| |
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 With Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election memoir due to be released in the next couple of days, the two-time failed presidential candidate appeared on CBS News Sunday Morning for a sit-down interview with host Jane Pauley. And as would be expected from someone working for the company publishing Clinton’s book, there was almost no pressing from Pauley on what Clinton did wrong. But there was plenty of connecting with Clinton on the pain of the embarrassing defeat.
The first question from Pauley sounded like a friend looking to console another: “So, I’m wondering. How are you?” And as if she was approaching a triggering topic, the CBS host asked Clinton for permission to talk about Election Day, 2016. “Can we talk about election day,” she asked gently. “Did you have any clue what the outcome of that day would be.”
“As the polls closed, Clinton supporters gathered in a New York City convention center, expecting to see history being made. But as the returns came in the celebratory mood began to fade,” Pauley recalled of Clinton’s tragic day.
One of Pauley’s toughest questions for Clinton wasn’t about her e-mail server or the pain Wall Street speeches. It was about the house the Clinton’s bought in anticipation of having to fill it with White House staff and the Secret Service. “And doesn’t it kind of haunt you,” she wanted to know.
“At a dining room table in that house, she wrote about what happened,” Pauley touted. “So what did happen? Hillary Clinton was supposed to make history as the first woman president of the United States.”
Pauley seemed to share some of Clinton’s resentment for those who voted against her. As Clinton was explaining how candidate Trump played to the “millions of people who were upset about gains that were made by others,” Pauley finished Clinton’s thought and blamed it on “millions of white people.” Clinton was quick to agree with the race baiting assessment.
When it came to covering the obligatory topic of the FBI investigation into the private e-mail server, the CBS host sympathized with Clinton. “A stream of explanations for her decision to use a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, never satisfied critics or the press,” she lamented, completely missing the irony of the fact CBS helped to downplay the scandal.
“Not even after the director of the FBI, James Comey cleared her any criminal charges … while adding a post script that stuck,” Pauley bemoaned, before playing a clip of Comey telling the public that Clinton and her team played fast and loose with classified information. “I don’t know quite what audience he was playing too other than some, you know, right-wing commentators, right-wing members of Congress, whatever,” Clinton told her.
There was no mention of the fact that Comey had drafted his recommendation of 'no action be taken' long before he had interviewed Clinton.
There was even a brief discussion of the infamous “basket of deplorables” smear Clinton launched against Trump’s supporters. Pauley claimed that energized Trump’s base, as if the decades of Clinton corruption wasn’t energizing enough. Clinton disagreed with Pauley on that point.
Before CBS played the interview, Pauley did disclose that CBS owns the company that was publishing Clinton’s book. And it’s clear by this interview Clinton allowed it because it would be one of the easiest possible.
Transcript below:
CBS News Sunday Morning
September 10, 2017
10:05 AM Eastern
(…)
JANE PAULEY: So, I’m wondering: How are you?
HILLARY CLINTON: I think I am good, but that doesn’t mean I’m complacent or resolved about what happened. It still is very painful; it hurts a lot.
PAULEY: Hillary Rodham Clinton, has spent the last ten months trying to figure out why she isn't president of the United States. Can we talk about election day? Did you have any clue what the outcome of that day would be?
 CLINTON: No.
PAULY: As the polls closed, Clinton supporters gathered in a New York City convention center, expecting to see history being made. But as the returns came in the celebratory mood began to fade.
(…)
PAULEY: The Clinton’s had acquired the house next door to accommodate White House staff and security during a second Clinton administration. And doesn’t it kind of haunt you?
CLINTON: No, I’m very happy we did it.
PAULEY: At a dining room table in that house, she wrote about what happened.
(…)
PAULEY: So what did happen? Hillary Clinton was supposed to make history as the first woman president of the United States.
CLINTON: I started the campaign knowing that I was going to have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president. It doesn’t fit into the stereotype we all carry around in our head. And a lot of the sexism and misogyny was in service of these attitudes like: “We really don’t want a woman commander and chief.
(…)
CLINTON: He was quite successful in referencing a nostalgia that would give hope, comfort, settle grievances for millions of people who were upset about gains that were made by others—
PAULEY: What you’re saying is millions of white people.
CLINTON: Millions of white people. Yeah, millions of white people.
 (…)
PAULEY: But there were serious self-inflicted wounds too. Were there things that, had you not but for that you might be the president?
CLINTON: Oh, I think the most important of the mistakes I made was using personal e-mail.
(…)
PAULEY: A stream of explanations for her decision to use a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, never satisfied critics or the press.
(…)
PAULEY: Not even after the director of the FBI, James Comey cleared her any criminal charges … while adding a post script that stuck.
JAMES COMEY: There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
CLINTON: I don’t know quite what audience he was playing too other than some, you know, right-wing commentators, right-wing members of Congress, whatever.
(…)
PAULEY: Why do you think that word deplorable had been circulating in your mind?
