Tag Archives: racism

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.

Keith Olbermann Thinks NAACP Resolution Against Tea Party ‘Was Kind of Mild’

Keith Olbermann on Wednesday said the recently adopted resolution by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People condemning alleged racism within the Tea Party “was kind of mild.” Speaking with NAACP President Ben Jealous on MSNBC’s “Countdown,” Olbermann asked, “Do you think that what you passed was actually kind of moderate?” With a straight face, Olbermann continued, “Because it struck me that, that one of the points that you emphasized was that the Tea Party is, is not a racist movement, but is merely tolerating racism and bigotry by its, by its members.” Still with a straight face, “I thought that was kind of mild” (video follows with commentary): KEITH OLBERMANN: Do you, do you think that what you passed was actually kind of moderate? Because it struck me that, that one of the points that you emphasized was that the Tea Party is, is not a racist movement, but is merely tolerating racism and bigotry by its, by its members. I thought that was kind of mild.  Kind of mild? Well, although the NAACP isn’t actually going to release a full text of the resolution until October, this is the press release from the organization: NAACP DELEGATES UNANIMOUSLY PASS TEA PARTY AMENDMENT NATION’S OLDEST AND LARGEST CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS ASK TEA PARTY TO REPUDIATE RACIST FACTIONS (KANSAS CITY, MO) – Over 2,000 NAACP delegates today unanimously passed a resolution-as amended-called “The Tea Party Movement,” asking for the repudiation of racist Tea Party leaders. The resolution condemns the bigoted elements within the Tea Party and asks for them to be repudiated. The NAACP delegates presented this resolution for debate and passage after a year of vitriolic Tea Party demonstrations during which participants used racial slurs and images. In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were accosted by Tea Party demonstrators and called racial epithets. Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the “N” word and openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was called an ugly anti-gay slur. “We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism & anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement,” stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Last night after my speech, I was approached by an African American member of the NAACP and the Tea Party. He thanked me for speaking out because he has begun to feel uncomfortable in the Tea Party and wants to ensure there will always be space for him in both organizations. I assured him there will always be a place for him in the NAACP. Dick Armey and the leadership of the Tea Party need to do the same.” The resolution was amended during the debate to specifically ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party. It comes on the heels of NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous’ announcement of the “One Nation, Working Together” Movement culminating with a national march on Washington on 10-2-10. The resolution will now go to the NAACP National Board of Directors for a full vote when they meet in October 2010 in Baltimore, MD. A formal copy of the resolution will be released at that time. Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors. For the record, that’s what a shill like Olbermann believes is mild. Any questions? 

Visit link:
Keith Olbermann Thinks NAACP Resolution Against Tea Party ‘Was Kind of Mild’

Rick Sanchez & Roland Martin Slam Limbaugh, Beck as Illegitimate, ‘Racist’

