I remember that one in particular Sean Hannity didn't have a problem with Imus' controversial rants of the female basketball players at Rutgers University. MSNBC pulled the plug on that show.
And within a few months, Imus talked to Roger Ailes about reviving his career and there you have it. The controversial talker is on Fox Business Network at the assistance of Sean Hannity pleading to Roger Ailes to hire "this guy on!"
Now onto this tobacco chewing, Jack Daniels breath smelling, douchebag!
Listening to how he's a frequent contributor to Fox News. His often blunt comments never got that much attention! It was the one time that he managed to throw a racial slur (i.e. Hitler). Then compare the analogy to an ally of the Fox News Channel like Benjamin Netanyahu, probably got the Jewish community upset.
So Sean Hannity will once again go on the defense of this guy! Expect Hannity to have him on his show and use his bumper music.
Then Roger Ailes will hire him on to contribute to pop culture.
Hank Williams, Jr. was either a drunk fool or a dumb fool! He was canned from ESPN's Monday Night Football after he went on a rant about President Obama.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie would be the new "flavor of the month".
I mean how bad is the field if they allocate the attention on the controversial governor.
President Barack Obama is vulnerable and can be defeated. But if [the GOP] continue to run candidates who are too polarized, they'll lose.
Some of the most unpopular positions from the Republican governors, the House of Representatives, and Tea Party movement created a stalled economy. And yet, it's President Barack Obama taking the blows for an ineffective government. An ineffective leadership and not confronting the Republicans made him weak.
I don't know Christie could change the dynamics of a "PRETTY WEAK" field of candidates, but let him bask in the limelight!
I rank this 112th Congress, a "Do Nothing Congress".
And should a Republican win the White House, assured that the activists on the left will make the new president suffer and we'll repeat the cycle of extremism yet again. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R) says that she's seen "a lot of people of color who didn't study hard because they said the government would take care of them."
The remarks came during a debate on an amendment to the state's constitution that would eliminate Affirmative Action in the state government. It was proposed by State Rep. Leslie Osborn (R), who said: "This proposed constitutional amendment makes clear that all men are created equal and should be treated as such by their government. If voters approve this constitutional amendment, state government will not be allowed to discriminate against Oklahoma citizens based on race or gender - period."
Kern voted for the amendment, arguing that minorities earn less because they don't work as hard. "We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that's tragic," Kern said, "but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don't want to study as hard in school?
"I've taught school," she added, "and I saw a lot of people of color who didn't study hard because they said the government would take care of them."
Kern also noted, as the Tulsa World reports, that women don't earn as much money as men because "they tend to spend more time at home with their families."
The proposed amendment passed by a vote of 59-14 Wednesday, after having passed the state Senate. It will get on the ballot in November of 2012.
Kern has a long history of bringing controversy to the Oklahoma House. She has introduced a bill to ban Sharia law in the state, and another that would allow teachers to question evolution. Kern also claimed that "gays are infiltrating city councils" and gay people are "the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat."
Kern did not immediately return TPM's request for comment.
Republican governor who recently called upon citizens for civil discourse is finally seeing sanity. The controversial governor vetoes a law that requires those who run for president to produce proof of United States citizenship. Jan Brewer also vetoes a law that would require gun owners to carry on public institutions and colleges. This may have pissed off the Tea Party with this one.
Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill In Arizona
Eric Kleefeld | April 18, 2011, 10:28PM Talking Points Memo
Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), who has been a darling on the right for her battles with the Obama administration over illegal immigration, health care and other issues, has now taken a potentially bold step against the Tea Party base: She has vetoed a "birther bill" -- a piece of legislation motivated by conspiracy theories about President Obama place of birth, requiring candidates for public office to submit proof of U.S. citizenship to the state Secretary of State before they could appear on the state's ballot.
"I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," Brewer said in her veto message, the Associated Press reports. Brewer herself is a former Arizona Secretary of State.
"In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state. This is a bridge too far."
Earlier, Brewer had foreshadowed her decision with skeptical statements about the bill: "I think my big concern probably, just shooting a little bit from the hip, is the fact that I don't know if we regulate federal elections."
It should be noted, however, that the bill had previously passed the legislature with margins that would potentially be veto-proof: 20-9 in the Senate, and 40-16 in the House. The question, then, is whether Brewer's veto would take the wind out of the bill's sails or if its backers will try to override the veto and be able to hold on to their numbers.
