A Call for Progressive Action In the Massachusetts Senate Race

Jan 16 2010 Published by under Featured News

As we arrive at this transformational moment in the history of our country and the Obama administration, here are the Republicans standing in the way to stop progress for main stream America by any means necessary.

Tuesday will mark the day in American history that could give the GOP the momentum they need to block the Obama administration’s agenda for the people and give the power back to the party whose greed and corruption nearly destroyed the nation with an economic recession that will take years to recover from.

How ironic is it for the senate seat of the “Lion”, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and his intense life’s work on healthcare reform to be challenged and in jeopardy by GOP candidate Scott Brown, who is determined to stop healthcare reform if he is elected? That is absolutely unbelievable and tragic that it could even be a possibility! What is wrong with the people of Massachusetts?

Ted Kennedy worked tirelessly and ferociously for the state of Massachusetts. This is one of the most significant senate races and time periods of the year in regards to the success of this administration’s policies.

The Democratic challenger Martha Coakley, the current Attorney General in Massachusetts, was leading in the polls by a significant margin up until about a week ago. Then all of a sudden there was this massive push by the GOP with the notion that this election could prevent the sixty seat majority currently taking place in the senate.

They came out of the woodwork to try to defeat Barack Obama’s healthcare plan by bringing all the support and funding needed. Instead of a state battle for a senate seat, it has become a national battle by the GOP to defeat Barack Obama. It seems like a crime of gigantic proportions.

All the work, all the drama, all the meetings, all the fights, all the challenges have come down to a few days and one man. All we know is that he is against the current administration and all of its policies like all the other republican prototypes.

Even though Ted Kennedy held that seat for an adult lifetime, GOP candidate Scott Brown refuses to even acknowledge it. He says the seat did not belong to Ted Kennedy, it belongs to the people. That is technically true, but it was so arrogant and disrespectful in how he referred to it after all the work done by Ted Kennedy for the state of Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy had worked across party lines and pushed through more policies than any other member of the senate.

Scott Brown is also against the fees Obama is proposing for the financial institutions that are “too big to fail” that are paying out seven and eight figure bonuses this year to their supposed top performers. Again I say what is wrong with the people of Massachusetts? Why is this happening? The Republicans are so charged and ready to pounce like vultures. They smell blood and the idea that they have a new opportunity to stop Barack Obama is just too much excitement.

And when Scott Brown was a younger man, he posed nude in Cosmopolitan. Now some may say that’s dirty politics, but if were in reverse it would mean something different.

The GOP would be screaming! People seem to simply find it amusing. I think it shows a peek into his social character and need for recognition and self focus. I have not heard his desire for the people. His support is for Wall Street and the big financial institutions and he is against healthcare reform.

In December, Democratic challenger, Martha Coakley was ahead in the polls by about 30 points.In less than a week, GOP candidate Scott Brown has taken the lead in this race for the senate that could derail the sixty member democratic majority.
Election Day is Tuesday, January 19, 2010. This is basically one year from Barack Obama being sworn in as President of the United States of
America. If democratic challenger, Martha Coakley loses this seat, the GOP will be able to filibuster all of President Obama’s policies which will block progress again for main stream America.

President Obama is currently handling sending US aid to Haiti, managing two wars, rebuilding the economy, saving and trying to create jobs, pushing healthcare reform, challenging the banks, dealing with threats of terror against the US and his life. And he is also dealing with the nonstop challenges and lies of the GOP.

In terms of aid to Haiti, it has become one of the most horrific disasters in the world and modern history and he has to keep a focus on the tragedy because it’s about life and death and United States leadership in caring for and supporting our neighbors on a humanitarian level.

Still, because of the significance of this election and his entire agenda as the President, he has to risk his political capital and go to Massachusetts on Sunday to stump for the Democratic candidate. Either he has to get the long hard battle of healthcare reform resolved before Tuesday or he has to deal with the long hard battle with the GOP over everything including HCR through the endless filibuster process.

This senate race is extremely important on multiple levels. Obama wants to honor the late Ted Kennedy’s service to the senate and his life’s work and fight for healthcare reform. The democratic majority in the senate needs to be protected to get HCR through and all the other relevant policies urgent to main stream America.

We can’t let the GOP take us back to the days of Bush and Cheney. We can’t afford to have all our democratic policies blocked. We can’t let the GOP win this one.

