MSNBC’s Most Embarrassing Mockery of Mitt Romney’s Russia Warnings

Mediaite.com:

The smug self-assuredness that often suffices for expertise on cable news was perhaps never more smug than when former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney warned the American public that Russia was rapidly positioning itself as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Among the worst offenders were the hosts and guests who provide MSNBC with content on a daily basis. 

In early 2012, President Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after the presidential election in his dealings with Russia. Romney reacted strongly to that comment. Appearing on CNN, the GOP nominee said that the United States should regard Russia as a geopolitical adversary and should work to limit Russia’s flexibility rather than to secure it. His observation was soundly criticized by the president’s defenders who, at the time, were still attempting to rehabilitate Obama’s floundering “Reset” with Russia. 

There were few who defended Romney’s comments. Even snake-bit Republicans, chastened by the swift backlash in the media, hedged when asked to back up Romney’s assessment of the challenges posed by Moscow. But MSNBC’s wagons circled particularly quickly in defense of the president. Volley after volley of snark was lobbed in the GOP nominee’s direction.

“I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews said with a sigh on March 28, 2012. “Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”

“This is Mitt Romney’s severely conservative problem,” University of Georgia professor Cynthia Tucker opined on-the-air. “It made Romney look dumb. He’s not a dumb man, but he said something that was clearly dumb.”

Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein agreed that Romney’s statement was evidence of an “antiquated worldview.” He fretted further about how Romney, should he become president, would enter the office having severely complicated America’s bilateral relations with Moscow given his carelessly provocative statement. 

“I personally am worried about what it says to the Russian people,” Matthews added to a chorus of sagely nods.

MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell got in on the self-satisfied ridicule, too. 

 Promoting Maddow’s latest book about the “unmooring of American military power,” O’Donnell asked the flagship MSNBC host if Romney was merely reflecting on what he might have read in that book. 

“He read about Reagan’s private, outside-the-CIA cabal of team-B zealots who were telling him that Russia had all the stuff they didn’t have so he could justify a giant defense budget,” Maddow submitted scornfully. 

“It is amazing that Mitt Romney can flip like that just as soon as he hears something to exploit in foreign policy,” O’Donnell remarked.

Maddow took her observations about Romney’s position on Russia one ill-advised step further on her MSNBC.com blog:

I can appreciate why the Romney campaign would try to make Obama’s “hot mic” story interesting, but the problem is the former governor just doesn’t have any real policy chops in this area. He’s out of his depth, and struggles when the subject takes center stage.
It’s not just that Romney is uninformed; it’s that he hasn’t figured out how to fake it.

Appearing on Andrea Mitchell Reports in April of that year, Romney surrogate and former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour was confronted by the MSNBC anchor. Calling Romney’s comments “a throwback to the Cold War,” Mitchell insisted that “we work with Russia all the time.” “Hardly an ally but certainly not an adversary,” she declared.

But the worst offender was one who should have, and likely did, know better, former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The former Army general greatly entertained his MSNBC hosts with some of the most snide commentary about Romney’s observation. 

“Come on, Mitt. Think,” Powell said of Romney’s remark in May to the chuckles of host Joe Scarborough. “That isn’t the case.” 

He went on to suggest that Romney’s assessment of the threat posed by Russia was so dubious that it was possible he was being disingenuous or he was coached to make that statement.

RELATED:  Mitt Romney Was Right About Russia

Will Lawrence O’Donnell Have to Answer for Anti-Christie Ad Like Fox & Friends Did for Anti-Obama Ad?

Mediaite.com:

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell proudly announced on Wednesday night that he “wrote” a hard-hitting, campaign-style political advertisement attacking Chris Christie. The ad, which he broadcast on his program, The Last Word, uses the New Jersey governor’s own words against him — a common practice in campaign ads. “Don’t let Christie embarrass and humiliate America,” the ad’s narrator urges the audience.


What’s more, O’Donnell closed his program with instructions for his audience on how to produce similar anti-Christie ads on their own. He even provided them with some helpful clips which could facilitate the creation of those ads. 

Harmless, right? Not so much. 

In May of 2012, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends found themselves in hot water when the program produced and aired their own campaign-style ad targeting President Barack Obama. The 4-minute commercial was roundly criticized by media observers and prompted Fox News Channel’s Executive Vice President of Programming, Bill Shine, to issue a statement insisting that the ad was “was created by an associate producer and was not authorized at the senior executive level of the network.”

The ad prompted commentary and news reports from outlets like CBS News, ABC News, The Hollywood Reporter, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Salon, and Mediaite asking whether Fox had crossed a line when they aired what many legitimately considered a pro-Republican attack ad. 

Conservative media critics like HotAir’s Ed Morrissey and The Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik came out strongly against the move by Fox. Zurawik said the video package “resembled propaganda films from 1930s Europe more than it did responsible TV politics of today.”

