the message is, so for them to ban kids from – prevent kids from seeing it this year is triply ridiculous. Because we know what he’s going to say. SCHULTZ: We have gutless administrators, in my opinion, that don’t have the guts to stand up. In some school districts across the country, they say “Oh well we’ll leave it up to the teachers, meaning the teachers will make a decision in the classroom whether the President’s going to be seen or not. The administration gives them no cover whatsoever, no leadership whatsoever. This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves, and it’s being, you know – ALTER: And a question for every one of those teachers and administrators – did you do the same when George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan gave their speeches, if you’ve been in the schools long enough? Did you do the same? If not, if not, if you didn’t give parents the chance to opt out you should be completely ashamed of yourself if you didn’t do it in this case. It’s basically saying that this President isn’t legitimate. That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President. He’s the “Other.” He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.   THE ED SHOW 9/14/10 6:00 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: I’m on fire that conservatives have taken their warped hatred of President Obama into public schools in this country. Parents are shielding kids from watching the President’s “Back to School” message. Can you believe it? What a low-point for this country. (…) SCHULTZ: The perverse conservative hatred for President Obama has infiltrated public schools all across this country. It’s a debate that’s being held in every school district. … For the second straight year, the President of the United States took time to give an uplifting, positive, forward-thinking message to American school kids for the second straight year. Conservatives, what are they doing? Well they’re trying to protect young, impressionable ears and minds from his message. Here’s the deal. In Aiken County, SC, parents were given the choice to opt their children out of the President’s education speech today. In Fargo, ND, parents were given the option to show or not show the speech. And a school near Austin, TX required parents to fill out a permission slip so their kids could watch the President of the United States give their kids this message. (…) SCHULTZ: If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed. It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country, and that’s what’s wrong with education in this country. We don’t have people who can make positive decisions. This is crazy. Now I’ve talked with parents from all over America on my talk show about this for the last two days. A woman in Colorado told me a principal at her kid’s school said that the President was too controversial! This is a low moment in America. The level of acceptance for keeping kids away from the President is disgusting. All of this is fueled by the nutjobs on the Right, Beck saying that the President has a deep-seated hatred for white people, Newt out there trying to make Americans believe that the President is from Kenya. The list goes on and on, and you know who the culprits are. The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle. It’s outrageous this kind of thinking is commonplace in American public schools. He is the President of the United States of America elected by American citizens! But, you see, conservatives, well – they hate public education. They’re afraid to ask “Where is the leadership?” I’ll ask it tonight. This is all part of villifying public education on the part of the conservatives. Superintendents who shied away from this are just walking in lock step with those who are scared. Superintendents should make the correct call, and not put the burden on the teachers. A speech like this should have been mandatory, it should have been not even considered whether it’s an issue or not. This, you know, if it was Ronald Reagan, or if it was George W. Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh – their heads would explode. They’d be screaming about the liberal schoolteachers dishonoring the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. But nobody seems to care about dishonoring the black President. I think a lot of this is motivated by race. There are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black. That’s right. What’s wrong with our country? What’s wrong with this picture? I mean, I can’t believe that liberals sit back and take this garbage. Where’s the conversation about this at the leadership level in politics? This is a kitchen table issue that I think the Democratic leadership team should speak to across this country. The story speaks to the decay of our country, the lack of respect for the Oval Office, the lack of respect for our elections, the lack of acceptance that Barack Obama is, in fact, the President of the United States. Now if you’re a superintendent, I should probably point out to you that the irony is that this President is probably one of the most academically-accomplished Presidents we’ve ever had. And his critic across the street loves to tell people that he’s a college dropout. So you make the choice. You mean to tell me that we have school administrators in this country that are so afraid of the local school board, and so concerned about their job and their security that they’re afraid to put the President of the United States, with a positive message about education, in their school? Hell, you’re no better than the politicians that take money in Washington. You’re all about your job. You’re afraid to stand up. And this is one of the problems we have in public education in this country – we don’t have enough leaders. We don’t have enough people that stand up and say “Look, this is the correct thing to do because he’s the President of the United States.” Conversely, what do you think the kind of problem that would be created if President Obama were to take this opportunity and really give a strong speech about universal health care? Or really give a strong speech about taxes and say, “Well, you know your dad makes over $250,000 a year, I think that, heck, he ought to be paying more.” You think the President would do something like that? Well, in the twisted thinking of these Righties, they think he’ll do anything. In fact, one broadcaster on Fox is now saying that President Obama is going to lead liberals to violence if the election doesn’t go their way. I guess this is why we have a segment on this show called “Psycho Talk.” It is a sad day for America, because there are other countries around the world that watch our model of entrepreneurship in developing young minds to be aggressive in the capitalistic system in this country. And what message are we sending? “Hell, they don’t even let Obama speak to their kids in public schools. America’s on the decline. We can kick their ass. Let’s see if we can get more of their jobs.” Yes, there is a ripple effect throughout the whole thing.

