Surprising Morning Joe: Bachmann Praised, Sachs To Right Of Ron Paul, Dem CEOs Desert Obama
Christopher Hitchens, RIP, would likely have loved the rough-and-tumble of today's Morning Joe. The first half-hour was a jolting fix for political junkies.
If the goring of Newt Gingrich was predictable, there was much that was not. Michelle Bachmann's debate performance was roundly praised. Lefty Jeff Sachs put himself to Ron Paul's right on the Iranian threat. Joe Scarborough and Donny Deutsch reported that normally-Dem New York CEOs have deserted Obama en masse. Video after the jump.
Watch Morning Joe's wild ride. Former RNC chairman Michael Steele got proceedings off to an interesting start, agreeing with Joe Scarborough that Newt Gingrich made a weak defense on the issues of his Freddie Mac work and support for the individual mandate. He coupled it with praise for Bachmann.
MICHAEL STEELE: You're right there, Joe. I thought it was probably the weakest first hour for [Gingrich] in all the debates that he's had. I thought that Bachmann really scored some good punches there.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Boy, she really did.
.
After discussion of Bachmann fending off Gingrich's challenge to her on her facts.
STEELE: I thought last night she did herself a great service in getting there.
SCARBOROUGH: I thought she did very well and scored a lot of points.
Even redistributionist professor Jeffrey Sachs praised Bachmann's attack on Gingrich's Freddie Mac work. More surprisingly, Sachs criticized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac themselves.
JEFFREY SACHS: Michelle Bachman completely nailed it. She had it completely right. And we know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a disaster, because they were in this limbo land where they were taking huge risks on an implicit taxpayer guarantee.
Willie Geist and Politico's Mike Allen were respectful of Bachmann's criticism of Ron Paul over Iran.
WILLIE GEIST: We were just talking about Michelle Bachmann in our last segment. She played an important role last night, kind of keeping everybody in check. One of those, going after Ron Paul for his suggestion that there is no evidence, he said, that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon. Watch this.
Cut to clip of Paul-Bachmann exchange on Iran.
MIKE ALLEN: [Ron Paul] also said Iran was acting in self-defense. Excuse me? It's the least wise he has made since, you remember the Reagan Library debate, when he said we should save money by turning off the air-conditioning for our troops in war zones? It's fine to be dovish--he's got a lot of attention and following from that. And until now the other people on the stage have sort of ignored him or used him as a cheap punch line. But remarks like this are going to provoke a strong response and he hurt himself with Republican voters with these comments.
Even more surprisingly, Jeffrey Sachs put himself to Paul's right in assessing the Iranian threat.
JEFFREY SACHS: He's been right on Afghanistan and Iraq, but he was wrong yesterday to deny any issue and any risk. There's something real there, of course.
Finally, some interesting reporting by Scarborough and Donny Deutsch on the way Dem-friendly CEOs in the New York area have deserted Barack Obama.
SCARBOROUGH: We were at a lunch yesterday, again, with Democrats, CEOs--it's hard to go to a lunch in Manhattan where you're not surrounded by Democrats at the table. But these CEOs, one of them told me that 20 of the top CEOs in New York, 18 of 20, they meet once a year, had supported Barack Obama. 18 of 20 in 2008. He said not a single one around the table were going to be supporting him. Now, they were not Newt fans. They weren't Mitt fans. But they knew they definitely weren't going to support Barack Obama --
DONNY DEUTSCH: -- same thing.
SCARBOROUGH -- these Democrats, because he just doesn't understand, what Mitt Romney said, whether it's true or not the CEOs believe it, the real world. The small business owners believe it.
DEUTSCH: I hear the same exact thing. Almost across the board.
GEIST: So where are they going? If they're not supporting Obama, they don't like Gingrich, they don't like Romney.
DEUTSCH: They're begrudgingly going to Romney. Begrudgingly, or there'll be a white knight who comes up. That's where they will go right now.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Joe likes the sound of his own voice
Submitted by Texndoc on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 9:57am.
Doesn't he. And if you're talking and he wants to he'll just get louder.
Anyway, I agree that Newt the nominee would get the lowest percentage of the female vote ever recorded for a Presidential election. I'm a Perry boy but the only guy who could drive me to Romney is Gingrich. He would be disastrous. Women hate Newt and the trophy Tiffany mistress 3rd wife from the get go. IMHO. She will never be First Lady or stand a chance against Michelle Obama and the girls, ever. It would be embarrassing. Mitt and Rick are still with #1.
