Archive | MSNBC RSS feed for this section

Democrat Chuck Todd: Obama “on precipice of doing Jimmy Carter-like damage” to Democrats

10 Sep

You know it’s bad when fellow Democrats are saying this about Obama.

 

 

 

MSNBC has figured out why IRS targeted Conservative groups

20 May

 

File this one in the “Can’t Make This Stuff Up” category.  MSNBC actually speculated today that because the former IRS Commissioner was a Bush appointee that he may have been targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups because he was felt that they were unpopular and a threat to the GOP:

Is it possible that the right-leaning Tea Party was being forced to reconcile onerous information requests from the Internal Revenue Service because former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush, thought the nascent conservative movement reflected poorly on the Republican Party? This is the theory that was posited on MSNBC on Monday in an effort to explain the IRS’ admission that they had singled out conservative groups for undue scrutiny.

“Is it really the interesting part here that Shulman, who was a Bush appointee, might have been looking at Tea Party groups because of what it might have done to the Republican Party at the time – in the future of what we’re seeing now; basically, splintering the foundation of the Republican side?” MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked?

Allahpundit from Hot Air adds more:

The logic is ironclad and inexorable: Doug Shulman, appointed IRS commissioner by Bush in March 2008, was so fiercely loyal to his Beltway Republican masters that he decided to risk his career to kneecap conservative insurgents’ nonprofits in 2010 … even though Bush had left office more than a year before and the GOP establishment he represented was widely loathed by pretty much everyone in America. Oh, and even though (again per Rothman) Shulman himself has donated to the DNC in the past. Say it with me, guys: This. Is. A. Republican. Scandal.

In the same spirit of half-assed spitballing/“news,” how’s this for an alternate theory: Shulman tacitly approved of the tea-party targeting because he was eager to prove himself a loyal soldier to a new Democratic administration that might have been suspicious of his Bush pedigree. After hearing tea partiers impugned a thousand timesby Dem officials and liberal media outlets — none more so than MSNBC — maybe he got it in his head that singling out these right-wing would-be domestic terrorists was the patriotic (and career-furthering) thing to do. Slightly more plausible, yes? As theories go, I’d say it’s 51-percent-assed. Soon we’ll get to hear Shulman’s side of it when he’s inevitably subpoenaed by Darrell Issa’s committee. And, almost as inevitably, his testimony won’t be carried live by MSNBC.

I guess what MSNBC is saying is that, in sort of a round-a-bout way, it’s Bush’s fault that the IRS targeted Conservative groups.

 

Chris Matthews: interest in Obama’s multiple scandals due to racism and white supremacy

15 May

 

Well, I have not heard this excuse in at least ten minutes.  Racism…that has to be it…why else would anyone care that the President, his administration and the IRS are involved in multiple scandals, involving intimidation, harassment, cover-ups, and deaths?  Has to be because of racism.

 

The problem is there are people in this country, maybe ten percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe twenty percent on a bad day, who want this president to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn’t president. … They want to be able to say, well, he didn’t really have that batting average; he really wasn’t the first African American president; he really didn’t do health care; he really didn’t kill bin Laden. There’s an asterisk, and they have been fighting for that, the people like Donald Trump, since day one. They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group, so what? It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country. Not all conservatives, not even all right-wingers, but it always comes through with this birther crap and these other references and somehow trying to erase ObamaCare, erase his record in history, and a big part of it is bought into by people like John Boehner, who’s not a bad guy, but he knows the only way he can talk to the hard right is talk their language.

I really wonder sometimes if people like Chris Matthews actually believe this nonsense or does he just know his role and what is expected of him if he wants to have a show on MSNBC?

 

 

Former NAACP chair: it’s cool for IRS to harass Tea Party because they are “admittedly racist” and are the “Taliban wing of American politics”

14 May

 

Tolerance, NAACP style:

 

 

“Admittedly racist”?  I must have missed that admission.  More like falsely accused of being racist for opposing a President (who happens to be black) with whom they fundamentally disagree (you know, kind of like how people like former NAACP Chairma Julian Bond disagreed vehemently with President Bush for 8 years).  Question: were the Republicans who opposed Bill Clinton racists?  How about those that oppose Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other white Democrats?  Racists too?

