Tag Archives: politics

Evan Thomas on Ending Bush Tax Rates: ‘God Knows the Federal Government Desperately Needs that Revenue’

Newsweek veteran Evan Thomas, who announced a few weeks ago his intention to leave the financially-failing magazine and teach journalism at Princeton , issued a ringing call – in defense of federal spending – for why he hopes Congress and President Obama cannot agree on extending any of the Bush tax cuts, so income tax rates rise next year: God knows the federal government desperately needs that revenue, so this is one case where I think gridlock is a good thing. Not exactly in line with the thinking of Tea Party voters. (Audio: MP3 clip ) On this weekend’s Inside Washington, the magazine’s former Washington bureau chief, Assistant Managing Editor and, most-recently, editor-at-large, encapsulated the political/media class’s priority – keeping government spending safe – as he argued: A couple of weeks ago, Fareed Zakaria wrote a column in which he said Congress should do what it does best, nothing. And what he means by that is if Congress does nothing, those tax cuts go away. We need the revenue, we need the revenue. I know it’s not great for the economy right now to be having a tax hike, but you’re just returning rates to where they were in the 1990s, when the economy was doing pretty well. God knows the federal government desperately needs that revenue, so this is one case where I think gridlock is a good thing. ( Inside Washington is a weekly show produced by ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate, which airs it Sunday morning after it runs Friday night on DC’s PBS affiliate, WETA-TV channel 26, and Saturday on local cable’s TBD TV .)

See the rest here:
Evan Thomas on Ending Bush Tax Rates: ‘God Knows the Federal Government Desperately Needs that Revenue’

Bozell Column: Medal of Dishonor

In today’s world, video war games are all the rage. The military knows that video games make young men more interested in military service, and can even make them better soldiers. As is so often the case, some of the producers of these games have taken the simulation too far. For the latest version of its wildly popular shooter game “Medal of Honor,” Electronic Arts chose to set the game in post-9/11 Afghanistan. But now it also allows players to fight as the Taliban and kill American troops. This was too much for the military. Army, Air Force, and Navy bases have announced they will refuse to sell the game out of respect to our troops who have been killed by the Taliban. “You know how many of my friends have been killed by the Taliban?” Staff Sgt. William Schober, a fan of the earlier “Medal” games, asked the New York Times. “One of my friends was sniped in the head by them. That’s something you want to have fun with?” It’s another American popular-culture embarrassment. In the international community, defense ministers in countries that have lost troops to the Taliban have also experienced outrage. Britain’s Liam Fox said he was “disgusted and angry” and “would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.” Canada’s Peter MacKay added  “I find it wrong to have anyone, children in particular, playing the role of the Taliban.” The lifelike simulations of combat are manufactured out of a close working relationship between game producers and the military. EA made “Medal of Honor” with the consent and assistance of the Army, which gave them access to a replica of an Iraqi village used for training at Fort Irwin in California. But an Army spokesman insisted the Army wasn’t aware that users would have the capability of fighting against U.S. troops and underlined the review process would be more thorough in the future. But why continue a partnership when you’ve been conned? An EA spokesman stressed that the game was intended to celebrate American soldiers. But with the popularity of online multi-player showdowns (where one guy in Virginia can play against another guy in Idaho), game makers have increasingly offered users the options of embracing the role of bad guy. EA’s last version of the game, set in World War II, allowed players to fight against the Allied forces. As tasteless as that is, it’s history. Right now, American boys are dying every day. They deserve this nation’s highest respect, not this final insult. The amorality of these professional war-gamers can be astonishing. Last year, hundreds of parents protested Activision’s game “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” for a scene in which players could take part in a terrorist group’s machine-gun massacre of civilians at a Russian airport. The player acts as a special-ops agent infiltrating the terrorist cell that can either choose to join in the civilian-shooting to remain “credible,” or refrain from the bloodbath. EA’s Frank Gibeau complained to the media that video games are unfairly singled out: “At EA we passionately believe games are an art form, and I don’t know why films and books set in Afghanistan don’t get flak, yet [games] do. Whether it’s ‘Red Badge Of Courage’ or ‘The Hurt Locker,’ the media of its time can be a platform for the people who wish to tell their stories.” Here we go again, the scoundrel’s final defense: It’s “art.” Video games are amazing technological products, but they are not “stories” like a book or a movie. Parents don’t worry about their kids reading Taliban books. I don’t know of any movies where the Taliban are the heroes. It’s only video games where children enter an imaginary (but most realistic and therefore, dangerous) world in which they are the main characters. In a video game, every player is the author and the movie director. The game maker only sets the parameters, and lets the player finish the story. In this case, EA has created a plot in which children can be absorbed for hours in the virtual reality of killing American solders, the best and most honorable product our nation has to offer. The idea that game makers just can’t comprehend why this would be singled out for condemnation is ludicrous. They know exactly what they’re doing as the thirty pieces of silver jingle in their pockets.

