Lefty Professor Sachs Hates Being Called Out On Adelson-Soros Double Standard
Sometimes, an image says it all. Check out the screengrab after the jump of Jeffrey Sachs. The lefty professor is unabashedly angry at Joe Scarborough.
Why? Because the Morning Joe host called him out on his egregious double-standard. Sachs had labeled Republican Super PAC funder Sheldon Adelson "completely unlikable" and said he shouldn't be involved in American politics. But when Scarborough asked whose approach he prefers: Adelson's--who gives openly in his own name--or George Soros's--who funnels his money through myriad corporations to hide his influence--Sachs suddenly claimed he wasn't attacking one side or the other. Righhht. Video after the jump.
Watch something interesting emerge: real and unvarnished animosity between show host and guest.
Mika Brzezinski kicked things off by reading from a Forbes article about Adelson.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: [Sighs]. Ughh. This is Sheldon Adelson: "I'm against very very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections . . . but as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do and I'm not looking to escape recognition."
JOE SCARBOROUGH: What do you think of his --
JEFFREY SACHS: He's a completely--by the way--unlikable guy. Do we really need major gambling influence and a guy that has played all over the world with governments so that he gets the casino licenses, and charges up and down, as really a core leader of our politics? Come on.
SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you again. And I'm not attacking George Soros, but I don't think you like all the money --
SACHS: It's not about Soros. It's about this wrecked system. So why don't we say it? Why don't we --
SCARBOROUGH: But if you're going to attack this man for doing this --
SACHS: I'm not attacking this man. I'm saying how pathetic it is --
SCARBOROUGH: -- OK, but get to my point, get to, no --
SACHS: -- as grown-ups, we sit around the table saying this is what democracy is right now.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, we're not grown-ups saying what democracy is. These are the rules of the game, and again --
SACHS: These rules, made by five Supreme Court justices --
SCARBOROUGH: Answer my question [Sachs grimaces angrily as seen in screengrab]: who do you prefer? Whose approach do you prefer? George Soros, who's doing things legally and as a citizen of the country he can do it and I have no problem with him doing it, setting up all these organizations to shill this money and to funnel this money so it's harder to trace it back to who he's contributing to, or a guy who writes a check and says this is who I am, this is what I'm doing?
SACHS: I want the American people, and all of us as grown-ups to say, first of all to say, this is completely rotten, second, this is not --
SCARBOROUGH: If you could answer my question.
SACHS: It has nothing to do with these two. It has to do with the kind of country we have, Joe. And the fact of the matter is, five Supreme --
SCARBOROUGH: But you attacked one man --
SACHS: Five Supreme Court justices --
SCARBOROUGH: You attacked one man. You said he was a bad person.
BRZEZINSKI: I'll answer that.
SCARBOROUGH: You said he was a bad person, Jeffrey! You said we don't want him corrupting --
SACHS: Listen to me once! Please!
SCARBOROUGH: You're yelling. Don't yell at me. Just answer my question.
SACHS: Because you do this each time.
SCARBOROUGH: No I don't. You only attack one side.
SACHS: I'm not attacking one side. I've been saying from the beginning that the system is rotten.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Joe was spot on here...........
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 10:13am.
I admit it, I LOVE when liberal pu##ies get called out like this, they point out the Conservative as evil, bad, wicked and when confronted it is "simply the system I am talking about".
He still couldn't find it within him to mention Soros is a negative way, when Soros is factually anti-american.
Points go to Joe here.
How bad is this network when the ONLY SINGLE VOICE OF REASON for maybe 20 minutes a week is Joe?
Points to Joe BUT
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 10:21am.
He's got a ways to go to overcome the broken clock syndrome he suffers from
Truly unprecedented
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 12:47pm.
That's where the 20 minutes come in, on for hours and hours, but at about 08:06 he says something for 4 minutes that are positively CORRECT and "unprecedented"...
He is on 5 Days x 4 minutes (one point a day) = 20 minutes a week.
It may be that at the time is also at 08:06, we will have to keep track.................
We will grant him the clock is stopped at 08:06.
As someone else noted, YES YES YES, still 20 minutes more than that ratings juggernaut Current TV.
The most hated person on Fox is probably O'Reilly, every show he gives voice or point to liberals for 20 minutes at least.
1 show as opposed to a WEEK OF SHOWS on "the MESS".
Tom
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:05am.
Q: How bad is this network when the ONLY SINGLE VOICE OF REASON for maybe 20 minutes a week is Joe?
A: Still more balanced than Current TV??
Maybe the should be MSNBC's
Submitted by optimist on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 12:13pm.
Maybe the should be MSNBC's new slogan, "Still More Balanced Than Current TV".
Obviously
Submitted by Huapakechi on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 10:14am.
The professor is caught in the classic liberal conundrum with his "don't listen to what I say, hear what I mean" argument. When called on the blatantly obvious double standard, he does the classic crayfish maneuver.
Hey kids, look! It's Howdy
Submitted by celator on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 10:28am.
Hey kids, look! It's Howdy Doody, all growed up and a gen-u-whine liberal perfesser. Whatta great country this is, where a little puppet can grow up to be a big puppet.
Hmmm
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:02am.
JEFFREY SACHS: He's a completely--by the way--unlikable guy. Do we really need major gambling influence and a guy that has played all over the world with governments so that he gets the casino licenses, and charges up and down, as really a core leader of our politics. Come on.
I'm with you, Jeff. I'd much prefer a Nazi collaborator that almost destroyed the British pound and hides behind the politicians that he's paid for.
Of course he is not attacking only one side
Submitted by John21 on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:08am.
Of course he is not attacking only one side.
He is a leftist professor and representative of a leftist academia college. He complains only about a conservative donator and does not want to talk about the liberal shill claiming he only to want to fix the broken system. Sound like the same thing that the leftist have been whining about for the last couple of decades.
He bases his attack on a Supreme Court decision that limits the lefts decades long fund raising scams. The fact that the courts made it legal for conservative as well, just crushes his little ego. He uses the standards leftist argument that it is alright for my people to do this but it is totally wrong for you people to do this.
He went home and got some more Kool-Aid to convince himself that he wasn’t given the proper chance to speak his propaganda, because those mean conservatives.
Yup, you gotta love it.
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:24am.
"He's a completely unlikable guy", "It's not about Soros", "I'm not attacking this man. I'm saying how pathetic it is", "guy that has played all over the world with governments so that he gets the casino license". No, he's not attacking Adelson, he's just calling him names, alluding to his activities with other governments, and denigrading his donations to those heinous Republicans. I would give this moron a slight benefit of the doubt if he had lumped Soros and all the other billionaires into the "system" that allows such huge contributions, but he flat-out said it's not about Soros. Disregard Soros' statement a few years ago that he would give major money (I forget how much) to defeat Dubya. Forget about Soros being convicted in France (of all places) for his currency manipulation. Don't even consider the damage he's done to foreign economies with that same money speculation, all for his own benefit. And totally blow off that Soros is a cowardly puppetmaster, from his teen years when he was a Nazi collaborator in a prison camp till now when he won't even openly donate huge amounts of money to his side, but instead has to use dummy corporations and funds to do it for him. Sachs needs to be sacked. He's a tool.
It was BEAUTIFUL.
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:33am.
I saw it live.
Way to sack up Joe.
Keep it up.
That is too funny :)
Submitted by Whoa on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:54am.
That is too funny :)
Do you notice how condensending LIBERALS ARE!
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 12:10pm.
Because the "Adults around the table would agree the system is bad!" HEY A HOLE there are "Adults" around the table and everyone belives that your guy Soros is the evil one here! When a LIBERAL says "Adults" they only mean themselves..... look how oblameme talked about house Republicans "They drove the car in the ditch then sat there drinking slurpees" (like a kid) "We won you lost elections have consequences" (Scolding house Republicans like Children) Any time a Liberal can't defend his position one of the folowing four things happen, they:
1. Blame someone else (President Bush)
2. They go to the "Well he did it first" defense.
3. They turn into name callers: Turd blossom, Idiot George etc...
4. They turn into condensending jerks that think the only people in the room that get it is them.
I must have missed something.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 12:32pm.
I just watched the clip again, and exactly who were the "adults" sitting around the table?
I can't see them, or hear them. Which ones are they exactly?
Actually and Surprisingly
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:09pm.
Mika showed some maturity for once. She kept her trap shut!
⇒ Jeffrey Sachs-Toady
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 12:42pm.
Give him credit. At least he's been reprogrammed to avoid mention of the President's disdain for Super PACs.
Leftist Professor Defends His Self Interests
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:00pm.
One of, if not the, biggest con-game going on in America is the University/Student Loan/Indentured Servant racket. Can there be a better way to funnel money to one of the Dem's largest constituencies then:
Is the student loan racket, which has escalated the costs of college educations by throwing endless piles of federal government funds at these institutions, any different then someone becoming an indentured servant, who had someone "loan" them the means to come from Europe to work in the United States, and then pay off that "loan" over the next 25 years?
It's not surprising that Professors like Sachs support this system of Indentured Servitude. I have no doubt that the salaries of these professors has increased right along with the astronomical increases in the costs of college educations.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
liberal strategy
Submitted by Lindamae on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:14pm.
Liberals use S I N as their strategy.
S - switch the topic
I - ignore the facts
N- name call
You can control a debate with liberals by calling them up as they use each part of the strategy and redirecting them to the facts. They cannot do facts. I try to watch CNN and MSNBC talksters to watch them use this strategy continuously in their shows.
If you review Rules for Radicals, you will find these strategies listed. I love the picture of Mr. Oboma standing in front of a board teaching these strategies to members of SEIU.
But Joe, Please Kick My Teeth Out Again...
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:25pm.
I'd like to flatten this clown's face. What a jackass. Attack. get exposed. Try to change the subject. Carry water for Barry Obysmal. Repeat.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
"Five Supreme Court Justices..."
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:46pm.
Whiskey tango foxtrot? Any decision rendered in the liberal favor by a 5-4 vote on SCOTUS would suddenly be legitimate, but a 4-5 vote against them is somehow anarchy? Well Professor Batson D. Belfry, how do you reconcile your own hypocrisy?
⇒ Batson D. Belfry
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:54pm.
I admit I'd never heard of him before. Thanks for the introduction. I will drop his name often when defending liberal ideology.
It's the senator character from "Shoe" comics.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:59pm.
Just always liked the name.
The other satirical political name I like is "Senator Jack S. Phogbound" from "L'il Abner".
'He is completely unlikeable'....
Submitted by Hozeking on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 2:19pm.
This guy is such a dweeb. Seriously, can you imagine sharing a beer or a round of golf with this goof?
He'd end up with the beer poured on his head.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 2:41pm.
And, at the very least, he'd be walking back to the club house from the 10th hole. If He didn't end up wearing my 4 iron.
I'd wrap His irons around
Submitted by jkwtrading on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 5:00pm.
I'd wrap His irons around him, wrap his woods around him ,then stuff his umbrella up his ass and open it.
What do you expect from the Director of The Earth Institute...
Submitted by Conservator on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 3:45pm.
...at Columbia? - certainly not a fair, balance or rational discussion. He's a leftist arrogant smug elite who knows what is best for anyone. This radical referred to The Supreme Court's "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" ruling twice as "made by five Supreme Court justices." - not The Supreme Court, just five angry men. I'm sure Jeffrey Sachs in the 2008 election wasn't concern about the money that casino magnate Steve Wynn donated to Obama.
Jeffrey Sachs of sheeit
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 8:30pm.
Well, Well, Well......lookie at what we've got here........
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/3397/george_soros_and_je...
That explains alot about this jerk-off.
Mark, I'm surprised you
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 11:59pm.
Mark,
I'm surprised you didn't address the other issue. The professor was trying to tie this back to the Citizens United decision. As George Soros proves, a very rich man was able to influence elections before the decision, by funneling the money. Citizens United didn't change anything, it just allowed people to be more transparent.