I don't hate Newt
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:22am.
I think we need a mean SOB like him right now to get this ship back on course.
As a divorcee myself, I could hardly care less about wife #3. It's no one's business but Newt's & his ex's. As for Michelle O....she makes Hillary look like the best FLOTUS evah.
Really, your take on those issues vis-a-vis women is insulting, Tex.
FYI, Mitt Romney's wife has Multiple Sclerosis, and I have to wonder what on earth he is thinking putting her through yet another Presidential run (and perhaps thrusting her into the role of FLOTUS). I know from experience what MS is all about. It's like John Edwards running whilst his wife had terminal cancer. Beyond selfish, IOW. But my point is that is between two married people, and has absolutely zero to do with me as a woman voter.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde -- and let's not
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:29am.
Blonde -- and let's not mention John Kerry's marital scheme of ditching a very rich woman who was sadly, clinically mentally ill at the time...
To marry a SUPER-RICH woman... who's just plain nuts.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
John F'n Kerry was out
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:40pm.
John F'n Kerry was out screwing women while his wife was locked up in an institution for depression and suicidal ideation. The woman was suicidal and F'n couldn't run away fast enough while poring salt in her wounds by dating high profile women that the media would report on and the wife would learn about.
Speaking of high profile women... both presidential contender F'n and the president of Pathological Liars Anonymous Tommy Flanagan** both saw Morgan Fairchild naked. Yeah, that's the ticket.
** Jon Lovitz character on Saturday Night Live
There's never been a mistress First Lady
Submitted by Texndoc on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:36am.
And there never will be. Calista would make Cindy McCain look like Mary Todd Lincoln. Talk about a husband "putting a wife through" something. For the gratification of his own ego, Newt is willing for Calista to be put feet first through a media meat grinder. And she would be. But I predict Gingrich to Cain-out.
What you are saying is that you love men that betray you
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:03pm.
cheat on you,lie and run around on you and then drop by your hopspital bed to tell you that you are too wrinkled,too boring and too stupid to be his wife?
If that is really your ideal man to be president- a man that breaks marriage contracts as easily as pie crusts and has not one scintilla of character, what makes you think that that sort of "person of the year," as Time Magazine annointed him with, won't break the contract with the people- the US Constitution?
Really Irgon*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:20pm.
Ted Kennedy's girlfriend died while he was driving drunk Morning Joe's girlfriend killed herself(?) at his desk and he denied knowing her. Obama's boyfriend died in a hail of gunfire.
At least Newt married his girlfriends.
The idea expressed by blonde is that Newt is the man to carry
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:03pm.
the GOP Standard when the Newt has no character; he breaks marriage contracts and vows and writes a glowing forward to a book written by a US Constitution -hating man named Alvin Toffler. Newt would abandon the US Constitution for a marxist model just as he has left women who trusted him to keep his marriage vows.
Ann Coulter quotes Newt praising the book written by AlvinToffler, author of The Third Wave, in which Toffler who calls himself a "futurist" wishes the "Constitution to die!"
That tells us a lot about Newt when he writes a forward to book written by "futurist" Toffler that hates the Constitution!
You need to look at the Mr. Hyde side of Newt just as Miss Coulter has done in this The Daily Caller column: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/07/the-newt-history-you-ought-to-know/
Just cool it Irgon
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:33pm.
That's not what I said at all.
The end of a marriage is between the two people in it....and their family. Not yours. Not mine. How do you know there wasn't something else that split that marriage?
Oh....that's right. YOU DON'T. So shut up about it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
lrgon needs to look at the Mr. Hyde side of Ron Paul.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 12:53am.
Ron Paul - 9/11 truther
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
cajun...Newt didn't marry all of his girlfriends...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:23pm.
Only some of them.
Jer
Even "some"
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:27pm.
puts Gringrich ahead of Bill Clinton.
Just think CX*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:48pm.
If Clinton had married all of his girlfriends, he would have been married more times than Mickey Rooney.
And Elizabeth Taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor combined...
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:51pm.
...perhaps with Z-Z's sister Ava.
PS: Ava was the prettier (and nicer) of the two!
So?...Clinton was a people person...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:59pm.
and wanted to reach out and touch as many as possible.
Jer
Evidently.
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:06pm.
whether they wanted to be touched or not.
Another People Person
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:13pm.
Jerry Sandusky used the Clinton "reach out and touch someone" defense as well. Now he's onto the hygiene instructional explanation.
Sick perverts both of them.