Visit link:
Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Bill Clinton Fires Back at Rachel Maddow Riff Describing Him as ‘Best Republican President’

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

When lefties turn on each other … never a pretty sight. Former president Bill Clinton, he of the elephantine memory, still nurses a grudge against MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for a crack she made about him way back in March. In an appearance with former British prime minister Tony Blair in Philadelphia on Monday, Clinton said that “one of the leading television commentators on one of our liberal cable channels said I was the best Republican president the country ever produced, which would come [as] quite a surprise to the Republicans, half of whom still think I’m a closet communist,” according to Politico . Politico also quoted Clinton as follows — “What she meant by that was I didn’t necessarily follow their ‘conventional wisdom’,” he said. “I said, ‘What do you mean?!’ ” “We had 100 times as many people move out of poverty during those eight years [I was president] than the previous 12 years because we had an earned income tax credit, not because we had another traditional anti-poverty program hiring people,” he said. “What gave birth to the Third Way in America was that the Democrats kept getting beat because people saw us as the party of big government, and our own political base very often was more concerned with means than ends,” he said. “I think the people on the right that say that, ‘government is the enemy, we don’t need it,’ are wrong, particularly in this economic time. And I think that people on the left that say, ‘the only way to deliver services or solve problems is with a bigger state,’ are not always right and are more often wrong than not.” While Clinton did not mention Maddow by name, it was apparent from the specifics of his remarks that he was referring to her. According to The Huffington Post , Maddow said this about Clinton on her MSNBC show March 31 — “What we ended up with is what we ended with, in my opinion, is the two terms of the Clinton administration, which is that Bill Clinton was probably the best Republican president the country ever had, if you look at the policies that he passed.” … a view shared by enough left-wingers in 2000 that they preferred inadvertantly helping elect Republican George W. Bush by casting their ballots for purist soulmate Ralph Nader instead of Clinton vice president Al Gore. The Huffington Post wasn’t alone in picking up on Clinton’s belated testiness in response to Maddow’s arch criticism. So did the satirical World Weekly News site, providing this unique take on what I devoutly hope is a burgeoning feud.

More:
Bill Clinton Fires Back at Rachel Maddow Riff Describing Him as ‘Best Republican President’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Bozell Column: Here Comes The Mud

