Tag Archives: tea parties

Tina Brown: Glenn Beck Is ‘The White Malcolm X…It’s White Racial Politics’

Tina Brown, the founder and editor of the online publication the “Daily Beast,” said Sunday that conservative talk show host Glenn Beck “has become sort of the white Malcolm X.” Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” Brown said of Beck, “I think that he’s a fascinating demagogue, actually.” She continued, “It’s white racial politics, in a sense, because he’s really saying — a lot of his message is, you know, that Obama is a racist.”  And continued, “[Beck] talks about God, but when you drill down to what he’s actually saying, he calls [Obama] a Nazi and socialist who’s taking over the country. I mean, his language is extremely inflammatory” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: On this same topic, Glenn Beck has become an influential and certainly divisive figure after that Lincoln Memorial rally, that huge rally. Do you see him as something of a cultural phenomenon? What’s your take? TINA BROWN, CO-FOUNDER, “THE DAILY BEAST: Well, I do. I think that he’s a fascinating demagogue, actually. He really is a demagogue. And he has become sort of the white Malcolm X in a strange way. I mean, the way he goes out there with this kind of very — he’s very much kind of — it’s white racial politics, in a sense, because he’s really saying — a lot of his message is, you know, that Obama is a racist. You know, I mean, all the stuff that we keep hearing about “Hussein Obama” and the references to Obama being undoubtedly kind of racist, really, in all the terminology. KURTZ: He’s backed off that a little bit, and now he seems to be talking a lot about God and America — BROWN: Yes, he talks about God, but when you drill down to what he’s actually saying, he calls him a Nazi and socialist who’s taking over the country. I mean, his language is extremely inflammatory. And he likes to play it now revivalists, religious bring it together. But he’s playing a double game, because actually he’s a hypocrite. And he’s a Tea Party hypocrite. He’s preaching one thing and he’s actually being another. Notice how Kurtz laughed when Brown called Beck a hypocrite and a Tea Party hypocrite.  Not very professional, Howie.   As for Brown, given her absurd comments, you wonder if she’s actually ever spent any time listening to Beck or if she’s relied on far-left leaning websites and MSNBC to form her opinion. I opt for the latter – how ’bout you? 

View original post here:
Tina Brown: Glenn Beck Is ‘The White Malcolm X…It’s White Racial Politics’

Book Review: NY Times Reporter Kate Zernike Still Finding Tea Party Racism in "Boiling Mad"

