Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
RNC Chair Reince Priebus Tries Soledad O’Brien’s Patience On CNN’s Starting Point
by Tommy Christopher | 10:31 am, February 1st, 2012
In an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point Wednesday morning, RNC chairman Reince Priebus tried out a little condescension and confrontation on host Soledad O’Brien, and was met with curt impatience. Asked if the nasty Republican primary race could damage the eventual nominee, Priebus passive-aggressively accused O’Brien of “spinning,” while a visibly annoyed Soledad O’Brien pressed him to get to the point, and later challenged him on his comparison of President Obama to cruise ship villain Captain Francesco Schettino.
O’Brien’s question was pegged to a report showing that 92% of the campaign commercials run in the week before the Florida primary were negative ads. Citing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney‘s rising unfavorability rating among independents, she asked Priebus “Isn’t that really, this kind of stuff, a big problem?”
“I don’t necessarily believe that tough primary competitions carry in the general elections,” Priebus began. “The history there, Soledad, is that it really doesn’t.”
He then threw in a completely gratuitous shot at a fair, data-driven question. “I mean, if you’re really being objective here, not spinning here, Soledad, you look back –”
“Appreciate that,” O’Brien interjected, with a wry smile.
“You look back at Obama and Hillary Clinton. That’s the most obvious and most recent example that our country has of a very, very difficult primary election. The chair-woman of the DNC was on Team Hillary campaigning against Obama. Hillary called Obama a hypocrite from the very beginning.”
An impatient O’Brien interrupted, “It was ugly.”
“I have a good point here,” Priebus pleaded. “Hang on. Hang on.”
“Okay. I’m waiting,” replied a dubious O’Brien.
“It’s going to take 15 seconds,” Priebus said, and he was accurate almost to the second, almost like he’d rehearsed it. He began by “accidentally” miss-attributing a statement to Barack Obama. “Obama said that Hillary Clinton didn’t have the moral fiber to lay a wreath, or his people — he said, his people said this. Hillary didn’t have the moral fiber to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Now she is the Secretary of State.”
RELATED: Soledad O’Brien Tires Of Steny Hoyer’s Long-Winded Answers, Cuts Him Off Twice
It’s an old political hack trick, shout the “mistake” and mumble the correction, and Priebus gets his facts wrong, anyway. If you’re going to be objective, Reince, not spinning here, Reince, you, Reince, ought to point out that the comment in question was from an obscure Obama campaign surrogate, and he said then-Sen.Clinton’s tales of sniper fire in Bosnia caused her to have a “lack of moral authority” to lay the wreath.
That exchange occurred in March, and was one of several nasty ones during the 2008 Democratic primary, but it doesn’t really apply to O’Brien’s question at all. This is January, and 92% of all ads are negative. The fact that an Obama surrogate was mean to Hillary in March of 2008 does nothing but underscore how bad things have gotten for the Republicans this year, and quick.
O’Brien also took the time to brace Priebus about his repugnant Italian cruise ship joke. “You’re talking about a tragedy that’s claimed lives while they were still trying to fish bodies out of the ship?”
Priebus repeated his previous defenses, including his apparent belief that the use of the word “clearly” magically erases dickishness.
O’Brien concluded the interview by calling back to Priebus’ “spinning” shot. “I try to be fair with everyone,” she said.
Republican leaders have learned that they can score easy points with their base by bashing the media, regardless of the merits, but people like Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O’Brien are beginning to fight back. You can only punch the ref in the balls so many times before he hits back.
Here’s the clip, from CNN:
The Best Totally Wrong Predictions of the Republican Primary
Updated: February 2, 2012 | 10:41 a.m.
February 2, 2012 | 9:45 a.m.
Now that we've had a couple hours to mourn the fact that the most boring Republican candidate will likely be the presidential nominee, it's time to hold all those pundits who tricked us into thinking there would be someone more fun to write about accountable for their mistakes. In the same way that InTrade is inexplicably used as having predictive power--as if online betters reflect anything other than polls and media coverage--sometimes it seems like what counts as prognostication is just whatever sounds smart at exactly the second it's being said. Our guide to the forecasts that sound funniest in hindsight.
Prediction: Rick Perry will own the debates.
Prognosticator: Kinky Friedman
Date: Sept. 5, 2011
Quote: "Unless he starts speaking in tongues, I predict Rick Perry wins the debate."
Reality: Perry was destroyed in the debates. He did almost speak in tongues, though
.
Prediction: Perry is unstoppable.
Prognosticator: CNN's James Moore Date: Aug. 31, 2011
Quote: "Perry will win the Iowa caucuses easily because Michele Bachmann will be running out of money and will have scared the party leadership. In New Hampshire, he will at least finish close to [Mitt] Romney, and in South Carolina he will affirm his run by winning the delegates necessary to seal up the nomination. Perry will take South Carolina by a margin wider than his credibility gap. Romney has the money and the infrastructure (and faltering judgment) to hang tough until Super Tuesday on March 6, but Perry will easily pocket wins in Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. With the nomination wrapped up, Perry will then start talking about jobs and the economy instead of Jesus." Reality: Perry came in fifth in Iowa, sixth in New Hampshire, and dropped out before South Carolina.
Prediction: Jon Huntsman will appeal to the working class.
Prognosticator: Politico
Date: May 11, 2011
Quote: Referring to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's decision not to run: "Each of the three has qualities that may appeal to Daniels's partisans. Romney shares the business background and focus on competence. Pawlenty and Huntsman have an informal style that appeals to economically downscale voters.... '[Pawlenty's] not as compelling or brilliant as Huntsman, but he's right in the middle of the voter zone for Republican primary- and caucus-goers,' [a GOP strategist said.]"
Reality: Huntsman appealed only to media people, especially fancy media people, most notably when he was profiled in Vogue.