Today’s installment of “heinous, unacceptable racism disguised as ‘jokes’” features a Republican official on Orange County, California, President Obama, and monkeys in photoshop. GOP official Marilyn Davenport is coming under fire for sending other Republican officials an email depicting President Obama as a chimpanzee, in the arms of chimpanzee “parents,” claiming, “Now you know why– no birth certificate! [sic].” Davenport is sticking to her guns, blaming the media for making too much of a fuss.
Among Davenport’s detractors (including, one would hope, “everyone else”), local news station KCAL caught up with former California Republican chairman Michael Schroder, who correctly posited: “no average person would send this out and feel comfortable with this, that this was just a joke.” Then again, Schroder also notes Davenport doesn’t come into this embarrassment with a clean slate– among the people in Orange County Republican politics she has defended are an official who sent an email with an illustration of the White House covered in watermelons and an official who opposed the installation of grass near beaches on the point that “grass attracts Mexicans.”
Nonetheless, Davenport said off-camera that she considered the email merely a “joke” and was confused as to why the media had blown the issue way out of proportion. She is still on the governing board of the county party, though one can expect that not for long.
More from Mediaite
The Orange County Republicans and various Tea Party activists protest an Islamic Mosque in Yorba Linda, California.
WASHINGTON -- After announcing it would try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged conspirators by military commission rather than in a civilian trial, the Obama administration quickly scapegoated Congress to explain the decision.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that his department was scrapping its November 2009 decision to hold Mohammed’s high-profile trial just blocks from the World Trade Center. Instead, they were moving the venue to Guantanamo Bay. Holder and other administration officials said the policy reversal was due to congressional interference in executive counterterrorism efforts and “needless” drumming-up of controversy.
“The reality is, I know this case in ways that members of Congress do not,” Attorney General Eric Holder said during a press conference. “I have looked at the files. I have spoken to the prosecutors. I know the tactical concerns that have to go into this decision. So do I know better than them? Yes.”
The attorney general said had not arrived at the decision comfortably. Had he had his druthers, Holder claimed, he would have kept the trial in its original setting, but the legislative branch controls the money for transferring the prisoners and securing the site.
The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 prohibits use of funds to transfer defendants from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. In a file dismissing the indictment of Mohammed and the four alleged conspirators sent to the Southern District of New York on Monday morning, members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office pointed to the act as the prohibitive restriction preventing a federal trial.
Before Holder’s announcement, a Department of Justice official said that a military commission trial had become the “only option available given congressional restrictions.” If the message wasn’t clear enough, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney cited “congressional reaction to some of the goals that were laid out” as one of the reasons for the reversal. Asked whether blaming Congress was going to be the simple pushback, another official replied, “We're just explaining the facts.”
“[Congress has] taken one of the nation’s most tested counterterrorism tools off the table and tied our hands in a way that would have serious ramifications,” Holder said. “We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions.”
Story continues below
Advertisement
If the Obama administration were seeking to make a villain out of the legislative branch, they had willing partners in some congressional lawmakers. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took a break from budget negotiations to praise the administration for following the will of an “overwhelming bipartisan opposition from the American people and their elected representatives here in Congress.” Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Holder’s announcement the “final nail in the coffin of that wrong-headed idea,” referring to the possibility of a civilian trial. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chair of the Homeland Security Committee, described the change as “a long-awaited step in the right direction.”
Others in Washington seemed to agree with Holder that Congress had played a guiding role in the reversal of course. “I believe that the Congress forced the president into this decision,” Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said, “first, by their abject lack of courage in not wanting [Mohammed] tried ‘in their city, in their courtroom,’ and, second, by their inability to present the president with an alternative other than the military system.”
But Wilkerson, a onetime chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, refused to absolve the Obama administration entirely. “Of course the president, in complying, demonstrated a decided lack of moral courage as well,” he said.
It appears debates over the legal parameters of national security law don’t break down perfectly either along party lines or between branches of government. And while the vast majority of lawmakers praised moving Mohammed’s trial back to Guantanamo, others expressed both disappointment with the development and with what they considered to be Obama’s willingness to let it happen.
"I felt that if the scene of the crime was New York, why not try him in New York?" Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) said. “I don't think we should do anything that gives the terrorists the ability to say they've disrupted the normal way we do things. Normally, we would have tried [Mohammed] at the scene of the crime.”
