Tag Archives: liberal

Brian Williams Relitigates Bush v Gore, Pushes Breyer to Elaborate on Irreparable Harm

Giving Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer an unusual evening newscast platform to plug a book, on Monday’s NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams brought viewers back to the Left’s ten-year-old grudge, cuing up Breyer to agree: “Do you think Bush v Gore hurt the credibility of the modern court?” Breyer replied with a simple “yes” and Williams suggested: “Irreparably?” “No,” Breyer said in rejecting Williams’ overwrought premise, so Williams pressed: “For how long?” Williams introduced the September 13 segment by marveling: We can’t remember a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court ever stopping by our studios here, but it happened today. We spent some time with Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton and residing on the liberal side of the court. Justice Breyer is out with a new book today. It’s about how the court works, including mistakes the court has made over the years. I started out by asking Justice Breyer, given his love of the Supreme Court, if he’s concerned that just one percent of those Americans polled, in a recent survey, knew his name? That book: Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View . The second topic raised by Williams: WILLIAMS: Do you think Bush v Gore hurt the credibility of the modern court? BREYER: Yes. WILLIAMS: Irreparably? BREYER: No. WILLIAMS: For how long? BREYER: I don’t know. That’s up to historians. I thought that the decision — I was in dissent. I obviously thought the majority was wrong. But I’ve heard Harry Reid, I heard him say this, and I agree with it completely, he said the most remarkable thing about that case, Bush versus Gore, is something hardly anyone remarks. And that remarkable thing is even though more than half the public strongly disagreed with it, thought it was really wrong, they followed it. And the alternative, using guns, having revolutions in the street, is a worse alternative. WILLIAMS: To a new area, academic social elitism on the court. What would be your view of bringing in — Presidents appointing justices who went to a couple of state law schools?

Continued here:
Brian Williams Relitigates Bush v Gore, Pushes Breyer to Elaborate on Irreparable Harm

Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

A new study by the Pew Research Center found that Barack Obama gets his highest approval ratings from people that watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, as well as from readers of the New York Times. The numbers are rather staggering, as 84 percent of regular viewers of MSNBC’s “Countdown” give the President high marks for his job performance. This compares to 80 percent for regular viewers of “The Rachel Maddow Show” and 79 percent for regular readers of the Times. But that’s just one of the interesting findings in the Pew survey released Sunday: Americans are spending more time with the news than was the case a decade ago. As was the case in 2000, people now say they spend 57 minutes on average getting the news from TV, radio or newspapers on a given day. But today, they also spend an additional 13 minutes getting news online, increasing the total time spent with the news to 70 minutes. This is one of the highest totals on this measure since the mid-1990s and it does not take into account time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices . Only about one-in-four (26%) Americans say they read a newspaper in print yesterday, down from 30% two years ago and 38% in 2006. Meanwhile, online newspaper readership continues to grow and is offsetting some of the overall decline in readership. This year, 17% of Americans say they read something on a newspaper’s website yesterday, up from 13% in 2008 and 9% in 2006. Overall, cable news continues to play a significant role in peoples’ news habits – 39% say they regularly get news from a cable channel. But the proportions saying they regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and CNBC have slipped substantially from two years ago, during the presidential election. The partisan divide in cable news is stunning if not shocking: Only Fox News has maintained its audience size, and this is because of the increasing number of Republicans who regularly get news there. Four-in-ten Republicans (40%) now say they regularly watch Fox News, up from 36% two years ago and just 18% a decade ago. Just 12% of Republicans regularly watch CNN, and just 6% regularly watch MSNBC. As recently as 2002, Republicans were as likely to watch CNN (28%) as Fox News (25%). The share of Democrats who regularly watch CNN or Fox News has fallen from 2008. Interesting. So both Democrats and Republicans are reducing their viewership of CNN. Doesn’t say much for the supposedly must trusted name in news, does it? Eight-in-ten Americans (80%) who regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity are conservative – roughly twice the national average of 36%. And at the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and Rachel Maddow have regular audiences that include nearly twice the proportion of liberals than in the public. News audiences also vary widely when it comes to opinions about current issues and topics. For instance, those who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement make up disproportionately large proportions of the audiences for Limbaugh’s radio show and Fox News opinion programs. This also is the case for supporters of the NRA (National Rifle Association). By contrast, supporters of gay rights make up large shares of regular New York Times readers, viewers of the Colbert Report and NPR listeners. Several ideologically divergent news audiences – including Wall Street Journal readers and viewers of the Colbert Report and Glenn Beck show – include larger-than-average percentages of self-described libertarians. Here’s where things really got interesting: Overall, the share of Americans who say keeping up with the news is something they enjoy a lot has dipped, from a consistent 52% in recent biennial news consumption surveys, including 2008, to 45% in 2010. The decline is linked to partisanship and ideology: in 2008 67% of liberal Democrats said they enjoyed the news a lot, compared with just 45% today. By contrast, about as many conservative Republicans say they enjoy keeping up with the news today as did so two years ago (57% now, 56% then). This has resulted in a switch in news enjoyment. Today, conservative Republicans enjoy keeping up with the news more than any other ideological and partisan group; just two years ago it was the liberal Democrats who held that distinction. How much of this is economic? After all, the news was far better when Pew last did this study in 2008. There certainly is less to “enjoy” today. On the other hand, that doesn’t explain the ideological divide. Maybe liberals liked things better when Bush and the Republicans were being blamed for all the problems in the world, and just can’t stand watching their politicians take any heat at all. By contrast, it seems conservatives enjoy keeping up with the news regardless of which Party is getting scrutinized. That says something, doesn’t it? Search engines are playing a substantially larger role in people’s news gathering habits – 33% regularly use search engines to get news on topics of interest, up from 19% in 2008. This is a predictable but yet concerning finding, for it makes it essential that search engines don’t have their own biases. As conservatives have pointed fingers at Google’s algorithms for years, the more people rely on search engines to guide them to news sources, the more impartial such engines better be, especially for the following reason: About eight-in-ten (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage; by a 43% to 23% margin, more say it is a liberal than a conservative bias. This makes search engine neutrality essential or conservatives are really going to have a hard time leveling the playing field. That said, we’ve saved the best for last: Among news audiences, Obama gets his highest approval ratings among regular viewers of Keith Olbermann (84% approve) and Rachel Maddow (80%); his rating is nearly as high among regular readers of the New York Times (79%). Obama gets his lowest ratings among regular Sean Hannity viewers (7%) and Rush Limbaugh listeners (9%). So Obama gets his highest approval ratings from folks that watch Olbermann, Maddow, and read the New York Times. What does this say about the journalistic standards at MSNBC and the Gray Lady? After all, depending on which poll you look at, half or less of the nation currently approve of the job Obama is doing.  If Olbermann and Maddow watchers, along with Times readers, have such a drastically different view of the President than the rest of the nation, these entities must be doing a horrible job of reporting the news to their patrons.  Is there any greater example of the dangers of liberal media bias and the need to aggressively combat it? 

Read this article:
Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

On Sunday’s syndicated Chris Matthews Show, after host Matthews asked if electing a President whose middle name was “Hussein” had “opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity?” the panel mostly agreed that Obama’s election was more of a “net plus” for America’s relations with the Muslim world. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius had a dissenting view that “President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous.” After former CBS News anchor Dan Rather contended that “I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation,” the BBC’s Katty Kay agreed and implicated President Bush in damaging America’s relations with the Middle East. Kay: “I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East.” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell concurred: “: I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius had a more negative take: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. The discussion was framed around the liberal premise that President Bush had not only harmed relations with the Muslim world by being too aggressive in the war on terrorism, but that those negative relations outweighed such positive accomplishments as overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 12 syndicated Chris Matthews Show: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s get back to the question of our country. We, as a country, elected Barack Hussein Obama. We knew his name was Hussein. We knew of his background from his parentage going way back. The Arab world liked that. The Islamic world said, “Hey, this country’s interesting.” Overall, has the election of Barack Obama opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity? DAN RATHER: I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation. MATTHEWS: Okay. Katty, you agree with that? KATTY KAY, BBC: I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS : I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus. DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. MATTHEWS: I think a grown-up response and childish response are always going to be different. Grown-ups are going to say, “Well, it’s an interesting country. They elect a guy named Barack Hussein Obama.” … (INAUDIBLE) country. IGNATIUS: Don’t look for grown-up responses in America or anywhere else.

More here:
Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

MRC President Brent Bozell Defends Americans Against Media Accusations of Bigotry

“The more Ronald Reagan was attacked like this, the stronger he got,” Media Research Center (MRC) founder and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell explained on the September 10 Fox & Friends. “The more conservatives are being attacked this way, the stronger we’re getting.” Referring to insults directed at Americans who oppose the construction of a mosque close to Ground Zero, Bozell excoriated the liberal media for dismissing conservatives as bigots: “There are a lot of serious debates you can have, but to do this name calling…this is all the Left has left.” For the full segment’s MP3 audio, click here . To watch the segment, click here to download the WMV video file or click the play button in the embed above.