CLINTON: Well, I thought Trump was behaving in a deplorable manner…
(…)
PAULEY: You fed into that though when you said “basket of deplorables” you energized…
CLINTON: No, but they were already energized.
PAULEY: But you offended some people who didn’t personally feel deplorable at all.
CLINTON: I don’t buy that at all.
(…)
|
|
By Kristine Marsh
 Friday on The View, hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar revealed they were still in denial over the 2016 election results. Discussing the leaked excerpts from Hillary Clinton’s upcoming memoir, the two die-hard liberals at the table clashed with moderate hosts Paula Faris and Jedediah Bila, over the reasons why Clinton lost the election.
Joy Behar even went so far as to claim that Clinton really did “win” the election, while Whoopi went into conspiracy theory land, saying we would “never know” why Clinton really lost.
The conversation started by discussing Bernie Sanders recent television appearance, where he told Clinton to essentially “move on” after she blamed him for losing the election. That morphed into a discussion on why Clinton lost, and what chances she had at winning.
Whoopi began with a confusing spiel that seemed to argue that it was Fox News’ fault for Clinton losing, because they attacked Obama while he was in office and that irreparably damaged the Democrat party so she couldn’t win:
But let's be realistic. Do you really think she was going to win? Based on everything that the Democrats did when they let Obama -- left him out there floating and the flotsam and jetsam and all this stuff that Fox News did and all those folks. You know, there have been very few eight years of one party and eight years of the same party. It doesn't generally go back to back. The last time I think was Nixon and whoever came in after him was the last. Ford. And he pardoned. That was the last time we had a long stretch. When it wasn't Democrat, Republican, Democrat Republican. So given all the crap that Obama had to eat from his own party, I don't think Bernie was going to -- I don't think any Democrat was going to--people were going to vote --
Behar then revealed she was still clinging to the liberal conspiracy theory that somehow the electoral college didn’t count:
JOY BEHAR: But she did win. She did win! [applause]
BILA: She didn't win though because the electoral college is what determines---
Whoopi took a different approach, instead suggesting that the election was unfair and there was secret reasons as to why Clinton lost that we would “never” find out:
WHOOPI: I believe that was not going to happen. The truth of the matter is, if this election happened in any other country the way it happened here, we would have sent people to go and check. To see what was going on.
BEHAR: Yeah.
WHOOPI: We will never know. We'll never know. We'll never know.
Behar took Clinton’s approach in blaming everyone but Clinton, and called the book “patriotic” to all the Americans who didn’t think she got a fair shot:
BEHAR: But don’t forget the things that we do know are that Comey released this information about her two weeks or a week before the election. That was very detrimental to her campaign and everybody who was on the fence said well -- and they're saying crooked Hillary. And they're saying ‘Oh yeah crooked Hillary’ and he confirms it in a way and he says nothing about the Trump investigation and then you have the Russians interfering with our election. There were so many things that went against her that I think she has every right to write a book and speak about it. [ Applause ]
BILA: She has a right--
BEHAR: It’s patriotic and it’s in the interest of the country. [ Talking over one another ]
Host Paula Faris tried to bring up the fact that Clinton wouldn’t take any responsibility for losing the election, but Behar and Whoopi were already in fantasy land, and denied that Clinton lost “fair and square.” Again, Whoopi brought up her theory that the election was rigged against Clinton:
FARIS: I think at some point you also have to take responsibility and I think if she would say, you know what, I lost fair and square, I think the problem is --
WHOOPI: But we don’t know that she did lose fair and square. See that’s the thing. That’s what I’m saying.
FARIS: Hence when you play a game, you're gracious in victory and you’re gracious in defeat. There's nothing more annoying when you start to blame everybody else. You need to take some responsibility for what you did on the field.
WHOOPI: But your children aren't playing on a game field where the parents are coming and hitting the ball for them. And then saying we won. My simple point is this, had this election happened anywhere else the way it did, we as America would have gone in to check and see all the checks and balances. We'll never know what happened and now is the time for her to say ‘this is how I feel about what went on and I don't like this happened and this is how I feel and this is how it felt to me. This is how I see it’ and she has a right to do that.
As if all other cards hadn’t been played, Behar added the sexism card to the pile:
“Let's not forget misogyny played a big role in this. This country refuses to put a woman in power,” she added emphatically.
|
|
By Brad Wilmouth
Between Friday night and Saturday night, as Ali Velshi hosted some of MSNBC's live coverage of Hurricane Irma hitting Florida, the MSNBC host repeatedly pushed for there to be more discussion of "climate change" and how the U.S. government might try to effect it in the future.
Ironically, on Saturday night, as Craig Melvin hosted MSNBC for a couple of hours, he fretted that there had not been enough discussion of "climate change" even though Velshi repeatedly brought it up earlier that day, and even hosted an entire segment on it that morning.
