Tag Archives: president

CBS’s Smith: Is GOP Making ‘Miscalculation’ At Their Own ‘Peril’ By Supporting Tea Party?

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Talking to Republican strategist Dan Bartlett on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith wondered if the electoral success of the tea party could harm the GOP: “Are all of these tea party victories good for the Republican Party?…I wonder if you’re making a miscalculation at your own peril at, you know, this perceived enthusiasm gap, these people are literally changing the face of a party.” Bartlett admitted difficultly in electing Christine O’Donnell, the winner of Tuesday’s Republican Senate primary in Delaware, but staunchly defended the overall impact of the movement: “…the intensity gap that we’re seeing between the two parties this election cycle is mainly being fed by the tea party movement on the Republican side….The prospect of taking over the House of Representatives would not happen without this vibrant activity within the tea party.”          Smith turned to his other guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, and continued to stress Republican difficulties: “…as Democrats are watching this all unfold, with the rancor and derision within the Republican Party , with the tea party really catching fire out there, how – how do you view it?” Acker ranted: “…I think that more Democrats are going to be motivated to go to the polls when you hear what some of these tea party candidates are saying. I don’t think most of the country wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.” Only at the very end of the segment did Smith even acknowledge serious problems for Democrats in November: “And Tanya, very quickly, you have to confess, there really is a kind of a ‘throw the bums out’ mentality that has gotten some real traction.” Acker, who seemed to offer nothing but over-the-top sound bites, argued: “I think that what Democrats have to do is to demonstrate that they are interested in governing, not simply coming up with good sound bites for talk radio shows.” In a report prior to Smith’s discussion with Bartlett and Acker, correspondent Nancy Cordes proclaimed of O’Donnell’s primary win: “This is the most stunning victory yet for the tea party and crushing blow to the Republican Party leaders who thought that Vice President Biden’s former Senate seat would be an easy pick-up for them in the fall. Not anymore.” Cordes wrapped up her piece by declaring: “…if Republicans don’t win Delaware, their chances of winning back the Senate are almost nonexistent. Democrats are seizing on this upset to argue that the Republican Party has been taken over by the right wing, that moderates need not apply, that’s an argument they’re going to be taking into the fall.” Here is a full transcript of the September 15 segment: 7:00AM ET TEASE: HARRY SMITH: Tea party triumph. An upstart takes on the Republican establishment and walks away with a big upset on primary day. How will all this tea affect the GOP? 7:01AM ET SEGMENT: SMITH: We begin, though, this morning with politics as the Tea Party Express bowls over some more well-known Republican candidates in Tuesday’s primary election. The biggest surprise, the Senate primary in Delaware. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Washington with the latest. Nancy, good morning. NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Harry. This is the most stunning victory yet for the tea party and crushing blow to the Republican Party leaders who thought that Vice President Biden’s former Senate seat would be an easy pick-up for them in the fall. Not anymore. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Triumph; Big Wins For Upstarts On Primary Day] CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Delaware have spoken. No more politics as usual! CORDES: It is perhaps the biggest upset of the political season so far, newcomer Christine O’Donnell defeating veteran Congressman Mike Castle. O’DONNELL: And I also want to thank the Tea Party Express. CORDES: The chair of her own state party called O’Donnell, ‘a liar who could not be elected dog catcher,’ and yet, the tea party conservative easily defeated the well-known Mike Castle, 53 to 47%. O’Donnell, a former marketing consultant with a checkered financial record, was a dark horse until two weeks ago, when the Tea Party Express barreled into town bearing $250,000. An endorsement from Sarah Palin followed. The Republican Party scrambled, fearing the tea party would upset yet another GOP establishment Senate candidate as it already had in Utah, Alaska, Kentucky and Nevada. A last-minutes robocall recorded by her former campaign manager- ROBOCALL: O’Donnell just wanted to make a buck. CORDES: -wasn’t enough to turn the tide. MIKE CASTLE: The last several weeks have been spirited, shall we say. CORDES: In New Hampshire’s Senate primary, former attorney general Kelly Ayotte was slightly ahead of the tea party-backed Ovid LaMontagne in a race too close to call. A tea party newcomer did win in New York, defeating former Hillary Clinton opponent and well-known GOP candidate Rick Lazio, in New York’s primary for governor. CARL PALADINO: I want everybody in the Republican Party who opposed me to know this. You’re welcome to join the people’s crusade. CORDES: But it’s the defeat in Delaware that really stings for the GOP because the moderate Castle, who has won in the blue state of Delaware ten times, was considered a shoo-in to defeat the Democrat Chris Coons come fall. O’Donnell is a decided underdog. O’DONNELL: Hold onto your hats, folks, because we’re in for a fight. CORDES: And if Republicans don’t win Delaware, their chances of winning back the Senate are almost non existent. Democrats are seizing on this upset to argue that the Republican Party has been taken over by the right wing, that moderates need not apply, that’s an argument they’re going to be taking into the fall, Harry. SMITH: Nancy Cordes in Washington, thank you. Joining us now to talk about the primaries and what happens in November are Democratic strategist Tanya Acker in Los Angeles and Republican strategist Dan Bartlett in Austin, Texas. Good morning to you both. DAN BARTLETT: Morning, Harry. TANYA ACKER: Good morning. SMITH: Dan, let’s talk about this, you got Delaware, you got Kentucky, you got Alaska, you got Utah, one after another, after another. Are all of these tea party victories good for the Republican Party? DAN BARTLETT: Well, when you have a situation like with Mike Castle getting beat in Delaware, it obviously gives you pause because it’s going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans now to gain that seat in the United States Senate. Having said that, though, Harry, the intensity gap that we’re seeing between the two parties this election cycle is mainly being fed by the tea party movement on the Republican side. So, net/net, it’s still a gain. The prospect of taking over the House of Representatives would not happen without this vibrant activity within the tea party. So while you’re going to have these types of anomalies like we saw last night with Mike Castle going down, net-net, I still think this is going to be a positive thing with a lot of long-term consequences for government. SMITH: Yeah, because even Karl Rove came out and said last night this is – that’s not going to help us get the seat in the long run. Let’s talk about this from a Democratic perspective, Tanya, as Democrats are watching this all unfold, with the rancor and derision within the Republican Party, with the tea party really catching fire out there, how – how do you view it? TANYA ACKER: Well, I think it really presents Democrats an opportunity. I mean, I think that they do have to be very careful. It’s one thing simply to call a lot of these candidates extremists, which I happen to think they are, but I think that the Democratic message has to be bigger than that. The choice the country’s going to be presented with is that between one party that seems to be auditioning for a talk radio show host. You know you’ve got folks like Sharron Angle saying things like taking up arms against the government and whereas the Democrats want to talk about extending unemployment benefits and regulating Wall Street. So I think that the voters are going to have a very clear choice and I do think that, you know, Dan is right, there is something of an enthusiasm gap but I think that more Democrats are going to be motivated to go to the polls when you hear what some of these tea party candidates are saying. SMITH: Is it- ACKER: I don’t think most of the country wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. SMITH: Dan, this is interesting, you listen to Tanya, because I wonder if you’re making a miscalculation at your own peril at, you know, this perceived enthusiasm gap, these people are literally changing the face of a party. Dan? BARTLETT: Well, look, I mean, it is the case in the United States Senate, with some of these candidate races, the candidate themselves is going to make a difference in whether there is a victory or a loss. But let’s not lose historical sight here, and that is the first midterm election of a new president is a referendum on that White House and on that leadership. And what we’re seeing right now is a rejection of how the governor – the governance by Democrats over the last 18 months has taken place, both in the White House and the United States Congress. And that’s why Republicans, while they’re going to have issues like they’re seeing in Delaware and there’s going to be other candidates that are not going to represent the entire Republican Party, the bottom line is that right now, things are shaping up for Democrats to be a very long night in November. SMITH: Alright. And Tanya, very quickly, you have to confess, there really is a kind of a ‘throw the bums out’ mentality that has gotten some real traction. ACKER: Well, I think that that, that movement, that mentality, seems to be relatively constant in Washington, but I think that what Democrats have to do is to demonstrate that they are interested in governing, not simply coming up with good sound bites for talk radio shows. SMITH: Well, we shall see. This is still unfolding, even as we speak. Tanya Acker and Dan Bartlett, we do appreciate your time this morning. Thank you. BARTLETT: Thanks, Harry. ACKER: Thanks.

See the original post here:
CBS’s Smith: Is GOP Making ‘Miscalculation’ At Their Own ‘Peril’ By Supporting Tea Party?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

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

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Linkin Park Bring A Thousand Suns To Life In New York

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Band plays first show in nearly two years hours after new album hit stores. By James Montgomery Linkin Park’s Chester Bennington performs at Best Buy Theater on Tuesday Photo: Cory Schwartz/ Getty Images Over the past few months, or really, years, Linkin Park fans have been subjected to an unending stream of talk that the band’s new album would be a departure from their hard-riffing roots, instead forging heady, darn-near conceptual new territory from which there was no return. Early reviews of A Thousand Suns only seemed to confirm all that chatter, and it appeared that the Linkin Park of old was gone forever, that the once-snarling Dobermans had been replaced with a group of bespectacled Mr. Peabodys . And this was not good. But those fears can be put to rest. Because on Tuesday night — hours after that new album, A Thousand Suns, hit stores — Linkin Park played their first show in nearly two years (or, as Chester Bennington put it, “two f—ing years”) at the Best Buy Theater in New York. And though the tickets for the show prominently displayed the new album’s name, there was little of its calculated, claustrophobic conceptualism on display. Rather, this was a balls-out rock show, with some rapping and electronic frippery thrown in for additional impact. Or, in other words, it was just like a Linkin Park show of old. In fact, the band played just a handful of tracks from A Thousand Suns, peppering them in throughout a hit-packed, pummeling set. They opened with “The Requiem,” the first track on the album, which featured Mike Shinoda and DJ Joseph Hahn lit in moody silhouette, the former hunched over a synthesizer, repeating — in robo-coated vocals — the de facto mantra of Suns (“God bless us everyone/ We’re a broken people living under loaded gun”) with the latter providing ethereal harmonies. That washed into the sampled Robert Oppenheimer speech from the album, and then, the band now at full force, LP backtracked gloriously, hammering through older tracks like “New Divide,” “Faint,” “No More Sorrow” and “Given Up.” Those were met with thunderous cheers and a sea of fists thrust skyward, and with enough goodwill built up, the band worked the second Suns track into the set, the booming, rattling “Wretches and Kings,” which saw Shinoda and Bennington trade vocals and had the audience nodding along to the gut-punching beat. After a quick “thank you” — their first words to the audience all night — LP threw themselves into “Numb,” and then slowed things down exponentially with another new tune, “Iridescent,” which built slowly and solemnly on a Shinoda-played piano line and was met with a mixture of rapt attention and angry indifference, though most of that came from the tank-top-and-backward-ball-cap aggro set (and, it should be noted, the song climaxed pretty amazingly, with the band going five-wide on the chorus and the guitars soaring to the ceiling). The rest of the set played out in much that same fashion: The older stuff pummeled, peaked and powered (“Numb,” “Bleed It Out,” “In the End”), the new songs soared and stuttered and, yes, slightly mystified (“Burning in the Skies,” “Waiting for the End”), and it was pretty clear that A Thousand Suns was probably going to take a while to win some of the fans over. But, as Shinoda told MTV News last weekend, that’s sort of the point, really. And, perhaps to soothe those still hoping for a return to their Hybrid Theory days, Linkin Park opened their encore with current single “The Catalyst,” which, on this night, was cranked to the max and actually featured a good deal of chugging guitars (Bennington sang the hell out of it too). And then they closed with “What I’ve Done,” the first single off their last album that ticked off fans, Minutes to Midnight. And it’s worth noting that, in the three years since it was released, something rather amazing has happened to the song: It’s become a fan favorite, ranking right up there with their earlier, snarling stuff. There probably wasn’t intent behind the decision to close with it, but it’s not too hard to make the logical leap: Give the new songs time too, and see what happens. Patience is a virtue, after all. Related Photos Linkin Park Perform At Best Buy Theater In New York City Related Artists Linkin Park

Visit link:
Linkin Park Bring A Thousand Suns To Life In New York

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Music

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lady Gaga Gets ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Tweet From Senate Leader

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Senator Harry Reid promised a vote next week to repeal the policy banning gays in the military. By Gil Kaufman Lady Gaga Photo: Paul Morigi/ WireImage In addition to setting the fashion world on fire with her meat dress and plowing down some records on her way to eight VMA wins on Sunday night, Lady Gaga also got some serious legislative business done. The singer, who marched down the white carpet with four representatives of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network — an organization working for the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — made a point at the show and on her official website of urging her Little Monsters to tell Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that they wanted the Senate to vote for a repeal of the measure soon. Well, on Tuesday, Reid answered Gaga’s call, tweeting , “There is a vote on #DADT next week. Anyone qualified to serve this country should be allowed to do so http://bit.ly/9ucdIj #nvsen.” An ecstatic Gaga responded a short time later. “God Bless and Thank you @HarryReid, from all of us, like u, who believe in equality and the dream of this country. We were #BORNTHISWAY,” she wrote , cleverly adding a link to the trending topic based on the title of her upcoming album. On the Nevada senator’s website , a Reid staffer further explained the decision to bring the “Don’t Ask” vote next week. “Senator Reid has reiterated his commitment to repealing the military’s ban on gays serving in our armed forces” Megan Jones wrote. “This afternoon, he informed Republicans that he intends to bring the Defense Authorization Bil — including the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — to the Senate Floor next week. This would overturn the decade-old policy that bars openly gay, lesbian or bisexual Americans from serving in our armed forces, and is an important step towards equal treatment of all Americans. Senator Reid believes that Americans should not be denied the opportunity to serve their country just because of their sexual orientation.” The victory was also celebrated by SLDN , which continued to urge Gaga fans on Tuesday to call the Capitol switchboard to voice their opinion on the vote. David Hall, one of the SLDN staffers who accompanied Gaga on the white carpet, told MTV News that it is critical that the Senate vote on the measure before senators leave for the election recess because if Democrats lose control of the House, Senate, or both in the upcoming midterm elections, the “Don’t Ask” repeal could be postponed, or killed by the new Republican leadership. Hall applauded Gaga’s decision to use the VMA platform to publicize the attempt to push for the repeal of “Don’t Ask,” a commitment President Obama made during his campaign and which he has said repeatedly is his goal. Though President Bill Clinton had campaigned on the promise to allow anyone to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation, the DADT policy was implemented in 1993 as a comprise gesture with Congress. It bars military officials from asking service members to reveal their sexual orientation, but also mandates that they could be discharged for offering the information themselves. It has long been criticized by the LGBT community over claims that it has led to harassment of service members, investigations based on rumors and a double standard in the military’s code of honesty and integrity. To date, more than 14,000 service members have been fired under the rule. Related Photos The Evolution Of: Lady Gaga Related Artists Lady Gaga

More:
Lady Gaga Gets ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Tweet From Senate Leader

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Music

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Maher Charges GOP w/ Racism & Invokes N Word, New Yorkers Should ‘Forget About’ 9/11 Because Mastermind Caught

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday’s Larry King Live on CNN, comedian Bill Maher picked up on a recent contention by Newt Gingrich that President Obama is motivated by anti-colonialism which his Kenyan father felt as the Real Time with Bill Maher host smeared the potential 2012 Republican presidential field as racist: How are they going to out-firebreathe each other? I mean, where this rhetoric has gone to at this point. It’s only 2010, and we’re having Newt Gingrich, as we were talking about before, calling him an anti-colonial Luo tribesman. … That’s the new Kenyan, Larry. And Kenyan, of course, was code for n*****. But that’s where they are. They can’t say it out loud. But that’s where this whole campaign is going to be. You asked about racism. It’s all about racism. They cannot fathom this idea that there is a black President. And that’s what they are going to fight about. Maher also declared that, while he personally likes Delaware GOP senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell because she is a “nice person” who used to be a frequent guest on his Politically Incorrect show in 1990s, that he was also cheering for her and other “tea baggers” to win GOP primaries, declaring that “she’s going to get her Christian ass kicked in the general election.” And, as the topic turned to the Ground Zero mosque, while Maher acknowledged that there is a substantial amount of Islamic extremism in the world, he believed using the military against it makes it worse, and suggested that, because 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already been captured, America should declare victory and New Yorkers should “forget about it.” Referring to the 9/11 mastermind, Maher declared: He was not really al-Qaeda. He went to bin Laden for financing. Bin Laden was like the studio. You know, he gave notes, but he gave financing, and he did his own thing. Okay, we got this guy. We water boarded him 183 times in one month. He’s behind bars. Why can’t we just say, okay, we got the guy who was behind 9/11. Now, hey, New Yorkers, forget about it. Not forget about it entirely, but, you know, we’re the land of the free and the home of the brave. We should act like it. Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Tuesday, September 14, Larry King Live on CNN, with critical portions in bold : LARRY KING: Bill, I know you have a personal interest in Delaware, which is, could be the big story of the night because the Republican establishment figure looks like he’s going to get beat. The Republican establishment saying they won’t support the woman who’s going to beat him, a Tea Party person, who you brought us. BILL MAHER: I really did. I mean, Christine- KING: Tell us. MAHER: -O’Donnell was one of our most frequent guests on Politically Incorrect. People who may not remember Politically Incorrect because they’re too young or they were watching Johnny Carson or something, no, I guess JJ was there in the ‘90s, may not remember that we created people like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham. Oh, I could go on about the number of female- KING: How did you find them? MAHER: We used to, we liked to book, I don’t know. I drank a lot in those days, Larry. But we did like to book a lot of female conservatives. They were good press and they were good for the show. We loved Christine O’Donnell. I still like her. You cannot not like her. She is such a nice person. We have a great clip that used to be in our highlight reel of Ben Affleck on that show just saying, “Please, Christine, shut up.” Because I guess she would just go on. She was known back then as the girl from SALT. SALT being the Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth. And I guess that’s still the shtick that she’s- KING: Evangelicals. MAHER: Right, absolutely. So part of me for sentimental reasons is rooting for Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. The other part of me is rooting for her because she’s going to get her Christian ass kicked in the general election. This is the great thing about the tea baggers and the Republican party. A year ago, we were debating whether tea baggers were even Republicans. Remember? They were very independent, and then a poll came out and we blew the lid off of it, okay, they’re really Republicans. Yeah, they’re really Republicans. And they’re taking over that party. KING: So who should worry about them more, Republicans or Democrats? MAHER: Democrats should be very happy that people like Christine O’Donnell are winning elections because in the general election, I think, now, of course, the Democrats are going to lose some seats, probably a lot. But not as many as they would have if the tea baggers weren’t winning the primaries because I think voters are generally conservative. And when I mean, when I say conservative I mean they’re not comfortable with people who are out there on the left or the right. And these tea baggers are out there. I’ve said it before probably on your show. When people get in a voting booth, it’s like when they go on an aeroplane. They get scared. They tend to do things that are conservative in nature, even if they’re liberal. And I don’t think even conservative voters will look at people like Sharron Angle or maybe Joe Miller in Alaska, although Alaska is a separate case because they’re very conservative there. But certainly Christine O’Donnell could not win in a state like Delaware because she’s just crazy. Even people who know- KING: How out there, when you say crazy, give me an example. MAHER: Well, I just think that people, they understand our country is in a lot of trouble. Even people who are angry understand that crazy people are not going to make it better. Christine O’Donnell like all these tea baggers has no plan, no agenda. No policy points. They have one advantage: They’re running against Democrats. That’s their big advantage. 　 9:05 p.m. KING: How did we get to this, though? MAHER: Well, you know, I have a theory that the Internet makes people stupider. And Also Fox News makes people stupider. You know the Pew group did a study recently and they found out that 10 years ago, Democrats, Republicans and independents basically got their news from the same sources, probably more from CNN, for example. Then we had this polarity. And now, you know, John Edwards said we have two Americas. We do have two Americas. We have the America that’s living in reality, the people who understand that Obama is a centrist liberal from Hawaii who’s trying to dig us out of the hole we’re in. And then we have this other Fox/Matt Drudge/Rush Limbaugh reality where he’s a Muslim sleeper cell, Manchurian candidate who was sent over by his Kenyan father- KING: What kind of intelligent person would believe that? MAHER: Intelligent person? Larry, we’re broadcasting in America. How ridiculous. Well, no, I don’t think intelligent people do believe it. But, you know, then we’re going to get into partisan bickering because more than half of Republicans agreed with a statement that said Obama is trying to impose Islamic law on America. I mean, that is a very radical thing to believe. And it’s more than half of Republicans – not tea baggers, not radicals – the mainstream Republican people. KING: Is there a racist tone in this? Is there a, in other words, is this racist, is this inherent racism? Where’s it coming from? MAHER: Does the Pope go to the bathroom in the woods? (LARRY KING LAUGHS) MAHER: Yes, Larry, it’s extremely racist. I mean it’s so funny because the tea baggers, the one thing they hate is when you call them racist. The other thing they hate is black people. (LARRY KING LAUGHS) MAHER: But they won’t say it. I mean, if you saw what Newt Gingrich was saying. KING: Oh yeah, oh. MAHER: Okay. For those who know, and I don’t even know if I can even recount it in a way that makes sense to people. But he was quoting from an article by Dinesh D’Souza who is, by the way, is an amoral person who was the guest on my show on the night six days after 9/11 when I got into all that trouble for saying that the people who flew planes into the building were not cowards. He was the one who started that discussion. He said it over and over. He, I was agreeing with him when I got thrown off the air. But he never ever came out and said, you know what, I started that, I should defend Bill Maher . Rush Limbaugh came to my defense and a lot of other people, but not the guy who actually made the statement. Anyway, Dinesh D’Souza, who said a lot of crazy things, he is saying now, and Newt Gingrich says this is what he believes, that Obama is getting his philosophy from his father who he spent about a month with in his whole life when he was eight years ago old. And that his father was a Luo tribesman from Kenya who was mad at white people. And so Newt says that he’s anti-colonial like that’s a bad thing. You know, like when George Washington was fighting the British. … MAHER: The girl from SALT, praise Jesus, has won the election. She will never win in November, by the way. That is an impossibility … KING: How do you defeat terrorism? MAHER: You don’t. That’s the key, Larry. You don’t defeat it. You have to understand it’s always with us. It’s like saying how do you defeat crime? You can’t defeat crime. This idea- KING: Violent crime is down in America. Three straight years. MAHER: Down, right, and we’ve made terrorism go down. And, by the way, Obama has been President for 20 months and there has not been an attack. Bush was President for nine months when we got hit. So on that score, he’s kept us safer. KING: But they’ll, you’re saying there will always be, a terrorist is born today? MAHER: Of course. Especially since we do things like invade Muslim countries. KING: Should we not have called it a war on terrorism? MAHER: Exactly. We should not have called it a war. KING: Because there won’t be a victory day? MAHER: There will not be a victory day. Exactly. And, you know, this war in Afghanistan, I never read a good thing about it. The longer we’re there, the stronger the Taliban gets. I mean, I read bad things about the government of Karzai. I read bad things about the Afghan army, about the Afghan police. I read bad things about our soldiers. And, of course, they’re put in an impossible situation and they’re doing the best they can and they’re very brave, but five of them are now up for murder charges. I read horrible things about what ordinary people in that country do. They stoned a woman a couple of weeks ago for eloping, for the crime of eloping. And this wasn’t just the Taliban. This was the whole village came out, her own relatives. That’s got to hurt when the rock comes and it’s from your mom. (KING LAUGHS) Mom, I’m- (ACTS LIKE HE’S BEEN HIT IN HEAD WITH ROCK AND LAUGHS) MAHER: You know. It’s not- KING: And Pakistan? Where do we deal with that? How do we deal with them? MAHER: Well, we’re not dealing with them. What, I mean because they’re a Muslim country who has nuclear weapons? (KING LAUGHS) KING: Yeah. MAHER: And, well, that happened while we were trying to get the nuclear weapons that weren’t in Iraq out of Iraq. I think that genie is out of the bottle. 9:28 p.m. KING: Okay, Sarah Palin. I don’t have to say anything else. MAHER: Well, I don’t either, you know. She’s got a show on the Learning Channel. That’s like me having a show on the Christian Broadcasting Network. (KING LAUGHS) I think she’s going to run for President, for one. KING: Could win if there’s enough candidates- MAHER: Well, I’ve, I don’t know about that. KING: I mean to win the nomination. MAHER: I cannot wait to see the Republican debates in 2012 when you think about who is going to be on that panel. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, John Bolton, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney. How are they going to out-firebreathe each other? I mean where this rhetoric has gone to at this point? It’s only 2010. And we’re having Newt Gingrich, as we were talking about before, calling him an anti-colonial Luo tribesman. Luo tribesman. That’s the new Kenyan, Larry. And Kenyan, of course, was code for n*****. But that’s where they are. They can’t say it out loud. But that’s where this whole campaign is going to be. You asked about racism. It’s all about racism. They cannot fathom this idea that there is a black President. And that’s what they are going to fight about. The other thing about Sarah Palin is that if you read that Vanity Fair article this month, if you read the Newsweek cover story a few months ago where she was praying on the cover, she’s a true religious nut. I know people are saying, oh there goes, Bill Maher. He’s always talking about religion. Well, read the article. Read about her. There’s a part where it says they were giving her books to study up on. And they came back and said, did you read any? She said, No, I haven’t looked at the books. I’m just reading the e-mails from my prayer warriors. Prayer warriors. These are people, and she’s one of them, who believe there are demons in the world. Everything in her world view is about demons or angels, people who are with us and people who are against us. You know, when liberals say things like, well, when you fight the mosque, building the mosque in New York, you’re just encouraging a war with Islam, they don’t understand, people like Sarah Palin want a war with Islam. That’s what it says in the Bible, bring it on, let’s get it over with. So that’s who could be running our country in four years, two years. … 9:37 p.m. MAHER: And the third thing I would like to say is that when people say, and some liberals get mad when they say, that Islam is a religion that is more prone to violence, yes, we have to recognize that, too. I think I misspoke on Leno last night when I said what would happen if they burned the Koran – nothing. Well, no, plenty would happen. There would be protests. There would be probably deaths. People would die if we, if they burned the Koran. That’s not going to happen if they burn the Bible. Okay? We have to recognize that civilization-wise, the radical fringe of the Muslim religion is bringing up the rear. And it’s the duty of Muslim people to deal with that. … Bush used that guy. Bush, that administration sent him overseas. Yes, that’s the way to fight terrorism. That’s the way to win the war, is to get those people on our side, not to alienate them. KING: How big do you believe the Muslim fringe is? MAHER: Bigger than our fringe. I think it’s sizable, but not the majority, for sure. I mean, the biggest population of Muslims in the world is Indonesia. They’re not crazy. The second biggest is India. There’s 150 million Muslims in India. They’re not crazy. But Saudi Arabia, they’re crazy. The Taliban in Afghanistan, they’re crazy. Parts of Pakistan are crazy. Hamas is crazy. There’s enough of them to worry about. KING: How does a civilized world deal with crazies?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

International Days of Action for Bradley Manning – September 16 – 19

Posted on September 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

http://www.bradleymanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/San-Diego-Days-of-Actio… Rallies, demonstrations, “Collateral Murder” film screenings, whistle-blowing parties and forums will be held around the world between the 16th and 19th of September 2010 as vital expressions of international solidarity with Bradley Manning. Accused of leaking a classified US military combat video showing the gunning down of Iraqi civilians (released to the world by WikiLeaks as “Collateral Murder”), Pfc Bradley Manning has been held in isolation since May 2010 and faces 52 years imprisonment. With concerns high for this young man’s fate, events held as part of the International Days of Action will call for the withdrawal of charges laid against Bradley Manning and his immediate release. Rallying to the slogan “Exposing war crimes is not a crime,” supporters maintain that a young man’s life should not be destroyed for a courageous act of conscience. As Israel and the US ready themselves to attack Iran — endangering the world with an insane escalation of hostilities in the Persian Gulf — the relevance of the issues for which Bradley Manning has become an icon are acutely intensified. When US soldier Ethan McCord said “we do this every day” of the civilian slaughter he walked into after the “Collateral Murder” attack, he was stating an established fact. The reality of his statement has been corroborated by many, including UN President of the General Assembly D’Escoto Brockmann, and is irrefutably substantiated by the recently leaked Afghan War Diaries with their endless entries of civilian deaths resulting from authorized US military operations. Soldiers who try to raise issues of war crimes in the field with their superiors are systematically and sometimes brutally silenced, while those who cannot remain silent by the nature of their conscience are persecuted severely if discovered. Pfc. Bradley Manning, acclaimed as a hero by Daniel Ellsberg (the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War), is a perfect example. This is, at its heart, an issue of truth in public media. added by: toyotabedzrock

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Senate Republicans unveil a plan that would add $4 trillion to deficit by making Bush tax cuts permanent

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made. The measure, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) this week, would permanently extend the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts that benefit virtually every U.S. taxpayer, rein in the alternative minimum tax and limit the estate tax to estates worth more than $5 million for individuals or $10 million for couples. Aides to McConnell said they have yet to receive a cost estimate for the measure. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined. “We have a spending problem. We spend too much. We don't have a taxing problem. We don't tax too little,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday. “And if we want to begin to get ourselves out of this economic trough that we're in, the only way to do that is to grow the private sector.” McConnell spoke as senators returned to the Capitol after a six-week hiatus for a final pre-election session that will be defined by a battle over the Bush tax cuts. Unless Congress acts, the cuts will expire at the end of the year, raising taxes across the board. While Republicans want to preserve all the cuts, Obama has called on lawmakers to extend them only for household incomes under $250,000 a year. That strategy, he argues, would knock hundreds of billions of dollars off the cost of extending the cuts, money that could be used to reduce the nation's debt. Senate Democrats, while generally supportive of Obama's position, have yet to determine the precise shape of the package they hope to put to a vote in the next four weeks. The issue dominated a luncheon meeting Tuesday, but Senate Democrats reached no consensus on how to proceed. Some lawmakers want to hold a vote on the Obama plan – which would presumably not achieve the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster – and then adjourn until after the election. Others prefer to try to resolve the issue before the current session ends to provide voters with certainty on the matter. But that would require at least a handful of Republicans to agree to a compromise, probably involving a temporary extension of all the tax cuts. added by: navider

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN’s Velshi Against Tax Cuts, Denies There’s Been a ‘Surge’ in Spending

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

CNN’s Ali Velshi leaned against extending the Bush tax cuts during a commentary on Tuesday’s Newsroom, warning that it ” may not be a brilliant idea ,” and spouted the liberal talking point that tax cuts are a costly matter. Velshi also misleadingly stated that ” we have not seen a huge surge in spending .” The anchor devoted his regular “XYZ” segment at the end of the 2 pm Eastern hour to the tax issue. He began by outlining how “President Obama wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts that apply to the middle class, or households earning less than $250,000 a year…and that sounds like a great thing.” He then continued with his argument about the “cost” of cutting taxes: “But let me put this into perspective. First, it’s not free. Extending the tax breaks to the top 3 percent of earners would cost between 650 and 700 billion dollars. Extending it for the rest of us is going to cost a lot more, possibly $3 trillion . Everyone wants to pay less in taxes, but in an economy with a debt like America’s, that may not be a brilliant idea .” Velshi is making the common liberal assumption that the tax revenue belongs to the federal government, even before it is taken away from the employed. Despite this, he added that “arguments that it [tax cuts] will grind the economy to the halt may not hold much water either. Our tax rates are relatively low, and we have not seen a huge surge in spending .” There actually has been such a “huge surge” in spending. Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation noted in a June 1, 2010 report that “spending and deficits continuing to grow at a pace not seen since World War II. Washington will spend $30,543 per household in 2010— $5,000 per household more than just two years ago ….Since 2000, spending has grown across the board. Entitlement spending has reached a record 14 percent of GDP. Discretionary spending has expanded 79 percent faster than inflation as a result of large defense and domestic spending hikes.” Velshi completely omitted the possible strategy of lowering spending during his commentary. In fact, he has endorsed raises in spending. On February 17, 2010 , he commemorated the one-year anniversary of Obama’s “stimulus” spending with a cake, and gushed over its focus on “green energy” during a August 24 segment . Later in his commentary, Velshi seemed to endorse the concept of raising taxes: VELSHI: It seems obvious that if you’re concerned about the economy, you’ll vote for someone who wants to cut taxes, the deficit, and the debt. But those things don’t go hand in hand. Wanting to bring down the debt and deficit- well, higher taxes may be the most immediate way to do that because those dollars go directly into government coffers. Cutting taxes is a roundabout way of doing it . You cut taxes, people and businesses have more money to spend, and theoretically, they spend that money in ways that either create jobs or increase domestic demand, which creates jobs. But that assumes that those people have enough faith in the economy that they won’t just pocket their tax savings. The anchor closed the segment by repeating his opposition to tax cuts: “Who can you fault for wanting to pay lower taxes? But just don’t be fooled into thinking that you- if you are the average American- are going to be paying less of anything .” Actually, if the Congress and President Obama somehow let the Bush tax cuts expire, it means that everyone, including the middle and lower classes, will experience higher income taxes . Even after making this statement, Velshi hinted that this was the case: “The victory for you might be the existing Bush tax cuts being extended.” The full transcript of Ali Velshi’s commentary from Tuesday’s Newsroom: VELSHI: Time now for the ‘XYZ’ of it. As things stand, President Obama wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts that apply to the middle class, or households earning less than $250,000 a year. That means about 97 percent of Americans would continue to get the breaks, and that sounds like a great thing. But let me put this into perspective. First, it’s not free. Extending the tax breaks to the top 3 percent of earners would cost between 650 and 700 billion dollars. Extending it for the rest of us is going to cost a lot more, possibly $3 trillion. Everyone wants to pay less in taxes, but in an economy with a debt like America’s, that may not be a brilliant idea. Arguments that it will grind the economy to the halt may not hold much water either. Our tax rates are relatively low, and we have not seen a huge surge in spending. I say this because American voters need to come to terms with this issue. It seems obvious that if you’re concerned about the economy, you’ll vote for someone who wants to cut taxes, the deficit, and the debt. But those things don’t go hand in hand. Wanting to bring down the debt and deficit- well, higher taxes may be the most immediate way to do that because those dollars go directly into government coffers. Cutting taxes is a roundabout way of doing it. You cut taxes, people and businesses have more money to spend, and theoretically, they spend that money in ways that either create jobs or increase domestic demand, which creates jobs. But that assumes that those people have enough faith in the economy that they won’t just pocket their tax savings. I say this so you can make an informed decision at the voting booth. Who can you fault for wanting to pay lower taxes? But just don’t be fooled into thinking that you- if you are the average American- are going to be paying less of anything. The victory for you might be the existing Bush tax cuts being extended. Lower taxes are not feasibly in our future- at least, not until this economy really picks up.

More:
CNN’s Velshi Against Tax Cuts, Denies There’s Been a ‘Surge’ in Spending

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Rachel Maddow Hits Two-Year Mark at MSNBC With Signature Dishonesty

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Not how I’d mark an anniversary, but MSNBC is flexible in its alleged standards. On Sept. 8, Rachel Maddow told viewers it was two years since her cable show started on MSNBC. And what better way to enter her third year of televised liberal polemics than with Maddow’s trademark melding of smarm and deceit.  The following night, Maddow railed at Newt Gingrich and Citizens United for producing and marketing a documentary warning Americans of the threat from radical Islam, after she complained about Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck charging admission to a meet-and-greet on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks (first of four parts in embedded video) — Do you want to know who else has realized the merchandising potential of the 9/11 anniversary this year? In partnership with Citizens United — yes, the same Citizens United that won the Supreme Court case that says corporations can pour limitless cash into American elections — former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has put together a very scary new movie. It’s called ‘America At Risk’ and they have decided to give ‘America at Risk’ its national launch date on (pause) 9/11, whereupon it can be yours for the low, low price of $19.95 plus $4 shipping and handling. Act now, operators are standing by. The trailer for the new launched-on-/9/11 movie is already up online. Here’s an excerpt and I actually should tell you up front that I admit to modifying this excerpt to be able to put it on this TV show in a way that allows me to live with myself. For the first few seconds of this video, I’m not actually going to show you the video part of what Newt Gingrich decided to put on screen while making the argument you will hear him making here. Because the video in the original, the video that he shows while making this argument, the images he chooses to use to sell this stuff, what he is showing is graphic video, graphic video from the real 9/11. And I am not going to help him market that. So, I will show you this clip so you know what this is, you will hear what he says, but I am not going to show the 9/11 ‘sploitation video that he shows while he says it. Ah, how noble. And the “graphic” images Maddow couldn’t bear to share with viewers? There were two, blurred out of focus by Maddow (and both can be seen at the trailer here , starting at 1:01) — the towers from a distance of about a half-mile, the north tower burning, the south tower not yet hit. The second image is of a man giving his coat to a female traffic cop at a dust-clogged Ground Zero and the woman quickly putting the coat to her face to help her breathe or cover an injury. The fleeting images are seen for all of three seconds, if that. One could make the argument that every image from 9/11 is graphic and painful to witness. What Maddow claims here as especially graphic is a stretch, to put it kindly.The first of the two images is smoke billowing from one of the towers, from a distance, with not a single person visible in the frame. Given the brevity of the footage of that follows, of the woman holding a coat to her face, it is difficult to determine if she had been burned or otherwise injured or was gasping for breath.  What Maddow does here is a version of what liberals have done for nearly a decade — airbrushing 9/11 from our history. Toward that end, they stake a proprietary claim to any and all images from the atrocity, at least when cited by conservatives, and proceed to deem the images too graphic for public consumption. Why? To avoid the most awkward question of all — why did it happen? Such discourse leads inevitably to Iraq, as liberals are keenly aware. Not to Iraq as complicit in the planning and execution of the attack, of which there is no evidence. No, Iraq as the rationale for al Qaeda attacking to begin with, due to the jihadists’ towering twin grievances of infidel troops in the Peninsula of Muhammad and UN sanctions on Iraq for flouting Security Council resolutions to disarm in good faith. Maddow also talked on Sept. 9 about the controversy surrounding Dove World Outreach Center pastor Terry Jones’s vow to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., notorious for their obnoxious protests outside the funerals of American soldiers, claimed to have burned a Koran in public in Washington, D.C., in 2007, and garnered scant attention. Here’s Maddow’s take on then and now (second clip in embedded video, starting at 2:24) — What’s different now, the reason no one paid attention to crazy Fred Phelps’ Koran-burning antics and almost literally everyone in the country is paying attention to the Koran-burning antics of this equally crazy Florida guy, is because today the sentiment behind I’m-a-crazy-guy-who’s-gonna-burn-me-some-Korans-on-9/11 is being carried into the mainstream by a current of extreme anti-Muslim, we’re-at-war-with-Islam rhetoric. You really want to know why we’re all suddenly paying attention to one lunatic in Florida who’s been threatening to burn copies of the Koran? This is why — … whereupon Maddow shows an excerpt from the “America at Risk” trailer again, starting with remarks by Newt and Callista Gingrich — as if the Gingriches and this documentary warning of radical Islam motivated Jones in his vow to burn copies of the Koran. For anyone not in a coma over the last month, a more obvious explanation comes to mind — Jones was responding to Imam Rauf’s proposal to build an “Islamic community center” near Ground Zero, and doing so in an equally odious, constitutionally protected provocation. After the “America at Risk” trailer is shown again, Maddow says this (starting at 3:24 in video) — Not just crazy guys who scream at house plants, like the Florida pastor, but supposedly serious political figures like Newt Gingrich have been banging this drum on the right that we in America are at war with Islam. Not with terrorists, with Islam, with an entire religion, with anybody who is a Muslim. And that’s why we’re all talking about the Koran-burning kook in Florida. Sorry, no. The actual reason “we’re all talking” about this is due to allegedly moderate Imam Rauf, the one who describes America as “sharia compliant,” and who humbly seeks to build a Muslim shrine — in a building damaged on 9/11. (In other words, at Ground Zero) That’s the context here, Ms. Maddow, your grasping contortions to the contrary. For Maddow to say Gingrich claims America is at war with “Islam”, with “an entire religion,” isn’t just a stretch, it’s dishonest. Gingrich — as he has since well before 9/11 — is warning of the peril from radical, militant Islam, not Islam itself. It’s not just in the trailer to “America at Risk” where Gingrich makes this distinction. While the documentary was being made, Gingrich spoke at the American Enterprise Institute in late July on the same subject and said this (link to transcript here ; first quote on page 10) — Let me just say I believe that it is very important to draw a distinction between radical jihadis, which I define simply (as) those people who seek to impose sharia, and those Muslims who seek to practice their religion within a framework of the modern world. I would allow each Muslim to define themselves in that sense, but I would be unequivocal about the fact that radical Islamists are not compatible with the modern world and not compatible with civilization as we know it and therefore we are engaged in a long struggle. To Maddow and her ilk, any criticism of radical Islam becomes condemnation of all Muslims, just as any criticism of a (liberal) person of color is immediately deemed racist.  Later in her show Sept. 9, while talking with New York Times columnist Gail Collins, Maddow make this telling remark (third part of video, starting at 3:50) — MADDOW: I made the case in the opening segment, in which I yelled and I’m sorry but I feel a little emotional about it, that the reason that this is getting driven the way it is, and sort of why this kook guy without a congregation who otherwise would be very happily ignored by everybody involved in the creation of news in this country … … which is how Maddow sees her role, “happily” involved in the “creation of news” — as opposed to “coverage” of news. You know, the sort of thing done by actual journalists. “Creation of news,” for example, taking the form of ignoring actual threats to this country — from jihadists — while manufacturing alleged threats, from those warning of jihad.  Maddow revisited the “America at Risk” documentary the following night after showing remarks from President Obama at his press conference that day, juxtaposed with those from President George W. Bush after 9/11 (final clip in video, starting at 4:11) — MADDOW: It sounds like all-American rhetoric when a president, any president, makes the case that Muslim-Americans are Americans too, that we are at war with terrorists, we’re not at war with Islam, that religious freedom wasn’t just a founding principle of this country, it is a living principle of this country. Yes, you heard right — “we are at war with terrorists.” Mark your calendar, it’s not often you hear a left winger acknowledge this. And hitting high above her average, Maddow gets it two-thirds’ correct. Yes, we’re at war. Yes, it’s with terrorists. What she can’t bear to point out is that we’re not at war with Basque or Tamil Tigers or any of dozens of other terrorist groups around the world — it’s with Islamic terrorists. Such is the practice of useful idiocy. As Gingrich also said at the American Enterprise Institute in July (transcript here , page 10 for following quote) — The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union. If you go back and look at all the years of disinformation, all the years of denial, that were the left’s response to communism, why would you think that the next threat to Western civilization will be more accurately studied? This is why the secular-socialist system is itself such a threat. It is the natural pattern of secular-socialist intellectuals to prefer our opponents to us and to accept their lies over our truths. If you doubt that, go look at any study of the 70-year pattern in which the left consistently apologized for the Soviet empire, and look at the shock of the left when Ronald Reagan described the evil empire. Or the pattern of the last decade in which the left demanded that jihadists were spared from harsh interrogation, and condemned Bush and Cheney as greater war criminals than bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Visit link:
Rachel Maddow Hits Two-Year Mark at MSNBC With Signature Dishonesty

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The View’s Hasselbeck Pummels Valerie Jarrett on Economy; Liberal Co-hosts Repeatedly Change Subject

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Interviewing White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett yesterday, The View’s liberal co-hosts repelled Elisabeth Hasslebeck’s tough questions on President Obama’s failed economic agenda by changing the subject and ignoring their conservative colleague’s criticism. Refuting the claim that the economy is “certainly moving in the right direction” despite dismal unemployment numbers, Hasselbeck asked Jarrett if Obama’s $50 billion infrastructure bill represents an “admittance of failure on the $800 billion stimulus bill that didn’t seem to work.” To sidestep Hasselbeck’s question, Jarrett invoked incredulity, flawed statistics, and historical revisionism: Didn’t seem to work? My goodness, to the three million people who have jobs today – to their families – I’d say it did work. Now it turned out that the economy was in far worse shape than anyone could have predicted, and so we’re not out of the hole yet, but those three million families are certainly better off. The millions of families whose jobs were saved as a result of our investment in the automotive industry, all of the small businesses. “If [the stimulus package] worked so well you wouldn’t need the $50 billion,” retorted Hasselbeck, pressing Jarrett to answer her original question. But instead of waiting for Jarrett to respond, co-host Joy Behar changed the subject to the auto bailout: “I don’t hear enough from the Democrats tooting their own horn on that one.” Delighted to be bailed out of answering a tough question, Jarrett gushed, “Help us tout it, you’re absolutely right. Not just GM, but Chrysler and Ford – all three of them are now having profits for the first time in a decade, they’re all doing well. And that’s a result of the steps [Obama] took.” And before Hasselbeck could repeat her question, co-host Sherri Shepherd changed topics again:  “I want to move it around a little bit and ask about you.” A few minutes later, after Jarrett and her liberal allies exchanged playful banter about family trips to Chuck E. Cheese and her longtime friendship with the Obamas, Hasselbeck made one last attempt to hold the Obama confidant accountable: “I think there’s trouble now that’s to be had or else we wouldn’t need to spend another $50 billion if the plan had worked.” This time, co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters jumped to Jarrett’s defense. “We could go on and on,” contended Goldberg. “We could go on and on,” echoed Walters, who proceeded to end the interview. A transcript of the relevant portions of the September 13 “The View” can be found below: ABC The View September 13, 2010 11:38 A.M. E.S.T. JOY BEHAR: He’s criticized a lot for not focusing on jobs. He focused on health insurance. Does he regret that he didn’t do it the other way around? VALERIE JARRETT, White House senior adviser: Well, let me say this: don’t you think it’s important to have a president who can multi-task? BEHAR: Yes. JARRETT: And so he did focus on the economy from day one and if you think about it, Joy, when he took office we were losing over 750,000 jobs every single month, four million jobs in the last six months of the Bush administration. And half of the last eight months we’ve seen private sector growth. Unemployment rate is still too high – you’re right, Elisabeth, it’s not nearly where we would want it to be – we won’t be happy until every single American who wants to work is working. But we are certainly moving in the right direction and it was a terrible condition that he inherited. I mean, think about. ELISABETH HASSELBECK: If I could, on that note, Valerie, because I think it’s important. With the new $50 billion infrastructure bill that the president outlined Friday, correct? JARRETT: Last week, yes. HASSELBECK: Some people are calling that an admittance of failure on the $800 billion stimulus bill that didn’t seem to work. JARRETT: Didn’t seem to work? My goodness, to the three million people who have jobs today – to their families – I’d say it did work. Now it turned out that the economy was in far worse shape than anyone could have predicted, and so we’re not out of the hole yet, but those three million families are certainly better off. The millions of families whose jobs were saved as a result of our investment in the automotive industry. All of the small businesses. HASSELBECK: If it worked so well you wouldn’t need the $50 billion. BEHAR: I don’t hear enough from the Democrats tooting their own horn on that one. JARRETT: Help us tout it, you’re absolutely right. BARBARA WALTERS: The president has talked about it. JARRETT: Not just GM, but Chrysler and Ford – all three of them are now having profits for the first time in a decade, they’re all doing well. And that’s a result of the steps he took. SHERRI SHEPHERD: I want to move it around a little bit and ask about you. You had a really interesting background. You were born in Iran, you lived in Iran for five years, then you lived in London for one year, then you came back. You said while you were out there you had no awareness of race until you came back during the 60s, during the civil rights movement. So when you were back here, what kinds of things did you experience in terms of race? 11:43 A.M. E.S.T. WALTERS: What do you call him? SHEPHERD: When you’re at Chuck E. Cheese? JARRETT: I’ve had my share of Chuck E. Cheese. It’s wonderful when you’ve got a five year old. No but when I’m out of the office and I’m just being his friend I call him Barack, but when I’m in the office I call him Mr. President. BEHAR: You’ve known him a long time and I understand he’s never gotten angry with you – you’ve never seen him get angry. A lot of people would like to see that now. We want to see it. HASSELBECK: We’d just like to see jobs. Not anger, results. JARRETT: Well I think it’s important that we have a president with a solid, steady temper. BEHAR: Absolutely true. JARRETT: Particularly during these difficult times. Don’t you think that’s important? It’s important and, you know, I don’t want a president just being, you know, emotional and sounding off. He has too much responsibility and too much power for that, but I also think last week as we’re going into this election season you’re seeing him make some contrasts between kind of the party that wants to go back to the Bush days that got us into all of this trouble – sorry Elisabeth – that we’re in now. HASSELBECK: I think there’s trouble now that’s to be had or else we wouldn’t need to spend another $50 billion if the plan had worked. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: We could go on and on. WALTERS: We could go on and on. And we’ll ask you to come back with us and we can go on and on. I’m sure the president’s very happy that you’re going to remain in your present position. JARRETT: Thank you very much. Thank you. WALTERS: And we want to thank Valerie Jarrett so much. It’s an honor for us to have you on with us, great pleasure.

More:
The View’s Hasselbeck Pummels Valerie Jarrett on Economy; Liberal Co-hosts Repeatedly Change Subject

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,