Poor Barack Obama. Ending his fifth year as the world’s most powerful
man, he is running out of scapegoats and fairy tales. Blaming George W.
Bush has lost its punch, and the ObamaCare debacle is shredding the
myths he is competent and honest.
Still, before he rides off into that sunset of self-pity and low poll
ratings, he ought to invite his remaining friends over for a
heart-to-heart. That way he can tell The New York Times that its
fanatical support does him no favors.
Instead, it feeds his arrogance and reinforces his belief that he can
solve any problem with another speech. The unflattering truth doesn’t
stand a chance — until it is too late.
Not that the president would admit any of that, of course, but the
Obama Protection Racket, led by the Times, cuts both ways. It is a key
reason he has defied political gravity for so long, and also why he is
now in deep trouble. As watchdogs became lapdogs, the presidential
bubble grew impenetrable, isolating him from ordinary Americans and the
trickle-down pain of his policies.
From the broadcast networks to MSNBC and most large papers, Obama got
the benefit of every doubt. The double standards were a daily disgrace
so routine, they mostly provoked a shrug instead of outrage.
The ObamaCare debacle is the exception that proves the rule.
Wall-to-wall complaints are forcing the media to report that the law’s
Web site is a lemon and that its rules are causing millions of people to
lose insurance plans they liked.
The mainstream media is acting only because the story is too big to
ignore. Had it been mildly skeptical sooner, it could have exposed the
law’s destructive rules and prevented the disaster.
Yet the Times, especially its editorial page, remains his most
devoted cheerleader. The latest example is embarrassing enough to make a
Gray Lady blush.
After the president’s repeated promise that “If you like your
health-care plan, you can keep it” was proven false, the editorial page
tried to clean up his mess. On Nov. 2, it charged that Republicans were
stoking “consumer fears and confusion” by highlighting reports of people
losing insurance.
Then came the coverup: “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke” when he made
those promises, the editorial said, before dismissing the problems as an
“overblown controversy.”
The “misspoke” defense set off a firestorm, and even the paper’s
gentle public editor suggested it was too kind. Naturally, the editors
defended their decision not to accuse the president of an outright lie.
Yet even Obama concluded he had to apologize. His recognition of the
uproar will result in changes, if only because Senate Democrats are
running for their lives.
The episode graphically illustrates how the Times has harmed the nation by reflexively protecting Obama, facts be damned.
Instead of just expressing its own liberal views, the editorial page
serves as the propaganda arm of the administration, the Jay Carney of
print media. Its daily drumbeat of shrill partisanship leaves it
indistinguishable from Dem party hacks who spend their waking hours
demonizing Republicans.
The race card being played from the bottom of the deck…
Even on Syria.
Leading this charge is former MSNBC primetime-8:00 PM-host-turned-MSNBC-weekend-host (a lonely timeslot he claimed he volunteered for)-turned-early-evening-weekday-at-5:00 PM-host Ed Schultz. Schultz contends that GOP opposition of Syrian strikes is rooted not in:
(A) Uncertainly around a post-Assad Syria, where the opposition may somehow be worse than the current regime
(B) Possible repercussions via Iran or Hezbollah to Israel or U.S.
embassies and troops in the region, or even through terror attacks here
in the U.S.
(C) Making the growing refugee crisis even more grave
(D) A strong majority of the American people opposed to any military action
(E) All of the above
“I really believe that everything that we have said on
this show are reasonable, patriotic reasons to be against another war,
another strike, another act of war––and that’s what it is––but hatred of
our first black president is not.”
If that’s the case, then there are A LOT of racists running around
the country these days. First and foremost is the man who replaced him
at 8:00 PM on MSNBC, Chris Hayes. After all, he vehemently opposes any action in Syria. Is he—the host with racial quotas for guests—also a racist?
How about Alan Grayson (D-FL), easily the most outspoken liberal in Congress? He wants no part of Syria, either. Even Joe Manchin (D-WV)
said, “I cannot support the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s
resolution and will be working with my colleagues and the administration
to develop other options.”
That just screams racism, doesn’t it?
The nomadic Schultz has sat in three time slots in the past year
alone. He was supposed to be a savior for MSNBC’s failing 5:00 PM spot.
Instead, because of 5th grade comments like this, he’s getting pummeled
by Fox in his time slot of the month—and by CNN as well.