Democrats have lost 2 governors races to the GOP last year due to their campaigns of lies and misleading information. This seat is too important. Let’s help the President. He has enough on his plate.

That is why this is a notification to call and write everyone we know in Massachusetts to vote Democratic. Democrats cannot lose this seat. Democrats cannot allow the GOP to continue to constantly stop the progress of our nation! The GOP is already gloating and the results are not in!

7 responses so far

A Progressive Solution: How to Win the War on Terror without Being Terrified

Jan 15 2010 Published by under Featured News

The attempted Christmas day terror attack has thrust the issue of terrorism back into the spotlight. Here is how the US can battle al-Qaeda without giving into fear and changing who we are.

First, know that terrorists will succeed in murdering Americans along the way. Politicians aren’t allowed to say that. We can, but I’ll have more on this later.

Second, we use every tool in the box.

These are insanely complex issues that have arisen over generations. They will take generations to fix. Just breaking even after the tragedy we created in Iraq, while another horrible mess was brewing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, may itself take generations.

We must acknowledge our own role in all this. That’s not just a blogger laboring under the strain of liberal guilt. Terrorism starts with our imposition of and support for bloodthirsty dictators. We overthrew a democratically elected prime minister in Iran to institute the murderous reign of the Shah (and Savak).

We propped up Saddam Hussein, a despot so evil that we were compelled to depose him just a few years later, and commit torture in the process. We’ve supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, where he, himself, rules by terror and has not held a free election in 28 years. Then, of course, there’s Israel. Even Dick Cheney concedes our support for Israel is one of the “true sources of resentment.” Forget the platitudes. They don’t “hate freedom.” Rather, “The United States is attacked for what it does, not what it is.”

The United States has, finally, declared war on an entity – not a tactic (terrorism), a result (terror), a religion (Islam), nor a race, region or jingoistic cliché (Islamofascism). We are at war with al Qaeda. We’ll prosecute this war as aggressively as possible. Given that there are no actual enemy nations or battle lines, and there’s no real ground to capture, this too will take every tool in the box – including force. However, every time we consider using force, we must calculate whether we’re going to take out more murderers than we’re bound to create.

Now don’t get jealous. I, and probably not you, spent hours this weekend listening to lengthy interviews and Q & A’s with the likes of Adm. Michael Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, and Richard Holbrooke, the State Department veteran who heads our civilian efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I heard the recent press conference given by Obama’s head of counterterrorism, John Brennan, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.

I caught panel discussions concerning just about every geopolitical aspect of the Middle East with various historians, economists, intelligence pros and retired military – complete with listeners calling in. (Fact is, I was driving close to a thousand miles this weekend where only satellite radio is available, and it did not carry the wildcard games.)

I believe people in this administration are asking the right questions. I believe they are making reasonable decisions based upon the answers. I also believe that Americans will die. Even if the administration makes a perfect decision every single time, the terrorists will get lucky and Americans will be murdered.

Sorry – it’s just a fact. (“True fact” in Bush-speak.) Others have died in bloody scores almost everywhere over the last 50-60 years that the United States of America has imposed or propped up dictatorial regimes — most certainly including hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners, Africans, Asians, and Central and South Americans. Also recall that we’re asking our volunteer soldiers to risk death. Some of us who are not volunteering are going to die too. Call it karma if it helps.

“Hey!” you say, “You promised answers.” So I did. Let me take this opportunity to say that one of the answers is to delegate the details to experts. (Whew.) That said, here’s what else we do.

Outside of our borders:

• Find where al Qaeda is gathering and training, and kill everyone there. We either are at war, or we’re not. I’m afraid we are.

• Quit helping despots that do not share our democratic ideals. You know who you are. (Sorry, Egypt.) Israel, we have some serious talking to do.

• Increase support to countries that do share our democratic ideals, or at least come close. Create a Peace Corps the size of the U.S. Army. It is so very much harder to hate someone with a face, especially a smiling face with a brow sweaty from the effort of constructing water systems, roads, schools and clinics.

• Struggle with the near impossible task of what to do with failed nation states, and those on the verge. (That’s all I got on this one. It’s why we have experts.)

At home:

• Focus on the most effective means of national security. Have adults conduct counterterrorism and gather intelligence. Do not waste valuable time playing games with “profiling” or defending the use of our sometimes magnificent civilian justice system. Let the cynical, paranoid neo-con chicken hawks give interviews and write editorials. Children must have something to do while the grownups are working.