Continue reading here:
MRC President Brent Bozell Defends Americans Against Media Accusations of Bigotry

Ted Koppel Toasts America-Goading Genius of Osama bin Laden on 9/11 Weekend

Former ABC Nightline anchor Ted Koppel may have taken his pomposity off-camera, but it certainly remains. In a gassy op-ed for Sunday’s Washington Post , Koppel announced that that “canny tactician” Osama bin Laden has won the War on Terror by pressing America into a series of wild overreactions. He began: The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, succeeded far beyond anything Osama bin Laden could possibly have envisioned. This is not just because they resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths, nor only because they struck at the heart of American financial and military power. Those outcomes were only the bait; it would remain for the United States to spring the trap. The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another . Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves. Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams. It’s important to remember that Koppel was not a measured critic of Bush foreign policy. Before the Iraq War, as Brent Bozell noted, he devoted a show to conspiratorial anti-Bush cranks who compared neoconservatives to Nazis and alleged that America was bent on global domination:  He began with a Scottish newspaper, the Glasgow Sunday Herald, breathlessly announcing a “secret blueprint for U.S. global domination” that included Iraq. But then, he added, “a similar, if slightly more hysterical version” from the Moscow Times claimed “Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow.” Koppel added: “Take away the somewhat hyperbolic references to conspiracy, however, and you’re left with a story that has the additional advantage of being true.” Bozell also reported Koppel also was quick to lie about how the Reagan administration was behind Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction:  Koppel set the tone for the meeting by undermining America’s moral authority: “There’s a sardonic two-liner making the rounds in Washington these days: ‘‘How do we know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons? We have the receipts.’ Nasty, but there’s an element of truth to it.” He added “there wasn’t a great deal of outrage from the Reagan-Bush White House” when Saddam gassed his own people in 1988. That’s misleading. President Reagan condemned it, Secretary of State George Shultz condemned it. What we forget is that the media barely covered it at that time , making our lack of memory easy to exploit. They didn’t have “a great deal of outrage,” either. Koppel is still slashing conservative foreign policy for leading to an “existential nightmare” based on “unsubstantiated assumptions.” (That’s funny: Koppel’s whole embarrassing attempt to push the conspiracy theory that the 1980 Reagan campaign delayed the release of U.S. hostages was a series of “unsubstantiated assumptions,” but he put them on the air anyway, just like a reckless partisan.) Koppel even attacked himself for liberals and media stars offering “flaccid opposition” to the war:  But the insidious thing about terrorism is that there is no such thing as absolute security. Each incident provokes the contemplation of something worse to come. The Bush administration convinced itself that the minds that conspired to turn passenger jets into ballistic missiles might discover the means to arm such “missiles” with chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated assumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; that there was a connection between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden had nothing to do with fostering these misconceptions. None of this had any real connection to 9/11. There was no group known as “al-Qaeda in Iraq” at that time. But the political climate of the moment overcame whatever flaccid opposition there was to invading Iraq , and the United States marched into a second theater of war, one that would prove far more intractable and painful and draining than its supporters had envisioned. Koppel sneered that perhaps Osama bin Laden had more foresight than our disastrous American architects of war, and even today, we are “so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy’s intentions” that we still haven’t absorbed the wisdom of Ted Koppel and all his liberal foreign-policy buddies like John Kerry:  Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched his 9/11 operation from Taliban-secured bases in Afghanistan. Since nations targeted by terrorist groups routinely abandon some of their cherished principles, he may also have foreseen something along the lines of Abu Ghraib, “black sites,” extraordinary rendition and even the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But in these and many other developments, bin Laden needed our unwitting collaboration, and we have provided it — more than $1 trillion spent on two wars, more than 5,000 of our troops killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead. Our military so overstretched that one of the few growth industries in our battered economy is the firms that provide private contractors, for everything from interrogation to security to the gathering of intelligence. We have raced to Afghanistan and Iraq, and more recently to Yemen and Somalia; we have created a swollen national security apparatus; and we are so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy’s intentions that we inflate the building of an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan into a national debate and watch, helpless, while a minister in Florida outrages even our friends in the Islamic world by threatening to burn copies of the Koran. If bin Laden did not foresee all this, then he quickly came to understand it. In a 2004 video message, he boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction. “All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written ‘al-Qaeda’ in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses.” Through the initial spending of a few hundred thousand dollars, training and then sacrificing 19 of his foot soldiers, bin Laden has watched his relatively tiny and all but anonymous organization of a few hundred zealots turn into the most recognized international franchise since McDonald’s. Could any enemy of the United States have achieved more with less? Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish — and how we have accommodated him. Next up: Koppel is taking this acidulous commentary to BBC America. 

See original here:
Ted Koppel Toasts America-Goading Genius of Osama bin Laden on 9/11 Weekend

Arianna Huffington Equates Ground Zero Mosque Opponents to Koran-Burning Pastor

Snatching the proverbial low-hanging fruit off the branch, Arianna Huffington compared the vast majority of Americans who oppose the construction of a mosque close to Ground Zero to the thirty members of a Florida church who plan to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. Appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, the liberal publisher criticized the president for not echoing her logical fallacy. “I think the point [President Barack Obama] could have made is to connect [Koran burning] with the opposition of the mosque,” asserted Huffington, publisher of The Huffington Post. “You can’t really completely separate these things.” Huffington then attempted to pass off circular logic as a “teachable moment:” People who are saying we should not build the mosque there are basically denying the fundamental principles the president was talking about in your interview, you know, which is basically freedom to worship your religion on private ground, wherever you are. That’s like an essential part of what America is based on. It was not an afterthought that the Fathers had – you know, religious freedom. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, founder of The Daily Caller, countered Huffington’s fatuous claims: So if you think that it’s intentionally provocative and an insult to the memory of 9/11 to build a mosque basically on the site, that’s the same as burning a Koran or hating Islam? That’s not even close. They’re not related. After agreeing with Huffington’s illogical parallel, GMA anchor George Stephanopoulos directed a loaded question at Carlson. “Here’s the point I don’t get – and it’s not a mosque it’s an Islamic center with a mosque and an inter-faith center inside – why isn’t it honoring the memories of the victims of 9/11 to put that center there and prove that we’re not going to sacrifice our freedoms?” demanded the former Clinton adviser. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: ABC GMA September 9, 2010 8:17 A.M. E.S.T. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We were talking about the Florida pastor just before we came on the air. Starting with you, Tucker. This had to be kind of a tough call in the White House. You’ve got this Florida pastor, thirty followers, yet pretty clearly from the beginning the week until the president’s interview with me yesterday they were saying “we’ve got to take this on.” TUCKER CARLSON, founder of The Daily Caller: I don’t think he needed to take it on. I think it was foolish to respond to your question – a good question though it was. He should have waved his hand dismissively; this guy represents no one, he’s a lone wacko. I think the president truly believes, and many in his party do, that the center of the country is filled with people just like this, who are intolerant and hateful, and there’s no evidence of that at all. There haven’t been a lot of anti-Islamic incidents. STEPHANOPOULOS: Setting aside what happens here in the United States, which is a hard thing to set aside, I think the danger is that even if he is a wacko, around the world he is seen as representing America? CARLSON: So they’re going to hate us more now? I mean, come on. ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, founder of The Huffington Post: It’s very hard for him not to respond when General Petraeus himself has said that this is going to be putting our troops at risk. I think the point he could have made is to connect it with the opposition of the mosque. STEPHANOPOULOS: That would be doubling down though, wouldn’t it? HUFFINGTON: You can’t really completely separate these things. STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you’re right. HUFFINGTON: And I think that’s really the teachable moment. People who are saying we should not build the mosque there are basically denying the fundamental principles the president was talking about in your interview, you know, which is basically freedom to worship your religion on private ground, wherever you are. That’s like an essential part of what America is based on. It was not an afterthought that the Fathers had – you know, religious freedom. CARLSON: So if you think that it’s intentionally provocative and an insult to the memory of 9/11 to build a mosque basically on the site, that’s the same as burning a Koran or hating Islam? That’s not even close. They’re not related. HUFFINGTON: I didn’t say it’s the same, but there is a continuity. And you can’t just say “this is okay, and anything beyond that is not.” STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the point I don’t get – and it’s not a mosque it’s an Islamic center with a mosque and an inter-faith center inside – why isn’t it honoring the memories of the victims of 9/11 to put that center there and prove that we’re not going to sacrifice our freedoms? CARLSON: Well I guess there are two points. One, there is no mosque or inter-faith mosque, there’s actually nothing, it’s merely an idea and it’s nowhere close to coming to fruition. So the point of this is to provoke. The point of this is to put a stick in the eye of people who are offended by this, which is like seventy percent of Americans. If you truly wanted to honor the memory of those killed on 9/11 why not ask the relatives of those who were killed on 9/11. Shouldn’t they have a say in this? They’re overwhelmingly against this. STEPHANOPOULOS: A say, but not a veto.      HUFFINGTON: Yes, you can’t have a veto and still basically stand up for the fundamental principles of the country and one of them is the freedom to worship wherever you are, on private ground, and whatever religion you believe in. I mean, that’s a fundamental freedom, that was part of the founding of this country. It wasn’t like an ancillary thought that the Founders had. CARLSON: But nobody is denying that. The argument is is it a good idea? Or is it somehow a desecration? And you can believe, as I do, that it is a provocation and a desecration and it’s wrong and maybe even immoral, but that you shouldn’t prevent it legally. There is an argument to be made. And I have to say, conflating people who think it’s wrong to build the mosque at Ground Zero with people who want to burn a Koran.