New York Times political reporter Kate Zernike’s thin new book ” Boiling Mad — Inside Tea Party America ,” is among the first of what will surely be a flood of related books by journalists. Like her reporting for the Times, “Boiling Mad” covers the movement from a mostly hostile perspective that only intermittently becomes something like empathy when she’s talking to one of the invariably pleasant Tea Party citizens themselves. Behind the (of course) red-as-a-Red State-cover lies a mere 194 pages of text, not including a 33-page reprint of an old, biased Times poll on the Tea Party. While not wholly a notebook dump, there’s little new, and Zernike evinces little sympathy or feel for conservative concerns. Her expertise is instead finding racism everywhere she looks in Tea Party land. Even such benign conservative boilerplate as opposition to the minimum wage is racially suspect in Zernike’s eyes, as proven in her dispatch for the Times criticizing Glenn Beck’s gathering on the National Mall on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s March on Washington: Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination….Even if Tea Party members are right that any racist signs are those of mischief-makers, even if Glenn Beck had chosen any other Saturday to hold his rally, it would be hard to quiet the argument about the Tea Party and race. Zernike once wrote that Tea Party members “tend to be white and male, with a disproportionate number above 45, and above 65. Their memories are of a different time, when the country was less diverse.” And during the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C. in February, Zernike falsely accused conservative author Jason Mattera of using a racist “Chris Rock” voice in a speech (turns out Mattera just has a thick Brooklyn accent). So it’s no surprise Zernike quickly reestablished her race obsession on page 3 of “Boiling Mad,” reflecting on a Tea Party speaker “looking out at the sea of faces, almost all of them white.” The book’s index reveals that 23 pages worth of the book’s slim content refer to”race and racism.” Unlike many mainstream journalists, Zernike grasps shades on the right, noting the Tea Party’s social-media savvy young are “largely libertarian,” and interestingly described the odd mix of young activists and retirees as a “May-to-September marriage of convenience.” But “Boiling Mad” lacks a cohesive narrative, which may be an accurate rendition of the decentralized, libertarian nature of the movement but doesn’t make for a satisfying organic read. That’s partly the function of a merciless pre-electoral book deadline leaving crucial questions unanswered. Will the movement lead the GOP to take back Congress or cause it to blow a historic opportunity? Besides her chapter on the Kentucky Republican primary won by Rand Paul, Zernike uncovers few clues about the political possibilities of the movement. And Zernike’s empathy only goes so far. Showing a touching (and Timesian) trust in government statistics, Zernike marveled at the Tea Party’s ignorance, “impervious to reports from the Congressional Budget Office…that the federal stimulus had cut taxes and created millions of jobs and that the health care legislation passed in 2010 would reduce the federal deficit.” If Zernike truly thinks the CBO is the last word on those issues, she is more gullible than any Tea Partier, especially with new indications health spending is on the rise since Obama-care was enacted. Zernike reaches back to the California’s anti-property tax movement of the 1970s for more racial subtext. “Race was more subtle in conservative populist movements like the tax revolts than began in California and spread across the country in the late 1970s.” So subtle that only liberal journalists can spot it. While loathing the movement’s aims, Zernike genuinely seems to like her individual subjects, like Keri Carender, perhaps the first Tea Partier, a 29-year-old Seattle woman with a nose ring who Zernike called “an unlikely avatar of a movement that would come to derive most of its support from older white men.” Zernike followed resident Jennifer Stefano’s evolution from a random visit to a park in Bucks County, Pa., where she encountered a Tea Party rally in progress, to being nearly arrested barely a year later outside a polling place while trying to get Tea Party candidates on the Republican state committee. She allows activists to have their say, like two women at a rally “agitated that government could force you to wear a seatbelt but left it to women to ‘choose’ whether to have an abortion.” But whenever Zernike steps back to take in the movement as a whole, her observations can be gruesomely unfair. Zernike consistently portrays the movement as antediluvian and racially suspect: To talk about states’ rights in the way some Tea Partiers did was to pretend that the twentieth century and the latter half of the nineteenth century had never happened, that the country had not rejected this doctrine over and over. It was little wonder that people heard the echo of the slave era and decided that the movement had to be motivated by racism. Little wonder indeed! The most unfair section of the book, predictably, involves accusations of racism — the controversial claim that Obama-care protesters shouted racial slurs at John Lewis, black congressman and civil rights hero, during the heated debate before Congress voted on Obama-care. Zernike claimed the Tea Party had “organized the rally,” then took advantage of its loose structure to blame the entire group for any possible bad behavior by any individual in the vicinity, something the Times has never done when covering the truly violent acts committed by some at loosely organized left-wing rallies: It was difficult, if not disingenuous, for the Tea Party groups to try to disown the behavior. They had organized the rally, and under their model of self-policing, they were responsible for the behavior of people who were there. And after saying for months that anybody could be a Tea Party leader, they could not suddenly dismiss as faux Tea Partiers those protesters who made them look bad. Oddly, Zernike’s colleague at the Times, Carl Hulse, wrote an unsympathetic piece on the protesters the day afterward that didn’t mention the Tea Party at all. And the paper actually corrected the same charge when made in its pages by political writer Matt Bai, saying he had “erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.”   Another recurring theme of “Boiling Mad” is anger: “The supporters were angry, but the activists were angrier.” The April 15 rally on Capitol Hill was “a blend of jingoism and grievance,” concerns which Zernike only occasionally attempted to explain. She spent just as much time pulling back her focus to chide the movement with civics lessons: “People might get frustrated with Congress or the federal bureaucracy. But they did not want to leave old people relying on the whims of the market or charity for health and security in their sunset years.” Vulgar critics of the Tea Party movement (“tea-baggers,” anyone?) are left out of her narrative, contributing to the sense of imbalance. Even that back page poll, supposedly a true-to-life snapshot of the movement, is blurred in the paper’s liberal prism. Here’s Question 72: “In recent years, do you think too much has been made of the problems facing black people, too little has been made, or is it about right?” Besides the unsympathetic slant, the problem with “Boiling Mad” is that it’s hard to draw conclusions about a political movement yet to test itself in a nationwide election. The subject needs time to steep. Months premature, “Boiling Mad” is all steam, no substance.