CNN’s Rick Sanchez returned to attacking conservative talk radio on Wednesday’s Rick’s List program, lamenting that “a lot of people in this country…think that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are legitimate news organizations.” Sanchez also brought on liberal CNN contributor Roland Martin to do the same: ” The Glenn Becks of the world…use the race-baiting…Rush Limbaugh and his racist language ” . The left-leaning CNN anchor brought on Martin and Memphis, Tennessee Tea Party founder Mark Skoda just after the bottom of the 4 pm Eastern hour to discuss the NAACP’s recently-passed resolution condemning the tea party movement’s “racism.” As you might expect, Sanchez singled out two isolated examples of racially-tinged signs at tea party rallies: a birther tea party protester who held a “sent Obama back to Kenya” sign while carrying a stuffed monkey, and a sign from the 9/12 rally in Washington, DC in 2009 that depicted President Obama as an African witch doctor. Martin treated Skoda in a confrontational manner from almost the beginning. The Memphis tea party leader brushed aside Sanchez’s citation of a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll which apparently found that “49 percent of Americans saying that they believe the tea party movement is based in some part on racial prejudice.” The pro-Obama contributor then pounced: “Well, actually, he didn’t actually answer your question. He danced around your question because I don’t- he obviously did not want to answer it . So I will let him have a second opportunity, Rick, to actually answer the question.” Sanchez agreed to Martin’s point and asked, “Would you like another chance to answer the question?” Skoda replied, “Sure, I’d be happy. First of all, I don’t know the statistics, and certainly, what the sampling size of this poll.” Both Sanchez and Martin interrupted at this point, repeating it was an ABC News/Washington Post poll, with the anchor adding, ” a very legitimate organization- very legitimate polling data .” The CNN anchor returned to the idea of the supposed legitimacy of the mainstream media versus conservative talk radio near the end of the segment as he and the pro-Obama contributor blasted Beck and Limbaugh: SANCHEZ: Roland, you get the last word. MARTIN: I…think part of the problem here is that when you look at the people who I think some tea parties- tea party folks look to, the Glenn Becks of the world, who say the President’s a racist, and they use the race-baiting, when you look at Rush Limbaugh and his racist language as well – that’s what you have here, and at the end of the day, if it’s about rights, fine, but reject the people who want to bring race into the rally, into the party. So, I salute those who do that. They’re the righteous folks. But not all tea party leaders are willing to do that, and I think the NAACP is simply saying, remove the racist elements from your existence because they’re the ones who are hindering your message. SANCHEZ: Well, unfortunately, there’s a lot of people in this country that look at legitimate news organizations like The Washington Post and scoff, and actually think that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are legitimate news organizations . MARTIN: Well, they make up stuff. They’re not legitimate to me at all. SANCHEZ: Sad as that may be – gentlemen, we’ll have to leave it there. Martin also attacked Limbaugh during an October 20, 2008 segment with CNN’s Campbell Brown, using the cliched “fat idiot” insult against him. Earlier in the segment, the tea party leader noted that he and his organization had “repudiated racism at every chance,” and added a critique of the media’s coverage of the New Black Panther Party: “On the other hand, I didn’t hear too much being said when Shabazz suggested that white cracker babies and police should be murdered, and that is, far and away, extreme, versus a sign that might be carried at such an event.” Martin brushed aside this critique and attacked Fox News to the apparent amusement of Sanchez: MARTIN: Media Matters has an interesting take on that, and that Fox News has actually put the New Black Panther Party on the network more than anybody else in the past 10 years. So maybe they’re the ones pushing that story he’s talking about, so maybe they should answer why they are giving them a platform to espouse their views . (Sanchez laughs) That’s one thing they should answer…. CBS had a poll, as well, of tea party members where more than a quarter said they believed this president was doing more for blacks than anybody else – not based upon any real data, just simply a particular view. And so, I can understand why people hold a view. But the tea party should be saying, if you come with your racist rhetoric and your signs, you are not welcome- get out of here. That’s the right response. The CNN anchor then used a liberal talking point about the tea party movement in his next question to the tea party leader: “How much of this do you think, Mark, has to do with the fact that the tea party has come to fruition at a time when we have our first African-American president in the history of the United States, and it’s almost impossible to look at those two without seeing them together?” Sanchez has attacked conservative talk show hosts on several occasions. On July 9, the anchor hinted they were uneducated: “Many… don’t even have a college degree .” Earlier in 2010, the CNN personality repeatedly insinuated that ” crazy talk show hosts that are so right wing ” were to blame for ten congressman requesting extra security just before ObamaCare was passed. Back in 2009, Sanchez had to apologize for running a fake quote attributed to Limbaugh in October. Two months earlier, he accused anti-ObamaCare activists of spreading lies , attributing this to the protesters relying ” exclusively [on] right-wing media and right-wing television channels .” The CNN anchor also hinted on June 11, 2009 that the white supremacist who killed a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, might have been ” motivated to move by right-wing pronouncements …on some TV and radio outlets.” Sanchez went beyond hinting during an April 8, 2009 segment about the murder of three Pittsburgh police officers: “That weekend tragedy involves a man who allegedly shot and killed three police officers in cold blood. Why? Because he was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio , that quote, ‘Our rights were being infringed upon.'”

Originally posted here:
Rick Sanchez & Roland Martin Slam Limbaugh, Beck as Illegitimate, ‘Racist’

ABC Hypes NAACP Indictment of Tea Party as Racist, a Smear the Network Stoked

Four months after ABC’s World News spent a weekend defaming anti-ObamaCare Tea Party protesters as “very ugly” with “ reports of racial and homophobic slurs ,” citing “protesters roaming Washington, some of them increasingly emotional, yelling slurs and epithets ,” Tuesday’s newscast, unlike those on CBS and NBC, credentialed the NAACP ‘s charge that the “Tea Party movement is a threat to the pursuit of human rights, justice and equality for all.” Sans any ideological label, anchor Diane Sawyer set up the full July 13 story: “The nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP , has just adopted a resolution this evening at its annual convention condemning quote, ‘racist behavior by Tea Party members.’” Reporter Dan Harris relayed: The NAACP points to the racial epithets allegedly hurled at black members of Congress by Tea Party members during the health care debate and to the racist signs that critics say they spotted at Tea Party events to support its conclusion that the “Tea Party movement is a threat to the pursuit of human rights, justice and equality for all.” Going to a Tea Party leader who is black, Harris pressed: “We’ve all seen the signs. There have been signs that compare Baarck Obama to a monkey, there have been signs that have had the ‘n’ word on them. When you see those signs, how do you feel?” Harris, however, did at least quote Sarah Palin’s tweet asking: “Are liberty-loving, equality-respecting patriots racist?” And, citing an ABC News/Washington Post survey, he noted “the biggest reasons people join the Tea Party are politics and ideology, rather than views on race.” Earlier NB item on Tuesday afternoon about an ABCNews.com post headlined: “Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning ‘Racist’ Elements of Tea Party” Back in March, NB archive: Saturday, March 20 : “ABC: Anti-ObamaCare Protest ‘Turned Very Ugly’ with ‘Racial and Homophobic Slurs’” Sunday, March 21 : “ABC’s Sawyer: ‘Protesters Roaming’ DC, ‘Increasingly Emotional, Yelling Slurs and Epithets’” Plus, from March 21 : “CBS: ‘Mean from the Start’ Health Debate ‘Turned Even Nastier Yesterday’ with ‘Racial Epithets’ and ‘Sexual Slurs’” From the Tuesday, July 13 ABC World News: DIANE SAWYER: Also on politics, a controversy surrounding the Tea Party. The nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP, has just adopted a resolution this evening at its annual convention condemning quote, “racist behavior by Tea Party members.” Tonight, the   Tea Party is fighting back and here’s Dan Harris. DAN HARRIS: The NAACP points to the racial epithets allegedly hurled at black members of Congress by Tea Party members during the health care debate and to the racist signs that critics say they spotted at Tea Party events to support its conclusion that the “Tea Party movement is a threat to the pursuit of human rights, justice and equality for all.” At the group’s annual meeting in Kansas City, the resolution had plenty of support. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: When we turn on the television and see posters and fliers that send very frightening messages to our community, we have to address it. HARRIS: Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin called the resolution “divisive,” asking today on Twitter: “Are liberty-loving, equality-respecting patriots racist?” David Webb is the co-founder of the New York City Tea Party. DAVID WEBB, TEA PARTY 365: I think the NAACP, in its march towards irrelevancy as an organization, needs an enemy to maintain its power base. HARRIS, TO WEBB: Let me push you a little bit. WEBB: Sure. HARRIS, TO WEBB: We’ve all seen the signs. There have been signs that compare Baarck Obama to a monkey, there have been signs that have had the “n” word on them. When you see those signs, how do you feel? WEBB: They’re offensive. They don’t belong there, but there will always be fringe elements. HARRIS: The biggest reasons people join the Tea Party are politics and ideology, rather than views on race. But today, the NAACP rejected the charge that it’s playing politics. BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS, PRESIDENT, NAACP: We have no problem with the Tea Party, we have a problem with the Tea Party tolerating racists in their ranks. HARRIS: This race-based fight shows no signs of letting up. The NAACP is planning an anti-Tea Party march on Washington this fall. Dan Harris, ABC News, New York.

Read more from the original source:
ABC Hypes NAACP Indictment of Tea Party as Racist, a Smear the Network Stoked

Washington Post Hysterically Explains Why Tan Tax Isn’t Racist

If you thought ObamaCare’s new tax on tanning salons was racist, the Washington Post wants to set you straight: it ain’t! The reason according to a piece published at the Post’s website Thursday evening: the government didn’t INTEND to disadvantage white people with this law. It’s just an unfortunate consequence. I kid you not.  But this gets better, because the Post quoted a Harvard professor that said this is similar to crack cocaine laws that clearly disadvantage black people more than white people (h/t Jillian Bandes ): The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law. “There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect,” he said. Kennedy said that this is why courts have upheld a raft of other laws that also happen to have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, laws that impose higher penalties for possession or trafficking of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine resulted in far harsher sentences for African Americans compared to whites. And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women. But in both cases judges ruled that, because lawmakers did not intend to disadvantage black people or women when drafting those laws, they are legal. You got that? So quit you’re whining about this new tan tax, Snooki!

See more here:
Washington Post Hysterically Explains Why Tan Tax Isn’t Racist

MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan

So is President Obama more conservative than the late Ronald Reagan? MSNBC substitute anchor Cenk Uygur thinks so. Filling in yesterday for Dylan Ratigan on his 4 p.m. show, Uygur moderated a segment based on the preposition that President Obama’s policies have actually been more conservative than those of President Reagan. “That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard,” former Reagan White House political director Frank Donatelli said of the claims. “It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything,” he added. Uygur is a host of ” The Young Turks ,” a left-wing internet political podcast. In fact, both his guests disagreed with him, but the liberal radio show host wouldn’t budge. He provided the following as proof: – President Reagan pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens, while President Obama wants to toughen-up border security. – President Reagan negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions (in 1985, with Mikhail Gorbachev). – President Reagan decided to “cut and run” in the Middle East when troops in Lebanon were under attack. President Obama, on the other hand, called for a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. – President Obama refused to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. President Reagan, however, raised taxes every year of his Presidency after 1981. – President Reagan hosted an openly gay couple at the White house overnight. Uygur, taken aback at the challenge to the accuracy of his claims, wouldn’t let Donatelli get too many words in during the remainder of the segment. Uygur then turned to MSNBC political commentator David Weigel, who confessed that his own views on the matter leaned more toward those of Donatelli. “By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President,” Weigel stated. “But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to,” he added. “[Obama] is not a conservative, come on,” he countered Uygur. The guest host also opposed Weigel on whether the American populace is generally center-right or center-left.Weigel admitted that America is center-right overall, while Uygur argued that polls show America as a center-left country. “This is a — at least in rhetoric — a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like change,” Weigel stated. “This is not a center-right country,” Uygur countered. “You look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. Perhaps Uygur missed this poll . “I totally disagree with both of you,” Uygur wrapped up the segment, thus disagreeing with both of his guests from both sides of the political spectrum. The transcript of the segment, which aired on July 6 at 4:33 p.m. EDT, is as follows: THE DYLAN RATIGAN SHOW 7/6/10 4:33 p.m.-4:43 p.m. EDT (Video Clip) RONALD REAGAN: I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. BARACK OBAMA: And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. (End Clip) CENK UYGUR, MSNBC NEWS ANCHOR: Yes, you heard that right. Conservative hero President Ronald Reagan pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants, while our Democratic President calls for a border crackdown. Welcome back, I’m Cenk Uygur in for Dylan Ratigan. The immigration debate, just one reason Obama-Reagan comparisons are abounding right now. We’re breaking it down. Siena College out with its new ranking of the Presidents. Historians put our current President at 15th, with the Gipper ranked 18th. That is going to drive conservatives crazy, but maybe it shouldn’t. So time for a little pop quiz we’re calling “Who’s more conservative?” I’ll give you the policy decision, you decide whether it was President Obama’s or President Reagan’s. We start with foreign policy. Which president negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions? Was it President Obama, or President Reagan?  