Tag Archives: msnbc

Maddow Mocks Gov. Christie’s Math Skills Before Making Same Subtraction Error

Rachel Maddow on Wednesday mocked the math skills of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie only seconds before she made the exact same arithmetic mistake she bashed him for. In a short segment about the state of New Jersey losing some education funding as a result of errors made during the application process, the MSNBC host placed all the blame on the new Republican governor. To put a fine point on what Maddow claimed was Christie’s incompetence, she played a video of the Governor on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” earlier in the day misstating the number of points Ohio edged out New Jersey for this award. Hysterically, when the clip ended, Maddow made the very same subtraction error (video follows with transcript and commentary):  RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Even while talking about the application process, Governor Christie has still been making some basic mistakes as evidenced by his appearance on this network this morning. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R-NEW JERSEY): We came in eleventh, ten people won, and we lost by 2.2 points… UNKNOWN MALE: Next year. CHRISTIE: …to Ohio. UNKNOWN MALE: Next year. CHRISTIE: If there’s more money. I doubt there will be. (END VIDEOTAPE) MADDOW: 2.2? According to the Department of Education, Ohio got 440.8 points in the final phase, and New Jersey got 437.8 points which is not three points. It’s 2.2 points. I don’t know if there was a math section, but if there is, I bet that’s Obama’s fault, too. Nice job, Rach. You really are the smartest gal in the class. Maybe more hysterically, the story doesn’t end there, for someone must have noticed Maddow’s error and decided to re-film this final section for the video to be posted at MSNBC’s website and possibly the reruns. See if you notice a little difference: MADDOW: 2.2 points Governor Christie? According to the Department of Education, Ohio got 440.8 points in the final phase and New Jersey got 437.8 points which using math – using my powers of math comprehension that’s three points not 2.2. I wonder if there’s a math component to the test. If there is, I bet that’s Obama’s fault, too.   Makes you wonder how many takes they needed for Maddow to finally get it right. 

Excerpt from:
Maddow Mocks Gov. Christie’s Math Skills Before Making Same Subtraction Error

The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

I have no idea what is going to happen in the November congressional elections, but it seems the polls — for what they’re worth — predict a huge Republican win. It may or may not happen, I just don’t know, but if it does and the aisles of Congress are littered with Democrats who will be kicked out in the New Year, will they feel they don’t have anything to lose and try to pass the remainder of their socialistic agenda before they’re forced to leave. And if lame duck Democrats try to do this will the Republicans and remaining Democrats who will return have the guts and the honor to block them? Will they let cap and trade, card check and all the other catastrophic crap they have proposed be passed? America has not even begun to feel the lash of Obama’s whip from the legislation his sycophants have already passed. The cost of health care insurance is already going up in anticipation of the restrictions Obamacare will put on insurance companies. The federal unemployment numbers continue to hover right around 10% and there’s no telling what the actual numbers are. The economy is headed for the pits and you could run out of ink trying to add all the zeros to the national debt. How much more can this nation take? We may well find out with a lame duck Congress, a room full of ticked off losers who want to show the country that they’ll still have their way although the very programs they would be passing into law are what got them kicked out of office to start with. But let’s just get something straight; just because somebody has an “R” after their name doesn’t mean they are the kind of conservatives it will take to undo some of the damage Obama and the Democrats have done. Remember some of them were bitter disappointments voting for bills they knew their constituents were against and some of them sold out for favors only them and Obama’s operatives know about. I don’t claim to know what it will take to bring America out this morass we’re in but there are a few common sense factors that are tried and true. The old Democrat mantra, “tax cuts for the rich” is misleading it’s not the rich they’re hurting when they raise taxes. The rich people are going to get along just fine. They’ll just hang on to their money instead of investing it in businesses to create more jobs. The card check proposal is nothing short of ridiculous. What business is it of anybody’s how somebody casts their vote for union leadership or anything else for that matter? This just opens someone up for intimidation and ostracizing and subverts the very heart of the Democratic process. Nobody even knows how the health care fiasco will play out, even those in Congress who sold out the people who voted them in to pass it. But there’s something I can guarantee you; the cost of health care will go up instead of going down as Obama said it would. In fact it’s going way up. If nothing else, the new bureaucracies it will take to administer and enforce it will see to that. Obama is insincere in really wanting to do something to bring down the cost of health care as no meaningful bill could possible leave out tort reform. If we’re not going to let our troops win the war in Afghanistan, we should just write off that part of the world and bring them home. Why keep dribbling American lives down the drain in a country where most of the people don’t want us there to start with. The only way we’ll ever destroy the Taliban is to accept tremendous collateral damage to the civilian population and evidently we’re never going to do that so why stay? A year or so after we pull the troops out of Iraq that country will go right back to what it was except this time the mullahs in Iran will be calling the shots. The most dangerous and powerful enemy in that part of the world is Iran; they export terrorism and arm our enemies. Until something meaningful is done about them our efforts in that part of the world are meaningless and any victory is temporary. Playing politics with the energy production in this country is going to play out to be a stupid and horribly costly mistake because one day. Sooner than later, the oil from the Persian Gulf will suddenly stop coming to this country. We should be drilling in ANWR, and the shale deposits in our western states and bring these sources on line before this catastrophe happens. I agree that we should be pursuing alternative energy sources for all we’re worth, but let’s face it… We’ve been pursuing them for years and are not anywhere near the point that we can depend on them. Let’s go for it, make an all out effort to harness wind and water, create fuel cells, build nuclear plants, discover non-food supply sources of ethanol. But in the meantime, we’re going to need petroleum and we’re not going to get it by the feeble and superficial gestures the federal government is making. You want alternative energy? Make it profitable for the private sector. Get out of their way and it will happen. A government that sues a state for keeping the law and turns a blind eye to sanctuary cities for breaking it is seriously out of balance and needs to have its priorities adjusted. Let’s hope that will happen in November.

