Latest Notable Quotables: Journalists 'Recoil in Horror' from Palin; 'Beloved' Bill Clinton
The Media Research Center has just released the latest edition of Notable Quotables, our bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media. [here's the link to the formatted PDF version]
Highlights from this issue include: journalists suggesting it’s somehow radical to think the Constitution “was intended to limit the federal government” or to expect the government to do nothing outside the “powers granted to them in the Constitution;” ABC News veteran Barbara Walters hoping disgraced Congressman Anthony stays in Congress and winds up like the “beloved” Bill Clinton; and top editors admitting that “not any single reporter” thinks Sarah Palin “should be President,” and how “most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
A sample of the best quotes from the June 27 edition are after the jump; you can read the entire issue online at www.mrc.org.
Journalists Would “Recoil in Horror” at Palin Presidency
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— The Politico’s executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19 Sunday Magazine.
Anticipating a “Tough Day,” “Minefield” and “Storm” for Palin...
Co-host Matt Lauer: “Plus, what could be a tough day for potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin. We’re live in Alaska, where thousands of her e-mails as governor there will be released today....”
Co-host Ann Curry: “Sarah Palin says that she’s still thinking about making a run for President, but she’s about to face a new political minefield today....”
Reporter Michael Isikoff: “Fresh off her bus tour that attracted a crush of media attention, Sarah Palin may now be facing a storm of a different kind: the release of thousands of e-mails from Palin to more than 50 top aides and officials in Alaska....”
— NBC’s Today, June 10.
...Only to Be Disappointed: “Not a Lot of Bombshells”
Reporter Michael Isikoff: “The e-mails have lots of redactions, and so far, there are no bombshells....”
NBC’s David Gregory: “As Mike and his team are finding, not a lot of bombshells here....Might we have learned this during her run for the vice presidency when she was on the McCain ticket? Probably so.”
— Hours later on the June 10 NBC Nightly News.
Hoping Weiner Hangs on Like “Beloved” Bill Clinton
“You thought that Anthony Weiner should resign, and that seems to be what a great many people are saying. So I don’t think so. I think what he has done is unfathomable. I think the pictures are disgusting....The ethics committee can investigate him and chastise, but not necessarily throw him out. And we had a President named Bill Clinton who went through a great deal of trouble, weathered the storm and is now not only respected, but he’s beloved by many people with a very good marriage. So, I think Anthony Weiner should hang in there. He was a good Congressman, and maybe he can weather this all and be effective.”
— Barbara Walters to her co-hosts on ABC’s The View, June 9.
Weiner’s Antics Offend Culturally “Backward” Christians
“If he [Anthony Weiner] stays, they [Democrats] never get the leadership back. They never get the Speakership back, because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally — you can say backward if you want — but they don’t like this kind of stuff at all.”
— Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, June 9.
The Constitution Doesn’t Limit Federal Power, Does It?
“The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy....If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”
— Time managing editor Richard Stengel in the magazine’s July 4 edition, which featured a picture of the U.S. Constitution going through a shredder with the headline, “Does It Still Matter?”
“Are We Being Too Aggressive About Tackling Deficits?”
Moderator David Gregory: “Doris, we, we showed the pictures from Greece. We can show them again — demonstrations in the streets as a result of draconian cuts being made by the government there. The same question I asked to Senator Graham, are we being too aggressive about tackling deficits at a point when the economy still needs so much help?”
NBC historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: “Absolutely....”
— NBC’s Meet the Press, June 19.
And Jesus Said, “Let Them Pound Sand”
“The House began debating a spending bill today that cuts $833 million from the WIC nutrition program, which provides healthy food to low-income women and their children....Now what was it that Jesus said? ‘Give me your poor and needy, and I’ll go tell them to pound sand.’ That’s at least the Republican vision of Jesus.”
— Anchor Cenk Uygur during the 6pm ET hour of MSNBC News Live, June 14.
With Global Warming, a Giant Ark May Be Good Planning
Correspondent Janet Shamlian: “Johan’s ark has proven seaworthy, but how realistic is this Dutchman’s dream of doom? Because of global warming, the concept of a flood happening here is not unheard of. Al Gore predicted as much in the movie, An Inconvenient Truth.”
Clip of Al Gore from movie: “If Greenland broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in the Netherlands, absolutely devastating.”
— Story on NBC’s Today, June 22, about a man from Holland who constructed a full-size replica of Noah’s Ark.
- Rich Noyes's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Let's not forget....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:34am.
"If it's Kansas, Missouri, no big deal. You know, that's the dance of the low-sloping foreheads. The middle places, right?"
David Carr - NYT Columnist
I have met horror---> and his name is Owebomba................
Submitted by merly1 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:33am.
which is too bad because he does appear to be a great family man, is/was a smoker despite the anti-smoking Nazis, and took out OBL with extreme prejudice..........................his economic and social agendas, however, are truly perplexing!
By "perplexing", I assume....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:35am.
...you mean "disastrous"?
enumerated powers does not equal 'limited'?
Submitted by ant on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:36am.
Who would've guessed that one day, reporters...(ahem)...journalists would be sculptors of fiction?
Three Fifths of what?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:51pm.
"but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being"
That's not what the Constitution says, and I'm getting tired of hearing it.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
It's NOT "three fifths of a person," as they want you to believe, it's three fifths of ALL OTHER PERSONS. That's three fifths of a total, you idiots! Each and every Black Man, and Woman, in America was considered a person, even if they were slaves, even if they were "property." Why is this passage so hard for the suppose "intelligent," "educated" liberals to understand? I guess the truth doesn't fit in their "White Men Are Bigots" mindset, so they lie to themselves, and us, about things like this.
Let me put it in an easy to understand equation for you idiot liberals:
Jenny has 100 Green Apples.
Jerry has 50 Red Apples.
Jerry gave Jenny three fifths of his Apples.
How many Apples does Jenny have?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Why did Jerry give Jenny his Apples?
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:59pm.
Did Jenny have some Oranges to trade?
No
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:11pm.
No. Jerry presented those apples as a gift, hence the use of the term "gave." Why do you ask?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Why do I ask?
Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:16pm.
Because making at least one stupid comment on NB each day is like a day without sunshine..I'm done now.
So, you just like being obtuse?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:17pm.
So, you just like being obtuse?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
They also can't read.
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:05pm.
"If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so."
Oh, really? So, Article 1, Section 9, which has all those "No " provisions, like "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," really doesn't exist?
I guess Artical 6, which contains the passage: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" also doesn't exist.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The Constitution Doesn’t Limit Federal Power, Does It?
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:43pm.
Yes. It does.
The founders gave us a framework designed to address the lowest levels of human behavior, the need to own and control everyone. The framework kept the European aristocracy from getting a foothole in this new country. Why do you think they stated that the President must be native born? To keep some European prince or duke or lord from bringing over a bunch of minions and winning the presidency so they can turn the citizens into serfs.
The reason that the government said that blacks were 3/5 a person was to keep the slave owning states from overrunning congress. If slave states were allowed to use their full headcount of slaves, then there would be a larger number of House members from those states and they could disrupt or control House votes.The 3/5 rule was to protect blacks from their slaveowners taking over the federal government. BTW the framers did not write this into the original framework.
I think women should have a vote. 'nuff said.
As to why N Dakota has the same number of senators as California is a good thing. Unlike the House, the Senate is designed to keep the big states from overwhelming the small states. If California had eight Senators and N Dakota had one, then the Senate would be completely controlled by the one or two most populus states and we hear in Idaho would never be heard from again. BTW Idaho only has two seats in the House. How much clout does that give us?
This is the same situation as the electoral college. If we only went by popular vote, then presidential candidates would only have to campaign or care about Los Angeles and New York City, because between them they have the votes to drown out any votes we have here in fly-over country. Smaller states like mine would have no say at all in the election outcome.
I think the framers were much smarter than you think they were.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net