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “Had [Obama] showed some courage to begin with on these national security issues, I think he could have made huge gains.” But, he added, “Obama backed down every time there was a whiff of an oppositional problem on national security.”
Michael McAuliff and Jon Ward contributed to this report.
My opinion on the issue.
There's more important things for the Justice Department. According to the American people, there's a birth certificate that Barack Obama must show since he's not a legitimate president.
Or the New Black Panther Party. You know those two guys that were in a Black neighborhood who were "blocking" white voters from entering a polling place.
And there's the issue with Shira's Law. You know there's thousands of Americans who want Shira's Law and despite it never happening in the United States, our two Muslim (by the way Black) congressman and Radical Imams wants it so they can punish our patriotic American who relish in Don't Tread On Me Flags, and Old Glories.
No Eric Holder, Attorney General of The United States, the American people want to worry about your words about being a "nation of cowards when it comes to race", or "my peoples". Even though they taken statements out of context, the American people think that your handling of our safety is completely a disaster.
No matter how many years ago, we the American people would rather forget the first conspirators of WTC in 1993. They were tried and convicted in U.S. Federal Court and sent to prisons.
Seriously, Attorney General Holder was really annoyed with Congress. The Republicans invoked fear and the Democratic Party were concern about their loses in the 2010 Midterm Elections. They bucked the Justice Department.
Kurt Daudt wants to crack down on cash for poor people
For a political party that keeps harping on Democrats for trying to control people's lives, Republicans in Minnesota sure are doing some weird things. First, they want government to control decisions made between pregnant women and their physicians. Now they want to make sure that poor people never have more than $20 in their pockets. Poor people can't be trusted with cash, it seems.
A bill introduced by Rep. Kurt Daudt (R-Crown) would prohibit people who use EBT cards--government assistance on plastic--from withdrawing cash at ATMs with the cards, except for $20 per month.
We haven't been able to reach Daudt yet, but Angel Buechner of the Welfare Rights Committee is not amused.
"The Welfare Rights Committee would like to state that this Bill, House File 171, is not based in any common sense or fiscal responsibility," Buechner said at this week's hearing on the bill. "It is appears to be based on knee-jerk, ignorant bias and a desire to stigmatize the poor."
The bill (see the text here) would require cashiers to ask for photo ID and prohibit EBT-card holders from purchasing alcohol or cigs.
Steve Gottwalt (R-St. Cloud) thinks $20 is enough for the month
As things stand now, people using EBT cards are allowed to withdraw cash, which works out well for them because a lot of stores don't have EBT hook-ups. If the bill passes, all those stores would have to get EBT connections, or poor people using the cards would have a limit on where they could shop.
We reached Jodi Boyne, director of public affairs for House Republican Caucus, and she confirmed that the intent of the bill is to crack down on public money used for bad stuff--those alcohol and cigs again--and actually, in some cases, at a casino, according to this KSTP news report.
"There is documented evidence that these cards have been used for fraudulent purposes, and it's looking at addressing that," Boyne says.
The KSTP report was the reason Daudt launched his bill--watch this video to see the report--and he is not the only Republican supporting it. A whole host of his fellow GOP-ers have signed on, as you can see here.
I made a video denouncing Republicans lame attempt to court Black voters with this "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was A Republican" campaign. Also took a parting shot at NPR and Fox News commentator Juan Williams.
if you are annoyed with Republicans and conservatives pushing this "Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican", tell them the Democratic Party can claim the first black president and first woman House Speaker. Barack Obama was endorsed by Bernice King and Martin Luther King III, the leaders of the SCLC.
No matter how hard, France Rice and her Black Republicans tried, they failed in bring Blacks to the Republican Party. Just 12% of Blacks support the Republican Party.
The treatment of Michael Steele also shows that the Republicans have no patience for people who don't fit the agenda.
Conservatives whether they are Democrat or Republican harbor bigoted views towards, Blacks, Hispanics, Middle Eastern American, GLBT, and women.
Even though many who were close to the preacher claim that King was nonpartisan, this rumor was spewed on the internet by Rice and a former SCLC worker by the name of Alveda King who was the niece of Dr. King.
Francis Rice her organization the National Black Republican Association tried to murky the Democratic primaries by present the tired Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. Thankfully this woman and her group were properly dismissed by many including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
The National Black Republicans Association (NBRA) is a Florida based group of African American conservatives. NBRA is led by Dr. Frances Rice, a staunch conservative who is an African American. Rice was former lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force, by my account. Her group is funded by the Heritage Foundation and has at most over 100 members. http://nbra.info/
Lynn Swann, Michael Steele and J. Kenneth (Ken) Blackwell were the first Republican African Americans from their home state to run for higher political office. Swann lost in a race for Pennsylvania governor. Steele lost in a U.S. Senate race in Maryland, then later ran for the National Republican Chairman's position. Blackwell lost in a race for governor for Ohio. So far the only achievements in the Congress since J.C. Watts, Jr. are freshman Tea Party Republican Congressmen Allen West of Florida and Tim Scott of South Carolina.
I can't say much about Michael Steele, these days. He embroiled in a major scandal right now and is at the verge of being fired by Republicans. He stumbled by apologize to Rush Limbaugh, spending on his book tour and lavish parties. Steele, a moderate Black Republican claims he's a conservative.
Did anyone remind these clowns on the right that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nonpartisan?
Did anyone remind these clowns on the right that, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King were considered liberal for their views on civil rights, human rights, stance against the Vietnam War and concerns for poverty?
Did anyone remind these clowns that 1960s New York Congressman Emanuel Celler, Democrat drafted the bill? By the way, he was a White Jewish man who pushed for equal rights.
Did these clowns on the right happen to mention that the 88th and 89th United States Congress was controlled by Democratic Party?
Did anyone remind these clowns about Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, Arizona Senator Berry Goldwater, both Republicans and their stances on civil rights?
Did anyone remind these clowns on the right about J. Edgar Hoover's attempts to label Dr. King a "communist" and "socialist"? It's kind of like today's modern conservatives are attacking President Obama by labeling him as such!
Did anyone remind these clowns about current West Virgina Senator Robert Byrd, denouncing his past and endorsing then-senator Barack Obama for president?
Can someone remind the Republicans that non-whites (Black, Hispanic, Arab, Asian, and Native Americans) have very little support for the party today! In the 2006 Midterm Elections, the GOP won 51% of white votes, 37% of Asian votes, and 30% of Hispanic votes, while winning only 10% of Black votes.
Can someone remind the Republicans, that the Democratic Party can claim the first Black president?
I'm just saying!
Today's Republican Party is embolden in the divisive politics once practiced 50 years ago. They have no concerns about Civil Rights! They are not reaching out to non-white voters. And sure the Republicans this year won the midterms with gains and least members of Congress who are non-white, their positions are setbacks to the achievements of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Anyone who harbors conservative views, whether they are Democrat, Republican or Independent are single issue voters who have a bigoted view of Blacks, Hispanics, Arab Americans, Native Americans, women and GLBT.
I am not a race-baiter or a Democrat. I am an independent voter who is socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Pretty much a moderate. I don't follow groups and you are not my brother. I have a sister.
GOP leaders tout wins as referendum on the Democratic leadership
The Washington Post - Felicia Sonmez
Fresh off sweeping wins in Tuesday's midterm elections, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican Governors Association Chairman Haley Barbour said Wednesday morning at a Capitol news conference that their resounding victories were a referendum on Democratic leadership.
Democrats, meanwhile, cast their defeat at the ballot box as the result of Americans' continuing frustration with the pace of economic recovery as well as a flood of spending by outside groups.
Republicans' across-the-board wins "sent a very loud message" that voters want a "smaller, less costly and more accountable government here in Washington, D.C.," Boehner said.
McConnell told reporters that the election showed that "choosing the president over your constituents is not a good strategy," and that voters "appreciated us saying no to the things the American people indicated they were not in favor of."
Barbour added that even Tuesday's governors' races were a referendum on the way things are going in Washington.
The trio addressed reporters one day after Republicans captured the House with gains of more than five dozen seats. In the Senate, Democrats narrowly avoided the doomsday scenario of losing their majority, and in gubernatorial races, the GOP saw big wins, although the Democratic Governors Association managed to win the governor's mansions in Hawaii, Connecticut and Vermont.
In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen noted, as Republicans did, that Democrats' losses came about due to voter anger -- but he argued that voters were frustrated not with the Democratic leadership but rather with the still-struggling economy.
