Home » Posts tagged with » msnbc (Page 51)

Whatever happened to Ed Schultz's solidarity with the working man? Isn't that supposed to be the essence of Schultz's shtick?

Continue reading …

On Monday's “Morning Joe,” co-host Joe Scarborough cast Fox News as an unabashedly conservative network while trumpeting his own show as a neutral voice of sanity in a polarized news environment. “In this world of Balkanized cable news outlets…it is kind of nice being Switzerland,” he gloated, asserting the neutrality of his “Morning Joe” program. “This show is a safe house where people can come and talk whether they are on the right or the left,” Scarborough described his MSNBC morning show. “But there aren't many places left like that outside these three hours.” “Morning Joe” by-and-large leaves guests the freedom to express their own opinion. But Scarborough's assumption leaves out the fact that an overwhelming number of liberal guests and analysts appear on the show. Jon Meacham of Newsweek, former MSNBC host Donny Deutsch, and Tina Brown of The Daily Beast are three of many liberals who appear regularly on “Morning Joe.” In contrast, a far-right conservative appearing on “Morning Joe” is rare. MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan is one of the few conservative voices appearing regularly on the show. RedState's Erik Erickson appears infrequently and contributors from publications like National Review appear rarely if ever.

Continue reading …

“Lean Forward,” MSNBC's new slogan suggests. The better to stick a shiv in your opponent's back. Ethics-averse Rachel Maddow did exactly that on her MSNBC show last night. After disparaging Republican candidates for their gall in criticizing reckless federal spending and government-controlled health care, Maddow made this jaw-dropper of a claim — read more

Continue reading …
Continue reading …

Not that there was any doubt, but we now have confirmation that the new MSNBC “Lean Forward” series of promos is all about . . .

Continue reading …
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Brands Bill O’Reilly ‘Liar’ and ‘Jackass Fool’ Over Ground Zero Mosque Remarks on ‘The View’
Continue reading …
NB Exclusive: Chamber of Commerce Blasts Media for Shoddy Coverage of Unsubstantiated ThinkProgress Smear

On Wednesday, the far-left blog ThinkProgress unveiled an “investigation” that alleged, without any conclusive evidence , that the Chamber of Commerce was spending funds acquired from foreign-owned companies on political activities in the United States, a crime under U.S. law. ThinkProgress demonstrated that such funds entered the Chamber’s general fund, and that money from the general fund was used to pay for political activities. But it readily admitted that it could not show the same funds attained abroad were used for those activities. Instead, it demanded the Chamber prove the licit nature of its political funds. Some in the media ran with the story, despite that lack of evidence. So was the Chamber consulted or asked for comment by media outlets that reported on the ThinkProgress post? In an interview with NewsBusters, Chamber COO David Chavern says they were not. And while the New York Times’s initial coverage was an editorial, MSNBC discussed the issue on two separate programs. Neither, Chavern claims, made an attempt at balanced coverage. I asked Chavern during a phone conversation on Thursday how he explained this apparent breach of the most basic standards of journalism. I think it comes back to the old axiom – which has now become a universal law in the media – that you don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story. There is such a demand for eyeballs, that that demand to get people to look at you or read you trumps anything like journalistic integrity or fact-finding. It is important for ThinkProgress to get readers and it is important for them to promote their bloggers. That’s more important to them than the facts of how we fund the Chamber. And similarly, there are traditional news organizations that get pulled into the same trap. If you get in to the world of facts or if you get into the world of two sides to the story, that muddies up the narrative, that makes it less exciting and less interesting to eyeballs. Further, you have the inherent drama of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is a major business organization, as somebody to wonderfully paint as a bad guy, whereas unions, who are often much bigger and much better funded, seem to be given a great big pass by the media generally. So that is clearly a double standard. So is the media’s approach to the story indicative of a larger left-wing slant among the news media? I think there’s a couple different things going on. There are some folks who have an axe to grind, and a political slant, and they’re just looking for any narrative that supports that slant. I think there are other folks that just like drama, and certainly business as the bad guy is an easier picture to paint than unions as the bad guy. I do think most broadly there is a common view in the media that business is inherently suspect and that labor unions, because they represent, supposedly, numerous workers out there, have more credibility, even thought the facts state that unions are some of the largest, most intensely self-interested organizations in the world. The burden of proof seems to have fallen on the Chamber to prove that ThinkProgress’s accusations are false. Some individuals in the media have run with these accusations, essentially demanding that the Chamber prove a negative. Is that a fair position for the mainstream media to take? Absolutely not, clearly. Again, ThinkProgress is not a news organization, certainly has no inherent credibility itself, makes an outrageous accusation and then demands that we disprove the accusation in the full hope that we either somehow become complicit or that we then do open up all information to them from which they would then try to develop new lines of attack I have no need to prove myself to ThinkProgress. I would be really interested for somebody to look into who funds ThinkProgress. They don’t seem to be too evocative about that. I know that their parent organization, Center for American Progress, was initially funded by the Sandlers, who were the founders of the subprime giant Golden West Financial. They have also received substantial funding support from George Soros. That seems to all be ok, but the onus is on us to talk about where our money comes form. I feel no obligation to prove myself to ThinkProgress or anybody else. I am quite confident in both our representation of our members’ interests, and also our compliance with the law.