Just watch what happens if Hillary Clinton is the nominee for the Democrat Party in 2016 (or any other white Democrat).  She will be just as opposed as Obama ever was.

But, the reality is, Julian Bond knows this isn’t true.  He probably just gets a kick out of calling people racists (plus he knows that he can get away with saying it).

What an embarrassment.

 

 

 

IRS targeting Tea Party groups “has more legs politically in 2014 than Benghazi” says NBC’s Chuck Todd

13 May

 

From Jim Geraghty at National Review:  “Scarborough, Todd Wonder Why Democrats Are Shrugging at IRS Scandal”

TODD: Why aren’t there more Democrats jumping on this? This is outrageous no matter what political party you are, that an arm of the government, maybe it’s a set of people just in one office but, mind you, that one office was put in charge of dealing with these 501c4s and things like that.

SCARBOROUGH:  Why didn’t the president say something on Friday afternoon?

TODD:  I don’t know. Maybe they were distracted by Benghazi. Maybe they made the decision they didn’t want it to be about healthcare. I raised this question – where is the sense of outrage? And the only pushback was, Jay Carney spoke about this at the press briefing and he was pretty strong. I have to say it didn’t sound very strong to me. I don’t know if the White House realizes. I think this story has more legs politically in 2014 than Benghazi.

More here.

 

 

Why is it ok for white liberals to denigrate black people?

11 Oct

 

Of course, the more accurate title would be “Why is it ok for white liberals to denigrate black Conservatives?”

If you have seen the interview between the admitted socialist MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell and Herman Cain, you are probably asking yourself the same question.  Why do white liberals get to insult Conservative blacks?  Why do they get to question their commitment to the civil rights movement?  Why do they get away with insinuating that they are not really black?

This is just another glaring example of how liberals are the most intolerant people in our country.  They’d love for us all to believe that they are the ones that are color blind.  But every chance they get, they prove otherwise.  How is it that a white liberal gets to question Herman Cain’s blackness because he did not participate in the marches during the civil rights movement?

I’d like to see Lawrence O’Donnell’s reaction if a white Conservative tried to smear a liberal black running for president.

 

 

Conservative Black Chick was not impressed either:

“But it also demonstrates how completely panicked, flustered and shocked Democrats are by Cain’s candidacy because they know Cain has the REAL ability to chip away at the 96% black vote Obama enjoyed in 2008. Black support for the first black president has plummeted from 83% to 58% and even if Cain doesn’t win the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, he’s making black liberals reconsider their support of the Democrat party that dismisses them, makes promises of government salvation it doesn’t deliver on and takes their vote for granted every election cycle.

No other race but the black race gives the majority of their votes to one political party. Even if Herman Cain’s candidacy is able to compel a mere 13% of black liberals to vote for the GOP nominee in 2012 this would hurt Obama. Terrified by the reality Cain’s message is resonating with black liberals, O’Donnell tried to interrogate Cain on his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, implying that because Cain was in college at the time he“sat on the sidelines” and was a sell out.

It’s absurd to suggest if a black person in the 60’s didn’t march in Civil Rights protests they were not supportive of the movement. Cain delivered the right response: “Did you expect every black student at every black college in America to be out there in the middle of every fight? The answer is no. So for you to say why was I sitting on the sidelines, I think that was an inaccurate deduction that you are trying to make. You didn’t know Lawrence what I was doing with the rest of my life.”

 

 

 

Liberals Think Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme Too

16 Sep

 

I fail to see how Rick Perry calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” is a big deal.  Liberals think it is too.  You don’t get much more liberal than Chris Matthews and Paul Krugman.  Here is Matthews admitting it:

 

Krugman admitted it in 1997 stating:

“Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in).”