• Deal with the fact that, no matter what else, Americans will be murdered in America for being American.

What specifically do we do when a suicide bomber strikes or a plane goes down? No need for experts here. It’s simple enough even for Dick Cheney.

Remember we are Americans. We value rights and liberty. We value an open society.

Think how the Brits responded as one in WWII during the London blitz. Or, at least until others used it to cover their lies, how America, practically the entire world for that matter, came together after 9/11. Do not remember the opportunistic politicization since Christmas of almost every imaginable trivial issue by some very unpatriotic Americans.

We’ll pick up the pieces and fix what went wrong. Above all, we’ll remain Americans, because, as soon as we let the terrorists change who we are – they have won. We have lost. That’s the whole bloody point of terror. We shall not let them win. It’s still true: all we have to fear is fear itself. Let us be brave – American brave.

8 responses so far

Palin Bans Bloggers and Local Media from “Public” Book Signing in Alaska

Dec 22 2009 Published by under Republican Party

BANNED! Palin Bans Bloggers and Local Media from “Public” Book Signing in Alaska

Palin banned Alaskan bloggers and local radio and TV host Shannyn Mooore from her “public” book signing held today in Wasilla, Alaska. The event was held at the Menard Sports Complex that Palin championed which left Wasilla 20 million dollars in debt, due to Palin’s failure to get clear title to the land before building on it.

While Palin has refused to allow any media to ask her questions on her “book” tour, she’s graciously deigned to allow them all to photograph her incredibly shrinking self to their hearts content as she breezed past them in the rope line to Costco from her prop bus. But now she’s laid down the new law and is not even allowing her fellow Alaskans inside the venue where she held her last book signing in Alaska. She had the local bloggers/media identified by pictures, and on a “Banned” list, enforced by local police.

Gryphen from Immoral Minority (an Alaskan blog) explained as he was being escorted out by police, “Another reporter headed toward the entrance overheard us and asked us if there were REALLY a “banned list”. “Yes there is, and we are on it” was our reply. “I have never heard of that!” she said. Welcome to Sarah Palin’s Wasilla.”


And they call her “Bush lite”? She’s Bush Major.

For someone who whines about her first amendment rights (which Palin interprets to mean her right to lie and insult others without pushback), Palin shows no respect for the real intention of the amendment.

The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.

Sarah wants to establish Christian biblical law over the USA and infringe on the freedom of individuals and the press to say and write what they choose.

In fact, the folks populating the book signing were largely from her Dominonist church and included such respectable folks as Eddie Burk, local conservative talk show host who has worn T-Shirts proclaiming himself “H8TR” and a “homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible-Thumping, Gay Bashing, Tea Bagging Racist, White Guy Bigot”. So, those folks are OK. This is who she associates with and considers “friendly” media, so she gives them full access.


But she’s banning local progressives who have called her out on her lies, who write for Huffington Post and have been on MSNBC discussing Palin’s tanking Alaskan poll numbers, among other Palin particulars.

Nothing like a coward hiding from the truth and banning people who disagree with them to say “I love America!”.

Gee, can you imagine if this person had come any where near the White House? Can you image Palin having the courage to face armed teabaggers wearing “Water the Tree of Liberty with Blood” t-shirts at her Presidential rallies, as Obama has bravely done?

It seems Republicans always need to take away the freedoms they crow about. It seems like they’re always hiding and stifling free speech, among other rights.

Sarah Palin, book-banning hopeful, has now become a proud endorser of media-banning.

Palin joins Nixon in having an official “Enemies List”. Well done, Sarah. And here I thought her resignation speech “You won’t have Sarah to kick around anymore” was her sole Nixon connection. Much to be proud of, this Christmas season, eh, Sister Sarah?

Republican leaders don’t allow dissent. That’s just how they’re “wired”.

16 responses so far

MSNBC’s Countdown Pays Tribute to Sarah Palin’s Whack Job 2009

Dec 21 2009 Published by under Republican Party

You can call it a teaser for Countdown’s whack job of the year special, but if anyone needed a recap of the wild year that Sarah Palin had, the program delivered it tonight. The one thing you’ll probably notice about Palin’s year is that she quit her job, fought with the media, sold books, and did nothing productive in 2009.