Read the original here:
Book Review: NY Times Reporter Kate Zernike Still Finding Tea Party Racism in "Boiling Mad"

Bill Maher: Obama Would Be A Better President ‘If He Was Fully Black’

Bill Maher on Friday said Barack Obama’s problem is “he’s only half black.” He’d be a better president “if he was fully black.” In the season premiere of HBO’s “Real Time,” while chatting with former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich, the host said, “Isn’t Obama’s big problem is that he does everything half-assed? Maybe it’s because he’s only half black.” Maher continued, “If he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president.” As if that wasn’t enough, “There’s a white man in him holding him back because everything is half-assed” (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):   BILL MAHER, HOST: Isn’t Obama’s big problem is that he does everything half-assed? Maybe it’s because he’s only half black. You know? It’s that, if he was a, if this, if he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president. There’s a white man in him holding him back because everything is half-assed. The stimulus was half-assed, healthcare is half-assed, let’s talk about Afghanistan.   What’s really hysterical about this is earlier in the program, Maher accused members of the Tea Party of being racist. I guess it isn’t racist to say there’s a white man inside the president holding him back. On the other hand, just imagine the uproar if Maher said Obama’s problem is that he was half white and that ” there’s a [black] man in him holding him back because everything is half-assed .” It seems a metaphysical certitude the panelists and his audience wouldn’t have laughed at that, nor would HBO’s management. In fact, Maher might be looking for a job tomorrow for saying something like that. Interesting double standard we have today, isn’t it? 

Originally posted here:
Bill Maher: Obama Would Be A Better President ‘If He Was Fully Black’

CNN: ‘Hardcore Conservatives’ Meet in DC; Reagan ‘Most Secular’ President

CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux led Friday’s Situation Room by labeling the social conservative Value Voters Summit a “traditional showcase for hardcore conservatives .” Later in the same segment, senior political analyst Gloria Borger stated that the Tea Party movement was ” anti-health care ” and bizarrely referred to Ronald Reagan as ” the most secular president we’ve known in our lifetime .” Malveaux used her “hardcore conservatives” line as she introduced a segment on Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell’s speech to the Summit. Just before this, she stated how “some are calling her [O’Donnell] the new poster girl for the Tea Party phenomenon” and later continued that she apparently “preached a new kind of gospel at the Values Voter Summit: the Tea Party’s anti-government mantra.” After playing a clip from the Republican’s speech, Malveaux turned to Borger and asked, “Give us a sense of the response. I mean, how did the crowd respond to her message?” The CNN analyst replied with her view on the Summit as a whole, including her label of the Tea Party movement: BORGER: She was clearly very well-received, as you saw, and today’s event- not only just O’Donnell, but all of the speakers, were really embracing all of those Tea Party themes that we’ve heard so much about during this campaign season already- anti-big government, anti-health care, anti-any kind of bailout .” Of course, Borger was using a liberal accusation against conservatives, that their opposition to ObamaCare translates to a more general opposition to all health care. She continued that O’Donnell used a “class warfare argument- the us versus them, which we hear a lot from Sarah Palin, and it’s about the elites don’t understand us.” Minutes later, Malveaux raised how many potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates addressed the conference, using clips from Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum as examples. She asked Borger, “What do you think is the challenge for the main Republican contenders?” This is when the analyst cited Reagan’s apparent secularism: BORGER: Well, I think- just what you heard today, they got to figure out a way to capture the enthusiasm of the Tea Party voters, without, in a general election, look like they’re captives of the Tea Party voters, and it’s going to be a very difficult thing for someone to do because the Tea Party demands you to be ideologically pure, to a certain degree . And when you run in a general election as a Republican, you don’t want to become Barry Goldwater, you know? You want to be able to win. The person I think back to is Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan- remember, he was able to capture Christian conservatives when he was probably the most secular president we’ve known in our lifetime , and that was because he was optimistic and open and welcoming, and I think that kind of a candidate in the Republican Party would be able to do both. Borger is a bit off-base in her analysis. She might be thinking about how Reagan wasn’t a regular church goer during his time in the White House. But as National Review’s March 22, 2004 book review of Paul Kengor’s “God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life” outlined, the former president was far from being “secular.” Reviewer S.T. Karnick noted how “prayer was central to Reagan’s life. He prayed often, both in public and in private.” Karnick also pointed out how Kengor explained “Reagan’s ‘religious truancy’ – his puzzling lack of church attendance while serving as president – by arguing that he was sincerely reluctant to distract congregations with a celebrity’s presence and large, intrusive security detail.” Moreover, both the analyst and Malveaux overlooked the current president’s “religious truancy” in office, to use Kengor’s term. Earlier in 2010, CNN used similar labels to describe CPAC, another annual mainstream conservative meeting. Analyst John Avlon stated that the conference’s “saving freedom” theme was ” a little extreme ” and ” a little far out ” during a February 19 segment . Three days later, anchor Rick Sanchez noted how Ann Coulter apparently ” exemplifies the hardline spirit of CPAC .” On other instances, the network has regular taken the time to label conservatives as somehow extreme. CNN legal analyst Lisa bloom condemned Proposition 8 in a January 12 editorial on CNN.com and labeled its supporters ” lunatic-fringe bigots .” Rick Sanchez hinted during a March 3 segment that Texas Governor Rick Perry was a racist. Less than a month ago, anchor John Roberts labeled Tea Party-backed Republican candidates ” very far to the right ” and specifically labeled Florida Republican Rick Scott as an ” ultraconservative .” All of this from a network that also claimed earlier this year that they were the only non-partisan network .

Read the original here:
CNN: ‘Hardcore Conservatives’ Meet in DC; Reagan ‘Most Secular’ President

Olbermann: Christine O’Donnell ‘Lump of Dumb & Judgmental,’ Tea Partiers Pushing ‘Virulent, Uneducated Hatred’

On Friday’s Countdown show on MSNBC, during the show’s regular “Worst Person in the World” segment, host Keith Olbermann referred to Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell as a “lump of dumb and judgmental” as he introduced his slam of Republican strategist Jack Burkman and a clip of him being criticized by former New York Republican Senator Al D’Amato for comments Burkman made about African immigrants on the Fox Business Channel. As he attacked Burkman, the MSNBC host smeared Tea Party activists generally as promoting “nonsensical, virulent, uneducated hatred.” Olbermann: “For the second time in three days, a hardline GOP stalwart managed to get fed up with the nonsensical, virulent, uneducated hatred pushed by one of these flip Tea Party types, and he called BS on it. The first was Karl Rove wigging out over the lump of dumb and judgmental that is Christine O’Donnell.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, September 17, Countdown show on MSNBC: KEITH OLBERMANN: And our winner, Jack Burkman, a self-described Republican political strategist. This is less about him than it is about what he precipitated on Fixed News. For the second time in three days, a hardline GOP stalwart managed to get fed up with the nonsensical, virulent, uneducated hatred pushed by one of these flip Tea Party types, and he called BS on it. The first was Karl Rove wigging out over the lump of dumb and judgmental that is Christine O’Donnell. But now, it’s former New York Republican Senator Al D’Amato, no shrinking violet he, only he literally called BS on this Burkman. JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, ON FBN, CLIP #1: Most of these guys working in the post office should be driving cabs, and I think we should stop importing labor from Nigeria and Ethiopia. That’s about the skill level. BURKMAN CLIP #2: That is why I allege they should be bumped down to driving cabs and we should stop importing labor to drive cabs. FORMER SENATOR AL D’AMATO (R-NY): You are a nasty racist when you bring in the race- BURKMAN: That’s crazy. D’AMATO CLIP #1: Well, I’m going to just make my observation. I have a right to do it. You brought in the fact there’s a bunch of Nigerians. D’AMATO CLIP #2: Let me just tell you, that’s a bunch of bull [BLEEP]. And you should be ashamed of yourself and have your mouth washed out. What the hell are you talking about? It’s one thing to say that they’re out of control – wait a minute, you shut up! I listened to your racist bull [BLEEP]. It’s one thing to say that they’re hiring people who are unskilled, that you can save money, that you can run it better, that it is inefficient, ineffective, and I agree to all of those things. But for you to bring in this bull [BLEEP] about, oh, a bunch of Nigerians, etc., that’s out of line. OLBERMANN: When Alfonse D’Amato, who once filibustered a bill killing off jobs in his state by singing the lyrics to South of the Border Down Mexico Way, when he is the voice of reason and introspection in the Republican party, when Al D’Amato is calling out the BS and the racists, all I can say is he’s right.