If you said President Obama, that is incorrect, though he says he’s open to it at some point. (Clip of CNN 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate) Question: Would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea? CNN Debate Moderator: Senator Obama? SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I would. (End Clip) UYGUR: Republican hawk Ronald Reagan actually did it in March, 1985. At the height of the Cold War, Reagan invited newly-appointed Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the “Evil Empire,” for a summit in Geneva without preconditions. You will recall President Reagan’s administration was also responsible for trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair. That would be negotiating with terrorists, literally. Next, which President is famous for his decision to “cut and run” when our troops were attacked in the Middle East? Yep, that would be President Reagan. He withdrew immediately from Lebanon in 1983 after Hezbollah murdered 243 U.S. servicemen in Beirut. Contrast that decision with President Obama’s 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. Next, the fiscal policy. Which president refused to raise taxes for anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars. Yeah, that would be President Obama. On the other hand, and counter to Reaganomics, President Reagan, after initially lowering taxes, raised them nearly every year after 1981, with four significant tax increases. Finally, which President was the first to host an openly-gay couple at the White House for an overnight stay? Well that’s got to be Obama, right? Nope, that would be family-values icon Ronald Reagan. So which President is the real conservative here? Joining us now is David Weigel, politcal reporter and MSNBC contributor, and Frank Donatelli, former White House political director for President Ronald Reagan, and most recently, the chairman of GOPAC. So let me start with you, Frank. Those sound like interesting comparisons. Is there some chance that Obama is actually more conservative than Reagan? FRANK DONATELLI: Well I’m glad the MSNBC interns had something to do for the last couple of weeks. Those are the – that’s the silliest thing that I’ve ever heard. The fact is, that – UYGUR: Which part is untrue? If you say it’s silly, which part is untrue? DONATELLI: It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything. UYGUR: So all of that is true, let’s start with that, all of that is true, right? DONATELLI: It’s not all true – UYGUR: Really? Which part is not true? DONATELLI: Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev, but at the same time he built up our armed forces. So to say that he negotiated with Gorbachev without preconditions is silly. It was part of an integrated strategy. It was part – UYGUR: Not it’s not silly, it’s absolutely correct. It’s absolutely correct. Furthermore, Obama has also increased Pentagon spending, and he did a surge in Afghanistan when Reagan ran from Lebanon. That’s got to be true, right? DONATELLI: Not as a part of GDP. Reagan wanted to cut government, he wanted to make government smaller, he wanted to make the private sector stronger. UYGUR: He wanted to. Did he? DONATELLI: Yes. Absolutely. UYGUR: Really? The deficit went up tremendously under Reagan, from 700 billion to 3 trillion. DONATELLI: And some of the taxes went down — [the deficit] wasn’t a trillion dollars every year like Obama’s. UYGUR: No, that’s actually Bush’s, but – DONATELLI: And he won the Cold War, too. Reagan won the Cold War. What did Obama win? Obama hasn’t won anything. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Reagan single-handedly won the Cold War. DONATELLI: [Obama] hasn’t created any jobs. 10 percent unemployment. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Right. I know Reagan won the Cold War single-handedly, nobody had anything else to do with it. DONATELLI: With a lot of other people, including Republicans and Democrats. UYGUR: Let me go to David. David, is it unfair to Obama to say he’s more conservative than Reagan is? Have we stated anything wrong on that count? DAVID WEIGEL: Well I’m going to come closer to Frank than you might expect here. By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President. We remember in the Nevada caucus, in the run-up to that, he gave an interview saying Reagan had been a transformative President, Bill Clinton hadn’t. He was going to be a transformative President. He said liberals had never had someone like this, and then he ran for President saying, as you pointed out, he wasn’t going to raise taxes on anybody. But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to, whereas Reagan, apart from the couple reversals early on, you know after ____ when he had to raise taxes again, with amnesty, he was always moving the debate further to the right. I think Obama ran more conservative than he really has been, and had been dealt more reversals as a liberal than Regan was dealt as a conservative. Now you brought up the deficit, that’s true. Regan had the highest deficits since we had since World War II. Obama’s had much higher deficits. And