Chuck Todd has no basis for tweeting this garbage, yet like his buddy Jake Tapper, he feels compelled to play the false equivalency game - AGAIN.
Guess what politics needs now: instant replay reviews. Both Romney and Obama had their leaked videos missing important context
Mr. Todd, please stop insulting the intelligence of the American People. First of all, as many people have already pointed out, the Obama video was not "leaked." President Obama did not make those comments behind closed doors. He said them during a public forum. Secondly, Obama's comments (which are not even mildly controversial) were made almost 20 YEARS AGO!!!! Thirdly, President Obama's comments were known to the American people when John McCain used those tapes during the 2008 campaign. The American People heard and saw these comments for themselves, and they rendered their verdict on Nov 4, 2008 when Senator Obama was judged to be fit for the Presidency by a majority of voters. These tapes have been on Youtube for whoever wants them.
Thankfully, Mr. Todd has since received an onslaught of aggressive pushback on Twitter, including a challenge to be specific about where the Romney video was edited from MSNBC contributor and Mother Jones journalist, David Corn:
.@chucktodd what important context was missing from the Romney video? Please specify.
Something tells me that Chuckie won't be answering David's question any time soon.
Jake Tapper, like some of his other MSM counterparts (e.g., David Gregory) came to his Sunday show- ABC's "This Week" armed with GOP-based talking points ready to help Mitt Romney in his quest to reverse the nasty trend of his flailing poll numbers in the recent weeks. Tapper had on US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, and initially tried to bully her with his one-sided line of questioning about the recent events concerning Libya, Egypt & rest of the Middle East.
Tapper kept trying to insist that the Middle East hates the US now more than they ever did under GW Bush. Here is an excerpt from the transcript:
TAPPER: Look at this map, if you would. There have been protests around the world over the last several days. And President Obama pledged to repair America's relationships with the Muslim world. Why does the U.S. seem so impotent? And why is the U.S. even less popular today in some of these Muslim and Arab countries than it was four years ago?
Note the rapid sequence of Republican-sided framing talking points, especially the last 2 questions, neither of which are based in fact or empirical data.
And Here is Rice's response, which is quickly interrupted by Tapper:
RICE: Jake, we're not impotent. We're not even less popular, to challenge that assessment. I don't know on what basis you make that judgment. But let me -- let me point...
Tapper interrupts and continues to push his desired narrative:
TAPPER: It just seems that the U.S. government is powerless as this -- as this maelstrom erupts.
And Rice again responds (briefly interrupted by Tapper again):
RICE: It's actually the opposite. First of all, let's be clear about what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region...
TAPPER: Tunisia, Khartoum...
RICE: ... was a result -- a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting. We have also been very clear in saying that there is no excuse for violence, there is -- that we have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
But let's look at what's happened. It's quite the opposite of being impotent. We have worked with the governments in Egypt. President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Morsi in Egypt. And as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel in our embassies dramatically increased. President Morsi...
After a highly successful and exhilarating DNC convention the last few days, we should have expected and should have been prepared for the Republicans and their friends/allies in the media to come out swinging today with whatever remotely "negative" news or information that could be spun negatively, to deflate us with their false "Obama's doomed!" narratives.
Yet I see people engaging in all sorts of hand-wringing and sighing at today's unemployment report - which is not a bad report by any standard, but in fact a positive trend when you factor in the last five years jobs numbers for the same month of August. We just came from a beautiful convention, where we were presented with FACTS about this President's record of job creation. We were also presented with FACTS about what the Republicans have done in the last 4 years and are still doing to prevent any improvement on the economy.
So why are we simply rolling over and accepting the Republicans' and/or media's framing of today's jobs report? Since when is 96K new jobs a reason to feel defeated? That is 96,000 people who did not have jobs last month who are now employed. Think about this: In August of 2008, we LOST 84,000 private sector jobs. Furthermore, the margin of error in this report is 100K, so this jobs report is NOT statistically different from last month's report in which 141K private sector jobs were added!!
Yup folks, the MSM has received their marching orders from their bosses, who by the way happen to be fully Republican or Republican-leaning - as in Rove, Koch Brothers, Oil companies, Corporations, etc.
And now that the Republican Convention is over, there has been little or no bounce for Mitt Romney, whose speech was cited by right-leaning Gallup as being among the lowest rated convention speeches by a candidate in recent decades.
Romney's acceptance address received a weak grade relative to previous convention speeches. According to Gallup, only 38 percent of adults rated the Republican nominee's speech either good or excellent — the lowest rating given to such an address dating back to Bob Dole's speech at the 1996 Republican National Convention.
So be prepared to see an onslaught of negative spin, focus on controversies, gaffes, protests, who-is-upstaging-who type questioning, and diminishing of otherwise excellent speeches into foolish soundbites or side irrelevancies, etc. Be warned folks. The media is prepared to go negative.
I would advise anyone who currently subscribes to this rag to end your subscription promptly. This week, Newsweek Magazine is featuring it's cover story titled "Hit The Road, Barack. Why we Need a New President" This is nothing more than a smear attempt by a washed-up, has-been Harvard Professor, Niall Ferguson, a self-admitted Romney/Ryan supporter, who was an advisor to John McCain in 2008.
Of course, Newsweek wants people to know that Ferguson first and foremost is a "writer" and "historian" who just happens to think that Romney/Ryan would make a better President. But his propaganda piece is barf-worthy and bordering on fringe musings.
Even Paul Krugman, who at times has been highly critical of President Obama's economic policy, eviscerates Ferguson and tears down every single one of his anti-Obama lies with facts. Krugman ends his column with this
We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?
Last night on Twitter, before all the NC votes on the Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage (Amendment 1) were reported, I came across a tweet from journalist Josh Kraushaar (@hotlinejosh) of the National Journal which said this:
Many of the rural, heavily African-American tobacco counties in NC overwhelmingly back gay marriage ban. These counties voted 65%+ for Obama
He also tweeted this:
do you think Afr-American voters stay home if Obama comes out for gay marriage? Some find that hard to believe...
From both these tweets, it's evident that this guy's agenda is to not only pin the passage of the amendment on the backs of Black voters, but also by extension to those anti-same sex marriage votes to President Obama.
After pushing back vigorously on his propaganda with some of my own tweets which were fact-based, I decided to do some of my own research into the voting situation down in North Carolina to see what really drove the passage of the Amendment 1, because I was almost certain that the "Afr-American" voters that Mr. Kraushaar referenced in his earlier tweets had very little if any to do with the passage of this amendment.
Thanks to the good ole Internets and Youtubes, we have video footage of Romney during a 2007 GOP primary campaign giving his ideology on how the Federal government should treat poor, unemployed women who have young kids. Chris Hayes has provided video footage (article posted on the Huffington Post as well).
Romney is asked by an audience member: "...If you're elected President, what would be your plan to limit the amount of Welfare and unemployment dependency that our national is traveling in?"
2nd part of Romney's response:
"...I also like the idea that people who are receiving assistance - Welfare assistance, have the responsibility of working...In MA, 85% of people receiving a form of Welfare assistance had no work requirement and I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said for instance, that even if you had a child 2 years of age, you needed to go to work, and people said, "well that's heartless" and I said, "no, no I'm willing to spend more on Day Care to allow those parents to go back to work..."
The article later cites paraphrasing Romney:
Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF.
Here's the video from the Chis Hayes show:
Meanwhile, Ann Romney over the last few days, aided and abetted by the MSM, has been on a media blitz with her sudden advocacy for SAHMs:
"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Romney said on Twitter.
In other words, Ann Romney gets to "make a choice" while poor women should "not be given a choice." For a wealthy mother, staying at home is "hard work" and should be applauded and subsidized in more tax breaks that they don't really need. But for a poor mother, staying at home is undignified and not "real work" so they should be forced to work outside the home to gain some dignity.