I assume you feel the same about Newt.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:28pm.
Jer
I hope you have some facts
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:07pm.
I hope you have some facts that back up your inference that Newt molested children like Sandusky or molested women like your hero Clinton.
Excuse me, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:53pm.
How do you know what "inference" I drew from your earlier post other than what I stated in my reply? Are you a mind reader? I stated absolutely nothing about Sandusky, nor have I ever hinted that Clinton's personal behavior--especially his womanizing--was heroic. In fact, I have often stated, rather emphatically, precisely the opposite.
That said, I have always found particularly repellent the philandering Newt's unceremonious dumping of his reportedly 'too frumpy for an ambitious politician' first wife, which included stooping to the breathtakingly classless act of hectoring her about the terms of the prospective divorce while she lay in a hospital bed recovering from uterine cancer surgery. Indeed, in my book, such conduct smacks of 'sick and perverted'. I trust you don't regard it as heroic. But please don't construe that as either an inference or implication that you do.
Jer
Jer, Have you read Newt's
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:14pm.
Jer,
Have you read Newt's daughter's account on what you seem to find appauling? If his daughter, who was there does not find it anywhere near as appauling as the self-rightious Left supposedly feels, why would you?
Not to mention that for a long time and still in some Left wing circles, the lie is that Newt's ex-wife died and that on her death bed Newt asked her to sign the divorce papers.
anyway, unsure why you are outraged if his daughter, his ex-wife's daughter isn't.
And tell me, didn't the Left, the media demand that Clinton's past indiscretions be forgiven while he was running for President?
Geez, I remember a Sen. Kerry giving a speech on the Senate floor demanding that Clinton's cowardace during the Vietnam War be forgiven.
i guess we can forgive the pass indiscreations and rapes of Clinton, but if a lie is pushed by the Left against Newt, we must all believe it and be as outrage as the Left over the actions that never happened.
Did I say anything about a death bed, LL?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:32pm.
Here...read this account from a 'Right wing circle':
Jer
Jer, When did I say that you
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:50am.
Jer,
When did I say that you said that anything about a death bed? oh never mind...
I don't care what Freerepublic says or any Right or Left wing site says.
You didn't address my question.
If Newt's daughter, from that marriage, who was there in the hospital room, did not and has not made a big deal about this, she did not find it crass or uncouth or bad, why would you or any other Left winger or for that matter any Right winger?
"How do you know what
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:52pm.
Rules of grammar, Jer. Reread the posts. You make a joke about Clinton's "friendliness", in which those knowledgeable of Clinton's history would include his extramarital affairs, a subset being alleged criminal molestations. I responded that a current day molester - Sandusky - had used a similar defense. At this point, both Clinton and Sandusky are grammatically tethered together in that both are alleged as molesters. You then mentioned Newt, without any qualifying explanation, about whom I should feel the same way as I do about the molesters Clinton and Sandusky. Grammar holds that you are at least inferring Newt is an alleged pervert on the order of Clinton and Sandusky, ie an alleged molester as well. You libeled Gingrich. Your attempt to backtrack on your own vile comparison is duly noted and appreciated.
Except when you lewdly downplayed Clinton's alleged malicious aggression towards women with your "touch" joke. You referred to Clinton as a womanizer. Is that what they call alleged rapists and molesters in your town?
I do not know the details you emphatically state and do not take your word for it.
Did you vote for Clinton with knowledge of his alleged criminal proclivities and vote for John F'n Kerry who actually did dump his wife and allegedly saw other women while she was hospitalized with major depresion and suicidal ideation? Given your own comments on what constitutes reprehensible behavior, are these two the classy players you chose to back in the election?
No, I do not find anything heroic in any of the aforementioned, and never stated such. Prove where I inferred this. Looks like another one of your non-sequiturs designed to divert attention. Let's stay on track: Even though you profess your revulsion to abusive forms of behavior alleged of Clinton and indirectly those of Kerry, did you still vote for Clinton and Kerry? If so, how do you justify it given your stated disgust for such perversion?
Gingrich and Kerry may have handled their breakups poorly, but it hardly sinks to the depths of Clinton's alleged serial malevolance towards women.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 9:31pm.
Your understanding of the rules of grammar is remarkably similar to your grasp of even the most rudimentary elements of actionable defamation: Both are astonishingly weak. And twisting fact and slinging invective only illustrates the desperate measures you will employ to rescue a flawed and feeble argument from the trash heap where it belongs.
The exchanges among cajun, 26CX, DrSam and myself concerning Clinton and Gingrich were what is known as "light-hearted banter", and save for a single, casual, joking aside by CX ["...whether they wanted to be touched or not"] those exchanges did not even broach the topic of criminal molestations; that is, until you steered the conversation directly into the gutter by your sudden pronouncement of Clinton and the previously unmentioned Sandusky as "sick perverts"--each having purportedly utilized the "reach out and touch someone" defense. Since Bill Clinton has never been accused of molesting young boys, it was eminently reasonable to assume your association was based on the nature of their defenses--Sandusky for his alleged pedophilia; Clinton for both his alleged as well as his admitted extramarital dalliances.
Inasmuch as Newt Gingrich has likewise engaged in illicit/inappropriate affairs, I naturally assumed you would, for the sake of logical consistency, therefore place him in the same category in which you had deposited Clinton for his similar conduct. It was after that point you then shifted gears into sputtering indignity accompanied by feverish and vaguely threatening demands for "facts" to back up the inferences you divined concerning Gingrich, Sandusky, and my "hero" Clinton. Let no one accuse you of lacking a fertile imagination, strat. [By the way, you are the one who made the unqualified "hero" accusation, and then doubled down on it with the pathetic, transparent falsehood that I had hinted at Clinton's "heroic" character by virtue of my lewd downplaying of his alleged malicious aggression toward women.] What a piece of disgusting tripe, strat.. And a contemptible lie.
The claim that I have "libeled" Gingrich is so laughably absurd it doesn't deserve wasting another ten seconds explaining why. Google it. Or go to the library and check out a book.
Finally, you don't need to take my word about Newt's shameful treatment of his ill and hospitalized wife. It has been the subject of more than a few objective accounts. That said, it is rather shocking that you are completely unfamiliar with the details of one of Gingrich's more notorious indiscretions yet intimately acquainted--one gathers--with every salacious tidbit, whether trivial or significant, when it comes to Clinton. Well, maybe not all that surprising. I've noticed a clear correlation between ideological arrogance and selective ignorance.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:56am.
My, how you do enjoy purple prose.
It matters not what CX said, unless your objective here is to cloud the issue. You said:
"So?...Clinton was a people person...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:59pm.
and wanted to reach out and touch as many as possible."
Not a reach to recall the criminal sexual allegations against Clinton. You opened the issue up with your statement that allowed for contemplation beyond "girlfriends".
Nobody had mentioned anything about Clinton and minors until you, Jer. Once again, I specifically stated "defenses" (accused's explanation of events) not "offenses" (accusations of poor or criminal behaviour by the accused). Whatever you were trying to accomplish with the balance of that sentence or entire paragraph, you managed to restate what I said. Thank you. Unless you were trying to say defenses meant offenses, and then in that case, no thank you.
Again, John Kerry and Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs and poor handling of the break up of one of their marraiges do not sink to the level of the allegations of rape/molestation perpetrated by Bill Clinton. As such, there is no equivalency you seek.
FYI - you might not want to use the words "Clinton" and "deposited" in the same sentence unless you desire off-color replies.
Jer, your accusation of "feverish and vaguely threatening demands" is bizarre hyperbole even for you. What specifically is either "feverish" or "vaguely threatening demands" about "I hope you have some facts that backup your inference..."? Maybe you should lay off the Soprano watching for a while. Bravo on the 'sputtering' part to help bring out the purple prose affect. Have you been receiving lessons in loquaciousness from NewsBusters' self-described bon vivant Hank Mudd?
What I did, Jer, was ask you to back up your statement, something that is par for the course on NewsBusters. The following quote of yours more aptly describes your own response:
Where did you get that line - an old episode of Matlock? Sounds like something the opposing attorney would say just before his case goes down in flames.
Jer, your shocked emotionality is nearly as pure as Captain Renault's.
I may not know the equivalent number of details anbout Gingrich as I might about Clinton, and I don't know or remember many details about Clinton either, but I did read or watch TV about what the Left had to say concerning Newt back then, learning only recently it was propagandized concerning the deathbed betrayal. As to knowing Clinton's alleged behaviors, not only was it more publicized than Gingrich's over the years, but NewsBusters staff and members have brought it up on occassion since I've been a member. Shockingly, or not, Gingrich's past has not been served up frequently like Clinton's because Newt was not lapping up the limelight like Clinton. Attention brings attention. Now that Newt's back in the public eye his past is forefront and I will be reading about him.
I suppose if I went to the same Leftist web sites you visit then I would know more about what allegedly happened in Gingrich's marriage. What I do recall about Gingrich was learned years ago from the lying Left who promulgated the lie that Newt left his wife on her death bed. So, my unfamiliarity is at least partly due to the lying Left. A large part is I was not politically attuned in the 1980's, so the stories were not subsuming. Newt was an adulterer and behaved badly in his marriage breakup. Kerry transgressed similarly in his marriage. Poor behavior to be sure, but not rape. Or even rape-rape if you prefer Whoopi pretzel logic. Clinton, based on multiple credible claims of sexual abuse, will never rise to the moral equivalency of whatever Gingrich and Kerry did. You embarass yourself trying to elevate, rationalize or make moral equivalence arguments for the alleged rapist and documented predator Clinton.
True to your nature on NewsBusters, you failed to answer questions posed. I'll not ask again for an answer on why you softened Clinton as a "womanizer", but I will ask again, without fever or a subatomic particle's worth of threat:
I assume your previous unresponsiveness to be due to the realization you couldn't adequately equivocate or justify your votes given your clear and absolute disgust with identical, let alone worse, perversion and sickness, leading the conclusion:
The mirror can be a harsh mistress sometimes.
strat...I'll review this tomorrow...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 3:35am.
but a couple of quick points: I've never made any secret about my voting record. At the state and local levels, I have voted for quite a few Republicans. On the national level, I have always cast my ballot for the Democratic candidate, although, as I've noted before, I do regret not voting for Reagan in '84. Also, I mentioned here prior to the 2008 contest, that my first choice had been Evan Bayh, and that if Hillary were the nominee and Romney the GOP candidate, I intended to vote for Romney. Neither contingency materializing, I voted for Obama.
Re the mirror and the mistress: How true. And the older I get, the harsher she becomes.
Ciao,
Jer
I have voted for Democrats in
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:23am.
I have voted for Democrats in Local and State elections as well, including a couple local Democrats last month. If the only choices I had were between Obama or Hillary, I would vote for Hillary. (Should I have included a beverage alert?) I don't know if I'll ever be so comfortable with a presidential election again as I was with Reagan, so I've learned to accommodate voting with one hand while holding my nose with the other.
I hear you about the mirror. That's why I let the shower steam it up before sneaking a peak.
Take your time on a reply. We're just rattling sabers from comfy chairs, not actual fisticuffs requiring lightning fast reflexes. Besides, I'm too mellow in my Pajamagram Hoodie-Footie to fight. ;-)
Good idea, strat...I should have thought of that.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 4:39am.
Me, I've been perfecting the art of the brief, sideways glance and then quickly averting my gaze while convincing myself that "yep, still look the same as I did 30 years ago.
Jer
Just for the record, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 6:03pm.
With regards to your statement "...and save for a single, casual, joking aside by CX ["...whether they wanted to be touched or not"]" I wasn't joking.
I can see how my comment could have been taken as something other than a serious statement, though, so I have no problems with the confusion. I just wanted to make my position clear.
Merry Christmas to all!
Well, for the record, CX....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 6:57pm.
my saying "joking aside" was meant only to describe the timing and manner of the delivery of the quip, rather than a reflection on its veracity.
I honestly doubt anyone was confused over your intention.
Merry Christmas.
Jer
Thanks, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:17pm.
I guess the confusion arose from your choosing to focus on my timing and manner of delivery rather than the substance of my remark.
Kind of a unique approach to dealing with a comment, but I'll take your word for it.
Merry Christmas to you, also.
Actually, that's not quite correct, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 8:49pm.
I specifically singled out your comment as one which had broached the substantive topic of criminal molestation [by referring--albeit in a joking manner--to unwanted touching].
Jer
Which returns us to my original comment:
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 9:10pm.
I wasn't joking.
We all know that...which again evokes the observatiion that
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 9:17pm.
a valid, fact-based point can be made in a joking manner. One doesn't rule out the other.
Your turn. :-)
Jer
Well, Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 9:29pm.
If we all know that I wasn't joking, what is the point of your generalization about expressing valid, fact-based points in a joking manner?
Because, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 9:39pm.
you seem to think we are or may be unaware of it. And that I had implied you actually didn't believe Clinton had touched anyone who didn't want to be touched.
Jer
To be succinct, Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 9:55pm.
both your assumptions are wrong.
26CX
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 10:14pm.
We conservatives, on the whole, are painstakingly succinct. Regardless, we find ourselves going around in circles with libs every time we engage them.
- Shy Kringle
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
MrShy
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 10:26pm.
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, MrShy
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:01am.
Jer
Mr Shy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 11:05pm.
* for the like button
As are your conclusions, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:11am.
Once again: The allegation or observation contained in a humorous quip or zinger is not rendered invalid or insincere just because it is delivered in that form.
Jer
Interesting but irrelevant, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 9:42pm.
My concern was that readers might construe your characterization of my comment as "... a single, casual, joking aside by CX " to mean that my comment was not a serious one.
Not irrelevant at all, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:13pm.
a. Your concern relates to a possible misconstruction by others of my characterization, rather than their questioning the accuracy of your comment,
b. I am confident the overwhelming majority of readers here are well aware of the instances of Clinton's unwanted touching--or at the very least the allegations of same.
c. Once again, describing a remark as a quip or a joking aside doesn't challenge the veracity of its content--which fact was underscored by my subsequent reference to your broaching the topic of criminal molestation. If I had believed your comment was groundless, I would have disputed it on substantive grounds.
Jer
Thanks for your response, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:34pm.
a. Had my comment been left to stand on its own I wouldn't have been concerned. But since you labeled it as a "casual, joking aside by CX" it's reasonable to be concerned that others might be influenced by your comment. I only wanted to make sure that your comments didn't mislead anyone as to the intent of my comment.
b. I agree that the overwhelming majority of readers here are well aware of the instances of Clinton's unwanted touching & etc., but that doesn't mean your characterization of my comment as a "casual, joking aside" wouldn't possibly lead them to believe I wasn't serious.
c. I am not concerned about the veracity of my comment. I am concerned that your characterization of it as a "casual, joking aside" might lead people to think it wasn't a serious comment.
And thank you for yours as well, CX....
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:50pm.
I strongly disagree, but I think we've both stated our positions as clearly as possible, so I don't think there is any point in our dissecting the matter further.
Have a good evening.
Jer
Thanks, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:52pm.
You have a good evening, too.
Stratman, How dare you?! HOW
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:08pm.
Stratman,
How dare you?! HOW DARE YOU?!
You just attacked Jer's favorite womanizer, woman abuser and rapist on planet Earth. How dare you say anything that is true about President Clinton.
don't you know any better? Now you will face the wrath of Jer. How dare you speak the truth of Clinton, one of Jer's political gods. Now you are in trouble. :-)
Jer, I am kidding. I just can't understand your love for President Clinton. The man was and probably still isa womanizer who raped woman and destroyed the character of any woman who dared come out and speak the truth about him. You know, Clinton acted just like every Leftist says no man should act. I have never understood why any feminist would ever adore, as they do, President Clinton. he is the epitome of what feminist told us is wrong with all men. Hey, but since he is a Democrat who supports abortions, i guess the feminist can live with his rapin of a woman, his womanizing and abuse of women.
Liberalies...what is it about
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 8:28pm.
the following statement in my earlier post which you find confusing?
"...nor have I ever hinted that Clinton's personal behavior--especially his womanizing--was heroic. In fact, I have often stated, rather emphatically, precisely the opposite..."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/12/16/surprising-morn...
Jer
No doubt about Clinton and his girlfriends.
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:01pm.
He certainly would have given Katie Pilgrim a run for the title of most marriages.
Oh look....the PaulBot translator has checked in
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:41pm.
....to tell me what I think.
How wonderful.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You like Newt because he's as you call him a "SOB"
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:12pm.
what is there to "translate."
My comment has no translation other than to point out that there are women out there who like men like Newt simply because he sounds tough. That's their problem. But by all indications the nation is sick and tired of those types of jerks- the type of politician that sound conservative and then vote liberal.
I tell ya' blonde you need to seek character first in men and then you wouldn't be so dissapointed later when they kick in in the teeth and tell you they found a more exciting model.
Don't you dare presume to lecture me
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:35pm.
You little twit.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Speaking of Newt's wife....
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 5:13pm.
Ann Althouse notes that Robin Givhan, of the WaPo's Style section, does what she does when she doesn't like a politician...she goes after his wife.
H/T and quote: The Anchoress
lrgon likes Ron Paul because he is a racist.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 1:01am.
Ron "Buy my Newsletter where I proclaim MLK's birthday is "Hate Whitey Day!"." Paul.
Ron Paul: It’s called the Ron Paul Survival Report, and I put that out on a monthly basis....
I put that out on a monthly basis...
