TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Sean Hannity

Update on the The Hillary Effect

By on 08 November 2011

Today’s not going to be the day we publish, but I promise we’ll have a big send off for the publication next week! It will be worth the wait.

Some book PR to give you a little more on what it’s all about.


Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.

The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.


Read full story · Comments are closed

Popcorn for Breakfast: The Herman Cain Blame Game Brawl

By on 03 November 2011

**UPDATED**

The Cain campaign seems stuck on stupid, should never have engaged in the blame game when everyone was defending him, and now is not only going to further harm his own credibility, but will potentially hurt the credibility of a lot of other good people when the women start speaking. And they will start speaking. – The Herman Cain Campaign Is Stuck on Stupid, by Erick Erickson

In the throes of a meltdown, Herman Cain decided he had to blame someone. What’s classic about this is that Republicans like Cain and his supporters don’t get that who leaked the story isn’t the primary concern of a sexual harassment charge. It’s whether the man is guilty of harassing women, something only someone on the right could miss.

So, Rick Perry, come on down.

Cain Says Perry Camp Behind Sex Harassment Leak

Curt Anderson phoned me to say “I never heard about this story until I read about it in Politico. I have nothing but good things to say about Herman Cain. I’m not going to bad-mouth Herman Cain to anyone, on or off the record. I think he is a guy of great leadership and integrity.”

Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said it was “patently untrue” that the Perry campaign had any role in placing the sexual harassment story with Politico.

But just in case Perry didn’t leak the story, Cain’s team has a back-up:

PICKET: Source – Rahm Emanuel involved in Cain sexual harassment accuser attacks

According to a source who is friends with the Cain campaign, not only is the Rick Perry campaign involved but also the Mayor of Chicago and former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely involved with the sexual harassment accuser attacks. A friend of the Cain campaign believes a National Restaurant Association (NRA) employee out of the Chicago office leaked the story to the Perry campaign via information and influence from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office.

Sean Hannity played the tape, which came from WTOK, of a consultant who says he saw one of the offending incidents.

Oklahoma Consultant Claims He Witnessed Cain Harassment

Wilson said for legal reasons, he can not discuss details of the incident. “But if she comes out and talks about it, like I said, it’ll probably be the end of his campaign.” The consultant said Cain is digging himself a deeper hole by challenging the woman. He also believes it has put the Restaurant Association in a position where it will have to release the woman from her confidentialilty agreement. “If she talks about it, I think it’ll be the end of his campaign.”

Then there is a third woman who the AP is reporting has come forward to allege she was also harassed by Herman Cain. No news yet on whether Herman Cain is going to blame Rick Perry for her story.

…and then something weird allegedly happened in Iowa with Herman Cain. You figure that one out and tell me if a new name will surface in the Herman Cain blame game, Mike Huckabee.

Meanwhile, very few right-wing or Tea Party types seem to care if Herman Cain is a dog. Someone who rarely travels with his wife, who has enjoyed anonymity until recently, is charming and handsome, but who is being accused of preying on women for his own personal amusement.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

About the Book Cover

By on 25 October 2011

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Eric Holder on a Spit

By on 12 October 2011

Listening to Sean Hannity briefly today, because I can only take this cretin in short stints, he had Rep. Issa on for an interview over the “Fast and Furious” imbroglio that is lighting up the right. Between the two of them they flayed A.G. Holder until only bones were left, symbolically speaking, of course.

Whether this is felonious stupidity or managerial malpractice, it was hardly anything nefarious from what I can tell from the reporting. However, it hardly matters at this rate.

Earth to the Administration: Right wing radio is eating Holder alive.

It makes me wonder if they realize what they’ve got on their hands. Are they going to mount an aggressive push back on this or are you going to serve up Holder for turkey dinner (to take a question spincitysd asked in his “In the News” diary that starts with quite an article)? But spincitysd had an even better question: Sweet Baby Jesus On A Pogo Stick, is there any adult supervision going on at Holder’s romper room?

Good question.

Anyone know a good crisis manager? Calling Eli Gold.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Taylor Marsh Authors The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss

By on 11 October 2011

Due out in November. Available on Amazon.com, on your Kindle, Barnes & Noble, Nook, and iPad.

Spanning nearly two decades of American politics, The Hillary Effect is the provocative and insightful story of the first viable female presidential candidate in history to win a primary and do so in spite of her campaign team’s mistakes. And the galvanizing impact that her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington. It revolves around media coverage that treated her differently as first lady, senator and then presidential candidate – not only because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton.

Candidly written by veteran political analyst, Taylor Marsh, it is the view from a recovering partisan, someone who the Washington Post called a “die hard Clintonite” in their profile of her in 2008.
The Hillary Effect began when Hillary, as first lady, dared to challenge China’s treatment of women. A countless number of women have and will benefit from her presidential loss, the most famous being Sarah Palin (the Tea Party queen of 2010 and first female on a national Republican presidential ticket), who weaves throughout this story as the anti-Hillary. The Hillary Effect also sees Michele Bachman as a player, as the first Republican female to win a straw poll, primary or caucus.

The male leads in this stunning tale are Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama (someone who turned out to be very different from candidate Obama), with David Plouffe and Mark Penn making appearances. The story includes a host of media personalities and their outlets, but also new media and progressive voices, and famous names like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Sally Quinn, the late Tim Russert, Richard Wolffe, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, Maureen Dowd, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and even Bill O’Reilly, who offered Hillary the best interview she would do during the 2008 season.

