Liberal on Liberal Violence, MSNBC’s Fineman Equates Lehrer’s Debate Moderation to ‘Criminal Negligence’
Howard Fineman lamnets how the president was on defense during the first presidential debate and called its moderator, Jim Lehrer, “useless” and criminally negligent for not following up on questions that would have benefited Obama
Upset NBC Reporters Whine: Why Didn’t Obama Bring Up 47 Percent? (Is “rope-a-dope” a dog whistle?)
On NBC News’ live October 3, 2012 presidential debate coverage a clearly upset David Gregory was shocked that Barack Obama didn’t hit Romney with the liberal media’s favorite talking point as he whined: “He didn’t bring up the 47 percent!” Obama not mentioning the hidden camera video of Romney talking about the 47 percent also stunned NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams who asked Savannah Guthrie: “Were you surprised we didn’t hear the number 47?”
Dem Debate Meltdown: Obama Surrogate Refers To ‘President Romney’
How utter was Mitt Romney’s rout of Barack Obama tonight? In the post-debate spin room, a hopelessly muddled Martin O’Malley, Dem guv from Maryland and supposedly an Obama surrogate, wound up referring to “President Romney”!
Brokaw: If Romney Performed Like Obama Did Last Night Campaign Would Be Over
“No excuses” — how noble of you, Ed. Yet absent from both segments was any mention of General Electric, parent company of MSNBC — in other words, your boss — paying no federal taxes in 2010. And by the way, $4.8 billion in taxes on $10.4 billion in profit is a tax rate of 46 percent — 11 points higher than the corporate tax rate of 35 percent. Which I’m sure is all the basis you need for yet another harangue against the wealthy as tax scofflaws.
One other thing, Ed (a frequent NewsBusters reader) — it’s David Cay Johnston, not Johnson. Given how frequently he’s a guest on your show, you should also know that by now.
“They work at the five yard line from either the left or the right and they do see the other end of the field as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil. And they use that language, when they talk about the other side, isn’t that part of the problem?” ~ Chris Matthews ~ NewsBusters
BLANKLEY: Well, if the last 240 years is any indication. But let me make a point here. Because in fact, it is on all sides. You talked about Sarah Palin’s gun site stuff. I’ve seen a democratic national committee posting, where in 2004, they had gun sites. They had it called “behind enemy lines,” the same phrase that you were quoting in the previous segment. I quoted Pelosi, calling people who’ve opposed Obama-care Nazis, et cetera.
[….]
BLANKLEY: The fact is that Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Senator Reid, all used the words “Nazis,” “dissenters,” “un-Americans” to describe their opponents. This is part of the American politics. We all know that this is an ugly.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Harry Reid’s used the term Nazi?
PRESS: Again, show me when.
BLANKLEY: No Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid used to call people who were opposed to him, evil. That’s the word. And I have it from a column that I wrote late last year. This is a reality. We all know that this is an ugly part of American politics and it always has been. I hope it changes — I hope it changes but I don’t think that it’s going to.
In last Thursday’s column, Paul Krugman admitted to having fun watching “right-wingers go wild.” One of the things that apparently delighted him was this map which Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page:
Each of the cross-hairs represents a Democrat from a conservative district who voted in favor of health reform. Immediately after highlighting the map, Krugman wrote:
All of this goes far beyond politics as usual…you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials….to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.
Really, Paul? I’ll search in vain?
The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office.
[….]
But wait, there’s more!
When Palin’s map became an issue, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rushed on MSNBC to denounce it, telling Chris Matthews:
I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.
Really, Chris? So what do you think about this map?
Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican” like this one:
Gateway Pundit has the View’s take on this, it goes as expected, after this video I want to post a few more videos:
Here is Nina Totenberg of NPR speaking about Republican Jesse Helms — take note she still works at NPR, but Juan Williams was fired for saying “less than this:”
Joy Behar herself has said many inflamatory things about Republicans:
Joy Behar repeatedly called Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle a “bitch” on “The View” Tuesday, and said that she is “going to hell.”
Behar’s comments came during a discussion of an ad that Angle released earlier this month. The ad, which focused on immigration and contrasted smiling white children with scowling Latinos, was called “the most overtly racist” ad of the entire campaign by Rachel Maddow on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” The “View” co-hosts were no less outraged by it, with Elisabeth Hasselbeck criticizing Angle for using children to stoke fear.
But it was Behar who really let loose on Angle.
“I’d like to see her do this ad in the South Bronx,” she said. “Come here, bitch! Come to New York and do it!”
“I’m not praying for her,” Behar shot back. “She’s going to hell! She’s going to hell, this bitch!”
Nancy Pelosi called Tea Partiers Nazi’s, even though no symbols were found like the one she describes:
Captain’s Quarters documented a time when Democratic Senator Byrd called Republicans Nazi’s:
Byrd Compares Republicans To Nazis On Senate Floor
Senator Robert Byrd, defending the minority’s right to filibuster on the Senate floor today, wound up his speech by comparing Republican efforts to eliminate the hijacking of the Senate on the Constitutional duty of confirming federal judges to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Not only did Byrd imply that the GOP equates to the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, he’s so proud of doing so he’s posted the speech to his own website:
Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.
But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that, “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.
Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.
And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
I just received an un-freaking-believable e-mail from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The entire Democrat machine has been tarring Tea Party activists and townhall protesters as Brown Shirts and fascists…and now they’re whining about Rush Limbaugh challenging their own fascist behavior. When in trouble, bash Rush.
On his MSNBC show this evening, Schultz asserted that corporations donate 1000 times more money to political campaigns than unions do. Or as Ed said, in his inimitably muddled manner,: “unions contribute 1/10th of 1% of their money that corporations put into campaigns. Now think about that: 1/10th of 1%. You got the corporate money over here you’ve got the organized labor money over here.”
How off is Ed? The National Review’s Rich Lowry has documented that in the last election cycle, three unions alone kicked in $170 million to Dem coffers. So corporations would have had to contribute . . . $170 BILLION to match Ed’s alleged 1000:1 pace just for those contributions, ignoring the donations that all other unions made!
I love the fact that Obama sold the Bush tax-cuts better than Bush did! NewsBusters h/t:
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: President Obama is one step closer to having his $858 billion tax compromise with the Republicans become the law of the land, and right now Nancy Pelosi is the only person in the world that can stop it. Now earlier today, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass this package by a vote of 81 to 19. Remember that number: 81. Only thirteen Democrats, five Republicans, and Bernie Sanders voted no.
Now, the Senate support for these tax cuts I think is pretty staggering. Let me show you this, compare it to this: in 2001, the Bush tax cuts passed the Senate by a vote of 58 to 33, and in 2003, the second round of these tax cuts passed 51 to 50, that of course when Dick Cheney broke the tie.
It’s kind of funny, isn’t it? I mean, this means that President Obama did a better job of selling the Bush tax cuts than President Bush ever did.