But it’s really no surprise.
In fact, it’s shocking it took this long.
The emergence of the race card in the sober debate over Syria…
Courtesy of a cartoon character posing as a serious host who carries his very own deck.
It's important to remember, as Democrats cope with their failure to
topple Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in Tuesday's recall, that this was a
fight they chose.
Unlike the vast majority of elections, which occur on a regular
schedule, the recall was a fight the left picked on purpose. They picked
it because they thought they could win. And they were wrong.
It wasn't even close. In the final tally, Walker led his Democratic
opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by 53 percent to 46 percent.
The idea behind the recall effort was to send a message: a warning to
conservatives across the country that there was a line not to be crossed
when it came to messing with the hard-earned gains of public worker
unions. By losing, however, the consortium of unions, progressives and
Democrats that worked so ardently to send Walker packing may have sent
the opposite message. If Walker can survive, what's to stop any other
right-leaning governor from pushing the envelope?
"This really is a test case. The far right made Wisconsin its petri
dish," said Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action
Wisconsin, a grassroots progressive group that supported the recall
effort. Walker's win, he said, will embolden the Koch brothers and other
national conservative funders to get ideologically sympathetic
Republicans to push their agenda across the country.
"Wisconsin will not be the high water mark of the attack on unions,
public employees, and the middle class," Kraig said. "You will see more
Walker-like politicians elected in other states, and you will see more
current governors taking this type of attack."
When I interviewed Walker a couple of months ago,
that was his prediction, too, though he naturally didn't put it in
quite those terms. If he prevailed in the recall, he told me, "It
suggests to other elected officials that you can tackle tough issues,
you can face the wrath of organized special interests like the public
employee unions, and ultimately prevail," he said. "They're not going to
be able to bully and intimidate people who are trying to act in the
best interest of the taxpayers."
It's not only Republican governors, Walker noted, who are pushing to
reform the pension, benefit and pay privileges enjoyed by public
workers. He pointed to the efforts of Deval Patrick in Massachusetts,
Lincoln Chafee (a liberal independent) in Rhode Island, Andrew Cuomo in
New York and Jerry Brown in California, all of whom have approached the
issue of public sector pension reform, if in less inflammatory manner.
The results for the labor movement, of which the public sector is now
the backbone, could be dire. Already, there are signs Walker has
succeeded in crippling Wisconsin's unions, whose membership has sharply
declined since his reforms made it easier for workers to opt out and
harder for the groups to gain recognition. In just over a year, the
union representing state workers has seen its membership drop by
two-thirds, while the American Federation of Teachers has lost more than
a third of the 17,000 members it formerly claimed in Wisconsin, according to the Wall Street Journal.
After charlatan, race hustler, black liberal sycophant and faux-minister Michael Eric Dyson referred to conservative commentator Sophia Nelson and other black opponents of gay marriage as "sexual rednecks" and "religious bigots" the other day on far-Left network MSNBC, conservatives in general were rightfully outraged. But why should they be when most know that Dyson has served as a pawn for the immoral, white, leftist agenda for years now. Either way, the rambling fool that is Dyson still felt a need to apologize to Ms. Nelson before they went on one of the Ed Schultz show to "debate" gay marriage and pretty much defending his sad, disgusting remarks:
One week after President Obama‘s official
endorsement of same-sex marriage, MSNBC played host to a debate over how
the decision divides the black community into “civil rights” versus
“biblical truth” camps. Last week, Georgetown professor and MSNBC
contributor Michael Eric Dyson called out what he saw as “sexual rednecks” within the black church who oppose same-sex marriage, including Sophia Nelson, a writer for TheGrio. The Ed Show brought the two of them on to debate.
Dyson started out by apologizing for calling Nelson and others like CNN’s Roland Martin
“sexual rednecks” for their opposition to same-sex marriage. “In a fit
of passion I called out my friends, in the spirit of love, to say that
hey, we can do better than this, and I shouldn’t have called their names
if they weren’t here to defend themselves,” he said, and then went on
to clarify his argument and admit that he “conflated two issues: the
marriage equality which is very serious and a significant issue on the
one hand, and the black homophobia as I perceived it within black
communities. Homophobia is not something that’s endemic to black people –
it’s across the globe so to speak. But in this case, black homophobia
fuels, I think, the beliefs about black gay and lesbian people and
whether or not they can get married.”
Nelson accepted Dyson’s apology for calling her a “sexual redneck,”
but went on to say that even though she is opposed to same-sex marriage
for non-”insidious” biblical reasons, “I support hate crimes legislation
for people that would abuse or hurt gays and lesbians, I support civil
unions, I support adoption, I support them being able to visit their
loved one in the hospital. So there are people like me of faith who
don’t agree with same-sex marriage for the faith reason, the biblical
reason, the definition of a man and a woman being married, but I also
support a lot about the agenda.”
Dyson, an ordained minister of more than 30 years, said that a
literal interpretation of the Bible over same-sex marriage is the
problem, since it would mean killing gays and lesbians. “I don’t think
Sophia Nelson is promoting the biblical interpretation that gays and
lesbian people should be killed, and if she is, she hasn’t put that
forth. And if she doesn’t, then she doesn’t take the Bible literally.”
The two then got feisty when Nelson explained that she and other
black churchgoers were offended to be called bigots for their
faith-based views on gay marriage, with Dyson eventually explained that
he used the terms “sexual rednecks” and “sexual bigots” because of a
quote from Howard Thurman, who said “a bigot is a person who makes an
idol of his commitment.”
“You’re throwing [the gay community] a bone by saying, ‘Look, I
believe in civil unions’ and the like, but what you’re not addressing is
the fact that your faith fuels the belief that to be gay is to be
automatically a sinner, to be gay is to be outside of the covenant of
God. And I’m arguing that that automatically disqualifies gay and
lesbian, transgender and bisexual people as your equals in the faith.”
“You cannot say that our faith is causing us to be homophobic or
bigoted,” Nelson responded, quoting several scriptures that she says
ground her views on marriage. “Your issue’s with God, not with me.”
It has been a fateful year for the cable news network MSNBC. It seems every month, another host – or even the network itself – is forced to apologize for reporting a factual error or overstepping the bounds of responsible commentary.
Mormonism-Is-An-Invented-Religion-Gate
The most recent apology to come out of the cable network at 30 Rockefeller Plaza is The Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell. On an April 3 segment, O’Donnell characterized the Church of Latter Day Saints as an “invented religion” and said that Mormonism was started by “a guy in upstate New York” who “got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it.”
That understandably offended some, and O’Donnell was forced to publically apologize on an April 11 broadcast. “I am truly sorry if I said something inaccurate about Joseph Smith,” O’Donnell said. “I am happy to provide time on this show to a Church of Latter Day Saints spokesman to correct any inaccuracy.”
But the apology parade only begins there. A quick trip into recent history reveals a troubling trend of apology-worthy offenses.
The Roberts Affair
MSNBC news broadcaster Thomas Roberts got himself into hot water recently when he broadcast a segment on a leaked memo authored by the National Organization for Marriage, which identified as a political strategy pitting African Americans who may be hostile to gay marriage, against same-sex marriage activists. Roberts booked a guest representing NOM to appear on his show, but when she ostensibly failed to show Roberts conducted a mock interview of her empty chair. The implication was that the NOM representative was simply too cowardly to appear and face the music.
The only problem with that segment was that the NOM representative did show up. A booking error on the part of MSNBC had her in the wrong studio at the time of the broadcast. Roberts was forced to take to his Twitter account to announce, “IT WAS OUR MISTAKE,” and “our sincerest apologies.”
The Second Roberts Affair
On March 4, Roberts was taken in by a satirical piece posted on Huffington Post in which a mock NOM boycott of Starbucks helped their stock price shoot up by $1.41. Roberts broadcast the satire as fact and was later forced to admit “we take issues of equality seriously, not as satire. It was my error.” They take every issue of equality so seriously, in fact, that they cannot be bothered to scroll down to the disclaimer of satire on the site before becoming incensed enough broadcast this easily falsifiable story as news.
The Racist Edit Of George Zimmerman’s 911 Call
On April 3, NBC News itself admitted to an “error” in their broadcast of a misleadingly edited 911 call made by George Zimmerman on the night he allegedly murdered Trayvon Martin. That call, which also aired on MSNBC, was edited to show Zimmerman offering the skin color of Martin unsolicited when in fact the dispatcher had asked for that information. While this admission does not necessarily constitute apology, the concession of an “error” will have to do.
Mitt Romney Is Racist
In December, 2011, MSNBC ran multiple reports based on a bloggers assertion that Mitt Romney‘s presidential campaign had adopted a slogan, “Keep America American” that was originally used by the Klu Klux Klan in the 1920s.
“So you may not hear Mitt Romney say ‘Keep America American’ anymore. That’s because it was a central theme of the KKK in the 1920s, it was a rallying cry for the group’s campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews. The progressive blog AmericaBlog was the first to catch on to that,” said Roberts during his dayside news program.
On December 14, 2011, Hardball host Chris Matthews delivered the mea culpa for the network. “During the 11AM hour on MSNBC,” Matthews said, “we reported on a blog item that compared a phrase used by the Romney campaign to one used by the KKK in the 1920s. It was irresponsible and incendiary of us to do this and showed an appalling lack of judgment. We apologize to the Romney campaign.” Matthews apology was reiterated by Rev. Al Sharpton on his program which immediately follows Hardball, saying that MSNBC “did the right thing” by apologizing to Romney.
Chuck Todd’s Bad Morning
Also on December 14, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd was caught alongside Meet the Press host David Gregory just before being called on to the set of Morning Joe delivering a one finger salute to the production staff just off camera. “The camera is always on. A lesson some of us never learn,” Tweeted a chaste Todd. “My apologies. Am personally embarrassed. Was a joke with someone on the other side.”
But perhaps the most egregious serial eventual-apologizer is Ed Schultz, anchor of the primetime weekday program The Ed Show. In the last year, Schultz has been suspended once and forced to apologize no less than three times.
“Rightwing Slut”
In May, 2011, Schultz was suspended briefly and forced to apologize to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham for calling her a “rightwing slut” on the air. He later called his own comments “vile” and offered Ingraham an apology which she accepted.
Rick Perry Is Racist
On August 15, 2011 Shultz aired an out-of-context clip of Texas Gov. Rick Perry describing the state of the nation as being darkened by “a black cloud.” Perry was referring to the economy but Schultz did not air the original context of the clip and presented it as Perry talking about President Barack Obama – Obama, of course, being the black cloud. Schultz attempt to imply Perry was voicing a racist sentiment backfired and he later was forced to admit “we did not present the full context of those statements… It was a mistake and we regret the error.” Rather than admit an unqualified apology, however, Schultz couched his admission of fault in an attack on his opponents by airing the full clip of Perry in context and making the same argument that Perry was, in fact, a latent racist.
Virginia’s Republicans Are Nazis
On February 22, Ed Schultz’s radio producer James Holm issued an apology for comparing the Republican members of Virginia’s legislature to Nazis-era Dr. Joseph Mengele. The entire exchange between Schultz and his producer is too long and obsequious to reproduce here, but it falls more in the category of a “you were offended, so I apologize” apology while still maintaining that Republicans are Nazis.
Ed Schultz’s Union Ties
There are plenty of apparent offenses for which Schultz has never apologized. He never apologized for calling Sen. Marco Rubio “not a true American,” or saying the “Republican party stands for racism,” or saying conservative commentators want “Obama to get shot,” or for wondering aloud when discussing Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) lobbyist wife if “the word whore applies.”
One apology that Schultz’s critics are still holding out hope for is his admission that he should have disclosed the $190,000 in payments he received from the Communications Workers of America union. A disclosure would have prevented the appearance of a conflict of interest when this host helped man the picket lines alongside union members celebrating the successful referendum repealing Gov. John Kasich’s curtailment of public sector union’s collective bargaining rights or the recall elections of Wisconsin state senators.
Schultz has defended his union earnings, saying that he works for his payments by booking speaking gigs for the labor organization. He should not, however, be surprised then when his credibility on organized labor issues is called into question.
Give credit where its due. They do seem willing to apologize when they’re mistakes are caught. But in MSNBC’s year of apologies, some would say its the offenses for which no apology was ever issued that are the most telling and instructive about the culture at play there.
Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.
Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.
Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.
But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)
Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.
Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews “is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?
But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”
Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.
This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.
The cable news primetime triumvirate has now completely weighed in on Ed Schultz‘s position in GQ‘s “Least Influential People Alive of 2011” list. Bill O’Reilly started off his “Reality Check” segment tonight with the news of Schultz blaming Anderson Cooper for the article, ending with a bit of open-ended advice: “if you give gutter snipes publicity, they win.”
O’Reilly began the segment by noting that both CNN and MSNBC were “way behind FNC,” and that while MSNBC has attacked opponents in “vile, unprofessional ways,” CNN “usually stays above the fray.” Explaining the situation– that Schultz “apparently believes that CNN’s Anderson Cooper is behind a column in GQ magazine that mocks Schultz”– O’Reilly corrected Schultz’s claim that he crushes Cooper in the ratings, and played Cooper’s response.
He then gave his two cents, not taking any sides, but offering his experience: “I leanred the hard way with Al Franken that if you give gutter snipes publicity, they win.”
On tonight's "The Ed Show" on MSNBC, Ed Schultz admitted he was in error in deceptively editing a clip of Gov. Rick Perry, removing the meaning and context of the governor's statement. The deception was first revealed here at breitbart.tv.
He did not apologize, and he did not explain to his viewers that the deceptively edited clip was used by Schultz to make a false allegation of racism against the Texas governor.
Yet, another example of of the kind of toxic, hypocritical talk that goes on liberal radio and why when compared to its conservative counterparts it continues to be an utter fail:
Yeah. Apparently Ed Schultz has forgotten that he’s not on Saturday Night Live. And that it isn’t 1978. Yesterday on his radio show, Schultz decided to call Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” Now, before you get all up in arms, Schultz did clarify his statement. He followed it by calling her a “talk slut.” That’s better, right? No.
Here’s his comments:
“And what do the Republicans thinking about? They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.”
Schultz was discussing Ingraham’s comments about President Obama’s trip to Europe and…you know what? The backstory really doesn’t matter here. What was he thinking? I can’t think of any possible situation where it would be ok for him to call a woman a slut. I don’t know. Maybe if Ingraham herself had walked into the studio wearing a shirt with the words “Hey, please call me a slut” written in big letters. Even then it would be a bad idea.
Look, if you don’t agree with something the woman says, you can feel free to call her an “idiot” or a “jerk” or a “big, stupid poop-face.” Whatever you want. Just don’t call her a slut, you big, stupid poop-face!
For the billionth time, when insulting someone in the media, don’t use a word that has negative connotations connected to their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, of unchangeable physical features or handicaps. Why is this so damn difficult to understand? Ed, weren’t you just yelling at Eric Bolling for saying the President drank “forties?”
As NewsBusters has been reporting, America's media have been on a full-court press to raise taxes ever since Barack Obama proposed this in his deficit reduction speech last Wednesday.
So supportive of soaking the rich is MSNBC's Ed Schultz that on Monday's program bearing his name, seconds after claiming "Republicans are forced I guess you could say to make stuff up," he lied about what happened after taxes were cut by President George W. Bush
I'm not sure who did this research for Schultz, but here are the numbers directly from OMB:
Above is a screencap from page 22 of OMB's "Historical Tables: Budget of the United States." The column on the left represents total unified tax receipts, the center is total unified expenditures, and the right is the associated surplus or deficit.
The first Bush tax cuts happened in 2001 when we brought in $1.991 trillion in receipts. This declined for two years, then started increasing, and by 2005 not only were receipts higher than in 2001, they were also higher than the previous record set in 2000.
"Even seven years later, revenues were lower than before the Bush tax cuts went into effect."
Not even close. Revenues in 2008 were $2.523 trillion, $532 billion or 27 percent higher than 2001.
On the MSNBC special The Black Agenda hosted by Ed Schultz, there was an extremely intense debate over whether President Obama is doing enough for the African American community or whether black leaders in Congress and around the country are improperly expecting Obama to do all the heavy lifting. On polar opposites of the debate were Al Sharpton and Cornel West, as Sharpton declared most black leaders, except for Obama, are silently doing nothing while West considered Obama to possibly be no more than a “black mascot” for the wealthy.
Sharpton declared:
“Too many of us are putting it all on the President, if I see a [Paul] Ryan in Congress, where is the counterpoint to Ryan? That’s not President Obama’s job . . . He shouldn’t lead the civil rights marches against himself. Eveybody’s sitting around acting like we can’t do anything, Obama’s going to do it. That’s hogwash.”
However, West did not jump on the bandwagon to defend Obama and offered a provocative reason why many black congressional leaders are hesitant to lead on issues themselves and to challenge Obama:
“They have a black constituency and there’s a context in the nation that a criticism of President Obama is an attempt to support the right-wing vicious attacks of Fox News and others.”
When West told Sharpton that he worries this White House is manipulating him as they seem more eager to serve the interests of wealthy oligarchs than to serve the black community, then Sharpton really exploded. And West was willing to go toe-to-toe, arguing back by claiming that over 72% of young black men have been stopped and frisked by the police in New York City yet Obama never addresses such issues. Instead West predicts, “if investment bankers were stopped and frisked, he’d say something.”
As the segment closes with West yelling “where’s the jobs bill” from Obama, with Sharpton raising his voice, and with Velma Hart (the persistent Obama critic from the famous townhall meeting) demanding to know “where’s the leadership,” MSNBC and Schultz may want to consider assembling such a lively and entertaining Sunday night debate more often.
"Everything you've done in your career has been for equality..." What a joke. Amazing too that more folks don't just come out and talk about how MSNBC is way more an arm for the liberal wing of the Democrat party than FOX is too conservatives. Guess that Schultz didn't get that memo on his guest concerning the Tawana Brawley Hoax, jew-baiting, the people killed at Freddy's Fashion Mart, being a tax cheat and an FBI informant.
They won't agree on much, but Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and Medea Benjamin, founder of the far-left anti-war group Code Pink, found some common ground on one fact Tuesday night: MSNBC talkers Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz are hypocrites.
Both Schultz and Maddow defended President Obama's decision to impose a no fly zone over Libya on their respective shows. Maddow trotted out the "reluctant warrior" line, while Schultz insisted that the president "deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support."
O'Reilly asserted - and Benjamin agreed - that neither MSNBC host would have been so generous had Obama's predecessor engaged in such a conflict. "The word 'hypocrisy' comes to mind," Benjamin quipped
Its been two weeks since Keith Olbermann left the airwaves of MSNBC, creating a “Olbermann shaped hole in our nation’s discourse,” according to Jon Stewart, who used the opening segment in tonight’s episode of The Daily Show to assess MSNBC’s current lineup to fill said void. Rachel Maddow seems too civil and gentile, Lawrence O’Donnell seems too smart and Chris Matthews seemed, well, like a “balloonhead.” Leaving us with? Ed Schultz!
While some will see the segment as a paean to Olbermann’s strength of conviction, others are sure to see it as a mockery of Olbermann’s over reliance on hyperbole and merciless railing on anyone who disagrees with him. The later might be the real point of the segment, evidenced by the bizarre bit in which Stewart travels to “the Olberfarm” in which young “Olberclones” are seen yelling at each other. Stewart laughs diabolically, while somewhere, we imagine, crickets chirped. Hey, they can’t all be hits!
Last fall, Richard Dreyfuss launched a civics education program called the Dreyfuss Initiative that promised among other things to look at "a purposeful diverse variety of websites representing disparate political opinions... to foster a discussion related to the future of America." But the Academy Award-winning actor apparently thinks civil political discourse includes left-wing radio hosts wishing for Dick Cheney's death.
At a January 25 press conference at the National Press Club, CNSNews.com's* Nicholas Ballasy asked Dreyfuss about comments that liberal MSNBC host Ed Schultz had made on his March 11, 2009 radio program wherein he wished that "enemy of the country" former Vice President Dick Cheney would be taken by God to "the Promised Land."
"No, that’s not uncivil. That’s actually kind of a beautifully phrased way of saying something that could be uncivil," Dreyfuss told Ballasy.
"Civility is not not saying negative or harsh things. It is not the absence of critical analysis. It is the manner in which we are sharing this territorial freedom of political discussion. If our discourse is yelled and screamed and interrupted and patronized, that’s uncivil. I don’t care what the issue is and I don’t care who the people and the players are," Dreyfuss added.
By that standard, one has to wonder if Dreyfuss would draw the line at Schultz wishing he could rip Dick Cheney's heart out, as he did on his February 24 program last year, or if that's merely just another "harsh" jab thrown in the "territorial freedom of political discussion."
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