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

How long ago it seems now that Barack Obama was inaugurated, and the Great Uniter championed “hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.…[T]he time has come to set aside childish things.” It seems the president spoke prematurely. With his approval ratings sinking, and Democratic prospects tanking, Obama began the fall campaign in Milwaukee with a petulant tone about his adversaries: “They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true.” Precisely which Republican was suggesting the president was a household pet? Who cares? He knew he wouldn’t be challenged. Perhaps he was tired and a little dyslexic, and was thinking about the media: “They talk about me like a god.”  The Great Uniter realizes – finally – that the nation has tired of his attacks on George Bush, so a new White House strategy has emerged.  The next day, Obama was in Ohio, and attacked the potential next Speaker of the House, John Boehner, eight times in his remarks. He even claimed that since Boehner opposed an $800 billion “stimulus,” he was against firemen saving lives. “Mr. Boehner dismissed these jobs we saved – teaching our kids, patrolling our streets, rushing into burning buildings – as ‘government jobs,’ jobs I guess he thought just weren’t worth saving.” This can be dismissed as the usual worn-out liberal hyperbole – vote for “stimulus” or you oppose policemen and firemen and teachers – but when it comes from the alleged Great Uniter? No worries: the media are repeaters, not reporters. What’s really alarming is how eagerly the “news” networks take Obama’s liberal cues and start savaging the Republicans with even greater ferocity. Rep. Boehner appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on September 12, and host Bob Schieffer started whacking him over the head about being a smoker, and being in cahoots with the tobacco industry. “I’m not objective about this. I’m a cancer survivor. I used to be a heavy smoker. Do you still smoke?” Boehner said yes. Schieffer then announced that Boehner had taken $340,000 from the tobacco industry. “How do you square that with the fact that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in this country; 435,000 people — their deaths are linked to cancer. That’s one in five. How do you justify that in your own mind?” When Boehner calmly said Americans have a right to smoke, or overeat, Schieffer scoffed: “Well, I mean, they have a right to shoot themselves if they choose to.” This is not the way servile Schieffer greeted Obama in several Obama interviews on “Face the Nation.” He’s never pressed Obama in a puritanical tone as to why our Chain-Smoker- in-Chief hasn’t kicked the habit. Instead, in their last face-to-face a year ago, Schieffer was feeling Obama’s pain about “the sort of meanness that has settled over our political dialogue” and how “President Carter is now saying that he thinks it’s racial. Nancy Pelosi says it could be dangerous. What do you think it’s all about?” Democrats in these last few weeks before Election Day know that the public remains enraged over ObamaCare and thinks the “stimulus” was an enormous boondoggle. So they’re slinging personal mud at an astonishing rate. In Nevada, wildly unpopular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a new ad with a state trooper charging that Republican Sharron Angle favors Nevada being “a safe haven for domestic abusers.”  They say this because they know there is no accountability. Instead, several anchors were attacking Newt Gingrich for insisting that Obama’s anti-American, that he’s channeling his Kenyan father’s opposition to American imperialism. CNN’s Anderson Cooper could have used a sedative as he began his piece thusly: “Newt Gingrich ignites an uproar, saying President Obama is essentially a Kenyan con man who tricked Americans into voting for him and his secret radical agenda. So, are GOP politicians rushing to condemn his remarks tonight? And is anything out of bounds these days?” Well, yes. Apparently, saying Sharron Angle favors wife-abusers is “in bounds” with Cooper and his liberal colleagues, as is everything else a Democrat says. In 1994, I said the Republicans were in for a vicious fall campaign, not just from their Democratic opponents, but from a very hostile media. Just as it seems that 2010 could turn out to be a bigger Republican tidal wave than 1994, it’s quite possible that the viciousness of the Obama-loving media will be even greater this year than it was against Gingrich & Co. Call it their very own Contract on Conservatives.

The rest is here:
Bozell Column: Here Comes The Mud

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN’s Velshi Against Tax Cuts, Denies There’s Been a ‘Surge’ in Spending