Continue reading …
Hardball Panic Attack: Tea Party Victories Will Make GOP More Conservative

There was almost a full-fledged panic attack on Thursday’s “Hardball” as three devout liberal media members fretted over the possibility that Tea Party success at the polls next month could make the GOP more conservative. Horrors! So worried about this was MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he opined at the end of the segment, “At some point, they`ll become not the party of the elephant but the party of the barking dogs as the cars go by” (video follows with commentary and full transcript at end of the article): The first thing that should jump out at readers is the absurdity at play here. The Republicans got clobbered in the past two election cycles because their members abandoned conservative principles and moved to the left of most of their constituents. As a result, many establishment GOPers and Tea Party candidates have tacked to the right to capture Republican and Independent voters that were either ignored in 2006 or 2008 or angered by moderate Republican policies in George W. Bush’s second term.  This rightward shift has proved highly successful and appears to have positioned the GOP for a possibly historic victory on November 2. Yet Matthews and guests David Corn of Mother Jones and Sam Stein of the Huffington Post see this as damaging the Republican brand. What’s most hysterical here is that all three of these so-called journalists have scolded Obama and the Democrats for trying at all to work with Republicans the past 20 months, and are angered that legislation signed by this President wasn’t progressive enough. In fact, if Democrat candidates around the country had primary success by moving further to the left, Matthews, Corn, and Stein would be having a hard time hiding their glea.  As such, it’s highly desirable and not at all harmful for Democrats to shift far to the left in their policy proposals, but catastrophic for Republicans to do a similar pivot to the right.   In the end, for these liberal press members, a good Republican is a RINO, and anything else is just far too dangerous for the GOP and this nation. Full transcript follows: CHRIS MATTHEWS: We`re back. With just 26 days now to go before the elections this year, there are a bunch of Tea Party Senate candidates who could end up winning. Today`s “Wall Street Journal” has a headline sure to scare senators who aren`t on the ballot this November. Tea Party wants to ambush more GOP senators in 2012. But who`s “The Journal” talking about? Well, people like Utah`s Orrin Hatch, Maine`s Olympia Snowe, Tennessee`s Bob Corker and Indiana`s Dick Lugar. Should they be worried? David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for “Mother Jones” magazine and a columnist for PoliticsDaily.com. And Sam Stein covers politics for “The Huffington Post.” David first, and then Sam. Should they be worried? Should Orrin Hatch be scared a little bit that he`s not conservative enough and certainly Bob Corker in Tennessee and people like that? DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Yes, I think all Republicans should be concerned. I think Ronald Reagan wouldn`t be conservative enough for some of these Tea Party types. And as we`ve seen in the past few months, Chris, that if you have these small Republican primaries, this group of very angry, you know, far-right Tea Partiers can have tremendous impact. We don`t know if they`re going to have a big impact on the general election, but we do know in the Republican primary, they have a lot of weight to pull. So, if I was — you know, if I were Orrin Hatch or any of these others, I`d be running to the right and we already see that happening as “The Wall Street Journal” reported. MATTHEWS: You know, it`s hard to launch a defense in this game, Sam, because if you`ve got a 95 percent conservative voting record, they`ll just say, but you voted for TARP. SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: Yes. MATTHEWS: Or you made a deal with somebody on health care that looked, you know, dicey. So, it`s this weird way that people are engaging in politics now. They find one way and then they obsess over it like a tooth abscess. That`s all they talk or think or feel is that one thing you did. STEIN: Yes. And, you know, I hate to say it, I agree with David on this one. The institutional hurdles that usually exist for grassroots` candidates to run for office have been sort of leveled down. And if a lot of these Tea Party candidates win in 2010, it`s going to incentivize a lot more of them to run in 2012. And I was at a briefing just now with David Plouffe, the Obama Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama -Search using: * News, Most Recent 60 Days * Biographies Plus News campaign manager. He said, if you are a moderate Republican thinking of running for office in 2012, you need to have to have your head