Tag Archives: politics

On Today: Is The Tea Party Hurting The GOP?

It’s quite possible NBC’s Meredith Vieira has never shown more concern about the Republican Party’s ability to win elections than she did on Thursday’s Today show, of course that may be because conservative Tea Party candidates are now forcing out the more moderate members of its ranks. In a segment entitled, “Tea Time, Is The Tea Party Hurting The GOP?” the Today co-anchor invited on Republican Senator Jim DeMint to question if conservative candidates like Christine O’Donnell “can win in November?” To which DeMint responded that the conservative candidates he’s been supporting are doing just fine: “Well Meredith, they told me Marco Rubio couldn’t win. And he is blowing it away in Florida because he’s telling people the truth. And they said the same thing about Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Rand Paul in Kentucky. They’re well ahead in, in the polls because people want a change in Washington.” The following is the full interview with DeMint as it was aired on the September 16 Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint has endorsed a number of Tea Party candidates, including Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell. Senator DeMint, good morning to you. [On screen headline: ” Tea Time, Is The Tea Party Hurting The GOP?” ] SEN. JIM DEMINT: Hey good morning. VIEIRA: This morning’s New York Time notes the, New York Times, notes the clear divide within the Republican Party saying and I’m quoting here, “If ever there was proof that the Tea Party and the Republican Party do not necessarily go hand in hand, it is Christine O’Donnell’s victory over the establishment.” But the paper goes on to say that you, Senator, could be a model for how the two might coexist. How important is it to you, that this gap be bridged? DEMINT: It’s important because the Tea Party represents a broad cross section of the American people. And, and actually, it’s a small part of an American awakening of people who are concerned about the debt, the spending, massive growth of government and, and the takeovers. And, and really, what we’re doing here in Washington has united America. When I go to a Tea Party, 40 percent of the people there are independents and Democrats. And, and what I’m trying to do is help the Republicans here in Washington understand that the tea parties don’t want to be Republicans. We as Republicans need to embrace the ideas of balancing the budget, of trying to return some fiscal sanity here to Washington. You know and I’m not as concerned about what Christine O’Donnell said 14 years ago as I am that she’s gonna help us balance our budget here in Washington. VIEIRA: But, but, but Senator, if you’re trying to help your party, your party would argue that you’re really hurting the party. That these kinds of candidates cannot win general elections. DEMINT: Well the important thing to me, first, is to save our country. It’s really that critical. That these trivial political labels do not mean as much right now when we’re fighting for the survival versus the bankruptcy of our country. And I think the American people in Delaware, all over the country, want to see that sense of urgency from the people who represent them in Washington. They’re not concerned whether the Republicans get the majority or not, they want people in Washington who understand that balancing the checkbook is not an extreme idea. So- VIEIRA: But practically speaking, do you believe that these candidates can win in November? DEMINT: Well Meredith, they told me Marco Rubio couldn’t win. And he is blowing it away in Florida because he’s telling people the truth. And they said the same thing about Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Rand Paul in Kentucky. They’re well ahead in, in the polls because people want a change in Washington. And, and you really can’t change Washington unless you change the people who are here. And so I think that’s what you saw in Delaware, people are looking at what these candidates are going to do when they get to Washington, and they’re ready to throw out the bums and bring in new folks. And I think we’re gonna do that in November. VIEIRA: Are you ready, if these candidates were to be elected, or if the Republicans were to come into power or take over Congress, obviously, control of Congress, are you ready to take on a leadership role to challenge the current Republican leadership? DEMINT: Well I like our current leadership. Mitch, Mitch is doing a great job and so is John Cornyn, with our Senate committee. I’ve got the leadership role I want. I am head of the conservative steering committee within the Senate. I’m managing the Senate Conservatives Fund, which by the way is SenateConservatives.com if folks want to help some of these candidates. But I want to support our leadership team. And what we’re trying to do now is get a group of Republicans that provide a clear contrast with the Pelosi-Obama agenda, which is massive debt and government growth. I think- VIEIRA: Before I let you go, Senator, can I ask very, very quickly, you’re up for reelection this November and your Democratic opponent, Alvin Greene, has said repeatedly, that he would, he would want to debate you. Is that gonna happen? Will you debate him? DEMINT: We have no debates scheduled. And I’ve got a couple of opponents in South Carolina. But Meredith, my main opponents are here in the White House and in Congress. So that’s where I’m spending most of my time. VIEIRA: Alright. So that’s a no. Senator Jim DeMint, thank you very much. DEMINT: Thank you.

Continue reading here:
On Today: Is The Tea Party Hurting The GOP?

Harsh Attacks Against Christine O’Donnell Continue on ABC: Carville Slams ‘Deadbeat’ Nominee

For the second day in a row, Good Morning America featured degrading descriptions of Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell. Democratic strategist James Carville appeared on Thursday’s show and fumed about the Republican’s past financial problems: ” Christine O’Donnell doesn’t believe in spending, particularly her own money, because, she’s a deadbeat. She doesn’t pay her loans back .” Wednesday’s GMA included host George Stephanopoulos reading quotes against the “mentally unhinged” “liar.” The show on Thursday showcased an extended conversation on masturbation and remarks O’Donnell made about the subject in 1996. Stephanopoulos played a clip and then Carville joked, “And she equated masturbation to adultery. And, boy, if that’s the case, the Iranians would be stoning a lot of people in this country.” In fairness, after playing the snippet of O’Donnell’s 14-year-old comment, the ABC host wondered, “But, I think a lot of people might watch [the clip] and say, what’s wrong with she said?” The segment also featured conservative radio host and Tea Party activist Dana Loesch who chided, “She’s talking about masturbation. It’s not like she’s wearing black socks and getting caught in hotel rooms with call girls and stuff. If we want to point fingers on bedroom antics, we can do that.” Stephanopoulos did bring up the gloom hanging over the Democrats in the midterm, but he turned to the subject of whether the “extreme views” of Tea Partiers will “cost Republican seats that they otherwise would have won.” A transcript of the September 16 segment, which aired at 7:05am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s get into the debate now. We’re joined now from St. Louis, Missouri, by radio talk show host and tea party activist, Dana Loesch. And from Washington, Democratic strategist James Carville. And, Dana, let me begin with you. You saw Joe Biden out there last night. There’s the White House message. Moderates need not apply to the Republican Party. DAN LOESCH: Well, I’ve seen several elections where moderates in the Democrat Party have been run out on a rail, like Elijah Lovejoy. What we’re seeing with the Republican Party in the particular case of Mike Castle, I think calling him a moderate is especially generous. This guy’s record was indistinguishable from the Democrat to which he wanted to run against in the general election. And what we saw- This was the people of Delaware that spoke. This wasn’t a group of Republicans. They tried to nominate Mike Castle. But, the primaries are all about getting the people’s voice out there. That’s what we saw in this primary with Christine O’Donnell. And the people made their voices heard that they were unhappy with Mike Castle’s record. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, James, there is some evidence out there that Tea Party is not just on the fringes right now. Want to show you the numbers from our latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. It shows that Tea Party supporters now make up 44 percent of the primary electorate. Those who really, strongly support the Tea Party, almost a quarter of the electorate. And these guys overwhelmingly are focused on Democrats. 92 percent Of them believe that Democrats don’t deserve re-election. That is a warning sign for the Democrats in November. JAMES CARVILLE: Well, certainly. And congratulations. The Tea Party- This comports with the research we did at the Democracy Corps. The Tea Party is more powerful to the Republican Party than African-Americans and organized labor combined are in the Democratic Party. And you’re exactly right, George. People like Christine O’Donnell are part of the mainstream Republican Party right now. If you look at what happened in New York State. Elijah Lovejoy? What about Robert Bennett? What about Murkowski in Alaska? What about Mike Castle? I mean, been these people have been going on about Elijah Lovejoy, but I know what’s happening over there. And the Tea Party is the Republican Party. This is not a fringe element of the Republican Party. This woman, O’Donnell, is right in the middle of it. And it’s exactly right. They are a very, very powerful force. And they’re running that party right now. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Dana, the Democrats are hoping that candidates supported by the Tea Party, candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada, like Rand Paul, like Christine O’Donnell, because they lack experience or have what some would consider extreme views, will cost Republican seats that they otherwise would have won. LOESCH: I don’t know if they have extreme views. I don’t think the Tea Party movement is mainstream- I think it’s mainstream America, period. We’ve seen so much data coming up from the past year, that the majority of Americans, they believe that the Democrat congressional agenda is too extreme. They identify with the individual liberty and smaller government that the grassroots movement espouses. And candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul, these are people- it’s not beltway experience or abstain that they don’t have. It’s the fact they’re standing up for principles that the majority of Americans want. I want the government out of my pocketbook and my bedroom, and everything else. And hat’s what the majority of Americans want. That’s the platform that these candidates stand upon. STEPHANOPOULOS: As someone wrote in the Wall Street Journal this morning, James, it’s the spending, stupid. CARVILLE: Well, clearly, Christine O’Donnell doesn’t believe in spending, particularly her own money, because, she’s a deadbeat. She doesn’t pay her loans back. There’s a lien on her house. We could really classify her as anti-spending . In terms of getting in the bedroom this, woman has run against masturbation. I don’t- That seems to be a lot of government intrusion, to be honest with you. It’s right in the New York Times this morning. I’m sorry. She’s really against spending. She’s not going to spend any of her own money. But again this, is the Republican Party. It’s anti-spending. It’s promoting a bunch of deadbeats. STEPHANOPOULOS: I think we have the clip that James may be referring to. So, why don’t I show that and get you to respond? Here it was, I think, in 1996 on MTV O’DONNELL: The reason that you don’t tell them that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because, again, it is not addressing the issue. You’re going to be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture? STEPHANOPOULOS: James brought it up. But, I think a lot of people might watch it and say, what’s wrong with she said? LOESCH: Yeah. She’s talking about masturbation. It’s not like she’s wearing black socks and getting caught in hotel rooms with call girls and stuff. If we want to point fingers on bedroom antics, we can do that. I mean, this is- She didn’t say anything- some of the stuff she said in her past, I don’t think anybody, if you look back at the history of everything Mr. Carville has said and, George, you and myself, not everyone is going to be perfect. Perfection, if it were required for public office, nobody would be fit to run. But, I don’t like the class warfare, sort of, angle that Karl Rove seemed to have taken when he was speaking about her. That’s something that bugged me a little bit. STEPHANOPOULOS: James, you get ten seconds to end this. CARVILLE: Well, look, again, like I said, she’s a very fiscal conservative. She doesn’t believe in paying her bills. And she equated masturbation to adultery. And, boy, if that’s the case, the Iranians would be stoning a lot of people in this country. I’ll tell you that.

Read the original:
Harsh Attacks Against Christine O’Donnell Continue on ABC: Carville Slams ‘Deadbeat’ Nominee

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

Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O’Donnell Will Win in November

Chris Matthews on Wednesday departed from the liberal media conventional wisdom that Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell’s defeat of Republican favorite Mike Castle was good news for Democrats and President Obama. Quite the contrary, the “Hardball” host has become extremely pessimistic about Democrat chances to retain Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, so much so that he likened his Party to the Titanic. “The boat is sinking,” he told fellow liberal David Corn. “The establishment is sinking.” When Corn tried to push back on Matthews’ view, the devout liberal said, “I take O`Donnell. How many points are you going to give me?” (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):  DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Two points. First, you have — we have to see how these Tea Partiers do with a general election audience. And the second point — CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Oh, you`re taking the – CORN: No, no, no. MATTHEWS: You are trying to deny — (CROSSTALK) CORN: See what happens. MATTHEWS: You`re still denying it. CORN: I was on last night. You know I`m not denying it. I think they`re major threats to the Democrats. But we got to see what happens. MATTHEWS: Well, let me get this straight. As the Titanic sinks and it`s all the way up to the top decks, and it`s already up to the top decks, well, let`s see how it affects the first class passengers. The boat is sinking. The establishment is sinking. CORN: Listen, Leonardo is still holding on tight. And we see how — what happens to him. (LAUGHTER) CORN: But the other point is, you know that presidential primaries are like family holiday gatherings. All of the internal dysfunctions get played out. And so, really what happens right now, whether the establishment comes and supports people like Christine O`Donnell or not, those passions are going to be really stirred up and if you see Karl Rove continuing to battle with the Tea Party forces, then I think it will put more pressure and create more anger on the far right that will turn into explosive. MATTHEWS: OK. CORN: You know — it will be explosive. MATTHEWS: You`re using a lot of words, David. Usually, you`re much more punchy. The reason you`re taking a lot of words — CORN: I`ll make it simple — (CROSSTALK) CORN: I think it`s still hard for the Republicans. MATTHEWS: I look at Rand Paul, that the guy is going to win. I look at Pat Toomey now and I hate to say, this is a guy who`s going to win. I think the right has got the upper hand now going into this general election. And I`m looking at these numbers — CORN: But they always — they always did. MATTHEWS: They have the upper hand. Your thoughts. Wow! Matthews now thinks Paul and Toomey are going to win. But it gets better: MICHELLE BERNARD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: But if you look at the people who have been basically sent running from the Republican Party this year, we`ve got Crist, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski — there is definitely a lot of dissension within the Republican Party, and, quote-unquote, “establishment people,” could literally see themselves completely knocked out of Republican politics by the time we get to 2012. CORN: But at the same time — but at the same — MATTHEWS: So, the establishment lost every one of these races, they`re at the bottom of the league. The people that are winning are all the challengers. And I just — every night it happens, I say, this can`t happen. Castle can`t lose. Specter can`t lose. They all lose. The establishment of the politics of America is playing defense now and they`re losing. CORN: The Republican establishment — all those Republicans who are beaten, most of them would probably have done very well in general election. What we`re worrying about now, what some people are worrying about is that — is that Castle would have done better than Christine O`Donnell. I mean, Murkowski would have an easy walk to re-election, right? Joe Miller probably will win, but he has a smaller chance of winning, at least that`s the constitution wisdom at the moment. MATTHEWS: I take O`Donnell. How many points are you going to give me? CORN: How many points will I give you? MATTHEWS: Yes, how many you give. Because you keep acting like this is all over, that she`s going to lose. CORN: No, but I don`t believe it`s all over. MATTHEWS: Right. CORN: But I do believe that the Republicans have this internal split — MATTHEWS: OK. OK. I get back to this. CORN: — that they still haven`t dealt with. MATTHEWS: I can`t see the Republican convention meeting, wherever they`re going to meet, in Tampa, right? They`re down there and they`re thundering in there with delegates, one of these Tea Partiers after another, storming the gates, all excited about they`re going to get rid of the 14th Amendment, get rid of, what, the 17th Amendment, energize the 10th Amendment, love the Second Amendment, and then they go pick Romney, Tim Pawlenty. CORN: But who`s the Tea Party candidate? MATTHEWS: I don`t see how it happens. CORN: But who`s the Tea Party candidate? Sarah Palin? Who else? MATTHEWS: Yes. CORN: Well, what if she doesn`t run? MATTHEWS: Well, I don`t know what happens. CORN: What happens to them? MATTHEWS: I don`t see what — I`m asking the question. BERNARD: I don`t — I don`t think this is the death now for, quote- unquote, “establishment people,” like Mitt Romney. He`s a good guy. I think — we just don`t know. I know you think it`s funny — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think you like establishment-type Republicans. BERNARD: I do. CORN: He also knows — he knows how to change his skin. He already sent money to Christine O`Donnell. BERNARD: But he`s also never going to campaign like Christine O`Donnell. We are never going to see that type of a flip-flop, I hope, from Mitt Romney or others, I hope. (CROSSTALK) BERNARD: We`re not going to see someone like Christine O`Donnell — MATTHEWS: — abortion rights. CORN: These guys run the way they run and then they look to the vice president to sort of send that message. BERNARD: We will not see a Christine O`Donnell on the Republican ticket in 2012. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: The tea point is boiling and steaming and it`s going to make that whistle sound when it`s ready to coffee. BERNARD: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: The whistle is making that sound. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You try to put a lid on that (INAUDIBLE). In the final segment of “Hardball,” Matthews really drove this point home: MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a question. Just where do you think this explosion of voter anger we saw last night in Delaware and have seen growing in voters in Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and in just about every poll across the country is going to take us? Last night, as the dust began to clear, I heard progressive glee that the anger was on the verge of burning itself out, that the victory of Christine O`Donnell in Delaware like that of Sharron Angle in Nevada, was throwing away the election. How could voters in the general election go so far as to elect one of these candidates the angry primary voters have kicked pup? I supposed I had my eyes on something different. While others were seeing dead people, the defeated Mike Castle, who was supposed to be strong this November, I saw the strength of the flames that consumed him and will consume many others this rapidly approaching election night. I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn`t know it would come from the right and center. 2010 could be the first year in modern times when being in office in Washington and part of Washington is the worst possible credential when facing voters. I don`t know how far the fire will burn. Based upon last night`s returns, I expect it has a long way to go. It could topple the House and, yes, the U.S. Senate. It could bring the defeat of people who feel even now they are not endangered. It could produce an election night spectacle of name brand politicians standing before stance supporters saying their careers are kaput. Why is this happening? Because this economic system is failing to produce the security and opportunity people have come to expect in this country. In this middle-class country, the middle class are scared and when people are scared, they get angry. They sense a rot at the top and are ready to chop it off. If the plan of those in power to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can`t vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed — I expect the voter will say, “Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out there, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down as you have? If that is what you`re telling me, that I have no choice, well, Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait — stay up late election night and see what I have done.” Wow! It appears Mr. Matthews is starting to understand just how strong this anti-Democrat, anti-big government movement is. The only question remaining is when will the rest of his liberal colleagues in the media? Will they get it before Election Day? Stay tuned. 

Read more:
Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O’Donnell Will Win in November

Former Mr. Sharon Stone Obama ‘Crack’ Humor Attempt Backfires

As your humble correspondent has learned, writing humor can be very dangerous since it can easily backfire. Such was the case with a story written by the former Mr. Sharon Stone aka Phil Bronstein, Editor-at-Large of the San Francisco Chronicle. Just from the very title of his piece, “Should Obama have smoked crack?” you just know Bronstein was going to run into trouble. Some readers didn’t know he was trying to be funny and were outraged. Other readers realized he was attempting to write humor but felt it was really lame. So here is Bronstein’s backfiring humor attempt: …His druggie past is not helping him shape the overarching grit of his public character nearly as much as it could be. Weed and cocaine? Who’s going to be impressed with that, when his hugely successful contemporaries like Oprah Winfrey have the truly dark and evil specter of crack in their background? … He needed some rock in that pipe of his youth. If he’d had a crack addiction then instead of an effete taste for powdered cocaine and pot, people might be a little more respectful of him now. It would have been an even tougher journey to the top. The big dog bite needs teeth sharpened by real adversity. Okay, what’s really funny here is not Bronstein’s humor which is lame and heavy-handed but the way it has backfired so embarrasingly. However, Bronstein’s amateur attempt at humor gets worse. Much worse: Crack could have helped put some color back into the Obama narrative. It is a drug that disproportionately haunts African American communities. Think coke and its Paris Hilton or some no-brainers on The Hills. Crack is the gutter drug. As you can imagine, many of his readers probably wish that L.A. Zoo Komodo Dragon had bitten another part of Bronstein’s body than just his foot. Some sample comments: Another useless editorial from sfgate’s do nothing editor. Don’t you have some copy to read?   This is probably the most vapid observation of Obama’s past I have ever read. I’ll never get back the 2 minutes it took to read this. Bronstein should resign. This is a new low for the Chronicle and embarrassment to San Franciscans. Bronstein should have taken heed of Tip #9 of Hot Tips For Op-Ed Writers : 9. Avoid op-ed backfire. Humor is hard to project in an opinion piece. Satire can bite the writer. P.J. Gladnick wrote a tongue-in-cheek satire about harmful cartoons for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. He showed Snow White exploiting short people, Scrooge McDuck engaging in the capitalistic duck-slave trade, the Three Little Pigs abusing the Big Bad Wolf, and more. That article made him the hero of the National Coalition on Television Violence, who used it to justify censoring Saturday morning TV.  And, Phil, if you really want to write a truly funny piece, then recount for us how you managed to stay married to supreme egomaniac Sharon Stone for six whole years.

More:
Former Mr. Sharon Stone Obama ‘Crack’ Humor Attempt Backfires

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

Media Heresy: Bill Clinton to Blame for Horrible Economy NOT Bush

Since the financial industry collapse two years ago, dishonest media outlets and their employees have continually blamed George W. Bush for the implosion that occurred in the fall of 2008 as well as the resulting recession. NewsBusters has regularly pushed back on this historically inaccurate premise specifically pointing to two crucial pieces of legislation signed into law by former President Bill Clinton. On Wednesday, a contributor to the Huffington Post – who is also the editor of the website TruthDig – published an article confirming what NewsBusters has been claiming, doing so in a fashion that must have shocked the economically ignorant proprietor of this perilously liberal online “news” outlet: Since the collapse happened on the watch of President George W. Bush at the end of two full terms in office, many in the Democratic Party were only too eager to blame his administration. Yet while Bush did nothing to remedy the problem, and his response was to simply reward the culprits, the roots of this disaster go back much further, to the free-market propaganda of the Reagan years and, most damagingly, to the bipartisan deregulation of the banking industry undertaken with the full support of “liberal” President Clinton. Yes, Clinton. And if this debacle needs a name, it should most properly be called “the Clinton bubble,” as difficult as it may be to accept for those of us who voted for him. Clinton, being a smart person and an astute politician, did not use old ideological arguments to do away with New Deal restrictions on the banking system, which had been in place ever since the Great Depression threatened the survival of capitalism. His were the words of technocrats, arguing that modern technology, globalization, and the increased sophistication of traders meant the old concerns and restrictions were outdated. By “modernizing” the economy, so the promise went, we would free powerful creative energies and create new wealth for a broad spectrum of Americans — not to mention boosting the Democratic Party enormously, both politically and financially. If you’re checking that link to confirm this was actually published at HuffPo, I understand. It is indeed rather shocking. That said, what Robert Scheer – who is also a contributing editor to the Los Angeles Times and the Nation – was referring to without naming the legislation was the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. For those that have forgotten, FSMA eliminated the last vestiges of the Depression Era Glass-Steagall Act which created legal distinctions between what banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to offer to the public as well as invest in. FSMA removed such barriers ushering in a new era of lending and securitization partially responsible for the easy money that pumped up housing prices last decade. What media members conveniently ignored in the fall of 2008 was that this bill was signed into law by Clinton on November 12, 1999. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8, and 362 to 57 in the House. As Scheer correctly pointed out, this was key to the eventual financial collapse: Traditional banks freed by the dissolution of New Deal regulations became much more aggressive in investing deposits, snapping up financial services companies in a binge of acquisitions. These giant conglomerates then bet long on a broad and limitless expansion of the economy, making credit easy and driving up the stock and real estate markets to unseen heights. Increasingly complicated yet wildly profitable securities–especially so-called over-the-counter derivatives (OTC), which, as their name suggests, are financial instruments derived from other assets or products — proved irresistible to global investors, even though few really understood what they were buying. Those transactions in suspect derivatives were negotiated in markets that had been freed from the obligations of government regulation and would grow in the year 2009 to more than $600 trillion. Beginning in the early ’90s, this innovative system for buying and selling debt grew from a boutique, almost experimental, Wall Street business model to something so large that, when it collapsed a little more than a decade later, it would cause a global recession. Scheer was correct, although he failed to mention the significance of another piece of legislation Clinton signed into law the following year called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Amongst other things, CFMA completely deregulated the kinds of financial derivatives – credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations for example – that assisted banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies in making loans to people that couldn’t possibly qualify for them. CFMA cleared the legislative process by initially passing with almost unanimous support. In fact, the final vote cast in the House on October 19, 2000, was 377-4. 180 Democrats, including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), voted in favor of this bill. Months later, this bill became part of a larger, end of the year consolidated appropriations act which passed the House by a vote of 292 to 60. Only nine Democrats voted against it. The bill was later approved with a voice vote by the Senate – without objection – and signed into law by President Clinton on December 21. Scheer continued: [A] plethora of aggressive lenders was only too happy to sign up folks for mortgages and other loans they could not afford because those loans could be bundled and sold in the market as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The investment banks were thrilled to have those new CDOs to sell, their clients liked the absurdly high returns being paid — even if they really had no clear idea what they were buying — and the “swap” sellers figured they were taking no risk at all, since the economy seemed to have entered a phase in which it had only one direction: up. Not only were those making the millions and billions off the OTC derivatives market ecstatic, so were the politicians, bought off by Wall Street, who were sitting in the driver’s seat while the bubble was inflating. With credit so easy, consumers went on a binge, buying everything in sight, which in turn was a boon to the bricks-and-mortar economy. Of the leaders responsible, five names come prominently to mind: Alan Greenspan, the longtime head of the Federal Reserve; Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration; Lawrence Summers, who succeeded him in that capacity; and the two top Republicans in Congress back in the 1990s dealing with finance, Phil Gramm and James Leach. The combined power of the Wall Street lobbyists allied with popular President Clinton, who staked his legacy on reassuring the titans of finance a Democrat could serve their interests better than any Republican. Shocking coming from a contributing editor to the Nation. Regardless of his political leaning, Scheer was largely correct in removing blame from Bush. However, as much as I would love to point the big finger at Clinton, that too is myopic. In the end, the financial collapse of 2008 was decades in the making likely starting with the Community Reinvestment Act under President Carter which put pressure on lending institutions to loan money to folks that were considered bad risks. With each subsequent administration and Congress came additional regulatory changes making it easier and easier for folks to get and qualify for home loans as well as unsecured debt. Now add in an economic boom during the ’90s largely caused by the internet and high-tech expansion in both the workplace as well as the home, and America’s love for Wall Street grew and grew. Voters all over the country and on both sides of the aisle were enjoying unprecedented financial prowess making it easy for Congress and the White House to enact additional legislation designed to let the good times roll for ever and ever. There was talk back then of eliminating the business cycle completely – we’ll never have a recession again! – and generating budget surpluses as far as the eye can see. In the end, it should come as no surprise that our elected officials were suffering from the very same irrational exuberance the public was, and that a huge bear market was looming as was a recession none of them saw coming. As such, pointing the finger of blame at one person – or even one President – is unfair, especially if the man mostly being accused wasn’t even in office when the two final pieces of legislation leading to the crash were enacted. If only our media had been honest about this in the fall of 2008 and the months that followed. That said, kudos go out to Scheer for writing this and to the Huffington Post for publishing it. The only question remaining is if other media outlets are going to pick up on this story and finally tell America the truth about what happened back then as well as who were and weren’t responsible. Or is that asking too much from today’s advocacy journalists? Post facto teaser: what’s the possibility the truth is being exposed to take pressure off of Obama and the Democrats before the midterm elections? Would media throw Clinton under the bus to save the current President as well as his control of Congress? After all, the blame Bush meme clearly isn’t working. Hmmm.

Continued here:
Media Heresy: Bill Clinton to Blame for Horrible Economy NOT Bush

WaPo Slips Liberal Dogma Into Report on Tax Cuts: GOP Trying to ‘Deprive’ Treasury

In general, there are two major sides to the tax cut debate. One believes that Americans are entitled to keep what they earn, but that they cede some money to the government with the understanding that funding is necessary to enable the state to safeguard citizens’ rights – the state’s most fundamental function. The opposing side holds, in short, that Americans are entitled to their wealth only to the extent that the rule of the majority – i.e. the government – allows them to keep it. The Washington Post has apparently adopted and endorsed this latter view, also known as liberal tax policy, not only in its editorial stance, but throughout its “straight news” reporting operation. WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery, for instance, believes that every dollar not collected in taxes is a dollar of which the federal government has been “deprived.” Or, put another way in her Wednesday article, she rejects the notion that every dollar collected in taxes is a dollar of which taxpayers have been deprived: Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made. The measure, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) this week, would permanently extend the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts that benefit virtually every U.S. taxpayer, rein in the alternative minimum tax and limit the estate tax to estates worth more than $5 million for individuals or $10 million for couples. Aides to McConnell said they have yet to receive a cost estimate for the measure. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That’s more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama’s health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined. The key word in the lede is “deprive.” In order for congressional Republicans to deprive Treasury of tax revenue, the federal government must have either already been collecting that revenue, or it must have been entitled to it. Sympathetic voices will no doubt howl that Montgomery was only noting if the GOP plan passes, the federal government will get less revenue – Treasury will be deprived of tax dollars. But again, that point frames the issue as one of the government’s claims to taxpayers’ wealth, not those taxpayers’ claims to their own wealth. Haven’t the latter been deprived by taxation? We know Treasury has not been taking in this revenue, and much of the confusion about what exactly Congress is debating derives from a failure to grasp this fact. Ed Morrissey explains : The extensions would simply continue the status quo, not deduct revenue the government receives now. These are not tax cuts, as the bill doesn’t change the current tax rates at all. The bill would instead prevent a massive $4 trillion tax increase. The extensions don’t force the government to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next decade, either. Instead, they could simply cut spending, an option that apparently escapes the imagination of Ms. Montgomery. A freeze at the spending level of the last Republican Congress budget of $2.77 trillion per year (FY2007) could save more than a trillion dollars each year over the next decade. A freeze at the level suggested by John Boehner (FY2008, $3.1 trillion) would save more than $700 billion per year, almost twice as much as Montgomery claims we would need to borrow because of the tax extensions. Since Treasury hasn’t already been taking in this revenue, Montgomery’s use of the word “deprive” implies that Treasury is entitled to it, even if the cash hasn’t been flowing. In other words, she has endorsed the notion that the distribution of wealth is a legitimate function of the federal government, and that citizens only have a secondary claim to their earnings. The Post apparently takes for granted this attitude towards tax cuts. The paper is framing the issue in a manner decidedly more amenable to the Democrat position on tax cuts not in its editorial pages, but among its purportedly-objective news content. Let there be no more doubt concerning the paper’s bias on this issue.

Visit link:
WaPo Slips Liberal Dogma Into Report on Tax Cuts: GOP Trying to ‘Deprive’ Treasury

MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

By a wide margin — 66 percent to 29 percent, according to the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll — the public is opposed to building that proposed $100 million Islamic cultural center near the site of the destroyed World Trade Towers. This is not a lightly-held opinion: more than half (53%) told ABC news they are “strongly opposed” to building it near Ground Zero, vs. only 14 percent who report being “strongly” in favor. (Scroll to Question 30 .) So in the face of such obvious public sentiment, are the big broadcast networks reflecting such public sentiment in their coverage? Or are journalists implicitly repudiating their viewers by touting accusations that opposition to the mosque is motivated by America’s supposed “Islamophobia”? To find out, MRC analysts reviewed all 52 stories about the Ground Zero mosque on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from August 14 through September 13 — the first month after President Obama propelled the issue into the headlines with his remarks at a White House dinner. The results show that the networks have tilted in favor of mosque supporters and against public opinion, with more than half (55%) of all soundbites or reporter comments coming down on the pro-mosque side of the debate, vs. 45 percent for opponents. Even those overall numbers fail to show how the debate has grown increasingly tilted over time. During the first week (August 14-20), the networks actually provided more visibility to mosque opponents — 55 percent of soundbites, vs. 45 percent for mosque supporters. But in the following weeks (August 21 to September 13), the networks’ coverage lurched in the other direction, with mosque supporters receiving a 63 percent to 37 percent advantage. (See chart.) Our analysts tallied as “pro-mosque” all statements and soundbites that either: supported the idea of building the Islamic center on its currently proposed site; defended or praised the project’s organizers (mainly the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf); or criticized the other side as bigoted or “Islamophobic.” Anti-mosque statements/soundbites presented the other side: criticized the plans to build the center and/or the project’s organizers, or defended mosque opponents from charges of bigotry. The shift in coverage occurred after mosque proponents began tarring their opponents as bigots. A pair of protests on Sunday, August 22 — one in favor of the mosque, one against — drew coverage on all three network newscasts, and all three highlighted the accusation from pro- mosque demonstrators that a contrary stance was evidence of what Time magazine’s cover story that week dubbed “Islamophobia.” What had been a relatively even-handed debate about balancing the sensitivities of 9/11 families with America’s tradition of religious freedom morphed into a one-sided story about beleaguered Muslims facing hardship at the hands of bigoted Americans. On the August 23 Nightly News , for example, NBC’s Ron Allen picked up how “many Muslim-Americans insist this debate is more evidence of religious intolerance.” On the August 25 CBS Evening News , fill-in anchor Jeff Glor linked the stabbing of a cab driver to the mosque debate: “That alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be build near Ground Zero….Other controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question: Is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims?” Four days later, on ABC’s World News, correspondent Steve Osunsami cited “a string of recent incidents suggesting that many Americans don’t care for Muslims — the back and forth over the Islamic center near Ground Zero, the cab driver who was stabbed simply for being Muslim.” “Critics say all the rhetoric is fueling anti-Muslim violence,” ABC’s Dan Harris chimed in on the September 5 World News . ABC and CBS both touted exclusive interviews with organizers of the Ground Zero mosque project, but never gave the same privilege to mosque opponents. These interviews were hardly probing. CBS’s Scott Pelley interviewed Sharif el-Gamal, the real estate developer who bought the property two blocks from Ground Zero, excerpts of which were shown on the August 27 and August 30 Evening News . “This facility that is being debated all around the world is universally known as the Ground Zero mosque,” Pelley told el-Gamal. “What do you call it?” “It should be universally known as a hub of culture, a hub of co-existence, a hub of bringing people together,” el-Gamal enthused. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed Abdul Rauf for the September 12 This Week , with excerpts shown on the September 9 World News . She quoted Abdul Rauf as arguing that failing to proceed with his mosque concept would “strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment. This will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Muslim world. And we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism.” Seemingly deaf to what she just heard, Amanpour characterized Abdul Rauf’s statement this way: “So, he said he wasn’t making any threats or predicting any terrible worst case scenario.” Alone among the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News also offered soundbites to Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to propose that Americans were prejudiced against Muslims. (NBC’s Today on September 9 also featured a CAIR representative to speak out against Americans as bigoted.) CAIR is currently listed by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in their investigation of funding for Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas. “I’ve really never seen the level of Islamophobia that we’re experiencing today,” Hooper blasted on the August 16 World News , a soundbite that was repeated on the August 29 broadcast. A week later, on the September 5 World News, Hooper was back to condemn the “hysterical atmosphere we’re in right now.” Parsing the numbers a different way provides some insight into how the networks seem to conceptualize the issue of balance: Debate about the Islamic center itself and/or its organizers was almost perfectly balanced (57 soundbites arguing against the project, vs. 54 soundbites in favor, or a 51-49% split). But the “debate” about whether opposition reflected Islamophobia was almost perfectly one-sided: 27 soundbites (93%) leveling that accusation, with just two soundbites (7%) offering a defense. In other words, the networks permitted a balanced debate about a proposed real estate project, but allowed mosque supporters to attack the majority of Americans as “haters” and “bigots” without adequate debate. That’s yet another sign that the liberal, elite media are hopelessly out of touch with the public they ostensibly serve.  

Read the original here:
MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

NBC Reporter Throws Around Conservative Label but Can’t Call Rangel A Lib

NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, on Wednesday’s Today show, in reporting about the results from yesterday’s primaries threw around the conservative label around as she identified several Republicans that way but for some reason when it came to reporting on Democrat Charlie Rangel’s win couldn’t manage to attach the “liberal” label to the ethics challenged Congressman. O’Donnell began her piece noting that “Democrats are suddenly very excited” about their chances of winning the Delaware primary seat due to “the conservative rebellion” that led to Republican Christine O’Donnell’s win in that primary, adding that “conservative Christine O’Donnell was propelled by several Tea Party groups.” And later O’Donnell even relayed the Democratic spin that O’Donnell was “an ultra right wing extremist.” However when it came to talking about Rangel’s primary win, the NBC correspondent, didn’t bother to attach an ideological label, merely calling him “20-term Congressman Charlie Rangel.” In total, Kelly O’Donnell used the “conservative” label five times in her piece but never once labeled any of the Democrats brought up in her story a liberal. The following is the full O’Donnell story as it was aired on the September 15 Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: But let’s begin with the results of the final primaries before November’s midterm elections and what they mean for both parties. We’re gonna talk to Christine O’Donnell about her surprise victory in Delaware, in just a moment. But first NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell has the latest. Kelly, good morning to you. [On screen headline: “Life Of The Tea Party, Upset Win In GOP Race For Biden’s Senate Seat”] KELLY O’DONNELL: Good morning, Meredith. Well the Tea Party has toppled conventional wisdom again and here in Delaware, the result is both shocking and convincing because it wasn’t close. The most popular Republican in the state, Mike Castle, he is out. Democrats are suddenly very excited and O’Donnell says don’t count her out in a fight to get the seat that Joe Biden held for 36 years. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Delaware have spoken. KELLY O’DONNELL: The conservative rebellion rolled over Delaware’s Republican Party brass. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Don’t ever underestimate the power of we the people! KELLY O’DONNELL: An upset hard to imagine just a few weeks ago. Conservative Christine O’Donnell was propelled by several Tea Party groups and that movement’s most famous figure. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: You betcha! There’s another woman I gotta thank. You betcha! Thank you Governor Palin for your endorsement. KELLY O’DONNELL: O’Donnell was ridiculed and written-off by other Republicans as unelectable. She had never won before, but knocked out Congressman Mike Castle who had never lost in a dozen races. Castle did not offer his congratulations. REP. MIKE CASTLE: The voters in the Republican Party have spoken and I respect that decision. KELLY O’DONNELL: Castle had called O’Donnell unqualified. (Begin ad clip) ANNOUNCER: She didn’t pay thousands in income taxes. (End clip) KELLY O’DONNELL: Animosity was so intense, the state Republican Party paid for robo-calls where O’Donnell’s past campaign manager attacked her. (Begin clip of robo-call) UNIDENTIFIED CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I found out that she was living on campaign donations, using them for rent and personal expenses while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt. (End clip) KELLY O’DONNELL: O’Donnell denies misusing funds. She claims her own financial hard times actually help her understand voters’ anger. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: A lot of people have already said that we can’t win the general election. I know. KELLY O’DONNELL: Democratic officials are gleeful and called her an ultra right wing extremist. Ironically, her supporters used an Obama slogan to predict victory in November. O’DONNELL SUPPORTERS AT RALLY CHANTING: Yes We Can! KELLY O’DONNELL: Turning to New Hampshire’s GOP Senate primary, a tight race too close to call. Former state attorney general, Kelly Ayotte, the choice of both the Republican establishment and Sarah Palin against a Tea Party endorsed conservative activist Ovide Lamontagne. On to New York, where the Republican nominee for governor is another Tea Party conservative . Real estate developer Carl Paladino over the party favorite former Congressman Rick Lazio, while New York Democrats stood by 20-term Congressman Charlie Rangel who’s accused of House ethics violations. Rangel beat back several challengers. REP. CHARLIE RANGEL: I go back to Washington stronger than I have ever been. KELLY O’DONNELL: And back here in Delaware, Democrats didn’t have a primary fight for the Senate seat, so Chris Coons is their candidate in November. O’Donnell who has worked as a media consultant for conservative non-profit groups says that she is hoping to get donations, even though the national party is reluctant to get behind her. And she also hopes to get the endorsement of Mike Castle. That has not happened. She is calling for unity, isn’t sure if she can expect it but says the Tea Party is behind her.

Read more from the original source:
NBC Reporter Throws Around Conservative Label but Can’t Call Rangel A Lib