he’s much more apologetic about the reasons he did. Conservatives are still able and willing to say that taxes were lower, that government shrank in some ways. If they can’t defend it at every level, Democrats can’t really defend the way they’ve governed based on the way they ran on. It’s fun to compare a couple of these different, these different issues, and certainly Obama deserves a bit more credit on foreign policy and immigration, if not attacking the very traditions with which the Republican was founded. But he’s not a conservative, come on. UYGUR: No, not come on. You make a good point in that Regan pushed the spectrum further to the right. I hear you on that. But the flip side is the spectrum has already moved, and it’s not like Obama is pushing it back to the left. So I mean, since the spectrum has moved so much, let me ask of you a follow-up question. At this point, when Reagan did it, I don’t know, was it conservative to do amnesty? Now, you know, they’d go ballistic if Obama did amnesty for illegal immigrants and that’s it. Wouldn’t they? WEIGEL: Yeah, I mean, I’d like to see Frank’s answer to that. Because this is something that conservatives wrestle with, explaining why in the year 2010, we’ve actually got better border control than we had two years ago, why this is unthinkable. And I guess there’s space to say – it’s unfair to say that every single thing Obama does is antithetical to liberty. You know, his healthcare plan was not the healthcare plan liberals wanted. It was a variation of the plan Republicans proposed in 1994 as a compromise. So yeah, he’s adapted to a spectrum that’s been shifted to the right. But he’s trying to govern as liberal as possible, and not doing a great job of it, as far as liberals are concerned. UYGUR: I gotta be honest with you, I don’t agree with either one of you. I don’t think he’s being as liberal as he can at all. You know, they are already calling him a socialist, why not actually do the public option, let alone single payer health care? But David asked me a good question. Frank, let me ask you. I think the spectrum has moved. Do you agree that Reagan did amnesty – what now conservatives think is unthinkable? And do you agree that he negotiated with terrorists, which now Republicans think is unthinkable? Didn’t he do those, what you would characterize as very liberal, policy positions? DONATELLI: In 1986, the problem of integration – of immigration – was not nearly what it is in 2010. UYGUR: So it was okay to do amnesty? DONATELLI: The estimates were we had 3 million illegals living in the United States. We now have between 10 and 20 million. So the idea of amnesty didn’t work in 1986, and it’s not going to work in 2010. We need border security, and then we can move onto the other issues. Again, I think the seminal point to be made here is that at every opportunity, Ronald Reagan tried to knock down the size of the federal government. He said in his inaugural address in 1981, government is the problem, it is not the solution. Barack Obama, in just 16 months, has governed in the opposite direction. He believes in making government bigger. UYGUR: I think that, Dave, you say that he tried to make government smaller. He failed utterly then. And David said Obama tried to be liberal. Well, look at the record. It appears he failed. I mean, if Regan had – a final question for you, David. If Reagan had come in and said “I’m going to give the drug companies an absolute monopoly. They get a 12-year patent, nobody gets to import any drugs, and the government can’t even negotiate with them – that would have never worked. That would have been far too right-wing, wouldn’t it have? And now Obama does it, and nobody blinks. WEIGEL: Oh, I think a lot of people blinked. I think a lot of protesters on the right and a lot of liberals on the left blinked about it. No, the point is he’s had to talk more conservative, because Republicans are right. This is a – at least in rhetoric – a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like rapid change. So Obama’s been more hamstrung. But the debate you’re trying to start, I think, is helpful, because it’s not helpful when we pretend that everything Obama does comes not from liberals trying to adapt with a pretty center-right country we’ve got, and are instead trying to pull us back to the progressive, Saul Alinsky socialist tradition. In reality, Obama I think, is a pretty liberal guy who’s operating within these contours, and making a lot of compromises, the way that Ronald Reagan did. But we get completely off track both times, it’s good to take it off track into a different direction like this. UYGUR: Alright, well that was fun, because I totally disagree with both of you. This is not a center-right country, you look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. The problem is, our politicians tell us they’re going to vote in that direction, and they don’t. And yes, Obama was elected to change the contours. That’s exactly the problem, David. He said “I’m going to bring you change,” and then what did he bring us? He brought us policies that, on the record, that neither one of you can dispute, that are more conservative than Ronald Reagan’s. But it was a fun conversation, and David and Frank, thank you for both coming on here.