So this is not really about staying at home versus working, it's about rich versus poor! Which is what it has ALWAYS been where Mitt Romney is concerned, and hence the Romney Doctrine of Motherhood:
Rich Stay-at-home mothers: Good, dignified HARD work - should be SUBSIZED to stay home.
Poor Stay-at-home mothers: Bad, undignified non work - should be FORCED to work outside the home.
Something which our dear media could never have predicted, President Obama is expected to nominate Darthmouth University President Jim Yong Kim to head the World Bank. Names on the short-list reportedly included Ambassador Susan Rice, Senator John Kerry, and Larry Summers.
According to reports from AP & sources:
The Korean-born Kim is a physician by training and a prominent figure in global health and development circles. Officials believe his experience will help counter criticism from developing countries that have grown weary of the U.S. stranglehold on the World Bank presidency.
President Obama will make this personnel announcement today at 10AM ET in the Rose Garden (livestreamed by Whitehouse.gov).
I guess the GOP establishment is in full panic mode, especially with the recent Marist poll showing President Obama beating Mitt Romney (their chosen candidate) by double digits in Ohio. So what do they do - they trot out former First Lady Barbara Bush to voice robocalls on Mitt Romney's behalf. The call goes as follows:
Hi, this is Barbara Bush calling from Romney for President on behalf of my friend, Mitt Romney. The Ohio Republican Primary is next Tuesday, so I’m calling to remind you to vote for Mitt. I’m supporting Mitt for one simple reason: America cannot survive four more years of Barack Obama, and Mitt is the man to lead America, and we need him now. If you have any questions, just call the Ohio campaign headquarters at 614-664-3485, or email us at TeamOH@MittRomney.com. Again don’t forget to vote for Mitt Tuesday night. Thank you for your time.
This call was paid for by Romney for President, Inc.
Here is some information about the origins of the OWS movement. It was not spontaneously started by a bunch of unemployed working-class or middle-class Americans. It was launched by a professional activist group who in 1989 started a company "Ad Busters" based in Vancouver, Canada, and which has networks in various countries. The company has it's own website on which they (1)advertise their bimonthly magazine, (2)solicit monetary donations, and (3)list projects they have founded (including OWS), among other things. The company claims to be anticonsumerist and anticapitalist, incisive.
According to Wikipedia:
Adbusters was founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz, a duo of award-winning documentary filmmakers living in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Just for the record, this is in no way a criticism of Canada as a country or of its citizens. I am fully aware that Canada is a big ally of the US, and very supportive of our President and of US citizens. This is just a fact that the company is happens to be based in Vancouver.
Ad Busters describes itself as a
"global network of artists, writers, activists, pranksters, students, educators, etc..who want to advance the new socialist activist movement of the information age. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift the way we will live in the 21st century."
So it looks like the media is going to help Sarah Palin run for President in 2012. And yes, they will promote her lies, racebaiting, and do anything necessary to help her win the WH. They have basically started campaigning for her, as I found out this evening.
I just happened to catch a glimpse of this evening's ABC world news in which there was a 3-minute segment on Sarah Palin's New Book. The segment begins with an introductory opening showing scenes from Palin's reality TV show in Alaska and her daughter's stint on DWTS, followed by a positive commentary from columnist Ron Brownstein:
"I think Sarah Palin is creating an entirely new route for communicating with the American public and for building a constituency."
As the ABC reporter cheerfully proclaimed: "Sarah Palin is EVERYWHERE!"
Yes, although this event has been spun around in different ways already by the MSM, and articles on this site, the postponing of this meeting by the Republican leadership is in no way a surprise to me. If anyone stops to recall what happened this February during the HCR meeting between the President and the Republican House caucus in Baltimore, I could certainly understand why the Republicans would postpone the meeting to try to delay such an event.