I wouldn't want to create problems for Contessa Brewer [file photo]. But again today the spirited MSNBC anchor said something that made me wonder whether she might be a closeted conservative in the belly of the liberal beast.
Janet Huckabee, responding to Brewer's question on the possibility that her husband would withdraw from the presidential race, drew a contrast between the Romney and Huckabee campaigns.
View video here.
JANET HUCKABEE: Mr. Romney, he spent a lot of money, and he has an MBA from Harvard, for heaven's sakes; he could see that he spent $1.3 million [per] the delegates he's had. We haven't spent quite that much. So we're not going into debt; we haven't loaned the campaign any money, and we plan to go as long as we can, either run out of money or till someone gets the amount of delegates they need.
CONTESSA BREWER: Well maybe that sets a good example for the government in terms of fiscal responsibility.
HUCKABEE: I think it does!
This isn't the first time that Contessa said something that could be considered conservative. As I noted here, at the time of the VA Tech shootings she seemed to stick up for Second Amendment rights.
Sorry, Contessa. Hopefully the MSNBC honchos are too distracted with the Shuster situation to be policing their anchors' ad libs for signs of straying from liberal orthodoxy.
Bonus Coverage: Mike & Janet Huckabee -- World's Most Disciplined Couple
With all the speculation swirling that Huckabee might be shooting for the Veep slot, you'd think the couple might have discussed the possibility at some point. Nope.
BREWER: Let me ask you: your husband was asked about being vice-president, and he said nobody turns that down but that he hasn't been offered that job. Have you talked about the possibility that he might be asked to become a vice-presidential running mate?HUCKABEE: You know, we really haven't because we both recognize that it's not up to us.
Remarkable restraint, wouldn't you say?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Memo to Brewer
February 11, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Lame CherryFrom the desk of MSNBC President:
Memo to Brewer: Stop
Stop being nice: Stop
Stop not stopping the GOP: Stop
Stop the Finkelstein fan club: Stop
We only stop Shuster to stop Hillary complaining: Stop
Stop or your job stops: Stop
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Excellent point
February 11, 2008 - 19:13 ET by bigtimerExcellent point Contessa....don't slip up like that again or you'll be let go by msnbc.
Btw Mark, I agree with you about Contessa, I too have heard some of her remarks in the past that have surprised me with her being on board with msnbc.
Great catch ...
She could of asked about setting up a wedding registry
February 11, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Daniel Bakerto get gov office gifts
Perhaps after tonight NB
February 11, 2008 - 19:38 ET by jcrapes4Perhaps after tonight NB should delete this thread. Cover up the evidence:) I would feel crushed if we caused the only conservative at MSNBC to lose her job. Though she could always get hired by Fox.
jcrapes4,
February 11, 2008 - 21:07 ET by R D HelmIf she goes blonde, Fox would take her in a second.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
My biggest problem with
February 11, 2008 - 20:02 ET by Conservative VoiceMy biggest problem with Huck is this issue, the idea that paying for your campaign, that is putting your money where your mouth is, is somehow a BAD thing. And since when is it not fiscally responsible? Its his money! Did he use a credit card to pay for it? No.
Fact is a candidate who doesn't put his money where his mouth is is not a freeman, he is a bought man. And to look down on Mitt for this reason means Huck has a problem with freemen, that is not a good thing.
Its funny, Huck still has to
February 11, 2008 - 20:03 ET by Conservative VoiceIts funny, Huck still has to campaign against Romney. Getting the anti-McCain vote isn't enough.
She's Conserative !
February 11, 2008 - 21:04 ET by billbJust look at her. And when your finished looking, just listen to her.
How Huckabee wins without money
February 11, 2008 - 21:04 ET by Daniel BakerWhen pundits talked about Huckabee's "appeal" after his victory in Iowa, I was amused at the fact that not one commentator mentioned the big fat elephant in the room: Huckabee beat Romney by openly appealing to anti-Mormon prejudice.
Anti-Mormon prejudice is no more justified than racial prejudice, and is fed from the same source. For many years, Southern Baptists and other evangelicals have funded and disseminated a set of distortions and lies about what Mormons believe and do.
When Huckabee made his disingenuous comment about how "Mormons believe Satan and Christ are brothers," he was reading straight from the anti-Mormon playbook. He knew exactly what he was doing. That one quotation was all he needed to signal to all the evangelicals in Iowa that he was the anti-Mormon candidate, and it worked..