I put that out...
as in I, RON THE KING CRANK PAUL PUT THAT OUT. I WROTE IT. I SIGNED IT. LOOK, RIGHT THERE, MY SIGNATURE, I WROTE IT.
Hypocrite
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:55pm.
And yet you either did or would have voted for Clinton, John "I was in Vietnam" Kerry, Kennedy and Roosevelt.
Then there is the Vera Baker scandal the Media and you ignore. Obama abuses the nation and appears to have slept around on the First Wookie and you still are a member of North American Man Barack Love Association. (h/t Cool Arrow)
Newt learned how to be
Submitted by Marsh on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:05am.
condescending to Bachmann by viewing old Morning Joe tapes of Joe mocking her for the past few years.
I don't think Newt was
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:59pm.
I don't think Newt was condescending, its common for candidates to say "you don't have your facts right", when they believe the other person doesn't have their facts right. I'm sure Romney and Perry have said that to each other many times already.
In fact, I think Bachmann was wrong to go after Newt on the abortion issue; he did support a partial birth abortion ban back in the 90s. As for Freddie/Fannie, I don't think anyone has successfully made the case that he acted as a lobbyist and not a consultant. Other than that its true that Gingrich in the past has said he prefers overhauling them than eliminating them, but that isn't the type of discussion they Bachmann and Gingrich were having.
I believe Bachmann was trying to say he was being condescending by saying what she did -- "I'm a serious candidate" -- but she failed. Even if Bachmann believed she was right, Gingrich had a right to characterize what she said as "not being the facts".
I'm also sure that Scarborough only is praising Bachmann because he dislikes Gingrich, and praising her is a way to get to him.
Mark,
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:16am.
I was up early this a.m., and saw a segment where Donnie Deutsch said something absolutely stupid, and Joe, Sachs, & Michael Steele absolutely cracked up and laughed in his face. Maybe said all of the R's were Philistines, and that Obama in '08 "ethereal" or something? To which Michael Steele replied "oh, that's like 'milieu'. THAT WAS A GREAT CLIP, would love to see it if you have it, laughing in Donnie's face. (This was before my coffee, you understand). Mika was off the set at the time.
Now, I have some questions (I rarely flip this show on any more). Is Michael Steele now a regular MSNBC talking head?
What on earth were they talking about "individual mandate"? That wasn't mentioned last night.
Finally, what's with the fake flag graphic in the background? Is that new? Have they said anything about it?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Mark Finkelstein on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:28am.
Stay tuned: I think Noel will be up with an item about Donny taking it on the chin!
I haven't focused on the fake flag backdrop. I'll look into it!
Thanks, Mark
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:37am.
Those flags just look so faux and so WRONG! Eagerly awaiting the answer!
Also, I don't know if anyone at NB tapes F&F, but the Varney clip (I'm sure it was early on in the 6 a.m. hour, see my comment to dan, below) would be great for the archives here. As you know, I don't impress easily.
That Donny thing reminded me of John Zeigler laughing in David Shuster's face a couple of years ago, to the point he was sputtering. I love some bbq'd liberal in the morning (now that you're in Texas, I know you do too!).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It's all laughably obvious
Submitted by ChrisNH on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:19am.
The Leftist media will praise ANY candidate against whom OBAMO (supposedly) has a massive advantage over. The candidate we pick needs to be the one most roundly criticized by these media hacks. The more they attack a certain candidate, the more we should embrace that person.
Your reaching
Submitted by dan iroticiv on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:20am.
Boy newsbusters you are really reaching on this one. Watched Morning Joe this morning and it was nothing different, insulting Newt. Yea, they threw in a couple sarcastic compliments towards Ms. Bachman, but the storyline of the show was like it has been everyday since Newt became the front-runner, bash Newt Gingrich. M. Steele to his credit called MSNBC and Joe out on bashing Newt after he only after he became the frontrunner, but the show again was nothing but a liberal love fest with liberal wanna be economist explaining to all us dummies how we need to give more money to the government so they can take care of us all. They pushed that phony bs 1/2 the country lives in poverty nonsense. They never mention the standard of living enjoyed in this country. The avg "poor" person is this country has a home, 3 tvs with cable, the internet, and a cell phone for every family member.
dan
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:28am.
I flipped on MJ briefly early this am (per my above) and saw Steele call out Joe for only dumping on Newt now. Great point.
As to your 1/2 country in poverty, I had flipped over to F&F and they had Stuart Varney on, who played the clip of Obama being asked "do you take any personal responsibility for this new statistic....", to which, of course, The Won blamed Bush.
Varney absolutely crushed Obama's lie in about four sentences. I thought at the time that it would be an absolutely PERFECT campaign ad for whomever gets the nomination. I wish I could find a link to it. Best, most succinct put down of The Won I've seen in forever.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Perhaps you're being to kind to NewsBusters
Submitted by Conservator on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:39pm.
This is one of two stories published today (Joe Scarborough Nails Donny Deutsch for Blindly Supporting Obama in 2008) on this site. Any praise for Rep. Bachmann was only used as a mean for Joey to continue his vitriol attacks against Newt.
Regarding Joey's judgment on Newt's so-call condescending replies to Bachmann's attacks, I find it remarkable that The Washington Post would actually have the facts correct today:
"...Gingrich came under repeated attack, with Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), who needs a strong showing in Iowa, taking a very aggressive stance against him. She challenged the former House speaker over the $1.6 million he received as a consultant to Freddie Mac and on supporting Republican candidates who favored late-term abortions.
Twice he accused her of getting her facts wrong. “Sometimes Congresswoman doesn't get her facts very accurate,” he said the second time. Bachmann, her voice dripping with indignation, shot back: “I think it’s outrageous to continue to say over and over through the debates that I don’t have my facts right when, as a matter of fact, I do. I am a serious candidate for president of the United States and my facts are accurate...”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-on-the-defensive-in-gop-...
I have no problem with referring to Bachmann as a Congresswoman. More important, Michelle claim that fact-checkers had proven her correct in the last debate. Unfortunately she was wrong:
“...After the debate that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything that I said was true. And the evidence is that Speaker Gingrich took $1.6 million.”
— Michele Bachmann
If you are going to quote fact checkers, you need to have your facts straight.
Bachmann, defending herself against Gingrich’s statement that her attack on his association with Freddie Mac was “factually not true,” claimed that our colleagues at PolitiFact backed her up. PolitiFact immediately tweeted: “For the record, we did not say that everything Michele Bachmann said at last week’s debate was true.”
Indeed, Politfact did not rate any of her claims on Freddie Mac and even said her statement that Obama had passed into law “socialized medicine” was worthy of a “Pants on Fire” rating. (That’s the equivalent of our Four Pinocchios.) After Thursday’s debate, PolitiFact gave her another “Pants on Fire” rating for making this claim..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-...
It would be nice for NewsBusters to point out these facts and stop praising Joey who seems not to be able to got out and eat in NYC without "18 of 20" being Democrats. I never had that problem and I worked in NYC for many years in the media. As a publisher, it was my job to entertain my clients - normally at least 4 lunches and 2 dinners per week. Yes many were liberal; yet a good number were conservative.
Factcheck: Bachmann WRONG
Submitted by han_solo on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:28am.
Factcheck: Bachmann WRONG about IAEA Report... Ron Paul ***CORRECT***.
http://factcheck.org/2011/12/the-final-iowa-debate/
Quit the Spamming, han_solo
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:35am.
Against the Terms of Service here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Face it Paulbot.......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:36pm.
Ron Paul imploded last night, with that "crazy man" rant at Bachman over the Iranian nukes. Pauls run ended last night! Paul now reduced to "joke" status.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Just for you Paulbot.......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:21pm.
Ron Paul Campaign theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
They Are Trying to Claim Newt Did the Same As Chris Dodd.
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 6:22pm.
I hope that Newt Gingrich gets the nomination and wins the Whitehouse. If only because there will be years of walking around on egg shells for these characters.
Chris Dodd who is in fact responsible for the Fannie and Freddie disaster is drawing money from the same payroll as this crew is and who knows after next year Barney Frank may have a job as the head of MSNBC homosexual development. What is certain is that from the time that Jimmy Carter started forcing banks to distort their lending standards NBC was always on the side of the distortion and never called for the restoration of lending standards to this day.
NBC also did not give a shout about Solyndra.
There should be costs for Morning Joe and other who are so negligent.
C'mon Tex
Submitted by NeoConfirmed on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:32pm.
Newt is taking such a beating and its all nonsense. He is by far the most qualified and intelligent candidate. He is the ONLY one in the field who can give Obama multiple debate beat downs. And getting his ass handed to him by Obama in 08, McCain found this out the hard way.
There are so many on here who look for their perfect candidate and let me give you all a newsflash: There is no perfect candidate.
This business about women not voting for Newt because of his personal life is ludicris.