Tag Archives: msnbc

Keith Olbermann Out At Sunday Night Football

How many Americans refused to watch Sunday Night Football in recent years as a result of Keith Olbermann’s involvement? That’s certainly a question the folks at NBC likely have asked themselves since inviting the highly partisan and divisive “Countdown” host to be a part of the festivities associated with NFL football on Sunday evenings. With this in mind, a highly respected sports website announced Thursday that Olbermann will no longer be involved in NBC’s “Football Night in America.”  As reported by SportsByBrooks.com (h/t Hot Air headlines ): I’m told that NBC News officials requested the move, citing Olbermann’s weekday commitment to MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. During the 2009 NFL season, Olbermann periodically did not appear on Friday editions of Countdown. Network television sources confirmed to me that Olbermann’s departure from FNIA was not due to any conflict with cast or production crew members. I was also given no indication that Olbermann’s politics had anything to do with the move. Exit questions:  Do you believe that Olbermann’s departure from this program had nothing to do with his politics?  Are you more likely to watch Sunday night football now that Olbermann is no longer involved? Yes, those were both rhetorical questions, but I couldn’t resist. 

Go here to read the rest:
Keith Olbermann Out At Sunday Night Football

George Stephanopoulos’s Wife On CNN: ‘Is Monogamy Killing Your Marriage?’