"Last night's election was a perfect political storm born out of the understandable frustration felt by the American people in response to high unemployment caused by the worst financial crash since the Great Depression," Van Hollen said. He added that "the record amount of secret money spent by right-wing outside groups turned this political storm into a category 3 political hurricane."
Boehner said that he spoke with President Obama Tuesday night and that the two "discussed working together." Boehner also said that he received a "very nice voicemail" from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and that he expects the coming transition in leadership to be "very smooth."
The Republican leader said that his party stands ready to work together with the president and Democrats when their goals align with the interest of the American people.
"We'll work with the administration when they agree with the people and confront them when they don't," Boehner said, citing spending, trade, debt and nuclear power as areas of possible bipartisan cooperation.
Notably absent from the news conference was Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who addressed reporters separately in a conference call earlier Wednesday.
"Last night was historic. It was important. But it was also sobering in many respects," said Steele, cautioning that "with this victory comes an enormous responsibility."
Steele, who is said to be considering a bid for a second term as RNC chairman despite a steady stream of calls for his ouster, also talked at length on the conference call about his own committee's role in the GOP's victories Tuesday.
But he also cast the party's wins as an "enormous moment" for the grass roots and that "no single person or committee does this alone."
Other party committees and conservative-leaning outside groups touted their respective roles in Tuesday's sweeping wins as well.
Guy Harrison, executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which saw the biggest gains of the day, told reporters on a conference call Wednesday morning that the NRCC's role Tuesday was crucial in the defeats of longtime Democratic incumbents such as Reps. Ike Skelton (Mo.) and John Spratt (S.C.).
"I think there are a lot of people who can take credit for this," Harrison said, adding that "the fact is, our candidates would not have won without the help of the NRCC." Harrison also credited Boehner in particular for helping Republicans make gains in suburban districts and throughout the leader's home state of Ohio.
Meanwhile, the leadership of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, two conservative-leaning outside groups that played heavily this cycle, said in a roundtable with reporters Wednesday that their groups were instrumental in many big important GOP wins. The two groups raised more than $70 million total, much of which came from donors who opted against contributing to the beleaguered RNC.
American Crossroads Political Director Carl Forti said that the two groups had poured a total of more than $36 million into 13 Senate races and 18 House races since April. Forti noted that by being active in races such as the Kentucky and Missouri Senate contests, the groups freed up the National Republican Senatorial Committee to spend its resources on races in Democratic-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and Illinois.
Forti added that the groups "made a committed effort to expand the playing field in the House" by advertising in districts that were long thought to be safely in Democratic hands.
Asked whether the RNC could have done things differently this cycle, Mike Duncan, chairman of American Crossroads and a onetime chairman of the RNC, demurred.
"We're all part of a team," Duncan said, adding, "This is not about credit."
Where do we go from here? Race-baiting and fear-mongering a tactic of conservative activism. It's frustrating that the Republican Party is determined to attack President Obama, but this "socialist" nonsense is really making me more likely to continue ignoring Republicans.
Just about 90% of Republicans/conservatives believe that President Obama is a "socialist", "Marxist", and/or other ridiculous accusations. So much for a post-partisan America!
Is it fair for me to say that anyone who criticizes President Obama by throwing the ridiculous "socialist" claim are Anti-American. The conservative media have went into full spin with this "socialist" fear-mongering. And to top that, in my opinion as well as the title of this video, the Republicans and their allies in the conservative media have used "racial undertones" towards the president.
They won't say it, but they found a way to beat the odds!
39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Conservatives tend to be more likely racists, bigots and ignorant.
By Daniel Tencer Friday, January 29th, 2010 -- 3:24 pm
UPDATE AT BOTTOM: Fox News cut live feed of Obama debate half-way through; GOP aides say allowing cameras was a 'mistake'
A combative President Obama sparred back and forth with Republicans at a House GOP retreat in Baltimore Friday, telling House members they had backed themselves into a corner by painting his administration as being radical.
It was an unusual question-and-answer session that some observers have compared to Question Period in the British House of Commons, when the prime minister takes questions from opposition lawmakers. And even some conservative commentators admit Obama won the debate and gave himself a much-needed image boost.
Invited by the GOP to attend their annual conference, the president accepted but surprised Republicans with a request to allow cameras into the conference room, Politico reports. The GOP agreed.