All of this is seen through the economic and political crises of today, health care, women’s individual freedoms being challenged by the right, Afghanistan, women’s rise around the world, the debt ceiling debate, tax cuts for the wealthy, Occupy Wall Street and an American public disenchanted with Republicans and Democrats, just as the race for 2012 revs up.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

House Republicans Remove Any Doubt They’re Sane

By on 19 July 2011

Cut, cap and… baloney passed. Shocker, the Tea Party crazies are running the congressional asylum. Passing anything that has no chance of getting through the Senate, let alone a veto by Pres. Obama, is such a waste of energy. Watching some of Cantor’s bloviating on the House floor makes me wonder what’s wrong with some people in Virginia.

Of note, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul voted no, because as presidential candidates to be taken seriously when eying the general election audience they can’t flaunt lunacy.

Of course, some Democrats voted for it too, but mainly to keep a primary challenge away, which anyone can appreciate, with Jim Cooper doing so as well even though he’s in a very blue district.

But it’s quite interesting how the House Democratic Caucus dealt with the event this morning. They sent out the above audio excerpt of Pres. Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address.

“Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.”

These words are lost on sober politicians. They’d call Reagan a RINO. …or worse. Hell, he’d get a primary challenge.

The same people who invoke Reagan over and over again have no clue of his history of raising taxes 11 times during his presidency. This includes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the other wingnut bloviators.

As for what Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan man, thinks of the amateurism of the Tea Party balanced budget amendment. He calls it a “phony.”

Where have all the serious conservatives gone?

As for serious Democrats, after what the Gang of 7 served up, we’ll see if the Progressive Caucus budges on entitlements. The pressure will be intense, because House members sent a letter to Speaker Boehner saying they want to take a vote on it, including Jim Cooper. From The Hill:

“We applaud this effort and ask that you provide the opportunity to vote on this proposal as part of any request for an increase in the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline,” Wolf and Cooper wrote.

Cooper has been involved in New Democrat discussions over the debt limit in recent days. Members of the business-friendly coalition, which comprises 43 Democrats, talked about the Gang of Six proposal at a meeting Tuesday, and its leadership, led by chairman Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.), released a statement supporting a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction and the debt limit. Cooper is also a member of the more conservative Blue Dog coalition.

Oh, make it stop.

The Gang of 7 proposal punts on details about Social Security and the hurt is in those details:

The plan would be held at the Senate desk until a Social Security fix is found, and if that fix does not get the 60 votes required, the rest of the deficit plan is voided. The reform must ensure 75 years of solvency for Social Security, according to the Gang of Six, but how to achieve that is left up to the Finance Committee. If Finance cannot agree, a group of 10 senators — five from each party — can bring a reform bill to the floor.

… Chained CPI would cause Social Security benefits and tax deductions to be lowered, the use of which has been loudly opposed by seniors’ lobbying groups. To address senior concerns, the plan exempts Supplemental Security Income from the shift for five years and provides a minimum benefit equal to 125 percent of the poverty line for five years.

Social Security is solvent for 25 years now and lowering COLA is insane. What are these Democrats thinking? They need to find a better way to “strengthen” Social Security.

What we need is a straight up, 11th hour debt ceiling increase if need be, nothing more and that’s what I’m hoping for, which as a last resort could still be the devious McConnell plan. Visualize it, people.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Scrutiny on Bachmann Isn’t What Obama Faced

By on 28 June 2011

Politico has a piece today on Bachmann’s thin legislative record. Fair enough to cover, but let’s not pretend such things weren’t overlooked for the boys.

When George W. Bush ran for president, not only was his abysmal business record shrugged off, but the traditional press didn’t pay any attention at all regarding Bush’s very iffy National Guard record, not to mention the fact that his presidential candidacy was predicated on his father. When John Kerry was attacked by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” Fox News channel not only encouraged Sean Hannity to broadcast lies about Sen. Kerry’s hero war record, but traditional, new media and cable outlets let the Right get away with swiftboating him by allowing the false equivalency of Jerome Corsi to be taken seriously. Ronald Reagan likely had Alzheimer’s before his second term, but nobody blew the whistle on the Gipper, while letting him off the hook for Iran-Contra, because the bond the people had with him after the assassination attempt was real. Now, I realize these issues aren’t of the same variety, but scrutiny is scrutiny and when it’s not, it’s not.

The opener from the Politico piece:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is surging in the GOP presidential polls and barnstorming Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but as she sprints toward the front of the Republican pack, there’s a major hole in her political résumé: legislation.

Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she’s sponsored signed into law, and she’s never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann’s amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control. In a chamber that rewards substantive policy work and insider maneuvering, Bachmann has shunned the inside game, choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator.

Candidate Barack Obama had the thinnest of records out of Illinois, but that didn’t bother anyone when I was writing about Obama’s flyover of the first debate in Carson City, NV, or when he came to the health care forum in Las Vegas saying he’d have a plan in 3 months, totally whiffing the moment. Voting “present” in the Illinois state senate innumerable times didn’t bother the breathless cable yakkers either. Women found out just how committed Pres. Obama was to our freedoms in the Affordability Care Act, as well as his decision on abortion recently in his decision to sell out D.C. women.

But then again, considering the lousy Democratic leadership record Pres. Obama has had in his first term, making private insurance deals, big Pharma compacts, channeling Bush on war and plotting assassinations around the globe, not to mention endless parroting of the Republican economic message, perhaps Politico is correct. Records do matter.

