2012 Presidential Election

President Obama once again flipflopped on his position regarding same-sex marriage Wednesday, and his adoring media couldn't be more pleased. On MSNBC, Hardball 's Chris Matthews actually called for “gay men and women who now work for the election of Republican members of Congress, Senators, and [Mitt] Romney himself…to stand up, walk in the direction of their bosses and candidates, and ask them to join the president on this” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS: President Obama remains a maker of history. He was the first African-American to serve as our president. Now he’s a leader of another kind: the first president to state his support for recognizing the marriage of partners of the same sex. However the circumstances, he now stands for reelection with this fact on the table. He stands against a candidate, Mitt Romney, who says he will never give up his opposition to gay marriage, a candidate who refuses to stand up for a gay man who was just run out of his campaign. I guess Romney asking Richard Grenell to come back to work isn’t standing up for him. But I digress: MATTHEWS: Could there be a grander canyon between these two men: one fully in support of the right of gay people to marry, one totally against that right? It will take a bit of time to see how this affects the presidential election, but I have to wonder how gay men and women who now work for the election of Republican members of Congress, Senators, and Romney himself can sit in their work seats and refuse to stand up, walk in the direction of their bosses and candidates, and ask them to join the president on this. I have to wonder how long they can remain indentured servants, how long they can continue to accept the Republican Party’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule that you can work here as long as you keep your mouth shut on what you believe on the life you aspire to on those you love. But tonight, I honor a president who regardless of the political consequences declared for all the world to hear that all God’s children have the right to love as they were born to love. That ought to count for something no matter which way the chips fall in this election. Isn't it interesting that liberal media members that really don't care about the sanctity of marriage are suddenly enthralled by it and think it's the most important thing to a man or a woman regardless of their sexual orientation? Divorce rates are skyrocketing in this country while the number of people getting married is on the decline. As of 2010, there were almost 100 million Americans over the age of 18 that were single. 45 percent of American households are now unmarried. As such, why would gays believe marriage equality was the most important issue to them in an election when it's clearly not the most important issue throughout the entire population? Frankly, assuming that all members of the LGBT community have exactly the same top priority seems rather bigoted. Is it a stretch to think that for many of these folks just like many heterosexuals, other things like jobs and the economy for instance might be on their frontburner? Speaking of which, do you get the feeling that as America's media spend yet another news cycle talking about a social issue, the point is really to keep the nation thinking about anything other than the economy? They wouldn't do that, would they?

Excerpt from:
Chris Matthews: Gay GOP Staffers Should Ask Bosses to Join Obama on Same-Sex Marriage