Link:
Arianna Huffington Equates Ground Zero Mosque Opponents to Koran-Burning Pastor

NB Bonus: Obnoxious Liberal Quotes that Couldn’t Fit in Our Labor Day Edition

It’s happened again! Collecting quotes for the Labor Day edition of MRC’s bi-weekly Notable Quotables, I found more outrageous liberal eruptions than could fit into the normal newsletter. So, just for NewsBusters readers, here are 12 worthy quotes that just couldn’t squeeze into the regular issue (although hopefully a couple of these gems will find their way into our upcoming September 20 edition): Obama Opponents Pine for “Ethnic Purity” “First of all, we have a mixed race President who has a middle name ‘Hussein.’ And a good part of the anxiety that’s going on in small-town white America isn’t just the plain old black and white stuff of the past. It’s the fact that South Asians are moving in and running the local motel or, you know, I don’t want to deal in those sorts of cliches, but there are a lot of Latinos about who are moving into these areas that their grandchildren are coming out as gay or intermarrying. The purity of, the ‘ethnic purity,’ to coin a phrase, that they grew up with no longer exists….” — Time ’s Joe Klein on the Chris Matthews Show , August 29. It’s “Baffling” Stabbing Suspect Not Stereotypical American Bigot “It is the knife attack that’s cut deep into a national debate over faith and fear…The suspect, 21-year-old Michael Enright, has a baffling profile. An honors film school student, he volunteers with a church group that promotes peace and understanding….Still, the attack, some Muslims are certain, was fueled by what they call fearmongering over the Islamic cultural center and mosque planned for this site near Ground Zero….There is one other note about that suspected stabber that muddies the water even further. That peace group he volunteered with, they actually support putting that Islamic center down here near Ground Zero where we are tonight.” — ABC correspondent Jeremy Hubbard on World News , August 26. Burden Should Be on Everybody but the Mosque Builder “Some would say that it is really for Americans, for majority of Americans to be more sensitive to minority communities. It’s not really the obligation for the imam to, you know — he talked to members of the Jewish community, the JCC, the Jewish Community Centers were a model. And there’s a rabbi who has been helping. He talked to some members of the 9/11 families, not all clearly. Why is the burden on him?” — NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell to former Pakistani ambassador Akbar Ahmed on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports , August 24. GOP Candidates: “Very Far to the Right” and “Ultraconservative” “Some of these candidates who are very far to the right, the one — many of the ones who are backed by the Tea Party — are they going to be Kryptonite come November?” “When it comes to Rick Scott, who ran as an ultraconservative against Bill McCollum, does he now have to run slightly to the center, if he wants to win in November?” — CNN’s John Roberts filling in as anchor of Anderson Cooper 360 , August 24. Upset Democrats Can’t “Demonize” George W. Bush Again “The problem for the Democrats is this, that the energizer bunny for the 2006, 2008 campaigns has disappeared because of George W. Bush’s being a circumspect and discreet former President it makes it very difficult for Democrats to demonize him again. He’s become a non-person.” — Columnist Mark Shields on Inside Washington , August 27. Only Liberal Women Are “Compassionate” Host Chris Matthews: “Margaret, it looks like liberals are in trouble this year, progressives, if you will. That includes a lot of women.”… Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson: “There’s a certain kind of woman that’s gonna do okay. I mean you have the momma grizzlies but it’s the grizzly part of it, not the momma part that’s working….It’s the corporate titan bear — Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman as you say. So that is the kind of woman. It is not the kind of — it’s not a compassionate women year.” — MSNBC’s Hardball , August 30. 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. First, it was the southern strategy meant to discriminate against African-Americans in order to gain white southern votes….Then there’s the vitriolic fight against immigrants, undocumented ones and in Arizona just people who happen to look undocumented. And, of course, there’s the grand daddy of all prejudice, fear and hatred stoked up against Muslims in this country….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. “The Republican method for winning elections is hate. Hate somebody. Anybody will do. We have seen it this year with immigrants and now, Muslims….They do it to win and did it in 2004 and 2006 against gay Americans…. Think the GOP has run out of minority groups to target and smear? No. Next, John Boehner attacks those federal bureaucrats with fattened salaries and pensions. Federal bureaucrats, like John Boehner.” — Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown , August 26. Times Prefers Their Editorial Line to Actual Laws “The Justice Department decided last week not to bring charges against Tom DeLay, whose unethical conduct represented a modern low among Congressional leaders….Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House Majority Leader, crowed that he had been ‘found innocent.’ But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.” — From a New York Times editorial , August 22. Host Sees Plot to “Harvest and Incarcerate” Young Black Men “How much of that [the cycle of poverty] in your opinion is family-planning driven, how much of that is a function of systematic racism in our country and laws that are enforced to basically pick-up, harvest and incarcerate young black men — particularly in New York with the Rockefeller laws — and how much of it is a complete abandonment of education as a value system period in this country, unless you’re rich?…Because it, in my opinion, has been a default position to incarcerate black men as opposed to educate and integrate black men into our economy.” — MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on the August 23 Dylan Ratigan Show , talking to a blogger promoting more “family planning” counseling for young African Americans. People Are Against Destroying Embryos Because They Love Ignorance “I have the greatest respect for those who disagree, but to me putting restraints on stem cell research is not far from those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they believed their doctrines and tradition had already told them what they would see. Their beliefs, too, were deeply held, but where would the store of knowledge be had their view prevailed? As we again try to untangle the arguments over stem cells, let us also consider this: No civilization, no society, has survived if its people came to believe they knew enough and needed to know nothing more.” — Bob Schieffer’s closing commentary on CBS’s Face the Nation , August 29. Are We Being Unfair to You, Sir? “It’s getting baked in a little bit in the media that [the] BP [oil spill] was President Obama’s Katrina. And it’s also getting baked in that the administration was slow off the mark. Is that unfair?” — NBC’s Brian Williams to Obama in an interview shown on the August 29 Nightly News .