Let’s just not pretend this isn’t a double standard if Michele Bachmann is judged less than a man who’s done absolutely nothing worthy of note before running for president.

Unless, that is, one anti-war speech convinced you that candidate Obama was a progressive fighter, which in that case your hopeless to begin with.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Joe Biden Won the Afghanistan Debate

By on 23 June 2011

official photo by Pete Souza

It’s all about Pakistan now.

Pres. Obama felt compelled to tell the whole history of why we’re in Afghanistan in a bloated, if shorter than usual address to the nation, but this is where he should have started:

By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

First, as much as I disliked Pres. Obama’s speech last night, it doesn’t come close to the despicable spectacle on Fox News channel when Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. John McCain. McCain’s performance was foreshadowed by Bill O’Reilly, when he said Petraeus should basically get whatever he wants, proving it was the Roger Ailes talking point edict of the night. Using General Petraeus to attempt to undermine Pres. Obama showed political cowardice, with Sen. McCain’s opportunism made worse by the anti-constitutional notion that the military is the conductor of U.S. foreign policy and military actions, instead of the President.

Gates even felt compelled to say he supported Pres. Obama’s decision, which clearly was a reaction to the political posturing promoted by Ailes and his minions on Fox.

Steve Clemons hit this note before the speech:

Second, Barack Obama cannot appear to be a tool of the US military or General Petraeus, who has emerged as the stamp of approval or disapproval for some — like John McCain — of what the President decides. This is not healthy for the country. The military executes the President’s strategy, but some in the Pentagon have crossed lines they shouldn’t. Obama needs to show he is in control.

But Pres. Obama should have saved us all the time and simply said, I’m the guy who got bin Laden, so I don’t intend to take crap from anyone.

[...] But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. [...]

The content of Pres. Obama’s speech last night couldn’t have been much worse when he cravenly invoked isolationism, daring to suggest this notion even with there absolutely no evidence that anyone is seriously considering such a position, particularly in his own party, which is where this is directed.

This is Barack Obama at his worst, with his ego showing through because of what’s happening in Congress surrounding Libya, where the President is clearly wrong.

Hearing Obama talk about “progress” and America being “an anchor to global security” was utilizing words of war used by any president stuck in a situation of his own making, while trying to fool his audience it’s what we do. It doesn’t have to be and it no longer can be, especially in a country like Afghanistan that is sucking us dry.

From Spencer Ackerman, in a piece that is really important to read:

The biggest news out of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech isn’t the 10,000 troops he’s withdrawing this year. It’s what Obama will — and won’t — do with the forces he’s leaving behind. Namely: the president won’t send the remainder of the surge troops into eastern Afghanistan, which has become the country’s most buck-wild region.

It’s part of a new attempt to put the uniformed military on a much tighter leash than it had in Afghanistan or Iraq. Welcome a new phase of the war, micromanaged from the White House, and heavy on the killer robots.

Here’s what the war’s going to look like instead from July 2011 to 2014, when the Afghans are supposed to take over combat: drones, drones, training Afghans, commando raids, and drones. The military build on its momentum in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, Obama aides say. But outside of that, this is going to be a counterterrorism strategy — with a lot of troops.

It’s important here to mention David Petraeus moving to Panetta’s renewed C.I.A., where he’ll play an intense leadership role in what Spencer writes about above. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about the hearing on the C.I.A.’s wider role, which was so effective in the bin Laden kill.

The big problem with the import of Pres. Obama’s message is the political foundation, culminating right before the election.

It’s simply no way to run a foreign policy, but that’s what our politics pushes, so politicians like ambitious presidents seeking a second term don’t get caught on the losing side of wars.

As for V.P. Joe Biden, he never wanted the Afghanistan surge, Libya or Iraq, and always thought Pakistan was the ballgame in this region (read his guest post on the subject from 2007). He won’t get the credit, but his message finally got through.

Sen. McCain couldn’t resist a jab at V.P. Biden when talking to Hannity, complete with that pinched little grin McCain plasters on his mug when he’s on camera and knows he’s been beaten.

The House should not let Pres. Obama’s timid withdrawal plans stop them from challenging him, just as they continue to do on Libya.

Of course, we all know what happens when courage is shown in the House. The Senate responds with silence.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Forging a Bond, Feeling Your Economic Pain

By on 17 June 2011

Something rather amazing happened this week and it’s the emergence of Michele Bachmann as a serious candidate for president. John H. Hinderaker over at Powerline knows her and didn’t want her to run, but has been awakened, “Suddenly, Bachmann doesn’t look like a fringe candidate anymore.” More:

That Barack Obama is without a clue when it comes to the economy is no revelation, but that he lacks empathy–traditionally a Democratic refrain–is a bold and interesting twist. The fact is that Obama does often seem to be weirdly detached from the problems he ostensibly is trying to solve. Perhaps that is just his style… It is no surprise that Bachmann’s enemies continually underestimate her, but I am beginning to think that her friends have underestimated her, too. (emphasis added)

Another person who hasn’t been sure about her is Karl Rove, though he ran her first campaign, he was unconvinced a few weeks ago when talking to Bill O’Reilly.

Mrs. Bachmann is touching on a real problem for Pres. Obama, which is he just doesn’t connect emotionally and it is his style, but it manifests in the feeling that he doesn’t seem to get what’s going on with people. His recent interview with Ann Curry I highlighted that sounded like he wanted a second term for the sake of it is another part of this problem.

Tangential to this challenge is Bill Daley, who is not connecting with business leaders either, which has been rougher to do than anticipated. The Obama camp does the optics, but they’re struggling on connectivity, because people now have seen and heard the pitch before and received insignificant follow through.

