Reliable Sources Panel Laughs When S.E. Cupp Defends Christine O'Donnell's First Amendment Remark

Kurtz is on his last leg. He

Submitted by d1carter on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 4:59pm.

Kurtz is on his last leg. He has left WaPo now and the gig with the Daily Beast will not keep him at CNN...

• Login to post comments

To many, truth and facts don't matter in our political discourse

Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:17pm.

And the fact that so many in the MSM don't care goes to the heart of the MSMs slide into irrelevance. 

• Login to post comments

Why we need a constitution = come on

Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:28pm.

You know why they write contracts down on paper? Because as time goes by, people's perspectives change. What they remember about the agreement is distorted by their immediate needs. The contract captures what they actually agreed to.

Over time, liberals have come to "remember" the first amendment as "separation of church and state." But as we all know, that memory was created long after the fact. It wasn't until the 1940s when the first amendment was interpreted as an absolute separation. What the liberals "remember" is the body of Supreme Court interpretation, all created by liberal courts, and conservative courts haven't had the votes to overturn it. 

Now, you can argue that the interpretation of the first amendment is, de facto, the law of the land. Fine. But that's not what the liberals are arguing. They're all saying the same intellectually dishonest (or glaringly stupid) canard that, well ... come on. Just read the first amendment. 

And that's the point: they have remembered the interpretations, but those interpretations aren't in the text. 

You can always tell when a person is slavishly repeating what their culture has told them, instead of relying on their own ideas ... come on. These are sheep repeating what they've been taught to believe, instead of any thought of their own. Sheep.

• Login to post comments

which is more distressing?

Submitted by mom_rox on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:53pm.

Take your pick, of who is laughing and snickering at O'Donnell's/Cupp's response:

• the media, who are able to craft the news cycle items, or
   
• the law students, some of whom might become future judges

just sad, either way.

• Login to post comments

let's see who's laughing Nov. 3rd.... eh?

Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 6:10pm.

While the ship of (journalist) fools is going down by the bow they keep partying on. I've already seen some back door attempts by those actually looking at the rising waters trying to get Congress to fund them. The rest will be really shocked as they are standing in the unemployment line.

ha ha

• Login to post comments

It's all settled, move along

Submitted by forest on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 6:22pm.

The law is settled!  In a SCOTUS decision, former klansman Hugo 'sheets' Black wrote something about a "wall" between church and state.  That's why "shall establish no religion" now means "no contact with religion whatsoever".  

I know it was a long time ago, but we all know Supreme Court decisions never get overturned.  That's why we still have school segregation, and all kinds of other institutionally racist stuff Hugo Black liked.

• Login to post comments

How about I post it down here, rwnewsnut...

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:30pm.

MR. GREGORY:  All right.  Let me turn to politics and the domestic agenda, particularly the economy.  The president has announced plans for some additional infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy, he also would like to give some business tax breaks that the corporate world has responded very favorably to.  Should these become law, should they get passed, what impact do you think they could actually have by November?

MR. AXELROD:  Well, I don't know that, that--look, the goal is, is not to have impact by November; the goal is to have impact and to get this economy moving again.  I know everybody's looking at this--in Washington--is looking at this election at the, at the economy through the prism of the election, but when people are sitting around their kitchen table, they're not looking at the NBC News poll, David, they're looking at bills they can't pay...

MR. GREGORY:  What...

MR. AXELROD:  ...they're concerned about their future, they want to know that we have policies that are not only going to get the economy accelerating in the short run but will lay a foundation for future growth...

MR. GREGORY:  Well, right, but so the White House has an economic strategy...

MR. AXELROD:  ...and that's what the president is after.

MR. GREGORY:  The White House has an economic strategy, but the White House is also tactical and is indeed looking at the November election when you announce some of these policies at a point when most people agree it's not going to get passed by November.  David Wessel in The Wall Street Journal wrote this in his column on Wednesday, let me put it up on
the screen, that "Obamanomics Is Recast as `Recovery Summer' Fades.  On both politics and economics," he writes, "the president's moves are late. There was ample warning earlier this year that economic recovery lacked vigor and that the oomph of fiscal stimulus was about to wane.  Had these policies been proposed in the spring, Congress might have adopted
them--and the economy would have been feeling the lift by now.  Instead, the president looks like he checked the economy"...

MR. AXELROD:  Well...

MR. GREGORY:  ..."off the to-do list prematurely, and instead turned to financial reform, energy, immigration, and" the "Middle East peace - and now regrets that." Response?

MR. AXELROD:  I strongly disagree with that.  In fact, we've been doing things all along to accelerate this economy.  Earlier in the year, we passed a higher act to give additional tax breaks to people who hire--to firms that hire unemployed workers.  We passed a bill to keep teachers and firefighters and police who were going to lose their jobs on the job; it was important for the public, important for the economy.  And we've been trying for months, as you know, to pass additional tax breaks for small businesses on top of the eight we've given them and to expand lending.  That has been held up by politics in the United States Senate.
We're hopeful next week we may be able to break the log jam.  Senator Voinovich, a Republican, said it's time to stop playing games, he said to his own party, and we agree with that.

So we've done things right along to keep this recovery moving in the right direction.  We've had eight straight months of, of positive job growth in the private sector.  We need to accelerate that pace, and that's the reason the president has proposed these additional ideas.
Whether they--we're ready to pass them tomorrow, David, if the Republican Party in the Senate allows it, if they pass the small business tax bill. And if they want to move on others, we're ready to go.  If they want to wait until after the election, then we'll have to wait until after the election.

MR. GREGORY:  When you talk about the economic progress that has or has not been made, there's been some critics who have looked at how the president has talked about the economy, and, and we compiled some of what the president has said about the economy going back to last April.  Let's look at that.

(Videotape, April 10, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA:  What you're starting to see is glimmers of hope across the economy.

(August 7, 2009) That's why we're turning this economy around.  I am convinced that we can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

(August 8, 2009) This month's job numbers are a sign that we've begun to put the brakes on this recession.  The worst may be behind us.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  And here is what the White House--the Web site from the White House touted earlier in the summer, it was "Recovery Summer," as it was billed by the White House in campaigning across the country, as the "Administration kicks off ‘Recovery Summer,’ Groundbreakings and Events Across the Country." And yet here is the economic record, which is still quite bleak:  9.6 percent unemployment, you have had 19 months--or 16 months of straight--of 9 percent or higher unemployment; 54,000 net jobs lost in August; 14.9 million unemployed; 6.2 million of which are long-term unemployed.  And just today in The New York Times, a reminder of the real cost of this, a story that we see, "As Economy Tumbles,
Numbers of Families in Shelters Rise." You've had a rise in the number of families actually going into homeless shelters.  So it's a question of the president's rhetoric vs. reality; are those things out of sync? 

MR. AXELROD:  No, they're not out of sync.  And obviously in April, we were on a slightly greater scheme than we, we were over the summer because you had a Greek fiscal crisis that took 15 percent off the stock market and caused businesses to retrench further.  But the reality remains, David, that when we took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs, in the month of January, when we took over from the last administration.  We lost four million jobs in the last six months of the last administration. We've had eight months of private-sector job growth.  We have to accelerate.

Listen, the hole that this recession created was huge, 8 million people lost, lost their jobs, and that's on top of a decade in which the middle class was treading water.  And there's a lot of pain out there and a lot of--and people are frustrated.  They deserve to be frustrated.  We're
frustrated.  We want to move this economy forward more quickly, we, we would like some cooperation to do it.

But the real issue is, since you raised--put this in a political context, the real issue for people this November is going to be, what direction do we want to go?  Now the other side, and you had Pete Sessions on your show, the head of the congressional campaign committee for the
Republicans, said, "We wan to go back to the very same agenda we had before this president took office." That agenda was a disaster.  That agenda turned the Clinton surplus into a record deficit of $1.3 trillion, gave free rein to the special interests, and led to the biggest--at the
expense of the middle class and the economy--and led to the greatest economic collapse...

MR. GREGORY:  Let me...

MR. AXELROD:  ...since the Great Depression.  Why would we want to go back to that?

MR. GREGORY:  But let me ask you when you think, as a practical matter, when does the economic team think that Obama administration economic policies will have a sizable impact on the unemployment rate in this country?

MR. AXELROD:  David, there was a study that was released just a couple of weeks ago by a couple of economists, one Republican, one Democrat, some of the leading economists in the country, who said the things that we did not only saved--or created three and a half million jobs, in other words, three and a half more million people are working, but we would have
lost--if we hadn't taken all the steps we had taken, we would have lost twice as many jobs as we did during the recession.  I--the hole was tremendous, the damage is great. It took 10 years to create that problem...

MR. GREGORY:  Right, but my question is...

MR. AXELROD:  ...it's going to take--nearly 10 years--it's going to take some time...

MR. GREGORY:  ...when is the expectation that the unemployment rate can come down in a meaningful way?

MR. AXELROD:  ...it's going to take some time to fix it.  Well, we're, we're, we're, we're moving toward that with every step that we take. Obviously, 750,000 new private-sector jobs created this year is a start. We need to accelerate that, and it will come with growth.  That growth's
going to come with the steps we've taken, and it's going to come with a revitalization of the middle class, which is why, of course, we want to extend tax cuts for the middle class.

MR. GREGORY:  But the, the, the fundamental belief of the American people has to be that things are going to get better.  This administration said that with the stimulus plan you'd have unemployment at 8 percent.  That proved not to be the case.  You've had some real big bites of the legislative apple here with successes--healthcare reform, financial regulation, a very large stimulus plan, which the president argued was necessary.  And yet, here we stand, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, disapproval of the president's handling of the economy is at 56 percent.  But here is what is in, in many ways more damning than that, the judgment of whether people are optimistic about the future. And here it is, from the same poll, will things get better or worse or stay the same?  Fifty-one percent think they'll stay the same or get worse.  This was a president, Mr. Axelrod, who was, who was elected on the promise of transformation of Washington and better handling of the economy.  Isn't the lack of confidence in him on the economy the ultimate judgment that you were trying to avoid?

MR. AXELROD:  No.  Look, I'm not worried about the judgment of him, I'm worried about moving this economy forward.  That's what he's worried about. We walked into something that nobody anticipated.  We knew the situation was bad.  No one knew how bad it was.  It was the greatest downturn since the Great Depression.  And our job since that time is to work day in and day out to move that forward.  We are--the economy is growing now instead of shrinking, we're gaining jobs instead of losing them.  We have to accelerate that.  And yes, people are discouraged. They've gone through, not just a hard recession, but for many people
they've been treading water for, for a decade and, and, and, and salaries and wages have flatlined and so on.  But the, the answer is to do the array of things that we have to do to invest in our infrastructure, to give business the incentive to grow, to give middle-class people money to spend to get our economy moving again, to have the best educated work force, to do all the things to--to expand exports.  All the things that we're working on are going to move this economy forward.  But, of course, people are discouraged.  It's been a tough time.

MR. GREGORY:  But if, if this is an election about choices...

MR. AXELROD:  I'll tell you--wait, I'll tell you...

MR. GREGORY:  Wait a minute, I'm sorry.  If...

MR. AXELROD:  Let me, let me, let me just say one thing.  Yeah.

MR. GREGORY:  Well, this is the question of...

MR. AXELROD:  Let's talk about the choices.

MR. GREGORY:  If this is a question about choices, Americans have lost confidence in this president's direction to fix the economy.

MR. AXELROD:  Listen, you look at your same poll, and I've looked at your poll, obviously, and the thing that people said that made them most uncomfortable with a candidate was whether they supported the economic policies of George W. Bush.  And you listen to--and the policies that existed before, before this president took office.  You listen to what John Boehner, the man who would be speaker, has said about what he wants to do about the economy.  He says he wants to restore those tax cuts for companies that ship our jobs overseas, he wants to cancel the Obama tax cuts that were part of the Recovery Act for the middle class and raise
taxes on 110 million families. And yet, he wants to borrow $700 billion to give millionaires and billionaires another tax cut and add to our deficits.  And then this morning we read that the lobbying community has rallied to his “Boehner for Speaker” campaign and spent millions of dollars so that they can go back to writing the rules themselves.  They say, "We don't need to buy access to Mr. Boehner, we already have that."

MR. GREGORY:  OK.

MR. AXELROD:  "We want him in power so that we're in power." We don't want to go back to the same policies and the same practices that drove our economy into a ditch, that punished the middle class, and that led us to this catastrophe.  We have to keep moving forward.

MR. GREGORY:  All right, so let me ask you a more specific question about this debate about tax cuts, for instance.  You mentioned Leader Boehner for the Republicans, who is saying in an interview that, in fact, he would support the middle class tax cuts if--the extension of which, which is what the president wants.  He said on Friday, don't hold those hostage.  What I'm asking is, is there any room to compromise with Republicans to extend, even if it's for two years, as your formerly departed budget director called for, those on upper-income Americans, those tax cuts from the Bush era?

MR. AXELROD:  Well, if you read carefully what our budget director said, he said he'd prefer we didn't move forward on the upper-income tax cuts because he doesn't believe that they're really stimulative and he doesn't believe we can afford it, but he thought for political reasons we might have to accept it.  So, you know, that--let's, let's lay, let's lay that aside.  But Mr. Boehner, no one believes that Mr. Boehner--you know, they called the last set of tax cuts temporary.  They're going to continue.  I think we have to assume that they're going to keep pushing this forward.

But let me make one point clear.  What we're proposing is a tax cut for 100 percent of Americans up to $250,000 of their income.  So if you make under $250,000, you'd get a tax cut on all your income.  If you make more than that, you'd get it up to $250,000.  So if you're a millionaire, you'll get what everybody else gets up to $250,000.  Not the $100,000 a
year that Mr. Boehner wants to give it.  David, we just can't afford it. And really, what we ought to do is, as the president said, we agree on the middle-class tax cuts.  Let's not hold them hostage while we debate whether we're going to give this very small number of people at the top a, a tax cut that we can't afford.

MR. GREGORY:  It was striking to me hearing the president on Friday, when he talked about the economy and the choice in this election, he did not mention anything in his opening remarks about healthcare reform, which he and you and others have, have billed as a signature achievement of this administration. In fact, you have said that once people know more about
health care, the more popular it will become.  And, in fact, we see reporting this week in Politico that, in fact, there aren't any Democrats who supported this who are out there touting that vote.  Only those who opposed it are touting it in the election. And it's striking because in
March, Senator Chuck Schumer was on the program, and this is what he said about health care.

(Videotape, March 28, 2010)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):  So I predict, David, by November those who voted for health care will find it an asset; those who voted against it will find it a liability.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  The opposite has turned out to be true. Why is it that the president has failed to win the argument about the benefits of healthcare reform?

MR. AXELROD:  Well, first of all, I don't think health care is driving this election, David.  And I think the economy is driving this election. People have anxiety about that economy.  I'll tell you what they don't want, though. They don't want to go back to a...

MR. GREGORY:  Then why did you do health care and spend so much of last year on health care?

MR. AXELROD:  They don't want to go back.  They don't want, they don't, they don't--well, you know why we worked on health care, because health care was a huge--is and was a huge problem in this country in terms of the cost of it to people and the government, in terms of the relationship between people and their insurance companies.  No one wants to go back to a situation where, if you have a pre-existing medical condition, you, you can be deprived of coverage.  No one wants to go back to a situation where, if you get seriously ill, you can get thrown off your insurance. Seniors don't want to go back to paying more for their prescription
drugs.  No one's calling for that, David. And if the Republican Party wants to make the argument that that's what we should do, then they should make it openly and honestly.

MR. GREGORY:  But this administration made the argument that part of economic recovery was passing healthcare reform, part of getting the economic fiscal house in order in the government was healthcare reform.

MR. AXELROD:  Yes.

MR. GREGORY:  And yet Democrats are not campaigning on it because it's so politically toxic.  You said that wouldn't be the case.  You said it would get more popular...