On Friday night's All In program, host Chris Hayes brought up the issue, and, substitute hosting for The Last Word a couple hours later, Velshi also brought up "climate change" with Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado as a guest.
On Saturday morning, Velshi brought up the issue with Regalado again, and soon wondered if Florida Governor Rick Scott might change his mind about the issue because of the hurricane hitting his state.
At 11:37 a.m. ET, Velshi then held a seven-minute discussion about global warming without dissenting opinions on whether global warming is happening -- and if so, why it's happening -- as he was joined by three guests.
After going to NASA meteorologist Scott Braun for his reaction to EPA head Scott Pruitt's resistance to discuss global warming, Velshi turned to former EPA official Mustafa Ali and brought up Rush Limbaugh as he posed:
What do you say, Mustafa, to people who say this isn't the time for the conversation, or people like Rush Limbaugh who said this is media hype to advance a climate change agenda?
Mustafa charged that those who express such sentiments are being "disingenuous," and that those who oppose more spending on science are "putting people's lives at risk."
The MSNBC host then moved to his other left-leaning guest -- Tom Steyer of NextGen Climate -- who bitingly trashed skeptics of global warming theory, and compared them to a "drunk driver" who has been in a crash and does not want to talk about the problem of DUI:
Look, the fossil fuel interests are intent on keeping the energy system that we have now which is creating climate change. And the politicians who take money from the fossil fuel interests and then lie about what's happening are now watching what's happened as a result. So really the way I think about this is: Of course they don't want to talk about climate change right now because they're the people who have enabled the additional problems to happen.
We're not just looking at Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Jose -- we're also looking at record wildfires across the West. So, to me, this is like a drunk driver after an accident telling me, "Let's not talk about drinking and driving."
Later in the day, as Melvin hosted MSNBC during the 8:00 p.m. hour, he turned to MSNBC meteorologist Bill Karins and worried about whether "climate change" is getting enough attention:
We're of course still recovering from Harvey, there's still Jose that's sitting out -- Jose is out there, Katia tore through Mexico, and here we are talking about Hurricane Irma. We should point out, again, we're not even at the peak of hurricane season, National Weather Service promised us a busier hurricane season than usual.
It would seem to me that one of the things that's been a bit absent from the conversation the past few days: climate change. It's hard to believe that all of this can be purely coincidental. I don't want to put you on the spot as I put you on the spot.
A bit later, as he brought aboard liberal MSNBC host Chris Hayes as a guest for more discussion, Melvin again seemed concerned there had not been enough "climate change" talk:
There has been a part of this conversation -- at least it has seemed to me there has been noticeably absent over the last few days -- and I know this is a cause that is near and dear to your heart, climate change, and the fact that what we are seeing play out this summer can't just be a coincidence.
As Hayes made an argument that global warming was causing more flooding and more intense hurricanes, at one point he notably admitted that those who think like him on the issue had been "flummoxed" because there was a period of fewer hurricanes.
Below are transcripts of relevant portions of MSNBC's live coverage of Hurricane Irma from Saturday September 9:
11:37 a.m. ET
 ALI VELSHI: The fury of Hurricane Irma comes close on the heels of the powerful Hurricane Harvey, and right behind that is a category four hurricane, Jose. Is this climate change at work? For more on how climate change may be playing into this, I'm joined by former EPA environmental justice leader Mustafa Ali; Tom Steyer, founder of of NextGen Climate; and NASA research meteorologist Scott Braun. ... Scott, let me start with you. Donald Trump's EPA chief, the administrator, Scott Pruitt, said, in an interview, amid hurricanes, now is not the time to talk about climate change.
A lot of people who disagree with that, including the mayor of Miami -- a Republican, by the way -- who says now is exactly the time to talk about climate change because on a sunny day Miami has water coming up from its drains because of rising sea level, and if we don't take this seriously when things like this happen, we don't tend to take it seriously when nobody can feel climate change.
SCOTT BRAUN, NASA METEOROLOGIST: That's right, and you got to separate the problems, for example, with rising sea levels, which can exacerbate problems with major storms like this versus what the impact of climate change may be on the hurricanes themselves. ...
VELSHI (after noting measurements have shown sea levels have increased since several decades ago): ...What do you say, Mustafa, to people who say this isn't the time for the conversation, or people like Rush Limbaugh who said this is media hype to advance a climate change agenda?
MUSTAFA ALI: Well, I'd tell them that they're being disingenuous. There is no better time than this moment now. Actually, the conversation should have been started as soon as the new administration came in so that they could begin to think critically about the gaps that may be existing inside some of the policies that they were trying to move forward on and also to help them to make sure that they're making better decisions about the budgets and the impacts that happen especially in our most vulnerable communities when we're not being inclusive.
Also making sure that we're thinking about having the right science in place so if we have a couple of decades still of information that's needed to be garnered, let's make sure that we're supporting science so that we can make sure that we're doing the proper analysis in that space. So, you know, to them I'd say at best you're being disingenuous, and you're putting people's lives at risk.