After CNN's Erin Burnett lamented the defeat of “moderate” Dick Lugar in Indiana's GOP Senate primary, Wednesday's Starting Point panel had a cold welcome for the victorious Tea Party candidate Richard Mourdock. Anchor Soledad O'Brien asked Mourdock if his “confrontational” attitude wouldn't help “undermine” the cause of uniting Americans. It's doubtful whether Soledad thought the same of President Obama as he shoved liberal legislation down the throats of Republicans in the first two years of his term. [Video below the break. Audio here .] “[D]oesn't that actually just undermine any sense of trying to get Americans united and together and raise some of those numbers for approval, frankly?” Soledad challenged Mourdock. CNN's panel obviously had a problem with Mourdock's premise that the two parties were too far apart for effective compromise. According to the GOP candidate, “the ideas for which the parties are working are really at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't think there's going to be a lot of successful compromise.” He wished instead for a “conservative majority” where Democrats could reach across the aisle to help lower taxes and reduce government spending. Again, the liberal media were not freaking out when Democrats held the presidency and both houses of Congress, and worked to shove through the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and ObamaCare. However, when a conservative candidate declares that he will not compromise his principles to work with liberals, the media question the lack of bipartisanship. Margaret Hoover pressed him “What would you say when people criticize you as saying that you don't understand the nature of the institution you're running to represent, the Senate, which is really premised on the notion of compromising with your colleagues?” A transcript of the segment, which aired on May 9 on Starting Point at 7:21 a.m. EDT, is as follows: [7:21] SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Mr. Lugar last night sent out a message to his supporters and others, I guess, as well, and he said it was really about an anti-incumbent head winds. He also s aid linking him to Senator Obama at the time would be used against him and that he was also a target of Club for Growth and FreedomWorks. And Club for Growth sent out an e- mail late last night – which I was awake and was reading – and it said this: “Total independent expenditures by Club for Growth entities” – the Club for Growth Action, Club for Growth, and Club for Growth PAC – “combined amounted to 40 percent of all independent expenditures in Indiana's Senate race in the last 30 days before Election Day.” Do you think that he has a point, which is funding from some major sources somewhere between $2 million from them, maybe $4 million total, really was what helped push you over? (…) MARGARET HOOVER, CNN contributor: Mr. Mourdock, Margaret Hoover here. A follow-up question. Many people have likened Jim DeMint and the Tea Party to not compromising in the Senate. And what would you say? I want to give you an opportunity to respond. What would you say when people criticize you as saying that you don't understand the nature of the institution you're running to represent, the Senate, which is really premised on the notion of compromising with your colleagues? MOURDOCK: Well, I'm a huge student of American history, and I recognize that this is one of those times where there's great polarization between the two parties. And, frankly, the ideas for which the parties are working are really at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't think there's going to be a lot of successful compromise. Hence you have the deadlock we have today. What I've said about compromise and bipartisanship is I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so that bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, lower taxes, and get America moving again. The stimulus plan hasn't worked. O'BRIEN: So what I hear you say is that you're not going to compromise. In fact the only compromise you'll do is really getting other people on the other side of the aisle to come to your side of the aisle, which, I guess, is the definition against compromise. You said this in the New York Times – MOURDOCK: Well, it is the definition of political effectiveness. O'BRIEN: True. So political effectiveness, you're saying, is not possible with compromise. Some people would say political effectiveness in the Senate actually requires compromise. There are many issues that cannot be done if you do not get bipartisan support. You're not going to work toward bipartisan support? MOURDOCK: Well, the fact is, you never compromise on principles. If people on the far left have a principle they want to stand by, they should never compromise. Those of us on the right should not either. Compromise may come in the finer details of a plan or a budget. But the real principles that I've mentioned about having government rolled back in size, lowering taxes – those things are the principles that caused me to get in this race. They're what has motivated many people to get out and work for us. And we are at that point where one side or the other has to win this argument. One side or the other will dominate. O'BRIEN: You told the New York Times, “The time for being collegial has passed. It's time for confrontation.” And when I look at the polls and talk to people who are frustrated about I would say a lack of what's getting done in Washington, D.C., I mean there's genuine frustration and the anger can be seen on some of the poll numbers – I think approval is probably 17 percent approval for Congress. Doesn't going in with an attitude potentially, of course, if you're able to be victorious at the very end, that collegial has passed and we're going to be confrontational, doesn't that actually just undermine any sense of trying to get Americans united and together and raise some of those numbers for approval, frankly? MOURDOCK: Well, we are at that point right now. If you want to see where we have collegiality? Okay, we have collegiality and we have Congress with a 17 percent approval rating. So it's not working. O'BRIEN: I don't know that you have collegiality, sir. I'm going to argue against that. MOURDOCK: Well, I — my point was in that interview and it is still today, those who are saying we need more collegiality, well, Mr. Lugar was seen as a very collegial person, and yet there was that very frustration. I'm certain part of the reason we won yesterday was the very fact as you mentioned that Congress is seen as so unpopular because it's so ineffective. When I say I want to be confrontational, I want to confront the issues. I'm bipartisan in the sense that I want to confront the big spenders who are both Republicans and Democrats. I want to confront those who would protect the bureaucracy rather than the Republicans or Democrats. That's the kind of confrontation we need to address the real issues that will get this country going again. We have a difficult time ahead, we have to make some tough decisions, I'm willing to make them. And if people see that as confrontational, so be it. I like to see it as effective leadership. O'BRIEN: Richard Mourdock, congratulations on your win yesterday. Thanks for talking with us about it. We appreciate it.

More:
CNN Welcomes Mourdock to Senate Race: Aren’t You Going to ‘Undermine’ American Unity If You Win?

Minutes after Barack Obama came out for gay marriage, Wednesday, Chris Matthews appeared on MSNBC to compare opponents of such unions to “wolves” and to link them to supporters of slavery. Warning of political danger to the President, Matthews spewed, “The dens are opening. The gates are opening of wolves coming out for this, the Karl Roves.” After describing liberalism as the force that brought all social change to America, the Hardball anchor warned about the armies that feed off “resentment.” Matthews lectured, ” That army has been out there during Jim Crow. It was out there during abolition, during suffrage. There's always an army that feeds on change and feeds against it .” [See video below. See MP3 audio here .] According to the host, it has been the “long march towards liberalism in the country” that has brought justice. Matthews complimented MSNBC's left-wing slogan: “It has always been forward-leaning, as we say on this network actually, and it has always moved in that direction.” A transcript of the exchange, which appeared on the May 9 segment, is below: 3:03 CHRIS MATTHEWS: The wolf lairs are opening up. The dens are opening; the gates are opening of wolves coming out for this, the Karl Roves. The people who will use this against the President in states like North Carolina and in Pennsylvania. They will use it from the pulpit. They’ll make it a religious issue. They will use it to go to communities, black and white. Working-class whites. Very evangelical black Americans – they will go to them at the pulpit. They use everything they can to exploit this. This is a very- well, it's a shattering fact now in American life. MARTIN BASHIR: You're

While appearing on the Late Show with David Letterman, Mika Brzezinski took time to share her fondest memories growing up in a liberal household with father Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter.

Ron Reagan, the son of late President Ronald Reagan, came down strongly on Tuesday against Barack Obama's unwillingness to definitively support same-sex marriage. Appearing on Hardball , the MSNBC political analyst said, “He’s taking more time evolving on this issue than humans took evolving from apes” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary): Tuesday's Hardball began with the same-sex marriage issue being voted on in North Carolina and the political dangers for Obama taking a position on it. “This whole evolving thing has really jumped the shark at this point,” Reagan said. “I mean, he’s taking more time evolving on this issue than humans took evolving from apes.” “We all know he’s making a political calculation,” he continued. “We could argue as to whether the political calculation is correct or incorrect, but the problem for him is it’s an obvious political calculation.” “He’s taking a civil rights issue and he’s trying to kind of, you know, straddle the fence on it, and it’s unseemly. He’s beginning to look ridiculous on this issue. He needs to just get off the fence and just go wherever they know he really is in the first place.” A few minutes later, host Chris Matthews asked, “If he loses the election because of this, and Mitt Romney walks into the White House, a man who says he will not evolve…is that good for the cause?” Reagan responded, “It’s not good for the cause, although the cause will continue and will prevail just because of demographics if nothing else.” “I understand what the calculation is,” Reagan continued, “but I think the calculation is now incorrect. You can only make this political calculation when people don’t generally see it as a political calculation. If people know that you’re not actually speaking your mind and your heart, if you are inauthentic about this issue – and it is an important issue to some people, a lot of people – then you’re doing yourself harm. You’re actually harming your electoral prospects.” It's going to be very interesting to see how this issue plays out in the coming months now that Vice President Joe Biden, appearing on Sunday's Meet the Press , has expressed his support for same-sex marriage. Stay tuned.

See more here:
Ron Reagan: Obama ‘Taking More Time Evolving’ on Same-Sex Marriage ‘Than Humans’ Did ‘From Apes’

The liberal media sure are playing the race card to get Barack Obama reelected. On HBO's Real Time Friday, host Bill Maher said, “For the sake of black America, he needs the second term” (video follows with transcript and commentary): BILL MAHER: I think the second term for Obama is more important even than the first. Obviously, it was important to get the first black president elected. But if the first black president only has one term, America reads that as a failure. This is what the right-wing hope and prays for more than anything else, that America looks at this one term president and goes, “Well you know what? We tried a black guy, but it just didn’t work.” And I think Obama’s aware of that. That’s why he’s so conservative in the first term. He knows for the sake of black America, he needs the second term. Yes, because let's face it – it would have been far better for blacks in this country if Obama never would have been elected at all than fail to get a second term. Some interesting logic, isn't it? Of course, this isn't about logic. This is about liberal media members once again using race to try to win an election, and you can't swing a dead cat now without hitting an example of it. Jehmu Greene, a liberal contributor to Fox News did it earlier on Friday when she referred to the Daily Caller's Tucker Carlson as a “bow-tying white boy.” MSNBC's Chris Matthews just last week called Republicans ” the grand wizard crowd .” A week earlier he asked if voters and political pundits would be reluctant to dump the first black president. At the same time, Frank Rich of New York magazine wrote about “Old, white, rich men who are buying this election.” New York Times' writers David Brooks and Helene Cooper worried about “white guys” on the GOP presidential ticket. Meanwhile, CNN's Candy Crowley asked Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) if he's more concerned with Obama's safety because he's black than he was for George W. Bush. Add it all up, and it's clear that these folks on the left are just obsessed with race, and they're going to use it every day until November to get their man reelected. Heaven help us. On the other hand, isn't it marvelous that the number one contributor to Obama's Super PAC can go on national television once a week and campaign for the candidate he's given money to?

Visit link:
Bill Maher: ‘For the Sake of Black America Obama Needs the Second Term’

In a complete violation of journalistic ethics, Friday's NBC Today aired an invented hidden camera scenario in which two teen girls were portrayed as participating in racial discrimination as judges of a fake singing contest. Reporter Natalie Morales described the shameful stunt as “such a great education for parents” and “truly a lesson for all of us.” [ Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump ] Morales described the scheme: “Allison and the girl next to her, Nia, think they're here to judge a singing contest. They don't know that the other judges are actors we've planted to discriminate against Nick Rodriguez, who is also working with us…. The actors go after Nick. Using insults experts say are common for Latino boys.” The male actor denigrated Rodriguez for wearing a “backwards hat” and joked that “he could do some salsa dancing or whatever.” The female actor suggested Rodriguez “could be illegal” and “May be involved in drugs.” As the young actors behaved like complete cartoons of bigotry, Morales narrated: “Allison's mom is surprised her daughter is not leaping to defend Nick, though both girls are looking anxious.” The mother agreed to the absurd demonstration and was watching video of the incident behind the scenes. Morales explained: “I go in to tell them what our shoot is really about, along with Rosalind Wiseman , an expert in teen ethics.” What about this cruel prank is supposed to be ethical? Allison begins to tear up as she confesses: “I feel like I gave in to peer pressure. I didn't want to say that because he wasn't American – I hated how they said that, and I just feel really, really bad right now.” Wiseman lectures as if it were a scientific experiment: “And so I think this is really important to show, is that people who, even people who feel so strongly about this stuff can still get caught in ways that they don't mean to do it.” Morales excitedly notes what happened next: “The interview is over, but just then, Allison shows us a moment of true empathy. She wants to tell Nick she's sorry.” The teen girl sobs as she asks: “Can I apologize to him?” Morales replies: “That would be great.” In reality, Morales is the one who should be apologizing.

If you hoped the race card wasn't going to be played by media members this election, think again. On Fox News's America Live Friday, liberal commentator Jehmu Greene said to the Daily Caller's Tucker Carlson, “To question [Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren] on her qualifications is going to be something that does appeal to folks like you, voters like you – bow-tying white boys” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary): At issue were recent revelations that Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren listed herself in law school directories as Native American. “Having a great grandparent who may or may not have been Native American is not a qualification,” said Carlson. “Being 1/32nd some racial group is not a qualification, okay, it’s an accident of history. It’s something over which you had no control and for which in a just society you would not be rewarded.” He continued, “It does provide a window into a system that is fundamentally corrupt, that rewards people based on their DNA which is inherently unfair. It was unfair when it happened under segregation, and it’s unfair now.” After listing some of Warren’s credentials, Greene said, “To question this woman on her qualifications is going to be something that does appeal to folks like you, voters like you, bow-tying white boys.” Carlson quickly responded, “Hey, hey, hey. You can’t, wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa…You can use name calling all you like, but you’re ignoring the truth.” “I didn’t call you a name,” amazingly replied Greene. I guess she doesn't think “white boy” is name calling. Can you imagine the outrage if Carlson had said Greene's opinion had anything to do with the color of her skin? Better get used to it, for liberal media members even on Fox are going to be playing this card whenever they can. Isn't it sad? (H/T NB reader Robin Mosley, full video at Johnny Dollar's Place ) Original version of this article quoted Greene as saying “bow tie and white boys.” After many listens, it's clear she said “bow-tying white boys.”

Excerpt from:
Liberal Fox Contributor to Tucker Carlson: ‘Voters Like You – Bow-Tying White Boys’

In an interview that aired on Friday's CBS This Morning, conservative rocker Ted Nugent let loose at CBS correspondent Jeff Glor when Glor suggested he was extreme. “I'm an extremely loving, passionate man, and people who investigate me honestly, without the baggage of political correctness, ascertain the conclusion that I'm a damn nice guy,” he ranted before unleashing a torrent of profanity. CBS was aghast at conservative rocker Ted Nugent's on-camera outburst during an exclusive interview, but the same network treated profane comedian Bill Maher like the voice of reason when it read from his op-ed back on March 22. [Video below the break. Audio here .] “We have no idea where that unexpected outburst came from,” Glor claimed in surprise. “Kind of stunned us. Stunned our producer.” Anchor Charlie Rose preached that Nugent should change his act if he wants to be remembered for his charity towards the youth. However, perhaps CBS ignored its own hand in provoking of Nugent when Glor suggested that Nugent was extreme. “If Mitt Romney is to win, he needs at least some of the moderate vote,” Glor told Nugent. “You are many things,” he continued, pausing for effect before adding “You are not moderate.” In contrast, CBS held HBO's Bill Maher in much higher regard when it deemed his op-ed so important that they read an excerpt from it on-air, back in March. In the column, Maher slammed the public for being too sensitive to criticism – even though he had repeatedly spewed obscene and hateful verbiage at conservative women. And that was shortly after Maher had donated $1 million to President Obama's super PAC. CBS didn't mention that he was an Obama donor, however. They made sure to report that Mitt Romney “courted” and received the endorsement of Nugent and asked Nugent about it in the interview. So CBS took umbrage at conservative Ted Nugent's profane outburst, but gave Maher a microphone to tell people to calm down after he had repeatedly insulted women with the worst of insults. It reveals a double standard toward outspoken conservatives and liberals; CBS made sure to emphasize that Nugent is not a moderate, and yet treated the profane Maher like the voice of reason. A partial transcript of the interview, which aired on May 4 on CBS This Morning at 7:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows: [7:30] JEFF GLOR, CBS This Morning special correspondent: Ted Nugent is loud, non-stop, never at a loss for words. He's also politically influential. Mitt Romney courted his endorsement and got it. And as we discovered firsthand during a visit to his Texas ranch, Nugent is ramping up the rhetoric again. (…) [7:33] GLOR: April was one of the more interesting months I think you ever had. NUGENT: Well, Jeff, that's where you're wrong. It's always been like this. GLOR: It has not always been like this. NUGENT: It has always been like this! GLOR: You have gotten more boisterous. (Crosstalk) NUGENT: No way! It has always been – you go back and look at these interviews, it has always been like this! GLOR: Politically speaking, you are more of an activist now than you were in 1970. NUGENT: The political activism is being accelerated because the conditions demand accelerated activism, yes. (…) GLOR: If Mitt Romney is to win, he needs at least some of the moderate vote. You are many things. (Pause) You are not moderate. NUGENT: But not –

Can I get an amen? What exactly has “cool” gotten you?, asks the latest ad from American Crossroads of young Americans. Watch: I don’t think efforts like these are completely wasted, but it’s an uphill battle to be sure. If there was ever any doubt that the media has the ability to conjure up an image for someone out of Read this post