In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times
more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they've
allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama's Internal Revenue
Service controversy. Since the story broke on Wednesday that aides to
the New Jersey governor punished a local mayor's lack of endorsement
with a massive traffic jam, ABC, CBS and NBC have responded with 34
minutes and 28 seconds of coverage. Since July 1, these same networks
managed a scant two minutes and eight seconds for the IRS targeting of
Tea Party groups.
In contrast, journalists such as Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos pounced on the developing Christie story. The GMA host opened the program on Thursday by announcing, "Chris Christie in crisis. Calls at this hour for the feds to step in, investigate the explosive e-mails." Stephanopoulos later wondered, "One of the big questions right now, how
much has it hampered his White House prospects?" Guest Matt Dowd
insisted that, on a scale from one to ten, the controversy was already
at a "four or five."
On the CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley sounded a
similar alarm: "Tonight, a potential presidential candidate caught up in
scandal. E-mails show massive New Jersey traffic jams were engineered
by aides to Governor Chris Christie as political payback."
NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams immediately spun the
story as a political pitfall for the possible presidential contender:
"In a jam. A big problem for a man with big ambitions. Tonight, how a
traffic nightmare on the world's busiest bridge has spilled into a full
blown scandal with the power to damage Chris Christie's political
future."
On Thursday night, Anderson Cooper in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment confronted Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for “misquoting” the Los Angeles Times in a fundraising email that sought to link Mitt Romney‘s abortion stance with Rep. Todd Akin‘s. Repeatedly challenging her assertions, Cooper asked her to acknowledge the incorrect quote. Schultz refused. The email said the GOP “just voted to embrace Akin’s position by
including a constitutional ban on all abortions — even in cases of rape
or incest — in their 2012 platform.” Then, Cooper noted that Schultz
calls out Romney and Paul Ryan for “saying they don’t entirely agree with that plank,” and moved on to the LA Times quote the email cited to back up the point:
“…but guess what? The Los Angeles Times reported
yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction
of Romney’s campaign.’”
While those quoted words did appear in the Times, Cooper said, they were taken “completely out of context.” For reference, the portion in question from the Times (emphasis mine on the quoted bit):
There is no doubt about who is in charge, of course. Delegates
for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes
to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney’s
campaign. The biggest question is whether the tone remains
polite, as it was at the outset of two days of deliberations, or whether
dissenters spoil the image of harmony that the Romney campaign is
working hard to produce.
Cooper argued that the email uses the quote to make a point that the
original statement doesn’t suggest — and that the facts aren’t quite
solid: “First, the abortion language in the 2012 platform, it hardly
differs from the 2008 language and the 2004 language in the platform.
That language obviously wasn’t written by the Romney campaign.” Second,
Cooper said CNN’s Peter Hamby was in the room while the
platform was being drafted, and Hamby said Romney advisers made a
suggestions, but not on the abortion plan.
Turning to Schultz, Cooper confronted her with their attempts to tie
the Romney/Ryan platform on abortion to Rep. Akin (given his recent
controversy). He then asked whether she acknowledges that Romney does
support abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the
mother. In response, Schultz fell back on her decided talking points,
noting the need for voters to see the dramatic contrast between the two
sides when it comes to women and their reproductive choices — and
pointing to the GOP platform that makes no exceptions in its stance
against abortion.
Cooper challenged her, reminding her that the email said the Romney
campaign directed the writing of the platform. Factually speaking, he
said, Romney did not design the abortion platform nor was it among the
topics of suggestions the campaign made.
Pressed further, Schultz acknowledged that Romney’s stance on the
issue differs from his party’s platform, but she argued that he talks
the talk and “certainly doesn’t walk the walk.” Upon her asserting that
he’s “embraced his party’s platform,” Cooper again came back to the
issue of the misquote — further egged on by Schultz’s nonchalant
response: “It doesn’t matter.”
“It does,” he said. “I don’t understand why you would need to do that.”
After a bit more of Schultz driving her point about the contrast
between the two candidates, Cooper asked whether she acknowledges that
the quote in the email is “completely incorrect.”
“No, I don’t acknowledge that,” Schultz replied, adding that Romney
“can’t separate himself” from the GOP platform. A visibly frustrated
Cooper told her, “He has.”
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s speech
on Thursday to an audience at the National Association of Latino Elected
and Appointed Officials (NALEO) conference in Orlando has prompted a
series of curious and contradictory responses from Democrats and liberal
critics of the former Massachusetts governor. But their reaction
betrays the seriousness of Romney’s speech and the impact it could have
on the presidential race if the proposals he advanced on Thursday are
sustained and repeated throughout the campaign. Romney’s NALEO speech
recaptured the initiative President Barack Obama seized in announcing his immigration directive last Friday. After just one week, Democrats are back on the defensive.
The liberal reaction to Romney’s speech was typified by Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN’s Starting Point on Friday.
“What did you make of his comments,” CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien asked the DNC chairwoman about Romney’s NALEO speech.
“Well, not very much,” Wasserman Schultz responded. “Mitt Romney was about as vague as he could be.” “There was no specific proposal,” she continued. “No clear path so
that the 12 million undocumented immigrants would know, under a Romney
presidency, what their future would hold. The only thing he has done is
tell them that he keeps his promises.”
Wasserman Schultz proceeded to rehash the hard line stances that
Romney struck for himself during the Republican primaries regarding
illegal immigration – including his pledge to veto the DREAM Act. She
then offered praise for President Obama’s White House directive to halt
the deportation of the some 800,000 children of illegal immigrants.
I watched Romney’s address to NALEO live. Immediately afterword, I noted how it was a substantive speech with a number of proposals
he had not previously advanced regarding the rewarding of legal
immigration as well as those second generation illegal immigrants that
either earn an advanced degree or serve in the armed forces. It was all
news to me.
But I was then immediately confronted by the mirror image of my
impressions as I watched MSNBC’s instant reaction panel. The speech they
saw was void of specifics. They felt Romney was simultaneously
pandering and disingenuous. His speech was not only thin proposals with
no concrete plan as to how to enact them. What’s more, he was “trying too hard” to ingratiate himself to members of the Latino community, as one liberal commentator said.
You can’t win for losing, I suppose.
That reaction has been echoed across the spectrum of liberal
political commentary. To them, what was not completely old news in
Romney’s speech was mere pap. Now, the DNC chairwoman doubles down on
the progressive commentariat: ‘Nothing to see here.’ ‘Move along.’ ‘Pay
no attention to that man behind the curtain.’ ‘Oh, and also, remember
that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are extreme?’
Wasserman Schultz’s flailing response to O’Brien’s question tells me
at least one thing – my reaction was correct. There was a whole lot of
substance in Romney’s speech.
The former Bay State governor began by rehashing familiar economic
themes – the singular concern on the minds of all voters, regardless of
ethnic or cultural background. He vowed to overhaul the system that
grants green cards on a first-come, first-serve basis. He promised to
end caps on spouses and children of permanent residents.
Romney praised portions of Obama’s executive order that allow
children of illegal immigrants who serve in the military a path to
citizenship – but he condemned the extra-legal way in which that
provision was implemented. Indeed, the move itself is a Constitutional
affront that the President expressly said was outside the bounds of
executive power just last year. Such contradictions are the stuff of
hard-hitting attack ads.
What’s more, Romney made a compelling case against Obama from a
Hispanic perspective – he noted that President Obama abandoned his
pledge to get a Democratic-led immigration reform package through
Congress when he had large and compliant majorities and a massive
electoral mandate under his belt.
Romney also reminded the audience that
Hispanic unemployment remains persistently above the national average. What’s more, Romney spoke to them in conciliatory way. He praised the
promise that Obama represented in 2008 and telling them that it was not
their judgment that failed them in the voting booths four years ago; it
was Obama who failed in his charge. It was a pitch-perfect tone. It was
the way that one should address a skeptical and betrayed group; with
sincerity, genuine concern and compassion.
That speech was a good one. It was a powerful one. And it scared
Democrats. If Romney’s speech was without substance – Democrats would
attack those proposals. That they have not speaks to their power.
Great post over The Grio by Booker Rising's Shamara Riley:
In discussing his feud with Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, Rep. West stated on conservative commentator Mark Levin's radio show that "[t]he thing that really most aggravates me is that there's this double standard in that the people on the hard left can continue to attack conservatives and especially minority conservatives and female conservatives, but yet when all of a sudden you stand up and you say that you will not tolerate this anymore, then they claim to be a victim, which I find just absolutely laughable."
While Rep. West went a tad over-the-top in his response (he calls liberalism the "21st century plantation"), there is a larger issue here about racial and gender stereotypes of black men. Rep. West is being depicted as a buck-wild Mandingo type who must be tamed. The Daily Beast calls the married father of two daughters "volatile", and claims that he "hates women".
Meanwhile, Lois Frankel -- a liberal Democrat who is running against Rep. West - has set up a WestHatesWomen.com website, and associates Rep. West with domestic violence. Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) compares Rep. West to the Koran-burning preacher, simply for expressing his views.
Letters to the local newspaper in Rep. West's district claim that Rep. West's verbal disagreement with Rep. Wasserman Schultz could lead to thuggery on Rep. West's part. Liberal commentator Keith Olbermann asserted on his new show that Rep. West may shoot someone "live on TV".
Republican Congressman Allen West spoke with Stuart Varney this morning on Fox Business’ Varney & Co. about the ongoing feud between him and fellow Florida House member Debbie Wasserman Schultz. West showed no remorse for his language in an e-mail calling Wasserman Schultz “vile” and “not a lady,” and promised about the possibility of any apology, “that’s not happening.”
West mentioned that there has been bad blood between the two Florida Representatives since Wasserman Schultz ordered a protest on his campaign headquarters, and he insisted “I do have the right to stand up and defend my honor.” With no retreat in mind, West explained why his remarks might be getting so much attention:
“There are certain ways that we speak in the military and I guess I have not learned the DC-insider talk that maybe some of these people are used to. Don’t poke me in the chest, that’s the bottom line to that exchange.”
As talk turned back to the deficit negotiations, West wasn’t as uncompromising, and acknowledged that now he might also be open to a short-term solution to get us over the hump of the August 2nd debt ceiling deadline. Yet now it seems everyone in the debt talks is put on warning: don’t poke West!
Even the lamestream media should know by now that Allen West is not one to mince words:
Republican Rep. Allen West of Florida is standing by an incendiary email he sent to a Democratic colleague after she criticized him in a speech on the House floor.
"I think it's important to stake my ground," West told Fox News when asked about his email to Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. "It was about enough is enough, and it's my right to say that. She is the one elevating this."
West's email called Wasserman Schultz "vile, despicable and cowardly" after she called into question his stance on Medicare during the debate over a spending cap and balanced budget bill before the House.
In her remarks on the House floor, Wasserman Schultz had said: "The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable from a member from south Florida."
She was alluding to a GOP-backed bill to reduce the debt and amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. The House later approved the bill 234-190, but it is unlikely to pass the Democratic Senate.
West, who is in his first term, wasn't shy about his online outburst. He sent his email to numerous lawmakers, as well as Wasserman Schultz and other congressional leaders. The subject line of the email: "Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman Schultz."
The e-mail said: "Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up."
West also wrote that Wasserman Schultz has proven "that you are not a Lady" and "shall not be afforded due respect from me!" He said he was alerting House leaders to her "heinous characterless behavior."
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, who has been under fire after admitting to inappropriate communications with women online, has decided to seek treatment "to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person," his spokeswoman said Saturday.
While the New York congressman seeks treatment at an undisclosed location, he will take a "short leave of absence" from Congress, Risa Heller said in a statement.
A Democratic source, familiar with conversations among Weiner and Democratic leadership about his fate, did not know what specific type of treatment Weiner would undergo.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairmen of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for Weiner to step down in separate statements earlier Saturday.
The congressman has resisted calls to resign.
"Congressman Weiner has the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents and the recognition that he needs help. I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a member of Congress," Pelosi said.
DCCC Chair Steve Israel also wished Weiner well in his personal life, but said that the scandal has "become an insurmountable distraction" to the House.
"The behavior he has exhibited is indefensible and Representative Weiner's continued service in Congress is untenable," DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, also calling it a distraction.
According to the Democratic source, leaders decided it was time to tell Weiner to resign because they "don't want to go into a third week with a story that brings disgrace on the House and not talk about our agenda."
This same source said Weiner responded that he doesn't want to make a decision until his wife, Huma Abedin, returns from a trip. Abedin, a senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is traveling with her in Africa and is scheduled to return early Thursday.
"Congressman Weiner takes the views of his colleagues very seriously and has determined that he needs this time to get healthy and make the best decision possible for himself, his family and his constituents," Heller said.
The statements come as Delaware authorities are investigating contact between a local teen and Weiner.
"Detectives were made aware of alleged contact between Congressman Anthony Weiner and an area teen," New Castle County Police said in a statement. "Detectives have conducted an interview with the teen and she has made no disclosure of criminal activity nor inappropriate contact by the congressman."
Weiner's spokeswoman said the interaction with the Delaware teen was not inappropriate.
"According to Congressman Weiner, his communications with this person were neither explicit nor indecent," Heller said.
Honestly, I don't blame Weiner for not resigning esp. when you got David Vitter still out there, Weiner (so far) hasn't broken any laws and at the end of the day it should be left up his constituents to decide his fate. Bill Clinton got impeached, and rightfully so, because he lied under oath, not because he was morally corrupt. Anthony Weiner is a far-Left loon, so no one should be surprised by this drama because liberals don't have values to begin. But considering how much being a politician means to Weiner, no surprise here that he decides to lay low and hope this scandal either plays itself out or gets put to the background once the next scandal arrives. Then too, the only reason Pelosi and Co. are coming out talking for Weiner to resign is because they know how much this whole sex scandal hurts a party most Americans just don't have that much faith in anymore.
There's no shame to the lengths this woman will go to smear Republicans, none. In fact, she's basically a male version of Alan Grayson:
Democrats knew they were getting an outspoken partisan when Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz took over the reins of the Democratic National Committee a month ago.
But they might not have known just how outspoken.
In the four weeks since she succeeded Tim Kaine, Wasserman Schultz has been called out by four nonpartisan fact-checkers for mischaracterizing the GOP’s Medicare plan.
She’s accused Republicans of wanting to reinstate segregation and of waging a “war on women.” She has asserted, somewhat nonsensically, that the GOP wants to make illegal immigration — by definition against the law — “a crime.” She’s also been mocked for driving a foreign car after pounding Republicans for not supporting the American auto industry.
A rank-and-file member of Congress typically wouldn’t get noticed for inflammatory language and rhetorical slip-ups. But Wasserman Schultz has a higher profile now — and was hired precisely because of her skills as a communicator.
No one seems ready to declare her the Democratic version of Michael Steele, the gaffe-prone former Republican National Committee chairman whose rhetorical and administrative missteps led numerous party leaders to publicly insist he had to go. But some Democrats are already privately fretting about the media-loving Wasserman Schultz’s tendency to put her foot in her mouth — after all, her ability to be the party’s frontwoman and messenger was a major reason President Barack Obama selected her as chairwoman.
One Democratic consultant with DNC ties said Wasserman Schultz is accustomed to operating on her own and will have to learn to tone it down now that she is the spokeswoman for her party and president.
“This is a growing pain that she and Team Obama are going to need to figure out, and it’s a good thing for both sides that she’s making the gaffes now — so that they can address this,” the consultant said.
What a stupid, stupid, stupid woman, but it's sadder watching how the MSM let's her get away with this stuff:
It’s a general rule of thumb that whenever a politician says something negative about their opposition, they better not be guilty of the same thing, otherwise they would end up looking incredibly foolish.
The latest pol to suffer from this is Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Since she began her tenure as head of the DNC, Wasserman Schultz has gone on the offensive against the Republicans. She accused the GOP of “waging war on the unemployed” and slammed their budget proposal as a “path to poverty.” But her latest attack on the opposition backfired in a major way.
Wasserman Schultz appeared at a breakfast for reporters and called out the Republican candidates for president who were very critical of the 2009 auto bailouts:
If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes.
So we can infer that if Wasserman Schultz had her way, we would not be driving foreign cars. We would be driving automobiles made right here in America!
Well, what an error that would be. Luckily, her garage was on hand to clarify her position.
[A]ccording to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company. The car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials.
Obviously, it’s not entirely fair to base her position on domestic car manufacturers by what she drives to work. Her voting record would be a more accurate way of measuring it. However, if you’re going to throw stones, make sure your house is not made of glass first.
Hot Air explains the typical liberal hypocrisy on this one:
Not the first time that this idiotic charge has been leveled, but it might be the first time that the idiocy has reached the floor of the House itself. To this day, I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why “ObamaCare” is any more or less derogatory than “Bush tax cuts” or “Reaganomics.” Yes, granted, the term’s typically used by the law’s critics, but so what? “Reaganomics” has been used by liberals to try to draw a distinction between Reagan’s policies and sound economic theory, but the term itself is perfectly polite. “CrapCare” or “BoondoggleCare” or “We’llNeverPayForThisCare” would qualify as disparaging (and true!), but “ObamaCare”? If Debbie Wasserman-Schultz seriously finds that derogatory, it’s only because the law is now such a heavy albatross politically for the left that the mere act of reminding voters of its provenance feels like a low blow. Pathetic.
It's uberliberals like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who put ideology first and the American people second, that are the reason Congress continues to get such low approval ratings:
During a bipartisan panel discussion with members of Congress on Wednesday's CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric asked about the role of political rhetoric in the Tucson shooting, to which Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz replied: "After my daughter heard...Gabby [Giffords] had been shot, the first thing she asked me was...'Mommy, are you going to get shot?'"
Schultz went on to recall: "...the next thing she said to me was – and this is where you don't realize how closely they're watching – 'But Mommy, Florida's going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.'" The Congresswoman concluded: "The civil discourse is very important because it's not just – it's not just adults that – that this permeates. It's our children." Couric did not challenge Schultz's suggestion that the enforcement of stronger immigration laws would cause violence.
Student of Life, lover of God, Black, conservative Democrat, believer in self-responsibility, traditional values and morals, resident of New York City. Follow me on Twitter at @MrGreyGhost1.
Posts