Read the original here:
Olbermann: Christine O’Donnell ‘Lump of Dumb & Judgmental,’ Tea Partiers Pushing ‘Virulent, Uneducated Hatred’

Wishful Thinking by Newsweek: Jon Stewart’s Mock Rally on 10/30 Will ‘Absolutely’ ‘Gain Traction’

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have announced dueling D.C. rallies on October 30 aimed at satirizing the August 28 “Restoring Honor” rally held by rival network Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck. Newsweek’s Daniel Stone is apparently stoked about it, predicting that the gimmick will “absolutely” be a success (emphasis mine): You’ve got to hand it to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert , social critics that they are, for keeping us attuned to the absurdity in our political discourse these days…. [N]either man has gone after anyone quite so ferociously as Glenn Beck , the weepy Fox pundit who’s demonstrated he can amass quite a following. Last month, Beck hosted a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, urging America to “Restore Honor”—an amorphous plea to support the troops, find God, and honor thy neighbor. About 100,000 people showed up and agreed. But do those people speak for the rest of the country? Stewart and Colbert say no (or should it be Colbert and Stewart? More on that in a moment). Neither thinks that the loudest voices should be the only ones who are heard. And, in a move that is part social critique and part hilarious satire, both men are hosting rallies next month to counter, or maybe simply mock, the Beck rally. That’s right, they’re hosting rallies. Plural. Stewart and Colbert (who, of course, was birthed by Stewart) have an antagonistic relationship made for TV. Neither wants to play second fiddle to the other, so each is having his own rally on the same day in the same location. Stewart’s rally is to “Restore Sanity .” Colbert’s is to “Keep Fear Alive .” Will it gain traction? Odds are, absolutely. The district has a bustling community of 20- and 30-somethings, who are Stewart and Colbert’s most loyal demographic. Plus any folks around the country who would come to D.C. to support the Comedy Central duo. Or maybe just to oppose Glenn Beck. One of the two. He cannot be serious, can he? Does Stone think that the age demographic most apathetic, historically speaking, about voting is going to travel on Halloween weekend to stand on the Mall to hear Jon Stewart crack a few jokes about Glenn Beck?  What’s more, isn’t the whole ethos of the Daily Show and Colbert Report that American politics is fundamentally absurd, thoroughly lame, and ultimately not worth caring too much about. While Tea Parties and the Glenn Beck rally have drawn hundreds of thousands who are fired up to vote and passionate about their views on the country’s direction, this rally purports to appeal to people who don’t really give a damn one way or the other and hence aren’t really the sort of folks to show up en masse for any cause. Does Stone really think Stewart and Colbert’s audiences have nothing better to do than drop a thousand dollars or so on airfare and lodging to come to D.C. for a non-rally rally just to spite a conservative cable news host?! If he really thinks that, whatever Stone’s smoking may be of more interest to Stewart’s target audience than the so-called Rally to Restore Sanity.