VELSHI: Tom, I'm a money guy, and we are constantly talking about moneyed interests that are working for their profitability at stifling discussions on climate change because it's going to cause them to do things that are going to cost money. You're on the other side of that -- you are probably the biggest money guy who is trying to get people to talk about these issues. What are you up against? And are you succeeding in your efforts?
TOM STEYER, NEXTGEN CLIMATE: Look, the fossil fuel interests are intent on keeping the energy system that we have now which is creating climate change. And the politicians who take money from the fossil fuel interests and then lie about what's happening are now watching what's happened as a result. So really the way I think about this is: Of course they don't want to talk about climate change right now because they're the people who have enabled the additional problems to happen.
We're not just looking at Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Jose -- we're also looking at record wildfires across the West. So, to me, this is like a drunk driver after an accident telling me, "Let's not talk about drinking and driving."
(...)
8:08 p.m. ET
 CRAIG MELVIN: We're of course still recovering from Harvey, there's still Jose that's sitting out -- Jose is out there, Katia tore through Mexico, and here we are talking about Hurricane Irma. We should point out, again, we're not even at the peak of hurricane season, National Weather Service promised us a busier hurricane season than usual. It would seem to me that one of the things that's been a bit absent from the conversation the past few days: climate change. It's hard to believe that all of this can be purely coincidental. I don't want to put you on the spot as I put you on the spot.
(...)
8:53 p.m. ET
MELVIN: There has been a part of this conversation -- at least it has seemed to me there has been noticeably absent over the last few days -- and I know this is a cause that is near and dear to your heart, climate change, and the fact that what we are seeing play out this summer can't just be a coincidence.
CHRIS HAYES: You know, there's a few things that we know about how climate change affects extreme weather. One thing we know is that sea levels are rising, right? So when Bill (Karins) talks about that storm surge -- and storm surges are the most deadly part of any kind of catastrophic storm -- we know sea level rise is adding to that the same way that high tide does. ...
We also know that that water is warmer because ocean temperatures are rising. They're about the hottest they've ever been right now, and warmer water produces stronger storms. We also know, third, and this connects to Harvey, we have seen more extreme rain events. We have seen more and more flooding.
And a lot of the times, the focus is on the hurricanes, and there was a long period of time when we didn't have a lot of hurricanes -- this somewhat flummoxing hurricane drought that confused a lot of people and a lot of the modelists. But we do know, though, is that during that same period of time, an intensification and higher frequency of extreme rain, which is why we see more and more flooding in places like Houston even before Harvey getting several one-in-500-year storms. All of that now is as more energy is being put into the climate and into the atmosphere by those heat-trapping gases that come from carbon pollution.
And this is, you know, extreme weather is when it rears its head, right? It's easy to sort of say, "Well, it's a little warm today for March," or something like that, but the real tail risk, the real scary stuff is what happens to all the climate equilibriums when you keep forcing more and more energy into the atmosphere.
MELVIN: Chris Hayes, in Naples, Florida. It would be irresponsible for us to talk about the effects without talking at least about part of the cause as well. Chris, thank you.
|
|
By Geoffrey Dickens
 From psychoanalyzing Donald Trump as an “unhinged” “sociopath” to blaming Fox News and the GOP agenda for “re-animating” the Nazis, liberal reporters, writers and hosts have spent the last few weeks of summer using heated rhetoric to denounce conservative Republicans and Trump as a bunch of haters advancing a “white supremacy agenda.”
Trump’s DACA decision was deemed “one of the most cruel acts we’ve seen in the presidency” by CNN’s David Gergen. Former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw called it a continuation of the GOP’s long “war on Hispanics,” while MSNBC guest political analyst Karine Jean-Pierre claimed it was all part of Trump’s advancing of “a white supremacy agenda.” And the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin condemned that the “The party of Lincoln” was “driven by irrational anger” and that it deserved “extinction.”
The airwaves were also full of armchair psychotherapists as the likes of CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch observed that the “unhinged” Trump had displayed “many of the traits of a sociopath.”
Hollywood celebrities took their shots as well. HBO host Bill Maher claimed the “perfect storm” of Trump and Fox News had collected the “the DNA of the Nazis and re-animated it.” And it was all too much for Netflix host Chelsea Handler who demanded that the “generals surrounding our idiot-in-chief” remove the President from office.
The following is a collection of worst media and celebrity outbursts from the past month:
[LANGUAGE WARNING]
Trump’s “Cruel” DACA Decision = “White Supremacy Agenda”
“This is one of the most cruel acts we’ve seen in the presidency in a long time....I’m afraid since Charlottesville and the talk about the white supremacists and putting them on the same level as protesters....[The pardon of Sheriff Joe] Arpaio and now this....Increasingly there is a sign out there that’s been hung up in the White House or outside the White House saying, if you’re not white, you’re not especially welcome.”
— CNN’s Senior Political Analyst David Gergen on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, September 5.
“We’re hearing tomorrow that he might – he [Donald Trump] might do away with DACA, which is another moral line that he would be crossing, which is something that would be enforcing – advancing a white supremacy agenda, and also against what the majority of Americans want.”
— MSNBC guest political analyst and Bustle.com contributing editor Karine Jean-Pierre on MSNBC Live, September 4.
DACA Just Latest Attack in GOP’s “War on Hispanics”
“I think what happened is a continuation of the Republican determination to cut out Hispanic votes on their side, for as long as we can see....For a long, long time, the Republican Party has been declaring war on Hispanics in this country.”
— Former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, September 6.
Racist GOP Deserves “Extinction”
“Of all the actions Trump has taken, none has been as cruel, thoughtless or divisive as deporting hundreds of thousands of young people who’ve done nothing but go to school, work hard and present themselves to the government. The party of Lincoln has become the party of Charlottesville, Arpaio, DACA repeal and the Muslim ban. Embodying the very worst sentiments and driven by irrational anger, it deserves not defense but extinction.”
— Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin in September 4 online blog post “Ending DACA would be Trump’s most evil act.”
Trump Voters Deserve to Get Flooded?
“My story was focused on climate change and on the idea that middle class and poor people would be some of the first people hurt by climate change and there’s this idea that these storms, these hurricanes are getting worse and worse, scientists say, and that working class and poor people, poor people that voted for President Trump, that are excited about this presidency, that thought his presidency would improve his lives, that these are the same people who can’t afford to get into their car and drive four or five hours, or can’t afford a hotel room to try to escape these floods.”
— New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House,
August 28.
MSNBC Then and Now
“[Donald Trump is] going to Texas tomorrow and there’s real concern that his going there is going to have to divert, at least a little bit, some resources away from the rescue effort and toward him.”
— Host Katy Tur on MSNBC’s Meet the Press Daily, August 28.
Vs.
“New Orleans. For him [George W. Bush], it is a shame, in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there and he might not have looked so much like a 21st century Marie Antoinette.”
— Host Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown, September 5, 2005.
Psychoanalyzing “Crazy” “Sociopath” “Basket Case” Trump
“[Republican] members publicly, privately are acknowledging that guy is a basket case, that he cannot serve, he cannot lead the party. My regret is they’ve all been so cowardly for so long and did nothing to stop him and it took this long to whisper on background that he was unfit. Where were the folks seven months ago, ten months ago, two years ago?”
— Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, August 22.
“I did some homework and there’s nothing glib about this....‘How to Determine if Someone is a Sociopath.’ A person – a sociopath is a condition that prohibits people from adopting to ethical and behavioral standards of a community....They believe their own beliefs and opinions are the absolute authority and disregard others....They have trouble suppressing emotional responses like anger, impatience or annoyance. They do bizarre, risky, and outrageous things without assessing repercussions. They’re professional liars. They fabricate stories and make outlandish, untruthful statements and they get comfort with their lying....They’re manipulative....And it’s interesting so many of the traits of a sociopath that this man [Donald Trump] is displaying.”
— MSNBC analyst Donny Deutsch on Deadline: White House, August 23.
“It’s usually after the microphones are off, of after the stories been filed, after the paper has been put to bed, people’s concerns and fears and questions come out. Questions that often feel out of bounds, off limits, too hot for TV. Questions like these: Is the President of the United States a racist? Is he suffering from some kind of illness? Is he fit for office?...My impression has been since President Trump’s inauguration, there’s been a lot of tiptoeing going on. His actions have been described as un-presidential, as unhinged, and sometimes even crazy.”
— Host Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources, August 20.
“Now we’re getting the ramifications as a nation of what having a sick man in the White House means. He’s not mentally stable...I think we’re at that state now when the five generals of the joint chiefs of staff have to go out and enter politics and say we want nothing to do with what the president is saying. It is a crisis going on in the White House, and it is about Trump’s fitness for command.”
— CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley on Reliable Sources, August 20.
“Unhinged” Trump Delivers Speech Devoid of “Reason” “Facts” and “Sanity”
“He’s unhinged, it’s embarrassing and I don’t mean for us, the media because he went after us, but for the country. This is who we elected President of the United States....There was no gravitas. There was no sanity....If you watch that speech as an American, you had to be thinking what in the world is going on? This is the person we elected as President of the United States? This petty, this small, a person who who’s supposed to pull the country together?”
— Host Don Lemon reacting to Trump speech in Arizona, on CNNTonight, August 22.
Russia Is Bad But Trump’s Disregard for Environment Will Kill Us
“The Russia investigation has the potential to be the biggest scandal in American political history. But even if it ends up bringing down a presidency in spectacular fashion (and I think we are still a long, long, way from that happening), historians may look back at it as a blip compared to a scandal that has the ability to damage our planet irrevocably — a process that is already well underway. Make no mistake, the inability of many of our nation’s elected officials to take climate change seriously is a scandal of epic proportions. It is the equivalent of seeing hostile troops massing at our borders and saying ‘Nevermind. No need for alarm. That’s just fake news.’”
— August 8 Facebook post by disgraced former CBS Evening Newsanchor Dan Rather.
Maybe Ask that Question to Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Etc.
“Eric Bolling suspended from #Fox News for sexting. Serious question: Does political orientation predict harassment?”
— August 5 tweet from MSNBC political analyst and Huffington Post Editorial Director Howard Fineman.
“Should It?”
“If North Korea sent missiles toward Guam or the US, could the US missile defense system shoot them down? Should it?”
— August 10 tweet from The Associated Press’s official Twitter account.
America Founded by “Theocratic Cult of Religious Nuts”
Author/public radio host Kurt Andersen: “America is exceptionally religious, has always been exceptionally religious compared to the rest – ”
Host Charlie Rose: “Founded by people who were seeking religious freedom.”
Andersen: “Well that’s one – that’s a charitable way of putting it. Founded also by a theocratic cult of religious nuts.”
Rose: “Okay. Right, right.”
— PBS’s Charlie Rose show, August 7.
Keith’s Twitter Tirades
“Gorka resigns. So the Day isn’t a total loss. Now leave the country, @SebGorka, you Nazi fuck.”
— August 25 Tweet by former MSNBC host and current GQ commentator Keith Olbermann.
“You and @Potus can go fuck yourselves, you racist Nazi fucks.”
— August 25 Tweet directed at Sheriff Joe Arpaio by former MSNBC host and current GQ commentator Keith Olbermann.
“The hurricane is going to do less damage to schools than you are, Motherfucker”
— August 26 Tweet by former MSNBC host and current GQ commentator Keith Olbermann in response to tweet from Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos: “Our prayers are with all those in the path of #HurricaneHarvey. @usedgov stands ready to assist impacted schools.”
Hideous Headlines
“How Trump is enabling famine”
— Headline for August 20 column by Washington Post Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl.
“Let’s Blow Up Mount Rushmore”
— Headline for August 17 Vice.com post by Wilbert Cooper about removing Confederate statues. The headline was later changed to “Let’s Get Rid of Mt. Rushmore.”
“Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism”
— New York Times headline for August 12 article by University of Pennsylvania Professor Kristin Ghodsee.
“Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence”
— Headline to August 18 CNN.com article by reporters Sara Ganim and Chris Welch. The headline was later changed to “Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement.”
Fox News and Trump “Re-animated” the Nazis
“I truly believe Fox News, as much as we blame them all the time, it’s not enough. They are the Jurassic Park that took the DNA of the Nazis and re-animated it. I absolutely believe that. I believe that without Fox News for years giving the kind of poison they give over their airwaves, putting it into people’s heads, and then the Internet I think, which, people say they’re radicalized on the Internet....Before if you were a neo-Nazi, unless you found somebody in town at the coffee shop, now you can find them on the Internet. And then the President gave permission to them. So, Fox News, the Internet, Donald Trump that’s the perfect storm.”
— Host Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time, August 18.
Trump Responsible for Protestor’s Death
“Metaphorically speaking, yesterday the President stood in the middle of 5th Ave and shot somebody. Her name was Heather Heyer.”
— August 13 tweet by actor Michael Ian Black about Charlottesville protest victim.
Time to Overthrow Trump!
“To all the generals surrounding our idiot-in-chief...the longer U wait to remove him, the longer UR name will appear negatively in history.”
— August 11 tweet by Netflix host and comedian Chelsea Handler.
All Americans Should Kneel In Protest With Kaepernick
“Considering how black people have been treated in this country, the whole stadium should get on their knee for the national anthem.”
— Host Bill Maher discussing NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s protests on HBO’s Real Time, August 25.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
On a day mostly filled with hurricane coverage, CBS This Morning on Fridaymanaged to shove in some liberal bias. The co-hosts eagerly hyped Harvard University’s president and her denouncement of Donald Trump over the “cruel” end of DACA. Charlie Rose breathlessly related, “President Trump's decision affects dozens of current Harvard students.”
He quoted, “[Drew] Faust wrote in a message to the Harvard community, quote, ‘This cruel policy recognizes neither justice nor mercy.’” He added, “She went on to promise the university will maintain its existing financial aid policies and provide funding to students regardless of immigration status.”
Rather than challenge Faust at all, Rose offered her an open platform: “Tell me why you think this is so important to take a stand at this time on DACA.”
[The bias on CBS This Morning was sponsored by Volvo, Verizon and Hood cottage cheese.]
A partial transcript is below:
 CBS This Morning 9/8/17 8:41am ET
NORAH O’DONNELL: Harvard University's President Drew Faust is taking a stand against President Trump's decision to end the DACA program. The policy protects undocumented immigrants who arrived in this country illegally as children. It means they can go to work or go to school without fear of deportation.
