Tag Archives: politics

Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews framed Sen. Jeff Sessions’ criticism of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a “brutal assault,” during MSNBC’s live coverage of the Senate hearing Monday afternoon. “It’s a brutal assault on this nomination,” Matthews complained about the Alabama Republican’s remarks. Matthews also seemed to cast Sessions as an unsophisticated country bumpkin challenging Kagan’s prestigious Ivy League background. “It’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law,” Matthews crooned. “It’s hard to get above that, to a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents. That is probably a pretty rich target.” He accused Sessions of describing Kagan as pro-terrorist and tried to get liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to say that Sessions’ “assault” would whip up a storm. “You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings,” Matthews insisted. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here, just bashing her?” “Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke?” Matthews later asked. Durbin tempered the debate by saying that, although he might not agree with Sessions, his colleague was doing his job in raising issues with Kagan. “I think it’s fine,” Durbin replied. “Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash.” The transcript of the two segments, which aired at 12:53 p.m. and 1:07 p.m. EDT, respectively, are as follows: MSNBC June 28, 2010 12:53 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea Mitchell, I’ve got to get your reaction. Very tough opening statement by Jeff Sessions. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, he has laid out the Republican line against her. And it was tough, and he is the ranking Republican. He said earlier today that he would not even rule out a filibuster, which has never happened, as Ron Brownstein pointed out earlier, when the same party controlled the Senate in a Supreme Court case. So this is a very tough – particularly on the issue of the military, on the terror law – he went through all of the top talking points from the Republicans. And she’s going to have a tough time defending that. MATTHEWS: (Garbled) …she’s anti-military, pro-terrorist, pro-illegal immigrant, and a socialist. It’s pretty tough. And by the way, I’ll go back to it – maybe an infelicitous reference, but it is a voodoo doll – she is being used as Barack Obama in that chair- EUGENE ROBINSON, Washington POst: This is throwing stuff against the wall, seeing – (Crosstalk) – trying to create an atmosphere and an image that goes beyond her that also envelops the President and the whole administration. She’s trying to say this is an elite, Ivy League, out-of-touch – MATTHEWS: Well, it’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law, it’s hard to get above that. To a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents, that is probably a pretty rich target. # # # MSNBC ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS June 28, 2010 1:07 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Now take a look at, what I think so far has been the toughest attack on this nomination. This is Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican. He is from Alabama. He was especially tough, as I said, in his opening statements. Let’s look at a montage of his toughest shots at the nominee. (Clip) Sen. JEFF SESSIONS (R-Ala.): Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years, and it’s not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which I think a real legal understanding occurs. Her actions punished the military, and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas. Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to re-define the meaning of words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies and agendas. (End Clip) MATTHEWS: Joining us right now is Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. He’s the Senate Majority Whip. Senator Durbin, if you listen to Jeff Sessions, your colleague, it’s a brutal assault on this nomination. She’s pro-terrorist in a sense, she’s anti-military, she’s a socialist, she’s for expansion of the government. He just about hit her on every cultural, political, ideological issue you can, and basically said he is definitely voting against her. He may lead a filibuster, based on his tone. Sen. DICK DURBIN (D-Ill.): I can just tell you, my Alabama colleague did not surprise me. He dismissed Elena Kagan out of hand and didn’t really get into the whole question of her role in Supreme Court. And then came the bill of particulars for the election in November. This was the Republican National committee bill of particulars, all of the things they want to accuse the Obama administration of. Socialism, secular humanism, you name it, went through the long litany. You get an idea of what this hearing is going to be all about. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think it’s really a hearing or is it something else? Is this going to be like a political convention on the right? Sen. DURBIN: Well I’m afraid it looks, from Senator Session’s statement, that there are going to be political overtones. And it’s not surprising, Chris, let’s be honest. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a nominee came along, we would be making points on our side of the aisle, too. But in fairness to Elena Kagan, At the end of the day, you have to look at what she has done, how she’s been cleared by this committee to be Solicitor General of the United States, her own achievements, and where she stands.  MATTHEWS: You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here just bashing her? Sen. DURBIN: Well I think so. But I tell you, the record shows – MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. You think we have gotten past we’re that insensitive? Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke? Sem. DURBIN: I think it’s fine. Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash. And I think we’re learning. Just remember, this is our fourth time in history to entertain a woman as a Supreme Court justice – four times, out of 111, this is the fourth. And I think there were lessons learned in the past. We do know that women nominees tend to get tougher questions. Think of what Sonia Sotomayor went through over one phrase, “Wise Latina.” You would think that the woman had declared that she was a traitor, treason on the United States. And instead they made that one phrase the focal point, they just went overboard on it.

Go here to see the original:
Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

Krugman Tries to Scare Up More Government Spending with ‘Third Depression’ Rhetoric

According to liberal economic Paul Krugman, a “third depression” will occur if nations tighten their belts and attempt to balance their budgets. Forget about the riots in Greece over a social welfare system the government couldn’t maintain or a $1.4 trillion annual U.S. budget deficit. Krugman claimed that the threat of deflation supersedes both of those results of runaway government spending – that is higher taxes in the long run and a debt to future generations. In his June 28 column for The New York Times , Krugman wrote: “We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost – to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs – will nonetheless be immense.” At the G-20 meeting in Toronto last week, European leaders encouraged fiscal discipline from the United States, while President Barack Obama pushed an opposite approach. That disappointed the Times columnist. “And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy,” Krugman continued. “Around the world – most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting – governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.” Krugman has rarely been concerned by government debt, unless it was for a war or could be used to bash former President George W. Bush. Maintaining his spendthrift perspective, he insisted the concerns raised over government spending have nothing to do with a genuine concern for the financial insolvency of the government or the threat of runaway inflation, but were part of an irrational “orthodoxy.” “So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs,” Krugman wrote. “It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times. And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.” For 2010, the federal deficit , as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product is a whopping 10.64 percent, the highest since 1945 in the midst of World War II – an imbalance that worries many people, just not Krugman. Over the past couple years, Krugman has been an outspoken advocate of government stimulus spending, criticized a $775 billion stimulus plan for being too small , called for a second stimulus , and even claimed in 2008 that “we probably have $10 trillion of running room ” when asked how much the government could spend to turn the economy around.

Originally posted here:
Krugman Tries to Scare Up More Government Spending with ‘Third Depression’ Rhetoric

Oliver Stone Lauds Hugo Chavez, Criticizes Action Against Iran on ABC’s GMA

Liberal director Oliver Stone revealed his anti-American bent on Monday’s Good Morning America, praising the rise of mainly left-wing leaders across South America and even went so far to support Brazilian President Lula da Silva for “trying to strike to deal with Iran,” wildly predicting ” it’s going to be like North Vietnam again ” if the U.S. pursued sanctions against the country. Anchor George Stephanopoulos interviewed the Oscar-winning director 44 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour. Stephanopoulos referenced how Stone has “tackled war, Wall Street, and the Kennedy assassination” and is now “taking on South America. He says our neighbors to the south haven’t gotten a fair shake from the American media, and, armed with a camera, he’s set out on a road trip to try to change that.” Before asking about Chavez, Stephanopoulos played a clip from Stone’s documentary “South of the Border,” which included a sound bite from CNN’s John Roberts that gave the impression that the anchor was condemning the Venezuelan leader: “He’s more dangerous than Bin Laden, and the effects of Chavez, his war against America, could eclipse those of 9/11.” Actually, Roberts, in the January 15, 2009 segment from his American Morning program, actually was reading a quote from a book by his guest, Doug Schoen: “Right off the bat, in the very front of the book, you quote Otto Reich, who was the former ambassador to Venezuela back in the 1980s, as saying that he’s more dangerous than bin Laden and the effects of Chavez, his war against America could eclipse those of 9/11.” Earlier, the ABC anchor asked, “Why take this on?” The director characterized the left-wing trend in leaders in South America as a “march towards reform” and praised these favorite leaders on the continent without naming them: STONE: They have democratically-elected leaders who look like the people who elected them. They have a priest in Paraguay. They have a woman in Argentina. They have an Indian leader- the first Indian- in Bolivia. They have an economist in Ecuador and they have a soldier who’s poor- comes from a poor family- who was elected three times in Venezuela- that’s Hugo Chavez. These are good people. When you look in their eyes, you see it, and you see it on film. That’s why you have to do a  film because on paper, it sometimes it didn’t come across, you know? The leader of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, is actually a former Catholic bishop who admitted that he fathered a child with a woman in her 20s when he was still a bishop. Lugo led a mainly left-wing coalition into office when he was elected in 2008. Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, nationalized $30 billion in private pension funds late in 2008. Bolivian President Evo Morales and Ecuador’s executive, Rafael Correa , are both avowed socialists. The ABC anchor later pressed the director on his endorsement of his Venezuelan “soldier:” STEPHANOPOULOS (live): Do you believe Hugo Chavez is a good person? STONE: Yes, I do- absolutely . STEPHANOPOULOS: But even the United Nations has said that Hugo Chavez has not been a paragon of free speech- his crackdown on the media in his own country. STONE: I have not seen that report. I know that- you know, there’s no pattern of censorship in this country . I’ve been there. So, you can see it. You can go down to South America, spend three days, and you’ll see the most vibrant opposition in the world . STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the reasons the United States has put a lot of pressure on Chavez is over oil, you believe, and there was particular opposition from the Bush administration. How do you think the relationship may change, now that President Obama is in office? STONE: Well, I hope it changes because America seems to want to control every oil-producing nation in the world, whether it’s Iraq or Iran or Venezuela. Since Stone named Iran, Stephanopoulos mentioned how “the president of Brazil [is] trying to strike a deal with Iran, counter to what the Obama administration is looking for.” The director replied that this move as a ” good thing .” When the anchor asked why, Stone made his “North Vietnam” comparison: STONE: Because- well, the march to sanctions in Iran. We want sanctions. We want- it seems to me, once they start intercepting their ships, we’re going to be in a- it’s going to be like North Vietnam again. We’re going to get into a position where we’re going to get closer to war. There’s no reason for to us go to war in Iran, any more than there was a reason to go in Iraq – STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if they want to build a nuclear weapon? STONE: Hmm? STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if they want to build a nuclear weapon? STONE: I think that has to be discussed. So the Oscar winner not only acted as a left-wing apologist but also vouched for inaction against a nation who has nuclear ambitions and has made threats against its neighbors. Stephanopoulos and Stone concluded by briefly discussing how the director was also releasing a sequel to his acclaimed 1987 movie, “Wall Street.” After thanking his guest, the ABC anchor noted that “‘South of the Border’ is open in New York now” as a title graphic for the movie flashed on screen. But, in a parallel to Stone’s edit of Roberts, the graphic that ABC used for the movie was actually cropped from its movie poster which emulated left-wing propaganda art . Eagle’s talons represented United States’s power in South America on the poster, which were mounted on top of South America which was appropriately painted red.

See more here:
Oliver Stone Lauds Hugo Chavez, Criticizes Action Against Iran on ABC’s GMA

Newspaper Editor Questions Whether Pro-Aborts Are to Blame for Misspelled Pro-Abortion Graffiti

Somewhere between 7 p.m. on June 14 and 7 p.m. on June 15, vandals spray painted graffiti, as seen on the top right photo, on the home of Dubuque, Iowa pro-lifer Allen Troupe. They were most likely incited by a sign in one of the windows of Troupe’s home, as seen on the bottom right photo. Click both photos to enlarge. Troupe filed a police report and anticipated the same level of fair and balanced media coverage one would expect were pro-life graffiti to appear on the home of an abortion proponent – i.e., lots. But not only did the local paper, the finally posted a story about the vandalism on June 23, but catch the headline: Troupe “believes” the graffiti on his home was tied to his abortion opposition, but that may not be true? The story’s 1st sentence reiterated the point: Police are investigating a vandalism case involving a man who believes his house was targeted due to his opposition to Planned Parenthood and abortion. So Troupe could have been in actuality drawing wild conclusions or hallucinating? These journalists are either utterly biased or totally void of common sense and simple intelligence.

Go here to see the original:
Newspaper Editor Questions Whether Pro-Aborts Are to Blame for Misspelled Pro-Abortion Graffiti

Robert Redford: Obama Should Use Gulf Spill to Push ‘Decent Energy Policy’

Robert Redford, one of the most popular and succesful actors of our age, has joined with other entertainers, including Sir Paul McCartney and Rosie O’Donnell in encouraging the Obama administration to actively politicize the Gulf crisis and use it to push through on energy policy. In an interview with ExtraTV, Redford said that Obama should “Grab this moment in history and get a decent energy policy.” He also said “Here’s a moment in our history where he [Obama] should grab leadership and run with it.” He said that “We blew it in the late seventies,” referring to laws like the National Energy Act, National Energy Conservation Policy Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act made in the wake of the OPEC embargo and the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster. Redford has long combined his interest in liberal and environmentalist politics with his career as an actor and film maker, producing The Motorcycle Diaries, based on the memoir by Che Guevara and contributing money to Democratic candidates 58 percent of the time. He added that the government needs to start planning for the end of oil and sustainable energy now. Apparently, the failure of the plans from the 70’s does not phase his faith in the ability of the government to plan energy policy. He did say that BP is responsible for the spill and the government needs to make them pay. Meanwhile, unlike McCartney, O’Donnell and Redford who urge political action, Kevin Costner has funded the development of machines which can aid tremendously in the clean up, using centrifuges to separate up to 99 percent of oil from water, despite prohibitive federal regulations preventing them from being developed. Costner has contributed money to Al Gore’s past campaigns and campaigned for Obama in Colorado. At least one celebrity is doing something useful regarding the spill.

Excerpt from:
Robert Redford: Obama Should Use Gulf Spill to Push ‘Decent Energy Policy’

Media ‘Feeding Frenzy’ Continues in Palin Coverage, Gainor Says

The video of journalists mocking Sarah Palin after a speech she delivered Friday is just the latest in a long line of media bias against the former Alaska governor and conservative superstar. An open mic caught reporters and photographers criticizing Palin following a speech at a fundraising dinner at California State University. “Oh my God,” one voice is heard saying, “I feel like I just got off a roller coaster, going round and round, and up and down. S*** flying out … everywhere.” While this video is among the clearest examples of media hatred for Palin, the trend goes back at least two years, according to MRC Vice President for Business and Culture Dan Gainor. “Back around the vice presidential debate in 2008 there were 37 negative stories on the broadcast networks, just two positive,” Gainor told “Fox & Friends” June 27. “It’s been a feeding frenzy ever since. Some of these journalists hate her so bad if she cured cancer they’d complain how many doctors she put out of work.” Gainor credited advances in technology with giving the American public a clearer picture of media bias in cases like the Palin video, Helen Thomas’ anti-Israel comments, and Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel’s anti-conservative e-mails. “What they’re discovering, and the key point is, their lies, their leaks, their embarrassing moments are going be to be held out there just like they’ve been doing to everybody else for decades,” Gainor said. “My parents would say, ‘What goes around comes around.'”

Read the original:
Media ‘Feeding Frenzy’ Continues in Palin Coverage, Gainor Says

Mary Matalin Battles Libs Arianna Huffington and Mark Green in New Radio Show

A new talk radio show launched this weekend that will certainly get a lot of attention from producers across the fruited plain if not from listeners. Called “Both Sides Now,” the program pits far-left internet publisher Arianna Huffington against conservative political consultant Mary Matalin. Unfortunately, there’s a glaring problem with the format: the host is the far-left leaning Mark Green who used to be the president of Air America Radio. As such, listeners will likely hear twice as many liberal views as conservative ones. Naturally, Green didn’t admit this in his debut announcement published at the Huffington Post Sunday: Welcome to the debut audio-blog of Both Sides Now w/ Huffington & Matalin. We’re a new nationally syndicated radio show whose name sort of conveys it all — Both Sides Now will be the first syndicated radio show that presents both sides with two prominent women. So instead of talk radio just being ideological monologues to the faithful, we’ll have two politically savvy women keeping each other on their toes. My goal as the host is to either clarify differences or bridge them. Clarify differences? Well, isn’t that special? Arianna’s got a far-left-leaning referee on the set to “clarify differences.” Readers are advised that Green co-authored 2004’s “The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America” with the far-left writer Eric Alterman. His most recent work of “non-fiction” is “Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President,” which was co-produced by the far-left outlets New Democracy Project and the Center for American Progress; both are funded by George Soros. As such, having Green “clarify differences” between Huffington and Matalin is like having Yankee fans officiate a Yankees-Red Sox game. Nevertheless, as I am a HUGE fan of Matalin’s, it will be interesting to see how this format works. Stay tuned. 

See the article here:
Mary Matalin Battles Libs Arianna Huffington and Mark Green in New Radio Show

AP Breaking: Supremes’ Ruling ‘Casts Doubt’ on Chicago Handgun Ban

Lord have mercy, even when it hits him in the face, the Associated Press’s Mark Sherman won’t concede the obvious : “Cast doubt”? Is that what court rulings do now? A USA Today item has it right: Other sources describing the ruling accurately include:  CNN — “Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban” Fox News — “High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights.” From text: “Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.” Reuters, as carried at the New York Times — “Supreme Court Rules Chicago Gun Ban Unconstitutional” As with the Washington, DC Heller case in 2008 , the real outrage is that the ruling was 5-4. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original here:
AP Breaking: Supremes’ Ruling ‘Casts Doubt’ on Chicago Handgun Ban

Senator Robert C. Byrd Dead at 92 [And Now He’s Dead]

West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd died today at age 92, after being hospitalized for heat exhaustion and severe dehydration last week. Byrd was the longest serving member of Congress in US history. [ Washington Post ] More

Barnicle Can’t Bring Himself To Mention Byrd’s Klan Past

When Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond died, the MSM was quick to stress his segregationist past. The New York Times ran the headline ” Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100 ,” leaving readers to imagine the South Carolinian had remained an advocate of segregation.  The very first line of USA Today’s story described Thurmond as “the nation’s most prominent segregationist.”   Strange how the MSM can suddenly become reticent about mentioning someone’s segregationist past when the late politician in question is a Democrat.  On Morning Joe today, Mark Halperin and Mike Barnicle used elliptical language worthy of a State Department dispatch to avoid mentioning that Byrd had been a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan. H/t NB reader Ray R. View video here . MARK HALPERIN: A lot’s happened in America and the world and he was an eyewitness to it, spanning a lot of generations not just as a witness but as a participant.  Early in his career a much different man than he ended his career and his life. . . . . MIKE BARNICLE: He was a very interesting man whose life covered so many events, 1958–elected to the Senate.  But I mean, just the transformation in Robert Byrd over the years , it was very interesting to watch.  I know, I’m sure you do Mark, I’m sure you do Joe, know people in public life, United States Senators, who had, you know, some objections to some of Sen. Byrd’s views years ago and saw him grow into his role as he served “You know, some objections to some of Sen. Byrd’s views.”  Right. Like this one.   But of course Mike is a man of such delicate sensibilities that he would never mention just what he had in mind—at least when the recently departed is a Dem.

The rest is here:
Barnicle Can’t Bring Himself To Mention Byrd’s Klan Past