examined. There`s no reason to do it. You have to spend a lot of money, you come under attack, and you`d likely lose. MATTHEWS: OK. Here`s the cutting question. You can go Sam — you, Sam, first. How does the Republican Party build itself as a governing party, a majority party, which really needs to get the middle if it carves out its own middle? STEIN: It`s a good question and there`s people within the party who are really wondering that. I was an event earlier this week with Mel Martinez, the former senator for Florida, and he expressed real angst about the future of the party. He said, if everyone`s going to be lockstep with Jim DeMint, there`s going to be really no room for governance. And he said actually bluntly that he thinks it`d be better that the party didn`t win the Senate because they wouldn`t be held to standards of governance and would still be the Democrats who are held to standards by voters. And so, they`re going to have real problems figure out how to actually govern if they take power, and like you said, the middle has been moved — or hijacked way over to the right on this one. MATTHEWS: I want to ask the same question to, David. What do you think, buddy? What happens here if the party basically says if you`re a middle-of-the-road or even a moderate conservative, you`re gone? At the same time, they go after the Reagan Democrats, the independent voters, the people that are a little upset with Obama Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama -Search using: * News, Most Recent 60 Days * Biographies Plus News or angry at him right now, and they want them to join a party which is only going to be a right wing party. CORN: I think they`ve turned into a zombie party. They`re just not going to be interested in governing. We saw already in the last two years the obstructionism on the right. And if you get Rand Paul in the Senate with Jim DeMint, they will just say no and they`ll stop everything. You know Senate rules basically allow that, they don`t believe in governance. They believe — MATTHEWS: OK, let me try something by you guys. CORN: — reinventing, right? MATTHEWS: This is serious business. CORN: It is serious business, Chris. MATTHEWS: Supposed a gay person in your family or someone you care about or you just didn`t care about human rights, suppose you think — you live in a suburban, you`re not armed at home and therefore you believe in gun control. Supposed you are pro-choice on abortion rights, is there a Republican Party for you, Sam, if you have any of these? Because they don`t want you in the party apparently if you believe any of these things? STEIN: Well, let`s be careful here because it`s not across the board — there have been interceptions to the rule. You look at Mark Kirk for instance. He`s not their choice in Illinois but he ended up there. My theory is that in 2012, once all these Tea Party candidates win if 2010, you`re going to see real pressure on people like Olympia Snowe to actually make a party switch a la Charlie Crist. MATTHEWS: OK. You`re making my point. You`re making my point. STEIN: Yes. No, I`m making your point. That said, you know, we have to wait until 2010. We have to see how these results play out in the general election because if some of these Tea Party candidates actually lose, for instance, Christine O`Donnell or Sharron Angle, maybe there will be a backlash against the Jim DeMints of the world. MATTHEWS: Well, Christine O`Donnell, you`re setting up a strawman. STEIN: I`m not. MATTHEWS: Christine O`Donnell is going to lose. STEIN: Yes, of course. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Anyway, here`s the question, suppose Mark Kirk gets in this time because they need a candidate, they`ll be gunning for him next time, David? CORN: Yes, well — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Corker just got in and they`re after him already. CORN: He`ll have six years to move to the right the Tea Party doesn`t end up exploding the Republican Party to bits and pieces. But the senators that you just mentioned, some of those people, like Orrin Hatch and Bob Corker, you know, not my favorite guys, politically, but they have shown in the past the willingness to try to work with Democrats on governing issues, whether it`s health care or financial reform. And there`s going to be so much pressure on these guys — to get to your earlier point, Chris — to do nothing with any Democrat, not even to sit down and — in the cafeteria with them that will make things really impossible. And then you know, the Republican Party will become the party of not just of no, but of anti-government and people like that to a certain degree, but it won`t solve any of the problems that we have. MATTHEWS: Yes, at some point, they`ll become not the party of the elephant but the party of the barking dogs as the cars go by. Anyway, thank you, David Corn. And thank you, Sam Stein. STEIN: Thanks, Chris.

Continue reading …
Chris Matthews Rips Liberal Journalist For Endorsing All Democrat Candidates

An extraordinary thing happened on MSNBC Tuesday: Chris Matthews scolded a fellow liberal journalist for endorsing all of the Democrat candidates up for election in the Senate this November. While discussing the battle between Republican candidate Linda McMahon and Democrat candidate Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, the “Hardball” host expressed serious concerns about the latter lying about his military service. After playing a tape from Monday’s debate of Blumenthal haplessly trying to explain his position, Matthews asked liberal guest David Corn, “How do you say you served in Vietnam unintentionally when they`ve got the quotes?” Quite surprisingly, Matthews aggressively took exception with Corn’s answer (video follows with transcript and commentary):   CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You think it`s venomous now, wait`ll you catch this race. Here`s the McMahon campaign ad. It`s a devastating ad right before last night`s debate. We`re going to show you the ad, followed by Blumenthal addressing it in the debate last night. Let`s listen, see who won. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you lie about serving in a war? RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT), ATTORNEY GENERAL, SENATE CANDIDATE: We have learned something very important since the days that I served in Vietnam. — I served in Vietnam — UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dick Blumenthal did it again and again! (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BLUMENTHAL: I`m proud of my military service. On a few occasions out of hundreds when I commented on it, I described it inaccurately, and I regret it. I take full responsibility for it. It was not intentional, but that is no excuse. And I want to say that I am sorry, particularly to our veterans and most especially to the veterans of Vietnam. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Can you explain the fact that “I take full responsibility” for it but “It was not intentional”? How do you say you served in Vietnam unintentionally when they`ve got the quotes, just like they have on O`Donnell? CORN: You know, you`re — (CROSSTALK) DAVID CORN, “MOTHER JONES”: The interesting thing about this, Chris, is that even in some of the same speeches, he said it right sometimes and wrong sometimes. He contradicted himself really within five, ten minutes of one another. So it doesn`t seem like it was an outright deception, like we`ve seen in Congressman Kirk`s case and others — MATTHEWS: Why would he do it? Why would he say, I served in Vietnam? CORN: I think it`s inexplicable, and I think he`d be up 20 points in the polls if he hadn`t made these dumb mistakes. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So you`re saying it`s a mistake to say you served in Vietnam when — you say that`s a mistake, an unintentional, it`s an inaccuracy. It was like a slip of the tongue, is what he — CORN: Because at the same time in the same speeches, he described his service accurately. MATTHEWS: So you believe it was a slip of the tongue. CORN: If he`s trying to lie, he`s then a really bad and lousy liar, which might be a good thing to have in politics. MATTHEWS: Well, look – I think you speak with forked tongue on these issue. PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Look — MATTHEWS: I don`t know why you`re defending this guy. CORN: I`m not defending him! (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Are you defending every single Democrat candidate for the Senate this year, every one of them? You defend every single Democrat. Is that your position? CORN: Every single Democrat? No, not necessarily. I`m not — MATTHEWS: Well, name one you don`t support. CORN: I`m not — MATTHEWS: Name one you don`t support! CORN: Well, I don`t — MATTHEWS: Name one you don`t support! CORN: Chris, I don`t endorse candidates! MATTHEWS: You just endorsed him! CORN: I tell you what I think about them. I didn`t endorse him. I told you what I thought — (CROSSTALK) CORN: You know, he talked about — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. Go ahead. (CROSSTALK) CORN: Do you endorse? MATTHEWS: No, but I see a problem with this guy`s statement. BUCHANAN: Well, look — MATTHEWS: I think it`s a problem more than anybody — (CROSSTALK) CORN: I agree with you! It is a problem! Readers are advised that this is not the first time Matthews has expressed his disgust with Blumenthal’s comments concerning his military service. Likely not coincidentally, Matthews’ closing remarks on Tuesday included further condemnation of the Democrat senatorial candidate’s war record discrepancies. That said, the hypocrisy on display was nonetheless disturbing. With little exception, Matthews is and has been a shill for Democrat candidates throughout his career. Never has this been more disgracefully apparent than in February 2008 when he claimed on the air that Barack Obama gave him a thrill up his leg. Complicating matters further is the indisputable fact that the entire network Matthews works for is completely in the tank for left-leaning candidates and isn’t at all ashamed to say so. As such, Matthews chastising a guest for what he and all of his fellow colleagues do on a regular basis is akin to Claude Rains being shocked to find gambling going on in Humphrey Bogart’s Casablanca casino. Taking this one delicious step further, Matthews certainly would have expected Corn and virtually every liberal “journalist” in America to have fully supported him if he had run for Senate in Pennsylvania. With that in mind, although it sure was fun seeing Matthews scold Corn – wouldn’t it be marvelous if every time a member of the press campaigned for a politician in front of the camera he or she was immediately admonished for it? – it would have been far more meaningful if he would have had the courage to point that big accusatory finger at himself for his own past journalistic indiscretions. We can dream, can’t we? 

Continue reading …