Prediction: Romney is doomed because he won't apologize for "Romneycare."
Prognosticator: The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin
Date: Feb. 14, 2011
Quote: "However, if there is one point of consensus among plugged-in Republicans on the 2012 field, it is that Romney can't win unless he does a mea culpa on Romneycare. Since he didn't and he won't do that, he's not going to be the nominee. Other than Romney admirers (and even some of them!) it's hard to find serious Republican players who disagree with that."
Reality: The Not Romneys never hit Romney that hard on Romneycare, and when they did, it didn't do much. Santorum was very good in comparing the program to Obamacare in the last Florida debate, but Romney still crushed him.
Prediction: Tim Pawlenty's got this.
Prognosticator: The New York Times' Ross Douthat
Date: May 16, 2011
Quote: "In a Huckabee-Romney rematch, or a Huckabee-Romney-Daniels struggle, Pawlenty would have been in constant danger of being outflanked from both sides at once--on social issues one week, and then on the good-government-moderate flank the next. But now he has an excellent shot at a clean victory in Iowa, he’s well-positioned to pick up a lot of Huckabee’s supporters across the South (where his main competition will be Newt Gingrich), and at the end of the day, he’ll still be moderate and safe and competent-seeming enough to woo voters in the Northeast and his native Midwest. Throw in the fact that both Romney and Gingrich infuriated conservative activists this weekend by defending the idea of an individual mandate in health care, and suddenly Pawlenty has perhaps the clearest path to the Republican nomination of any major contender. Unless... somebody else emerges to outflank him from the right in Iowa."
Reality: Pawlenty dropped out in August.
Prediction: Rick Perry is making his gaffes on purpose in order to win the South Carolina primary.
Prognosticator: Human Events' Tony Lee
Date: Aug. 16, 2011
Quote: Comparing Perry's comment that Ben Bernanke would get beat up if he went to Texas to the time Perry hinted Texas would secede, Lee writes, "It is why Perry's comments in Iowa were deliberate to get the same type of effect on a national level and to help him win South Carolina, whose conservative primary electorate Perry was clearing targeting.... These comments were not gaffes and a part of a deliberate strategy by Perry.... His comments about the Federal Reserve ensures that stories about the 'HPV vaccine' do not flood cable television this week when primary voters are getting their first impression of Perry. Instead, their first impression will be that of a man in a seersucker blazer railing against the Federal Reserve."
Reality: Perry was a gaffe machine, and if it was on purpose, it was the stupidest strategy of all time.
Prediction: Mike Huckabee's decision not to run will make it even harder for Romney.
Prognosticator: The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin
Date: March 11, 2011
Quote: "In fact, the departure of Huckabee and Palin may help the anyone-but-Romney voters coalesce around a single candidate. In short, I think Romney is locked into mounting a real race in Iowa, a race he could easily lose.... That brings us to the next question: Is a defeat in Iowa fatal? When the front-runner with the most money, the biggest and most experienced staff, and near-100 percent name recognition loses, it may not be a death blow, but it's a major blow nevertheless."
Reality: Not Romney voters did not coalesce around a single candidate, ever. Romney almost won in Iowa. It was not a major blow that his victory was later retracted.
Prediction: There is room for a moderate candidate to crush the right-wingers in the primary.
Prognosticator: Rudy Giuliani, per the New York Post
Date: Jan. 7, 2011
Quote: "Sources say the tough-talking former mayor 'thinks the Republican race will be populated with far-right candidates like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee, and there's opportunity for a moderate candidate with a background in national security.'"
Reality: Moderate candidates like Pawlenty and Huntsman did not find much success this election. Just kidding—they found zero success. Also, unlike in 2008, no one thinks Romney's a "conservative's conservative."
Prediction: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney will help him in the conservative state.
Prognosticator: The New York Times
Date: Dec. 16, 2011
Quote: "The endorsement from Ms. Haley has the potential to help Mr. Romney in a critical, conservative state where he is trailing Newt Gingrich in most polls. Mr. Romney came in fourth in the state in 2008, getting only 15 percent of the vote... It also gives Mr. Romney another stamp of approval from an outside-Washington, tea party conservative who can testify—and will, all weekend long—that Mr. Romney’s conservative credentials are better than Mr. Gingrich’s."
Reality: Romney got creamed in South Carolina, especially among conservatives and tea partiers. Haley is unpopular in her state.
Prediction: Sarah Palin's endorsement will matter a lot.
Prognosticator: CNN
Date: Oct. 6, 2011
Quote: "Greg Mueller, a Washington-based conservative strategist who has worked closely with the Palins in recent months, said Palin ultimately will be hugely valuable to whichever candidate she supports. A Palin endorsement 'packs an incredible one-two punch' in both the primary and the general election, he said. If Palin offers a full-throated endorsement in the Republican primary, she has the potential to rally 'the conservative foot soldiers --social conservatives and tea party activists--'who will go out and work hard and knock on doors.'"
Reality: Palin said she would vote for Gingrich before the South Carolina primary. He won there, but he got crushed in Florida.
Prediction: Gingrich could win because of his organizational and financial strength.
Prognosticator: The New Republic's Walter Shapiro
Date: May 10, 2011
Quote: "Gingrich also boasts unusual financial and institutional advantages that his rivals lack. As The Wall Street Journal detailed in a front-page article on Monday, Gingrich has constructed a daisy chain of think tanks and advocacy organizations to promote his pet causes and his political future. One number stands out in the article: the 1.7 million e-mail addresses that Newt-created organizations have collected."
Reality: Shapiro was right that Gingrich shouldn't have been counted out, but he was crushed by Romney because he couldn't raise enough money. He's expected to do poorly in the upcoming caucuses, which reward organizational strength, which he does not have.
Prediction: Mitt Romney is DOOMED.