CHARLIE ROSE: President Trump's decision will affect dozens of current Harvard students. Faust wrote in a message to the Harvard community, quote, “This cruel policy recognizes neither justice nor mercy.” She went on to promise the university will maintain its existing financial aid policies and provide funding to students regardless of immigration status. Faust is Harvard University's 28th president and the first woman to lead the school. She joins us now and we're pleased to have her here. Good morning.
 DREW FAUST: Good morning.
ROSE: I should say this will be your last graduation.
FAUST: Coming up in June. Yes it will.
ROSE: But you’ll stay in Cambridge and go back to being a historian.
FAUST: Go back to that, yes.
ROSE: Tell me why you think this is so important to take a stand at this time on DACA.
 FAUST: This was an issue that came to my attention soon after I became President. More than ten years ago when a group of undocumented students came to see me and described their lives. And here were these Harvard students, extraordinary scholars who had distinguished themselves in high school and were pursuing higher education and wanted to become doctors and inventors and scientists and writers and their lives were just suffused with uncertainty and fear that they might be picked up on the street any day. They might be sent back to countries they'd never known, because they might have been two or three years old when they came or even younger when they came to the United States. This issue seemed to me an important one, and so it's one I've been speaking out on and writing about and lobbying about for a decade now. The DACA program gave these students a measure of relief from that uncertainty and an ability to work, do work study and support their education, an ability to dream about the futures that meant so much to them and to all of us.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Do you think there's some merit to the argument by the Trump administration there should be a legislative remedy for this?
FAUST: I would hope we can get a legislative remedy and Senator Durbin's pushing of the D.R.E.A.M. Act over the years has been a very important commitment and one that would solve this problem, if it could be realized legislatively. So I do hope there will be an act that will protect these students, but in the meantime, they're now cast back into tremendous uncertainty and anxiety.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
On Friday’s Morning Joe, political analyst Mark Halperin was surprisingly honest about the liberal bias in the media as he assured that President Trump would receive positive press coverage as long as he kept striking deals with Democrats. “This will get good coverage if he works with Democrats for as far as the eye can see. It will produce more liberal policies, which a lot of people in the media like,” Halperin proclaimed.
He laughably argued that “The establishment media likes bipartisanship over ideology” and predicted: “He will get good coverage the more he works with them.” Halperin claimed that liberal reporters like him were “sick of covering failure” during the Trump administration and liked to see him “getting stuff done” – as long as it was on Democratic Party terms of course.
“So I think that through Halloween, if the President works with Democrats, and maybe beyond, he can get positive coverage and he’ll respond positively to that,” the pundit concluded.
Minutes later, co-host Joe Scarborough confirmed Halperin’s analysis by cheering Trump’s debt ceiling deal with Democrats: “...what happened yesterday, ideology aside, is that Washington worked for the first time in a very long time....And the President likes good coverage, well, okay, whether he likes good coverage or not, more importantly, Americans like seeing their government work.”
Later on the show, Axios CEO Jim VandeHei described how thrilled the President was with the media coverage of him caving to Democrats:
What’s interesting is Trump was on cloud nine yesterday. He was so jazzed that he watched your show, watched others, saw people praising him. He got on the phone with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, was all jacked up and bragging about the coverage. Nancy Pelosi asked him to tweet something positive about DACA and he does it. I mean, it’s like a movie. And the guy is just loving the last 24 hours.
The biased conversation was brought to viewers by Hewlett Packard, Golden Corral, and Oral-B.
Here are excerpts of the September 8 panel discussion:
6:12 AM ET
(...)
 MARK HALPERIN: Let’s talk about this idea about the President liking the coverage. One thing we know about the President, he likes good coverage.
JOHN HEILEMANN: Who doesn’t?
HALPERIN: This will get good coverage if he works with Democrats for as far as the eye can see. It will produce more liberal policies, which a lot of people in the media like. It produces a change in the storyline, which a lot of people like. The establishment media likes bipartisanship over ideology. It will – it could go on for a good long time. He will get good coverage the more he works with them. And the press – while the press likes covering failure, we’re kind of sick of covering failure, getting stuff done. So I think that through Halloween, if the President works with Democrats, and maybe beyond, he can get positive coverage and he’ll respond positively to that. And Republicans are gonna have to figure out how to deal with that because they can’t stop him from working with the Democrats, it’s easy for him now to work with them.
(...)
6:15 AM ET
JOE SCARBOROUGH: And John Heilemann, Mark was talking about how the President likes good coverage and almost making getting things done sound dirty. When actually, what happened yesterday, ideology aside, is that Washington worked for the first time in a very long time. Republican leaders and Democratic leaders came together on a topic that many people said was going to be difficult to solve, they got in the same room and they solved it. And the President likes good coverage, well, okay, whether he likes good coverage or not, more importantly, Americans like seeing their government work. I understand why conservatives are upset, but yes, this probably will happen again because nothing succeeds like success.
(...)
8:38 AM ET
SCARBOROUGH: So, Jim VandeHei, everybody’s been talking about how they’ve wanted bipartisanship for the past, oh, I don’t know, 200 years. Is it a good thing? Do you think that many opinion writers believe it is a good thing that there’s a bipartisan deal struck on hurricane relief and also increasing the debt ceiling?
JIM VANDEHEI: Listen, there is no doubt that to get that out of the way – Congress was going to fund – get the funding done for the hurricane victims and you gotta get rid of this debt limit because it just rattles the markets and always gets fixed anyways. What’s interesting is Trump was on cloud nine yesterday. He was so jazzed that he watched your show, watched others, saw people praising him. He got on the phone with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, was all jacked up and bragging about the coverage. Nancy Pelosi asked him to tweet something positive about DACA and he does it. I mean, it’s like a movie. And the guy is just loving the last 24 hours. So is this a long-term strategy? I'm with you, Eugene [Robinson], who the hell knows? But certainly he likes the instant gratification of the results that he’s getting.
(...)
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
Discussing the corruption trial of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Friday, political analyst Steve Kornacki predicted that it would be “unlikely” for Governor Chris Christie to be able to name a Republican to replace the disgraced Democrat, even after a criminal conviction. Why? Because the Senator would simply “hang on” to the seat until a Democrat becomes the state’s new governor in January.
“Chris Christie’s term is up...he will be out of the office by the second week of January. So if you were to get a conviction of Menendez in the near-term future, the challenge for Menendez...is could he hang on for a couple months until a Democrat becomes governor of New Jersey?,” Kornacki wondered. He assured the show’s liberal panelists: “I’m almost sure he would do this and I’m almost sure Democrats in the Senate would have his back in doing this.”
Rather express outrage at a politician potentially clinging to power despite a bribery conviction, Kornacki instead eagerly cited “precedent” set by another corrupt New Jersey Democrat decades earlier:
To the extent there’s a precedent on this, and you can always find a precedent for anything, the last senator who was convicted of bribery was 36 years ago, in New Jersey, in the same Senate seat, Harrison Williams, he was convicted in April of ‘81. He actually resigned his seat in the spring of ‘82, he managed to hold on for a year. So if that’s a precedent at all, I think Democrats can get Menendez to hang on for a few months after a conviction.
A key factor in Menendez being able to “hang on” to his seat for “months” would be how much political pressure is brought to bear on him and the Democratic Party. That will only happen if the public at large is made aware of his corruption. Sadly, the liberal media have refused to touch the story. NBC and ABC have completely ignored the trial so far and CBS has only managed mere seconds of coverage.
Kornacki’s skewed analysis was brought to viewers by GE, USAA, and Raymond James.
Here is a transcript of the September 8 segment:
8:41 AM ET
(...)
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And, Steve Kornacki, I’m sure Donald Trump would think it would be a lot more helpful if he had instead of 52 senators, Republican senators, perhaps 53. Could that happen in the next couple of weeks?
 STEVE KORNACKI: Well, I think it’s unlikely. You’re talking about the situation with Bob Menendez from New Jersey, he’s on trial now for bribery. If you look at the weight of the evidence the prosecution’s put forward, certainly there is a very decent likelihood, probability maybe that Bob Menendez won’t be long for the U.S. Senate.
Obviously you have Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, who theoretically would make the appointment to replace Menendez. The issue is this though, it’s timing. Chris Christie’s term is up, his second term’s up, he’s – he can’t seek re-election, he will be out of the office by the second week of January. So if you were to get a conviction of Menendez in the near-term future, the challenge for Menendez – and I’m almost sure he would do this and I’m almost sure Democrats in the Senate would have his back in doing this – is could he hang on for a couple months until a Democrat becomes governor of New Jersey? Because the Democrat who’s running in New Jersey, you know, is 30-35 points ahead, it’s barely even a race in New Jersey.
To the extent there’s a precedent on this, and you can always find a precedent for anything, the last senator who was convicted of bribery was 36 years ago, in New Jersey, in the same Senate seat, Harrison Williams, he was convicted in April of ‘81. He actually resigned his seat in the spring of ‘82, he managed to hold on for a year. So if that’s a precedent at all, I think Democrats can get Menendez to hang on for a few months after a conviction.
WILLIE GEIST: But you think it looks like he gets convicted at this point?
KORNACKI: Well, not being a legal expert, here’s the thing, the parallel that’s drawn here is the case with Bob McDonnell in Virginia. Now, McDonnell got convicted then got it tossed out because basically what the judge ruled in that case was you needed to have a clearer connection between the actions that the elected official took and the favors that were done. But in Menendez’s case, the volume of favors that were done is a lot bigger and the volume of actions that were taken is a lot bigger.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment