Tag Archives: msnbc

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

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

Dems Will Love Morning Joe’s Odd Manifesto Against ‘Angry Voices’

Not sayin’ Rahm wrote it, but . . . In a strange departure from Morning Joe’s typical spontaneity, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski issued what was clearly a scripted, teleprompted, manifesto this morning.  The statement purported to be non-partisan condemnation of “angry voices” and a call, citing a WWII poster, to “keep calm and carry on.”  But even a cursory analysis reveals that the manifesto’s message suits Dem themes to a ‘T’ , and carries clear echoes of a recent partisan speech by Pres. Obama at a political event. The manifesto amounted to a condemnation of the “angry voices” and the “political extremists” who, claimed Scarborough, “are dominating the airwaves and dominating the national debate.” But at this juncture in American political history, the anger is understandably more present on the right. The Dems, after all, control both houses of Congress and the White House, and have used their power to promote a big-government agenda on everything from health care to trillion dollar spending schemes to higher taxes.  You’re darn right we’re angry!  In instructing us to calm down, Joe and Mika are really seeking to sap the vitality from the political movement that threatens to sweep Dems from office. Scarborough approvingly cited recent comments by NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg that “anger is not a government strategy . . . It’s not a way to govern.”  But Bloomberg was in turn echoing comments by PBO at a recent political fundraiser . . . CNN reported PBO’s words in an article entitled “Obama: GOP relying on fear, frustration instead of offering new ideas,” and quoted him as saying: “In a political campaign, the easiest thing the other side can do is ride that anger all the way to Election Day . . . people are hurting and they are understandably frustrated. A lot of them are scared and a lot of them are angry . That dynamic makes it easier to run on a slogan of “cast the bums out . . . but it’s not a vision for the future .” Let’s recapitulate: Obama says anger bad, not a vision for the future.  Scarborough says anger bad, not a way to govern. I’m sure the folks at the White House and the DNC will be delighted by Morning Joe’s manifesto.  They couldn’t have said it better themselves.

View post:
Dems Will Love Morning Joe’s Odd Manifesto Against ‘Angry Voices’

Fmr MSNBC Analyst Crawford: Media ‘Playing into Dem Message’ That Tea Party Candidates Are ‘Insane’

Appearing as a guest on Sunday’s Reliable Sources on CNN, the Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford – formerly an MSNBC political analyst – admitted that the mainstream media have “listen[ed] too much to the Democratic message” that the Tea Party movement will harm Republicans rather than Democrats in this year’s congressional elections. He further charged that the media are “playing into that Democratic message that these candidates are insane.” Crawford: Sometimes we’re wrong when we listen too much to the Democratic message. That’s the Democratic party message, that the Tea Party is bad for them [Republicans]. I think we should scrutinize that a bit more, be a little more skeptical of it. The other is that they’re all crazy. And that’s the trouble with focusing on all these statements and everything. We’re playing into that Democratic message that these candidates are insane. A bit earlier, after host Kurtz observed that the media do not “respect” Tea Party candidates and “some of us seem to be looking down our noses at these insurgents,” Crawford lamented: “Yeah, and I hate to see the mainstream media doing that because I certainly respect them and their politics. They have been very successful.” Crawford notably has a history of criticizing Republicans for charging that the media are biased against them in his book, “Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 19, Reliable Sources on CNN: HOWARD KURTZ: Craig Crawford, let’s look at the political fallout. Whether we’re talking about Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or Joe Miller in Alaska or Sharron Angle in Nevada, these people went out and beat establishment candidates, often with not a lot of money. Shouldn’t journalists respect that? Instead there seems to be, well, this is mutual antagonism, we seem to be, some of us, I don’t want to include everybody, some of us seem to be looking down our noses at these insurgents and they don’t seem to be big fans of the mainstream media. CRAIG CRAWFORD, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY: Yeah, and I hate to see the mainstream media doing that because I certainly respect them and they’re politics. They have been very successful. The thing about the Tea Party that strikes me is it’s very similar in particular their fiscal conservative views to the Perot movement. And this argument that they’re bad for Republicans doesn’t wash as much with me because at least they’re inside the Republican party. The Perot people were outside the party and much more damaging to Republicans. KURTZ: Craig, just briefly, what about this instant journalistic wisdom when these candidates, Christine O’Donnell being the latest, well, of course it hurts Republicans because they’re all going to lose in november, they’re too extreme, it’s one thing to win, you know, 30,000 votes in Delaware, another thing to win in state election. We’ve been wrong all year on some of these races. Could we be wrong again. CRAWFORD: Sometimes we’re wrong when we listen too much to the Democratic message. That’s the Democratic party message, that the Tea Party is bad for them [Republicans]. I think we should scrutinize that a bit more, be a little more skeptical of it. The other is that they’re all crazy. And that’s the trouble with focusing on all these statements and everything. We’re playing into that Democratic message that these candidates are insane. KURTZ, LAUGHING: Journalists, of course, are perfectly sane. We all know that.

Read more from the original source:
Fmr MSNBC Analyst Crawford: Media ‘Playing into Dem Message’ That Tea Party Candidates Are ‘Insane’

New York Magazine Columnist: Jon Stewart ‘Invaluable’ as Media Critic; ‘Most Trusted Man in America’

Lauding Jon Stewart’s biting humor and criticism of today’s politicized media, NY Magazine columnist Chris Smith called him “Cronkite, the most trusted man in America” in his piece featured on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Friday. The show’s panel largely agreed with him and emphasized that Stewart is bi-partisan in his comedy. “The right provides better raw material, but Stewart’s complaints are bi-partisan,” Smith writes in his column ” America is a Joke .” On MSNBC, Smith described Stewart as a “comedy opportunist, you know, where people do mockable things – left, right, in-between.” The show’s co-host Joe Scarborough joined Smith in diffusing the myth that Stewart is a raging liberal. “Over the past year, he’s been every bit as tough on the Obama administration as Republicans on Capitol Hill,” he asserted.   The panel seemed to agree that Stewart is hilarious, but pressed about the anger that lies underneath his cynicism. Smith affirmed this. “Oh, no question, that’s what gives [his humor] weight and bite, and you know, he admits to being angry every day, and the show gives him the catharsis, you know, it gives him the chance to point things out. And it’s not just anger for the sake of anger.” Smith added that Stewart’s angry criticisms sometimes pass for reporting as well. “You know, he did something three, four weeks ago that maybe you guys covered – I certainly didn’t….But pointing out that Fox has been taking all these shots at the mosque, and who’s funding it – and then they go and do their homework to say well, NewsCorp’s second-largest investor is a Saudi prince. You know, that’s reporting as much as it is anger or humor.” A transcript of highlights from the segment, which aired on September 17, at 7:42 a.m. EDT, is as follows: CHRIS SMITH, columnist, New York magazine: Some things that have happened in the real world, many of them not funny, have given him openings. And the polarization of media – you know, cable channels, Fox obviously the biggest culprit, has given Stewart a middle to both poke fun at and sort of represent in some ways. (…) WILLIE GEIST: Is he driven by anger? Because when you read the things he says about the media, he holds the media in utter contempt, almost across the board. That includes the right and the left. SMITH: Yeah, uh, anger and a faint, naive hope for intelligence to rule the day – you know, he still thinks there’s some dream state, you know, of American political discourse where we can be nicer to each other and have genuine arguments, but have them be based on fact and not emotion. (…) JOE SCARBOROUGH: …over the past year, he’s been every bit as tough on the Obama administration as Republicans on Capitol Hill, and he also has been tough on extremists on the left as well as extremists on the right. Um, Have you – have you noted that in your piece? Have you talked about the fact that he goes after the left now as aggressively as the right in many cases? SMITH: Certainly, and it’s not out of any agenda, you know, big picture-attempt to be “fair and balanced,” to coin a phrase. But he is a comedy opportunist, you know, where people do mockable things, left, right, in-between. He’s going to go for the punchline. (…) SCARBOROUGH: And Mika, you’ve always talked about his brilliance….But John Stewart works hard, but the guy, as you always say, is brilliant. He’s one of the smartest guys on TV. (…) MIKA BRZEZINSKI: …I do think that there’s a tinge of anger in a lot of his humor. SMITH: Oh, no question, that’s what gives it weight and bite, and you know, he admits to being angry every day, and the show gives him the catharsis, you know, it gives him the chance to point things out. And it’s not just anger for the sake of anger. You know, he did something three, four weeks ago that maybe you guys covered – I certainly didn’t….But pointing out that Fox has been taking all these shots at the mosque, and who’s funding it. And then they go and do their homework to say well, NewsCorp’s second-largest investor is a Saudi prince, you know, that’s reporting as much as it is anger or humor.

Read this article:
New York Magazine Columnist: Jon Stewart ‘Invaluable’ as Media Critic; ‘Most Trusted Man in America’

Cable Nets Barely Cover Christine O’Donnell’s Values Voter Summit Speech

While the mainstream media have been in a frenzy to denounce Christine O’Donnell as a kook for her socially conservative statements on abstinence from the 1990s, the cable news networks had a perfect opportunity this afternoon to let her speak for herself. Collectively they gave her less than five minutes. The Republican Delaware Senate nominee gave a speech at the Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C. this afternoon from about 3:25 to 3:45 p.m. EDT. Of the three major cable news networks, Fox News showed none of the speech while MSNBC’s Chris Jansing gave viewers just under a minute of O’Donnell audio before interviewing Time magazine’s Jay Newton-Small about concerns some GOP operatives have about O’Donnell being a weaker matchup against the Democratic nominee than Rep. Mike Castle (R) would have been. Only CNN’s Rick Sanchez gave O’Donnell a substantial chunk of time: 3 minutes and 33 seconds. When Sanchez cut away from O’Donnell, he noted that she’s “getting her first taste of the national spotlight” since clinching the nomination and promised that CNN would “continue to follow as the midterms in November draws near.”

Read the original post:
Cable Nets Barely Cover Christine O’Donnell’s Values Voter Summit Speech

MSNBC’s Brewer Scoffs at Values Voters Despite History of Gay Rights Advocacy

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer mocked attendees of the Values Voter Summit today, directing her ire at former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell, and the entire conservative movement. “So, they’re calling themselves values voters, but isn’t this election really about the economy and not so much what we think of as values?” sniveled Brewer, who put air quotes around the term “values.” Brewer’s dismissive attitude toward values voters must not extend to homosexual rights activists like herself who frequently turn their anchor chairs into liberal soapboxes. The champion of same-sex marriage revealed her disdain for Palin by noting that although the former Alaska governor was not present at the event, “her doppleganger, Christine O’Donnell is there and she is stealing the show.” Manufacturing controversy by imagining a Wild West “showdown at the Values Voter Summit,” the paladin of homosexual equality scornfully described the annual summit as the “conservative Shangri- La,” referring, apparently, to the fictional location in James Hilton’s Lost Horizon which represents a sort of heaven on earth. Setting aside the inherent hypocrisy in eschewing voters who focus on values issues like gay rights while exploiting her perch as a cable news anchor to advocate for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the fact that, as Brewer accurately reported, the top issue for voters this election cycle is the economy should compel the media to focus more on the lagging economic numbers than on a peaceful gathering of social conservatives. A transcript of the relevant portions of the segment can be found below ( H/T News Analyst Scott Whitlock for transcript assistance ): MSNBC News Live 09/17/10 12 P.M. E.S.T.   CONTESSA BREWER: It’s showdown at the Values Voter Summit. The Grand Old Party. The established, traditional candidates caught in the cross fire of conservatives who want something different. And right now both sides are under the same big tent, so to speak, today at this conservative Shangri-La, the Values Voters Summit. Let’s show it to you. The Republicans recognize the split between the factions in their own party, but their most famous faces are focusing on a common enemy. MITT ROMNEY: It’s- I guess it is welcome to the Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, President Obama farewell party. BREWER: And those in attendance are just starting to vote in a straw poll giving people a glimpse into who wants to run for president in 2012. Sarah Palin is up for the vote even though not physically present at the summit. Her doppleganger, Christine O’Donnell is there and she is stealing the show. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: It’s no secret that there’s been a rather unflattering portrait of me painted these days. I’m not counting on the national media to vote for me on November 2nd. I’m asking all of you to vote for me. BREWER: That splinter may give Democrats an opportunity here. Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski decides today whether to compete as a write-in candidate against the Tea Partier and Republican primary winner Joe Miller. That would definitely split the conservative vote and give Democrat a real chance to take away the seat. Domenico Montanaro is a political guru, a producer and off-air reporter extraordinaire for NBC News. Good to see you. When we’re talking about the value voters is that code for Tea Partiers or a whole different group of people? DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well, there’s certainly overlap. I mean, there’s a lot of folks here who certainly identify with the Tea Party as well. But, you know, Values Voters traditionally has been a summit here that’s taken place in Washington every year focuses on you know, social issues. Things like gay marriage. You know, the- abortion. Things you would normally associate with social issues. That’s bled over somewhat, though, this year with the Tea Party, and they’re focused a little bit more on fiscal issues. Fiscal responsibility. Talking about making that a moral issue. We heard Jim DeMint talk about it. We even heard Mike Huckabee talk about it who has won here the straw poll the last few years. And, you know, we saw Mitt Romney gave his speech, you know, talking about pushing carts down Walmart. You know, talking about some terrorism issues and, you know, this is more of what you’re hearing from somebody who’s potentially running for president in 2012 as opposed to somebody who’s necessarily just talking to a social issues group. BREWER: So, they’re calling themselves values voters, but isn’t this election really about the economy and not so much what we think of as values? [Makes quotes marks] MONTANARO: Right. Well, you know, the election certainly is about the economy. It’s what’s given people in the Tea Party movement, Republican, the upper hand. Now, the folks here, like I said, are also focused on that fiscal issue and want to take that and make that part of their platform. But, look, this is important for people running in 2012 because you need activists who vote on social issues. Especially in places like Iowa. Remember, Mitt Romney lost Iowa, despite the amount of money he spent, because Mike Huckabee, in a closed primary, with Christian activists liked his message and folksiness and the fact he was a Baptist preacher and delivered several one-liners, able to rally some of those folks. Someone to watch what a potential 1212 Mike Huckabee, watch Mike Pence. Stirs the crowd. Unapologetic about social issues and took that home to this audience here.

Continue reading here:
MSNBC’s Brewer Scoffs at Values Voters Despite History of Gay Rights Advocacy

Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

Isn’t it odd after the passage of TARP, the stimulus and ObamaCare that left-wing politicians and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media are suddenly worried about budget deficits? As opposed to reining in deficit spending, the new public policy stance for the Democratic Party going into the 2010 midterm election is to call for a tax hike on the top-income earners by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those folks. In an interview on MSNBC’s Sept. 17 “The Daily Rundown” with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, co-host Savannah Guthrie pressed the Texas senator on the need to raise taxes in order to lower budget deficits. Guthrie asked: “Sir, as you know, a lot of the energy in the Republican Party, some of the animating issues have to do with deficit and spending, and I ask you given the concern among Republican voters about deficit spending, how is it that Republicans can get behind allowing the Bush tax cuts to go forward for the wealthiest Americans, something that will cost $700 billion borrowed money deficit spending. How do you square that up?” This is becoming a pattern for Guthrie. The previous week, Guthrie pressed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with the same line of questioning . But according to Cornyn, Guthrie was offering false choices, which was the exact same way McConnell responded when she pushed the same premise. “Well Savannah, it doesn’t make any sense to raise taxes in order to keep current tax policy in place,” Cornyn said. “I think frankly that’s a false choice. My preference would have been to make these tax rates permanent, but we didn’t have the votes to do it so they’re temporary. They’re going to expire.” Cornyn’s response didn’t satisfy “The Daily Rundown” co-host. Apparently in Guthrie’s mind, if you earn money – what the government allows you to keep is a federal expenditure, suggesting all earned income is the government’s and they’re just allowing you to keep some of it. “But, that will be deficit spending, right? I mean, it is deficit spending?” an unrelenting Guthrie interrupted and fired back at Cornyn. Cornyn called Guthrie’s “deficit spending” description a false construction and said raising taxes on anyone would be an “anti-stimulus.” “I think that’s a false construct, with all due respect, because these are current tax rates,” Cornyn replied. “We’re talking about the largest tax increase in American history. And particularly Democrats, I think, and Republicans are looking now to say, ‘You know what, even if we’re for raising the marginal tax rates to what they were in the ’90s, the worst time to be doing this is during a time of fragile, economic recovery so I hope we can come together and to stave that off, because I can’t think of a worse anti-stimulus at this time than this huge tax increase.” During the 2008 election, political opponents of the Republican Party and the party’s presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would often describe the GOP’s economic policies as “Hoover-esque.” Liberal economist Jared Bernstein was one of the people who used it to describe Republican policies in 2008 . Bernstein now holds a prominent position in the Obama White House as the chief economist for the vice president. But you don’t have to appear more “Hoover-esque” than raising taxes in the middle of an economic downturn – as former President Herbert Hoover did immediately following the stock market crash of 1929 with The Revenue Act of 1932.

View original post here:
Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

Panicky Schultz: Dump Axelrod, Bring in Begala-Carville

It smells like Tea Party victory.  Ed Schultz has gotten a whiff, and he’s panicking . . . On his MSNBC show this evening, sensing an impending Republican landslide inspired by the Tea Party tempest, Ed called for David Axelrod, Pres. Obama’s chief political adviser, to be thrown overboard for being too “soft.”  Schultz suggested axing the Axe and replacing him with James Carville and Paul Begala. It was Joe Biden’s attempt to rouse the base on Rachel Maddow’s show last night that set Ed off . . . I’ll be back with a transcript. But in the meantime, savor the scent of Dem desperation . . .

Go here to read the rest:
Panicky Schultz: Dump Axelrod, Bring in Begala-Carville

Open Thread: Obama, the Musical

As Jonah Goldberg puts it, ” Oh, Dear Lord “. Hey, at least the dancing is impressive. Thoughts? 

Read the original:
Open Thread: Obama, the Musical

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

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

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