Prognosticator: Writer Jonathan Chait
Date: A whole bunch of times, but here's a sample from May 16, 2011
Quote: "In my view, the three main contenders for the nomination are, in order, 1) Tim Pawlenty, 2) A party establishment-friendly Republican not currently running, such as Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan, and 3) Bachmann. Everybody else, including Sick Man of the GOP Field Mitt Romney, falls into the longshot bin."
Reality: Romney is winning.
Prediction: Rick Perry will own the debates.
Prognosticator: Kinky Friedman
Date: Sept. 5, 2011
Quote: "Unless he starts speaking in tongues, I predict Rick Perry wins the debate."
Reality: Perry was destroyed in the debates. He did almost speak in tongues, though
.
Prognosticator: CNN's James Moore Date: Aug. 31, 2011
Quote: "Perry will win the Iowa caucuses easily because Michele Bachmann will be running out of money and will have scared the party leadership. In New Hampshire, he will at least finish close to [Mitt] Romney, and in South Carolina he will affirm his run by winning the delegates necessary to seal up the nomination. Perry will take South Carolina by a margin wider than his credibility gap. Romney has the money and the infrastructure (and faltering judgment) to hang tough until Super Tuesday on March 6, but Perry will easily pocket wins in Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. With the nomination wrapped up, Perry will then start talking about jobs and the economy instead of Jesus." Reality: Perry came in fifth in Iowa, sixth in New Hampshire, and dropped out before South Carolina.
Prediction: Jon Huntsman will appeal to the working class.
Prognosticator: Politico
Date: May 11, 2011
Quote: Referring to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's decision not to run: "Each of the three has qualities that may appeal to Daniels's partisans. Romney shares the business background and focus on competence. Pawlenty and Huntsman have an informal style that appeals to economically downscale voters.... '[Pawlenty's] not as compelling or brilliant as Huntsman, but he's right in the middle of the voter zone for Republican primary- and caucus-goers,' [a GOP strategist said.]"
Reality: Huntsman appealed only to media people, especially fancy media people, most notably when he was profiled in Vogue.
Prediction: Romney is doomed because he won't apologize for "Romneycare."
Prognosticator: The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin
Date: Feb. 14, 2011
Quote: "However, if there is one point of consensus among plugged-in Republicans on the 2012 field, it is that Romney can't win unless he does a mea culpa on Romneycare. Since he didn't and he won't do that, he's not going to be the nominee. Other than Romney admirers (and even some of them!) it's hard to find serious Republican players who disagree with that."
Reality: The Not Romneys never hit Romney that hard on Romneycare, and when they did, it didn't do much. Santorum was very good in comparing the program to Obamacare in the last Florida debate, but Romney still crushed him.
Prediction: Tim Pawlenty's got this.
Prognosticator: The New York Times' Ross Douthat
Date: May 16, 2011
Quote: "In a Huckabee-Romney rematch, or a Huckabee-Romney-Daniels struggle, Pawlenty would have been in constant danger of being outflanked from both sides at once--on social issues one week, and then on the good-government-moderate flank the next. But now he has an excellent shot at a clean victory in Iowa, he’s well-positioned to pick up a lot of Huckabee’s supporters across the South (where his main competition will be Newt Gingrich), and at the end of the day, he’ll still be moderate and safe and competent-seeming enough to woo voters in the Northeast and his native Midwest. Throw in the fact that both Romney and Gingrich infuriated conservative activists this weekend by defending the idea of an individual mandate in health care, and suddenly Pawlenty has perhaps the clearest path to the Republican nomination of any major contender. Unless... somebody else emerges to outflank him from the right in Iowa."
Reality: Pawlenty dropped out in August.
Prediction: Rick Perry is making his gaffes on purpose in order to win the South Carolina primary.
Prognosticator: Human Events' Tony Lee
Date: Aug. 16, 2011
Quote: Comparing Perry's comment that Ben Bernanke would get beat up if he went to Texas to the time Perry hinted Texas would secede, Lee writes, "It is why Perry's comments in Iowa were deliberate to get the same type of effect on a national level and to help him win South Carolina, whose conservative primary electorate Perry was clearing targeting.... These comments were not gaffes and a part of a deliberate strategy by Perry.... His comments about the Federal Reserve ensures that stories about the 'HPV vaccine' do not flood cable television this week when primary voters are getting their first impression of Perry. Instead, their first impression will be that of a man in a seersucker blazer railing against the Federal Reserve."
Reality: Perry was a gaffe machine, and if it was on purpose, it was the stupidest strategy of all time.
Prediction: Mike Huckabee's decision not to run will make it even harder for Romney.
Prognosticator: The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin
Date: March 11, 2011
Quote: "In fact, the departure of Huckabee and Palin may help the anyone-but-Romney voters coalesce around a single candidate. In short, I think Romney is locked into mounting a real race in Iowa, a race he could easily lose.... That brings us to the next question: Is a defeat in Iowa fatal? When the front-runner with the most money, the biggest and most experienced staff, and near-100 percent name recognition loses, it may not be a death blow, but it's a major blow nevertheless."
Reality: Not Romney voters did not coalesce around a single candidate, ever. Romney almost won in Iowa. It was not a major blow that his victory was later retracted.
Prediction: There is room for a moderate candidate to crush the right-wingers in the primary.
Prognosticator: Rudy Giuliani, per the New York Post
Date: Jan. 7, 2011
Quote: "Sources say the tough-talking former mayor 'thinks the Republican race will be populated with far-right candidates like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee, and there's opportunity for a moderate candidate with a background in national security.'"
Reality: Moderate candidates like Pawlenty and Huntsman did not find much success this election. Just kidding—they found zero success. Also, unlike in 2008, no one thinks Romney's a "conservative's conservative."
Prediction: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney will help him in the conservative state.