Now comes this from the LA Times (emphasis added):

But her decision to address Obama’s purported lack of empathy is notable—largely because Bachmann emerged into public notoriety as a vanguard of the slash-and-burn “tea party” movement, which largely took a mistrustful view of government in any context. Moreover, the term “empathy” is one that has long been derided by conservatives.

It’s a sign that she, along with Mitt Romney and her other rivals for the GOP nomination, view the economy, and especially the unemployment rate, as the incumbent’s biggest weakness, and that forging a connection with voters unhappy with the country’s direction will be the key to victory.

Going against your type is the strongest counterweight to reveal depth of purpose, if not character. This is the most interesting move from Bachmann, revealing her camp not only gets it’s the economy that is the Right’s best weapon, but that the human element of tapping into the emotions driving how people feel about the economy is something she and her team gets, too.

There are a lot of women out there in Republican primary land who are sick to death of the men running their party. The boys’ club better take Hinderaker’s advice to start paying attention.

It’s early, but so far Michele Bachmann is emerging as no joke, which could translate into real currency if she starts amassing a serious following. She’s already proved she can raise money.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Polls Show People are Smarter than Eric Cantor, Reince Priebus, Sean Hannity Combined

By on 08 June 2011

According to a survey of 500 New York City registered voters conducted by New York 1 and Marist College, only 30 percent say Weiner should resign. 51 percent of respondents said he should stay in his position and 18 percent said they were not sure. “It’s worth keeping in mind that New York is overwhelmingly Democratic. Partisanship can run high in this town. Moral outrage, maybe less so,” said ABC News pollster Gary Langer of Langer Research Associates. – Anthony Weiner: Poll Finds Majority of New York Voters Think He Should Not Resign

Whenever Republicans are calling for a strong Democrat to resign over a sex scandal, that’s the moment people should wake up and smell the heaping pile of hypocrisy.

Another poll shows it much closer than ABC, with many women undecided.

Donald Trump called Rep. Weiner a “psycho” and a “bad guy.” Well, he should know; this from a guy who’s had three wives, bankruptcies and all sorts of other weirdness in his life.

Of course Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor both want Weiner to resign. Sean Hannity is playing it for all it’s worth, though he’s never very worried when toe-sucking Dick Morris opines on his shows. Bill O’Reilly’s isn’t either and he’s been sued for sexual harassment.

However, nothing was more delightful than seeing Mr. Hannity try to label Meagan Broussard a “victim,” which brought an eye roll, as she scoffed at the notion. Hannity also attempted to portray her as a “26 year-old girl,” with the interview falling apart as he tried to feed her talking points that she wouldn’t accept.

Wall Street wanted Eliot Spitzer to resign and he too had made powerful enemies.

Now the Right is fundraising on Weinergate. Are you getting it yet? It’s just too bad Democrats won’t turn it around and do the same on Ensign and Vitter.

Ed Schultz was embarrassed when his own (silly) instant phone poll illustrated that over 70% of his own viewers say Weiner shouldn’t resign. (I don’t watch his show, but caught the end before another.)

Rachel Maddow went through the long list of Republican scoundrels last night.

If the late Sen. Ted Kennedy can redeem himself to such glory there is no reason whatsoever why Rep. Anthony Weiner can’t continue driving his adversaries crazy in Congress.

There lies the reason Republicans are demanding he go.

Few are as good on camera making the Democratic case than Rep. Anthony Weiner.

But since Republicans are so self-righteous; Democrats filled with self-loathing, who knows how this will end?

“I think he’s one of the most effective, decent congressman out there,” said Brooklyn native Richard Elliott. Weiner’s behavior was “stupid,” Elliott said, but not something to resign over. He also said, “I find it ridiculous that that would be the news” when so much else is going on in the world. – Democratic leaders ostracize Weiner

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Ed Schultz Apologizes

By on 26 May 2011

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Schultz is on voluntary unpaid absence for the coming week, with MSNBC issuing a statement late yesterday about Ed Schultz’s embarrassing public belch.

The comments over at Ed’s MSNBC page are wholly supportive of the blue collar talk radio hero, whose passions drive his programs, with quite a few of the monitored comments culled out.

Schultz was wrong and what he said was incredibly insulting.

Rush Limbaugh accused Pres. Bill Clinton of being a drug trafficker, while “Reverend” Jerry Falwell suggested Clinton might be a murderer, even as Sean Hannity postulated that Vince Foster might have been murdered and questioned Hillary Rodham Clinton’s possible involvement of a cover-up. Hannity dragged this lie back out during the ’08 primary season.

But if you want to know why Mitch Daniels listened to the women in his family and chose not to run for president, this whole sorry spectacle reveals a primary reason.

It makes you wonder if Sarah Palin, whose run-ins with the media have comprised her entire national rise, can toughen up enough to take what would come if she says yes to running in 2012.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Ed Schultz Calls Laura Ingraham a ‘Right Wing Slut’

By on 25 May 2011

**UPDATED**

“And what do the Republicans thinking about?” Schultz said. “They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.” – Daily Caller

Appalling.

Ed Schultz gives blue collar and union a bad name. My husband had two words for Schultz: “low class.”

It didn’t happen on MSNBC, but Schultz should not only apologize on his radio show, but on his TV show as well.

I have no idea what it is about MSNBC that pushes it toward hiring misogynistic cretins or at the very least, disrespectful Neanderthals, see David Shuster, even Chris Matthews (Keith Olbermann too). What makes MSNBC believe that demeaning women in politics isn’t an ethics issue?

It’s the 21st century, so this type of crap shouldn’t be condoned anywhere, no matter the party. It no longer passes as boys will be boys, not even on a radio show that tilts to truckers or low info listeners.

Rush Limbaugh has been getting away with his misogyny for years because Republicans don’t care what their people call women or how they treat them verbally. The low class mini me versions of Rush, people like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, are even worse. I’ve been writing about Limbaugh for years, whether it’s “feminizas, “nags” or “reporterettes,” all the GOP does is shrug and turn the other way.

Political talk radio like what Limbaugh and Shultz, even Ms. Ingraham, do is on the decline. This is just part of the reason why.

UPDATE: MSNBC has suspended Schultz without pay.

STATEMENT FROM MSNBC REGARDING ED SCHULTZ:

MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpaid leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program. Ed will address these remarks on his show tonight, and immediately following begin his leave. Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Donald Trump and ‘The Blacks’

By on 14 April 2011

**UPDATED AFTER HANNITY INTERVIEW**

“…I do worry… I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan. I do worry that he’s a little bit far out in front… And I will tell you, me, I’m protecting, I don’t care what plan the Republicans put–I’m protecting the seniors. ..” – Donald Trump, with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel (more below)

Contrary to other reports, Mr. Trump denies he will announce whether he will run for president on the last installment of “The Apprentice.”

The masquerading cub reporters over at World Net Daily blasted the “exclusive” that he would do just that, but Trump batted it down when speaking with Fred Dicker, whom you might remember when Carl Paladino threatened to “take you out, buddy.”

You just gotta love New York politics.

Fred Dicker got some juice copy and a terrific interview with Trump, who is making the pre-party to the un-announcement a lot of fun, though I sure hope he stays around for a debate or two. I’d love to see him come waltzing into the Reagan Library for a GOP debate.

As I’ve said before, it’s clear that Donald Trump can dish it out, but I’m just not convinced he’ll want to be on the receiving end of private detectives, media and all hell breaking loose as everyone starts picking through his business, his finances and his personal life. I just don’t see that happening.

–updated– On the other hand, I watched Sean Hannity’s interview with Donald Trump tonight. It was his most fascinating to date, especially on China, one of his signature issues, which he segued into the jobs angle. Trump also addressed the scrutiny issue a bit saying, “If I run I will have to disclose my finances and my finances are phenomenal, much better than anyone knows. …I actually look forward to that.”

But Mr. Trump actually had Sean Hannity sputtering until he had to completely shut up when the question of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget came up. It was classic politician, but delivered in a matter of fact manner that revealed he’s not only unafraid of conservative blowhard gasbaggery on the budget, but he’s got his eye on the people who can make his candidacy a serious shot, should he decide to get in. He even said “the numbers aren’t as bad as you’re thinking,” talking about the deficit.

“…I do worry… I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan. I do worry that he’s a little bit far out in front, because the Democrats are going to take that Medicare word, that little called Medicare, which to a lot of people means senior citizens, and they’re going to take that word and they’re going to say senior-senior-senior… And the Republicans have to be careful not to fall into a Democratic trap. … And I will tell you, me, I’m protecting, I don’t care what plan the Republicans put–I’m protecting the seniors. The seniors are in a certain way the heart of this country. I’m protecting the seniors. … I think the Republicans are too far out ahead. … This debate is supposed to be led by our President. You have to be very careful that the Republicans don’t go too far out in front. Because they’re going to lose a big election coming in 2012 if that happens.”

At this point Sean Hannity’s head exploded, because Mr. Trump is exactly correct and everything he was saying stood against the Fox man’s talking points. It was a beautiful thing just to see that and is one reason Donald Trump’s media blitz is so delicious to watch. He just doesn’t give a flying fig what these cartoon conservatives think or whether they like him or not.

When Hannity asked if Trump would deal with entitlements he put the Republicans in their place, with an answer that was pitch perfect. Well, almost.

“I always said the worst president was Jimmy Carter. Guess what? Jimmy Carter goes to second place. Barack Obama has been the worst president ever. In the history of this country, Barack Obama is number one.” – Donald Trump

Oh, and he wants to “increase the military” budget. Non-starter. He also gave Reagan credit for the hostage crisis return, completely ignoring history and that it was the late Warren Christopher. Tune in to Hannity tomorrow for the birther edition.

Mediaite has the video.

From the New York Observer:

The show’s host, Fred Dicker — who is also the New York Post’s state editor, read a recent poll showing Obama’s sky-high support among African-Americans.

Trump said the numbers were troubling and pointed to Hillary Clinton as proof that he probably won’t get the kind of support among African-Americans that he deserves.

“I tell it like it is,” Trump said. “[Y]ou’ll hear a political reporter go on and say it had nothing to do with race. But how come she had such a tiny piece of the vote? And you know, it’s a very sad thing.

“I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks. But unfortunately, it seems that, you know, the numbers you cite are very, very frightening numbers.”

Dicker said, somewhat rhetorically, that votes should always be based on merit, not on race.

“If that were the case, why did Hillary Clinton do so poorly?” Turmp [sic] asked.

“The blacks” sounds as clueless as when you hear someone say “the gays.”

As you also might expect, there’s plenty of birther stuff in the interview too, with the Dicker-Trump interview audio supplied by the Observer.

Read full story · Comments { 40 }

‘Cut It or Shut It’ Tea Party, Bruce Springsteen and Chris Christie’s Cuts

By on 31 March 2011

Sean Hannity was squealing today on his radio show about Speaker John Boehner going “wobbly” on the budget. Throwing bones to his Tea Party listeners, I guess Hannity forgot that Democrats control the Senate and there’s a Democrat in the White House, too. Nothing like a circus in place of seriousness.

According to The Hill, “no more than a couple hundred people” showed up in Washington to push the Republicans on the budget talks being run by V.P. Joe Biden, with Rep. Michele Bachmann stating that cutting Planned Parenthood is non-negotiable.

Democrats are cutting non-discretionary spending after giving in on tax increases, satisfied with letting the poor take a hit, which amounts to allowing Republicans to win the round.

The “cut it or shut it” Tea Party crowd is setting up Speaker Boehner versus Rep. Eric Cantor narrative, who may take a stand against the boss, which would further ostracize Boehner, maybe even set the Speaker up for a Tea Party challenge.

Important to note, however, is that as the Tea Party yells about spending cuts, their money train continues to be revealed.

For one thing, quite a few of the congressional Tea Party darlings get farm subsidies. John Karl of ABC nailed them on GMA. Eliminating farm subsidies would be real cutting; $16 billion was spent in 2009, according to Karl, one-quarter of a trillion dollars in the last 15 years.

If politicians wanted to get serious we wouldn’t have a fiscal crisis. However, since they won’t it leaves the U.S. in a terrifying position, because there simply is no way these game show hosts pretending to be leaders want to do what’s necessary, which starts at the Pentagon and has absolutely nothing to do with stiffing the lower middle class.

Even Bruce Springsteen took on one of his biggest fans, Gov. Chris Christie, after The Boss read this article. Mr. Springsteen’s letter to the editor focuses on something few Democrats care about today.

These are voices that in our current climate are having a hard time being heard, not just in New Jersey, but nationally. Finally, your article shows that the cuts are eating away at the lower edges of the middle class, not just those already classified as in poverty, and are likely to continue to get worse over the next few years. I’m always glad to see my hometown newspaper covering these issues. – Bruce Springsteen

For the Tea Party “cut it or shut it” crowd, as well as politicians like Gov. Christie, these non-compassionate conservatives think longer, stronger boot straps are the answer. They’ll get applause from Rush.

Unfortunately, the Democrats aren’t showing another way, which begins with a surtax on mil-billionaires, then targeting glut at the Pentagon in a serious way, though you can’t do that and start another war.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Jerome Corsi Birther Book Now Confirmed

By on 28 March 2011



The swiftboating of Pres. Barack Obama is about to begin in earnest.

I wrote about Donald Trump becoming the Republican front man on birtherism for 2012 on Friday.

Trump is out doubling down on it today, including releasing his own birth certificate.

He off-handedly questioned President Obama’s birthplace last week – a comment that drew strong rebukes from some quarters – but now business mogul Donald Trump says he’s more concerned than ever that the president was, in fact, not born in the United States.

Trump – who, however improbably, claims to be considering a presidential bid – said Monday that since his first public statement on the issue last week, “a lot of facts are emerging” that are making him question more seriously where Obama was born. “I am really concerned,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox News. “You have no doctors, you have no nurses … that remember.”

“I brought it up just routinely, and all of the sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I am starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country,” he exclaimed.

But on Friday I also reported Sean Hannity teased a book by Jerome Corsi, due out in May, which is all about questioning Obama’s legitimacy as president. Today it’s confirmed.

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

Republican Plan for 2012: Birtherism

By on 25 March 2011

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has previously said that if she ran for president, the “first thing” she’d do at the first debate would be to present her birth certificate. Not that she would have much of a choice, if the state lawmaker she’s expected to hire to manage her operations in Iowa has his way. Bachmann, who has all-but announced she’s running, is reportedly planning to bring on Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson—the author of a recent birther bill—as her political director in the presidential bellwether state. – Mother Jones

It’s coming.

Sean Hannity teased the trailer today on his radio show.

One starting point is Donald Trump, who’s charge is to legitimize birtherism.

It’s not so much that Mr. Trump wants to run for president. It’s that Republicans need a front man willing to simply ask questions who hasn’t anything to risk. That’s Trump.

Today Sean Hannity started off by simply saying Trump was only asking questions and everyone is in an uproar. What’s wrong with asking questions? The next thing out of his mouth was how birtherism is a legitimate issue, because even the notorious Roger Stone says there is a “huge niche,” out there interested in the topic. (Roger Stone helped bring down Eliot Spitzer, the most effective sheriff of Wall Street we’ve ever had.) Trump’s case begins with mentioning the fact he has people from his past who remember him, but Barack Obama does not. What’s up with that?

Taking it to “The View,” Donald Trump mainstreamed it.

Yesterday Rush applauded Trump, saying he’s only giving Obama a chance to explain:

On Limbaugh’s show Thursday, the radio talker Limbaugh sided with Trump’s beating of the birth certificate drum. “You and I have known all along that we’re dealing with a man-child here who has, literally, no qualifications, no experience, and according to Donald Trump now, no birth certificate,” Limbaugh declared.

“Trump is performing a valuable service here. He is attempting to help Obama out of a jam. You can’t say Trump is a kook right-wing birther. Trump realized the problem that Obama faces here with credibility. He’s giving him a chance here to establish some credibility by producing the birth certificate,” Limbaugh added.