Continue reading here:
Wishful Thinking by Newsweek: Jon Stewart’s Mock Rally on 10/30 Will ‘Absolutely’ ‘Gain Traction’

NYT’s Kate Zernike Warns of ‘Drive for Ideological Purity’ Among ‘Far to the Right’ Tea Party Candidates

New York Times ” Tea Party” correspondent Kate Zernike again insisted that the main victims of Tea Party enthusiasm will be, not Democrats, but mainstream Republicans, in Thursday’s ” G.O.P. Gets a Partner, But Who Will Lead? ” It’s basically a snapshot of the growing conflict between Sen. Jim DeMint, who has pushed conservative Tea Party candidates, and Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose job it is to elect Republicans. A photo caption over a picture of DeMint reads: “Senator Jim DeMint has embraced the ideological purity that characterize many candidates with Tea Patty backing.” If ever there was proof that the Tea Party and the Republican Party do not necessarily go hand in hand, it is Christine O’Donnell’s victory over the establishment in the Republican Senate primary in Delaware. So what happens now, with the primary season ending, and the Tea Party having defined it? Does the Tea Party remake the G.O.P. in its image, staging a “hostile takeover,” as Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, the libertarian advocacy group, urged activists rallying outside the Capitol last weekend to do? Or will the Republican Party co-opt the Tea Party, as Trent Lott, a former leader of the Senate Republicans, said it must? The embodiment of this question might be Senator Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who has made himself and his Senate Conservatives Fund a kind of Tea Party Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Sitting at the intersection of the Republican Party and the Tea Party, Mr. DeMint could be a model for how the two might co-exist — or an example of how the drive for ideological purity could turn the Republicans into a niche party. How “far to the right” are these Tea Partiers, you may ask. Zernike is eager to tell: Even some of the primaries that Tea Party candidates lost suggest how much the Tea Party sentiment has already pushed Republicans to the right. In Tuesday’s Republican primary in New Hampshire, for example, two Tea Party candidates in the Second Congressional District lost to Charlie Bass, a former congressman swept out in the Democratic wave of 2006. Mr. Bass was once known as the classic New England moderate. But to win the nomination this year, he campaigned far to the right — so far that The Concord Monitor editorialized, “It will take such a long way back to the middle that he’d better pack a lunch.” Democrats are certainly counting on the Republicans’ taking a very long trip to a very remote region of the right.

The rest is here:
NYT’s Kate Zernike Warns of ‘Drive for Ideological Purity’ Among ‘Far to the Right’ Tea Party Candidates

Maher Calls "Teabaggers" Racists; Uses N-Word As Proof

On September 16th’s Larry King Live, guest Bill Maher called “Teabaggers” racists, claimed they hate black people, and added when referring to President Obama as a “Kenyan”, it’s code for “nigger”. Note the chuckling Larry King who didn’t at all seem phased by Maher’s casual use of a racial epithet as well as lack of any kind of media coverage. We all know when liberals use racial slurs, it’s never out of sensitivity or hate. Bill was just trying to make a point, right?