Go here to read the rest:
MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan

MSNBC Fill-In Host: Conservative Liberal Media Claims Based On Racism

Cenk Uygur, host of the left-wing internet talk show ‘The Young Turks,’ filled in for MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan during the 4PM ET hour on Wednesday and decried the nation’s “shift to the Right.” He lamented: “…when I started out I was a liberal Republican. No such thing exists anymore.” [Audio available here ] He wondered why the media hadn’t reported on the supposed radical shift in American politics and quickly came up with this explanation: “Why the media didn’t challenge it is because they [conservatives] kept calling them the liberal media, and why did they call them that? Because during civil rights, they [the media] said ‘yeah, black people and white people are the same’ and the conservatives at the time said ‘damn liberal media,’ and, you know, that intimidated the media into not recognizing this trend.” Uygur’s liberal guests, author Linda Monk and Wesleyen University professor Claire Potter did not disagree. In fact, Monk made sure to criticize President Eisenhower for his views on civil rights: “…let’s not be too celebratory of Eisenhower. He did stand up for the desegregation decisions. He did his job as president. But privately he was known for saying that racial desegregation was social disintegration, so he perhaps wasn’t as progressive on the race issue as some would interpret his actions to be.” Here is a transcript of the July 7 exchange: 4:43PM CENK UYGUR: And Claire, why do you think the spectrum has shifted so much, and another question is why is the media apparently not noticed it at all? CLAIRE POTTER [PROFESSOR, WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY]: Well, I think one of the things you have to look at is the context. A figure like Eisenhower, for example, was a politician during a period in which the Republicans and the Democrats had a horror of extremism. I think in the 15 or 20 years after World War II, there was a kind of centrist consensus that both extremes were to be avoided and that cooperation should be the norm. Now the only place that didn’t really work is race, until the Johnson administration. But for- LINDA MONK [AUTHOR, THE WORDS WE LIVE BY]: I think you’ve got McCarthy, though, coming along in the Eisenhower time, and certainly that was within the Republican Party, and that was a strong ideological bent, so I hear what you’re saying about there’s a concern about extremism, but certainly it had a place during the Republican Party at that time. POTTER: Sure. I mean, I don’t think you’re wrong about that, but I think one of the things that you see between 1948 and 1970 is a seismic shift in relation to who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. MONK: Right. POTTER: So that there is an enormous liberal block in the Republican Party the Democratic northern liberals are working with. MONK: Right. POTTER: And that southern Democrats, who are conservatives and can be brought along with a variety of Democratic initiatives, eventually moved to the Republican Party. MONK: Right. POTTER: Over desegregation and busing. UYGUR: Linda and Claire, I agree with both of you, and by the end of it, you know, I remember, even in my lifetime, when I started out I was a liberal Republican. No such thing exists anymore. POTTER: You and Nelson Rockefeller. UYGUR: Yeah. That’s wiped off the face of the earth, and so we see how – and part of the movement I think is because – and why the media didn’t challenge it – is because they kept calling them the liberal media, and why did they call them that? Because during civil rights, they said ‘yeah, black people and white people are the same’ and the conservatives at the time said ‘damn liberal media,’ and, you know, that intimidated the media into not recognizing this trend, I think. MONK: Well, and let’s not – let’s not be too celebratory of Eisenhower. He did stand up for the desegregation decisions. He did his job as president. But privately he was known for saying that racial desegregation was social disintegration, so he perhaps wasn’t as progressive on the race issue as some would interpret his actions to be. POTTER: Well- UYGUR: That’s a very fair point. We got to wrap it up right there. Linda and Claire, thank you, both of you, for joining us. Really appreciate it. MONK: Thanks, Cenk. POTTER: Thank you.

The rest is here:
MSNBC Fill-In Host: Conservative Liberal Media Claims Based On Racism

Malveaux Hates Fourth of July – Reminds Her of Slavery and Economic Inequality

If you were African-American living in the era of President Barack Obama, would you hate the Fourth of July because it reminded you of slavery and economic inequality? You would if your name was Julianne Malveaux and you were the syndicated columnist that also serves as the president of Bennett College, the historically black women’s school in Greensboro, North Carolina. So disdainful of America’s most-revered national holiday is Malveaux that she admitted in her July 2 USA Today op-ed , “I have never been big on the Fourth of July. Most years, I took great pleasure in reading the powerful Frederick Douglass speech, ‘The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro.'” Though written in 1852, this college president actually sees relevance to modern day America in these words: “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July,” he thundered to a crowd in Rochester, N.Y. “I answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity … your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery.”  Imagine that. A black man is now the most powerful elected leader on the face of the planet. Another black man is the most powerful law enforcement official in the country, and under the previous administration, the Secretaries of State were black, one of them also being a woman. Regardless, the president of a mostly black women’s college sees nothing but racial injustice and economic inequality around her:  Our nation has come a long way since 1852, but for many African Americans, shouts of liberty are still hollow mockery. Unemployment is a scourge on all Americans, but the black unemployment rate, at 15.3% in May, is nearly twice the white rate. Every economic indicator – income, wealth, homeownership – screams inequality. Despite his scathing commentary, Douglass said, “I do not despair of this country.” Nor do I. But progress has been so slowed, optimism so dimmed, and some criticisms of our president so blatantly racial that I’m returning to my ritual of reading Frederick Douglass, if only as a reminder that the struggle for justice and equality must continue. So, in Malveaux’s mind like so many of her ilk, equal opportunity isn’t enough. Until all Americans possess the same things, the nation is unjust. Which means this is not about equal opportunity but equal outcome, an inconvenient truth her kind refuses to admit as they shout “racist” at any white person more successful than them. Of course, what should one expect from a serial-hater that in 1994 actually wished — on national television — for Clarence Thomas to die: I guess for folks like Malveaux, racial and economic equality need only apply to black liberals. Sadly, this is a racial hypocrisy quite common amongst so-called journalists today. Doesn’t make sense, does it?  On the other hand, Malveaux has contributed to The Progressive, a magazine whose editor also hates the Fourth of July. Like peas in a progressive pod. 

More:
Malveaux Hates Fourth of July – Reminds Her of Slavery and Economic Inequality

Salon’s Walsh Jumps the Shark — Calls GOP Senators Bigots for Invoking Manhattan’s Upper West Side

Did you know that calling attention to an area where a Supreme Court justice nominee is from, which happens to be a well-known bastion of liberalism, is bigoted ?  If you didn’t, you want to take a look at the wisdom of Salon.com’s Joan Walsh. In her June 28 post “It’s not even coded bigotry anymore,” Walsh argued that references to SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan’s Upper West Side of Manhattan roots are bigoted -since the neighborhood has Jewish features, references to it are anti-Semitic and as she puts it, “not even coded.” “That said, Republicans on the Senate Judicial Committee are trying to make the case she’s outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence, by attacking her clerking for (and admiring) legal giant Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice, while singling her out as a denizen of ‘Manhattan’s Upper West Side’ – you know, the neighborhood known for Zabar’s and bagels and, well, Jews,” Walsh wrote. Walsh wasn’t clear about what she thinks these Senate Republicans are trying to accomplish. Conventional wisdom suggests Kagan will be easily confirmed, but pointing out the neighborhood she is from, with documented evidence of having an ideological liberal leaning , is going to accomplish what? She also took a stab at ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, with her own efforts to be coded – by invoking his middle name, “Beauregard.” (Remember when liberals hemmed and hawed over using President Barack Obama’s middle name, “Hussein,” as if that were a coded effort to suggest he was Muslim ?) Her beef with Sessions was that he voiced his disapproval of judicial activism. “Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama, who wasn’t crazy about Sonia Sotomayor, you’ll recall, denounced Kagan having ‘associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of our constitution and have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies,’ and he cited Marshall, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund leader who argued Brown vs. Board of Education,” Walsh wrote. Therefore with that evidence, Walsh declared any GOP senator that opposes Kagan a bigot. “So there you have it. Unable to find any personal statements by Kagan they can use to prove she’s beyond the pale, so to speak – no ‘wise Latina’ moments on her transcripts – they deride her for coming from the Upper West Side, and admiring one of the heroes of American justice, who happens to be black,” Walsh wrote. “Stay tuned for more not-so-coded bigotry from the GOP.”

Original post:
Salon’s Walsh Jumps the Shark — Calls GOP Senators Bigots for Invoking Manhattan’s Upper West Side

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

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

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