Even the White House got involved. “White House spokesman Jay Carney had a stern conversation with Michael Clemente, a top executive at Fox News, about the video,” The Huffington Post reported.

“Carney said that ‘Fox and Friends’ had gone much too far.”

Following a firestorm of controversy, Fox announced that the associate producer responsible for the ad was leaving for CNN. 

Forgetting the lessons of that incident, O’Donnell fell into a similar trap. But without the tempo of a political campaign to inspire a backlash against the host’s decision to, by his own admission, write and air an anti-Christie ad, will this move result in any consequences for MSNBC and O’Donnell? 

RELATED:  Inevitable: MSNBC shows now producing their own anti-Christie ads

Even Liberal Radio Host Bill Press Knows That Lawrence O'Donnell Is An 'A-Hole'

Mediaite.com:

Liberal radio host Bill Press blasted MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell on Tuesday morning in the wake of his contentious interview with New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner. Press said that O’Donnell’s questions, as well as the booking itself, made no sense. He added that O’Donnell behaved like an “a-hole” during his prime time probing of Weiner.


“What is wrong with you?” O’Donnell asked Weiner on Monday night. “What is wrong with you that you cannot seem to imagine a life without elected office?”

“I think Lawrence O’Donnell proved to be a real a-hole with that question,” Press said after playing a portion of Monday night’s interview on his radio program. 

“Why even book Anthony Weiner? Everybody knows he’s a joke. Everybody knows he’s not going to win,” Press continued.

He added that the question he posed to Weiner could be asked of virtually every politician who cycles in and out of elective office, including Hillary Clinton. 

“Lawrence O’Donnell, shame on you,” Press concluded. 

RELATED:  Lawrence O’Donnell Conducts Unbelievable Trainwreck of an Interview with Anthony Weiner

Smug MSNBC Host Lawrence Distorts Bill O'Reilly, Touts 'Proof' Out-of-Wedlock Birth Not So Bad

Newsbusters.org:

On Monday's The Last Word on MSNBC, host Lawrence O'Donnell claimed to present "proof" that FNC's Bill O'Reilly was wrong in his July 22 commentary on race to warn about the negative effects of out-of-wedlock births on the black population.

The MSNBC host also managed to take O'Reilly out of context as O'Donnell suggested that the O'Reilly's were not relevant to Trayvon Martin because he was the product of a two-parent family, the FNC host, in reality, was arguing that out-of-wedlock birth leads to high crime rates among the black population, which leads to people having elevated fear of young black men.

And, while O'Donnell claimed that O'Reilly "defended" the shooting of Trayvon Martin, O'Reilly actually asserted that "it was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance," which hardly amounts to a total defense of Zimmerman's actions.

O'Donnell teased the segment by predicting that O'Reilly would be "embarrassed." O'Donnell:

Yes, right here on a cable news program, a story that we can all feel good about. Democrats, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, everyone except possibly Bill O'Reilly, who might be a little embarrassed about how he's manipulated some of the talk around this kind of story.

In another plug, the MSNBC host promised that he would present "proof that Bill O'Reilly is not the sociologist he thinks he is."
The segment began with a clip of President Obama responding to Zimmerman's acquittal, with O'Donnell then charging:

Bill O'Reilly hated that speech, hated it. He angrily took to his microphone to defend the killing of Trayvon Martin because, quote, "he was a stranger to Zimmerman and was dressed in clothing sometimes used by street criminals," O'Reilly's words.

The MSNBC host's quote of O'Reilly omitted his next line:

It was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance. But the culture that we have in this country does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime the statistics overwhelming.

After playing a clip of O'Reilly linking crime to out-of-wedlock birth, O'Donnell ignored his point about the role that the fear of crime played in Zimmerman and Martin's confontation and instead lectured:

Never mind that Trayvon Martin was the son of a very involved and loving father. And never mind that Barack Obama grew up without a father and went on to do rather well for himself and be a credit to his single mother.

O'Donnell then recounted the story of two young black men -- Justin Porter and Travis Reginal -- who are successful college students and were both raised by single mothers, as if their success proves that single parenthood is not generally detrimental to children. O'Donnell:

And in our next segment, I will have the honor of introducing you to two young black men Bill O'Reilly has never met. They went to high school together in Jackson, Mississippi. Now, one is at Harvard and the other is at Yale. They will both tell you why they owe their success to their heroic single mothers.

RELATED: Lawrence O’Donnell Shreds O’Reilly’s ‘Very Narrow And Uneducated Mind’ On American Racism

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/6/13

When Christians Become A 'Hated Minority'

Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counter-Terrorism Bureau on Night of Benghazi Attack, Witness Will Say

NBA's Jason Collins: 'Gay' Superhero!