Weaving between pleas for bipartisanship and direct criticism of GOP politicking, the president took Republicans to task for voting against last year's stimulus package and then attending "ribbon cuttings" for projects funded by it.
"A lot of you have gone to ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against," Obama said. "I say all this not to re-litigate the past, but it's simply to state, the component parts of the recovery act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do."
Obama touched repeatedly on the theme that, in opposing his policies, Republicans at times oppose things that are in line with their ideology. Among those things, Obama argued, are his proposed fee on banks and a freeze on discretionary spending.
"Join me" in passing the spending freeze, Obama asked the GOP, adding there's "nothing in this proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predisposition of this caucus."
On the proposed bank fee, designed to recoup some of the money the US government lost in bailing out the banks in 2008, Obama told House Minority Leader John Boehner: "If you listen to the American people, John, they’ll tell you they want their money back."
And in very frank language, Obama warned the GOP they are painting themselves into a political corner by using strong rhetoric in opposing White House ideas.
"If the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me," the president said. "The fact is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable with your own base in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've told your constituents is this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's gonna destroy America."
The president also chastised Republicans for presenting health care reform as "some Bolshevik plot." But he spent a considerable amount of time arguing for bipartisanship, and for his own credentials as an open-minded leader who can work across party lines.
"I am not an ideologue," Obama said, adding, "These are serious times and what's required of all us is to do what's right for our country even if it's not best for our politics. ... There may be better things than poll numbers."
Even some conservative commentators conceded that Obama won the day.
"Obama did well, got the better of GOP today," the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb tweeted. "Fortunately, we got the better of him the last six months or so. And health care is dead."
"It would be hard to argue the exchange is anything but a plus-plus for Obama and the GOP," he wrote. "Both sides emerged from it looking as if, contra the public's greatest fears, they are serious about the deficit and health-care reform. ... [T]he Republicans went a long way toward showing that they are hardly a party of obstructionists with no solutions to offer Americans."
UPDATE: Some commentators are pointing to the fact that Fox News cut off the live feed of Obama's debate half-way through as proof that the president got the better of the GOP on Friday.
"Perhaps the most telling aspect of the speech reactions," writes David Weigel at the Washington Independent, is that "Fox News, alone among cable networks, cut away mid-broadcast and went to a newsless interview with Rep. Peter King (R-NY)."
NBC's Luke Russert offered more evidence that at least the GOP views it as a loss for their side.
"GOP aides telling me it was a mistake to allow cameras into Obama's QA with GOP members," Russert tweeted Friday. "Allowed BO to refute GOP for 1.5 hours on TV."
A throwback to last year. When the Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter switch parties, he dished some dirt on the tactics that Senate Republicans to obstruct President Barack Obama's agenda and focus on races in 2010 and 2012.
Republican Scott Brown, the new Massachusetts senator is being touted around as the future of GOP.
United States Senate Special Election: Democratic leaders are bracing for a defeat. A Republican may win a seat once held by the prominent liberal, Edward Kennedy.
Scott Brown, Republican State Senator from Massachusetts has pulled ahead in a few polls and it spells trouble for the 60-seat majority of the Democratic Party. The candidate for the Democrats, Martha Coakley, state attorney general was a sure in to win this. Unfortunately, the Republicans and the echo chamber of conservative activists, are pouring in last minute cash to make sure they defeat health care reform, a prime agenda for President Barack Obama.
Nate Silver, founder of FiveThirtyEight explains that the possibility of a defeat is imminent.
Excerpts from Silver:
It should be kept in mind that a lot of Brown's support is pretty new, which would ordinarily imply that it is pretty soft. Yes, I know there's a core of people -- maybe a fairly large core -- who are really, really excited about Scott Brown. But they only get to vote once apiece. And what the earlier polling established is that it's almost certainly not 50 percent of the electorate -- it might be 35 percent or 40 percent, but it's not 50 percent. He still needs some swing voters to get him over the finish line. Some of those voters were probably tending toward Brown over the last 7-10 days, when he was winning virtually every news cycle. But the headlines in the last 72 hours -- the ones that those voters will be thinking about as they head into the ballot booth -- may be a bit more even-handed (especially given Obama's visit, etc.), and a voter who has swing once is prone to swing again.
The White House is hoping that a little boast from President Obama can help the Coakley campaign stumble to the finish line. Democratic leaders are going to need every member to get support for the health care reform.