Rush Limbaugh listed numerous examples on his show recently of Social Security being referred to as a Ponzi Scheme over the past few decades:

1.  Liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson:  “A historical tour of the use of the Ponzi-scheme metaphor will make the point. Jonathan Last has already identified a 1967 Newsweek column by liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson as perhaps the earliest use of the Social Security/Ponzi-scheme comparison in public argument. … Samuelson’s idea that Social Security could best be understood as an enduring and rational Ponzi scheme grew out of his ‘overlapping-generations model,’ … Samuelson’s model implied that public debt in general, and Social Security in particular, could be financed over successive generations without major tax increases.

2.  “[T]he 1987 publication of Ben Wattenberg’s book The Birth Dearth. Wattenberg, who once worked for Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey, was by the late 1980s a centrist Democrat… In a U.S. News & World Report cover story excerpting The Birth Dearth, Wattenberg sums up his argument by saying: ‘In short, Social Security is a Ponzi game, a pyramid scheme, a chain letter.’ …

3.  In an August 1985 editorial commenting on Social Security’s 50th anniversary, the Wall Street Journal says the system was designed like a Ponzi scheme.

4.  “A July 1994 Chicago Tribune column by Cato Institute head Edward Crane dubs the offices of the Social Security Administration ‘home of the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.’

5.  A 1995 piece by conservative columnist Michael Barone argues that ‘…many more voters under 50 realize that Medicare and Social Security are Ponzi schemes in which the benefits they’re paying for today will be impossible to collect in the future without unthinkable tax increases.’ …

6.  In December of 1988, Ronald Reagan’s budget director, James C. Miller III, made news when he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme before an audience at the National Press Club.

7.  “In the fall of 1995, [liberal] Robert J. Shapiro published an article called ‘Rethinking Social Security: The New Deal’s Crowning Achievement Has Fallen and It Can’t Get Up’ … complains that Social Security, as currently structured, is crowding out funding for young children … [it’s a] ‘National Ponzi Scheme.’ …

8.  In January of 1996… William Raspberry … argues that ‘[Social Security] is, in important ways, like a massive Ponzi scheme …’

9.  [I]n May of 1996, liberal columnist Jonathan Alter published a piece in Newsweek suggesting that former Democratic Colorado governor and erstwhile Clinton supporter Richard Lamm might run for president as the candidate of Ross Perot’s Reform party. … Lamm is praised as a ‘truthteller’ by Alter for being willing to say … that Social Security is a ‘well-meaning Ponzi scheme.’ …

10.  Matthew Miller, a senior writer for The New Republic, published a long piece on the future of Social Security. Miller begins his TNR article by recounting the U.S. Senate hearing on Social Security at which he and others had just testified. … ‘Only a grinch could grumble about the most effective anti-poverty program in history; but only a fool would fail to ask whether the Ponzi scheme is sustainable, and at what price.’ …

11.  “Senator Simpson was making news at just this time by garnering attention for his proposed Social Security reforms with aggressive use of the Ponzi-scheme point: ‘This is a Ponzi scheme, and people don’t know that,’ said Simpson in August of 1996. …

12.  In December of 1996, liberal Michael Kinsley published a piece at Slate titled, ‘Social Security: From Ponzi Scheme to Shell Game.’ …

13.  March of 1998, then former New York Times executive editor Max Frankel turned one of his regular columns in The New York Times Magazine to the subject of Social Security. … ‘For more than 30 years, Presidents and Congresses have pretended that the Social Security Ponzi scheming [blah, blah, blah, blah, blah] the majority of voters have been misled.'”

Stanley Kurtz agrees in a piece in National Review Online:

“[I]t’s certain that Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way original. Not only have a raft of conservatives called Social Security a Ponzi scheme over the years, quite a few very respectable liberals have done so as well. It is clearly wrong either to treat the Ponzi-scheme analogy as unprecedented or to rule it altogether out of legitimate public debate.