“Tonight – is monogamy killing marriage? If you let your spouse stray, will they stay? Rethinking wedded bliss in the 21st century.” Believe it or not, that’s how “Larry King Live” began on CNN Tuesday. Filling in for King was Ali Wentworth, comedienne, actress, and wife of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos who in February did a striptease on the set of “Good Morning America” for her husband’s 49th birthday. The topic of discussion Tuesday: “Should couples have open relationships and disclose affairs? Could letting your man sleep with another woman actually help your relationship?” In case you were wondering, the following aired at 9PM EDT (video follows with transcript and commentary): ALI WENTWORTH, GUEST HOST: Tonight – is monogamy killing marriage? If you let your spouse stray, will they stay? Rethinking wedded bliss in the 21st century. Then sharks in the water. One attacks and shreds the arm of a swimmer in Florida. Great whites are spotted off the coast of Cape Cod. They’re lurking, look out. Next, on LARRY KING LIVE. Good evening, I’m Ali Wentworth sitting in for Larry. He’s on vacation. I’m very excited about this show tonight because it’s two of my biggest fears. A great white shark attacking me or my husband cheating. Now if you’ve ever been in a relationship you’ll want to stay right here because we are talking about monogamy. It’s been a hot topic on CNN.com all day. Should couples have open relationships and disclose affairs? Could letting your man sleep with another woman actually help your relationship? Well, that’s what we’re going to ask our guests tonight. Bethenny Frankel is here. She’s a star of Bravo’s “Bethenny Getting Married.” She tied the knot in March. Congratulations. BETHENNY FRANKEL, ACTRESS, BRAVO’S “BETHENNY GETTING MARRIED”: Thank you. WENTWORTH: Holly Hill is the author of “Sugarbabe.” She says women should negotiate infidelity with their husbands. And Sarah Symonds is an author and infidelity analyst. Hello, women, and welcome to a hot topic. Infidelity. I want to — I want to first ask, have any of you been cheated on? FRANKEL: Yes. I was cheated on. His — he had a girlfriend while he was — well, he was actually sleeping with her. I was his girlfriend. And she called me in the middle of the night at about 2:00 in the morning and said, can I speak to Michael? I guess he’s going to be listening. Hi, Michael. Hi, can I speak to Michael, and I said, who is this? And she said, I’m his girlfriend. And we hung up the phone and I waited two hours and I star 69’d her so I can call her back and get all the details. WENTWORTH: And she gave you all the details? FRANKEL: And she gave me the details. You need the details. WENTWORTH: Well, you always need the details. Now, Holly — Holly Hill author of “Sugarbabe,” you actually think that’s OK. You think that if you negotiate fidelity with your spouse or lover that actually makes for a long and successful relationship. Am I right? HOLLY HILL, SAYS WOMEN SHOULD LET MEN CHEAT: Yes. Absolutely. And those details that we talk about, if you’re meeting the women that your partner is being with, you’re not building her up to be some kind of supermodel in your head. And we always want to know the details. And the best way to get the details is ask her out for coffee and be adult about what is a very educated and natural thing to be doing. FRANKEL: See, I think that was a low point in my relationship, in my life to be talking to that girl. It really had nothing to do with her. I was in the wrong relationship because I was with someone who was cheating. And I think that negotiating within your relationship about being allowed to cheat is absurd. WENTWORTH: You know, Holly, it’s one of the things that I — I’m married. And one of the things that I think of in my marriage is that, you know, I can go to my girlfriends for emotional support or my shrink, and there are other venues where I can sort of get what I want. But I feel that marriage, the one thing I have with my husband, which is sacred, is a sexual physical relationship. Otherwise, why be married? HILL: I guess the only reason it’s sacred is because it’s — there’s old-fashioned rules that we’re obeying. And if you want to have a lifetime relationship with someone — which is what we all want — it’s about negotiating things within their nature and their biology. WENTWORTH: Now, Sarah, you say that — you started a fantastic Web site, MistressesAnonymous. But you’re not saying that that’s a good thing. This is really a support group for a lot of women that have been brokenhearted because they had an affair with a married man or wanted to be with a married man. Am I right? SARAH SYMONDS, AUTHOR & INFIDELITY ANALYST: Absolutely. And first of all, hi, Ali, thanks for having me on. Hi, ladies. I can absolutely resonate with Holly, I’ve been through certain, you know, similar experiences that she has. But I have to say, if you are negotiating with somebody you probably are in the wrong relationship. Anything that needs that much negotiation probably isn’t right and you should get out of it. And that’s who my Web site is about, that’s what my support group is about. It’s called MistressesAnonymous, which is like Alcoholics Anonymous. But in my group we can drink, and trust me, you need to. It’s, you know, a 12-step program. And literally I help women get out of their toxic affairs with married men, with unavailable men, with bad boys. It’s a phenomenon that’s going over America. You know women are attracting to these wrong guys. And I hear from women every single day. It’s unbelievable. WENTWORTH: Now I want to sort of open this debate up to all three of you, which is that a lot of people say, men and women clearly are different, and we have different needs and men really biologically, physically, their urge is to spread their seed throughout the land, and ours is to kind of, you know, incubate. And when you put that in its very kind of specific scientific DNA kind of way, do we allow men because it is their physical urge to go out and have at it? FRANKEL: I think women — first of all, men are sleeping with the women. And I mean, speaking of the sharks that are going to be on the show tonight, there are a lot of women going out and preying on men. So I think it’s equal. I think a lot of women have a big sexual appetite. So, beyond the television shows, movies, music, trash novels, and magazines encouraging infidelity, a cable news network not only feels this is an appropriate subject, but also at 9PM. With all this publicizing of extra-marital relationships, how do couples manage to stay together AND raise children that honor commitment and vows? Seems to be more and more impossible, doesn’t it?  If you can take more of this, the full transcript is available here .

Read more from the original source:
George Stephanopoulos’s Wife On CNN: ‘Is Monogamy Killing Your Marriage?’

Schultz: Republicans Want To Politically ‘Assassinate’ Pres. Obama’s Agenda

How far have we come from the era of “Dissent Is Patriotic” stickers on the bumpers of your local lefties during the Bush administration?  A host on the second-highest rated cable news network has equated political dissent with . . . assassination.   On his MSNBC show this evening, Ed Schultz stated: “Now I’m putting my cards on the table tonight as I do every night. The Republican party is on a mission to politically assassinate the president’s agenda across the board.  They want to shoot down everything.” Note how Schultz reinforces the assassination theme by adding that Republicans want to “shoot down” everything.  Does political speech get much more vile than this?  Do Schultz’s MSNBC bosses approve this kind of reckless rhetoric?

