Talking to political strategist Stu Rothenberg on her 1PM ET hour show on MSNBC on Friday, anchor Andrea Mitchell saw the Medicare reform proposal in Congressman Paul Ryan's 2012 budget as a major negative for the GOP: “Obviously the White House feels very good right now….it's sort of like a tar baby situation where they're loving the fact that the Republicans are now voting on Medicare cuts.” In response, Rothenberg argued: “For the last year, the political debate has been about the President and about the President's performance. And now Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief and say, 'Ah, now we have something to shoot at, it's about Republicans.'” He later added: “I think the Democrats are much more comfortable with the comparison between the Democrats' performance and the Republican proposals.” Mitchell followed up by wondering if it was even possible for the Republican proposal to not to be a political disaster: “Is there a scenario, though, where the Republicans will get credit with independent voters, where elections are won and lost, for doing something? And that this Medicare – the Medicare tar baby, if you will, won't really be such a negative?” Rothenberg did see a possible political advantage: “I think it's possible. And I think we don't know….if we have an economic double dip, if we have increasing unemployment, I think the focus will be on the President's performance and back on Barack Obama and then the Republicans will say, 'See, we need a dramatic change.'” He went on: “…the Democrats are counting that the Republican proposal is too dramatic, too radical, too extreme, as they say. But if voters are dissatisfied with the President's performance come November 2012, they may be willing to take a chance on the Republican message of change.” Here is a transcript of the April 15 exchange: 1:35PM ET (…) ANDREA MITCHELL: Obviously the White House feels very good right now. They seem to be relishing this fight. They – it's sort of like a tar baby situation where they're loving the fact that the Republicans are now voting on Medicare cuts. STU ROTHENBERG: Right. MITCHELL: And it's more than cuts, it's a complete restructuring of Medicare. ROTHENBERG: For the last year, the political debate has been about the President and about the President's performance. And now Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief and say, 'Ah, now we have something to shoot at, it's about Republicans.' Remember those people last year who said the Republicans needed to present an alternative and their agenda, and the Republicans generally didn't before the election? That was because they were smart, they understood they needed the election – the midterm to be about the President. But now they're climbing out on the limb, whether it's Medicare, Medicaid, overall spending. And I think the Democrats are much more comfortable with the comparison between the Democrats' performance and the Republican proposals. MITCHELL: Is there a scenario, though, where the Republicans will get credit with independent voters, where elections are won and lost, for doing something? And that this Medicare – the Medicare tar baby, if you will, won't really be such a negative? ROTHENBERG: I think it's possible. And I think we don't know, because there are going to be so many events between now and November of 2012. We don't know how the President's going to react, or the Republicans are going to react, or what the economic news is going to be. But sure, if we have an economic double dip, if we have increasing unemployment, I think the focus will be on the President's performance and back on Barack Obama and then the Republicans will say, 'See, we need a dramatic change.' And, yes, the Democrats are counting that the Republican proposal is too dramatic, too radical, too extreme, as they say. But if voters are dissatisfied with the President's performance come November 2012, they may be willing to take a chance on the Republican message of change. — Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Continue reading …Aside from ABC's Jake Tapper, where were the denunciations from the media of President Obama's uncivil, hyper-partisan speech on the budget the other day at George Washington University (GWU)? That's a question that NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell asked on last night's “Media Mash” segment on Fox News Channel's “Hannity.” It was a speech that the president invited Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to sit in on, and “then savaged him.” “The Republicans seriously thought” the April 13 speech was “going to be a serious policy proposal” on the budget, but instead Obama “broadsided everyone with this amazing display of demagoguery,” Bozell noted. “Kudos to Jake Tapper of ABC who pointed out that it was the same Barack Obama who gave a speech before the Republicans last year saying that people better not do this kind of exact language that he used yesterday.” “This was something that the media needed to denounce for what it was, which was dishonest [and uncivil],” the Media Research Center founder added. Bozell and Fox News host Sean Hannity also discussed MSNBC's Chris Matthews hyperbolically saying the Ryan budget plan would “kill half the people that watch [Hardball].” “This is what we're up against,” Bozell observed. “There are no proposals on the Left to do anything about this, it's just that Republicans are now trying to kill people.” Also discussed was how on the April 6 NBC “Today” show host Matt Lauer fed leftist talking points to interview subject liberal Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.): MATT LAUER, from April 6 “Today”: And when you look at some of the things the Tea Party and others on the far right are asking for: no funding for Planned Parenthood, no funding for climate control, public broadcasting, does it seem to you, Senator, that this is less about a fiscal debate or an economic policy debate and they're making an ideological stand here?
Continue reading …On his 3PM ET hour show on MSNBC on Wednesday, host Martin Bashir enthusiastically reacted to President Obama's budget speech: “'We will invest in the future of America,' that's what President Obama just said in a much-anticipated speech on the budget…. He offered a series of broad proposals and said it's time for the wealthiest Americans to pay their way and share in taxes.” Moments later, White House correspondent Mike Viqueira joined Bashir and proclaimed: “..the President's speech was part soaring, speaking to the aspirations and character of a nation, if you will.” Bashir observed: “Mike, I don't want to sound as if I'm misrepresenting the President, but it appeared to me that he was suggesting that we can't be self-centered as far as fiscal policy is concerned. We can't simply slash programs everywhere without somehow expecting the wealthiest in society to contribute. Is that your impression?” Viqueira agreed and reiterated: “Well, the President did reach for, as I said, that soaring sort of rhetoric that speaks to the basic aspirations of people and the beliefs of what America is. He said, 'It tells us' – the Ryan plan, talking about the Republican plan – 'It tells us we can't afford the America we believe in.' So the President sort of laid out his vision for America.” Near the end of the segment, Bashir remarked: “When I hear the current discussion about cutting spending, I'm reminded of what Margaret Thatcher in Britain during the 1980's, when she dismissed the idea of a civic society and she said that all she wanted to do was focus on individuals. Isn't that what we now have, a president who wants shared sacrifices, an opposition that's solely focused on cuts that would appear to hit the most vulnerable without any consideration for raising taxes?” Viqueira replied: “And that's what the President did. He's done this before, quotes Abraham Lincoln, as he points out, the first Republican president, saying that the idea here for American government is to help those who can't help themselves. And they really are trying to encourage the coming battle to be fought on that – those grounds.” In addition to praising Obama's speech, Bashir also slammed Republicans for criticizing the President: “Republicans didn't even wait for the President to make his speech today before coming out with a scathing review of his handling of the issue….I'm curious about the reaction of the White House to entertaining a group of Republicans to morning coffee and then to hear them come out and immediately trash the President's speech even before he's delivered it.” Here is a transcript of the April 13 exchange between Bashir and Viqueira: 3:00PM ET MARTIN BASHIR: 'We will invest in the future of America,' that's what President Obama just said in a much-anticipated speech on the budget and his plan to tackle the nation's mounting debt and deficits. He offered a series of broad proposals and said it's time for the wealthiest Americans to pay their way and share in taxes. BARACK OBAMA: In December I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again. BASHIR: Republicans didn't even wait for the President to make his speech today before coming out with a scathing review of his handling of the issue. JOHN BOEHNER [REP. R-OH]: I have been pushing the President for months to engage in this discussion about our long-term fiscal mess. I'm glad that he's finally decided to engage in it. ERIC CANTOR [REP. R-VA]: This is vintage obama. He's been standing on the sidelines expecting the rest of us to make the tough decisions to lead this country. BASHIR: NBC's Mike Viqueira is live at the White House. And Luke Russert joins us live from Capitol Hill. Mike, can I begin with you? Before we discuss the President's speech, I'm curious about the reaction of the White House to entertaining a group of Republicans to morning coffee and then to hear them come out and immediately trash the President's speech even before he's delivered it. MIKE VIQUEIRA: Yeah, well, you know, Martin, I have to say part of that is sort of a set piece. I thought an interesting portion of the afternoon had to do with the fact that Paul Ryan, you saw his picture there, in the chiron over your shoulder, was sitting in the front row and the President spent a good amount of time absolutely bashing the plan that Paul Ryan has constructed, the actual detailed piece of legislation that's going to be on the House of Representatives' floor tomorrow and Friday. You know, the President's speech was part soaring, speaking to the aspirations and character of a nation, if you will. Part framework – and that word 'framework' should be emphasized, because White House officials on background have been using it over and over and over again today – it did not have sort of the granularity or details that would go with a legislative proposal. And part of it, and a significant part of it, really setting the President and Democrats apart from what Republicans are going to be doing and proposing and debating over the course of the next two days in the House of Representatives, specifically when it comes to tax reform. The President obviously feels the Republican plan is tilted more towards the wealthy. And Medicare, the valued but costly program for elderly, that the President accuses Paul Ryan and Republicans of trying to privatize. The President, again, a framework, he says $4 trillion in debt reduction over the course of the next 12 years, if these recommendations are followed. Reform of the tax code to make it simpler and fairer, not a great deal of detail, again, in a lot of these proposals. The White House does say that for every $3 in cuts there will be $1 in tax revenue. It comes with a fail-safe or trigger, if the ratio of debt exceeds a certain percentage of the Gross Domestic Product in this country. And it brings up an interesting point, too, Martin. Why are we having the discussion? Because the total national debt in this country, now $14.3 trillion, exceeds the yearly GDP of this country, $14.1 trillion. And that is part of what's driving the urgency of this discussion, Martin.
Continue reading …Mark Halperin . . . on a roll! Yesterday, we noted that the MSNBC analyst was surprisingly respectful to Donald Trump.
Continue reading …MSNBC's Chris Matthews has on numerous occasions said he's a liberal while also having gotten a thrill up his leg on national televisionwhen presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke back in 2008. Despite this, on Wednesday's “Hardball,” he asked the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore, “What do you think, I'm on the far left?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Steve and Christian, there’s two extreme views, and I know this will bother both of you, there’s two extreme views. One is the very right libertarian view. It’s the Ayn Rand view. And I love “The Fountainhead.” I didn’t like the other one so much. STEPHEN MOORE, WALL STREET JOURNAL: I just saw “Atlas Shrugged” last night. MATTHEWS: OK. I know. Well, let’s watch a scene here from a movie, because they believe that the top guy, the geniuses, the entrepreneurs, the Bill Gateses create all the wealth and everybody else gets a job. The Marxists used to argue, all wealth comes from sweat labor, actually going into the factory, putting things together, that sweat… MOORE: You don’t believe in that. MATTHEWS: Well, I’m not arguing — what do you think, I’m on the far-left? When did that start? Well, any man that admits on national television that he gets a thrill up his leg when a far-left presidential candidate speaks shouldn't be surprised by folks thinking he's similarly so. (H/T RCP )