Baker?
February 11, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Cool ArrowWell, it can also be said Romney won Utah and surrounding states with a vicious anti-evangelical Mormon vote. 90% for Romney in Utah? Tell me there isn't a considerable bit of religious intolerance going there.
Some would say he "got a favorable vote from fellow Mormons", but that's not sufficiently charged with acrimony, is it?
And if it's a belief of a religion that Jesus and Satan are brothers, why is it something to be ashamed of? What the heck, if I as a Pentecostal, am asked "Don't y'all speak in gibberish?" I shouldn't be hiding my beliefs, but rather explain what we do believe
♣ a seal
First off, Utah is not 100%
February 11, 2008 - 22:05 ET by Conservative VoiceFirst off, Utah is not 100% Mormons, not even close, but they are very conservative. Utah voted for Romney over Huck, because Romney is more conservative than Huck on many areas.
Romney is also better known in Utah.
Absolutes
February 11, 2008 - 22:22 ET by Cool ArrowDid anybody say Utah's population is 100% Mormon? Are you saying 63% is insignificant? Was it not a factor in the voting?
Does one question about Mormonism constitute an anti-Mormon campaign?
I was pointing out what can be said if one wishes to throw in more than a little charged language.
♣ a seal
Because questioning the
February 11, 2008 - 22:51 ET by Conservative VoiceBecause questioning the Mormon religion is inappropriate for a candidate to do so, it is a low blow. My guess is, if Huck didn't play the religion card, nor the class envy card, he would of had more votes in Utah...not because of his religion, as you implied. Heck, I have stated I could vote for him despite his raising taxes, letting out criminals, and being soft on the border, if he would stop playing the class envy and religion cards.
Sure one can say, but its a weak argument. Huck lost Mormon votes because he was a jerk to Mormons and he isn't a conservative...they didn't vote against him based on his religion.
Huck
February 11, 2008 - 23:12 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I would have (not could have) voted for Romney despite his raising taxes (oh yeah, he called them fees), being soft on the border (what did he do on the illegal issue after all?), and the socialist healthcare system he bragged about (even though his little gem brought the fifty buck abortion to Mass.)
What I'm saying is that there's plenty of room for rationalization once one decides who his favorite candidate is. Mitt was the better of the two candidates, but I wasn't about to close my eyes to his faults.
And if recollection serves me, Mitt had a national audience and a personally composed "What I believe" speech in which he could have called the "two brothers" question a pack of lies, but he knew he couldn't.
♣ a seal
but you made the assertion
February 11, 2008 - 23:39 ET by Conservative Voicebut you made the assertion of an anti-evangelical vote, those things you picked on Romney for is fair game and appropriate for candidates to challenge him on..
Romney never played the religion card against Huck. And Mormons didn't vote against Huck because of his religion, as you asserted.
Says who?
February 12, 2008 - 01:42 ET by Cool ArrowAnd evangelicals, who show more diversity in voting patterns than Mormons didn't vote for Huckabee out of religious bigotry either.
I made the point of the lockstep Mormon vote in response to the "anti Mormon" campaign that supposedly took place.
Bishop Romney made a whole speech on being Mormon. That's a heck of a lot more than one question.
♣ a seal
I am not going to get into
February 12, 2008 - 14:21 ET by Conservative VoiceI am not going to get into a my Church is better than your church argument. If you can't see the difference between Huck's actions versus Romney giving a speech in defense, then I really can't help you.
Btw, I would be singing the same tune if Romney pulled a Huck. But obviously you feel that I am attacking your Religion when I attack Huck.
NIce attempt at rationalization, Cool Arrow, but dishonest
February 11, 2008 - 23:42 ET by RJVoting FOR someone isn't "intolerance." On the other hand, stating that you won't vote for them because of their religion is intolerance.
And when the Huckster brought up the religion of another candidate, it was a transparent, clarion call to bigotry. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.
"I really like Mike Huckabee." -uber lib Mika Brezinski
There goes RJ again
February 12, 2008 - 02:01 ET by Cool ArrowI offer an opinion, and you call me a liar. You are one cheap individual RJ. Jump in immediately with the namecalling again. Why should I expect anything more out of you.
If you'd scroll up and read the thread instead of jumping in, I specifically stated it was a rationalization based on who one's favorite candidate is. My point was rationalization exists on both sides of this issue. I seriously question your ability to understand the concept of rationalization.
♣ a seal
Chill, Cool...I believe
February 12, 2008 - 02:14 ET by JerChill, Cool...I believe you're overreacting to a relatively trivial provocation from R J.
Jer
Jer
February 12, 2008 - 02:27 ET by Cool ArrowIn some parts, it's still the ultimate insult to call another human being a liar. That's where I live.
I can argue both sides of the Huck/Mitt question. I can recognize where both sides are coming from. I recognize both sides have their own set of rationalizations going. That's all I'm saying.
♣ a seal
Cool...Same where I live.
February 12, 2008 - 02:48 ET by JerCool...Same where I live. [I left this site for two or three weeks--even considered a permanent retirement--because someone accused me of habitually "lying" after what was in reality a mere disagreement over word interpretation.]
But R J didn't even use the term liar, or any form of it. Maybe "dishonest" was a poor choice of words, but he seems to be saying not much more than, in his opinion, the claim you made wasn't a product of a true assessment of the "Huck/Mitt question".
Jer
Jer
February 12, 2008 - 02:56 ET by Cool ArrowAnd my position is that rationalization seldom involves a "true assessment".
What's the difference between "dishonest" and "liar"?
♣ a seal
Cool...
February 12, 2008 - 03:21 ET by JerI think the latter is decidedly more perjorative than the former.
For example, one might claim that another's biases prevent him from making an honest judgment about some one or some thing. Consequently, with regard to that one particular case, he may be dishonest--perhaps unwittingly so. That, to me, is far less egregious than labeling someone a "liar"...which connotes a continuing character flaw or moral and ethical deficiency.
Plus, the word "lying" just seems more inflammatory and provocative than the words "being dishonest".
Jer
No diff as used
February 12, 2008 - 03:30 ET by Cool ArrowTo say "your bias against this candidate prevents you from making an honest assessment" is totally different than saying "you're being dishonest"
So I can say "you're prevericating", and it's not the same as saying "you're lying"?
I don't buy that one either. It's all semantic dancing.
♣ a seal
Cool...I'm not saying you
February 12, 2008 - 17:13 ET by JerCool...I'm not saying you are completely off base...just that your reaction seemed excessive. But, it's obvious your mind won't be changed by me, so I'll just let you and RJ continue in whatever manner the two of you wish.
In closing, I'm sure you know better than I, but my guess is that the history of west Texas [I think that's where you live] is replete with instances where "semantic dancing" has prevented "disagreements" from quickly escalating to a more violent stage.
Scenario 1: "You're a liar!"
"Nobody calls me a liar" (reaching for gun)
Scenario 2: "From that perspective, the claim is dishonest...
"Are you calling me a liar?
"No, I'm just saying that....
The verbal two-step is not always a bad thing.
Jer
If the first caucus was Nevada not Iowa
February 12, 2008 - 00:00 ET by Daniel BakerHuckabee could of outspent Romney and lost
I'd hate to say this
February 12, 2008 - 00:07 ET by pbthinkerI'd hate to say this, but Huckabee has the right answer, in this case, McCain hasn't won yet, and it appears it's not going to be as easy as everyone thinks. Romney has got to be asking what went wrong. Since he left the campaign, all his votes are going to Huckabee. We have no idea where they would have gone had he stayed in, do we?
It appears that Romney and Huckabee have a different attitude towards the election process with Romney's involving more of himself and less of the process. I like the fact that Huckabee is willing to give people a choice, where Romney was willing to concede early, without forcing McCain to win the votes.
I doubt Huckabee can win, but I like his spunk. (And, as Lou Grant would say, "I hate spunk." )
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Brewer is a lib loving Clinton fan.
February 12, 2008 - 00:14 ET byA balanced budget is an old fashion, infective, ploy used by Clinton.
Brewer is a lib loving Clinton fan.
PB... LOL... Gotcha'!
February 12, 2008 - 00:38 ET by bigtimerPB...
LOL... Gotcha'!
One of the talking points
February 12, 2008 - 00:39 ET by jpm100One of the talking points that are on the list where '62,400 repetitions equals one truth' for Democrats is that the Budget Deficit is a Republican only problem.