View original post here:
Schultz: Republicans Want To Politically ‘Assassinate’ Pres. Obama’s Agenda

Apparently Keith Olbermann Is a Fan of NB Publisher Brent Bozell

Lefty blogs have been having a field day with a tweet that showed up on Glenn Beck’s “favorites” list – a list of tweets bookmarked, in a sense, by the user – directing followers to a white supremacist message board. Keith Olbermann picked up on the line of attack last night, crediting a website called “Stop Beck,” which he says noticed the tweet. Stop Beck came as close to stating that Beck was endorsing white supremacy as it possibly could, without actually saying it (“Why is Glenn Beck associating himself with white nationalists and white supremacists?”). Since Olbermann is endorsing the notion that a Twitter “favorite” denotes a positive association, we at NewsBusters must thank him for extending that courtesy to our publisher, MRC President Brent Bozell. This tweet , from @themick1962, showed up at the top of @KeithOlbermann’s favorites  (click the preview at top right for a larger image): “Brent Bozell’s Open Letter to WaPo Ed. Re: JournoList http://bit.ly/cnWvL0 Mandatory reading for ALL media types @KeithOlbermann #p2 #tcot” (h/t Tommy Christopher ). We agree wholeheartedly that Bozell’s open letter should be read by anyone with a vested interest in journalistic fairness and transparency. But we were a bit surprised to see that Olbermann feels the same way, given his usual disdain for NewsBusters, the MRC, and Brent Bozell. We’re glad to see he’s finally coming around. We were also somewhat surprised to see a Twitter user with the following bio appear among Olbermann’s favorites: “Unhyphenated American. Constitutional Originalism. Goldwater Con. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” But perhaps we’ve got this all wrong. Maybe Olbermann wishes to qualify the notion that a “favorite” tweet on Twitter represents any sort of endorsement of a political position.

See the original post here:
Apparently Keith Olbermann Is a Fan of NB Publisher Brent Bozell

Maddow Tells Letterman ‘Scaring White People Is Good Politics’ For Conservatives

Rachel Maddow on Tuesday told David Letterman that scaring white people is good politics for conservatives. After the host of CBS’s “Late Show” asked his perilously biased guest about the Andrew Breitbart-Shirley Sherrod affair, the MSNBCer predictably pointed her accusatory finger at Fox News and everybody on the right.  “The idea is you sort of rile up the white base to be afraid of an other, to be afraid of the scary immigrants or scary black people,” Maddow said. “Somebody coming to take what is white people’s rightful property,” she continued. “And you get them riled up so they feel like they need to vote in self-defense, and they vote for conservative candidates because of that fear” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, h/t TVNewser ): RACHEL MADDOW: They I think bear a lot of responsibility, and I think that with Fox in particular it’s part of a pattern. They keep running these stories about for lack of a better phrase scary black people, about scary black people at the USDA discriminating against white farmers and scary black people stopping white people from voting and scary black people getting like stealing the election the whole ACORN scandal. There’s this theme… DAVID LETTERMAN: Oh, that’s right. This guy has done it before. MADDOW: It was the ACORN like guy supposedly dressed up as a pimp who wasn’t dressed up as a pimp. LETTERMAN: So, in, in, in the collective ideology of Fox and others, to what end? What is the objective of this sort of nonsense? MADDOW: Scaring white people is good politics on the conservative side of the spectrum, and it always has been. The idea is you sort of rile up the white base to be afraid of an other, to be afraid of the scary immigrants or scary black people. Somebody coming to take what is white people’s rightful property. Or rights. And you get them riled up so they feel like they need to vote in self-defense, and they vote for conservative candidates because of that fear. I mean we’ve been doing it for decades. LETTERMAN: Right, decades. I keep thinking that okay it started 100 years ago and maybe a thousand years ago when each ensuing decade, it should be a little less, a little less, a little less. We should be smarter. Our kids should be smarter. Their kids should be smarter. But yet, these people are continuing to fan this flame and excuse me for mixing metaphors here that is cancer. I mean leave it alone. Let it go away. It’s not right. Why, there are other problems now that need to be addressed. ( Applause ) MADDOW: I think that, I mean, I think you’re totally right. It should get better. And the way it’s going to get better is not by slime balls being less slimy. There’s always going to be Breitbarts and Fox Newses. That’s going to happen. What’s different now is actually CNN, CNN spent the whole day the day that day broke debunking it. They got Shirley Sherrod on the air. They talked about what she was really saying. They showed how it was edited together wrongly. MSNBC did the same thing. But it was one of these things where actually I think Breitbart and Fox came off worse for having done that. And so maybe that’s the best, that’s the best antidote is just by sheer mockery of the people who do it. LETTERMAN: And then in response, Bill O’Reilly, who has been on this show many times and I have a theory about Bill O’Reilly, smart guy. And I think he knows better than what he’s doing, but he’s just found a place to, you know, make a living. And if, if you needed a, he’d be a weatherman if the money was right or he’d do sports if the money was right. He’s just doing this because that’s where the money is. I don’t think you can be as smart as he is and actually believe what he believes. Isn’t it wonderful that America has people like Maddow and Letterman around to propagandize the public?  What would we do without them? 

Read this article:
Maddow Tells Letterman ‘Scaring White People Is Good Politics’ For Conservatives

MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Assails Hateful Conservatives Who Opposed Women and Blacks

MSNBC News Live guest host Cenk Uygur on Wednesday railed against opposition to gay marriage, asserting that conservatives ” fought against women’s rights and they lost. They fought against civil rights for blacks and they lost .” He also touted the supposed moral superiority of liberals, lecturing, “This country is fundamentally progressive.” [ MP3 audio here.] To bolster this case, Uygur quoted Marting Luther King: “‘Cause as a very smart man once said in the middle of another civil rights battle, ‘The arc of history bends towards justice.'” Yet, liberals hardly have a spotless record when it comes to human rights. In 1972, Jane Fonda famously parroted communist propaganda while sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. Many progressives have also fawned over the communist murderer Che Guevara . Uygur derided, “And at some point, some conservatives will pretend they were never against [gay marriage] and that they’ve always been for equality for all…We know better. But, all of that will be irrelevant, because in the end there’s only one thing this country does with conservative ideas when they fight against progress, they throw them in the trash bin of history.” Here, Uygur, the host of the liberal radio show The Young Turks , was just being historically sloppy. Ronald Reagan made Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday. When the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for a vote, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the bill. (Republicans were in favor 138 to 34. Democrats supported it 152-96.) Finally, it was Lincoln and later the Radical Republicans who made the progress for civil rights in the 19 th century. A transcript of the August 4 segment, which aired at 3:07pm EDT, follows: CENK UYGUR: Now, look, let’s go to “My Take.” Will there be gay marriage all across the country one day? Of course there will. Hear me now. Quote me later. It is inevitable. ‘Cause as a very smart man once said in the middle of another civil rights battle, “The arc of history bends towards justice.” This country is fundamentally progressive. When our founding fathers started a revolution for the idea of self-rule and democracy, it was arguably the single most progressive act in history. Conservatives fought against women’s rights and they lost. They fought against civil rights for blacks and they lost . They’re fighting against gay rights and they will lose, because this country believes in progress and human rights. That is what it’s absolutely based on. So, we will go through this drama for some time more, but the final act is clear. And then looking back many years from now, Americans will shake their heads and say how could people have possibly thought that? As they say now about people who fought against integration and a woman’s right to vote. How could they have possibly thought that? And at some point, some conservatives will pretend they were never against it and that they’ve always been for equality for all. And some of them might even pretend to be fans of famous gay rights crusaders like Harvey Milk as some now pretend to be big fans of Martin Luther King. We know better, but all of that will be irrelevant, because in the end there’s only one thing that this country does with conservative ideas when they fight against progress, they throw them in the trash bin of history .

Read the original here:
MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Assails Hateful Conservatives Who Opposed Women and Blacks

Chris Matthews Accuses Fox of Being GOP Shills Then Attacks Sarah Palin

In today’s “People In Glass Houses” segment, Chris Matthews accused Fox News of being shills for the Republican Party just minutes before he said “the scariest three words in the English language are: President Sarah Palin.” MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Tuesday began with a lengthy segment in which Matthews, with the help of co-conspirators from the Huffington Post and Media Matters for America, made the case that the Fox News Channel was a platform to assist Republican candidates to get elected. Obviously missing the irony, the very next piece dealt with why President Obama ought to replace Vice President Biden with Hillary Clinton to not only assist him in getting reelected in 2012, but also set her up to win in 2016. Still oblivious to the hypocrisy, Matthews ended the program with his take on why the thought of Palin becoming president is scaring “tens of millions of Americans, and not just Democrats.” To give you an idea of the absurdity of this hour of television, let’s start with quotes from the first segment (videos and partial transcripts follow with commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS: I want to ask you a larger thing, Eric, now that I have you on, and also Ryan. We just looked at the Gallup poll, the highest favorabilities among Republican potential candidates — potential candidates — for 2012 — I mean, potentially. We don`t know who`s going to run. Palin, Newt and Mike Huckabee — that`s the top three. ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTER FOR AMERICA: Right. MATTHEWS: All three are on the payroll of Fox — BOEHLERT: Absolutely! MATTHEWS: — as commentators. But you have to ask yourself — these people have a lot of options. Are they on there as candidates? Are they using Fox as a platform, the way that Sharron [Angle] thinks she can use it as a candidate — BOEHLERT: Right. MATTHEWS: — for 2010? In other words, is she a little ahead of schedule? They`re looking towards 2012 using Fox, she`s trying to use it openly and flagrantly — BOEHLERT: Right. Right. MATTHEWS: — as a vehicle for reelection — or for election to the United States Senate. BOEHLERT: Right. The Fox Green Room is now sort of the GOP convention in waiting for 2012. They`re all on the payroll. I think they`re all — they want to use it to make a lot of money either on Fox News or with books or appearances. And then they`re just going to sort of wait and see how it — see how it plays out. In the meantime, they`ve got this national audience whenever they want it. They`ve got a paycheck, and they`ve got the Fox News, you know, recommendation or seal of approval. MATTHEWS: Yes. BOEHLERT: It`s perfect for them as they wait.  As a little background, the segment began with a video clip of Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle telling Fox News’s Carl Cameron how she needs the press to be her friend and how her campaign “wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.” From this, Matthews, Boehlert, and Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim – notice the absence of any conservatives to go against the consensus! – divined that this meant Fox was actively assisting Republican candidates. And that’s where the fun really began, for after a commercial break, Matthews brought on exclusively left-leaning guests to make the case that Obama should replace Biden with Clinton so as to assure his reelection in 2012 and position her to be president the following eight years. Assisting him to put forward this strategy was former Virginia governor Doug Wilder – who wrote a piece about this for Politico Monday – followed by New York magazine’s John Heilemann: JOHN HEILEMANN, “NEW YORK”: The thing that Governor Wilder is right about and I know that you see is that it`s possible that, in 2012, what President Obama will need most of all is to be able to connect to a set of voters, particularly white working-class and rural voters, that he has trouble with. MATTHEWS: Yes. HEILEMANN: And there would be no bigger asset for him than not just Hillary Clinton Enhanced Coverage LinkingHillary Clinton on the ticket, but having both Clintons out full force on his side in 2012. MATTHEWS: Even if it means — even if it means laying the groundwork for a Clinton ascendancy? HEILEMANN: I think she`s going to run in 2016, no matter what. MATTHEWS: OK. MATTHEWS: An interesting thought from you. HEILEMANN: And she`s going to — and she`s going to run in 2016. And she`s going to — right now, the schedule, I think, for her is, she will do four years and four years only as secretary of state. And if she is an outgoing secretary of state, a lame-duck secretary of state in 2012, she won`t be in the political position to really help Obama. She will do thinking about doing something like going and becoming the chancellor of the University of Iowa to set herself up to run for 2016. MATTHEWS: I agree. HEILEMANN: So, Obama is faced with the notion of Clinton following him anyway. So, why not make the best of that situation and put it to his advantage? MATTHEWS: I don`t know. I had never heard this before. All her people deny that, of course, right? HEILEMANN: Well, of course they do. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think it`s fascinating. I think she`s done a great job. (CROSSTALK) HEILEMANN: I don`t think there`s almost anybody who believes them. MATTHEWS: And I agree with you. I think she would help him in Pennsylvania, help in Ohio. And, by the way, I think the general election of 2012 now looks like a nail-biter, closely run. It will have to be. You`re right. And they are not going to win much south of the Mason-Dixon Line. They have got to win those old Democratic states that the Clintons are dominant in, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, et cetera, et cetera, New York. She would ground him up. I just think it has to be handled the way you say if it ever does come to pass. HEILEMANN: Well — MATTHEWS: Joe Biden has got to be happy with this. HEILEMANN: Yes. MATTHEWS: He`s got to have a smile on his face. And he`s got to say, I can`t wait to get to Foggy Bottom and be secretary of state, convincingly, if this ever happens. (CROSSTALK) HEILEMANN: And I think he could say that, Chris, because, as you know, before Obama urged him to become vice president, picked him, that was what Biden had his eye on. He wanted to be secretary of state. MATTHEWS: Well, it`s a great job. HEILEMANN: He`s wanted to be secretary of state his whole life. And on the question of what has to happen in 2012, I think you`re exactly right. I think it`s going to be a nail-biter. You remember, Barack Obama won, what, 42 or 43 percent of the white vote, a really high percentage of the white vote, better than John Kerry — MATTHEWS: Yes. HEILEMANN: — better than Al Gore in 2000. He`s right now running at about 35 percent approval rating with the white vote. And if he`s going to — you can`t win the presidency with 35 percent of the white vote. MATTHEWS: No. HEILEMANN: He needs to do something to solve that problem. Joe Biden is good with those people — MATTHEWS: OK. HEILEMANN: — but Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are better. MATTHEWS: Well, this will be the ultimate example of President Obama being a transactional politician. I`ll tell you, it looks a little cold on the outside. You may be able to warm it up, John Heilemann. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: You would have another “Game Change.” Here’s maybe the best part of this sequence – when Matthews says his guest is a liberal writer:  Thank you. Congratulations, the best book on politics. Nancy Reagan — I was just out there at the Reagan Library — she loves your book. And I know this will offend you as somewhat of a liberal writer, but she says, Ronnie would have loved it, too. There`s a — he`s a pol, too.  How nice. So, what we’ve had so far were too liberal guests talking to an admittedly liberal host about how Fox News is a shill network promoting Republican candidates. Next, we had a Democrat introduce an idea specifically designed to assist Obama in his reelection efforts whilst also putting Hillary Clinton in position to win the White House in 2016 thereby ushering in another twelve years of Democrat control of the executive branch of our government. Then, a so-called journalist that Matthews admits is liberal discusses with the host why Wilder’s idea makes sense – all this happening immediately after a segment accusing Fox of being shills for Republicans. Really makes you wonder how everybody involved in the production of this show completely missed the glaring hypocrisy on display.   But don’t leave your seats for the concession stand or the restroom just yet, for really putting the icing on the cake the host concluded the show with a monologue about why the scariest three words in the English language are “President Sarah Palin”: MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the fact that for tens of millions of Americans, and not just Democrats, the scariest three words in the English language are: President Sarah Palin. Those words could, if events go a certain way, get a hell of a lot scarier. I`ve noticed how Palin has been positioning herself as the Christian woman in national Republican politics. This gives her incredible leg up in the first in the country Iowa Republican caucuses where the Reverend Pat Robertson once triumphed. The shape of the 2012 Republican presidential field in the Iowa caucuses would be Sarah Palin against a field of Republican men. And with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee, all more secular than she is. The results, the Christian woman beats out the four or five men running somewhere to her left. No one gets to her right — and as long as nobody does, this lone woman in the Republican field, the one openly running as a religious fundamentalist beats the competition, hands down. Get this number into your head. Sarah Palin`s latest Gallup Poll favorable rating among Republican voters nationwide is 76 percent, by far the highest of any contender. So she wins Iowa. Next, New Hampshire. Even if Mitt Romney outpolls Palin in the Granite State, it will be a fact dismissed by the national political press. Why? Because New Hampshire is the Boston media market. It`s right in it and therefore seen as home base for the former Massachusetts governor. Next, Palin trucks down to South Carolina where she made Nikki Haley governor and wins among fellow religious fundamentalists. Another win in Palin country, an increasingly wide expansion in Republican politics. Now for the knockout. Palin has said that Michigan where Romney`s father was governor was overlooked by Republicans last time. She started her book tour there. Republican women who lined up to buy “Going Rogue” are her first round of investors. With two or three men besides Romney still appearing on the ballot, she pulls it out in Michigan. Now, anything is possible at this point. Nominated in Tampa, Florida, and the Republican National Convention in an economy that might still be shaky, the political situation of this country becomes frighteningly dicey. All can I say is that I remember how liberals thought Ronald Reagan could never do it. As we learned in 1980, tough times yield surprising — yes, scary election prospects. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.  And this guy has the nerve to accuse Fox of being shills. 

Follow this link:
Chris Matthews Accuses Fox of Being GOP Shills Then Attacks Sarah Palin

Schultz Says Breitbart ‘Nutjob, Makes Me Sick’ But Whines Won’t Come On Show

Hey, it’s been a long day with all this Sherrod stuff.  So let’s kick back and enjoy some—unintentional—humor, courtesy Ed Schultz.  On his MSNBC show this evening, Ed advised Dems not to go on Fox News because they’ll “beat you up.”  Schultz then unleashed a torrent of venom on Andrew Breitbart, saying among—many—other things that Breitbart is a “nutjob” who “makes me sick.” But Schultz began the show by whining because—ready?—Breitbart wouldn’t come on Ed’s show. Sit back and enjoy the video as Ed twists himself into a logical pretzel. ED SCHULTZ: I want to know why any Democrat in the Congress, any Democrat in the Senate, any Democrat anywhere: why do you even go on those shows over there [at Fox News].  They won’t tell the truth. They beat you up. What do you gain? . . . Andrew Breitbart, right-wing nut job. Well this guy makes me sick.  He’s an absolute pro at hatchet jobs. But here’s Ed during the show-opener . . . SCHULTZ: This Breitbart is a master at trying to destroy people professionally.  He’s a right=winger, he has an agenda, no doubt about it.  I saw him today in the hallway today at MSNBC, asked him to be on this program tonight.  He’s too tired. And he doesn’t know about tomorrow. This is how hate merchants operate. 

Politico’s VandeHei Takes NAACP to Task for Labeling Tea Party Racist

Appearing on Wednesday’s Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC to discuss the Shirley Sherrod controversy, Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei pointed out the NAACP’s role in fueling racial accusations: “If you think about this, where this thing started, the NAACP comes out and makes this charge against the tea party movement.” VandeHei rejected the NAACP’s claim of racism in the political movement: “It’s a very, very diffuse group. You cannot say that they are racist anymore then you can say the Republican Party’s racist or the Democratic Party is racist, so it creates this culture and it’s a dangerous topic, it’s a dangerous fire to light, and then when it happens this is the outcome.” Explaining how the NAACP charge led to the accusations against Sherrod, VandeHei observed: “I’m not defending Breitbart. But conservatives are outraged, they feel like ‘listen, you’re – because I’m part of the tea party movement you say, therefore, I’m racist.’ And so what Breitbart’s arguing is ‘I want to push back.'” Opposite VandeHei was Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart, who tried to excuse the civil rights organization: “The NAACP went to great lengths to say they were talking about racist elements within the tea party movement….Very nuanced thing here. He’s not broad-brushing the movement.” VandeHei countered: “…very nuanced but very explosive. They knew exactly once you make that statement, whether you’re trying to add nuance to the statement or not, you know exactly what’s going to happen when you make that charge.” Here is a transcript of the July 21 exchange: 4:18PM JIM VANDEHEI: Can I talk about the NAACP for one second. DYLAN RATIGAN: Go for it. VANDEHEI: Because I do think they’re getting off the hook a little bit. RATIGAN: I agree with you. VANDEHEI: If you think about this, where this thing started, the NAACP comes out and makes this charge against the tea party movement. RATIGAN: Yeah. VANDEHEI: We’ve probably written more stories about the tea party movement than any other organization. We’ve really tried to study this group. It’s a very, very diffuse group. You cannot say that they are racist anymore then you can say the Republican Party’s racist or the Democratic Party is racist, so it creates this culture and it’s a dangerous topic, it’s a dangerous fire to light, and then when it happens this is the outcome. So conservatives- JONATHAN CAPEHART: But Jim- VANDEHEI: I’m not defending Breitbart. But conservatives are outraged, they feel like ‘listen, you’re – because I’m part of the tea party movement you say, therefore, I’m racist.’ And so what Breitbart’s arguing is ‘I want to push back.’ Now I’m not saying what Breitbart did was right because clearly it wasn’t right and the outcome was awful for this woman, but both sides, I think, come off looking very, very bad and that’s why Joe Biden and – and Steny Hoyer both said they didn’t agree with the NAACP’s charge. RATIGAN: Go ahead, Jonathan. CAPEHART: Jim, but here’s the thing. The NAACP went to great lengths to say they were talking about racist elements within the tea party movement and even Ben Jealous said point blank that he did not say – think that the entire tea party movement was racist. He wanted leaders of the tea party movement to disavow those racist elements. Very nuanced thing here. He’s not broad-brushing the movement. VANDEHEI: Very nuanced, but Jonathan – but very nuanced but very explosive. They knew exactly once you make that statement, whether you’re trying to add nuance to the statement or not, you know exactly what’s going to happen when you make that charge, whether it’s elements or how nuanced they’re trying to be. CAPEHART: So then- VANDEHEI: Especially – this is a terrible issue to be talking about. CAPEHART: But then we can- VANDEHEI: And it’s the reason that Barack Obama does not want to talk about it. Barack Obama has tried very- CAPEHART: But then we can never have a conversation about race if – I mean, you have – it’s all about nuance. VANDEHEI: I feel like we’ve been having a conversation p about race for a long, long time in this country- CAPEHART: We always will.

Visit link:
Politico’s VandeHei Takes NAACP to Task for Labeling Tea Party Racist

Image Of Impotence: Obama Admin Can’t Get Sherrod On The Phone

Operator, oh could you help me place this call? You see the number on the matchbook is old and faded.  Jim Croce, ‘Operator,’ 1972 The Obama administration, the folks that want to run our health care and who knows how much else of our economy and our lives, can’t get a simple phone call through to one of its former officials. In this afternoon’s press conference, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs repeatedly said that the Obama administration, through the person of its Agriculture Secretary, has tried but failed to have a phone conversation with Shirley Sherrod, the USDA official it forced out yesterday. ROBERT GIBBS: Secretary Vilsack is, has tried and is trying to reach Ms. Sherrod. When the Secretary reaches her, he will apologize for the events of the last few days, and they will talk about their next steps. . . . . GIBBS: The Secretary is trying to reach Ms. Sherrod . . . The next step that has to happen is the Secretary needs to speak with her. And he’s tried to reach her and we hope that they [inaudible]. What an image of impotence.  Will the MSM note it?

Visit link:
Image Of Impotence: Obama Admin Can’t Get Sherrod On The Phone