Tag Archives: race issues

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Baffled by Wall Street’s Anti-Obama Sentiment: The President ‘Has Not Done’ Much to Business

During Morning Joe on Thursday, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd appeared baffled by a discussion of negative feelings directed towards Barack Obama from Wall Street. The confused journalist wondered, “Look, at the end of the day, he has not done that much when it comes to business stuff.”   Mad Money host, Jim Cramer relayed to Todd that Wall Street is upset because, “Most of the people on Wall Street are behind the scenes guys” and the President is demagoging the issue and demonizing them.  Todd became upset that, regardless of what the President does, “He is getting trapped and hit from both sides, but it isn’t just that, this is how sour the American public is.” To understand why Wall Street and the American public might be “sour,” one needs to look no further than the cap and trade energy proposal, health care, the financial reform bill, the stimulus, or the nationalization of the automobile and student loan sectors. Perhaps Todd could listen to what a colleague on CNBC said. Back in February, Maria Bartiromo asserted that “there are a lot of people on Wall Street and in business increasingly that have said to me actually, ‘I don’t know that I would vote the same today given the fact that we did not expect he was so much to the left, and we did not expect that there was going to be such a big bite in business.’ I mean, that’s a fact.” Recently the media have been expressing incredulity at Barack Obama’s falling poll numbers. This includes MSNBC’s news anchor Contessa Brewer lamenting that after everything President Obama has done, “What else do people want?” Sounding a similar note, Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday touted, after all of Obama’s achievements, “What more could the President have done?”