PBS Humorist Andy Borowitz Makes Crack About FNC as ‘Fake News’

On Friday’s Need to Know program on PBS, humorist Andy Borowitz devoted his regular “Next Week’s News” fake news segment to the story that he is supposedly leaving the show after this week. After showing clips of himself from previous episodes, he ended the segment by taking a shot at Fox News Channel as he joked that he will be moving to FNC next week because he so enjoys making up “fake news.” Borowitz: “Now, what’s next for Andy Borowitz? Well, I love doing two minutes of fake news each week, but it’s whetted my appetite to do fake news on a full-time basis. And so, starting next week, I’m moving to my new home: The Fox News Channel.” Below is a complete transcript of the Friday, September 17, “Next Week’s News” segment from PBS’s Need to Know program: JON MEACHAM: It is our sad duty to report that this is the last time we’ll be able to feature the prognostication skills of Andy Borowitz. Andy is moving on from Need to Know. ALISON STEWART: And while there are a few of you who will say it’s not a moment too soon, we speak for your legions of fans who’ll say we’ll miss you on Need to Know. The news of the future will not be the same without you, Andy. ANDY BOROWITZ: Well, thank you so much, Alison and Jon. It’s been great. Well, tonight is, how do I put it, it’s bittersweet for me because this is the last edition of “Next Week’s News.” Now, I’ve had a great time doing this segment, but I’ve been offered a new challenge that, well, I just couldn’t turn it down. More about my decision in a moment. But first, let’s take a look back at some very special moments from “Next Week’s News.” (CLIPS ARE SHOWN WITH THE SONG “GOD LIFT US UP WHERE WE BELONG” PLAYING) BOROWITZ: Good times. Now, what’s next for Andy Borowitz? Well, I love doing two minutes of fake news each week, but it’s whetted my appetite to do fake news on a full-time basis. And so, starting next week, I’m moving to my new home: The Fox News Channel. Alison, Jon? MEACHAM: We’ll be watching. Thanks for everything, Andy.

Read more from the original source:
PBS Humorist Andy Borowitz Makes Crack About FNC as ‘Fake News’

Robert Scheer’s Latest Book, The Great American Stickup

Robert Scheer's Latest Book, The Great American Stickup In The Great American Stickup, celebrated journalist Robert Scheer uncovers the hidden story behind one of the greatest financial crimes of our time: the Wall Street financial crash of 2008 and the consequent global recession. Instead of going where other journalists have gone in search of this story—the board rooms and trading floors of the big Wall Street firms—Scheer goes back to Washington, DC, a veritable crime scene, beginning in the 1980s, where the captains of the finance industry, their lobbyists and allies among leading politicians destroyed an American regulatory system that had been functioning effectively since the era of the New Deal. From: truthdig Views: 14 3 ratings Time: 02:19 More in News & Politics

Continue reading here:
Robert Scheer’s Latest Book, The Great American Stickup

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’

CBS: Even With Susan Boyle ‘Warm-Up Act’ Pope Still Couldn’t Pull In A Big Enough Crowd