MR. AXELROD:  Well, listen.

MR. GREGORY:  ...not less.

MR. AXELROD:  I, I think it, I think that health care over time is going to become more popular.  But people are focused on this economy right now. They've got anxiety about this economy.  That's what's, that's what's driving the vote right now, David.  And, at the end of the day you, you mention the fiscal, the Congressional Budget Office and every objective observer who's looked at it has said that this will save a trillion dollars over the course of the next couple of decades or more in our, in our--in budget deficits.  And that's an important part of this. So we have to think long as well as short.

MR. GREGORY:  Before you go, Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff, whether he's eyeing the mayoral run in Chicago.  If he were to take some early steps toward that, maybe raise money, look into it, can he do that with the president's blessing while he's still chief of staff?

MR. AXELROD:  Well, I think the president's been clear that while the--Rahm is chief of staff, he's going to be focused on his duties as chief of staff. He's looking at it.  He loves the city of Chicago, there's no question about it.  And he's going to--and he has a hard decision to make because he has a, he has a lot of responsibilities here and he enjoys working with this president, he enjoys serving the country in this capacity.  But he's going to make a decision, and after he makes his decision, I'm sure that he'll make subsequent decisions about, about
when and, and, and--when it's appropriate to begin doing that campaigning.

MR. GREGORY:  All right.  David Axelrod, as always, thank you very much. Enjoy the steak fry this afternoon in Iowa.

MR. AXELROD:  Good to be with you.  Looking forward to it.  Thank you.

source

Jer

• Login to post comments

While "separation of church

Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:58am.

While "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution the phrase is in the public domain. The problem is that it has become defined in the public in a way that the First Amendment does not actually say. The giggles from the audience and the failure to actually discuss what the First Amendment actually says is more troubling.

The constitution here clearly says Congress cannot pass laws that have to do with the establishment of a religion or those that prohibit people from engaging in religion as they see fit.

The court has some how turned this into a means to remove crosses from war memorials and to erase all vestiges of religious tradition from the public square. It seems an honest dialong about this would have been good. O'Donnell however allowed herself to get off topic from the Democrat disaster of the last 4 years of congressional rule and the left went after her just like Palin, Angle, Paul, McMahon,Miller etc. The media is with the Dems and you just need a disciplined message on the folly of big government waste and debt as the answer to anyone's problems. This was O'Donnell's fault but it would happen to any challenger to a Dem.

• Login to post comments

You have GOT to be kidding me!

Submitted by stage9 on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 11:07am.

CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: I invite everybody, first of all, to read the Fist Amendment and decide for yourself. Obviously, this is a pedantic argument about semantics, but what's more important is, blaming the media is usually a tactic of losing campaigns. So I'm rather perplexed that the Tea Party folks, who obviously have an advantage, according to the polls right now, are taking this tact. Let's see if it works or not.

EXCUSE ME???????

Where, you liberal genius, does it say "separation of church and state" in the Constitution???

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

1) Congress can't pass a law to create a state religion (like was done in England. Notice "endorsement" is not even found in the phrase.)
2) Congress cannot prohibit the free and public expression of religion (like was done in England)

Why in the name of all goodness do you think the early settlers fled ENGLAND!? They were fleeing persecution from the Church of England who imposed their own state-run religion on the people. The Protestant reformers refused to be strongarmed and fled to the New World in hope of establishing a place where they could worship freely.

The first thing they did when they stepped foot on this new soil was thank God.

http://1031toglory.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/first-landing-pilgrims-hu...

This secular, revisionist, liberal nonsense is EXACTLY what happened in 1947 folks in the case of Emerson vs Board of Education, when a dim witted judge arbitrarily IMPOSED this phrase "separation of church and state" upon the Constitution. He wrote this:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Now HOW did he get THIS from the 1st Amendment phrase above?

He didn't. He lifted it from a letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The last I checked, that letter is not a part of the Constitution.

Therefore, "separation of church and state", as its been applied,  is unconstitutional.

These lying sycophants need to be brought to task over this and quickly.

• Login to post comments