Prognosticator: The New York Times
Date: Dec. 16, 2011
Quote: "The endorsement from Ms. Haley has the potential to help Mr. Romney in a critical, conservative state where he is trailing Newt Gingrich in most polls. Mr. Romney came in fourth in the state in 2008, getting only 15 percent of the vote... It also gives Mr. Romney another stamp of approval from an outside-Washington, tea party conservative who can testify—and will, all weekend long—that Mr. Romney’s conservative credentials are better than Mr. Gingrich’s."
Reality: Romney got creamed in South Carolina, especially among conservatives and tea partiers. Haley is unpopular in her state.
Prediction: Sarah Palin's endorsement will matter a lot.
Prognosticator: CNN
Date: Oct. 6, 2011
Quote: "Greg Mueller, a Washington-based conservative strategist who has worked closely with the Palins in recent months, said Palin ultimately will be hugely valuable to whichever candidate she supports. A Palin endorsement 'packs an incredible one-two punch' in both the primary and the general election, he said. If Palin offers a full-throated endorsement in the Republican primary, she has the potential to rally 'the conservative foot soldiers --social conservatives and tea party activists--'who will go out and work hard and knock on doors.'"
Reality: Palin said she would vote for Gingrich before the South Carolina primary. He won there, but he got crushed in Florida.
Prediction: Gingrich could win because of his organizational and financial strength.
Prognosticator: The New Republic's Walter Shapiro
Date: May 10, 2011
Quote: "Gingrich also boasts unusual financial and institutional advantages that his rivals lack. As The Wall Street Journal detailed in a front-page article on Monday, Gingrich has constructed a daisy chain of think tanks and advocacy organizations to promote his pet causes and his political future. One number stands out in the article: the 1.7 million e-mail addresses that Newt-created organizations have collected."
Reality: Shapiro was right that Gingrich shouldn't have been counted out, but he was crushed by Romney because he couldn't raise enough money. He's expected to do poorly in the upcoming caucuses, which reward organizational strength, which he does not have.
Prediction: Mitt Romney is DOOMED.
Prognosticator: Writer Jonathan Chait
Date: A whole bunch of times, but here's a sample from May 16, 2011
Quote: "In my view, the three main contenders for the nomination are, in order, 1) Tim Pawlenty, 2) A party establishment-friendly Republican not currently running, such as Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan, and 3) Bachmann. Everybody else, including Sick Man of the GOP Field Mitt Romney, falls into the longshot bin."
Reality: Romney is winning.
Susan G. Komen Foundation pulls Planned Parenthood funding
January 31, 2012 8:30 PM
Female Nurse Holding Pink Breast Cancer Awareness Ribbon
(Credit:
iStockphoto)
One of the most prominent charities working to prevent and cure breast cancer, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, has cut its ties with the women's health organization Planned Parenthood, that organization confirmed on Tuesday. Reacting to the news, Planned Parenthood decried Komen for having "succumbed to political pressure" related to abortion politics.
Planned Parenthood said representatives for Komen have been notifying Planned Parenthood divisions throughout the country that it will stop providing funding for breast cancer screenings and prevention.
"We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement. "Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count."
Planned Parenthood said Komen did not respond to requests to meet about the termination of the partnership, the support of which has directly enabled 170,000 women to receive breast cancer exams in the past five years.
Planned Parenthood is the subject of investigations by Republican members of Congress for allegedly using federal dollars toward providing abortions. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chair of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, opened an investigation into the matter in 2011 but nothing has yet come of it.
A statement by Komen to CBS News denied that the charity was politically pressured. "Grant making decisions are not about politics," Komen wrote. The statement also said the organization did make changes to its grant-making process and "implemented more stringent eligibility and performance criteria."
Leslie Aun, a spokesperson for Komen, told the Associated Press that Komen crafted new guidelines that prohibits organizations under investigation from the government from receiving financial support.
Anti-abortion groups have in recent months been targeting Komen, an organization that raised more than $400 million to fight breast cancer in 2010, for its relationship with Planned Parenthood. The anti-abortion organization Life Issues Institute launched a campaign to persuade Komen to halt its partnership with Planned Parenthood, which, according to the Associated Press, granted $650,000 to Planned Parenthood last year.
On its Facebook page, Bradley Mattes, executive director of the Life Issues Institute wrote: "The continued, collective efforts of the pro-life movement have paid off. Our work to educate Komen donors to the reality that the organization has financially supported the nation's largest chain of abortion mills has caused Komen to halt the financial hemorrhaging. Evidently, Komen had to choose between political ideology and financial viability. They made a good choice."
Planned Parenthood said it's working to raise money so that cancer screenings don't stop. It has received a commitment of $250,000 from the Amy and Lee Fikes' foundation.
- Cancer charity pulls Planned Parenthood funding
- Cancer charity defends Planned Parenthood decision
- Could New Komen VP Be Behind Planned Parenthood Decision?
- Senators Call on Susan G. Komen to Reverse Defunding of Planned Parenthood
- Congress Weighs in on Komen Dispute
QUICK TAKE: Obama Defends Policies at Prayer Breakfast
Updated: February 2, 2012 | 9:56 a.m.
February 2, 2012 | 9:44 a.m.
President Obama wove politics through
his speech at Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast, echoing themes from
his recent State of the Union address and calling for economic
fairness.“When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street; when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren't discriminated against those who are already sick; or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren't taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody but I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years. And I believe in God's command to love thy neighbor as thyself.” Obama said.
The president also shared a part of his own faith journey, as his Republican opponents have done on the campaign trail, recalling reflections spurred following his visit with the ailing Rev. Billy Graham.
“Growing up in a household that wasn't particularly religious; going through my own period of doubt and confusion; finding Christ when I was not even looking for him so many years ago; possessing so many shortcomings that have been overcome by the simple grace of God. That simple fact [of praying for Graham] humbled me to my core," he said.