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

CNN’s Ali Velshi leaned against extending the Bush tax cuts during a commentary on Tuesday’s Newsroom, warning that it ” may not be a brilliant idea ,” and spouted the liberal talking point that tax cuts are a costly matter. Velshi also misleadingly stated that ” we have not seen a huge surge in spending .” The anchor devoted his regular “XYZ” segment at the end of the 2 pm Eastern hour to the tax issue. He began by outlining how “President Obama wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts that apply to the middle class, or households earning less than $250,000 a year…and that sounds like a great thing.” He then continued with his argument about the “cost” of cutting taxes: “But let me put this into perspective. First, it’s not free. Extending the tax breaks to the top 3 percent of earners would cost between 650 and 700 billion dollars. Extending it for the rest of us is going to cost a lot more, possibly $3 trillion . Everyone wants to pay less in taxes, but in an economy with a debt like America’s, that may not be a brilliant idea .” Velshi is making the common liberal assumption that the tax revenue belongs to the federal government, even before it is taken away from the employed. Despite this, he added that “arguments that it [tax cuts] will grind the economy to the halt may not hold much water either. Our tax rates are relatively low, and we have not seen a huge surge in spending .” There actually has been such a “huge surge” in spending. Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation noted in a June 1, 2010 report that “spending and deficits continuing to grow at a pace not seen since World War II. Washington will spend $30,543 per household in 2010— $5,000 per household more than just two years ago ….Since 2000, spending has grown across the board. Entitlement spending has reached a record 14 percent of GDP. Discretionary spending has expanded 79 percent faster than inflation as a result of large defense and domestic spending hikes.” Velshi completely omitted the possible strategy of lowering spending during his commentary. In fact, he has endorsed raises in spending. On February 17, 2010 , he commemorated the one-year anniversary of Obama’s “stimulus” spending with a cake, and gushed over its focus on “green energy” during a August 24 segment . Later in his commentary, Velshi seemed to endorse the concept of raising taxes: VELSHI: It seems obvious that if you’re concerned about the economy, you’ll vote for someone who wants to cut taxes, the deficit, and the debt. But those things don’t go hand in hand. Wanting to bring down the debt and deficit- well, higher taxes may be the most immediate way to do that because those dollars go directly into government coffers. Cutting taxes is a roundabout way of doing it . You cut taxes, people and businesses have more money to spend, and theoretically, they spend that money in ways that either create jobs or increase domestic demand, which creates jobs. But that assumes that those people have enough faith in the economy that they won’t just pocket their tax savings. The anchor closed the segment by repeating his opposition to tax cuts: “Who can you fault for wanting to pay lower taxes? But just don’t be fooled into thinking that you- if you are the average American- are going to be paying less of anything .” Actually, if the Congress and President Obama somehow let the Bush tax cuts expire, it means that everyone, including the middle and lower classes, will experience higher income taxes . Even after making this statement, Velshi hinted that this was the case: “The victory for you might be the existing Bush tax cuts being extended.” The full transcript of Ali Velshi’s commentary from Tuesday’s Newsroom: VELSHI: Time now for the ‘XYZ’ of it. As things stand, President Obama wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts that apply to the middle class, or households earning less than $250,000 a year. That means about 97 percent of Americans would continue to get the breaks, and that sounds like a great thing. But let me put this into perspective. First, it’s not free. Extending the tax breaks to the top 3 percent of earners would cost between 650 and 700 billion dollars. Extending it for the rest of us is going to cost a lot more, possibly $3 trillion. Everyone wants to pay less in taxes, but in an economy with a debt like America’s, that may not be a brilliant idea. Arguments that it will grind the economy to the halt may not hold much water either. Our tax rates are relatively low, and we have not seen a huge surge in spending. I say this because American voters need to come to terms with this issue. It seems obvious that if you’re concerned about the economy, you’ll vote for someone who wants to cut taxes, the deficit, and the debt. But those things don’t go hand in hand. Wanting to bring down the debt and deficit- well, higher taxes may be the most immediate way to do that because those dollars go directly into government coffers. Cutting taxes is a roundabout way of doing it. You cut taxes, people and businesses have more money to spend, and theoretically, they spend that money in ways that either create jobs or increase domestic demand, which creates jobs. But that assumes that those people have enough faith in the economy that they won’t just pocket their tax savings. I say this so you can make an informed decision at the voting booth. Who can you fault for wanting to pay lower taxes? But just don’t be fooled into thinking that you- if you are the average American- are going to be paying less of anything. The victory for you might be the existing Bush tax cuts being extended. Lower taxes are not feasibly in our future- at least, not until this economy really picks up.

More:
CNN’s Velshi Against Tax Cuts, Denies There’s Been a ‘Surge’ in Spending

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,