Here is the video:

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

Guest host Laurence O’Donnell introduced the video by saying, “In 2009 Sarah Palin quit her job, picked a fight with a late night talk show host, and fibbed everywhere from her Facebook page to her Going Rogue book tour.”

That introduction pretty much summed up Palin’s year. Think about this, the most active thing she did politically in 2009 was to quit her job as Alaska governor. Otherwise she spent the remainder of the year playing to her Facebook fans and Twitter followers, all the while pushing her book.

Does anyone beyond her followers understand what she was talking about in her resignation speech? The speech makes even less sense almost 6 months after she gave it on the Friday before the 4th of July. I am not willing to call Sarah Palin insane. I do think that she is an expert self promoter, and this is mainly where her interest is centered.

This is just my own hunch, but I don’t think Palin will be willing to stop making money long enough to take a serious run at the presidency. Sarah is the Paris Hilton of politics. She is famous simply for being famous. If Palin was unwilling to put in the work to finish her term as governor, then why does anyone think she is willing to work 100 times harder in a presidential campaign?

Palin is ambitious, but that ambition is not matched by a desire to engage in the mundane work that makes up day to day campaigning and governing. Palin will continue to sell books and pander to the right wing of the GOP, but as the Countdown video illustrates, she is more interesting in promoting her brand than being president.

5 responses so far

How Joe Lieberman Became Progressive Enemy # 1

Dec 11 2009 Published by under Featured News

First, the fact that he couldn’t take losing to Ned Lamont in the Democratic Primary for his Senate seat in his last election (2006), so HE started HIS OWN PARTY, Connecticut for Lieberman then he campaigned for John McCain, and now his criticism has helped derail the public option, because at the end of the day it is all about Joe Lieberman.

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Lieberman actually has the cojones to go out and campaign for John McCain! And Lieberman, who, I’m sure, had plenty of work to do in the Senate, took tons of time to travel the world with McCain at every campaign stop. See Joe smile? See Joe wedge into every picture with McCain with that funny clown-like smile on his face? Yup. Lieberman is also an attention whore.

Look at any Democratic OR Republican “win” for legislation. You’ll see the photo op with a major player at the podium making remarks and…wait…who’s that in the background smiling? Yup! It’s Joe Lieberman.

After pissing off the Democratic Party by campaigning for “Crash” McCain, Harry Reid and other members of the Senate considered stripping Lieberman of one of his chairmanships, and of all people, LIEBERMAN says, “That’s unacceptable.” Unacceptable? Joe. Please. It’s not your freaking choice. And by the way…Your conduct is unacceptable.

Any piece of legislation in the Senate where the voting is close and the Democrats need one more vote to assure a victory, whose wrinkled ass do they kiss? Lieberman’s, like the ad below says, it’s not about Connecticut…It’s all about Joe.

Lately, with the health care reform battle on the line, who comes out against passage of a public option? The public option is the only portion of that legislation in the health care reform bill that actually does anything for those who can’t afford health insurance? Yup. It’s Joe Lieberman. Why? He’s got so many pharmaceutical and medical lobbyists in his pockets that he can barely get his pants on in the morning.

Have a look at the video below, where the actual chairman of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, Dr. John Mertens, says he’s had enough of Lieberman’s crap. And again, Mertens was the chairman of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

If you’d like some more information on the organization behind the “It’s All About Joe” ad campaign, check out the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, an organization that works to elect bold progressive candidates to federal office and to help those candidates and their campaigns save money, work smarter, and win more often.

3 responses so far

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Apologizes for West Point Enemy Camp Comment

Dec 02 2009 Published by under Featured News

Tonight, Chris Matthews opened up his MSNBC program Hardball with an apology for his comment that Obama went into the enemy camp when he spoke at West Point last night. Matthews said, “I used the wrong words and worse than that, I said something that was just not right, for that I deeply apologize.”

Here is the video:

Matthews said, “I’ve gotten some very tough calls from parents of cadets and from former cadets at West Point about my saying last night that the president had gone to speak up there to maybe the enemy camp. I was talking about the skepticism I saw in the faces in the crowd as President Obama spoke. Also, of course, about how West Point was where President Bush went in 2002 to make his most hawkish speech before the Iraq war.”

He then apologized, “Now I have heard too many politicians say things like, oh that was taken out of context to explain something they wish they hadn’t said. Let me just say to the cadets, their parents, former cadets, and everyone who care about this country and those who defend it, I used the wrong words, and worse than that I said something that was just not right, and for that I deeply apologize.”

He continued, “As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq, and generally more dovish image. I was wrong to make that conclusion based on the lack of applause or apparent enthusiasm in the ranks of officers and cadets last night. Cadets, one former cadet and a friend of mine just told me, aren’t supposed to show that kind of reaction to a speaker. He, a former cadet, reminded me that soldiers, including those now in training to face the enemy, want wars to be fought effectively and ended as quickly as possible. I had no reason to assume the cadets at West Point or the officers are more hawkish than the president.”

He went defend his patriotism and love of the military. All in all, it was a comprehensive apology, and not the kind of thing a viewer ever sees on Fox News. Chris Matthews admitted that he screwed up, told his audience why his assumptions were wrong, and deeply apologized for his statement.

It was a good honest apology where he didn’t try to varnish anything. Matthews deserves respect for owning up to his mistake. This is something that too few in the media do today.

One response so far

Limbaugh Declares MSNBC and the White House the Real Enemy Camp

Dec 02 2009 Published by under Featured News

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh warped Chris Matthews’ statement that Obama went to the enemy camp last night, by proclaiming that West Point is not the enemy camp, but that MSNBC and the White House are the real enemies of America. Apparently, Chris Matthews now speaks for the entire Left.

Here is the audio courtesy of Media Matters:

Limbaugh said, “Don’t forget in one of Obama’s books, just as an aside here, when he is talking about the first job he had in the private sector, he felt like he was behind enemy lines. He doesn’t like the private sector, just like Chris Matthews last night referred to West Point as the enemy camp. He referred to Obama going into the enemy camp, the United States Military Academy, and people are livid and outraged by that, as they well should be.”

He continued, “Well, of course he told the truth about what he thinks, but it is an outrageous truth. Why should we be? Ok, you want to praise him for being honest, fine, but the United States Military Academy is not the enemy camp. The enemy camp MSNBC, the enemy camp is the White House right now, not to us, for the country. The United States Military Academy is in no way, the enemy camp other than to these people, and it is quite instructive that they so say so. As they panic they get more honest, and as they acquire more power, they get more hateful.”

Limbaugh managed to take Chris Matthews’ statement that is almost universally disagreed with on the left, and turn it into a statement for the left. If Limbaugh wants to fight with MSNBC, that’s fine, but he is not helping the GOP cause by referring to the White House as the enemy to America.

Rush Limbaugh is supposed to be the most influential conservative voice in America, and this is why Republicans are pushing themselves closer to extinction every time that they listen to him. Painting Democrats as the enemy of America is a strategy that is certain to lead to comprehensive defeat.

2 responses so far

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Calls West Point an Enemy Camp

Dec 01 2009 Published by under Featured News

Whether you love him or hate him, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has a habit of planting his foot firmly in his mouth, which he did again tonight during MSNBC’s coverage of President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan when he claimed that by giving a speech at West Point, Obama had ventured into an enemy camp.

Here is the video from Media Matters:

While selling his point of view that the military hates Obama, Matthews said, “I watched those cadets, they were young kids, men and women who are committed to serving their country as professionally, it must be said as officers, and I didn’t see much excitement, but among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there, the president chose to address tonight, and I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight. That’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for back in the old Bush days.”

Once again, Chris Matthews has decided to fall back on a tired political cliché to push a storyline instead offering anything intelligent or insightful. The cliché is that the military hates Obama, but the reality is that Obama got 44% of the military vote in 2008, which was up 3% from John Kerry support in 2004. Democrats have also elected ten former veterans to Congress in the last two election cycles.

I am sure this will come as a shock to Chris Matthews, but there are both Democrats and Republicans in the military, and his reference to West Point as an enemy camp was disrespectful to the institution. West Point is not the enemy of any president, Democrat or Republican.

I understand that Matthews was trying to make the point that the audience Obama spoke to didn’t like him, but he could offer no facts to back up that statement, nor should he have expressed it in such a clumsy way. I don’t understand what Matthews was expecting the audience reaction to be to the announcement that 30,000 more troops are going to Afghanistan. The president was making a serious announcement, and I thought the audience reaction was appropriate.

One response so far

Keith Olbermann Blasts President Obama’s Afghanistan Decision

Nov 30 2009 Published by under Featured News

On his MSNBC program Countdown tonight, host Keith Olbermann delivered a brutal critique against President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. He concluded, “So, much of the change for which you were elected, Sir, has thus far been understandably, if begrudgingly, tabled, delayed, made more open-ended.”

Here is the video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Olbermann offered some advice for Obama, “You should survey the dismal array of options in front of you — even the orders given out last night — sort them into the unacceptable, the unsuccessful, and the merely un-palatable, and then put your arm down on the table and wipe the entire assortment of them off your desk — off this nation’s desk — and into the scrap heap of history.”

He called the US military an occupying force, “But poll after poll, and anecdote after anecdote, of the reality of public opinion inside Afghanistan is that its residents believe we are fighting Afghanistan. That we, Sir, have become an occupying force. Yes: if we leave, Afghanistan certainly will have an occupying force, whether it’s from Pakistan, or consisting of foreign fighters who will try to ally themselves with the Taliban.”

Here is how he described Obama’s exit strategy, President Obama will be presenting an exit strategy for Afghanistan. The exit strategy that begins by entering still further. Lose to win, sink to swim, escalate to disengage. And even this disconnect of fundamental logic is predicated on the assumption that once the extra troops go in, when the President says “okay, time for adult swim, Generals, time to get out of the pool and bring the troops with you,” that the Pentagon is just going to say “Yeppers.”

He concluded by stressing the left is running out of patience with Obama, “So, much of the change for which you were elected, Sir, has thus far been understandably, if begrudgingly, tabled, delayed, made more open-ended. But patience ebbs, Mr. President. And while the first one thousand key decisions of your presidency were already made about the economy, the first public, easy-to-discern, mouse-or-elephant kind of decision comes tomorrow night at West Point at eight o’clock.”

Olbermann is completely wrong on every count. He offered lots of reasons to leave Afghanistan, but he didn’t discuss what would happen once the U.S. left. The Taliban is waiting the United States out, and as soon as Uncle Sam leaves, they will seize control of the country. You remember the Taliban don’t you, Mr. Olbermann? They were the reason why al-Qaeda was able to make Afghanistan their base of operations.

He is also neglecting to consider the political fallout here in the United States, if the military pulled out of Afghanistan. The Republicans would certainly use a withdrawal against Obama and the Democrats, and God forbid if al-Qaeda attacks the US again after the troops leave Afghanistan, because, justified or not, Obama’s Afghanistan decision will be blamed.

Keith Olbermann isn’t interested in discussing the issue of what do in Afghanistan in any depth. Instead, he is only interesting in providing his liberal audience with more red meat. This is why Olbermann is no different than Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Obviously, the solution is not to stay in Afghanistan forever, but Olbermann’s shortsighted advice would only lead to failure both in Afghanistan and political defeat for the Democratic Party.

6 responses so far

Donny Deutsch Calls Beck and Limbaugh Circus Acts, and Lou Dobbs a Racist

Nov 30 2009 Published by under Featured News

Donny Deutsch was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, and in response to a new poll that found that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the most influential conservatives in America, he said, “These are all entertainers. They’re circus acts.” Deutsch was asked about Lou Dobbs, and he said Dobbs is a racist.

Here is the video courtesy of Media Matters:

While discussing the results of the poll, Deutsch said, “That’s an impressive foursome. That tells me if I am a Democrat I am very happy.” Jim Cramer pointed out that they should use book sells to measure popularity, and Deutsch replied, “Jim, there is a difference between being a popular media figure and an electable candidate, and you’ve got to start to make that distinction. These are all entertainers. They’re circus act, and will they be elected, no.”

Jim Cramer asked Deutsch if he thought Lou Dobbs was an acceptable candidate. Deutsch answered, “Uh, I don’t think so actually. I don’t think so. Maybe because he is a racist is pretty much the reason why.”

The person in charge of the censor button at MSNBC must get very nervous when Donny is on the air. Remember, the last time Donny was on Morning Joe he called Rush Limbaugh a douche. Deutsch doesn’t pull any punches, and I really it would be great to see him back on the air on a nightly basis.

His point about the results of the poll is right on the money. Democrats are giddy when they see Limbaugh, Beck, Cheney, and Palin listed as the four most influential conservatives in America, because none of those four are electable. Each of them makes the GOP appear more out of touch and extreme.

4 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »