Tag Archives: politics

CBS, ABC Excited Over Barack Obama’s Bid to Recapture His ‘Glory Days’

Both ABC and CBS on Wednesday played up Barack Obama’s attempt to reignite his Democratic base and defeat surging Republicans. Good Morning America host George Stephanopoulos labeled the President’s trip to Madison, Wisconsin a ” glory days tour. ” On CBS’s Early Show, Chip Reid used nearly identical language, claiming the President was “recalling his glory days on the 2008 campaign trail.” The two networks played up the Democratic comeback storyline with little focus on the Republicans. GMA and The Early Show also ignored what it meant for the President to be traveling to an extremely liberal city in order to excite his Democratic base. Reid enthused, “President Obama rallied a raucous crowd of at least 15,000 people at the University of Wisconsin in a speech us that beamed to more than 100 college campuses nationwide. (NBC’s Savannah Guthrie sounded a similar theme on the Today show : “The President proved last night, in Wisconsin, he can still pack tens of thousands of young people into an arena.”) Although CBS did point out that Obama has, thus far, failed to fire up young voters (Jake Tapper made this point on ABC), Reid avoided noting that the President is playing defense in Democratic states. Instead, he closed by highlighting that “there are more campaign-style rallies on college campuses scheduled in the weeks to come.” ABC’s Tapper played up Democratic discontent, featuring the liberal Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake: “[Obama] is telling voters, on the Democratic base, they are irresponsible. They’re, you know, they’re slackers. They don’t care enough to show up.” Pivoting off this, Stephanopoulos later worried to pollster Matt Dowd: “You saw that Vice President Biden came out earlier in the week and said stop whining. You think they [the White House] have to refine the message a little bit?” Stephanopoulos hopefully observed, “The President stepping it up there. He went to church with his family two Sundays ago. Everything you see him doing that, trying to re-establish that emotional connection with the voters.” A transcript of the September 29 Early Show, which aired at 7:06am EDT, follows: HARRY SMITH: Now to President Obama back on the campaign trail, trying to reignite the fire in young voters who helped him win the White House. But getting them to support Democrats this year seems to be a bit of a challenge. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President in Des Moines. Good morning, Chip. CHIP REID: Well, good morning. The President is doing whatever he can to fire up the Democratic base before election day. He told Rolling Stone magazine it’s ‘irresponsible and inexcusable’ for Democrats not to go to the polls. And at the University of Wisconsin he gave a barn-burner of a speech. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s Call to Action; Rallies Youth in Midterm Push] BARACK OBAMA: What did you say, Wisconsin?! CROWD: Yes, we can! REID: Recalling his glory days on the 2008 campaign trail. OBAMA: Hello, Wisconsin! REID: President Obama rallied a raucous crowd of at least 15,000 people at the University of Wisconsin in a speech us that beamed to more than 100 college campuses nationwide. OBAMA: We cannot sit this one out. We can’t let this country fall backwards because the rest of us didn’t care enough to fight. The stakes are too high for our country and for your future. REID: This is the first in a series of campaign rallies aimed at reigniting enthusiasm among young voters who helped propel the President to victory two years ago. But, the problem for Democrats is that many young voters are far less interested in the midterm elections, now just five weeks away. DANEZ SMITH [STUDENT]: The level of enthusiasm, as far as like, this election coming up, I don’t think it’s there at all. BROCK FRITZ [STUDENT]: He’s just trying to get excitement for other people, and not himself. So I guess that kind of changes. REID: Makes it a lot harder. FRITZ: Yeah. RALLY ANNOUNCER: Our United States Senator, Russ Feingold! REID: Other Democrats, like Senator Russ Feingold, who recently avoided appearing with the President at a campaign event, but Tuesday night made a surprise stop. RUSS FEINGOLD: You are my president! You are our president! And I’m thrilled that you are here with all us badgers! REID: The President returned the favor, hoping to give a boost to Feingold, who not long ago was favored to win reelection but is now trailing in the polls. OBAMA: Because, if everybody who fought for change in 2008 shows up to vote in 2010, we will win. We will win. The polls say the same thing, we will win. REID: Today, the President changes the focus back to the economy with another backyard event, but there are more campaign-style rallies on college campuses scheduled in the weeks to come. Back to you. SMITH: Chip Reid in Des Moines, thanks.

Original post:
CBS, ABC Excited Over Barack Obama’s Bid to Recapture His ‘Glory Days’

How a College Kid Livestreamed His Roommate Having Gay Sex, Possibly Causing a Suicide [Crime]

Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei , both 18, have been charged with planting a webcam in a Rutgers dorm and broadcasting a classmate’s sexual encounter. The classmate is believed to have committed suicide. Here’s what Dharun did, step by step. More

2010’s Craziest Political Ads (So Far) [Video]

Have you noticed all of the really, really strange, embarrassing, or disturbing political ads coming out this election year? If you’ve missed any, here’s a collection of the year’s “best.” More

We Did It! Thank You, NBers!

Great job, everyone. You put us over the top! Thanks so much for your help. We’re ironing out the last wrinkles of the new NewsBusters site, and we expect it to go live soon. We’ll make sure to keep everyone updated with the progress. Again, thank you all for your support. We really cannot do this without you. Our dedicated readership is what keeps this site running, and allows us to upgrade to meet unprecedented demand.

Go here to see the original:
We Did It! Thank You, NBers!

If Rahm Leaves, Who Will Be the Next White House Official to Depart?

View original post here:
If Rahm Leaves, Who Will Be the Next White House Official to Depart?

Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: 9/11 Was Bush’s Fault, Trashes Vietnam Vet as ‘Creepy Liar’

Prior to tonight’s debut of Lawrence O’Donnell’s new show, The Last Word, MSNBC has been running promos where O’Donnell proclaims how much “political pressure there is on everyone involved” in governing decisions and that it leaves him “respecting every one who steps into that room to do that,” adding he’s “gonna disagree with some of those people” but will always “respect the strength it takes to go on in there.” Well “respect” was the last thing O’Donnell displayed to a couple of guests that appeared with him on various MSNBC programs. Back on the February 12 edition of Morning Joe, he was such was in such a rage against former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, going as far as to blame that administration for the 9/11 attacks, host Joe Scarborough actually had to call the proverbial whistle on him and stop the program, to let him cool down. However, when they got back from a commercial break O’Donnell launched into yet another tirade as he called Thiessen a “torture-monger.” (video below the fold) Perhaps O’Donnell’s worst performance came on the October 22, 2004 edition of Scarborough Country when he want lashed out against Vietnam veteran John O’Neill of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth for daring to challenge then presidential candidate John Kerry’s veracity, as he repeatedly called him a “liar” and charged he did nothing to stop the war. The following are transcripts of those unhinged attacks by O’Donnell: First up O’Donnell’s rants against Thiessen on the February 12, Morning Joe: O’DONNELL: You as a former speechwriter in the White House, you took an oath of office, when you took that job, that you might or might not remember. You actually published a book that says that the President of the United States, on its title, the President is inviting the next attack. Isn’t it true that the President you worked for invited the first attack, by having no idea what was going on with al Qaeda. You just admitted that when you were hit on 9/11, you just said, “We didn’t know who hit us.” You said, “We didn’t know who hit us.” You were told who was going to hit you before we were hit on 9/11. Your administration invited the first attack, for which you should live in shame! MARC THIESSEN: Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Go! THIESSEN: Listen here’s the record. When the, when the, when the Obama administration approach, the law enforcement approach was first working the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of our embassies in… O’DONNELL: Talk about the Bush presidency from the day he was sworn in! THIESSEN: …and, and, and the 9/11 attacks. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH CUTTING IN: We’re, we’re going to break right now! We’re, we’re going to break right now. We’ll be right back and I’ll be interviewing Marc by myself. We’ll be right back. … SCARBOROUGH COMING BACK FROM BREAK: So here we go. Lawrence you have 30 seconds and then Marc gets a response. Ready? Go! O’DONNELL: Marc I’m wondering about your own personal experience with torture. I know you grew up in the richest zip code in America, in the upper East Side. You went to the only boarding school in Connecticut that I know of that has a golf course as well as two skating rinks. THIESSEN: Oh my goodness…opposition research. O’DONNELL: And then you went to Vassar and of course like all the torture-mongers in the White House, the Cheney family included, you never served a day in the military. Never considered that. THIESSEN: What does that prove Lawrence? O’DONNELL: Well I’m wondering with that background what is it that gives you an expertise on torture? What makes you love it so much? Now to O’Donnell’s, October 22, 2004 Scarborough Country, rampage against Vietnam veteran John O’Neill for his part in the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth: PAT BUCHANAN: Al lright, let me ask you, Lawrence O’Donnell, I mean is this, clearly, Kerry has expressed anger about these ads. And he said later, “I should have answered them earlier in August, and we didn’t do it, and they clearly hurt.” But Max Cleland was very public. He went down to Crawford, Texas, to the ranch. Why has Kerry not only ignored the ads, but almost dropped all references? You know, at the convention, it was the convention, “John Kerry, reporting for duty.” Why has he dropped all of that now? Are they just trying to sweep that aside or what?  LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, let’s get back to the truth. The fact of the matter is that John O’Neill on MSNBC had to face—debate an argument with Kerry’s bands of brothers people who served with him in Vietnam and knew him well, and plenty of the people who served on that boat with him have come on MSNBC and other networks and refuted much of what’s in that book. And then John O’Neill’s own sources, like Larry Thurlow, turned out to be nuts. He turned out to claim in John O’Neill’s book—and Pat Buchanan and I have both written nonfiction books, and we write them to a very high standard, not this O’Neill standard, where he never tells you in his book that Thurlow got a Bronze Star for the same thing that Kerry got a Bronze Star for, the same encounter with the enemy. And that citation says that there was enemy fire. And the guy, and this Thurlow, who received this Bronze Star, wants us to believe that 35 years had passed and he had never read the words on his own citation. It’s one of the many lies that the book advances. To me, the most interesting lie, John O’Neill, that I would submit to you that you should answer is, you make a lying claim that John Kerry’s anti-war activity prolonged the amount of time that prisoners of war were held in Vietnam. You know the truth is what got them out of Vietnam was ending the war. You know the truth is that John Kerry helped end that war sooner through the protests. And I’d like to ask you, John O’Neill, when you got back from Vietnam, what did you do to save a single life that you left behind in Vietnam? What did you do to get the American soldiers out of Vietnam?  (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Hold it. Okay go ahead, John O’Neill. JOHN O’NEILL, AUTHOR, UNFIT FOR COMMAND: I’d like to respond. First of all, Larry, I don’t think there’s a thing you said that wasn’t a lie in everything you just said. To start off with, with respect to John Kerry, John Kerry’s anti-war activities didn’t get any POWs home. The Treaty of Paris got the POWs home.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Ending the war, ending the war which you didn’t do a thing to do. You didn’t have the courage to lift a finger against it. (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Look, he has got a right to respond. I was in the White House at the time. Nixon had brought half the troops home by the time Kerry made his protest. Go ahead, John O’Neill. O’NEILL: What actually happened, Kerry wanted to abandon ship and leave the POWs there.  We negotiated a treaty that brought them home. That’s why they’re all here. If Kerry had helped them out, they wouldn’t be in that photograph with us. Kerry’s a guy they’ll never forget. He wanted to leave them behind. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: That’s a lie, John O’Neill. Keep lying. It’s all you do. BUCHANAN: Hold it, John O’Neill. How do you justify the—how do you justify the statement you just made that Kerry wanted to leave the POWs behind?  O’DONNELL: Lies. He doesn’t justify anything. BUCHANAN: Where did he do that?  O’NEILL: On the Dick Cavett show and elsewhere, John Kerry’s position was that we should accept the Madame Binh seven-point proposal, which called for unilateral withdrawal, setting a date after which at some future time, we’d negotiate the return of the POWs. So we would set a date. We would withdraw and then we would begin to discuss how to bring them home. That would have never worked. Our position was, you had to have a deal where the POWs came home. The POWs know that. This is like trying to claim—that’s why they’re all with us, because he would have let them rot in jails. (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: With respect to the rest of what you said, Larry- (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: What did you do to get them out? What did you do to end the war? What did you do to get them out? What did you do to end the war? You didn’t lift a finger. O’NEILL: Oh, you’re wrong. You’re exactly wrong, Larry.  First of all, I spent 12 months there.  I wasn’t a fake who spent three months, like John Kerry. O’DONNELL: What did you do to end the war, not what you did to fight it? What did you do to end it?! … BUCHANAN: Tell me, tell me John, about—did not the citation Thurlow got say that they were taking fire? O’NEILL: It said under fire. That’s true. It was based upon Kerry’s own after-action report. O’DONNELL: That’s a lie. It’s another lie. That’s a lie. O’NEILL: Which said there had been 5,000 meters of fire.  O’DONNELL: Absolutely lie. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You lie in that book endlessly claiming that reports belonged to Kerry that don’t have his name on it, John O’Neill. You lie about documents endlessly. His name is not on the reports. You’re just lying about it.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: And you lied about Thurlow’s Bronze Star. You lied about it as long as you could until the New York Times found the wording of what was on the citation that you, as a lying writer, refused to put in your pack-of-lies book! (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Disgusting, lying book! BUCHANAN:  John, let me ask you this. O’NEILL: And you, Larry, are a professional liar.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You have no standards, John O’Neill, as an author. And you know it. It’s a pack of lies! You are unfit to publish!  (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: There are 254 of us, Larry. It’s a little hard to call us all liars.  BUCHANAN: All right, John O’Neill, let me ask you a quick question. How do you know for certain that John Kerry wrote the after-action report that said the boats were under fire?  O’NEILL: It has been tracked down specifically in… O’DONNELL: Lie! (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Oh, let him talk. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: He just lies. He just spews out lies. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Point to his name on the report, you liar! Point to his name, you liar! These are military records. Point to a name! (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: I will, if you’ll shut up, Larry. You can’t just scream everybody down. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: There’s no name. You just spew lies!  (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: -let everybody talk, isn’t- (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Look, Lawrence, take it easy. You’ve made your point. We’re going to take a break. We’re going to give John O’Neill a chance to answer that when we come back. We’ll continue this discussion after the break. … BUCHANAN: Welcome back. We’re talking with the author of “Unfit For Command,” John O’Neill, and Lawrence O’Donnell is with me here in the studio Washington. We have an e-mail, Lawrence, that says: “Why is Mr. O’Donnell so angry? In fact, why are Democrats so angry?  If they don’t calm themselves down, they’re going to have a heart attack.” O’DONNELL: I just hate the lies of John O‘Neill.  (CROSSTALK)  O’DONNELL: I hate lies. BUCHANAN: I know. Now, you’ve argued that these are lies, but let me suggest… O’DONNELL: It’s not an argument. They’re proven lies. Every single journalistic look at this book has ripped it apart, left it in shreds. O’Neill is a liar. He’s been a liar for 35 years about this.  And he found other liars to… … O’NEILL: Can I say one thing? BUCHANAN: John O’Neill, go ahead, John. O’NEILL: Pat, Mr. O’Donnell has certainly shown he has a good pair of lungs. But to try and return a little bit to just basic information, you asked the question, how do we know the report was written by Kerry? The first way we know that is that the other four officers that day, all four of them, say Kerry wrote it. The second way we know it is the journalist Tom Lipscomb tracked the report to a Coast Guard cutter and proved that the only one on the cutter to write the report was John Kerry. Third, the report is compatible with John Kerry’s account, which as late as the Democratic Convention. O’DONNELL: What are the initials on the report? What are the initials on the report? What are the initials? (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Let him finish, Lawrence. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Lies. O’NEILL: Mr. O’Donnell, this is what you all did to the POWs.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Just tell me the initials, you liar, creepy liar. O’NEILL: You’re afraid of the American people getting the truth. That’s why you scream and you yell.

See the original post here:
Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: 9/11 Was Bush’s Fault, Trashes Vietnam Vet as ‘Creepy Liar’

Likely Voters Steer Clear of MSNBC, Don’t Like or Don’t Know Prime Time Talkers

According to a recent poll, likely voters get their political news primarily from cable television. Among cable channels, 42 percent, a plurality, watch Fox News for its political coverage. Only 12 percent said they watched MSNBC. What’s more, most likely voters don’t like or have never heard of MSNBC’s prime time talent. The poll , conducted by Politico and George Washington University, used a sample split evenly between political parties – even slightly favoring Democrats in some areas : 41 percent of respondents identified as Republicans, while 42 percent said they were Democrats. Forty-four percent said they usually vote for Republicans, while 46 percent answered Democrats. Forty-eight percent voted for Obama, while only 45 percent voted for McCain. Even among this group, Fox News is by far the most popular cable outlet. CNN comes in at second, with 30 percent. A sorry MSNBC brings up the rear. Among cable news personalities, FNC’s Bill O’Reilly – consistently the highest-rated cable news talker – is the most popular. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they thought O’Reilly has a positive impact on the American political conversation. Thirty-two percent said he has a negative impact. Interestingly, respondents – again, split evenly among the two parties – thought all three of Fox’s evening opinion commentators (O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity) have a net positive impact on the national debate. All three have a positive spread in the category. Also of note, for none of the three did majorities answer “never heard of”. MSNBC’s hosts are a different story. Only 23 percent said Keith Olbermann has a positive impact on the debate, while 25 said he has a negative one. A plurality, 42 percent, had never heard of him But at least it was only a plurality. Majorities said they have never heard of Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow – 70 percent and 55 percent, respectively. The positive impact/negative impact responses were split down the middle for both. In other words, the vast majority of likely voters either do not like MSNBC’s prime time talkers, or have never heard of them (with the notable exception of Chris Matthews, whose name was not included in the poll). “How did it get to this state?” wonders Ed Morrissey . After all, NBC had a long history in television news, starting decades before CNN and even longer than Fox. Its partnership with Microsoft should have given the cable news network a distinct advantage in the New Media world. Their roster of news anchors, present and future, should have immediately challenged CNN for primacy and marginalized Fox, who may have had cash but relatively fewer newsgathering resources in the US when it launched. Under the direction of GE’s Jeff Immelt, though, NBC’s cable network went for the full-insane demographic. Fox took CNN’s talking-head format and simply reversed the bias, although Fox rightly argues that it presents more opposing viewpoints than CNN did as part of their establishment talent and not just occasional guests and party spinmeisters. NBC decided to emulate Air America with its cable lineup instead, perhaps seeing some opportunity in the last Bush term to capitalize on his unpopularity and become a center of opposition opinion. Rather than accomplish that, the decision by NBC and its parent GE has not just destroyed MSNBC’s credibility but also NBC’s as well. With the exception of Joe Scarborough, who is hard to pigeonhole but certainly isn’t a hard-Left hysteric, the entire lineup is exactly what one would find on the failed libtalker radio network. It’s no coincidence that two of its featured hosts come straight out of Air America, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. Maddow has, at least, produced a watchable show, albeit with a hard-Left tilt that clearly is out of touch with the mainstream, but Schultz is barely coherent. Top that off with a daily “news” broadcast from Keith Olbermann that almost literally consists of a Two Minute Hate (Olbermann’s WPIW lists), and it’s a recipe for the kind of disaster that only political hacks could love. The wonder is that GE and NBC apparently seem content to alienate 88% of the viewing audience with its trainwreck theater.

Read more:
Likely Voters Steer Clear of MSNBC, Don’t Like or Don’t Know Prime Time Talkers

CNN’s Chetry, Newsweek’s Miller Agree: ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Phenomenon Misleading Because Candidates Largely Oppose Liberal Policies

Are “Mama Grizzlies” who oppose state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP) and teachers’ unions unfaithful to their maternal name? CNN anchor Kiran Chetry joined Newsweek’s Lisa Miller Monday in wondering if that is so. Miller appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” to feature her most recent piec e on “Mama Grizzlies,” prominent female conservatives in the vein of Sarah Palin. “All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific,” reported Miller, a senior editor for Newsweek. “There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.” Miller ultimately concluded that the “Mama Grizzlies” movement will fall short of its political goals, because “the issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not.” “Do we really want bears to solve our problems?” Miller quipped at the end of the segment.   Kiran Chetry agreed that the candidates’ positions may contradict their maternal title. “I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids.” Among the examples of “Mama Grizzlies” failing to help America’s children? Both Miller and Chetry noted the candidates’ opposition to S-CHIP programs, teachers’ unions, Pell Grants, and Obamacare as evidence. Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle’s opposition to a domestic violence bill in the Nevada state legislature and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s vote against a federal parental-leave policy drew some attention as well. So who on the Democratic side would make a good “Mama Grizzly?” Miller said Hillary Clinton would, being a “powerful woman and a mom,” although she wouldn’t admit it. A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on September 27 at 8:14 a.m. EDT, is as follows: KIRAN CHETRY: It’s interesting, because when you take a look at some of the candidates she’s referring to, and we can talk about some of them, they aren’t necessarily all on the same page with each other when it comes to some of these issues. I mean, is this sort of a coherent set of ideas, or is it more of a marketing tool? LISA MILLER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Right, well, I mean, I would say – and we say at the end of the story that it is really more of a marketing tool. It’s a very compelling image, right? Everybody who’s a parent has that feeling of wanting to protect their kids. And if we make it America’s kids, or our kids, you know, our future, it’s a very powerful image. On the other hand, you know, Christine O’Donnell for example isn’t a mom. So she talks about our grandchildren in speeches, but she’s not actually a “Mama Grizzly.” And then on things like education, the “Grizzlies” are really all over the place. You know, Sarah Palin is actually quite progressive on education. She has always talked about paying teachers more. In Alaska, she ramped up the budget for the Department of Education over and over again before she left the position of Governor of Alaska. She promised a big infusion of money to the schools. Whereas Angle and Bachmann are known for sort of hating the teachers’ unions, fighting back against lobbyists. All of them, many of them, have this anti-Department of Education position, you know, parents know what’s good for kids, and administrators and bureaucrats should get out. CHETRY: Right, but just because you’re against the Department of Ed doesn’t mean you’re not for kids getting a better education. MILLER: I guess that’s true. On the other hand, you know, a lot of them have voted for – against things like Start, programs for poor kids, Pell Grants, which are to help, you know, poor kids get college education – CHETRY: Right, and this is the interesting part. Because, I mean, I guess if you strip away the core message of the Tea Party candidates, which Sarah Palin has really helped endorse, is they just want less government, they want less spending. That, unfortunately at times, butts up against things that many say would be good for kids. We have Bachmann, Michelle Bachmann in the Congress, and Nickie Haley who are both against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, that provides health care to poor children. MILLER: All the candidates that we – whose records we looked at, are against the Obama health plan in general, and yes, the CHIP program in specific. There are rising numbers of poor children in this country, a quarter of America’s children are poor. It seems like a funny way to say that you’re for kids, and be against all of these programs.   CHETRY: Yeah, the other issue that you talked about is the voting against – was it Angle who voted against a Domestic Violence bill in the Nevada legislature? MILLER: Yes, and Bachmann voted against a federal parental-leave policy for federal employees. So when you have a new baby, time off. That seems like a good thing for kids. CHETRY: Is there a Democratic equivalent to the “Mama Grizzly” phenomenon on the other side? MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, you could call Hillary Clinton a “Mama Grizzly,” right? She’s a powerful woman, she’s a mom. But I don’t think she would ever call herself a “Mama Grizzly.” She doesn’t fit in to this demographic. CHETRY: You wrote in an interesting line at the end of the article that said in the wild, real “Mama Grizzlies” are known to be aggressive, irrational, and mean. The issues facing the country are complex, and bears are not. So what is the upshot of this? MILLER: Well, I mean, I think, you know, it’s a great marketing tool, as we said at the outset. You know, calling upon women’s primal maternal instincts is a good thing, but let’s think about it. I mean, this is a very divided country, and we have some big problems to solve. Do we really want bears to solve our problems?

Follow this link:
CNN’s Chetry, Newsweek’s Miller Agree: ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Phenomenon Misleading Because Candidates Largely Oppose Liberal Policies

Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: Limbaugh Not Smart Enough to Enjoy Dumb Sarah Palin’s Book

Lawrence O’Donnell starts his new show The Last Word on Monday night, and over the past few years, O’Donnell put together quite the audition tape to land him a hosting gig for the ever more left-leaning network. On November 13th, 2009 , substitute hosting for Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC show Countdown, O’Donnell engaged in a favorite pastime of that show’s regular host, bashing Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin as he managed to paint both of them as idiots in one single rant. O’DONNELL: Breaking news; in our third story in the Countdown, Levi Johnston has seen Sarah Palin’s Oprah prompted invitation to Thanksgiving dinner, and says, quote, “You can tell by her laugh that she was full of it.” Meantime, Rush Limbaugh calls Palin’s book, quote, “truly one of the most substantive policy books I’ve read,” end quote. Rush, I believe you. I cannot imagine you, in full recline on your Gulfstream, Cuban cigar in hand, struggling to get through a more substantive policy book than Sarah’s index and footnote free, score settling campaign memoir. No mind numbing charts or graphs, no big words, no scholarly Latin phrases, like caveat emptor. And I bet the pictures are, like, amazing. O’Donnell is definitely not a fan of outspoken conservatives. In addition to Palin and Limbaugh, the new MSNBC host went after Dick Cheney on May 21, 2009, following a speech by the former Vice President that was aired live on MSNBC: “He came today to obviously to do nothing much other than defend torture, which he calls ‘tough questioning.’ This was as sleazy a presentation by a vice president as we’ve had since Spiro Agnew. This was an absolute abomination.” Cheney, like most of O’Donnell’s foils, is cast as a passionate liar: He cannot, ever, frame the other side’s position honestly. What you saw with Obama earlier was Obama describes the other side’s position fairly. He then goes on to advance his position. Cheney comes out and lies about the other side, it’s the only way he can talk. He says that Obama will not use the word ‘terrorist,’ when Obama does indeed use that word. He pretends that all we did was tough questioning. He says that 9/11 — he says that 9/11 made everyone take a second look at the threat. That is a lie. Dick Cheney and the President were in possession of memos that said this threat was present, this particular methodology was going to come, that they were going to use airliners. He and the President failed in their first nine months in office to pay any attention to the A.Q. Khan network, who he now wants to take credit for dismantling. What did Cheney do before 9/11? He denies, in this speech, that 9/11 changed him and then describes his very specific activities on 9/11, which were frightening for the Vice President. Then he goes on to say that he thinks about it every day. This guy just has to lie from beginning to end through his setup of his opposition’s position in order to advance any of his ideas at all, none of which have any proof to them at all. O’Donnell is not shy about revealing his liberal economic leanings either as he, on two separate occasions came forward to admit he’s downright socialistic when it comes to fiscal policy . Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on February 12th 2010, he told host Joe Scarborough that “We’re socialists, not Marxists,” and when he guested on Scarborough’s March 16th, 2010 radio show confessed: “We liberal Keynesians do not raise taxes in recessions; we raise taxes when you’re making money. That’s when we raise taxes. And we love to do it.” JOE SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence O’Donnell, you were part of the largest tax increase of all-time– O’DONNELL: –The biggest. SCARBOROUGH: –with Bill Clinton. 250 billion dollars. You say Barack Obama’s health care bill will double that– O’DONNELL: –Almost. SCARBOROUGH: –and will raise almost 500 billion dollars.            O’DONNELL: And do so–and here’s the really important economic principle that’s shocking for anyone who’s take the introductory course: they’re going to do it in a recession. You know… [Laughter] O’DONNELL: We, we, we liberal, we liberal Keynesians do not raise taxes in recessions; we raise taxes when you’re making money. That’s when we raise taxes. And we love to do it.

Link:
Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: Limbaugh Not Smart Enough to Enjoy Dumb Sarah Palin’s Book

Dowd: ‘Christine O’Donnell Better Hope They Don’t Bring Back Witch Burning’

As we get closer to the midterm elections, and liberals in the media foresee the Democrat destruction about to commence, the scorn being tossed at conservatives and Tea Party members is reaching a fevered pitch. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is a perfect example. Her “Slouching Toward Washington” piece published Sunday is nothing but a personal attack on those possibly interfering with her dream of a United States Socialist Republic. Even more despicably, she used HBO’s Bill Maher to assist her: Bill Maher continued his video torment of O’Donnell by releasing another old clip of her on his HBO show on Friday night, this time showing one in which she argued that “Evolution is a myth.” Maher shot back, “Have you ever looked at a monkey?” To which O’Donnell rebutted, “Why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?” The comedian has a soft spot for the sweet-faced Republican Senate candidate from Delaware, but as he told me on Friday, it’s “powerful stupid to think primate evolution could happen fast enough to observe it. That’s bacteria. “I find it so much more damaging than the witch stuff because she could be in a position to make decisions about scientific issues, like global warming and stem cells, and she thinks primate evolution can happen in a week and mice have human brains.” Isn’t   it quite telling that the Left has become so devoid of quotable thinkers amongst its political ranks that media members now have to seek the opinion of comedians? It shouldn’t be at all surprising that Democrats are in so much trouble when the most important liberal figures in the nation other than the President appear to be Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. But I digress: Sarah Palin will believe global warming is a hoax until she’s doing aerial hunting of wolves underwater. And in a 2009 clip, Sharron Angle, the Republican Senate candidate from Nevada, suggested that autism – a word she uttered with air quotes – is a phony rubric. She suggested that people are taking advantage of such maladies to get extra health benefits, adding that she doesn’t see why she should have to subsidize maternity benefits for other people either, especially since, as she said, she’s not having any more babies. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Jim DeMint and some Tea Party types don’t merely yearn for the country they idealize from the 1950s. They want to go back to the 1750s. Joe Miller, the Palin-blessed Republican nominee for Senate in Alaska, suggests that Social Security is unconstitutional because it wasn’t in the Constitution. The Constitution is a dazzling document, but do these originalists really think things haven’t changed since then? If James Madison beamed down now, he would no doubt be stunned at the idea that America had evolved so far but was hemming itself in by the strictest interpretation of his handiwork. He might even tweet about it. Actually, if Madison could see what has happened to this country since it began dabbling with socialism in the ’30s, he’d likely be far more shocked by that then the technological advancements that have occurred since he passed away. Most of our Founding Fathers would likely disapprove of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, and ObamaCare, but folks like Dowd and her ilk don’t care. As for the Right wanting to take America back to the ’50s, from a political standpoint Dowd is close. As Tea Partiers have been saying for over eighteen months, the socialist policies enacted since the Depression are a large cause of this nation’s problems. They have negatively impacted us both financially and economically creating a constantly growing juggernaut that soaks more and more dollars from the system as it makes workers less motivated and our country less competitive in a global structure. If Dowd thinks many Americans are yearning for a bygone era when folks were rewarded to fend for themselves and their families rather than be penalized for their success she’s 100 percent right. But that’s not her   goal:  Evolution is no myth, but we may be evolving backward. Christine O’Donnell had better hope they don’t bring back witch burning. Not so, Ms. Dowd. Your side has had it their way for approaching 80 years. The leaders you admire promised a New Deal and a Great Society. Looking at the current landscape while one tries to gaze into the future, America today looks neither new nor great .  Of course, your side wants to blame all the problems on George W. Bush and the Republicans. Alas, it is you that are stuck in the past thinking that Depression Era concepts are today’s magic elixir. One more thing, Ms. Dowd: If James Madison were alive today, he’d be a Tea Partier.

Excerpt from:
Dowd: ‘Christine O’Donnell Better Hope They Don’t Bring Back Witch Burning’