Obama's Commerce Pick Funded Fox News Enemy

Obama: Americans 'Are Root Cause of Violence That's Been Happening Here in Mexico'

Obama's Deficit Promises Never Added Up

So. Carolina Dem Chair: Send Nikki Haley ‘Back To Wherever The Hell She Came From’

Planned Parenthood Targets Black Women

Israeli Raids in Syria Highlight Arab Conundrum

Referee Punched in Face by Teen Player Dies

Lawrence O’Donnell: Obama’s Tax Rate ‘In the High Twenties’; Nope! Try 18.4%

Bill O’Reilly vs. Alan Colmes Family Spat Shows Why There’s Fox News…And There’s Everyone Else

Mediaite.com:

George W. Bush wins the 2000 Presidential Election by (in essence) 537 votes; Fox News goes to #1 in the cable news race a few months later. 

Bush narrowly beats John Kerry in 2004. Not surprisingly, Fox is still #1, and by a wider margin. 

Barack Obama soundly defeats John McCain in 2008; Fox is still #1 by a Secretariat-esque margin. 

Mr. Obama decisively beats Mitt Romney four months ago; Regardless of which party holds executive power, Fox is still decimating the competition, albeit by a slightly smaller-than-usual margin. Sure, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell are periodically beating Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren in the demo, but for 22 other hours out of the day, it’s not even a fair fight. 

So why does this keep happening? 

Why, for the better part of 12 years, can’t anyone seriously challenge Fox News? 

The country IS becoming more socially progressive, whether it be gay rights, legal pot or its attitude toward illegal immigrants. 

So why isn’t the country—of which 51.1 percent of its registered voters went for Mr. Obama last fall—moving away from a network that many of its critics call an extension of the Republican Party? 

The answer played itself out again this week starting on Tuesday’s night O’Reilly Factor: Bill O’Reilly is speaking with his usual Tuesday night guests in the form of Monica Crowley (conservative) and Alan Colmes (liberal). This is a segment that has existed for years. Colmes is married to Crowley’s sister, bringing a Carville-Matalin element (sort of) to the show. The topic is sequester, who’s to blame, and particularly if the President has any inclination to ever cut anything given his record over his first 50 months in office. 

Part I: O’Reilly claims that Mr. Obama has no inclination to reduce spending, wants Colmes to specifically list what the President is willing to eliminate. 

Part II: Colmes claims that Mr. Obama has been receptive to Medicare and other entitlement cuts, but is speaking in general terms and therefore isn’t as specific as O’Reilly wants…

Part III: O’Reilly (clearly frustrated), calls Colmes a liar, and comes close to dropping an s-bomb on the air, characterizing Colmes’ argument is “bull-blank” and “jack”. The 63-year-old host proceeds to point his finger at his longtime co-worker no less than a half-dozen times, but later apologizes for calling Colmes a liar (while still maintaining he wasn’t being specific in terms of exact cuts). 

But it doesn’t end there on Tuesday’s show: John Stossel, longtime ABC News reporter now Fox News libertarian, doesn’t stick with the original segment topic he was invited on The Factor to talk about. Instead, he tells O’Reilly to his face that he was “obnoxious” and “out of line.” 

The next day, there is no memorandum from Roger Ailes or Bill Shine (Senior VP of Programming) stating that no one else at the network should talk about the incidents. Instead, the other opinion shows—knowing that they’ve got a hot story—use that freedom to run with it, give it legs. 

The hosts of The Five predictably support O’Reilly in his argument that the President doesn’t have the ability or courage to cut spending. Juan Williams, filling in for the show’s lone liberal, Bob Beckel, gamely defends Colmes. 

Three hours later, Kirsten Powers—the “female Colmes” who progressives loathe for actually having the audacity to occasionally go against the usual talking points of her party—confronts O’Reilly directly on his show, says he’s “100 percent wrong” in his argument against the President. She goes on to detail $400 billion in cuts toward federal healthcare spending Mr. Obama proposed, even tweeting out the PDF she used after the segment to drive home her point. 

Remember, O’Reilly is the LeBron James at Fox News: He’s the network’s highest-paid, most influential, most revered player on the team. He’s authored multiple best-sellers, he’s host of a program that destroys everything in the ratings and has since 2001, and is such an influential personality that he receives regular guest invites on CBS, NBC, ABC, The View, Letterman and Leno. 

Yet here’s Kirsten Powers, a liberal contributor, a fellow employee at Fox News who gets infinite crap on a daily basis from fellow liberals for sleeping with the enemy, telling him he’s full of it on his own program. 

You want to know why Fox is #1? 

Let me answer a question with a question: Could you ever picture this scenario happening at MSNBC or CNN? 

Let’s use MSNBC as an example since it’s more opinion-based (hell, it’s ALL opinion-based now): 

Rachel Maddow invites Michael Steele (former head of the RNC and current MSNBC contributor) on her program. They get into an argument over whatever, things get heated. Maddow calls Steele a liar, saying his perspective is complete BS. 

Could you ever, EVER, see O’Donnell calling out Maddow for her treatment of Steele? How about The Cycle? Would S.E. Cupp rush to Steele’s defense while Touré mocked him while defending Maddow? 

Would, say, Steve Schmidt (MSNBC contributor, former McCain campaign manager) come on Maddow’s show the next night and say to her face that she was totally out of line?

The answer, from what we’ve seen, is no. Sure, there is disagreement between guests, small-time players on the network…but not to this degree, not to this level of candor.

Hardball has its share of yelling (mainly from the host) but does that disagreement carry into other shows?

Not on your life. 

Note: This isn’t a moral argument based on good behavior or a better code of ethics. Rather, it is simply one that focuses on which network is more compelling in terms of its personalities and the manner by which they interact with each other. 

And that’s why there’s Fox, and there’s everyone else. It is much like the dynamic of the Howard Stern Show: A mix of characters all willing to take on Howard and each other, and in the most honest of ways.

There simply is no filter on Howard’s show, and the audience revels in being able to witness a family fight on an almost-daily basis. Most importantly, none of the fights are planned or scripted. 

It just happens, just like it does in homes every day across the country. People can relate and therefore can appreciate what they’re hearing. 

Lawrence O’Donnell sat in judgment of the O’Reilly-Colmes brawl just hours after it happened, mocking the former for losing his cool. 

What O’Donnell doesn’t get, what his network will never understand, is that this is the kind of stuff that makes O’Reilly and Fox untouchable: They’re willing to attack each other based on their opinions and principles, all while his brethren at MSNBC wouldn’t dare call out its own in a similar situation. 

Debate and strong opinions are what cable news is all about, even when those opinions are directed at those you may run into at the company cafeteria. 

Fox News gets that. 

Everyone else…well…just look at the numbers.

RELATED:  Unintended Consequences: Cable News Taunting Good For Ego, Not Good For Business

Black Liberals Bowing Down To The Altar of Rachel Maddow

Since Barack Obama became President he has gone out of his way to help garner "civil rights" for people who engage in same-sex behavior and illegal immigrants. During that same time Black unemployment has increased, as has crime, teenage pregnancy in the urban community and the percentage of blacks in prison. These facts haven't stopped blacks from not only assisting greatly in Obama getting re-elected, but watching MSNBC, the countries best, race-baiting channel designed to  lock Blacks down on a Democrat plantation that no longer cares about the needs of black people:

2012 was a very good year for cable news, with a presidential election that generated huge public interest, and a brightly-lit media landscape that cranked out content to a voracious audience. While Fox News remained the number one cable news network, and CNN performed well on breaking news stories, MSNBC had a lot to brag about in 2012. The network enjoyed significant (around 20%) ratings increases across the board, but made astonishing gains with their already-large African American audience, growing that audience by 60.5% for the Mon-Sun 8pm-11pm period. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told me, in a phone interview, that he is “thrilled” with that result, and that it “says a lot about what we’ve been doing over the last few years.”

In that same time period, CNN grew its black audience by 23.7%(from 131,000 in 2011 to 162,000 in 2012, 23.9% of their total audience) , while Fox News’ declined by 23.7% (38,000 in 2011 to 29,000 in 2012, 1.4% of their total audience), but MSNBC had more black viewers than both of those nets combined (from 177,000 in 2011 to 284,000 in 2012, 31.4% of their total audience). What’s more impressive is that MSNBC attained 60% growth after being number one in that demographic last year, and the year before.

“This has been steady growth for us for some time,” Griffin noted. “I think we made a commitment, we decided, that in order for this channel to succeed, that we had to reflect the country. This meant that we had to be part of the country in ways that the other channels weren’t.”

Part of that commitment, according to Griffin, is the “look” of the channel. ”We have a diverse on-air group of people,” Griffin said, “because that matters, and people want to know that we reflect their world. And it’s not just a single show – its across the board. You look at the guests every hour and we make sure that we have women, African Americans, everything, and I think to spend a day watching MSNBC is to see America as we have seen it.”

That diverse array of talent, including hosts like Tamron Hall, Touré, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Rev. Al Sharpton, and ubiquitous contributors like Joy Reid, Goldie Taylor, Karen Finney, Prof. Michael Erik Dyson, Chairman Michael Steele, Eugene Robinson, and Jonathan Capehart, is an organic result of the network’s editorial philosophy, rather than an end unto itself, says Griffin.

“It wasn’t like we said ‘Oh, we have to have a diverse person on here and there,’” he said. “We made a decision. We made a commitment in ideas, issues and everything – the audience followed, and that goes back to four or five years ago. As we grew, we recognized that it was the right thing to do. It’s giving a voice to people in these kinds of programs who don’t always get a voice. Our look is as diverse as any on mainstream TV. I’m incredibly proud of it. It’s not like we decided ‘We’re going to increase our African American viewership by 60%,’ but I’m thrilled that it happened, and it says a lot about what we’ve been doing over the last few years.”

