It’s like Iran. If the media would be part of the government, we would be in the Islamic Republic. In this regime, they act like they are the government. (hat tip Armaros)
CNN, MSNBC Cut Brown’s (over at Johnny Dollar’s Place)
During Tuesday night’s coverage of the Massachusetts special election, CNN and MSNBC aired only a fraction of the Republican candidate’s speech. Fox News Channel aired both candidates’ speeches in their entirety.
When Martha Coakley (D) took the podium to concede the election, all three channels aired most or all of the eight-minute speech. However, Republican Scott Brown’s address was cut short on CNN after just seven minutes. On MSNBC Keith Olbermann cut Brown’s mic and instead attacked the Republican candidate, talked about "teabaggers", and ran commercials. CNN only ran 26% of Brown’s speech, while MSNBC aired 37%. Fox News Channel carried 100% of both speeches
This is why I thought talk of “Brown for President” were so stupid. Brown is not a hard core conservative. He is a very moderate Republican. That still makes him a million times better than Coakley or a DIABLO like Snowe, but don’t let it fool you.
Brown is charismatic, a great speaker, and shares the GOPs ideas on some very important issues, such as Obamacare. In a liberal stronghold like Massachusetts, its a HUGE shift, but Palin, he is not.
Brown said his model for governing would be McCain, who would also be the first appointment in a packed schedule of meetings that morning. “I have great respect for Senator McCain,” he said of the Arizona senator, who was one of the first establishment players to support his seemingly quixotic bid against Attorney General Martha Coakley. “I’ve known him for a while, long before this, and you know he is a war hero and kind of a maverick independent thinker. While I want to be a Scott Brown Republican, I want to rely on everybody on both sides of the aisle,” he added, “I’ve told my leadership already that I’m not a rubber stamp for anybody.”
And Brown expressed reluctance to be associated at all with the Tea Party movement that helped elect him.
“There may be members of a certain group that supported me,” he said, “but I had supporters from every walk of life. And to focus on one specific group is a disservice to the campaign — it’s inclusiveness in making sure that everyone has a voice.”
Hey, Schumer. I have a question for you. What do you expect to accomplish in these hearings? You going to call the Justices before you to testify? Are you going to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States?
Let me know how that works out for you, Chucky.
You know, I haven’t felt this good politically in a long time. Might have to make another pudding run.
"I think it’s an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."
"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I’m announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.
The White House is about to make another big gesture demonstrating its support for Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader under fire for remarks he made about President Obama’s race.
In February, Mr. Obama will head to Nevada to appear with Mr. Reid, who is facing a tough reelection battle there, aides said today.
The decision by the president to fly to Nevada for the majority leader comes as the Reid operation has made an all-out effort to rally Democrats and African-Americans around Mr. Reid, and to head off a crisis that has grown amid crucial health care negotiations and his own campaign. Several Republican officials – including the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele – called on Mr. Reid to resign.
Mr. Reid made clear he would not.
The dream of cramming down the Senate version of ObamaCare died as Scott Brown arrived in Washington DC to prepare to enter the Senate as the first Republican from Massachusetts in 38 years, which was both coincidental and providential. Nancy Pelosi announced late this morning that she can’t get the votes necessary to move it to Obama’s desk:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she does not have the votes needed to pass the Senate version of the health care bill.
“I don’t see the votes for it at this time,” Pelosi told reporters in a briefing.
After Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate Tuesday after Republicans won an upset victory in the Massachusetts special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, House passage of the current Senate health bill appeared to be one of few options available for Democrats hoping to complete their year-long quest to pass health reform.
Why is it always “unexpectedly” when it happens every damn week? One would think the “experts” might notice a bit of a pattern here.
Stock futures fell after a new report showed jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week, reminding investors a recovery is going to be slow and bumpy.
The Labor Department said workers filing for unemployment benefits for the first time rose by 36,000 to 482,000. Economists were expecting a small decline.
This is big. I’ll add more later.
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
…The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year’s midterm congressional elections.
Expect more throughout the day but my initial take is regardless of how the corporate decision cuts for one party or another, more freedom and more speech is generally good.
As for overturning the blackout period on issue ads…nice to see the Court realize the First Amendment doesn’t have an expiration date. The idea that ads couldn’t be run precisely at the time when most people are paying attention and the right of groups to promote their message was most important was a travesty and nothing more than legalized protection for the political class.
The 5-4 decision had Kennedy siding with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotoymayor shockingly sided with the anti-free speech "liberals" (as not doubt would have Souter).
Its been a lot of fun watching the insanity and gnashing of teeth amongst the liberals as they try to come up with some reason that Brown won that does not involve people hating liberal and socialist policies.
Here are just a few: (As you read them add “so that’s why the elected the anti-Obamacare, anti-big government candidate”. It makes them more surreal)
- Barack Obama – It was BOOOOSH!!!!
- Keith Olberman – Massachusetts is all racists
- Howard Dean – Massachusetts wanted a SUPER liberal heath care bill instead
- Newsweek’s Daniel Stone – What election?
- MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch – Massachussetts just wanted a “white guy”
- Boston Globe’s Brian McGrory – Mass. voters “drunk on power”
- Politico – Massachussetts voters are sexist
- Team Coakley – DNC and national Democrats screwed us
- DNC – “Political malpractice” of Team Coakley
- Steny Hoyer: Voters upset about GOP obstructionism, not Dem agenda
- Barney Frank: It was a “personality contest”
Odd that not once did they say, “hey, maybe it was the wildly unpopular socialist agenda we have been forcing down their throats”