CNN’s Sanchez: Reid’s Racist Gaffe Emblematic of Angle’s Incompetence

Discussing Harry Reid’s racially-charged comment about Hispanic Republicans, Rick Sanchez miraculously managed to turn the embattled senator’s gaffe into an example of his opponent Sharron Angle’s incompetence. On the prime time “Rick’s List” yesterday, the CNN host actually gave serious consideration to the Nevada Democrat’s claim while exploring the extent to which the Angle campaign is “blacking out” Hispanic media outlets. “Also, do you think a Hispanic-American can be a Republican?” teased Sanchez. “Harry Reid doesn’t think so. And I’m going to tell you what Hispanic groups are saying about his opponent as well.” Instead of interviewing a Hispanic Republican who is offended by Reid’s insensitive remarks, Sanchez brought on Miguel Barrientos, a liberal talk show host, to “drill down” on why Angle is allegedly ignoring Hispanic journalists. “These charges against Angle, are they real?” asked a bewildered Sanchez. “Is she really blocking out the Latin media? Or is this just a case of opportunism by her opponent, Harry Reid?” After Barrientos confirmed that Angle apparently does not feel the need to reach out to media personalities who describe themselves as “activists” who “get involved very heavily in the political area,” Sanchez wondered if the Republican Senate nominee is merely an incompetent campaigner: Well, look, maybe she’s just not good at this. Maybe she’s hired people who aren’t very savvy at reaching out to the media. Maybe they’re not very organized and they don’t return phone calls. You know, there’s a stretch between someone not being competent at dealing with the media and somebody blocking out a specific part of the media, simply because they don’t like them, because they’re Hispanic or black or Asian or whatever the accusation is. Reid drew fire when he claimed he doesn’t “know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.” Rather than criticize Reid for insulting the intelligence of every Hispanic Republican in America, Sanchez characterized the Senate majority leader’s statement as something that “some, possibly even what many, Americans think.” A transcript of the relevant segment can be found below: CNN Rick’s List August 11, 2010 Also, do you think a Hispanic-American can be a Republican? Harry Reid doesn’t think so. And I’m going to tell you what Hispanic groups are saying about his opponent as well. This is a hot political story, and I’m going to take you through it when we come back. This is RICK’S LIST. I’m glad that you’re here. RICK SANCHEZ: I am so excited about that. Can’t wait to share it with you. Welcome back. I’m Rick Sanchez. It may be what some, possibly even what many, Americans think. But should it be said by the Senate Majority Leader? What am I talking about? Should Harry Reid suggest that no self-respecting Hispanic-American can be or should be a Republican? Play it, Kel. Sen. HARRY REID (D-NV): I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more? SANCHEZ: No, you don’t need to say more. Now, as a South Floridian, I can tell you, senator, that there are many Hispanic Republicans. The question is whether Senator Reid is taking advantage of his opponent’s problems with Hispanics in Nevada. A problem that seems to have come to a head lately with the Latino reporters saying that Sharron Angle is blacking out the Latin media, blacking them out. They say they’re not invited to her press events, that they’re not set press releases, and their phone calls aren’t even being returned. Those are the accusations. Those are the charges. Now we asked both camps about this. Here’s what I got from Reid’s camp. Right? He sent me this tweet saying, look, Rick, “Angle’s anti-saving jobs, helping unemployed, social security, Medicare, and says immigration reform overriding our culture.” So he takes a shot at her. Well, here’s what Angle tweets, alright. “Harry Reid pulls out race card again, whacks himself in the head.” So you could see that they’re going at each other here. Now we asked Angle to join us tonight but she declined. I’ll read you her comment nonetheless. “We have brought on more communication staff,” she says, “in recent days, and we will be reaching out to all media outlets aggressively between now and Election Day.” “This attack,” she says, “is an attempt by Harry Reid to distract the voters from his record and his insensitive comments yesterday regarding Hispanic voters.” So here we go, tit-for-tat, right? Joining me now to wade through all this is Miguel Barrientos. He’s a community activist and radio host for KLAV-AM out in Las Vegas. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to roll the R’s while on American television. That was kind of neat. All right. Let’s start with this. These charges against Angle, are they real? Is she really blocking out the Latin media? Or is this just a case of opportunism by her opponent, Harry Reid? MIGUEL BARRIENTOS, KLAV-AM talk show host: First of all, hello, Rick. We have been working in the community through our radio show. We’re activists. We get involved very heavily in the political area. And we have contacted Sharron Angle’s office saying we want to hear what’s going on, we want to know what the tea party feels about, you know, opening the door to the Latinos, especially when you’re talking about immigration issues. And we have not gotten any phone calls returned. We don’t get support from their staff to say, “this is what we feel.” We always hear what they say on the local print media, but doesn’t come forward and talk to our community to our media. SANCHEZ: Well, look, maybe she’s just not good at this. Maybe she’s hired people who aren’t very savvy at reaching out to the media. Maybe they’re not very organized and they don’t return phone calls. You know, there’s a stretch between someone not being competent at dealing with the media and somebody blocking out a specific part of the media, simply because they don’t like them, because they’re Hispanic or black or Asian or whatever the accusation is. Are you sure when you make this accusation that you’re saying, “look, she’s got a problem with Hispanics?” BARRIENTOS: Well, I’m not – I don’t think she dislikes Hispanics. When you have potentially 100,000 voters that are going to be coming out to vote in the elections and she’s not paying attention to the segment of the community, maybe you’re right. Maybe she doesn’t understand, maybe she’s incompetent, maybe she’s not interested in the Latino vote at this point. SANCHEZ: She says that she’s going to try and hire some people to reach out to you. What’s your reaction to that? BARRIENTOS: Well, I think now that you brought it to her attention, maybe she’s going to get a little smarter on how she’s going to run the campaign and get some Latinos out there to maybe speak on her behalf, which I think is a good idea. SANCHEZ: There’s a possibility that someone in her camp would feel like you’re not going to give her a straight shot anyway. In other words, that much of your coverage is going to be directed towards the Democrat because the voting record there in Nevada tends to be from Hispanics, more of a Democratic vote than a Republican vote. How would you answer that charge? BARRIENTOS: Well, we have issues on the table, Rick. We have issues such as immigration reform. You know, this is something that we have been fighting since 2003 here in Nevada. We’ve been working with the politicians. The Republican Party has basically ignored our call. They don’t support anything that has to do with immigration reform. The DREAM Act is a big issue that our community is faced with, and we need to open up the doors for higher education for those who qualify. I mean, it’s always negative, negative, negative, when it comes down to our issues. So how are we supposed to feel when they’re not really taking care? We’re part of the constituency in her district. SANCHEZ: We’ll leave it at that, then. We understand your point of view and we’ll continue to drill down on this topic. Miguel Barrientos, thanks so much, sir. BARRIENTOS: Thank you, Rick.

See more here:
CNN’s Sanchez: Reid’s Racist Gaffe Emblematic of Angle’s Incompetence

Open Thread: Fidel Castro Warns of U.S. and Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: He’s baaaaaaack! Thoughts? 

See more here:
Open Thread: Fidel Castro Warns of U.S. and Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran

Bret Baier Rebuts Rachel Maddow’s Claim That Fox Tries To Scare White People

Bret Baier on Thursday rebutted Rachel Maddow’s claim to David Letterman that Fox News intentionally tries to show images of “scary black people” in order to frighten white folks into voting for conservatives. As NewsBusters previously reported , the MSNBC host was a guest of the CBS “Late Show” Tuesday, and made some pretty disgusting comments about a competing cable news network.  Speaking with WOR radio’s Steve Malzberg, the host of FNC’s “Special Report” countered that because Fox addresses stories that other outlets don’t, that “doesn’t mean that there’s political motivation behind covering actual news.” This, of course, is a huge factor in liberal media bias, and is what folks that analyze news reports refer to as bias by omission (transcript follows with commentary, audio available here with relevant section at 10:00):  STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: Rachel Maddow and David Letterman. When you watch this, when you hear this, what do you, what do you think? BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Well, you know, I just think it’s unfortunate. I think, you know, I just don’t think that there are stories out there that aren’t getting covered, and just because they fit, you know, what Rachel Maddow thinks they fit as far as how she describes it, doesn’t mean that there’s political motivation behind covering actual news. MALZBERG: And it’s the pot calling the kettle if you, no pun intended, black because they’re as biased in their own right as any organization I’ve ever seen. BAIER: I mean, there is a, a big difference between news and opinion. And we talk about it all the time, and hopefully people at home can distinguish. MALZBERG: I think they are. BAIER: And hopefully they can make a choice. MALZBERG: I think the ratings show that. Indeed, but potentially more important is that not only doesn’t MSNBC care to report on things that don’t fit the network’s agenda, they have since the emergence of Barack Obama as a presidential candidate deemed that news outlets that cover things they don’t like are racist for doing so. As NewsBusters has been noting, such attacks have been more and more prevalent as Obama’s poll numbers have collapsed. How convenient. 

Here is the original post:
Bret Baier Rebuts Rachel Maddow’s Claim That Fox Tries To Scare White People

Rachel Maddow Edits ‘Factor’ Video to Make Bill O’Reilly Look Racist

Rachel Maddow on Friday highly-edited a video from the previous evening’s “O’Reilly Factor” in order to make the Fox News host look racist. For some background, Bill O’Reilly wrote a syndicated column Friday in which he chastized Maddow and David Letterman for “without a shred of evidence” claiming on CBS’s “Late Show” Tuesday that FNC intentionally runs stories about “scary black people” in order to frighten white folks into voting for conservatives. Maddow responded by calling this “bullpucky,” and presented video “evidence” from “Factor” programs to prove that this indeed is what Fox does. Unfortunately, in the most damning clip, Maddow’s minions conveniently edited out that O’Reilly was referring to a recent Gallup poll about how blacks and whites have differing views of President Obama. Ironically, this came moments after Maddow scolded O’Reilly for airing the edited version of former USDA official Shirley Sherrod on his July 19 program (videos follow with transcripts and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: This time, the case against me is in his nationally syndicated column which I`m sure is read by millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of people. The headline is, quote, “Only far-left loons scared of Fox News.” Guess who the loon is? Yes. Talking about me on David Letterman`s show this week, Mr. O`Reilly says, quote, “Speaking with far-left MSNBC news commentator, Rachel Maddow on his program, Dave listened as she put forth the preposterous theory that wants to frighten white Americans by reporting negatively about black Americans.” “In the past, paranoid, dishonest rants like that would have been dismissed as fringe-speak. But not anymore. Without a shred of evidence, a guest on Letterman`s “Late Show,” which by the way, gets trounced in the ratings by Fox News Channel every night, defines an entire news organization as a racist enterprise and Letterman goes along.” Mr. O`Reilly`s repeated insistence that must be right because Fox has high ratings is a many-splendored thing particularly because this week – if you believe Mr. O`Reilly, this week means we`re all wrong and only sharksploitation(ph) is right. But there is something else going on here that isn`t just an ad populum fallacy about ratings or an ad hominem collateral swipe at the lovely creature that is the loon. It is something stupid, something stupid enough that it doesn`t even get dressed up in Latin phrasing. It`s him saying that there`s no evidence to back up my claim that Fox News consistently runs stories it says are news, but that nobody else really covers, stories that are ginned-up, exaggerated, caricatured, in some cases, just flat-out made-up scare stories designed to make white people feel afraid of black people, designed to make it seem like black people, or in some cases, immigrants are threatening white people and taking what is rightfully theirs. You may not like that diagnosis of what Fox has been up to, but to say there`s no evidence, not a shred of evidence, as he said, that`s bullpucky. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: Speaking at an NAACP event in March, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying something very disturbing. Seems a white farmer in Georgia had requested government assistance from Ms. Sherrod. Wow. Well, that is simply unacceptable and Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Of course, the Shirley Sherrod story ended up being exposed as total bullpucky, manufactured by nifty video editing. Mr. O`Reilly had to apologize for that statement. But it`s not like the Shirley Sherrod story stands alone. Readers are encouraged to remember her comment “exposed as total bullpucky, manufactured by nifty video editing.” Also, if this was an example of Fox trying to scare white people, why did O’Reilly apologize the next day? Not every member of the news media that broadcast the original Sherrod video clip issued an on air apology like O’Reilly, but I digress: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: The collapse of ACORN – that is the subject of this evening`s “Talking Points Memo.” Here`s the latest scandal. You`re not going to believe it. Because federal authorities have not done much policing of ACORN, two private citizens, James O`Keefe and Hannah Giles, launch an undercover sting investigation themselves. The two pose as a prostitute and a pimp and asked a number of ACORN officials to help them get housing for a prostitution enterprise. The latest sting was in California, where an ACORN employee engaged the young woman posing as a prostitute. ACORN is a tax-exempt organization that should immediately lose that status. And Attorney General Holder should begin an intense investigation. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Of course, the ACORN story ended up being exposed as total bullpucky, too, also manufactured by nifty video editing. Remember after the California attorney general looked into the full tapes and then arrested all those ACORN folks for those crimes that Bill O`Reilly showed them committing on tape? Yes, you don`t remember that? Me, neither, because it never happened. Bullpucky again. But still, very scary. Readers are encouraged to once again remember Maddow’s phrase here “total bullpucky, too, also manufactured by nifty video editing.” Secondly, that the far-left Jerry Brown chose not to prosecute ACORN employees by no means invalidates the corruption that was exposed at this organization or vindicates it. A Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat President have still not lifted the government ban on ACORN funding. Beyond this, the notion that O’Reilly reporting this matter was racially motivated is in itself racist. But Maddow and her ilk seem to miss this irony when they point such fingers at others: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: A guy like Van Jones who is a friend of the president, and he comes in and he`s a hardcore Marxist. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not a hardcore Marxist. O`REILLY: He is. He admits it. All I keep hearing is from people like Eugene Robinson who traffics in racism every time you turn around. Once again, the idea that reporting on Van Jones was to scare white people is pathetic. Are all reports concerning black people involved in wrong-doing racist? As such, this was another tremendously weak point by Maddow in no way proving O’Reilly was trying to scare white people. But here’s the best part: O’REILLY: White Americans don`t like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It`s simple. White Americans fear government control. They don`t want the feds telling them what to do and they don`t want a bankrupt nation. For decades, African-Americans have supported a bigger federal government so it can impose social justice. The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Black people want white people`s money. They want to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts. But remember, Mr. O`Reilly says there is not a shred of evidence that Fox News hypes stories about scary black people taking white people`s stuff. I am not interested in playing cable news insult ping pong with Mr. O`Reilly. But as much as he keeps insisting that I`m no one worth arguing with, that I`m an uber-leftist – he called me that in his column, and a loon twice now. And a slightly larger percentage of one percent of the population watches his show than the proportion of one percent of the population that watches my show, for all he complains about how unimportant I am, my criticism scares white people on purpose to politically benefit conservatives, damn the consequences for the country, that criticism appears to have struck a nerve over at Fox. It appears to have gotten under Mr. O`Reilly`s skin. Good. Well, not so fast, Rach, for why didn’t you provide the full context of that last report by O’Reilly? Here is the unedited “Talking Points Memo” from Thursday. Notice just how much different this really is from the highly-edited version Maddow dishonestly showed her viewers: O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Black and white Americans differ over President Obama. That is the subject of this evening’s “Talking Points Memo”. A new Gallup poll says 88 percent of African-Americans continue to support President Obama, but just 38 percent of white Americans feel the president is doing a good job. That is a 50 point differential in the president’s job approval rating, which is stunning. So what is going on? Let’s take the white situation first. According to the polls, most white Americans don’t like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It’s simple. White Americans fear government control. They don’t want the Feds telling them what to do. And they don’t want a bankrupt nation. That attitude was on display in Missouri this week when 71 percent of the voters approved a state statute blocking the federal government from forcing them to buy health insurance. 71 percent said no to that. Since Obamacare is the centerpiece of the president’s domestic strategy so far, you can see he’s in some trouble. But black America has a totally different view. For decades, African- Americans have supported a bigger federal government, so it can impose social justice. A vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts, and to provide better education and health care at government expense. So the African-American voter generally loves what President Obama is doing. As for Hispanic-Americans, 54 percent now support Mr. Obama but that is down nine points since April. The social justice component is there as well. There’s no question that there are now two Americas. The minority community continues to believe that society is not completely fair to them. And they want a huge government apparatus to change that. And while the white community may sympathize with the minority situation, they apparently believe that more harm than good is being done to the country with the cost of social justice programs. My own belief is that President Obama is well intentioned, but if the wild spending continues, this country will be gravely damaged. As far as social justice is concerned, strict oversight on fair rules, but not the imposition of expensive entitlements is the answer. The USA is the strongest country on earth because of self reliance and the industry of honest, hard working people, who don’t want to be told how to live. Independence and self-reliance is what has made this country great, powerful and generous. And that’s the Memo. As such, O’Reilly was commenting about a Gallup survey just released Tuesday with the title, “Blacks and Whites Continue to Differ Sharply on Obama.” By the end of his “Memo,” he was even crediting Obama with being “well intentioned.” Sound “scary” to you? As for Gallup, here’s what it reported: President Obama’s job approval rating averaged 88% among blacks and 38% among whites in July, a 50-percentage-point difference that has been consistent in recent months but is much larger than in the initial months of the Obama presidency. Obama’s job approval ratings among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in July are all at their lowest levels to date, although the overwhelming majority of blacks still approve. Maybe Maddow should call the Gallup folks racist, too. Regardless, Maddow and her minions completely removed this context from the video they edited thereby dramatically altering what O’Reilly said.  Isn’t that just as bad as what the anonymous person that sent the excerpted Sherrod video to Andrew Breitbart did? Maybe more importantly, isn’t this actually worse than what Fox and every other news outlet did with the Sherrod video, for none of them were involved in the editing. In Maddow’s case, her own staff edited out major portions of O’Reilly’s opening remarks on Thursday completely changing the meaning of his words. This MSNBC host should certainly not be pointing fingers at others for bullpucky manufactured by nifty video editing when she and her staff are doing the very same thing.  With this in mind, maybe Maddow on Monday should play the entire video for her audience and apologize to O’Reilly. Readers are advised to not hold their breath. 

Read more:
Rachel Maddow Edits ‘Factor’ Video to Make Bill O’Reilly Look Racist

Blaming Fox for Shirley Sherrod’s Firing ‘a Lie,’ Fox & Friends Host Declares

On Wednesday’s Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy took strong exception to the NAACP’s claim it was “snookered” by Fox News into denouncing former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod based on excerpts of a speech she delivered at a dinner in March. “There’s a timeline problem,” Doocy pointed out, noting that the NAACP had on Monday night denounced Sherrod as “shameful,” the same day that she was pressured to quit her job ( she says by the White House ). But Fox News never mentioned the story until Tuesday morning. “So for anybody to say that Fox News pressured her out, that is simply a lie,” Doocy asserted. The liberal media have gone from largely ignoring the Sherrod story on Monday night and Tuesday morning to embracing it as a case of a woman maligned by an unfairly edited video clip. But if Sherrod is indeed the victim, much of the damage seems to have been caused by the precipitous reaction of the NAACP and the Obama administration — not liberals’ favorite target, Fox News. Here’s how Doocy explained the matter at the top of the July 21 Fox & Friends, about 6:07am ET: Co-host STEVE DOOCY: The NAACP has done, essentially, a double-back flip. First, here’s what she said regarding the NAACP: [Words on screen] “They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that.” But here’s what she says about the NAACP, she says, she blames them for her getting in trouble. Now, here’s what the NAACP said on Monday night — on Monday night, as soon as the news had hit the fan. They said [reading] “her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicaments working with people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.” That was on Monday. Then yesterday, the NAACP came out and they said that we’re now apologizing to her and they say they were snookered by Fox News and Andrew Breitbart. But as [fill-in co-host] Dana [Perino] mentioned, there’s a timeline problem. Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned. So she was pressured by the Department of Agriculture to quit. She quit. And then we did the stories. So for anybody to say that Fox News pressured her out, that is simply a lie.

Read the original:
Blaming Fox for Shirley Sherrod’s Firing ‘a Lie,’ Fox & Friends Host Declares

The View’s Hasselbeck Unloads on Kathy Griffin, But Joy Behar Waters Down Smear of Scott Brown’s Daughters; ‘It Was Just a Joke’

On her Bravo show last Tuesday night, Kathy Griffin trashed Sen. Scott Brown’s two daughters as “prostitutes.” CNN reporter Dana Bash, who was present with her husband John King, erupted into laughter. Yesterday on ABC’s “The View,” co-host Joy Behar tried to throw a wet blanket on the ensuing outrage over the “joke,” which included condemnations of Griffin’s comments by Scott Brown himself and by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “It’s just a joke,” Behar repeatedly affirmed during a heated exchange with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who vehemently disagreed. “No, no, no, no, no!” Hasselbeck exclaimed. “We’ve always said politicians’ kids are off limits! If someone went around calling Barack Obama’s two girls prostitutes, people would be up in arms. Laybacks! Kathy Griffin’s got to back up on that one right now!” Hasselbeck ripped Griffin as “scum” for her remarks. “You defend your daughters against scum who comes after them and calls them someone like a prostitute,” Hasselbeck asserted about Scott Brown’s condemnation of Griffin’s “joke.” On a recent episode of “The View,” Hasselbeck had a chance to go after Griffin live after Griffin previously called her an “f—ing Survivor reject.” The conservative co-host, however, backed down even after being taunted by Griffin. Newsbusters asked last week if Hasselbeck had been muzzled, especially after liberal Joy Behar went after conservative guest Laura Ingraham a month later about the role of women in religion. After Hasselbeck’s initial defense of Scott Brown’s daughters, Behar tried to twist the topic, pointing out that Brown said his daughters “were available” and “trotted” them out in public on the night of the election – so they were fair game. “Every politician has their family around them,” on election night, Hasselbeck retorted. “Are you justifying what Kathy Griffin said about these two young girls?” Hasselbeck asked, astonished. “It’s just a joke,” Behar insisted. “Don’t do it, it’s not just a joke,” Hasselbeck immediately retorted. “We said off-limits. Everyone said off-limits. Get in line and cut it out. It’s not okay.” When pressed what her reaction would be if her own daughters were called prostitutes, Behar said she would casually brush it off. “I know my daughter is not a prostitute, so it’s funny to me,” the show’s liberal co-host answered. Behar also defended CNN correspondent Dana Bash, who laughed at Griffin’s comment. Behar said Bash simply has “a sense of humor,” and only “chuckled” at the comment. Co-host Sherri Shepherd said that a laugh was expected since Griffin is, after all, a comic. Neither Behar nor Shepherd discussed whether Bash, as a reporter, should have been on the show in the first place, given that Griffin is notorious for her dirty and outrageous remarks, often at the expense of Republicans or conservatives.. As Newsbusters reported on the incident last week, you may watch the video of the incident yourself to see whether Dana Bash erupted in laughter or simply “chuckled” at the comment. Hasselbeck was not without any support from her co-hosts. For her part, generally liberal ‘View’ moderator Whoopi Goldberg defended Scott Brown on speaking out for his daughters. “If somebody talked about my daughter as a joke like that, I’d beat their a**,” she said. A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on July 19 at 11:09 a.m. EDT, is as follows: (Video Clip) KATHY GRIFFIN: Scott Brown – who is a senator from Massachusetts, and has two daughters that are prostitutes. (End Video Clip) ELISABETH HASSELBECK: It’s actually not really funny, and I know his daughters actually, and they’re anything but that, and they –   JOY BEHAR: It’s a joke, Elisabeth. It’s just a joke. HASSELBECK: Well no, no, no, no, no! We’ve always said politicians’ kids are off limits. If someone went around calling Barack Obama’s two girls prostitutes, people would be up in arms. Laybacks! Kathy Griffin’s gotta back up on that one right now! Back it up, KG! JOY BEHAR: But wait a second, isn’t he the one who trotted his daughter out there when he accepted the speech, and said, you know that she’s available. HASSELBECK: Trot – every politician has their family around them. BEHAR: Once you trot the kids out, the Obamas do not trot the kids out, if you’ll notice. Bristol and the boyfriend there, Levi – Levi who drops his Johnst – who dropped his Levis to show his Johnston – they’re pushing a reality show now – (Crosstalk) HASSELBECK: Wait a minute, are you justifying what Kathy Griffin said about these two young girls? That’s – BEHAR: It’s just a joke. HASSELBECK: Don’t do it, it’s not just a joke. We said off limits.” Everyone said off limits. Get in line, and cut it out. It’s not okay. (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Yeah, listen. If someone’s – no, no, no – if somebody talked about my daughter as a joke like that, I would beat their ass. SHERRI SHEPHERD: But you’re their mother. GOLDBERG: That’s my – that’s our point. So you can’t be surprised that Scott Brown took offense at it. Those are his kids! (…) HASSELBECK: You defend your daughters against scum who comes after them, and calls them someone like a prostitute. BEHAR: Are you calling Kathy scum now? Are you calling her scum? (Crosstalk) BEHAR: I’m wondering, is that okay? HASSELBECK: If someone called your daughter a prostitute, would you think they’d be scum? I’d call someone scum if they called my daughter a prostitute. BEHAR: I know my daughter is not a prostitute, so it’s funny to me. HASSELBECK: (Sarcastically) Hysterical. It’s so funny. (…) BEHAR: I know, it’s true. The discussion in the makeup room what whether Dana Bash should have laughed. That was the discussion. Because she’s a news person. GOLDBERG: She could have been nervous – (Crosstalk) BEHAR: I say Dana Bash has a sense of humor, knows that the girls are not prostitutes, and then chuckled at it. That’s all. SHEPHERD: And as a matter of fact, Kathy is a comic. So you say outrageous things, we expect to get a laugh.

More here:
The View’s Hasselbeck Unloads on Kathy Griffin, But Joy Behar Waters Down Smear of Scott Brown’s Daughters; ‘It Was Just a Joke’

Did MSNBC Adjust Website in Response to Dallas Tea Party’s Criticism?

Is MSNBC concerned about charges of a lack of racial diversity among its on-air staff? Perhaps the cable network is realizing that its glass house is increasingly at risk of shattering from all the stones it keeps hurling at the allegedly-racist Tea Party movement. The folks at Inside Cable News noticed a slight change in the header at the MSNBC TV homepage. See if you can spot it in the picture at right. It shouldn’t be that hard; the folks at the cable network put Tamron Hall front and center in a bright pink shirt ( click here for a larger image of the new header). Did MSNBC add Hall in an effort to satiate critics who have pointed out the lack of racial diversity on the cable network? Though ICN notes the comical video produced by the Dallas Tea Party, the Congressional Black Caucus has also chided MSNBC for its lily-white staff. Many such critiques were directly aimed at Keith Olbermann, who suggested that Tea Party protesters were racist because only white people attended their rallies. “Where are they?” asked an overdramatic Olbermann. The Dallas Tea Party countered with its own video noting the on-air whiteness of NBC’s TV holdings. Other conservative commentators, such as blogger Broliath , created their own videos to a similar effect, noting that even the guests on “Countdown” were overwhelmingly white. And as mentioned above, even the Congressional Black Caucus weighed in . According to Main Justice, CBC member Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, asked NBC president Jeff Zucker why there wasn’t “any black programming on NBC.” She added: “Is there some assumption that black programming is not profitable?” But is Hall’s conspicuous presence in the new website header — which was not present as late as April —  a response to MSNBC’s critics? Well, Zucker did tell Jackson Lee that “diversity was one of his strategic goals and that the company was trying to do better.” Furthermore, as ICN notes: …Hall’s inclusion with the “Heavy Hitters” of MSNBC is a bit strange. MSNBC has never before bothered to put any of its M-FR dayside news talent in with the ones that get all the attention. It’s not like Hall’s two hours are fundamentally different in either format or subject matter from what airs at 10, 12, or 3pm ET aside from the fact that they still have segments from inside the control room. So the question arises: Why put Hall up front and center, literally center in this case, with a picture that is fundamentally different from the subdued wardrobe theme that everyone else is sporting (which just about guarantees that Hall is the one you’re going to notice first because her picture sticks out so)? This is, after all, the same cable network whose on-air staff confused Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton .

Read more here:
Did MSNBC Adjust Website in Response to Dallas Tea Party’s Criticism?

N.Y. Times Columnist: Who Cares About a ‘Tiny Group’ Like the Black Panthers?

While MSNBC has spent a week or so playing the allegation of Tea Party racism in heavy rotation, on Monday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC, anchor Mika Brzezinski devoted a segment to the controversy over the New Black Panther Party’s voter intimidation. New York Times editorial writer Charles Blow denounced the group and agreed that the Justice Department needs to answer questions, but he predictably tried to argue conservatives are outrageous in suggesting the “strange logic” that Team Obama’s actions say something about Team Obama and racial justice: The political part of it is, I think, the most inflammatory part of this. It’s strange logic. The idea that the Obama administration – which is what’s happening here – people are trying to tie the Obama administration to black radicalism. And that has been happening since the campaign and it continues to happen. Not everybody, but it’s an electoral goal if you can tie him somehow to black radicalism. It’s strange logic to think that this tiny group, he somehow benefits politically from protecting them. They have a summit the year before this voter intimidation thing came up. There were a hundred people there. There’s nobody there. There’s nothing to gain. In fact, there’s everything to gain in prosecuting. The “tiny group” argument is especially fascinating. The liberal media have been consistently excited at following a tiny group of white racist organizations, accepting repeated tips from the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. The liberal media made an enormous story in 2007 out of a “tiny group” of people who hung nooses from a tree in the schoolyard in Jena, Louisiana. Blow is also the columnist who caught a wave of condemnation after he called a diverse Tea Party rally in Dallas a “minstrel show,” because minorities aren’t supposed to say conservative things. Blow kept coming back to how it would be grossly unfair to try and make political hay out of the Black Panthers, on the same network that’s been trying to make political hay out of Tea Party racism allegations: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The argument, isn’t it, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the guy holding the stick is being prosecuted while the other guy is not. Why not both of them? That’s one of the questions. But he lived there. BLOW: But also he was a registered poll watcher. They police showed up, they took the guy away with the billy club. They left the other guy there. I mean, there’s a certain point where, and I guess that’s what the investigation will tell us. It’s a complicated case. The political part of it, I mean. If it is being politicized it’s being politicized on the right. You have Erick Erickson of RedState.com saying that every Republican should make this Black Panther case the Willie Horton of this year. The other guest in the Morning Joe segment was Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), who hammered away at how he not only can’t get any answers from Attorney General Eric “Nation of Cowards” Holder, and even the Justice Department’s Inspector General isn’t cooperating: WOLF: Why isn’t Attorney General Holder answering the questions and why won’t the IG look at it? BLOW: All good questions. WOLF: If two members of the KKK stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia or Mississippi and did that they would be in violation of the law. For two New Black Panthers to do this in Philadelphia is a violation of the law. No one should stand outside a polling booth whether it be in Virginia or in Pennsylvania and do that and the IG has an obligation to look at it, and Eric Holder has an obligation to look at it, and the Office of Professional Responsibility, and all three have sort of just said “we’re not going to deal with the issue,” and that’s wrong. PS: Sharp eyes at MRC’s TimesWatch added Blow didn’t seem to think “tiny” meant harmless in a April 18, 2009 column on the alleged epidemic of U.S. veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and joining hate groups: “The only debate we should be having is about the best way to protect our newest veterans from falling prey to this handful of military apostates. If they only recruit a few, that is still too many. Terrorists have shown the world time and again that a few well-trained men is all it takes.” That piece came with a helpful visual aid showing the number of “Veterans in White Supremacist Groups.” The total confirmed or claimed over seven years? 203 out of a group numbering millions. (Hat tip to MRC’s Alex Fitzsimmons for the transcript.)

Excerpt from:
N.Y. Times Columnist: Who Cares About a ‘Tiny Group’ Like the Black Panthers?

CNN’s Lemon Argues With Black Tea Party Member; Civil War ‘Modern History’?

On Thursday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Don Lemon conducted a confrontational interview of a black tea party member and disputed his assertion that the U.S. is “more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history.” Lemon bizarrely reached back to the Confederacy to challenge his guest’s claim: “Some of the reasons for the Civil War….was racism….How can you say the country is more divided now?” The CNN anchor brought on the Reverend C. L. Bryant during a segment eight minutes into the 10 am Eastern hour to discuss the NAACP’s recent condemnation of the tea party’s “racism.” After playing a clip of Bryant from the 2009 9/12 tea party rally in Washington, DC, where the tea party leader accused the Obama administration of “building walls of racism… [and] class-ism,” Lemon first asked, “What do you think about this new resolution from the NAACP?” Bryant replied, “Well, unfortunately, those types of statements…are echoes of the left at this point in time.” Lemon then challenged the tea party leader both on his “wall of racism” accusation against the Obama White House and on his political labeling of the NAACP: “You just said that was a message that was coming from the left when you were talking about the NAACP’s message. Now…you said in the speech- you brought up racism. You said that the President was building walls of racism…. how can you say it’s just coming from the left when you just said the same thing? ” When Rev. Bryant gave his “more divided” line in response, the anchor made his Civil War reference as part of his retort: BRYANT: There are walls that have been built of racism in this country since this administration has taken oath of office, and I say that to say this- this country is more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history , and one of the reasons for that, I feel and fear, is because it is very convenient to play the race card when you have a black president. But if anyone voted for this president because of his color, then I would say to you, that was very foolish. LEMON: Well, how you can say that this country is more divided than ever? I mean, when you think about the- you know, s ome of the reasons for the Civil War- I mean, it was racism. The country was divided, I mean, actually divided along a line. That’s what the Mason Dixon line was all about. How can you say the country is more divided now? I mean, it’s not- for lack of a better word, that black and white because there’s progress in other ways. I’m sitting here on television. You’re doing what you are doing. I don’t know if we would be doing this at some other point in time. The Civil War is “modern history”? The 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War is next year in 2011. Bryant tried to clarify what he meant, but this resulted in another challenge from Lemon: BRYANT: When we take into consideration since 1965, when I received the right to vote, and where we sit now, as you very adeptly said here in 2010, and you and I both are on television, and we have the opportunities we have- but yet, we’re still talking about race in this country. There evidently is a place of division that exists in modern society, not since the Civil War, but since 1965 – LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t be talking about it? We shouldn’t talk about race? BRYANT: I’m sorry- say again. LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t talk about race? BRYANT: Of course, we must talk about race, but it must have a more intellectual tone- LEMON: Okay. BRYANT: Because African-Americans in this country are now more diverse than we ever have been before. Near the end of the interview, the CNN anchor emulated his colleague Rick Sanchez from the previous evening in bringing up the two most egregious example of racially-charged imagery from tea party rallies: LEMON: As I’m talking to you now, you’re seeing the pictures of people- you know, with monkeys; ObamaCare, with the thing- the bone through his nose and all of that, and you’ve been to these tea party rallies. Have you not seen any of these sort of things- signs and elements ? BRYANT: Out of the thousands of people that attend tea party rallies, we are very hard-pressed to police any foolishness that you may see in those types of signs, and as I said earlier, we have discouraged and do denounce anyone who brings those types of signs to any of our rallies. That’s not what we’re about- LEMON: And I think that’s what the NAACP- that’s what the resolution is about, and Ben Jealous said he’s not saying that the entire tea party or the tea party group- that they are racist. He’s saying that the tea party should denounce the racist elements. Do you agree or disagree with that? BRYANT: We have denounced those elements, and we call upon the NAACP to denounce the murderous comments that were made by [Black] Panther members last week. If, in fact, we’re going to play this particular game, then let’s make it fair and balanced. If, in fact, they call on us to denounce a certain element of the right, then they must, too, come to the table and denounce certain elements that are, evidently, on the left. LEMON: Nice talking to you, Reverend C.L. Bryant- and a civil conversation, as we should be talking about all issues. Thank you, sir.