Performing a valuable service is exactly what Trump is doing for Republicans, for business, too, and being applauded by Rush isn’t by accident. Trump can afford to talk it up. He’s got nothing to lose.

Right-wing radio is where Republican campaigns start. I go way back with the medium, having studied it for 20 years. It’s where they get out the vote, create the narrative, start it rolling. It’s the connection to communities a.m. stations provide that Democrats have never understood.

There have been hints before, the many birther bills, including Rep. Bachmann’s first likely presidential hire, Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, who offered one up in Bachmann’s home state of Iowa.

That’s nothing compared to what’s coming.

Today Sean Hannity mentioned Jerome Corsi, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth troll who helped take down war hero John Kerry. Sean reported there will be a book out in May by Corsi on the subject of Pres. Obama and his birth certificate. I couldn’t verify Hannity’s claim, but he said he’s going to give Corsi a lot of leeway to air his case, because he’s only asking questions.

Being Friday on wingnut radio you never know about these things, but I’ve felt for quite some time that this birther issue was no mere flight of fanatical haters and racists, though there are plenty of both where Obama is concerned.

Republicans believe they can create enough doubt about Barack Obama to push an election towards their guy, Mitt Romney, who is not going to take no for an answer this time. He is going to be the nominee and he’s prepared for the long slog to make it happen, while others do the dirty work, as always happens in these things. Having warned about Romney since 2006, even as Obama looks unbeatable, there is no doubt there won’t be near the enthusiasm for his reelection, because people have soured on his betrayals of progressivism.

As I already wrote about, a Democratic insider said to me recently, if Romney makes it through the primaries he’s dangerous, because Barack Obama has never run against a competent Republican.

Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show today that whoever is willing to take it to Obama will win this thing and Republicans can’t be worried about charges of racism or anything else.

There is no one more dangerous than Jerome Corsi with a book of ferocious political fiction, with the entire right-wing audience hanging on every word, while someone like Donald Trump, though there will be many others, including Bachmann who will produce her birth certificate when she announces, who aren’t as interested in the presidency as much as their own power and the perks they’ll get for targeting the President. Taking one for the team to legitimize the question in the light of day like Trump did on ABC, the biggest barker could get a cabinet position, access or maybe the vice presidency.

All of these different birtherism mentions are not happening by accident. The playing field is wide and deep, with Republicans never shy about scorched earth. It’s what they do.

This also isn’t 2008 when people couldn’t wait to rush George W. Bush out of the White House, eager to usher in an era of a new kind of politics. Instead, Obama’s neutered the Democratic Party and rendered the progressive movement mute and irrelevant, because if anyone ever deserved a primary challenge on the issues alone, starting with civil liberties, it’s Barack Obama. Maybe instead of talking nonsense of impeachment Dennis Kucinich should stand up and challenge Obama on the grounds he’s sold Democrats out, because nothing could be truer.

Republicans are preparing for battle, not an election, a battle. It’s already begun against the unions, in McCarthyite actions, against Planned Parenthood, and it won’t stop there. Since Barack Obama won’t fight for the tenets of the Democratic Party the Republicans have decided to take them all down.

It’s also coming through the innocent questions of birtherism made by sly surrogates, helped along through the lies and treachery of people like Jerome Corsi, and I don’t think Barack Obama or his team are remotely prepared for it.


UPDATE: Jerome Corsi’s book now confirmed.

UPDATE 2: Compilation article cross-posted over at TheModerateVoice.

Read full story · Comments { 65 }

Trumka Thanks Walker, Republicans Reeling

By on 10 March 2011

“We probably should have invited him here today to receive the Mobilizer of the Year Award.” – Richard Trumka

Today on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show he admitted Republicans lost the “headline war” in Wisconsin. That’s an understatement.

Greg Sargent writes that a recent poll reveals majorities support two Republican senators, Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper, being recalled.

Republican overreach and bad faith has also resulted in huge fundraising for the Left, including MoveOn.org, which raised $350,000, which makes the total for recall $850,000. From Politico:

Combined with last night’s take, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America have raised $750,000 since the standoff in Wisconsin began for a television campaign against GOP state senators facing recall elections.

“After what they pulled last night, these Republican senators are toast. The energy on the ground is higher than it’s ever been — and our ads are providing the air cover, making clear to local Wisconsinites that the Republican class warfare on behalf of big corporations against working families has got to end,” said PCCC’s Adam Green. DFA’s Charles Chamberlain said “Republicans have awoken a sleeping giant.”

Last night on Sean Hannity’s fact free Fox show, Ann Coulter had him sputtering to get a word in edge wise as she eviscerated Republicans in Wisconsin, particularly Scott Walker. Coulter said that before Walker got punk’d in the Koch call she’s pegged him for vice presidential material, but not anymore.

Then Coulter practically screamed, If this was Chris Christie he’d be on the air every night! There’s no doubt about it.

I’d like to see a debate between Christie and Trumka. Perhaps we could even get Michael “Let’s get ready to rumble” Buffer to call it to order.

RICHARD TRUMKA: Of course, but you have to have quality employees.

Take John Kasich. He says everybody has to share. When he came in, he gave his senior staff a 30 percent increase in wages, and then he turns around to public employees and says, now, I want to strip you, not only of the pensions you have been promised and the health care that you have been promised, but I want to take away your ability to negotiate for those.

Look, in a modern society, in a global economy, the companies that succeed are the companies that sit down with their employees, and they say, we have a problem. Let’s solve it. The old way of doing things, the Kasich way, the Walker way, is saying, employees, you have nothing to offer. Shut up and sit down and accept what we give you.

And the last point I would make about that, Judy, is that, remember something. Public employees are taxpayers as well.

(via PBS)

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Reaction Rush, with Hannity the Big Loser

By on 01 March 2009

–updated below–

edited version cross-posted at Huffington Post

I moved to the D.C. area just in time to cover CPAC. Saturday didn’t disappoint, in that watching the circus go by sort of way. A lot of people had the same impression.

Let’s start off with Rahm Emanuel, who reminded the Sunday audience that Rush is the Republican Party. Just ask the ones in Congress who have to pay respect or lose their power.

But it was Republican Mike Murphy on “Meet the Press” who put the deepest dagger into the dittohead crowd. Suffice it to say Mr. Murphy shouldn’t be looking for his CPAC invite any time soon:

MR. MURPHY: All these guys. It’s the nature of it. And they’re going to, they’re going to go out and–and it’s all right, it’s a constructive discussion. But in the–at the end of the day here’s the one statistic we all got to remember: the country’s changing. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote. We all worship Ronald Reagan. But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would’ve gotten 47 percent of the vote. The math is changing. Anglo vote’s 74 percent now, not 89. And if we don’t modernize conservatism, we’re going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up. We’re going to be in permanent minority status.

From the looks of CPAC yesterday, conservatives seem happy to head in that direction.

I got to CPAC in time for Ann Coulter (full video here) who delivered a performance of one liners with little in between. That’s not my review, but what I heard around me: “No substance, but she’s comical.” But she delivers it effortlessly. Talking about the names Lincoln was called back in his day, Ann brought it up to date: “If only Al Sharpton was around (Lincoln) would have known he was a victim of racism.” When talking about President Johnson, Coulter stopped in mid-sentence, remembering the youth of the crowd, telling the “whippersnappers” they’d have to look him up, but it was a doozy. Stating that most in the crowd don’t even remember Bill Clinton. Then it was back to Obama: They keep comparing him to Reagan. Evidently they don’t have a Democratic president to compare.

Coulter was followed by David Horowitz and company ranting about Hollywood, including Robert Davi, who was introduced as an actor whose career was in jeopardy because he’s a right-wing conservative. No one told the CPAC crowd that Davi’s career ended a long time ago. But who knows, maybe he can do for himself what turning full wingnut did for Dennis Miller.

The hilarity began early, especially when David Bosse paid insulting tribute to Michael Moore, then credited Moore with giving him a career. That’s when the “recovering European” duo of Ann McElhinny and Phelim McAleer went into a diatribe against Al Gore trying to hawk the film they’d completed, which amounted to showing clips of pure fiction where global warming is concerned. I thought their segment would never end, especially once they started using English school children to sell their celluloid.

But it was when Niger Innes took the stage that the big ring circus lights came on. Not only was he prepared with lots of juicy Dem hating red meat, but he paved the way for the main attraction, Rush Limbaugh.

If anyone was wondering who is the Republican beacon of the Republicans, watching the CPAC crowd react put all doubts to rest.

For the first ten minutes Rush was on fire. He posted the script, but it hardly gives the atmospherics, which tilted towards the bizarre almost immediately. Whatever polish Ann Coulter provided, Rush delivered none of it. Maybe she can give him some pointers if he does this again, which he seemed to hint at at one point in the speech. But it sure helps when the crowd adores you so that whatever faults you have are ignored.

Like almost immediately something manifested that looked horribly wrong. Rush was sweating profusely and fidgeting like he was about to come out of his skin. The room was very cold, with people around me shivering, putting on their coats, while Rush proclaimed how hot it was. It’s doubtful the lights on Rush made the difference. It had to be nerves. Well, why not? He sits in his EIB studio bubble every day. Now he’s in front of everyone, including being televised on cable, as he mentioned continually until not even his audience was laughing at the joke anymore. He was actually face to face with real, live people. But whatever he delivered it wasn’t a speech. More like a steam of conscious babble, just like he does on radio, though there were no commercials to mercifully break the blather. Honestly, I expected much more.

But one moment was utterly stunning. It was when Rush and the entire CPAC audience took the time and effort to malign John Kerry’s service to this country, even laughing at the mention of Vietnam. Rush’s disrespect for the military dripped off the very mention of Kerry’s name. It was disgraceful. For a crew who professes to respect the military, at every turn Republicans reveal their disdain for our troops, especially if they’re Democrats. It’s the same with Republican military policy, which has strung our forces out and depleted our reserves.

But I’m really at a loss of what to make of Rush’s performance on the whole. It was a rambling, sometimes incoherent, self-indulgent mess. There was something pathetically insecure about the lack of structure to the speech, but also Rush’s herky jerky, sweat wiping, water drinking, fist bumping, awkward pauses, note looking, never ending regurgitation of what Rush thought everyone had to hear. Because he was addressing the nation, you know, which he repeated so many times he even got sick of it.

Still, make no mistake about it. Being on the outs fires people up and the CPAC crowd, most of them college students, were definitely fired up.

But who’s going to lead them? Rush, who won the media straw poll? Mitt Romney, who won the candidate poll?

The only loser was Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck beat him out for media favorite, placing just behind Rush, with Sean coming in third. Losing to Glenn Beck? Ouch. O’Reilly was only one point behind Sean. The Fox water cooler chatter is sure to be buzzing tomorrow.

UPDATE: The Constitution Accountability Center has a terrific post up today that’s a must read. It’s particularly fitting since Rush was awarded the “defender of the Constitution award” by CPAC.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }