Tag Archives: politics

Scarborough: Right-Wing Bloggers Criticizing Mika For Cutting Off Pastor Jones Are ‘Crazy People’

Crazy? I’ll give you crazy . . . Last Friday Mika Brzezinski and Morning Joe engaged in some strange and possibly unprecedented TV “journalism.”  They invited Terry Jones—the potentially Koran-burning pastor—on the show via live feed, gave former Newsweek editor Jon Meachem the chance to lecture him about Christianity and implore him not to proceed with his plan . . . then summarily cut the feed without giving Jones the chance to say word one in response. “We don’t really need to hear anything else” declared Mika , as she shut down the pastor’s microphone. A number of bloggers, including NB’s own Matt Hadro and me , noted and criticized Mika’s bizarre move.  But there was Joe Scarborough on the show today, mockingly writing off Mika’s critics as “crazy people.” Joe’s contemptuous comment came in response to guest Joe Conason’s observation that, judging by the response in the blogosphere, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s muscular support of the Ground Zero Mosque has probably put paid to any possible presidential ambitions on his part. JOE CONASON: [Bloomberg] made what I think was a highly-praiseworthy decision to sacrifice the idea of running nationally when he took such a strong stand. If you read what people are saying about him in the blogosphere — JOE SCARBOROUGH: Who cares?  Who reads that crap? CONASON: I do.  It’s my job. SCARBOROUGH: You know what? There’s going to be anger. Of course we all read blogs, too.  There are people outraged, I mean, there are people outraged on the right that Mika didn’t give time to that preacher that wants to burn Korans and get American troops killed overseas.  So there’re crazy people on both sides. Instead of school-yard name-calling, it would have been interesting to hear Scarborough’s serious defense—if one he has—of inviting a guest on with knowledge aforethought that he was going to be lectured and not accorded an opportunity to respond.  

More here:
Scarborough: Right-Wing Bloggers Criticizing Mika For Cutting Off Pastor Jones Are ‘Crazy People’

Maddow Guest Harris-Lacewell Suggests ‘Crazy Uncle’ Biden Spout Off and Obama Pretend to Disagree

Hope and change, meet business as usual. Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell unveiled this curious possible strategy for Democrats heading into the midterms when she appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show Sept. 8 — MADDOW: One last last question on the specifics here. The president himself is planning to be very visible from all accounts, multiple campaign events, the first planned press conference in a long while. Is he still the Democrats’ best campaign asset or do Democrats need somebody else out there who can throw sharper barbs than a sitting president is really allowed to? Followed by Harris-Lacewell responding, as if hearing the question from Maddow for the first time — HARRIS-LACEWELL: You know, look, I love to see President Obama out there. He loves giving the speeches, he’s a great campaigner, we know that. But I have to say, one of the reasons I was a big supporter of Joe Biden for the vice presidential position is because I always thought that Biden could provide a real asset in a moment like this. Look, don’t get me wrong but Joe Biden has a sort of a reputation for being Crazy Joe and one of the best things about your crazy uncle at a family reunion is that he says the one completely honest thing that everybody’s thinking, that none of the people with an actual filter will in fact say. So, I’m a big fan of kind of deploying the Crazy Uncle Joe strategy. Send Vice President Biden out there, let him kind of get tough, let him say things that are somewhat outrageous and then, you know, let President Obama do his typical strategy of reaching across the aisle and, you know, he’ll look and say oh come on, Joe, that may have gone too far. But I’m a big fan of, let’s get Crazy Joe out there. MADDOW (beaming with approval, as if for the first time she’s heard this): The Crazy Uncle Joe strategy, TM, Melissa Harris-Lacewell. HARRIS-LACEWELL: Why not?! (laughs) MADDOW: Very good. I want the T-shirt franchise on that! What the heck, Harris-Lacewell guffaws, oblivious to the inherent dishonesty of her suggestion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this the sort of thing Obama vowed to campaign against , back when a grasping, credulous portion of the electorate considered him an agent of genuine change?  In other words, Biden could act as ventriloquist dummy, saying what Obama seemingly can’t but actually is. Why not? (slap knee here) No one will see through that.

See original here:
Maddow Guest Harris-Lacewell Suggests ‘Crazy Uncle’ Biden Spout Off and Obama Pretend to Disagree

FNC’s Colmes Claims ‘Very Similar Reaction’ from Christians to Muslims Burning Bible as Muslims to Koran-Burning

On Saturday’s Fox News Watch, after host Jon Scott displayed a political cartoon that depicted the aggressive overreaction of many Muslims to Pastor Terry Jones’s threat to burn a Koran on September 11, liberal FNC analyst Alan Colmes suggested that a “very similar reaction” from Christians would result if a Muslim announced the intent to burn a Bible. Despite the reported riots and death in places like Kabul, Afghanistan, Colmes initically doubted that there had been calls for “Death to America” as a result of the Koran-burning controversy. Scott showed a cartoon from tobytoons.com which ended with a Muslim man shouting “Death to America,” and turned to Colmes, asking, “Do they have a point?” The exchange continued: ALAN COLMES: I don’t know that people are calling for death to America, but, again, isn’t it true that when- SCOTT: In the Islamic world, sure they are. COLMES -General Petraeus speaks out and says it’s going to endanger our troops, that’s really what the key issue is. If we were to burn the Bible, if we were to actually have a bunch of Muslims or one Muslim somewhere doing a Bible burning, I bet you would have a very similar reaction from Christians who would be equally offended. And who knows what kind of death threats might come to that Muslim?

Continue reading here:
FNC’s Colmes Claims ‘Very Similar Reaction’ from Christians to Muslims Burning Bible as Muslims to Koran-Burning

In Search Of: People Of Color

For more than a year now, the mainstream media has demonized the Tea Party as a group of white racists. On September 12, 2010, we set out to see for ourselves if the Tea Party is as “monochromatic” as most of the media has steadfastly claimed to this day.

Go here to read the rest:
In Search Of: People Of Color

George Will Helps Arianna Huffington Make a Fool of Herself on This Week

As NewsBusters has previously reported , liberal Internet publisher Arianna Huffington is breathtakingly ignorant when it comes to basic economic theory. On Sunday, she proved it again by making an absolute fool of herself on ABC’s “This Week.” With the “Roundtable” segment beginning on the subject of the economy, Huffington noted how the failure of the banking bailout to stimulate growth was “proof that the government does not work.” In a stunning display of both idiocy and hypocrisy, she moments later demanded more financial regulations, including a reinstatement of the Depression Era Glass-Steagall Act, to – wait for it! – stimulate the economy. Adding insult to injury, George Will was available to really make clear what an absolute imbecile Huffington is (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):   ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: At the bottom of the Tea Party movement of that anger is anger at the bailout. And you know, here people, Democrats, Republicans have been given proof that the government does not work because the government spent almost $800 billion and look where we are. Wall Street is doing well. Main Street is suffering. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Somebody I was talking to over the, during the week, people in business and venture capital who were saying, “Why doesn’t the government do more to force banks to lend, to do more to make it easier for people to actually go out there and show some kind of consumer activity?” GEORGE WILL: Well maybe if the government did less, period, people would be more inclined to lend money. The banks aren’t hoarding the money because they are in a pout. They’re not hoarding the money because they’re mad at somebody. They’re hoarding money because they can’t find lenders who think they can borrow it and make money. HUFFINGTON: No, that’s not true. The banks are getting almost zero-percent interest rate… WILL: Yes. HUFFINGTON: …loans from the Fed and they are spending it to make a lot of profit in derivatives tradings and all the things that got us into this trouble in the first place. And this administration and this Congress still has not passed an end to Too Big To Fail, still has not reinstated Glass-Steagall. So even, even though people may not be able to give you all these details, they know that the system has not been fixed, that financial reform is full of loopholes, and that the system is not fair, basically, for them as they’re seeing their lives falling apart. Amazing. So first she says the failure of the bailout to stoke lending is an example of how government doesn’t work, and then she asks for more government intervention to get the economy going. Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? Moments later, Will put the icing on the cake: WILL: We started arguing about the tax cut. The president says we can’t afford the tax cuts for the wealthy because that would add $700 billion to the deficit over ten years. Which is to say over ten years it would add less to the deficit than Obama added with the stimulus in one year. Simple arithmetic most fourth graders would understand unless they were raised or educated by liberals like Huffington.

Read the original:
George Will Helps Arianna Huffington Make a Fool of Herself on This Week

NYT Tees Up DNC Talking Points With Ethically Questionable Piece on Boehner’s Lobbyist Ties

The New York Times’s lobbyist double standard lives on. Since Barack Obama became president, the paper has routinely overlooked the vast disconnect between his rhetoric on lobbying’s role on the political process – there really isn’t one, if you believe Barack – and his actions on the issue. But while the Gray Lady all but ignores Obama’s deep ties with lobbyists and the industry groups they represent, the paper has hammered Republicans for their ties to “special interests.” The latest such attempt is a hack job in Sunday’s New York Times. Reporter Eric Lipton claims that House Miniority Leader John Boehner “maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS.” The story makes some serious allegations – the most damning of which was sourced to an anonymous lobbyist. Intriguingly, some of the same claims undergird an upcoming DNC ad blitz against Boehner. The Leader’s staff, meanwhile, claim they were not asked for comment before the story went to press. Byron York reported Saturday: Boehner spokesman Michael Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. “Yes, that is correct,” Steel responded to Lipton, adding “I can tell you why, if you care.” Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton. Steel says Boehner has long held those positions and does not hold them as a result of lobbying. Hours after the email exchange, the Times story was published online, with the statement from the lobbyist that he had “won” Boehner’s backing on those matters. After Boehner’s aides complained, the paragraph was changed to read, emphasis added: One lobbyist in the club — after lauding each staff member in Mr. Boehner’s office that he routinely calls to ask for help — ticked off the list of recent issues for which he had sought the lawmaker’s backing: combating fee increases for the oil industry, fighting a proposed cap on debit card fees, protecting tax breaks for hedge fund executives and opposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Boehner’s office said these were positions he already agreed with. The statement that a lobbyist “won” Boehner’s backing was changed to one in which a lobbyist “sought” Boehner’s backing. That’s a rather critical change. The Times also added Boehner’s defense that these were long-held positions. To call Boehner’s aides angry at the account would be an understatement. “They were offered the opportunity to find out if this was true, and they chose to rely instead on the word of an anonymous lobbyist,” says spokesman Michael Steel. “They intentionally refused to get the information to prove that this allegation was false.” That allegation itself is pretty serious. But it would hardly be out of step for a paper that has previously sought to demonize Republicans’ relationships with lobbyists in either complete ignorance of or contradictory to the facts. Remember Vicki Iseman? The New York Times suggested in a February 2008 article that Iseman, then a lobbyist with Alcalde & Fay, had a romantic relationship with then-presidential candidate John McCain. Not a shred of evidence was offered to support the allegation, and the Times later printed a correction claiming it had no intention of making that suggestion. If making baseless accusations against Republicans and their relationships with lobbyists were not sordid enough, the Times has also made a habit of blindly accepting any claim made by President Obama regarding ethics and lobbying at simple face value. Here’s a sampling of Times headlines since 2008: On First Day, Obama Quickly Sets a New Tone Obama’s Transition Team Restricts Lobbyists’ Role Victory for Obama Over Military Lobby ‘All Kinds of Yelling’ Expected From Obama’s Lobbyist Crackdown Obama Returns Lobbyist’s Donations Obama Issues Sharp Call for Reforms on Wall Street White House, Lobbyists Still at Odds The President Orders Transparency The Times does occasionally run watered-down, statistic-ridden pieces such as “As Donors, Lobbyists Often Favor One Party” (since it’s not in the headline, I’ll bet you can guess which party). But neither the immeasurable hypocrisy of this administration’s rhetoric on “special interests” nor the administration’s ties to those special interests are explored in any detail. So when President Obama claimed that he had “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs” despite the 50 lobbyists he employed (and continues to employ) in policymaking jobs, the Times failed to note any disconnect. Instead, the paper ran a story claiming Obama’s new lobbyist rules would “revolutionize how lobbyists disclose their activities and contribute money to candidates for federal office.” Beyond simply ignoring the specific hypocrisies in Obama’s rhetoric, the Times has taken a see-no-evil approach to the president’s extensive ties to the largest industry groups, while trumpeting relationships between Republicans and “special interests.” The pattern was on full display this summer, when the Times had to be reminded that Obama received seven times as much in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs as George W. Bush did from Enron. Yet while the Times had vaguely alleged some sort of unethical relationship between the defunct energy company and the Bush administration, it made no such suggestions concerning Goldman. Given its history, the Times’s approach to the Boehner story is, though underhanded, hardly shocking. The agenda in its coverage of lobbyists and lawmakers is quite clear. And given the Times’s clear willingness to toe the Democratic line on this issue, it’s worth pondering this interesting chain of events. Just this past week, President Obama began directing his ire towards congressional Republicans, and Boehner specifically. Mere days later, as Yid With Lid notes , the Times also took up that line of attack. Then, Sunday morning, as NewsBusters reported , White House press secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted a series of quotes from and laudatory remarks about the Times piece, from the official Twitter feed of the White House press office. The Times’s piece also plays pefectly into the DNC’s election strategy. In fact, it kicks off a week in which Democrats are hoping to paint Boehner, well, exactly as he is painted by the Times piece. A DNC official told Talking Points Memo : We are going to tell Americans exactly who he is: a special interest and lobbyist loving typical Washington politician who always puts the well heeled and well-to-do ahead of middle class families and small businesses and who would, if he became speaker, return the capitol to the anything goes, DeLay-Abramoff days and ways of doing business.  So the Times blasted Boehner in the Sunday paper with a line of attack taken up by President Obama last week and touted by the White House the morning of its publication, and teed up a week of Boehner-bashing by offering the laughable veil of objectivity to de facto Democratic talking points. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the mainstream media.

View post:
NYT Tees Up DNC Talking Points With Ethically Questionable Piece on Boehner’s Lobbyist Ties

Obama Press Secretary Gibbs Uses Twitter to Push NYT Hit Piece About Boehner

The midterm election campaign is now in full swing, and with Democrats looking at historic losses in Congress, the folks at the New York Times did their job by publishing a front page hit piece on House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.) Sunday: He maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS. They have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns, provided him with rides on their corporate jets, socialized with him at luxury golf resorts and waterfront bashes and are now leading fund-raising efforts for his Boehner for Speaker campaign, which is soliciting checks of up to $37,800 each, the maximum allowed. The woman he hopes to replace, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, derided him on Friday as having met “countless times with special-interest lobbyists in an effort to stop tough legislation” that would regulate corporations and protect consumers. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, through a spokeswoman, charged that he “epitomizes the smoked-filled, backroom, special-interest deal making that turns off voters about Washington.” So marvelous a hit job was done by Eric Lipton that Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sent four consecutive messages on Sunday to his 93,000 followers on Twitter: Politico’s Mike Allen decided to “retweet” one of Gibb’s messages to his 36,000 followers : Allen followed this with a tweet of his own concerning Boehner: Gibbs must have liked that and retweeted it himself:    So, you can see how this campaign is going to work now:  The White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and/or Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will send their talking points to “news” outlets like the Times “News” outlets like the Times will dutifully echo such talking points The White House, Pelosi, and/Reid will broadcast the “news” to all that are interested “News” outlets like the Times will dutifully echo such broadcasts.    This is the state of “journalism” in America today. Any questions?

Follow this link:
Obama Press Secretary Gibbs Uses Twitter to Push NYT Hit Piece About Boehner

Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

On Sunday’s syndicated Chris Matthews Show, after host Matthews asked if electing a President whose middle name was “Hussein” had “opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity?” the panel mostly agreed that Obama’s election was more of a “net plus” for America’s relations with the Muslim world. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius had a dissenting view that “President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous.” After former CBS News anchor Dan Rather contended that “I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation,” the BBC’s Katty Kay agreed and implicated President Bush in damaging America’s relations with the Middle East. Kay: “I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East.” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell concurred: “: I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius had a more negative take: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. The discussion was framed around the liberal premise that President Bush had not only harmed relations with the Muslim world by being too aggressive in the war on terrorism, but that those negative relations outweighed such positive accomplishments as overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 12 syndicated Chris Matthews Show: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s get back to the question of our country. We, as a country, elected Barack Hussein Obama. We knew his name was Hussein. We knew of his background from his parentage going way back. The Arab world liked that. The Islamic world said, “Hey, this country’s interesting.” Overall, has the election of Barack Obama opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity? DAN RATHER: I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation. MATTHEWS: Okay. Katty, you agree with that? KATTY KAY, BBC: I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS : I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus. DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. MATTHEWS: I think a grown-up response and childish response are always going to be different. Grown-ups are going to say, “Well, it’s an interesting country. They elect a guy named Barack Hussein Obama.” … (INAUDIBLE) country. IGNATIUS: Don’t look for grown-up responses in America or anywhere else.

More here:
Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

Obamanomics Open Thread: Poverty on Track for Record Gain in 2009

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Here’s change you can believe in! The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. Census figures for 2009 – the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat’s presidency – are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings. The anticipated poverty rate increase – from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent – would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power. (more stats follow) Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis. Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government’s role in social welfare programs from education to health care.  To be sure, this is really bad news for Obama and Democrats. However, if the poverty rate ends up being the highest since LBJ started this “war on poverty,” doesn’t it mean we’ve lost, and that expanding “the federal government’s role in social welfare programs from education to health care” has totally failed? Of course, such an obvious conclusion won’t be made by the Left which will certainly use this data to call for even  more socialism, correct?

Read the original post:
Obamanomics Open Thread: Poverty on Track for Record Gain in 2009

After Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Unhinged Rant, Columbus Dispatch’s Hallett Begs, Fails to Get Help Watering It Down

Though its true nature was largely ignored by the local media at the event (noted on Tuesday at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), Ted Strickland’s unhinged Labor Day speech at the AFL-CIO’s annual picnic at Cincinnat’s Coney Island has, with the help of the Republican Governors Association (RGA), garnered quite a bit of statewide attention. During his rant , Strickland denounced the Republican Party as “overtaken by the zealots, by the extremists, by the radicals”; claimed that “they don’t seem to like Ohio very much, and quite frankly, they act as if they don’t like America very much,” in essence questioning their patriotism; and asked the audience to help him fight “the Tea Party radicals.” The fallout has apparently been so severe that ever-helpful veteran Columbus Dispatch reporter, senior editor, and columnist Joe Hallett felt compelled on Thursday to try to help the Governor walk it all back. In an exchange that can only be seen as Hallett begging for Strickland to give him something, anything to work with, Strickland wasn’t very helpful, bogusly played the “out of context” card, and in a very real sense doubled down on his disrespect for those who oppose him. He even went into a riff on how opponents (in context, “Republicans,” not just “some Republicans”) want to repeal the 14th amendment (huh?). The full 11:36 video of Strickland’s discussion with reporters  is here (originally posted at the Ohio Capital Blog ); the RGA’s 2:04 excerpt featuring Hallett  is here (HT RightOhio ). What follows is a transcript of the excerpt: Hallett: The Republicans are making much of the speech you gave in Cincinnati, basically saying you had a heartbeat moment, when in your speech you said that “Republicans don’t like Ohio very much, and they don’t like America very much.” Do you mean that? Strickland: Uh, yes, but you need to, you need to get the full context of what I said, Joe. I wasn’t talking about their patriotism. I went on to talk about why I was saying that. Um, um, they want to ch-, they want to change the country. They want to change Ohio. It has nothing to do with their love for the country or their love of Ohio. It has a lot to do with whether or not they like Ohio the way it is, or they like America the way it is. For someone to repeal the 14th Amendment, that’s a pretty basic thing, that’s a part of our country’s history, tradition, and, and, Constitution, um, processes. Uh, uh, Mary Taylor, uh, says that she has urged people to leave Ohio and move to Florida, uh uh, or Nevada, or to some other state. (Taylor is the GOP’s Lieutenant Governor candidate — Ed.) So, uh if, if you understand what I said within the context of, of what I was saying and how I was saying it, uh, it’s not what they’re trying to make it. So — Hallett: Well, you’ve got, you’ve got a lot of Republicans _____ in ____, they’re going to present this as, “Governor Strickland says, ‘You Republicans don’t like this country.'” Strickland: Here a-, here again Joe, I talked about the fact that moderate Republicans are being pushed out of their party, that the, that the leadership of the Republican Party now was comprised of people that I think are on the extreme right wing of that party. I was not talking about all Republicans. Th-They know that, and I-I hope you can, can just watch the, the total, uh, speech that I made rather than, uh, the particular snippet of it. Other items found in the longer video: Strickland considers GOP candidate John Kasich’s idea to gradually eliminate the state’s income tax to be “radical.” Well, how have Florida and Texas (both much larger states), as well as Tennessee, New Hampshire, and several other states without income taxes survived all these years? A Hallett softball — “You’ve seen the polls. They’re not looking good for you. Are you fearful of becoming a victim of a climate over which you have no control?” Oh, the humanity! Hallet apparently already has his Election Night column theme drafted. Try to imagine Hallett asking a similar question of a Republican trailing in the polls. I know; you can’t. Besides being justifiably outraged at the characterization of Tea Partiers, sensible conservatives in the Buckeye State are surely chuckling at Strickland’s description of Ohio’s Republican Party, which during May’s primary campaign spent large sums of money and put a great deal of effort into ensuring the defeat of Tea Party-backed statewide and Central Committee candidates in favor of its preferred go-along, get-along candidates and Central Committee incumbents. As to liking and loving Ohio and America — to specifically describe just one problem, “Ohio the way it is” has 10.3% unemployment . “America the way it is” is at 9.6% . Unless I’m missing something, nobody “likes” that (Ted, if you do, which could fairly be inferred from what you said — and would be if a Republican or conservative had said it — please let us know). One can love their state and their country and still not like high unemployment, out of control debt, a bloated public sector, high taxes, and a lousy business climate. Strickland campaigned in 2006 as the guy who would ” Turnaround Ohio .” Obviously, he has done no such thing. The clear majority of loyal, loving Buckeye Staters don’t like that, and at this point appear to want something different. The pathetically pleading Joe Hallett, who infamously wrote in May that Ted Strickland couldn’t possibly bear any responsibility for Ohio’s lost jobs (just as, Hallett noted, GOP gubernatorial candidate John Kasich can’t be blamed for the collapse of the economy, which happens to be true), had to come away from his rescue attempt disappointed. Sorry, Joe. This is who Ted Strickland is. You and the rest of Ohio’s establishment press mostly provided cover for him in 2006. Now that he has a record trying to actually run something bigger than his former congressional staff (which, by the way, he didn’t do vey well either), your job has become a lot tougher. Too bad, so sad. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Visit link:
After Ohio Gov. Strickland’s Unhinged Rant, Columbus Dispatch’s Hallett Begs, Fails to Get Help Watering It Down