See the original post:
NB Bonus: Obnoxious Liberal Quotes that Couldn’t Fit in Our Labor Day Edition

Obama Campaign Manager: Limbaugh, Beck and Palin a Problem for GOP

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager on Sunday said Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin are currently the leaders of the Republican Party, and this represents a long-term problem for the GOP. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” David Plouffe was asked about a number of questions facing the nation as well as the President he helped get elected. Apparently feeling the need to do some conservative bashing, host Gregory asked Plouffe about a section from his book “Audacity to Win” dealing with Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin. This set the Obama adviser up nicely to go after targets liberals just love to hate (video follows with transcript and commentary):  DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Finally, a quote from your book, handicapping the Republican field, this is what you write in the new part of “Audacity to Win.” “This is the Republican Party of 2010, and I think it will be the Republican Party for a long time. It is hard to see how a Republican gets the presidential nomination without winning the plurality of the Palin-Limbaugh-Beck base of the Republican Party. Without a drastic change in orientation, they will probably nominate someone a good bit out of the mainstream.” Who do you have in mind? Who do you think is the most formidable Republican likely to challenge President Obama? DAVID PLOUFFE: Oh, I have no idea. I mean, this time four years ago there was very few of us talking about Barack Obama running for president, including me. So I think some of the people that we think are going to run may not run. There’ll be other people who’ll run. We’ll see. I wish I could just sit back with a tub of popcorn and, and enjoy it because I think it’s going to be quite an adventure. MR. GREGORY: But who is the leader of the Republican Party, would you say? MR. PLOUFFE: I think the–I think right now–and this is a problem for them long term–I do think that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, they are the leaders of the party. And you see whenever–I was struck by–Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, I think, was at a town hall meeting and said, “I don’t agree with anything the Democrats are doing, and I don’t agree with Speaker Pelosi, but she’s a nice person,” and got attacked for that. There, there is an intolerance in that party and an extremism that I think is where the real energy is. And so I think, as you see in ’11 and ’12, as that presidential primary, those are the people that are going to come out to vote. So I think that’s where the real energy is, and I think particularly in, in elections where more people vote, in presidential elections where you have a lot more younger people, minorities, independent voters who skew a little bit more moderate, that’s going to be a big problem. So we’ll just have to wait and see. But let’s get this–through this election first, and then we’ll be right on to the next one. It truly is fascinating the left and their media minions continue to bash Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin. After all, with the possible exceptions of Obama and the Clintons, there aren’t any other liberal political figures in this nation that come close to the popularity and visibility of these three conservatives. As such, suggesting that they represent a problem for Republicans is like saying ground beef and potatoes are bad for McDonalds. Regardless, Gregory just couldn’t resist giving his guest the opportunity to attack three of the nation’s most well-known conservatives. As the jingle goes, “If it’s Sunday…” 

Read the original:
Obama Campaign Manager: Limbaugh, Beck and Palin a Problem for GOP

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld had some fun Thursday evening bashing NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel for absurd comments he made on the “Today” show this week. As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Engel that morning told NBC’s Ann Curry: If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation. On Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor,” substitute host Ingraham and guest Gutfeld had a field day with what the former labeled “The Dumbest Things of the Week” (video follows with transcript and commentary): LAURA INGRAHAM: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight, “The Dumbest Things of the Week.” Is NBC News making excuses for Saddam Hussein? Regardless of your thoughts on Iraq, one thing most people agree on is that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But some are wondering if NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engle, doesn’t miss the good old days when Saddam was still around. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD ENGLE, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the — into — by a lot of European countries. He was being welcomed in Eastern Europe, in particular. He was heading in a direction of accommodation. The sanctions regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail. So, I think it would be somewhat of a basket case, but it would be — Iran would be a lot more contained. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Joining us now from New York is Greg Gutfeld, host of “Red Eye” and the author of “The Bible of Unspeakable Truths.” So Greg, as far as I can tell, Saddam was on the verge of having his own reality show. GREG GUTFELD, HOST, “RED EYE”: I mean, you have to figure out he said he would be more moderate. You have to ask him, what does he mean by moderate? Was he talking about alcohol intake? Was he going to cut back on his booze? Or was he going to only gas half as many Kurds or tell his sons they could only rape women every other weekend? Pr maybe he was becoming more environmentally friendly and was going to use renewable car batteries when he electrocuted his citizens. So we need — we need to give specifics on what he meant by moderation. INGRAHAM: I think he was clearly going green, Greg. He was making inroads with Eastern Europe. I don’t know what countries in Eastern Europe? Poland? Old Czechoslovakia? What countries was he getting close to? I just don’t recall that. GUTFELD: He does have a point, though. He said that, if we didn’t have the war, Saddam would be more accommodating, which is true because you are more accommodating when you are not dead. It’s really hard to buy somebody dinner when you’re dead. So, in effect, he’s actually correct by accident. INGRAHAM: Well, Iran — Iran might not have been the problem it is today, but the idea that he — it was going to be Saddam the milquetoast if we didn’t invade. I just — I was desperately looking to follow that logic. But you know, when NBC is involved, Greg, all bets are off. All bets are off. GUTFELD: Yes. Can’t stomach victory. You’ve got a war that you’ve won. Enjoy it. INGRAHAM: Winning is not fun. We’re supposed to be America on our knees, begging for mercy all the time. You don’t understand that. We need to apologize, Greg. Get used to it. GUTFELD: I am. Believe me. I’m married. To give readers an idea just how absurd Engel’s comments were, even the liberal Mediaite found this segment to its liking. Now that’s saying something.

See the original post:
Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks

ABC’s Shipman Gushes Over Hillary the ‘Political Celebrity’

ABC’s Claire Shipman waxed ecstatic over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday’s Good Morning America, as she reported on Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in the Middle Eastern peace process. Shipman exclaimed how the Secretary had a ” distinct, quite public moment of triumph ” in her meetings with leaders from both sides, and noted how Clinton has become an ” international political celebrity .” Anchor George Stephanopoulos, former communications director for President Bill Clinton, introduced the correspondent’s report, which aired 44 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. Stephanopoulos noted past administrations’ failure “to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and then proclaimed how it was Mrs. Clinton’s ” turn to try to make diplomatic history .” Shipman began by highlighting how Hillary “remains one of the most popular members of the administration” and how she was now “squarely center stage” with the possibility of bringing “something different to this Middle East process.” After using her “moment of triumph” line, the ABC correspondent emphasized how Secretary Clinton was apparently “hard on the trail of a dream that has eluded so many before her, and those who know her well say she brings a special touch to wooing both sides back to the table .” She also underlined Clinton’s reported modus operandi in the peace process: “It’s a trademark recipe of pragmatism and discipline over ego- no high-profile shuttle diplomacy for her, for example.” Shipman used three sound bites from the liberal Brooking Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon and one from former Clinton administration official and current Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P. J. Crowley to heap praise on Mrs. Clinton. After O’Hanlon highlighted how the Secretary apparently “chose to really marshal her resources and guard them jealously, and wait for the right moment,” the correspondent added her own lauds: ” The other asset she wields: a bit of female EQ, and an astute political instinct .” The high point of the gushing language over the senior diplomat came near the end of the report: SHIPMAN: It doesn’t hurt, of course, that over the years, she’s perfected her ability to shift gears in an instant . Hard-working Hillary, suddenly transforms once again into international political celebrity . O’HANLON: She’s a multi-dimensional public figure. She’s part global rock star, part everybody’s friend, because she goes by Hillary more than Secretary Clinton . Shipman even remarked about the Secretary’s new hairdo: ” Her hair is even back in the headlines. She’s getting rave reviews on her longer, cool, new do .” Earlier this year, on the June 9 edition of GMA, ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas credited Mrs. Clinton for the primary success of Republican women candidates: “So many women saying- doing so well, and many saying perhaps Hillary Clinton helped by running for president. All these other women about to possibly take office, high office, in those states.” The full transcript of Claire Shipman’s report from Friday’s Good Morning America: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Henry Kissinger got the two sides of the Middle East conflict to stop fighting for a time. Jimmy Carter forged the Camp David agreements. But every administration since then has tried and failed to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Now, it’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s turn to try to make diplomatic history. And Claire Shipman joins us from Washington with more. Hey, Claire. CLAIRE SHIPMAN: Hey, George. This is a big moment for Hillary Clinton. Her poll numbers show she remains one of the most popular members of the administration, but she’s tended to avoid the spotlight. Now, she’s back, squarely center stage, and we took a look at how she may bring something different to this Middle East process. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: Want us to stand here? SHIPMAN (voice-over): For a secretary of state whose style has been very much head down, nose to the grindstone, it was a distinct, quite public moment of triumph. CLINTON: I fervently believe that the two men sitting on either side of me- that you are the leaders who can make this long-cherished dream a reality. SHIPMAN: Peace talks back on track, she’s hard on the trail of a dream that has eluded so many before her, and those who know her well say she brings a special touch to wooing both sides back to the table. ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The people of Israel, and I, as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road. PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS (through translator): The road is clear, in front of us, in order to reach peace. SHIPMAN: It’s a trademark recipe of pragmatism and discipline over ego- no high-profile shuttle diplomacy for her, for example. MICHAEL O’HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Secretary Clinton, unlike some of her predecessors and unlike some previous presidents, chose to really marshal her resources and guard them jealously, and wait for the right moment. SHIPMAN: The other asset she wields: a bit of female EQ, and an astute political instinct. P. J. CROWLEY, STATE DEPARTMENT: She’s been in the arena. She’s been bruised- you know, in that arena. And this gives her a credibility that helps relate to leaders. SHIPMAN: And it doesn’t hurt, of course, that over the years, she’s perfected her ability to shift gears in an instant. Hard-working Hillary, suddenly transforms once again into international political celebrity. O’HANLON: She’s a multi-dimensional public figure. She’s part global rock star, part everybody’s friend, because she goes by Hillary more than Secretary Clinton. SHIPMAN: And her hair is even back in the headlines. She’s getting rave reviews on her longer, cool, new do. CLINTON: And now, it’s time to get to work. SHIPMAN (live): Well, George, not the hair again- but, of course, ultimately, she will be judged not by her appearance, but by results in this process. There is a lot of hard work to be done. The two sides are hoping to talk to each other as frequently as every week, and Hillary Clinton is hoping to have another high-profile meeting in the Middle East as early as September, but we’ll see. STEPHANOPOULOS: And they’re facing a real deadline at the end of September on whether or not to continue- to start building those settlements again. SHIPMAN: Exactly, and a lot of people worry that that could put this process, so new, in jeopardy again. STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. Claire Shipman, thanks a lot. 

Originally posted here:
ABC’s Shipman Gushes Over Hillary the ‘Political Celebrity’