Obama has attended each National Prayer Breakfast held during his presidency. This year, Occupy D.C. protesters held their own counter event called "The People's Prayer Breakfast," where attendance was free. Seats at the National Prayer Breakfast, hosted by the Fellowship Foundation, are $175 each.
Reince Preibus' Obama, Cruise Ship Captain Comparison Draws Harsh Criticism
White House press secretary Jay Carney said: "If you are so desperate for attention that you make an analogy that Michael Steele deems inappropriate, you know you've probably gone too far."
Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus appeared on Face the Nation today, and dismissed concerns that the fighting in the GOP was overblown by the media and drew parallels to the 2008 Democratic primary race, but in speaking candidly about President Obama, Priebus compared his leadership to the infamous captain of the Italian cruise ship whose actions proved to be somewhat cowardly when faced with disaster.
RELATED: RNC Chair Accuses MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Of Asking Question ‘Loaded With DNC Talking Points’
Bob Schieffer started out the interview by bringing up the Newsweek cover depicting Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as Roman warriors, and uncomfortably asked Priebus if he’s ever seen Gingrich shirtless. Priebus vehemently denied it, but more seriously, he doubted the race was tearing up the Republican party as much as the media has been making it out to be. After all, he pointed out, current DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Florida primary, and accused Obama of being a hypocrite at one point.
But Schieffer pointed to remarks made earlier on the show by Donald Trump that there is an unprecedented level of “hatred” in the Republican party right now, and asked Priebus if he thought any of the intra-party fighting going on could damage the GOP. He dismissed such concerns, reassuring everyone that in a few months, all the squabbling will be over and the party will mobilize behind a nominee.
“In a few months, this is all going to be ancient history, and we’re going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama, who’s abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president.”RELATED: DNC & RNC Heads Clash Over President Obama’s Economic Record On Face The Nation
When Schieffer asked him to clarify that statement, Priebus doubled down, and joked that the boats behind Schieffer on camera made him think of it. But Priebus continued to insist that the fighting going on the GOP this time around is no worse than what the Democrats did four years ago, and even disagreed with Sarah Palin‘s assessment that the race was down to the Republican establishment vs. conservative activists.
Watch the video below, courtesy of CBS:
AP/The Huffington Post Posted: 01/30/2012 3:27 pm
WASHINGTON -- The White House is criticizing comments by the Republican National Committee chairman comparing President Barack Obama to the Italian cruise ship captain who allegedly abandoned his sinking ship.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Obama was "our own little Captain Schettino." Priebus accused Obama of abandoning ship in the U.S. and spending more time on his re-election campaign.
Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele told MSNBC the analogy was "unfortunate."
In response, White House press secretary Jay Carney said: "If you are so desperate for attention that you make an analogy that Michael Steele deems inappropriate, you know you've probably gone too far."
Preibus later defended his remarks in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly.
"Well, I mean, clearly Megyn when I made those comments, I clearly used the analogy in both sentences that this president was akin to leaving his own job and campaigning non-stop all the time, worried about his job number one, instead of the jobs of the millions of Americans that are out there," Preibus said. "The reality is, it's a fair analogy in regard to leadership in a moment of crisis that this president is more interested in his own job, number one than the jobs of millions of Americans that are out there hurting right now when he promised them that he would be better."
Preibus continued, expressing his condolences to those who died in the disaster, but also accusing his detractors of blowing his comparison out of proportion.
"No I think it's awful, people have died of course, terrible and our prayers go out to those people without a question. But to take this comment and turn it into something that it was not, that's wrong too and that’s political gamesmanship as well," he said.
So far, the disaster has claimed at least 17 lives, though more passengers and crew remain missing and are presumed dead.
Trump: Romney Best Candidate on China, to Debate Obama
Carney Zings Trump's Endorsement: 'I'm Not Going to Comb Over That'
-- VIDEO
Updated: February 2, 2012 | 3:33 p.m.
February 2, 2012 | 3:29 p.m.
White House press secretary Jay Carney zinged Donald Trump on Thursday when asked if President Obama was seeking the mogul's endorsement.DNC: Trump and Romney Campaign AD
Mogul says he never talked about endorsing Gingrich, contrary to reports.
Updated: February 2, 2012 | 3:41 p.m.
February 2, 2012 | 3:09 p.m.
Gerald Herbert/AP
Donald Trump talks to reporters in Las Vegas on Feb. 2 before a news conference where he will endorse Mitt Romney.
LAS VEGAS, Nev. – Donald Trump said on Thursday that he’s endorsing Mitt Romney because of his position on competing with China’s economic growth as well as because he believes the former Massachusetts governor can out-debate President Obama.
“You look at what's going on with China, you look at what's going on with the other OPEC nations and how they are absolutely destroying this country, and he's the only one who talks about it,” Trump told a group of reporters at an impromptu news conference in Las Vegas. “So that was very important to me. I thought he did very well in the debates, that was very important.... I think if he debates that well, I don't think Obama will fare well against him.
Romney’s campaign is expected to formally unveil the endorsement at an event at 3:30 EST. Trump, who met with all the presidential contenders, said the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign courted him “very aggressively.”
Although multiple news reports on Wednesday night quoted anonymous sources as saying that the flamboyant real-estate tycoon and reality-show star would endorse Newt Gingrich, Trump said he never told anyone that he would back the former House speaker.
“They put that out,” Trump said, referring to Gingrich’s campaign.
Trump said he intends to actively campaign on Romney’s behalf, giving speeches that call attention to fixing the economy.
“I have a lot of people that like what I say,” he said. “Look, I don't like seeing our country being ripped off. And that's what's happening. Every nation, no matter who it is, is ripping off this country. And it’s gotta stop. So he sees that, and the other candidates see that, and I have a lot of people who agree with me."
Although Romney obviously hopes that Trump’s support will help sway undecided voters, Democrats were quick to use the endorsement to make light of Trump’s signature line, “You’re fired!” and Romney’s recent comment that he likes being able to fire people who provide him with subpar service.
“Why would Trump Endorse Romney?” blared the headline of a statement realeased by the Democratic National Committee. “Perhaps because they Both Like Firing People!
In addition, Obama's spokesman Jay Carney made light of the endorsement at Thursday's White House press briefing.
Asked if the president sought Trump's endorsement, Carney said, “I’m not going to comb over that” -- a reference to Trump's celebrated hairstyle. After the laughs that followed, the press secretary added, “There’s a danger in speaking off the cuff.”
A reporter shot back: “You mean off the top of your head?” Then another added: “Jay, don’t just brush this off.”
Although Democrats have sought to make an issue of Romney’s wealth as evidence that he cannot connect with average Americans, Trump said he thinks that won’t be an issue.
“I think he's actually becoming very comfortable recently, more recently very comfortable with it," he said.
Have Democrats Succeeded in Pre-Destroying Romney?
Updated: February 2, 2012 | 11:37 a.m.
February 2, 2012 | 11:10 a.m.
AP Photo/Charles Dharapak
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney stands in front of a foreclosed home Jan. 24 in Lehigh Acres, Fla.
A few moments later, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was on the line. "Thanks, everybody, for joining the call today," she began. Within minutes, she had accused Romney of "political pandering," supporting "the extreme tea party agenda," and lying to senior citizens, Hispanics, and supporters of the space program.
Just another day in the life of the vast left-wing conspiracy.
Practically every day for months, Democrats and their allies have been hammering Romney like this. Unions, party committees at the national and state levels, independent groups such as American Bridge and Americans United for Change, and the Obama campaign itself have undertaken an unprecedented effort to tarnish the front-runner while virtually ignoring the rest of the GOP candidates. And it appears to be working.
Latest Politics Posts:
• Video of the Day: What JoePa Taught Newt About Assistant Coaches
• The Invincible Nobility Of The Middle Class
• Four Key Dynamics to Watch in the Nevada Caucuses
One emerging strain of the conventional wisdom holds that it's the harsh attacks on Romney from Newt Gingrich--and blowback from Romney's own brutally negative campaign--that's causing this to happen. Democrats have been pushing this line, in fact, arguing that Romney is winning at a steep cost and will limp into the general election bruised beyond repair.
But the Left's less-noticed but relentless campaign to tear Romney down surely deserves much of the credit, or blame, as well. In stark contrast to Romney's Republican rivals, the liberal groups have been focused, organized, and speaking directly to independent voters.
In Florida, for example, AFSCME, the public-workers' union, spent nearly $1 million on a television campaign meant to associate Romney with the state's unpopular Republican governor, Rick Scott, according to TPM. Another union, the Service Employees International Union, teamed with Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Obama, to broadcast radio ads targeting the Hispanic community in the state.
On Wednesday, the group announced it was expanding what it said was a "six-figure" ad buy to Nevada--the Hispanic-heavy swing state that is the site of the next Republican contest on Saturday.
"There's been a lot of chatter about whether the extended primary is doing damage to whoever the nominee is," Bill Burton, the former Obama White House staffer who heads Priorities, argued on yet another Romney-vilifying conference call. (A political reporter could spend all day on these calls, at least until she collapsed from a lethal dose of overheated rhetoric.) "But I would say the damage is already done. If you look at what Mitt Romney has done just in the first three states ... his problems are already enormous."
The point, noted the union's secretary-treasurer, Eliseo Medina, is not the primaries but what comes next.
"The key date for us is in November," he said. "What we're doing is educating the community to the positions that this candidate, Mitt Romney, was taking as he sought our votes. Mitt Romney's going to find this little anchor placed around his neck getting heavier and heavier."
Remember when Herman Cain blamed the "Democrat machine" for his campaign-ending sex scandal? There is indeed a left-of-center machine bent on destroying a single candidate, but Cain has never been the one they were after. Everywhere Romney goes, the assault awaits him. The DNC partners with state Democratic parties to "welcome" Romney to each state he travels to; on Wednesday, it was the majority leader of the Nevada state Senate calling him a "corporate raider."
After Democrats have framed his visit with one of those ubiquitous local-angle conference calls, they often station party officials and members outside events to protest and talk to the media. Here, for example, is a local Minneapolis television station's report on the group of seniors, accompanied by the city's mayor, who held signs saying "Keep Your Mitt(s) Off My Social Security!" outside his event there on Wednesday.
The groups also police Romney's speeches for potential contradictions, circulating instantly any damaging information and trumpeting every would-be gaffe. When Romney on Wednesday said he was "not concerned with the very poor," the spin machine sprang into action, although the media by this point was so well primed for the latest hyperventilating iteration of "Mitt Romney, Out of Touch Rich Guy" that they hardly needed to.
The Obama campaign is an enthusiastic player of this game, too. On Wednesday, it was circulating a four-page memo from deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter making the argument "Mitt Romney's Negative Campaign Is Backfiring." And, as the president was releasing new policies to help homeowners, the DNC issued a document explicitly framing Obama's proposals as a rejoinder to Romney's.
Romney's team wears the attacks as a badge of honor--proof that the opposition views Romney as the most formidable opponent. "The last thing Democrats want is to have to face Mitt Romney in a general election," campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. "Rather than focusing on job creation and helping the middle class, President Obama and his allies are focused on attacking Mitt Romney."
In the best-case scenario for the Democrats, they would torpedo Romney's candidacy so effectively that even Republicans would sour on him, handing another candidate the nomination instead. But they'll settle for merely cementing negative impressions--flip-flopper, right-winger, plutocratic elitist--so that by the time Romney accepts the nomination in August, these perceptions are unalterably baked in.