See more here:
The Specter of a Lame Duck Congress

NBC Chief Jeff Zucker Open to Political Run, Bringing Couric Back to Network

We’ve heard the knocks on NBC and the institutional bias that exists in its network – from the subtle spin in its flagship network’s news coverage at NBC to the over-the-top bias at its cable news channel MSNBC. So maybe the man behind the curtains at NBC Universal would like to be more overt with his opinions – as a politician? On MSNBC’s Aug. 25 “Morning Joe,” Jeff Zucker, president and CEO of NBC Universal, addressed both his possible political aspirations and bringing back one of the network’s former star personalities. Host Joe Scarborough asked Zucker where his political interests were at this stage. “You know Joe – look, politics is something I’ve always had an interest in,” Zucker said. “It is something I’ve always thought about. It is not something that is on my current radar. It’s not something I’m thinking about in the next few years, but it is something that I would always consider. I think – I love politics. I would love to give back. I would love to serve. I would love to do something, but it is not imminent. It’s nothing now.”  That set Zucker up for a question from Scarborough – if he was holding out to bring Couric back to the peacock network where she was a fixture at NBC’s “Today” from 1991 until 2006. “You are going to wait until you get Katie Couric back at NBC then you’re going to get into politics?” Scarborough asked.  It’s been no secret the Katie Couric project at the “CBS Evening News” has not produced the results that were anticipated. Couric’s broadcast just tied its all-time low in total viewers with an average of 4.89 million tuning in during the five days. Zucker dodged Scarborough’s inquiry, but Scarborough continued to press him on the topic.  ZUCKER: I think those are two separate issues there. SCARBOROUGH: Is Katie coming back to NBC? ZUCKER: Well I think she is fully ensconced in a job today and she’s happy where she is. SCARBOROUGH: No, she’s not. Come on. You’re talking like a politician. She hates it over there. ZUCKER: Oh, I don’t know that’s the case. SCARBOROUGH: No, it’s the case. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That’s not politically correct. SCARBOROUGH: Since she doesn’t like it where she is — ZUCKER: I thought we were talking politics here for a second. BRZEZINSKI: I was going to ask you about the mosque. SCARBOROUGH: This is your first press conference here buddy. So since she doesn’t like where she is, since you have a great relationship with Katie, would you like Katie Couric back at NBC? Zucker relented, saying he would be open to the possibility of Couric returning to NBC in some capacity. “I always said that, look Katie would be a great addition wherever she is,” Zucker said. “If the time were right, I think that’s something we would look at. But she’s under contract now, and I think she’s happy where she is, whether you believe it or not, so I’m not going to wade into that controversy.”

Original post:
NBC Chief Jeff Zucker Open to Political Run, Bringing Couric Back to Network

Matthews Attacks! McConnell and Limbaugh Trying to ‘De-Americanize Obama’

When Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on Sunday’s Meet the Press, in response to a David Gregory question about whether Barack Obama was a Christian, told the NBC host that “I take him at his word” Chris Matthews thought that was McConnell using some sort of code language to play to the Birther crowd, as the MSNBC host, on Monday’s Hardball, claimed McConnell’s phrasing was a “Pitch perfect, dog whistle to the haters.” Matthews devoted much of his show to  “The right wing’s attempt to de-Americanize the President” as he invited on Newsweek’s Howard Fineman and the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein to dissect what they thought was some sort of nefarious strategy on the parts of McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to ride a “message of fear”  to victory in November. Matthews started the opening segment attacking McConnell for failing to denounce any sort of conspiracy theories as he claimed: “The Republican leader of the Senate played Birther politics with abandon.” He even brought on Fineman — who proudly claimed that since he used to work in McConnell’s home state of Kentucky and therefore “understands it” –to explain to viewers that the Republican senator was trying to get Rand Paul elected by playing to a “nativist appeal” that “really works big time” in that state. However McConnell wasn’t the only target of Matthews’ ire as the conversation soon turned towards Rush Limbaugh: MATTHEWS: Okay let’s go, we gotta get to, we gotta get to Rush Limbaugh, just to complete the hat trick here. Here’s, here’s Mitch McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham and now Rush Limbaugh today on this topic. Is Barack Obama of the relig-, everybody watching right now, by the way, gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. You go to the church, you go to the synagogue, the mosque, whatever? That’s the one you’re a member of. That’s the one you are. We accept that in America. It’s called freedom of religion and respect for religion. Apparently the new rule is “Oh I take him at his word.” Which means “I really don’t, really have any reason to believe he’s telling the truth.” SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: There’s a debate, yes. MATTHEWS: Here he is. Here’s Rush Limbaugh on this topic. (Begin clip) RUSH LIMBAUGH: What is the only proof we have that Obama is a Christian? Well, okay. His, his word. His word. But Jeremiah Wright is the only proof that we have that he’s a Christian. Obama described Wright as his spiritual mentor. Well we, sorry, media. We’ve heard Jeremiah Wright. We know what Jeremiah Wright said. We know what he thinks of America. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Does everybody watching know what was going on right there? Smearing this guy? I mean, does everybody know what’s happening here? He didn’t answer the question. Rush Limbaugh has an IQ as high as anybody’s around. He’s a smart guy. He knows exactly what he’s doing here. He switched the topic from what a man says his religion is to “How much do we hate Jeremiah Wright?” FINEMAN: Yeah well, everybody who watches this show knows exactly what’s going on because we’re explaining it to them. And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider. Look Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new, big change- MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: He kind of came out of nowhere. This scares the heck out of these people. And they’ll use any element of fear they can. The following is the a full transcript of the entire first segment as it was aired on the August 23 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Good evening, I’m Chris Matthews back in Washington. Leading off, tonight “Who is Mitch McConnell and why is he saying those terrible things about me?” Yesterday the Republican leader of the Senate played Birther politics with abandon. What did he say when asked whether President Obama is of the religion he says he is, quote, “I take him at his word.” And there you have it. Why do 34 percent of Republicans say Obama is a Muslim? Why do only 27 percent of Republicans say he’s a Christian? Only 23 percent say he was born in America. One reason might be that people like Republican leader Mitch McConnell go on Meet the Press, as he did yesterday, and say things like, “I take him at his word,” when asked if the President is, as he says, a Christian. Pitch perfect, dog whistle to the haters. “Yeah sure, whatever he says, right.” This is not about belief. It’s an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing’s attempt to de-Americanize the President is our top story tonight. … MATTHEWS: We’ll start with the attempt to de-Americanize President Obama. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman is an MSNBC political analyst and Sam Stein is a political reporter for the Huffington Post. I want you gentlemen to watch what happened on Meet the Press yesterday. Here’s Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press. Let’s listen to the give and take between he and moderator, David Gregory. (Begin clip) MITCH MCCONNELL: The President’s faith in the government to stimulate the economy is what people are questioning. DAVID GREGORY: That, that, that certainly is a sidestep to this particular question. Again- MCCONNELL: Well no I…. GREGORY: As a leader of the country sir, as one of the most powerful Republicans in the country, do think you have an obligation to say to 34 percent of Republicans, in the country rather, 31 percent who believe the President of the United States is a Muslim. That’s misinformation! MCCONNELL: The President says, the President says he’s a Christian. I take him at his word. I don’t think that’s in dispute. GREGORY: And do you think, how do you think it comes to be that this kind of misinformation gets spread around and prevails? MCCONNELL: I have no idea. But I take the President at his word. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Well, there you have it, Howard. In politics I think we call that “trimming.” When it’s apparent, apparent to the person listening to you, you’re not really believing the person, but you’re just voicing something that undermines him. HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Yeah, and that’s what Mitch McConnell was doing there. I’ve covered him ever since he was county judge in Louisville, Kentucky, over the years. He knows how to play the cultural fault lines and divides here. And he does it in a very low key, kind of syrupy, Kentucky way. But that’s, that’s what he’s doing, that’s clearly what he’s doing. MATTHEWS: Parsing his words in a way that says he is not lying but- FINEMAN: Okay now I e-mailed Karl Rove. I said, Karl Rove, what do you think? Do you think, do you have any doubt that, that Barack Obama is a Christian? Karl Rove e-mailed back, “None whatsoever.” On the other hand, I contacted the RNC’s office, the Republican National Committee’s office here in Washington. I said what is Michael Steele, the chairman, saying about this? Nothing. Here’s what Michael Steele, here’s what the answer was. “That’s not an issue the committee has discussed.” MATTHEWS: Ha! FINEMAN: “We’re focused on how the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda is blah, blah.” That’s the same approach here. MATTHEWS: By the way, you’re always great. This is one thing I like about you. The reporting is up to the minute. FINEMAN: I’m just trying to keep up with Sam. MATTHEWS: No but I mean, I mean, I want to get to Sam, but the fact of the matter is the Republican National Committee knows this is a hot issue, today. FINEMAN: Yes. MATTHEWS: They’re prepared to answer it, and their answer is “We’re not talking.” FINEMAN: The answer is “We’re not talking.” Which allows Mitch McConnell to be the spokesperson. MATTHEWS: Okay, look Sam, there’s no accident out there. The American people are all listening to this conversation. This conversation here is like it is at a bar room somewhere, in a car pool somewhere. And somehow this delves down to the following. That 27 percent of the American people who knows this guy says he’s a Christian, believe he is. SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: Yeah. MATTHEWS: I’m not talking about what the right religion is. Nobody actually knows what the right religions is. Everybody says what theirs is, obviously. But 27 percent of the people believe him. STEIN: Yeah. MATTHEWS: On the fact of what his religion is, only 23 percent believe, hard fact, he was born here – of the Republican party. This is a highly prejudicial issue. Republicans have a very different issue, position on this than most Americans do. STEIN: Sure. MATTHEWS: Why? STEIN: Well- MATTHEWS: Is Mitch McConnell to blame because of this pussyfooting or whatever the right word is, yesterday? STEIN: Well first off I want to up my reporting chops here. I reached out… MATTHEWS: What’s the latest? STEIN: I reached out to McConnell’s office after this happened. And they were insisting that he wasn’t trying to do anything of the sort. That he was being straight forward in saying he believes the President. Now to borrow their phrase, I guess I’ll take him at his word, the spokesman for Mitch McConnell. What I think’s going on here is you have a dichotomy. You have the Republican establishment that is perfectly willing and fine to let the commentariat, predominately, spread this stuff. MATTHEWS: Mitch McConnell says he’s a Republican. I take him at his word. STEIN: I take him at his word as well. But listen, you have Glenn Beck, you have the Rush Limbaughs. MATTHEWS: And what are they all saying? STEIN: You have Franklin Graham, who actually was out there, saying very, you know, authoritatively that… MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at Franklin Graham. Let’s talk about Franklin Graham who is a man who has played this politics. Not the son of Billy Graham, he is the son of Billy Graham. He’s speaking here as Franklin Graham. A guy who’s engaged in this kind of anti-Muslim comments before. Here he is on CNN this past Thursday. Let’s listen. (Begin clip) FRANKLIN GRAHAM: The President’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. Like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born in a Muslim. His father gave him an Islamic name. Now it’s obvious that the President has renounced the prophet Muhammad and he has renounced Islam. And he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he say he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t. So I just have to believe the President is what he has said. (End clip) MATTHEWS: What is this precious bodily fluids crap we’re getting from this guy? The seed of Islam. If he’s a Christian, of course, Billy Graham’s son is a Christian. I take him at his word. STEIN: Yeah, yeah. MATTHEWS: But the fact is he’s out there saying that Islam believes the seed the seed comes from the father. What is this talk about? STEIN: Well this is my point here. And that is… FINEMAN: There’s a person in Iowa that… MATTHEWS: What is he talking about? STEIN: Yeah well this is my point, is that you have a commentary, you have a section of the Republican Party that’s talking like this. And now we’re seeing it start to filter into the actual Republican officials. We, we reported today that an RNC member in Iowa, a woman out there, actually firmly believes that Republican, that sorry, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. And she’s out there publicly saying… MATTHEWS: And who is she? FINEMAN: This is some RNC committee woman. MATTHEWS: So she’s official. FINEMAN: She’s a member, she’s a member of the Republican National Committee, in Iowa, in Iowa- STEIN: Yeah. FINEMAN: -the state that has the first caucuses. MATTHEWS: Okay let’s go, we gotta get to, we gotta get to Rush Limbaugh, just to complete the hat trick here. Here’s, here’s’ Mitch McConnell, Reverend Franklin Graham and now Rush Limbaugh today on this topic. Is Barack Obama of the relig-, everybody watching right now, by the way, gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. You go to the church, you go to the synagogue, the mosque, whatever? That’s the one you’re a member of. That’s the one you are. We accept that in America. It’s called freedom of religion and respect for religion. Apparently the new rule is “Oh I take him at his word.” Which means “I really don’t, really have any reason to believe he’s telling the truth.” STEIN: There’s a debate, yes. MATTHEWS: Here he is. Here’s Rush Limbaugh on this topic. (Begin clip) RUSH LIMBAUGH: What is the only proof we have that Obama is a Christian? Well, okay. His, his word. His word. But Jeremiah Wright is the only proof that we have that he’s a Christian. Obama described Wright as his spiritual mentor. Well we, sorry, media. We’ve heard Jeremiah Wright. We know what Jeremiah Wright said. We know what he thinks of America. (End clip) MATTHEWS: Does everybody watching know what was going on right there? Smearing this guy? I mean, does everybody know what’s happening here? He didn’t answer the question. Rush Limbaugh has an IQ as high as anybody’s around. He’s a smart guy. He knows exactly what he’s doing here. He switched the topic from what a man says his religion is to “How much do we hate Jeremiah Wright?” FINEMAN: Yeah well, everybody who watches this show knows exactly what’s going on because we’re explaining it to them. And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider. Look Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new, big change- MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: He kind of came out of nowhere. This scares the heck out of these people. And they’ll use any element of fear they can. Sometimes I think Rush Limbaugh is amusing. Sometimes I think he’s useful in the conversation. This is wrong, because ministers such as Joel Hunter, who’s a conservative Republican of Florida, is one of the people- MATTHEWS: Right. Approved putting- FINEMAN: -is one of the people that, whom Obama consults with- MATTHEWS: Making your point- FINEMAN: -who he talks to all the time. There, there are- MATTHEWS: We got the new Pew poll out says 34 percent say he’s a Christian. One in three, even though he says he is. You’d think most people would get credit for what they say. That’s down from 48 percent in March of 2009. Eighteen percent say he’s Muslim, 43 percent say they don’t know. This “don’t know” thing is getting out of hand. That’s the game that Mitch McConnell is playing – “I don’t know.” STEIN: Yeah see… MATTHEWS: “I don’t know” is a character assault. If somebody says, “I’m Jewish” and [somebody] says “No way, you’re not.” That’s a character assault. You are, who you say you are in this country. And if somebody says you’re not who you say you are, they’re calling you a liar. STEIN: Yeah. MATTHEWS: It’s basically what you’re saying. It’s worst than any religion, to call a guy a liar. STEIN: Well the whole, the whole idea is to seed doubt. I mean there’s so many conflicting, contradiction labels that they’re putting on this man. It went from a black liberation theologist, to a communis, to a Marxist to a Muslim sympathizer, to a Muslim himself. MATTHEWS: Okay here’s a question. Pure politics. They got the economy in bad shape, most people are hurt. Middle aged people are getting hurt. People are losing jobs. Companies are dropping people they’ve had for years. Right? It’s not the usual unemployed. All kinds of people are facing unemployment right now. They got high debt that doesn’t sell. They got taxes maybe about to be back raised again, back to Clinton levels, at least. They have all of the things going for them. Why are the Republicans playing the dirt ball game when they don’t need it? This is like Nixon when he could have won an election easily, he still reverted to this. I don’t know why people do this. Why are they using this? STEIN: We were talking about, we were talking about this and trying to put it in historical context, in looking back at the Great Depression when there were smears against Franklin Roosevelt for being a supposed Jew. And I think a lot of it has to- MATTHEWS: Well that was Coughlin. Pretty far out. STEIN: Yeah I mean driven by… MATTHEWS: Did actual, did actual Republicans say that stuff? FINEMAN: But millions and millions of people listened to Father Coughlin back in the day. MATTHEWS: Yeah. FINEMAN: But the answer to your question is right now there are two tracks. There’s the economic track and there’s this track involving immigration, race and religion. MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: What I foresee happening is the two of them coming together at some point. MATTHEWS: November election then? FINEMAN: Sam was making the point earlier, when people are worried about the economic status that they have, they’re more open to- MATTHEWS: To a scapegoat. FINEMAN: -these kinds of appeals of fear. MATTHEWS: Hey we’ve seen this! FINEMAN: And we’ve seen it with immigration and you may see it with the Islam issue as well. MATTHEWS: Okay here’s the question. Sam, hard question and then back to Howard. STEIN: Sure. MATTHEWS: Could it be that Mitch McConnell as a politician? Just guessing? STEIN: Shocking, yes. MATTHEWS: I take him at his word. He’s a politician. Okay, he knows he’s got a very good chance of picking up four or five Senate seats, but still being at the short end of that thing. Still having to face whoever the Democrats have. Whether it’s Harry Reid or it’s Chuck [Schumer] or it’s Dick Durbin or somebody running the party. But he may well be on the short end, probably. I looked at the numbers. We all, it’s very hard for him to run 11 to 1 which he would have to do among the top 12 races to get the 10 point, 10 seat pick up. Could it be that he figures this is gonna be the winning cap? “We’ll win on the economy, win five or six seats on the economy and then we’ll take it away on culture and ethnicity and, and, and Americanism. That we can really knock the Democrats out of the batting box on this and grab the Senate.” STEIN: If that is- MATTHEWS: With this, with this stuff. STEIN: If that is his philosophy, the he is actually going against some people in the Republican Party who insist that’s the wrong way to go about it. They look back at the impeachment trial- MATTHEWS: How do they get hurt? STEIN: They go back to the impeachment trial of Clinton and say that, that, that detracted from the idea that it should have been all about the economy. MATTHEWS: Yeah but Clinton was popular. STEIN: True. FINEMAN: I think, I think and, most of the time, Karl Rove thinks that the economy is the way to do it. Okay? So he sort of agrees… MATTHEWS: That’s how Reagan got elected. FINEMAN: Okay and Karl goes back to George W. etcetera and don’t forget George W. was rather benign on some of these issues related to culture and so forth. MATTHEWS: Back in 2000 he was! FINEMAN: Okay, he was. But Mitch McConnell is looking at it through the lens of Kentucky. And since I used to work there, I understand it. MATTHEWS: He wants Rand to win. FINEMAN: And that’s a native, that’s a state where the nativist appeal outside of Louisville really works big time. He’s trying to defend this guy, Rand Paul. And they’re gonna use whatever fear message they can. MATTHEWS: So the nativism is aimed at the center of the country? FINEMAN: Well it’s aimed at Kentucky, for sure. MATTHEWS: Yeah okay, well that’s what we’re looking at. And I like doing this, on this show. Understand why people do what they do. These guys like Mitch McConnell know exactly what they’re doing. When he says “I take him at his word,” those words are crafted. Thank you. As always, you won on the reporting, by the way. FINEMAN: No I didn’t. MATTHEWS: Howard Fineman, Sam Stein. This guy working his reporter’s notebook to the last minute. He’s the best this the business. Later on this show I’m going to tell you what I really think about some of this sleazy and dangerous stuff, I’ve begun to. It’s smart, if you’re evil.

Link:
Matthews Attacks! McConnell and Limbaugh Trying to ‘De-Americanize Obama’

Time’s Mark Halperin: 9/11 Families Need to Be Led Through a Discussion About the Ground Zero Mosque

Time magazine’s Mark Halperin engaged in the ultimate condescension Monday morning, arguing that families of 9/11 victims need to be guided by others into the Ground Zero mosque debate. “For the families of the victims of 9/11, whatever emotions they want to have, I respect and I honor. But somebody needs to lead them through a discussion,” Time’s senior political analyst lectured on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He mentioned a meeting that reportedly took place between the mosque’s planners and the 9/11 families, which he insisted “needs to happen.” Halperin said the meeting “did not go well,” but added it was and is necessary. “As I said before, whether it moves or stays, that discussion must happen. This must be done with reconciliation. And it’s got to be led by leaders, not by people like Rick Lazio…and facts,” Halperin noted. The show picked up fresh from where it left off last week, bashing the supposedly inflammatory rhetoric from the right opposing the mosque and sympathizing – while disagreeing – with the families of 9/11 victims over the planned mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. Host Joe Scarborough added that reconciliation doesn’t necessarily entail moving the mosque. “The leaders of this Islamic cultural center, Mark, have to show reconciliation towards the victims of 9/11,” Scarborough responded to Halperin. “That doesn’t necessarily mean moving the Islamic center.” “But what it may mean is asking them, say, ‘It’s not going to move. What can we do, though? What can we put inside of this center that, as a memorial to the memory of your father, or your son, or your daughter? What can we do to help you?'” Scarborough cried that the situation has already become an international problem, and Halperin warned it could escalate to greater proportions. “If the resolution is not handled well,” he remarked, “the signal it could send abroad could put us at war with a billion people forever.” Scarborough argued that moving the mosque now would constitute “giving into the hate speech of Newt Gingrich and people like him.” “To fear the building of this center down there at Ground Zero is to admit America is weak,” he asserted. “This is a chapter in our history that we’re going to – we as a country, the people associated with this – are going to be ashamed of,” he said of the heated debate over the mosque. A transcript of selected quotes from the show, which ran on August 23 from 6 a.m.-9 a.m. EDT, is as follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: To fear the building of this center down there at Ground Zero is to admit America is weak, is to admit that we can’t handle the building of a community center which is – somebody said it yesterday, and this is what I thought was all along – it is basically a Muslim version of a 92nd Street ___. That’s what this place is going to be. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It’s not just fear, Joe. They’re demonizing the Imam. They’re demonizing the people who want to do it. They are creating lies to promulgate hatred in this country. This is where we are, all over again. (…) SCARBOROUGH: This is a chapter in our history that we’re going to – we as a country, the people associated with this – are going to be ashamed of. (…) SCARBOROUGH: This is an international situation. … This is sending a horrific message across the Muslim world. (…) MARK HALPERIN: As bad as this is for relations in the United States, the signal that it sends abroad – the debate now is sending a bad signal. If the resolution is not handled well, whether it moves or not, if it’s not handled well, the signal it could send abroad could put us at war with a billion people forever. (…) SCARBOROUGH: This would not be happening if George W. Bush were President, for two reasons. First of all, a lot of these people on the right wouldn’t be trying to sully his name, that’s what this is about for a lot of these freaks on the far right. They want to embarrass Barack Obama, because oh gosh, his middle name is Hussein. (…) HALPERIN: You gotta confront the people who find it bothersome. Why is it bothersome? Why is it bothersome? If it’s not a center that meant to celebrate the violence of 9/11, if it’s not a recruitment center, why is it bothersome to anybody?  (…) HALPERIN: For the families of the victims of 9/11, whatever emotions they want to have, I respect and I honor. But somebody needs to lead them through a discussion. … Discussion needs to happen, as I’ve said before. (…) SCARBOROUGH: The leaders of this Islamic cultural center, Mark, have to show reconciliation towards the victims of 9/11. HALPERIN: And confidence. SCARBOROUGH: That doesn’t necessarily mean moving the Islamic center. But what it may mean is asking them; say “It’s not going to move. What can we do, though? What can we put inside of this center that, as a memorial to the memory of your father, or your son, or your daughter? What can we do to help you? There has to be some reconciliation. They can’t stiff-arm the 9/11 families. (…) BRZEZINSKI: But there’s no basis in order to worry that this would be insensitive. There are other things near Ground Zero and at the Pentagon that are similar. … They have a mosque 12 blocks away from Ground Zero, isn’t there one at the Pentagon? Am I wrong? (…) SCARBOROUGH: But at this point, if you want to move it up to the Upper West side? … At this point, I don’t know that we can do that. I don’t know that we can do that as a country, because it’s giving in to the hate speech of Newt Gingrich, and people like him, Rick Lazio who’s stoking fear, people down yesterday, trying to beat somebody up because they thought they were a Muslim. We can’t give in to that as a country.

Read more:
Time’s Mark Halperin: 9/11 Families Need to Be Led Through a Discussion About the Ground Zero Mosque

Olbermann Backs Down From ‘Over the Top’ O’Reilly Parental Abuse Attack

Let it never again be said that no line of attack is too low for Keith Olbermann. On Tuesday, the MSNBC libtalker distanced himself from comments made the week prior about Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. Olbermann attributed O’Reilly’s condemnation of comments about motherhood by actress Jennifer Aniston to the abuse O’Reilly supposedly took as a child. OIbermann didn’t actually say what he was backing away from, but until Tuesday it seemed that almost no line of attack would be too cheap or personal for “Countdown.” Some comment must have been really bad for him to actually back away from it, and label it “over the top” on air. The parental abuse line is the only one that seems to fit the mold. Video via Mediaite : Last night on his program, Bill O’Reilly went after MSNBC’s parent company, GE, for something that even O’Reilly acknowledged was ‘hard to get outraged about.’ It was not news, but appears to have come in response to some over-the-top remarks made here about O’Reilly.   Olbermann’s comments were a preface to a bit attacking Fox’s parent company News Corp. Olbermann apparently did not want anyone to think that he was reigniting his infamous feud with O’Reilly. In any case, mark down Tuesday, August 17 as the day a line of attack was too low even for Keith OIbermann. Not that he apologized for it to O’Reilly or to Countdown’s remaining viewers or anything.

Read this article:
Olbermann Backs Down From ‘Over the Top’ O’Reilly Parental Abuse Attack

Time Editor Richard Stengel Frets About America’s ‘Islamophobia,’ ‘Ignorance’

Time magazine editor Richard Stengel on Thursday appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to bemoan the United States’ “ignorance” towards Muslims and to wonder, ” Is America Islamophobic? ” That particular question is also on the front cover of the current issue of Time. Leaving only two options, Stengel lectured host Joe Scarborough, “I mean, the extent of the ignorance- where you parse Islamophobia versus ignorance of Islam, I’m not exactly sure. But there is tremendous ignorance of Islam as a religion.” Declaring that Christianity Judaism and Islam have great similarities, he derided, ” And I think, you know, the American misconception about Islam is amazing.” Scarborough, at times, seemed to go along with the contention that America is Islamophobic. He complained, “As a country, this sort of hatred was visited upon the Irish…the Germans, Jews.” He did, however, offer one contrarian perspective during the segment, pointing out, “I’ve just got to say, though, too, also, because everybody likes jumping opinion on up and down on this. About 33 percent of Americans believe that George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attack.” A transcript of the August 18 segment, which aired at 7:45am EDT, follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: So, anyway, what’s on the cover of Time magazine this week? RICHARD STENGEL: Well, what is on the cover of Time magazine this week is the subject we’re all talking about, but that we broadened out into a larger topic. And, basically, it’s a very provocative question: Is America Islamophobic? Is the crisis and the furor of what’s going on down at 9/11 [sic] with building the mosque, how does that represent and play across the rest of the country? SCARBOROUGH: Are we? STENGEL: Because there are new mosques being built than ever across the country. There has been increasing examples of intolerance and hatred towards Muslims around America. SCARBOROUGH: So, are we? STENGEL: Well, you be the judge, okay? We did a poll, you know, 28 percent of Americans think that Muslims should not be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court. About a similar number believe Muslims should not be allowed to be president. The- A majority of people who are against the building of the mosque downtown. At the same time, 55 percent of Americans say they would like to have mosques built in their own community. The poll is kind of beautiful reflection of American diversity. Because people like Muslims in particular but think Muslims- They have lots of misperception about the religion. And, in fact, we have an extraordinary quote from Franklin Thomas [sic]- I’m sorry. From Franklin Graham basically saying that Islam is a religion of hatred and you shouldn’t build mosques anywhere and they believe in the violent domination of other religions. This is Frank Graham, the son of Billy Graham. I mean- SCARBOROUGH: Is that a recent quote? Quote for you guys? STENGEL: That was a quote in today’s Time magazine from yesterday. SCARBOROUGH: Franklin Graham saying that mosques shouldn’t be allowed to be built in America? STENGEL: No. He didn’t say that. But, he said- he said it’s a religion of hatred. He said they seek global domination and the violent domination of other religions. I mean, the extent of the ignorance- where you parse Islamophobia versus ignorance of Islam, I’m not exactly sure. But there is tremendous ignorance of Islam as a religion. And, again, to talk about, about Frank, you know, you know Islam is one of three great Abrahamic religions based on teaching of Abraham. You know, Judaism, Christianity, Islam. I mean, the similarities far outweigh their differences. And I think, you know, the American misconception about Islam is amazing. Plus we have stats in the story, which was written by Bobby Ghosh, our former Baghdad correspondent- Terrific, terrific story- about the perception of Obama’s religion. I mean, 47, only 47 percent of Americans think he is Christian and more than 40 percent of Republicans think he is Muslim. It’s kind of amazing. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: There it is in the Post, Norah. NORAH O’DONNELL: I mean, it’s the Pew study also says one in five think Obama is Muslim. You’ve got it at 24 percent of Americans think that he is Muslim. SCARBOROUGH: I’ve got to say, too- I’ve just got to say, though, too, also, because everybody likes jumping opinion on up and down on this. About 33 percent of Americans believe that George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attack. So, we have a healthy one third- BRZEZINSKI: Healthy dose of ignorance. SCARBOROUGH: Healthy dose of ignorance on both sides. STENGEL: By the way, this morning, speaking about George Bush 43 one of the things that we write about in our story. And this is talking about how incredibly stalwart he was about saying that Islam was not a religion of hate, it was a religion of peace. He visited mosques on many occasions. President Obama has yet to go to a mosque as president. I mean, one of the hallmarks of Bush’s presidency in this regard was the fact that he really did draw the line on that. SCARBOROUGH: Isn’t that an irony? Maureen Dowd, we read the column yesterday. Maureen Dowd, Norah, said how fascinating it was that Bush showed mere leadership in this area than a progressive president And she also cited Chris Christie and Michael Bloomberg and said basically get on board. O’DONNELL: George W. Bush was the first president to use the word mosque in an inaugural address. STENGEL: Wow. O’DONNELL: I mean, significance outreach to Muslim Americans and so that’s why there are a number Americans where ed Gillespie or David Winston who is a poll sister saying Republicans watch where you go on this discussion about a mosque, of painting all Muslims as extremists. SCARBOROUGH: As a country, Rick, let’s talk about this. As a country, this sort of hatred was visited upon the Irish- STENGEL: Right. SCARBOROUGH: – the Germans, Jews. STENGEL: Right. SCARBOROUGH: I mean, you can go through it. And don’t we know how this story ends? Don’t we know that Muslims are like- America is this huge- it is a melting pot. STENGEL: Right.

Follow this link:
Time Editor Richard Stengel Frets About America’s ‘Islamophobia,’ ‘Ignorance’

Norah: Mosque Opponents Acting Like 9-11 Terrorists

Harry Reid may have deserted Pres. Obama over the Ground Zero mosque, but PBO can count on at least one stalwart defender: Norah O’Donnell.   On today’s Morning Joe, the MSNBC “correspondent” today declared that the prez is deserving of praise for his position.  Then, dancing a quantum leap further, O’Donnell accused mosque opponents of acting “like the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.” Ironically, just minutes earlier Mike Barnicle and Joe Scarborough were heaping scorn on Newt Gingrich for having said that the mosque has no more right to be built near Ground Zero than would a Nazi site near the Holocaust Museum or a Japanese one next to Pearl Harbor. The pair were horrified by Newt’s analogy.  But when Norah compared mosque opponents to the 9-11 murderers, Mike and Joe were peep-less. NORAH O’DONNELL: I think this makes Democrats uncomfortable to talk about it.  But they may be, the President and Bloomberg, may be–I say may be–standing in political concrete, as Pat [Buchanan] suggests, with some independent voters who may be key in this election. But I think there’s a question about whether what Pres. Obama said and President [sic] Bloomberg said were at least the right thing to do. And when do we stop praising politicians for doing what is right just because it’s not politically expedient? I thought the reason everybody’s groaning all the time about our politicians is because they’re such hacks and nobody stands up for what’s right.  Who cares about the concrete?  Somebody’s got to say that we’re not going to act like the people who stole freedom from Americans, the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.