Continue reading …J.Crew on MSNBC.wmv Mickey Drexler talks taking J.Crew private on Bloomberg TV Bloomberg TV’s Exclusive Interview with J.Crew Chairman & CEO Mickey Drexler Moonbattery: J. Crew Contributes to Culture War A recent feature in J. Crew’s online catalogue portrays designer Jenna Lyons painting her son Beckett’s toe nails hot pink. The quote accompanying the image reads, “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. … Joe. My. God.: J. Crew Ad Draws Wingnut Fire Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of … Boy with Pink Toenails in J Crew Ad Sets Off Wingnut Alarms … “ J.CREW , known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the facade of liberal, transgendered identity politics.” J Crew declined to comment. (via the daily wh.at) … ZONE7STYLE: Vintage J Crew Check Pullover Jacket Vintage J Crew Check Pullover Jacket. Vintage J Crew Check Pullover Jacket. Share/Bookmark. Vintage J Crew Check Pullover Jacket. Related Posts : 1990s, Check, J Crew , Jackets. Posted by . at 02:36. Labels: 1990s, Check, J Crew , Jackets … J.Crew Ad Showing Boy with Pink Nail Polish Sparks Debate on … The image appeared in a feature called “Saturday With Jenna,” which was emailed to customers last week and highlights a few of J.Crew president and creative director Jenna Lyons’ favorite products — including the hot pink Essie nail … srfuller says: RE: Or the fact that humans have painted themselves in celebration and artistic nature since time immemorial? I thin… http://disq.us/1noi2r
Continue reading …MSNBC's Ed Schultz began his show Monday talking about all the jobs President Obama has created since he took office. Unfortunately, as he made the case about how terrible the Bush years were by comparison, the “Ed Show” host wrongly informed his viewers that Democrats took over in January 2009 (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ: Folks, let me tell you something. I was watching Rachel’s show the other night, and the, she sent her, one of her guys out on the street to start asking some questions to people about who’s in Congress and what their names are. And it was amazing to me how little people on the street knew. Let me just tell you one thing: this is the only chart you need to know come next election. This is the only chart you need to watch. This is the only chart that matters to American families. Are we headed in the right direction? And sometimes we get lost in the 24-hour news cycle, and we don’t see the progress the country’s making. Here’s the progress right here. Here’s where the Democrats took over. Here’s the plan right there. We never saw that during the Bush years. So get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight’s question: Who do you trust to create private-sector jobs? It is indeed funny how Schultz mocked “how little people on the street knew” about “who’s in Congress and what their names are.” After all, the date he pointed to on his chart when he claimed “Here’s where the Democrats took over” was January 2009. Hate to break it to you, Ed, but the Democrats took over both chambers of Congress in January 2007. Of course, it's understandable that Schultz doesn't want his viewers to know that the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent when the Democrats took over, or that the last budget done by a Republican Congress produced a deficit of only $160 billion. He also doesn't want folks to know that over seven million more people were employed in December 2006 as compared to today, or that there are still 2.8 million fewer workers in America than on the day Obama was inaugurated. Putting even a finer point on this, our friend Moe Lane produced an interesting chart Monday comparing some economic numbers today to four years ago that I'm sure Schultz would also like his viewers to not be aware of (h/t Weasel Zippers ): Not a pretty picture, is it? As for Schultz's claim we never saw job growth during the Bush years, I guess he was sleeping from September 2003 till June 2007 when the nation experienced 46 consecutive months of employment gains: As for Schultz's question, “Are we headed in the right direction,” the Real Clear Politics “Right Track-Wrong Track/Direction of the Country” poll average currently shows 31.4 percent saying “Right” and and 61.4 percent saying “Wrong.” But “the only chart you need to know come next election…the only chart you need to watch…the only chart that matters to American families” is the one Schultz misrepresented to his viewers Monday night. And this shill is amazed by how little people on the street know. Well, Ed, it's because five days a week, on both television and radio, you're badly misinforming them.
Continue reading …Amazing U15 HR Block vs Team Red Jan 9 2011 HR Block Tax Service Save 20% on HR Block 2010 Tax Software Download Daily news for: hr block | : AutoSkt Daily News – Daily World News Horseback officers arrest man in street robberies – msnbc.com An hour later, a 15-year-old male was apprehended in the 700 block of East Third Street and also. hr block April 11, 2011, Chicago, (coal geology) – Zacks Equity research sheds light on the Vodafone (NYSE: VFC) and the bull of the day and DryShips, Inc. (Nasdaq:… Daily news for: hr block : AutoSkt Daily News|www.5E8.net hr block . Horseback officers arrest man in street robberies – msnbc.com An hour later, a 15-year-old male was apprehended in the 700 block of East Third Street and also. Daily World News. April 11, 2011 by admin · Leave a Comment … H&R Block At Home 2010 Premium and Business Federal + State + … HR Block At Home Premium & Business includes everything your customers need to complete their personal and business federal and state taxes. A simple question-and-answer process helps your customers find hundreds of deductions to get … Hr Block | Area Bay HR Block HR Block is your single source for tax preparation and online tax services. File income taxes online or using our great tax preparation software to. KachingDeals says: *Please RT* Hr Block Work At Home Jobs – EOSHD http://bit.ly/gYWrB4
Continue reading …Capital One Online Banking Down The News of TodayMy Daily Buzz … capital one online banking . There has been no time frame as to how long the online banking section of the Capital One website will be down, however, this isn’t the first time a major bank has experienced prolonged downtime in the last … nfl draft 2011 hr block yuri gagarin kate bosworth jeff buckley … nfl draft 2011 scott hall khloe and lamar capital one online banking jenn sterger (April 11th, 2011); scott hall gucci mane fbi basketball hr block (April 11th, 2011); career builder jeff buckley jeff buckley khloe and lamar nfl draft … career builder, jenn sterger, mark ballas, yuri gagarin, … | i1 … Tags: basketball, block, bosworth, capital one, capital one online banking , career builder, cyanogenmod, dennis quaid, gucci mane, hall, hr block, jeff, kate, kate bosworth, mark ballas, nfl draft, npc, scott, tiger, yuri gagarin … Venture Capital: Pros vs. Cons | business banking Is Capital One Online Banking unequivocally helps? about 1 month ago – No comments. Capital One Bank is a singular of a largest financial companies in a world. With their secure website www.Capitalone.com you can down payment as good as … Rubber Queen 70543 Carpeted 4 Piece Mat With Vinyl Heel Pad Beige … Career builder · Jenn sterger · Mark ballas · Yuri gagarin · Belarus · Dennis quaid · Minsk · Basketball · Tiger direct · Nfl draft 2011 · Hr block · Jeff buckley · Khloe and lamar · Npc · Capital one online banking · Cyanogenmod … Leslie_Miles says: Capital One online banking website is down newstimesworld http://bit.ly/gGxeEV
Continue reading …MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Monday spent much of show scaring viewers about Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) recently released budget proposal. So apoplectic was the “Hardball” host that he told liberal guests Howard Fineman and Richard Wolffe that Ryan's Medicare reform pland “is going to kill half the people who watch this show” (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: The good thing for the president is the Paul Ryan Medicare plan, because it makes people angry. And, first of all, it scares seniors. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Yes. Well, it should. FINEMAN: Yes, and it should. But, at the same time, it exempts 55 and over, so it’s going to really annoy younger people who are going to at some point get — supposed to get the Medicare benefits — 40 to 55… If it exempts people 55 and over, why should it scare seniors? Exempts means they're not impacted by this whatsoever. Why should anybody be scared by something that doesn't impact them? People are encouraged to remember this as Matthews either doesn't understand it, or is an extremely dishonest person: MATTHEWS: Howard, you know — you’re close to me in age. Let me just point this out. FINEMAN: Yes. Right. MATTHEWS: Most people who follow the news and watch the newspapers every day and watch television shows like this on FOX or this network, MSNBC, or anywhere, on CNN, they — those most attuned to this debate over the budget are either retired or close to it. FINEMAN: Yes. MATTHEWS: They are very sensitive to the fact that they have planned in their retirement that their medical costs will be covered by their Medicare plan. They don’t have to save $20 million so they can pay for their medical expenses when they get older, right, which are going to get more costly as they get older. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: The federal government promised that back in the ‘60s, that they would take care of people who have worked their whole life for their medical costs.Now the Republicans are saying, no, no, we’re not going to do that anymore. FINEMAN: I totally agree. My only point was, in addition to scaring everybody for those very valid reasons… For the record, Matthews turned 65 last December. This means he is already eligible for Medicare and would not be impacted by Ryan's plan. I couldn't find Fineman's birthday, but as he graduated high school in 1966, he's probably 62 or 63 making him also exempt from Ryan's plan. As such, there's absolutely no reason for them to be scared that their Medicare benefits are at all at risk by what the Wisconsin Congressman has proposed, and no one 55 or over should be either. Yet, in the ensuing minutes, Matthews and his guests were actually going to wonder why seniors don't understand this: MATTHEWS: Right. FINEMAN: … it’s not going to win points among younger people below 55 either. MATTHEWS: Why not? FINEMAN: Because they’re going to turn it into the plan where you only get a certain amount of money. MATTHEWS: Yes. FINEMAN: In other words, all the changes are going to be for those younger people. So they’re the ones who ultimately will get screwed. MATTHEWS: Yes. Here’s your Borders book $10 gift certificate that’s going to pay for your million dollar health care costs. It’s a joke. (CROSSTALK) RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. But here’s the perverse thing. For a start, the age exemption didn’t work for Bush when it came to Social Security. MATTHEWS: It went nowhere. WOLFFE: So they know that’s political… MATTHEWS: Why? Because people don’t hear this? FINEMAN: They don’t hear it. They don’t hear it. WOLFFE: They don’t hear it. Indeed. They don't hear it, because people like this misrepresent it. If Matthews, Fineman, and Wolffe all made it clear that Ryan's bill doesn't impact anyone 55 and older, retirees and soon-to-be retirees wouldn't be afraid of it. Instead, Matthews ignorantly or dishonestly claimed: “The federal government promised that back in the ‘60s , that they would take care of people who have worked their whole life for their medical costs. Now the Republicans are saying, no, no, we’re not going to do that anymore.” And Fineman responded, “I totally agree. My only point was, in addition to scaring everybody for those very valid reasons, it’s not going to win points among younger people below 55 either.” And these so-called journalists why the exemption age of 55 didn't work for Bush when he tried to reform Social Security in 2005, and why it's going to be problematic for Ryan's Medicare reform plan. It's because shills like these are intentionally trying to scare and confuse the public. But the best was still to come: WOLFFE: But that’s a political opportunity that, perversely, this White House is not going to leap on right now. There may be lots of people in the Senate on the Democrats’ side who say, let’s use it as a political football, but this president… (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, they’re saving it for November. WOLFFE: This president — no, no. The president is going to say, if there’s a deal out there, let’s do it, but the deal has to be reasonable; the deal has to include taxes. What’s unreasonable… (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: This is smart. In other words, don’t… (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Don’t let it be dead on arrival. WOLFFE: No. MATTHEWS: Let the Republican sit out there, sit out there, as the basis for a compromise. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: They’re that smart? They’re that smart? (CROSSTALK) WOLFFE: Yes. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: They’re that smart? (CROSSTALK) WOLFFE: They are smart enough to play that game, but they’re going to say, if you are serious about deficits, you cannot leave taxes off the table. MATTHEWS: OK. FINEMAN: Yes. He… MATTHEWS: Will — will that ever sell with the country? Will the Congress ever adopt a combination of some modification or cost-cutting, which we know has to come into place, somehow squeeze the costs of Medicare — medical costs, and a tax increase for people who can afford it, as a — as a more democratic, a more fair way to deal with this problem? Will they get that through and signed by the president, or is that just a posture? HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it’s a possibility but they’ll be glad to talk about it for the next few months. The one thing the president doesn’t want to do is talk about tax increases in isolation. MATTHEWS: Fair enough. I’m with you. FINEMAN: As Richard was saying, you’ve got — you can’t — that won’t work for Democrats, even if you’re just going to tax rich people. You have to put it in the context of a plan. MATTHEWS: OK. So, guys are so smart. I’m with the smart people here. FINEMAN: Right. MATTHEWS: So, the plan is the president says, look, let them offer a big slash in Medicare, which is going to kill half the people who watch this show. So the reform package for Medicare in Ryan's budget will kill half of the people who watch “Hardball.” And this is sadly what passes for journalism at MSNBC.
Continue reading …