Is there a potential downside to this strategy? It's possible the Democrats' attacks have already elevated him and bolstered his electability argument by making him the president's de facto opponent. There's also a chance that the constant drumbeat could even end up inoculating Romney: Maybe voters will have heard he's a phony so many times by the fall that they'll begin to tune it out.
The Democrats have decided it's worth that risk. And they believe their furious efforts are having an effect.
"I've been happy with some of the criticisms we've been able to land on Romney, because I think it starts the debate," said Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge 21st Century, which focuses on tracking and opposition research. He pointed to the group's work highlighting Romney's various inartful comments about money, from "corporations are people" to "I like firing people."
"They're smaller things, but I think after a while we've been able to add them up," Mollineau said. "It all funnels into that narrative that he is the guy that's not on the side of the middle class."
The modern media landscape allows limitless venues for this type of information, from social media to a novel crops of online news outlets and the partisan blogosphere, he noted. "You can start to shape the narrative earlier, so when you do get to the general election, those narratives are already there," he said.
And Mollineau was unapologetic about the focus on Romney. "They all have their flaws," he said of the other GOP candidates. "But when you're the front-runner, you're going to get more scrutiny. You just are."
Pro-Ron Paul PAC misses $$$ deadline, blames credit card company
A Super PAC supporting Ron Paul was the only major presidential fundraising operation to miss Tuesday's federal deadline for disclosing its donors. The Revolution PAC blamed an error by its credit card company.
Because of bad information provided by the company, the PAC told the Federal Election Commission, it didn't know who its donors were.
The Super PAC is not the same as the official campaign for Paul, a libertarian and Texas Republican member of Congress. The campaign filed its report on time, and by law the PAC can't coordinate its activities with the campaign, although the PAC is operated by Paul supporters, including his former political director.
"To Whom It May Concern," the Revolution PAC wrote to the FEC at 11:48 p.m. ET Tuesday, just 12 minutes before the midnight deadline for its legally required report.
"Please be advised that on the afternoon of Tuesday, Jan 31, Revolution PAC ... was advised by one of its credit card processing vendors that said vendor had provided erroneous information. As a result, credit card donations reported by the vendor and recorded by the PAC were erroneous.
"As we do not have compete details on the specific donations involved, we are unable to correct our information prior to the filing deadline, and are therefore not filing any report at this time.
"We will contact our FEC advisor Feb 1 to determine how best to proceed."
The Super PAC didn't name the credit card company.
The Revolution PAC has been filing its separate reports of expenditures, and has spent $126,000 so far, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
A profile of the group is available from the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan investigative reporting group. Its leaders include Gary Franchi, Web-TV host and director of Restore the Republic, an online clearinghouse and social media site for Ron Paul followers; Lawrence W. Lepard, Venture capital investor at Equity Management Associates, and Penny Langford Freeman, Paul’s former political director.
Two other PACs supporting Paul did file their reports on time.
Endorse Liberty reported $1,020,055 in receipts.
Nearly all of its revenue, $900,000, came from hedge fund manager Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal. The group also got $10,000 from Sean Wheeler of Marietta, Ga., CEO of Pure Hypnosis, which sells a hypnotic treatment for smoking addiction.
A list of the donors to Endorse Liberty is here.
Another pro-Paul PAC, the Santa Rita Super PAC, reported 234,096 in receipts.
Donors to Santa Rita include hedge fund manager Mark Hart III and Shannon Hart, of Fort Worth, $100,000; real estate investor Donald Huffines of Dallas, $50,000; and Patrick Walker of Little Rock, $50,000. All listed their occupation as self-employed investor.
A list of the donors to Santa Rita is here.
Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.
The Ron Paul presidential campaign organization filed its report on time, showing $26,104,721 in receipts and $24,199,806 in expenditures so far in this election.
A list of the campaign's 22,956 donors is here.
Support Disclosure on the Second Anniversary of Citizens United
Dear friend,
Exactly two years ago Saturday, eight out of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices resoundingly supported disclosure
when it comes to money spent to influence elections. They declared that
“transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions.”
But in that same landmark decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
a smaller majority of justices also greenlighted unlimited corporate
and union-funded political advertising. And two years later, we're
witnessing a gusher of spending by special interest groups -- many of
which are evading the very disclosure the high court said was so vital.
Fighting for transparency and the ability to follow the money is now more crucial than ever.
Support Disclosure on the Second Anniversary of Citizens United
Dear friend,
Exactly two years ago Saturday, eight out of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices resoundingly supported disclosure when it comes to money spent to influence elections. They declared that “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions.”
But in that same landmark decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a smaller majority of justices also greenlighted unlimited corporate and union-funded political advertising. And two years later, we're witnessing a gusher of spending by special interest groups -- many of which are evading the very disclosure the high court said was so vital.
Fighting for transparency and the ability to follow the money is now more crucial than ever.
Gaze Into the Exploding Universe of Dark Money
We've charted the red giants and blue dwarfs spending millions to influence the 2012 election.
If Citizens United was the Big Bang of a new era of money in politics, here's the parallel universe it formed: rapidly expanding super-PACs and nebulous 501(c) groups exerting their gravitational pull on federal elections. A group's size in the chart below is based upon all known fundraising or spending since 2010…so keep an eye out for dark matter. Come back for regular updates.
Source of financial data: Center for Responsive Politics, GuideStar. Data as of November 16, 2011.
Money is the dark matter of American elections: visualizing political donations since Citizens United
Mike from Mother Jones sez, "For our upcoming "dark money" print package, we chartified the known galaxy of outside political spending groups by their size. As you can see, we ended up with red giants and blue dwarfs."
If Citizens United was the Big Bang of a new era of money in politics, here's the parallel universe it formed: rapidly expanding super-PACs and nebulous 501(c) groups exerting their gravitational pull on federal elections. A group's size in the chart below is based upon all known fundraising or spending since 2010…so keep an eye out for dark matter. Come back for regular updates.The Crazily Expanding Political Money Universe (Thanks, Mike!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
WASHINGTON -- In a stunning break with First Amendment policy, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice. Initial reports from sources suggested that an ABC News camera was also prevented from taping the hearing; ABC has since denied that they sent a crew to the hearing.
Josh Fox, director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary "Gasland" was taken into custody by Capitol Hill police this morning, along with his crew, after Republicans objected to their presence, according to Democratic sources present at the hearing. The meeting of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment had been taking place in room 2318 of the Rayburn building.
HuffPost has obtained exclusive video of the arrest of Josh Fox. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, can be heard at the end of the clip asking Republican Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) to halt the arrest and permit Fox to film the public hearing. Harris denies Miller's request as Fox is escorted out of the hearing in handcuffs.
WATCH Capitol Hill Police Arrest a Journalist for Filming a Public Hearing: (story continues below)
"Gasland" received strong critical acclaim and takes a critical eye toward the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a process in which several tons of highly pressurized water and chemicals are injected into the ground, allowing valuable natural gas to escape. The practice is decried by ecological experts for destroying ecosystems and polluting groundwater. The energy industry keeps the actual content of fracking chemicals secret.
Fox had hoped to film Wednesday's hearing for a follow-up to "Gasland." Fox told HuffPost later Wednesday evening, "We did get his staff on the phone, they never returned the phone call," referring to staffers for Chairman Harris. "This is not transparency. This is a lockout and it's bad. It's the people's House, after all. We went through the proper channels to arrange to tape this hearing. We have taped congressional hearings before and we've been turned down before, but I disagree with the policy. Anyone who says they're a journalist is a journalist. It's called the First Amendment. It's the freedom of the press, and that is fundamental to our core identity as the United States of America."
Hearings are open to the public, and any citizen can attend. Regulations only govern the use of cameras. Even under an extreme adherence to the rules, Fox's camera could have been confiscated or disabled without subjecting him to arrest. And while Fox did not have formal Capitol Hill credentials, such formalities are rarely enforced against high-profile journalists. Temporary passes are easy to obtain, and if Republicans had objected on procedural grounds, they could have simply sent the crew to the front desk, rather than ordering police to arrest journalists. The right to a free press is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Documentary crews are almost never denied access to public meetings of elected government officials.
UPDATE: 12:09 p.m. -- Capitol Police public information officer Sergeant Kimberly Schneider provided the following statement to HuffPost on the morning's events:
"At approximately 10:30 a.m. today, United States Capitol Police arrested Joshua Fox of Milanville, Pa. in room 2318 of the Rayburn House office building. He is charged with unlawful entry, and he is currently being processed at United States Capitol Police headquarters."
UPDATE: 2:27 p.m. -- Fox apparently had applied for credentialing the day before the hearing but had been unable to obtain official permission to film. He had asked a credentialed film crew to tape the proceedings on his behalf but was informed that this was not permitted.
Nevertheless, turning away journalists is extremely rare on Capitol Hill. The rules requiring pre-approval for film crews are designed to prevent hearings from being disrupted by hordes of camera operators. That was not the case for this hearing. Only two cameras requested entrance to the event, which was not crowded.
Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) was unavailable for comment, but several Democrats on the committee voiced outrage with the GOP's press blackout.
"I was chair of the Subcommittee for four years, and we frequently had people show up the day of a hearing to film," Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told HuffPost. "We asked for their name, but they were told if they would not disrupt the hearing, they were free to record. A couple of times staff said, 'You're getting in the way, don't stand there,' but other than that, I do not ever recall anything like this. We certainly never turned anyone away for not providing 24 hours' notice."
"It's an outrageous violation of the First Amendment," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told HuffPost. "Here we've got an Academy Award-nominated filmmaker, and it's an important subject and the subject that he did his prior film on for HBO. And they put him in handcuffs and hauled him out of there. This is stunning."
"I found it ironic that there was not a flood of cameras there," noted Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.). "There was the one camera and then before that, the ABC camera ... if you have a camera there to bring the issue home to the public, that's a good thing."
The hearing was already being filmed by C-SPAN. Josh Fox had only sought to obtain higher-quality video by bringing their own cameras to the event. Democrats attempted to suspend the rules governing camerawork to allow Fox and ABC to film the hearing, but Republicans, who hold a majority on all House committees and subcommittees, voted down the motion. Democrats then sought to postpone the hearing to allow for filming at a later date, a motion which Republicans also overruled.
UPDATE: 3:45 p.m. -- Republican staffers told Democrats that a crew for ABC News had also been denied access to the event, but ABC News told HuffPost that their organization did not have any journalists assigned to cover the hearing. It is not clear what caused the confusion.
"We definitely did not have a crew on the Hill this morning to cover this hearing," an ABC News spokeswoman told HuffPost. "The individual who was turned away absolutely did not have ABC news credentials."
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. -- Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost, “I have served in the House of Representatives since 1992, and I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In all that time, I cannot recall a chair of any committee or subcommittee having ever ordered the removal of a person who was filming a committee proceeding and not being disruptive, whether or not that person was accredited. It is a matter of routine that all sorts of people photograph and record our proceedings. Most of them are not accredited. I cannot recall anyone questioning their right to be there."
Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU in Washington, explained that "congressional committees routinely allow professional journalists to record hearings even when they don't have official press credentials, and excluding a journalist because he doesn't share the political views of the committee chair is outrageous. The Supreme Court has explained many times that censorship based on viewpoint is the clearest kind of First Amendment violation, and that seems to be what happened here."
Josh Fox, meanwhile, has issued the following statement to the press:
This is a developing story. Check back with HuffPost for more.