Go here to read the rest:
Maher Calls "Teabaggers" Racists; Uses N-Word As Proof

Erick Erickson Smacks Down CNN’s Bash for Calling Voter Anger Racist

Are you getting tired of hearing liberal media members claim the voter anger around the country is all because Barack Obama is black? RedState Editor and CNN contributor Erick Erickson is, for on Wednesday’s “John King USA,” he let Dana Bash have it for reiterating this insulting accusation. “Talking to Democrats, I know you have, privately, will say some of the anger they hear in their districts, they say there’s no doubt some of it is latent racism,” uttered Bash. Erickson was having none of if responding, “Oh, good lord…It’s the last best trick of a losing Democrat, is to accuse the Republicans of racism.” When Erickson concluded his reply by stating Obama’s “world view is fundamentally anti-American,” a heated discussion between him and CNN’s Roland Martin ensued (video follows with transcript and commentary): DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Talking to Democrats, I know you have, privately, will say some of the anger they hear in their districts, they say there’s no doubt some of it is latent racism. They can’t prove it — ERICK ERICKSON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, good lord. When Republicans start talking, they scream racism. It’s the last best trick of a losing Democrat, is to accuse the Republicans of racism. The issue here has nothing to do with race. The issue has to do with nobody, Republican or Democrat, has figured out what this guy’s world view is. And the Republicans are starting to set the narrative for 2012 already that this guy’s world view is fundamentally anti-American. ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Erick, you’re not going to sit here and say the president of the United States who is sworn to defend and protect the constitution, has an anti-American view. No what he wants to do — ERICKSON: I think he has a view of America that views America as one of many nations and not the last best hope for mankind. MARTIN: First, if you look at facts, Erick, we are one of many nations, so let’s deal with that. When they have financial crisis taking place across the globe it also affected us, so we can’t act like we’re the only country out here. You will not sit here and call this president anti-American when he represents the United States of America, including you. ERICKSON: I think his world view is an anathema to the American destiny as conservatives have viewed it and I think Newt Gingrich — MARTIN: So what’s your world view? ERICKSON: My world view is that America is the last best hope for mankind for freedom and Obama doesn’t view it that way. MARTIN: It’s President Barack Obama and he is an American and it’s insulting to sit here and have Newt Gingrich talk about this Kenyan view. We know what he was saying there. It made no sense whatsoever. He should be ashamed of himself. And apologize for it. He’s an American and he’s a Christian just in case you were confused. JOHN KING, HOST: I’m going to call it between Roland and Erick here. The other panelists silent during that. I appreciate the respectful debate between the two of you. Nicely done, Erick. This racism schtick by liberal media members is getting old. Are Americans that disagree with Democrat policies going to have to put up with this nonsense until Obama is removed from office? Yes – that’s a rhetorical question. 

Read the original here:
Erick Erickson Smacks Down CNN’s Bash for Calling Voter Anger Racist

NYT: ‘Defeating Tea Party Nominees Imperative to Avoid National Embarrassment’

The panic over a looming conservative takeover of Congress in November is becoming palpable in today’s liberal media. Take Thursday’s editorial in the New York Times for example: For both parties and certainly the broad swath of independent voters, defeating this new crop of Tea Party nominees has become imperative to avoid the sense of national embarrassment from each divisive and offensive utterance, each wacky policy proposal.   Yep. According to the Gray Lady, defeating Tea Party nominees is imperative to avoid national embarrassment.  But that’s just the beginning: [F]or voters of all stripes, Tuesday’s primaries should illuminate the growling face of a new fringe in American politics – and provide the incentive for level-headed voters to become enthusiastic about the midterm election. Republican leaders have to decide if they want the tiny fraction of furious voters who have showed up at the primary polls to steer them into the swamp for years ahead. They have a chance to repudiate the worst of the Tea Party crowd and show that they can govern without appealing to the basest political instincts. So far, they have preferred to greedily capitalize on the nuclear energy in the land without considering its destructive effects. Democrats, especially beleaguered incumbents and the White House, need to counter the toxic message of the Tea Party so voters have an alternative. Not surprisingly, the Times went on to lambaste Delaware’s Republican nominee for Senate Christine O’Donnell and New York’s Republican nominee for governor Carl Paladino. As such, with Obama and the Democrats plummeting in the polls, the unemployment rate at 9.6 percent and likely climbing, and the Party that has been in power for approaching four years having absolutely nothing positive to run on, the Gray Lady has decided to run its own attack ad disguised as an editorial. It sure is going to be an interesting roughly six-plus weeks heading up to Election Day.

See the original post here:
NYT: ‘Defeating Tea Party Nominees Imperative to Avoid National Embarrassment’