2012 was also a year in which race played a central part in some huge news stories, and MSNBC was instrumental in putting them on the public’s radar.

RELATED:  WSJ: African-Americans Haven’t Fared Well Under Obama

Megyn Kelly: Press Room ‘Erupted’ In Laughter And Applause At Obama’s ‘Horses And Bayonets’ Line

Mediaite.com;

Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly revealed that, while she watched the final presidential debate from the press room at Lynn College in Florida on Monday night, the assembled journalists burst into laughter and applause when President Barack Obama landed a rhetorical blow against Mitt Romney. When Romney said that Obama has presided over the downsizing of the Navy, Obama shot back “We also have fewer horses and bayonets.” Kelly claims that reporters exalted over this chiding of his Republican opponent. 

“I think Gov. Romney maybe has not spent enough time looking at how our military works,” Obama said Monday night in response to the charge that he had refused the Navy’s request for more assets. “We also have fewer horses and bayonets because nature of our military has changed. “There are these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Speaking with conservative radio host Michael Reagan, Kelly said that she said that she observed the media’s satisfaction with that comment first hand. 

“I was in the spin room in Boca when the president made that comment and I can tell you that the media literally erupted around me – laughing and many clapping,” said Kelly. 

Reagan said that the comment revealed the president’s level of arrogance, as opposed to his father, President Ronald Reagan, who he said did not ‘talk down’ to those he was negotiating with or debating against. 

RELATED: When Gotcha Goes Horribly Wrong: Pataki Swats Back at MSNBC's O'Donnell

Ann Coulter On Lawrence O’Donnell And Bill Maher: They ‘Date Black Gals So They Think They’re Freedom Riders’

Mediaite.com:

On Tuesday, Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy interviewed author and columnist Ann Coulter about her new book, Mugged, which takes a look at the racial politics of the left.

He kicked things off by playing a clip of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews defending his previous comments about the GOP essentially “stoking racism” for political gain to HBO’s Bill Maher last Friday.

Coulter said that the Democratic party has tried to take credit for things like, say, signing the Civil Rights Act, although “it was actually Eisenhower who got the ball rolling.” She alter added that she found it curious that Matthews “cites all the black people coming up to him and cites black people in other countries whom he refers to as ‘African Americans.’” This is because, she ventured, “here in America, he doesn’t have any black friends. He doesn’t have any black neighbors,” and a picture of his son’s wedding reveals “not a black face in the group.” If he’d been Republican, she added, he “would be convicted of racism in two seconds.”

Coulter also described why it is that she believes Democrats “use” racism for political advantage. Step one, she said, is “tell black people that Republicans hate them for 100 years. Actually only since, I guess, the Democrats finally started to come on around the mid ’60s. Once the civil rights battles were won, you have liberals playacting against nonexistent racism and telling the world that Republicans and Tea Partiers are racist.” Step two, she continued, is to “taunt Republicans for not having more blacks in their party.”

She said that, through writing the book, she was surprised to find all the time that the President directly engages in “race baiting.” Coulter also accuses the left of being quick to label their opponents racist for such things as opposing ObamaCare, being a Tea Party member, or — and here she cited a conversation with Alan Colmes — for saying “the blacks” rather than “blacks” or “black people.”

Coulter later claimed that liberals — specifically Rachel Maddow — introduce black guests and being extremely special or “wicked smart,” while “poor nerd white guest” Chris Hayes simply gets a dry, straightforward intro.

She also joked that some liberals, Lawrence O’Donnell and Bill Maher among them, think of themselves as “freedom riders” because they date “black gals.” 

RELATED: Ann Coulter Gets Into Heated Battle On The View, Whoopi Goldberg Gets Bleeped

Neil Cavuto Rips MSNBC And Lawrence O'Donnell for Questioning Ann Romney’s Therapeutic Horse Riding

Glad somebody finally slapped down the racist, creepy, condescending a-hole that is Lawrence O'Donnell:

“I told myself I wouldn’t butt in,” Neil Cavuto told the audience today, before addressing those from “a network with MS in their name” over their mockery of Ann Romney‘s horseback riding. Romney uses horses for treating her multiple sclerosis– an illness Cavuto too has, which led him to explain the legitimacy of this treatment and chide the “condescending, sanctimonious twits” who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of MS as a disease and the need to deal with its shortcomings.  


“Because I have MS, my comments might be taken with a grain of pity salt and more than a hint of sympathy bias. Well, guilty as charged,” Cavuto admitted candidly, explaining that this was why he tried to avoid commenting, but “I’ve had enough of condescending commentators on another news channel,” and was concerned that their comments “risk being accepted by an audience that might not know the facts that well.” Explaining that several medical sources find some good in using horseback riding to treat problems with walking in those with MS, he reiterated that “this is a legitimate therapy”– not one he uses, he joked, “because I’m generally bigger than the horses and I don’t want to hurt them.” 

“It seems odd to me a network with the very letters MS in its name wouldn’t resist making fun of someone who has to live with MS every day,” Cavuto continued, “Ann Romney doesn’t need their pity, just their accuracy.” “These guys taking pot shots at Ann Romney are horses’ asses,” he continued, also calling them “condescending, sanctimonious twits who are allegedly healthy,” and their mocking “pure, unadulterated horse… stuff.”

RELATED: Lawrence O'Donnell Mocks Ann Romney for Riding Horses to Combat Multiple Sclerosis

MSNBC’s Year Of Apologies

Mediaite.com:

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.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 4/9/12

Veteran Newsman Mike Wallace Dead At 93

Santorum Hoping To Resume Campaign This Week After Tending To Daughter

Ousting Obamacare Would Protect Us

Tebow Draws Big Crowd To Texas Easter Service

That ‘Inadvertent’ Editing at NBC, NBC Fires Producer Over Edited Trayvon Martin Call

Gingrich Says Romney ‘Most Likely’ Nominee, Would Back Him In Nov.

Republican Challenge With Blacks And Hispanics

Baptist Leader Schools Andrew Sullivan: Evangelical Tie to GOP 'Pales in Comparison' to 'Black Church' and Democrats

Howard Kurtz Scolds Mika Brzezinski for Moderating White House Forum on Obama's Job Performance

Obama Spreads More Fertilizer Following Latest Jobs Report

The Earth Is Full

Anti-Mormon Bigotry Repeated By MSNBC Host Lawrence O'Donnell

Shocker: Lawrence O'Donnell Slams Bill Clinton And Lady Gaga For Birthday Flirting

It's just amazing to see Democrat Presidents like Obama, Bill Clinton and other politicians like Harry Reid interact with a dirty, immoral, no-talent, Madonna-wannabee like Lady Gaga. But then it's another example of how Godless liberals have taken over the Democrat party. Have they no shame? None whatsoever.

Al Sharpton Defends A White Man's Right To Call A Black Teenager A Coward For Not Participating In Civil Rights Movement

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Again, Herman Cain does not get a pass for allowing the condescending prick that is Lawrence O'Donnell to make him look like a buffoon when he went on his show to promote his book the other day. First, Cain looked totally unprepared which says a lot considering that everyone on the planet knows how leftwing MSNBC is (Cain couldn't of thought he was going to get a fair interview). Secondly, why any conservative would go on MSNBC to promote their book is beyond me, it's not like any of the few viewers MSNBC has would have any interest in buying a book authored by a conservative. Third, in defending O'Donnell's right to call out Cain for "sitting on the sideline" during the civil rights movement Al Sharpton loses all credibility. Not that Mr. Race-Baiting, Tawana Brawley Lying, FBI informant, "I'll Never Criticize Barack Obama" had any left. But when you consider that O'Donnell has gotten flack both the Left and conservatives for the 'distressing' racial undertones he put on display during the interview with Cain, one might think that even a total shill like Sharpton would be able to see something a little disturbing there. But instead he deflects, lies and comes off like the total hack that he is:

Lawrence O'Donnell has taken a fair amount of heat for his interview with Herman Cain this week, where the host questioned both Cain’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. Last night, O’Donnell faced a panel made of MSNBC staples Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris Perry and The Grio‘s Goldie Taylor who had a word or two to say about his performance, the strongest coming from Harris Perry, who questioned why white politicians alive at the time did not get “litmus test” questions on their positions on race at the time.


O’Donnell replayed key parts of his interview along with comments Cain made at the Values Voter Summit yesterday accusing O’Donnell of veering into absurdity, and promptly gave the floor to Sharpton, who did not consider any of O’Donnell’s questions out of line. “I don’t see where you instructed him on how to be black or anything else,” he noted, but rather, “it is Mr. Cain who has decided to call blacks brainwashed,” which opened him up to criticism on his positions on the matter. He also argued that Cain attacking the Occupy Wall Street protests made his role in the Civil Rights movement fair game: “How can you call people unamerican for assembling and protesting now and not have considered those same tactics unamerican then?”


Harris Perry was far less comfortable with O’Donnell’s interview, though she did not say anything negative about O’Donnell’s performance but, rather, how his questions reflected the place black politicians have in American society. She told O’Donnell the interview had her “squirming with discomfort” because of the potential “implication that those that did not participate were necessarily cowards,” warning that “we have to be so careful when we are not facing that imminent violence ourselves.” She noted it was only a minority that participated in protests and, furthermore, this was a non-issue for white politicians. “I can’t remember anyone ever asking a white politician who is of the same age where they were during the sit-ins,” she noted, adding that it “worried” her when white politicians did not face the same challenges to their patriotism.


On his end, O’Donnell justified his questions arguing that it was worth putting the questions on the table: “we can go into those conversations without presuming there is a right or wrong answer.” Taylor jumped in to add that had Cain not been “righteously indignant at the questions” but had explained himself in a more appropriate way, or fessed up to simply not participating without being angered by the question, he would have found his response more adequate. Sharpton also added that he felt the questions were appropriate precisely because Cain’s “brainwashed” comment had “totally discarded the fact that it was based on public policy” and the role of Democratic Party had in passing civil rights legislation.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Lectures Herman Cain On Fighting For Civil Rights, Service In Military

One thing about Herman Cain that I don't like is how he can look brilliant one day and utterly stupid the next. I mean, did he not do any research on what a condescending prick Lawrence O'Donnell is? Did he have no clue that a rapidly leftist station like MSNBC would not treat him fairly? Was he or his team of handlers not aware of how much the mostly-white and liberal MSNBC anchors love to race-bait? Cain just looked so unprepared here and frankly O'Donnell played him for a fool no matter how much of an ass he is:

White MSNBC commentator and admitted socialist Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t think Herman Cain did enough to enhance civil rights and support the Vietnam War.


On “The Last Word” Thursday night, an “offended” O’Donnell accused GOP frontrunner Herman Cain of shirking his duty on both counts.


Quoting from Cain’s book, O’Donnell read, “The civil rights movement was a few years in front of me. I was too young to participate when they first started the freedom rides and the sit-ins. So on a day-to-day basis, it didn’t have an impact. I just kept going to school, doing what I was supposed to do, and stayed out of trouble. I didn’t go downtown and try to participate in sit-ins. Counter to our real feelings we decided to avoid trouble by moving to the back of the bus when the driver told us to. Dad always said, ‘stay out of trouble,’ and we did.”


“Where,” an accusatory O’Donnell asked, “do you think black people would be sitting on the bus today if Rosa Parks had followed your father’s advice?”


Cain explained he was too young to participate, but said had he been in Rosa Parks’ situation, he would have handled himself differently. Also, Cain blasted O’Donnell for taking his book out of context.


Later in the broadcast, O’Donnell took his prosecutorial tone to Cain over his service in the Vietnam War. Cain told O’Donnell he served his country as a civilian, and even offered himself up for the draft. However, the U.S. Navy had told him they would have preferred him in the civilian role, he explained.


That, it seems, wasn’t good enough for O’Donnell.


“I am offended on behalf of all the veterans of the Vietnam War who joined, Mr. Cain,” O’Donnell said. “The veterans who did not wait to be drafted like John Kerry, who joined — they didn’t sit there and wait to find out what their draft board was going to do. They had the courage to join and to go and fight that war. What prevented you from joining, and what gives you the feeling that, after having made that choice, you should be the commander in chief?”


Cain left it at “a difference of opinion,” and asked O’Donnell if they could discuss other issues.

RELATED: Lawrence O’Donnell’s Racially Charged Attacks A Political Gift To Herman Cain

Lawrence O’Donnell Panel: Chris Christie Must Diet If He Wants To Run For President

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As smug, cocky and elitist as it sounds coming from the mouths of liberals, they're all right. If he really wants to be President Chris Christie needs to lose the weight:

Now that it appears the media is finally over the hill on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 2012 speculation, the focus on the governor has shifted to what would happen if he actually ran, and naturally the “is Chris Christie too fat?” question emerges front and center. On last night’s Last Word, Lawrence O’Donnell asked his panel– campaign strategist Ed Rollins and columnist Jonathan Alter– what the odds were of Christie making a presidential bid with his figure intact. The consensus? Expect a diet if a campaign was on the horizon.


O’Donnell noted that, should Christie have a legitimate interest in running in 2012, he had a bit of a problem on his hands: “he would have to tell the lie that he is ready to be president or explain why he was lying when he said [he wasn't ready].” Should he jump that hurdle, however, he still had a serious image problem. Showing his panel an ad former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine aired accusing Christie of “throwing his weight around,” O’Donnell wondered whether that line of attack could be useful in a presidential run, and while that particular ad was unsuccessful, the panel did consider weight an issue.


Rollins, who had run the 2008 Mike Huckabee campaign, noted that “my last advice to my friend Mike Huckabee, who lost 100 pounds [before the election, was] he needs to lose forty pounds.” He added that Mississippi governor Haley Barbour had lost 35 pounds while considering a presidential run also, and that it was entirely common for contenders to do so. Alter agreed that it was important because of the rigor of a presidential campaign. “It’s a distance event; it’s a marathon.” He predicted that, should Christie run, he would “announce that he’s going on some sort of diet– like Oprah’s diet,” that would turn into something of an event to work in his favor.


As for his semi-moderate positions on things like gun control, the panel agreed that they were dangerous positions to take in a primary like the one Republicans are currently in. That said, Alter found the positions somewhat inevitable to find in a blue state Republican: “to survive in the Northeast as a Republican,” he argued, “you have to be fairly progressive on social issues.”

Condoleezza Rice Takes Lying Liberal Lawrence O'Donnell To The Cleaners On Saddam Hussein And Iraq

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I mean, did O'Donnell really think he could get away his normal leftist, bully tactics on a woman of high magnitude like Condi Rice? Did he and leftist minions at MSNBC not do their research? I mean the woman's not only the former Secretary of State, but a university professor and Hoover fellow. Not since George Pataki (who's really good at taking down lefties in public debates) have I seen a liberal get taken down like this by a conservative. Rice called out O'Donnell on his lies, schooled him on just how much of a threat Saddam Hussein really was and finally, for good measure, basically told him what a hypocrite he is in comparing liberal support for Libya vs. Iraq. This interview is must-see viewing for any Republican seriously trying to get elected President in 2012. Really now, this is How To Take Down A Self-Righteous Liberal 101.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Gets Owned By Rev. Franklin Graham

Source

Crazy Lawrence O'Donnell Screams At U.S. Congressman Over Planned Parenthood Funding

I've said it before, I just don't get why Republicans even bother with going on any of MSNBC's nighttime news programs. I mean, at 8pm you have a psycho "socialist" with an extreme, leftwing agenda. At 9pm you have a gay woman with an extreme-left wing agenda who repeatedly lies and/or spouts half-truths. And now at 10 you have an all-around psycho and failed liberal radio host. Why waste your time going on either O'Donnell, Maddow or Schultz when you know you're just going to get disrespected, smeared and shouted at? Really, why:

Lawrence O’Donnell has honed his program to be one of the more difficult venues for a right-wing politician to attend, and tonight solidified that reputation. Inviting Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Graves over to discuss the hurdles of the current budget crisis, O’Donnell repeatedly asked Rep. Graves about his opposition to funding Planned Parenthood, before finally dramatically concluding Rep. Graves “should be ashamed of yourself.”


O’Donnell began the interview on a contentious note, asking after a brief introduction whether Rep. Graves was “one of the voices in the meetings with [Speaker] John Boehner shouting ’shut it down, shut it down!’” Rep. Graves, appearing confused, replied that he “didn’t know of anyone shouting” or “recall that at conference meeting,” affirming that the Republicans are “unified.”


O’Donnell then kept the focus of the debate on Planned Parenthood for most of the interview, asking Rep. Graves whether he would vote for a bill that did not completely defund the organization. “If there is wasteful spending, I will not support it,” he replied, though this was not a clear enough answer for O’Donnell. He finally pushed the Congressman to assert that, yes, “Planned Parenthood is absolutely wasteful spending,” and that he “had not intentions of voting to fund Planned Parenthood, and I don’t think the American people want us to fund Planned Parenthood.” Getting this far, O’Donnell made the debate a zero-sum game: “you are willing to stop payment for the troops in order to stop any funding for Planned Parenthood if it comes to that?” he asked.” “You are the only one that can tie Planned Parenthood to defending our nation,” Rep. Graves replied, somewhat surprised.


The point seemed to have agitated both parties significantly, as it triggered a bit of barely-intelligible crosstalk until, above both voices, O’Donnell could be heard telling Rep. Graves he “should be ashamed of himself” and his “insane bill.” Despite the degeneration of the discussion, however, it ended amicably enough, Rep. Graves inviting himself back on the show in the future.

Ann Coulter Returns To MSNBC! Coulter And O’Donnell Debate 2012 GOP Prospects

Mediaite.com:

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter made a triumphant return to a place few ever expected to see her in the near future, or at least hadn’t since the latest shakeup at the network: the 8 PM hour at MSNBC. In an exceedingly friendly conversation with host Lawrence O’Donnell, Coulter explained her CPAC thesis that only New Jersey governor Chris Christie was capable of toppling President Barack Obama in 2012 and defended the conservative movement from O’Donnell’s criticism.


Welcoming back her old colleague, O’Donnell began the interview by asking Coulter jokingly whether MSNBC still appeared on her resumé. “It’s the only network I’ve ever worked for,” she responded, tongue firmly in cheek. She then began to defend the point she made during her speech at CPAC once again, that only Gov. Christie was capable of defeating the incumbent president. O’Donnell tried to corner Coulter into calling former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney a “loser”– a term she had used before– but in these hostile waters chose to refrain from adopting. Instead she insisted that, while, as in 2008, she wasn’t a huge fan of anyone, “we have to run somebody, and it’s obviously got to be Chris Christie.” She noted that she did not 100% agree with him on everything, but that the points on which they disagreed, “we can talk him out of it,” and that while “we can change someone’s mind, you can’t inject IQ into a candidate.”


As for other individuals that may or may not run for president in 2012, she asserted that she didn’t perceive Sarah Palin as a viable candidate because, as it stands, “she sends out a Twitter on death panels and everyone reads about it,” giving her little incentive to attempt to run for president. As for everyone else? Well, “I don’t want to attack them” will have to suffice as an answer from Coulter, for now.