Reporting on Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK on Friday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Mark Phillips noted how 65,000 people attended a Thursday outdoor mass in Scotland, but observed: “…it was only about a quarter of the size of the crowd Pope John Paul drew to the same park on his visit 28 years ago. And this crowd had a much better warm-up act…TV talent show star…Susan Boyle.” On Thursday , correspondent Richard Roth touted low turnout predictions during the Papal visit: “Some Church officials this morning were already lowering expectations, saying seats were still unsold for several outdoor events.” Phillips described the trip as “A test of whether Pope Benedict can get his message across over the background noise of the Church’s child abuse scandal. And that test gets harder as time goes on.” He went on to observe “This Pope finds himself with an ironic challenge, he bemoans the weakening role of religion in everyday life, yet it is the Church’s very own public struggle with its child-molesting priests that is helping to drive people away.” Phillips concluded his report by highlighting the Pope’s critics: “And, of course, the protesters against child abuse, for gay rights and other issues, promise to follow him wherever he goes.” On Thursday , Roth proclaimed the Pontiff’s visit was “bound to be shadowed by controversy along with ceremony” and  “courts criticism on a range of issues.” Here is a full transcript of Phillips’s September 17 report: 7:10AM ET SEGMENT: JEFF GLOR: Today is the second day of the Pope’s historic visit to Great Britain. And today he meets the leader of the Anglican church. This morning, Pope Benedict went to an outdoor prayer meeting at a school outside London. And CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips is in Twickenham this morning. Mark, good morning. MARK PHILLIPS: Good morning, Jeff. Well, this is, in fact, turning out to be more than just a Papal visit, it’s turning into a test. A test of whether Pope Benedict can get his message across over the background noise of the Church’s child abuse scandal. And that test gets harder as time goes on. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Papal Pilgrimage; Pope Benedict XVI Confronts Controversies in UK] Pope Benedict brought his message to the classroom today, visiting a Catholic school in suburban London. This Pope finds himself with an ironic challenge, he bemoans the weakening role of religion in everyday life, yet it is the Church’s very own public struggle with its child-molesting priests that is helping to drive people away. POPE BENEDICT XVI: The life of faith can only be effectively nurtured when the prevailing atmosphere is one of respectful and affectionate trust. PHILLIPS: Pope Benedict has proved on this trip that he can still draw a crowd. Yet, impressive though the 65,000-strong open-air mass in Scotland was yesterday, it was only about a quarter of the size of the crowd Pope John Paul drew to the same park on his visit 28 years ago. And this crowd had a much better warm-up act, the former Scottish choir girl turned TV talent show star and internet sensation, Susan Boyle, who sang a medley of her hits. This is being billed as Pope Benedict’s most political day of the visit. He meets with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as you said, and he also gives a speech to British parliamentarians. And, of course, the protesters against child abuse, for gay rights and other issues, promise to follow him wherever he goes. Jeff. GLOR: Alright, Mark Phillips, this morning. Mark, thank you very much.

See the rest here:
CBS: Even With Susan Boyle ‘Warm-Up Act’ Pope Still Couldn’t Pull In A Big Enough Crowd

CBS’s Smith: Tea Party and Palin Could Bring GOP to ‘Edge of the Abyss’

Appearing on Friday’s CBS Early Show, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer continued to compare the rise of the tea party and possible candidacy of Sarah Palin in 2012 to the 1964 campaign of Barry Goldwater. In response, co-host Harry Smith remarked that Palin could take Republicans “to the edge of the abyss, as it were.” On Wednesday’s CBS Evening News , Schieffer argued: “…it is very much like 1964….they threw out all the establishment candidates…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.” He repeated the same line on the Early Show and described the tea party as being full of “very, very conservative” voters who would not be as influential in the general election. Prior to the discussion between Smith and Schieffer, correspondent Dean Reynolds reported on Palin taking a fundraising trip to Iowa and supporting “tea party insurgents…to the chagrin of GOP regulars, who worry they are too extreme, unelectable, or both.” He went on highlight how “Democratic strategists say the more Sarah, the better for them” and touted: “Indeed, our latest polling shows the number of Americans viewing her unfavorably has been rising along with her visibility.” After Schieffer made the 1964 comparison to Smith, he explained the reason for the tea party’s success: “…it all goes back to the economy once again….What you’re seeing is the frustration that just sort of permeates all of our politics right now and you’re seeing in these tea party folks kind of the Right end of all of that.” He then claimed: “If the economy gets a little bit better, I think you’ll see a lot of things change in this – in this equation.” Smith joked about the movement’s demise: “Could be the iced tea party.” On Wednesday , Smith wondered: “Are all of these tea party victories good for the Republican Party?” He later suggested the GOP was making a “miscalculation” at their own “peril” by  supporting the movement. Here is a full transcript of the September 17 segment:  7:00AM TEASE: ERICA HILL: Palin politics. The former Alaska governor heads to Iowa, as she celebrates two more successful Senate endorsements. Is this the first step in her plan to take on President Obama in 2012? 7:05AM SEGMENT: HARRY SMITH: Now to politics, two more Republicans endorsed by Sarah Palin were big winners in this week’s primaries. As Palin campaigns this week, speculation is growing that the former GOP vice presidential candidate wants to be on the top of the ticket in 2012. CBS News national correspondent Dean Reynolds is in Des Moines with more. Good morning, Dean. DEAN REYNOLDS: Good morning, Harry. Well, you’re right about that speculation. And Sarah Palin’s appearance here in Des Moines tonight caps off a week during which her political clout was on full display. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Palin in Iowa; Is This First Step Toward White House Run?] To those who like her and those who don’t. Her appearance in Kentucky on Thursday was vintage Palin. SARAH PALIN: We can take it back, we can take back our country. And we’re going to turn things around. REYNOLDS: She was campaigning for Republican senatorial hopeful Rand Paul, one of the tea party insurgents she has endorsed. Sometimes to the chagrin of GOP regulars, who worry they are too extreme, unelectable, or both. It’s a reaction she apparently relishes. PALIN: The hierarchy and, you know, they’re not liking this. REYNOLDS: Tonight, Palin comes to Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucus in 2012. Is she setting the table for a presidential campaign? MATT STRAWN [IOWA REPUBLICAN STATE CHAIRMAN]: You know, we’re just fortunate to have her here. Because she certainly energizes Iowa Republicans at all levels. REYNOLDS: But Democratic strategists say the more Sarah, the better for them. DAVID PLOUFFE [OBAMA ADVISOR]: The very best organizer or fundraiser in the Democratic Party is going to be here in Iowa, Sarah Palin. REYNOLDS: Indeed, our latest polling shows the number of Americans viewing her unfavorably has been rising along with her visibility. Now, Sarah Palin isn’t saying much about her long-term intentions, but as they say in political circles here, nobody comes to Iowa by accident. Harry. SMITH: We know that one for sure. Dean Reynolds, thank you so much. From Des Moines this morning. We want to bring in CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning. BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning to you, Harry. SMITH: Can one appearance in Iowa constitute the beginning of a presidential campaign? SCHIEFFER: Well, it might. I mean, there’s no question about it. But, you know, what is – what is really bothering the establishment Republicans right now is – is what happened to Republicans back in 1964. You know, they had almost won in 1960 when Nixon ran against Kennedy. The next – the next time around, 1964, Republicans threw out all the establishment people, all the leaders of their party, and nominated Barry Goldwater. As I’ve said many times, a very good man but someone far to the Right of the mainstream of the Republican Party. They lost in a landslide. Same thing happened to the Democrats in 1972. They threw out all the establishment candidates – people, leaders in their party, big city mayors like Dick Daley, and nominated again, a very good man, George McGovern, but someone who was far to the Left of the mainstream of their party and they lost in a landslide. And that’s what’s bothering the establishment Republicans now, they’re worried, are they headed to something like that in 2012? SMITH: Take a right to the – take to the edge of the abyss, as it were. But that becomes the question. If you’re the Republicans, how do you – because what’s undeniable is the passion and motivation of the supporters of all the tea party folks. If you’re the Republicans, is there a way to harness that energy? SMITH: Well, that’s what they got to figure out, because you’re absolutely right. I mean, these people are committed. A lot of people of these tea party folks are not really Republicans. They didn’t – you know, they’re anti-tax, they’re very, very conservative. They tend to be older. In mid-term elections, you don’t have young people turning out very much to vote. And they were a powerful force. I mean, there’s absolutely no question about it. Sarah Palin’s endorsement meant a great deal to those particular people. But, how is this going to play in November? And that’s –  that’s what they’re all grappling with, how do you keep the enthusiasm but, at the same time, how do you appeal to the people in the middle, the independents? Who, in the end, are always the ones who decided the election. SMITH: Because it’s all about the middle. It is an interesting dichotomy though. Because as Sarah Palin’s negatives continue to go up, everything she touches turns to gold. O’Donnell in Delaware two weeks ago was not given a snowball’s chance in you-know-what and she ends up running roughshod over the Republican candidate. SCHIEFFER: You know, Harry, it all goes back to the economy once again. I mean, you saw the figures that say one person in seven in this country is now living in poverty. People are still unemployed. People are still loving – looking for work. What you’re seeing is the frustration that just sort of permeates all of our politics right now and you’re seeing in these tea party folks kind of the Right end of all of that. SMITH: Alright. SCHIEFFER: And it all comes from that. If the economy gets a little bit better, I think you’ll see a lot of things change in this – in this equation. But, so far, it’s not getting better. SMITH: Could be the iced tea party. Bob Schieffer in Washington this morning, as always, we appreciate your time. And remember, you can watch Bob’s interview with former President Clinton on Face the Nation this Sunday morning. Don’t want to miss it, right here on CBS.  

Continue reading here:
CBS’s Smith: Tea Party and Palin Could Bring GOP to ‘Edge of the Abyss’

The Oxymoron of Campus Tolerance

So at Palm Beach State College last week, an administrator kicked the conservative group, Young Americans for Freedom, out of some event. The ejector, Olivia Morris Ford, claims she didn’t recall giving the scamps permission to be there. But the group claims Olivia had responded, and there’s evidence: an e-mail from student Christina Beattie to Olivia, and Beattie’s phone log showing the call from Olivia. So it looks like Ms. Morris Ford should lady up and tell the truth. Something tells me, she won’t. Check out the video of the scrape. Hmmm…I don’t think she cares if she gave them permission or not. That’s quite a reaction from someone working at a place where open-mindedness trumps oxygen. Here’s the real point: that lady knew she could bully those kids because her rudeness fell into the “No worries, they’re conservatives!” category. If they were Vegan Nudists for Obama, she would have been fine. But she didn’t like their views, so she kicked ‘em out. And she got away with it. Hey, no worries, they’re conservatives! Anyway, I’m not into student groups, unless they involve a Twister mat and a jar of Nivea. It’s a leftover reflex from my time at Berkeley, where each day I endured gauntlets of sloppy card tables manned by angry progressives with their hacky sacks and halitosis. They would hang out for hours doing nothing but cataloguing the evils of a society that allowed them to hang out for hours cataloguing the evils of a society. But no one kicked them out, because their pamphlets never questioned left-wing lunacy. I’m sure if they did, someone like Olivia Morris Ford would call security. After all, there is only so much speaking truth to power, the left can take. I.e. none. And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobic Islamophobic necrophobe. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

The rest is here:
The Oxymoron of Campus Tolerance

David Brooks Defends Tea Party – Right Before He Bashes It

New York Times columnist David Brooks on Friday defended the Tea Party from many of the criticisms commonly uttered by mainstream media members. In so doing, he took a couple of slaps at the conservative movement that continues to usher in surprising election results across the fruited plain. By the end of ” The Backlash Myth ,” Brooks went so far as to say “the Tea Party doesn’t matter.” But prior to this point, there were positives not typically reported about this group, especially on the pages of the New York Times: The Republican Party may be moving sharply right, but there is no data to suggest that this has hurt its electoral prospects, at least this year. I asked the election guru Charlie Cook if there were signs that the Tea Party was scaring away the independents. “I haven’t seen any,” he replied. I asked another Hall of Fame pollster, Peter Hart, if there were Republican or independent voters so alarmed by the Tea Party that they might alter their votes. He ran the numbers and found very few potential defectors. The fact is, as the Tea Party has surged, so has the G.O.P. Surprisingly honesty, correct? Quite a departure from the normal contempt for this movement and accusations that it’s helping Democrats keep control of Congress this year while killing the Republican Party. Brooks even shared some polling numbers supporting his belief that the Tea Party has actually helped the GOP. But then he took an all too predictable left turn: This doesn’t mean that the Tea Party influence will be positive for Republicans over the long haul. The movement carries viruses that may infect the G.O.P. in the years ahead. Its members seek traditional, conservative ends, but they use radical means. Along the way, the movement has picked up some of the worst excesses of modern American culture: a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil. The Tea Party uses “radical means?” Such as what? Do they break windows, loot stores, and damage private property during their rallies? Do they do any of the things leftist groups do when they protest wars, big business, coal mines, energy facilities, or G-8 meetings? Certainly not. So what “radical means” was Brooks referring to? He didn’t say. As for a “narcissistic sense of victimization,” this movement has been harassed and excoriated by media members for a year and a half. They’ve been called racists, hate-mongers, homophobes, and nutcases. As such, they’ve been victimized by the mainstream media more than any legitimate political group in recent memory. But Brooks ignored such inconvenient truths concluding: But that damage is all in the future. Right now, the Tea Party doesn’t matter. The Republicans don’t matter. The economy and the Democrats are handing the G.O.P. a great, unearned revival.  Unearned, Mr. Brooks? Hardly, for this organization has worked tirelessly for its electoral victories and to get some respect from detractors in the media. That any kind words are being written or uttered by folks like Brooks now is a testament to how hard Tea Party members have toiled almost since Inauguration Day to convey a message to the American people that is resonating enough to possibly ignite an historic transfer of power next January. As Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin noted Friday: [Republican success] is both a result of one-party Democratic rule and the best thing to happen to the GOP since Ronald Reagan. That doesn’t mean its candidates will all win, but when the GOP picks up oodles of seats, much of the credit will go to the Tea Partiers.  Indeed, but will mainstream media members give them such credit on election night, or blame Democrat losses exclusively on the economy? Stay tuned.

Go here to read the rest:
David Brooks Defends Tea Party – Right Before He Bashes It

Man Claims Watching ‘Recycled News Shows on MSNBC’ Caused Him to Threaten Congresswoman

Can watching too much MSNBC affect a person to the extent that he acts in a completely irrational manner? According to a Tampa Tribune story , a Florida man convicted of threatening death upon a congresswoman for her opposition to ObamaCare believes the answer would be yes: TAMPA – A Spring Hill man who threatened U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite during the health care debate will spend more than two years in federal prison. Eric Lawrence Pidrman, 66, claims he was in an alcoholic blackout when he telephoned Brown-Waite’s office about 6:30 a.m. on March 25 and left a message saying he had 27 people who would make sure she “doesn’t live to see her next term.” “I’m terribly sorry that it ever happened,” Pidrman said this morning before he was sentenced. At the time of the morning he made the call, he said, “I very often watch the recycled news shows on MSNBC.” When agents questioned Pidrman in April, he said he was upset about threats reportedly made against Democrats during the health care debate. He said he probably thought, “Let me scare one of those righties.” “Righties.” And who frequently uses that term? I’ll give you a hint. It was the MSNBC host who recently made this “scorching” threat : “I’m going to torch this f***ing place!” he screamed during a meeting in the MSNBC newsroom according to the New York Post . “F***ers!” he added for good measure. Compare that irrational MSNBC host threat to the irrational threat left by Pidrman on the answering machine of the congresswoman: “Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this ***** does not live to see her next term.” Readers of this story have noted that there are not all that many degrees of separation between Erik Lawrence Pidrman and Keith Olbermann or…Ed Schultz: He’s right if i watched all the recycled news on MSNBC i might go nuts too. A looney leftnut was inspired by MSNBC to threaten conservatives for voicing their opinion. And this is news??? Here is just another example of where the threats and violence comes from. Not the teaparty folk etc. The union supported leftists have always been the violent ones. This guy is just typical of them. MSNBC is all I needed as they are all leftists. The big question now is if trial lawyers will begin using the “MSNBC defense” as an excuse for their clients’ threats against conservatives. 

More here:
Man Claims Watching ‘Recycled News Shows on MSNBC’ Caused Him to Threaten Congresswoman