Read more here:
Norah: Mosque Opponents Acting Like 9-11 Terrorists

Olbermann Hints Moral Equivalence Between U.S. & Islamic Empire, Blocking Mosque May Be First Step to New Holocaust

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann delivered a “Special Comment” in which he invoked Nazi Germany and suggested that blocking construction of a mosque near Ground Zero could be the first of a “thousand steps” toward another holocaust. He also suggested a moral equivalence between the Islamic Empire’s conquests and America’s expansion into the lands of Native Americans as he attempted to discredit former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s concerns about the choice of “Cordoba House” as the original name planned for the mosque as being intentionally symbolic of a Muslim victory at Ground Zero. After starting his “Special Comment” by quoting Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous words about the Holocaust of World War II, he at first tried to make his rant sound more moderate and not really a comparison to the Holocaust: “I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust.” He added: “Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now.” But the Countdown host was still alarmist enough to fear the mosque controversy could lead in that horrific direction: “Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close.” Citing Gingrich’s contention that members of the Islamic Empire historically engaged in a practice of building large mosques on the holy sites of their conquests as monuments to their victories – citing the mosque that was built in Cordoba, Spain, as an example – Olbermann at first argued that, because Cordoba was eventually recaptured by Christians, Gingrich’s concerns are somehow undermined. The MSNBC host even sounded as if he were defending the Muslim expansion into Spain as he recounted that Christians continued to fight even though the Muslim conquerors built “multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning.” Olbermann: Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. But moments later, Olbermann seemed to contradict himself by acknowledging that Gingrich was correct in his reasoning about the historical significance of the name “Cordoba” being provocative, as the MSNBC host gave the Muslim group credit for changing the name in response to the former House Speaker’s criticism. Olbermann: “When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’ve already compromised.” Olbermann did not theorize about why the Muslim group was motivated to choose this provocative name in the first place. The Countdown host also suggested a moral equivalence between America’s history of confiscating land from Native Americans and the Islamic Empire’s conquests. Olbermann: “And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich?” But, unlike many predominantly Muslim countries, the United States provides full citizenship rights to Native Americans, who are now even greater in number than when Christopher Columbus first visited the New World. By contrast, not only do many countries that are successors to the Islamic Empire sharply restrict the rights of their citizens, but, as recently as the period between 1948 and 1975, in many predominantly Muslim nations, Jewish residents faced so much persecution in the form of violence and confiscation of property that the number of Jewish refugees who fled Muslim countries is estimated to be greater than the number of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel after the Arab states invaded the tiny nation in 1948. Some estimate that the land confiscated from Jewish residents by governments in Muslim countries amounts to several times the total area of the state of Israel. After recounting the story of a mosque that was bombed in Jacksonville, Florida, Olbermann also declared that Muslims in America are more likely to be targeted by terrorism than non-Muslims: “As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims.” Below is a complete transcript of the “Special Comment” portion of the Monday, August 16, Countdown show on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold : KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally, tonight, as promised, a “Special Comment” on the inaccurately described “Ground Zero mosque.” “They came first for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. And then they came for me and by that time, no one was left to speak up.” Pastor Martin Niemoller’s words are well known, but their context is not well understood. Niemoller was not speaking abstractly. He witnessed persecution; he acquiesced to it. He ultimately fell victim to it. He had been a German World War I hero, then a conservative who welcomed the fall of German democracy and the rise of Hitler, and he had few qualms about the beginning of the Holocaust until he himself was arrested for supporting it insufficiently. Niemoller’s confessional warning came first in a speech in Frankfurt in January 1946 – eight months after he had been liberated by American troops. He had been detained at Tyrol, Sachsen-hausen, and Dachau for seven years. He survived the death camps. In quoting him, I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust. Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now. But Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust, he was warning of the willingness of a seemingly rational society to condone the gradual stoking of enmity towards an ethnic or religious group or more than one, warning of the building up of a collective pool of fear and hate, warning of the moment in which the need to purge outstrips the parameters of the original scapegoating, when new victims are needed because a country has begun to run on a horrible field of hatred – magnified, amplified and multiplied by politicians and zealots within government and without. Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close. Yet in a country dedicated to freedom, forces have gathered to blow out of all proportion the construction of a minor community center to transform it into a training ground for terrorists and an insult to the victims of 9/11 and a tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is no training ground for terrorists. There is no insult to the victims of 9/11. There is no tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is, in fact, no “Ground Zero mosque.” It is not mosque. A mosque, technically, is a Muslim holy place in which only worship can be conducted. What is planned for 45 Park Place, New York City, is a community center. It’s supposed to include a basketball court and a culinary school. It is to be 13 stories tall, and the top two stories will be a Muslim prayer space. What a cauldron of terrorism that will be. Terrorist chefs and terrorist point guards. And truly those who will use the center have more to fear from us than us from them, for there has been terrorism connected to a mosque in this country, in this year. May 10, Jacksonville, Florida, a pipe bomb at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida. The FBI thinks the man in this surveillance video could be the bomber. The bomb went off during evening prayers and it was powerful enough to send shrapnel flying 100 yards. Fortunately, the bomber didn’t know where to place it, so the 60 Muslim worshipers were uninjured. If he had put it inside and not outside, they had been dead and you probably would have heard about it on the news. Or maybe not. Maybe those exploiting 45 Park Place would still shake their fists and decry terrorism by extremists who happen to be Muslim and never faced the shameful truth about our country. As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims . But back to this Islamic center. Its name, Cordoba House, is not a tribute to the Medieval Muslim subjugation of Spain. Newt Gingrich has been pushing that nonsense that Cordoba is dog whistle for triumphalism : “It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third largest mosque complex. Today, some of the mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolize interfaith cooperation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.” Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich? And by the way, a point Mr. Gingrich has not even whispered as he has shouted fire in a crowded theater: When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’re already compromised. “We are calling it Park 51 because of the backlash to the name Cordoba House,” he told the Financial Times. “It will be a place open to all New Yorkers, and that is a very New York name.” A very New York name. Like Ground Zero. Except that this place, Park 51, is not even at Ground Zero. Not even right across the street. Even the description of it being two blocks away is generous. It is two blocks away from the Northeast corner of the World Trade Center site. From the planned location of the 9/11 memorial, it’s more like four or five blocks, even. You know what is right across the street, though? I went there yesterday to refresh my sense of the World Trade Center, in which I worked nearly 30 years ago. At Church and Veezy Street so close that the barbed wire of Ground Zero obscures its spire is St. Paul’s Chapel. Been there since 1766, where Washington went the day he was inaugurated, where the first responders came for relief nine years ago. You know what’s also closer to Ground Zero than this Muslim community center will be? Church of St. Peter, at Church and Barclay Streets. As the sign says, “New York’s Oldest Catholic parish.” People hear “Ground Zero mosque” and they think Mecca in the backyard and the loud call to prayer and they take umbrage. “We’ve got no more than a few inches of skin and a couple pieces of bone. Ground Zero is the burial place of my son,” said Joyce Boland at the public hearing about this center. “I don’t want to go there and see an overwhelming mosque looking down at me.” I honor her pain and her fear, but Mrs. Boland has nothing to worry about. Unless she walks directly over to it, several blocks away, she’ll never see the thing. This is what you see from where the center will be. Another nondescript building is across the street. This building and others like it would block views of the Trade Center and views from the Trade Center. The community center certainly will stand out on the north side of Park Place, but amid the canyons of lower Manhattan, it will just be a distinctive building that, if you happen to wander down a side street near the Trade Center, you might see it. You know what you’ll see there now? This. The Burlington coat factory, abandoned since 2001, when the landing gear from one of the planes fell 90 stories and went through the roof. For nine years, nobody’s been willing to buy that building, just to knock it down and build a new one. It sold for $4,850,000. In New York City real estate, that is spare change. And you know why it’s spare change? Because walk around Ground Zero any day of the week and it’s packed with tourists and our version of pilgrims. But walk two and three blocks away, and not so packed. Not packed at all. Empty stores, boarded up windows, nine years later, and two and three blocks from the action, it’s a ghost town. What was that about government not getting in the way of private business? What was that about letting the private sector spur new jobs in blighted areas? Oh, and what was that about Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq again? I don’t mean the real versions or the naked vengeful blindness that enabled the forging of a nonexistent connection between Iraq and 9/11, I mean, the official explanation. To free the world, and especially Iraq’s citizens, of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That’s its supporters’ defense of the Iraq invasion to this hour. Well, who lives in Iraq? Muslims. I hate to reveal this to anybody on the right who did not know this, but when they say Iraq is 65 percent Shia and 32 percent Sunni, you do know that Shia and Sunni are both forms of the Muslim religion, right? We sacrificed 4,415 of our military personnel in Iraq to save Muslims, and there are thousands of us still here tonight to protect Muslims, but we don’t want Muslims to open a combination culinary school and prayer space in Manhattan? From the beginning of this nation, we have fought prejudice and religious intolerance and our greatest enemy, stupidity, exploited by rapacious politicians. It is only 50 years now, this month, since Americans publicly and urgently warned their countrymen not to support a presidential candidate because he was a Roman Catholic. He would bow to the will, not of the American people, but of the Pope. He would be a papist. He would be the agent of a foreign state! His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Monday dismissed the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque as a “political smokescreen.” The liberal anchor derided opponents of the planned construction who live in other states, sneering that there are ” people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying ‘Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end!'” He compared, “But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” Earlier in the segment, Ratigan wondered, “But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions.” The co-host talked to Nate Silver of the website Fivethirtyeight.com. As he pointed out, while 61 percent of voters believe that the Muslim group behind the mosque has a right to put it there, 64 percent oppose the plan. Yet, Ratigan seemed to put all the responsibility for tolerance on those who oppose the construction. He again wondered, “But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque?” A transcript of the August 16 segment, which aired at 4:01pm EDT, follows: DYLAN RATIGAN: Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat feeling the same way, apparently. Within the past hour, Majority Leader Harry Reid became the highest profile Dem, so far, to break ranks with the White House and publicly oppose the mosque. But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions. Can you have the legal right to do something and at the same time a moral obligation not to? And why is it that the people who that live the closest to Ground Zero seem to be the least resistant to the mosque? And those who may be the furthest away, maybe have never even visited New York City in their lives, are the most adamantly against it? Our first guest this afternoon, Nate Silver who has been crunching the numbers, a founder of 538.com. It’s a pleasure to see you again, sir. Your data basically falls into three categories in your poll. Tell us what you’ve come up with. NATE SILVER: Well, I mean, the distinction, like you said, that Obama was struggling with on Friday night is the same ones Americans struggle with themselves, right? Where about two thirds of people think they have the right to build the mosque. Not terribly controversial. About two thirds of those people also think it’s in poor taste. Right? So, you look at the overlap. And there’s this one third in between who thinks, “They have the right to do it. But, I’m not sure how I feel about it so much.” And especially with, I guess, with some of this hedging, or the some of the way the media portrayed it as hedging, Obama is in that middle camp, too, right now, but seeming to satisfy nobody in particular. RATIGAN: You say this falls politically into a similar category as flag burning. Can you explain what the parallels are? SILVER: Well, sure. Flag burning is something where if you ask people, “Hey, do you like flag burning, right?” I don’t think too many people would say- would yes. Or, “Hey, should they build a Hooters down at the shopping mall? You might say “No, I would rather they didn’t.” But they’re clearly within First Amendment rights. There’s not too much debate about that. I mean, you know, some people have said some groups have said, “No they actually don’t have the right.” Newt Gingrich said something along those lines this morning. But, for the most part, that’s not that controversial. I think Obama went a little bit far in saying “We not only look at the right, the First Amendment’s technicality. We should respect their ability to choose how they want to worship and not try and intervene and say, “No, I would rather you not believe a different thing.”  Or that you’d go worship at a different time or a different place. So, he did go a step further than just saying “Hey, it’s about the First Amendment.” But not quite saying, “Hey, I love this idea.” RATIGAN: What about the distinction between people like myself who have lived in lower Manhattan for many years and worked around Ground Zero, walking with past Ground Zero everyday to and from work for five years straight, who look at this as really not that big of a deal? We deal with a lot of other things. This isn’t that big of a big deal. Versus people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying “Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end.” But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” SILVER: Well, you know, I think part of it, it shows that polls it shows that people in Manhattan are supportive of the mosque- mosque. Not people in New York overall, but in Manhattan where it’s being built. I think it has to do with the geography of the city. I walked around Ground Zero when the controversy started and kind of scouted out the perimeter. And you would not see the mosque anywhere from the Ground Zero property. It’s not really on the way. It’s kind of on a side street where there’s a Burlington Coat Factory. It’s very dense. And it’s not like you’re on main street where there’s one road to Ground Zero. RATIGAN: But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque? SILVER: Well, hopefully some ambitious polls, do a poll of people in the financial district in Tribeca or do a poll of who were victims in 9/11. They’re the people who should have a larger say, frankly, than the former governor of Alaska, I think. It is a local issue.

Go here to see the original:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’