Reverse Sexism? Rep. Nancy Pelosi Claims The 'Harshness' Of Politics Is Keeping Women Out

» 7 comments

Rep. Nancy Pelosi blamed the lack of civility in politics this morning for the allegedly dwindling number of women in politics these days. In an interview with MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, the House Minority Leader argued that women are having a hard time entering politics because of 'the harshness' of the current political climate, suggesting that 'the minute a woman gets tough in a debate,' the subsequent characterizations can deter her from continuing to participate.

RELATED: Rep. Nancy Pelosi To Ed Schultz: Today's Ruling A Victory 'For Health Care As A Right, Not A Privilege'

'There's a certain respect of the person and the people who sent us here' that changed a little later in the '90s,' Rep. Pelosi told Harris-Perry, explaining that she saw civility dwindle over time in Congress. She praised President George H.W. Bush for reversing his opinion on raising taxes, being thankful 'he had the courage to do what he did' and the attacks on him were not as vicious as attacks grew to become.

She then theorized that a climate of hostility would keep women away from politics by virtue of them being born women:

The stridency, the harshness' they suppress, they suffocate the system with money, they suppress the vote and they poison the debate and that's not a good formula for women because women need to have a civil conservation. The minute a woman gets tough in a debate, you know what they say about her.

There is nothing particularly incorrect about Rep. Pelosi pointing out that politics is one of the more difficult sports and it takes a thick skin to survive. She is also not incorrect in pointing out that it's pretty easy for a woman to earn the 'bitch' label just for agreeing or disagreeing with a stance a man opposes. It happens, as any woman who has ever had a political opinion can tell you. But the problem with Rep. Pelosi's message here is that she posits the solution to the problem is to dumb down the game or make politics more 'civil'' that the problem is not that some women are hesitant to take the rhetorical punches, but that women as a whole are somehow born unable to withstand the difficulties of being a public official. If politics were Jeopardy! and only men kept winning, Rep. Pelosi would argue that the solution would be to make the questions easier, and not to change the way guests are recruited or educational emphases in classrooms.

To argue that women are inherently unable to withstand the heat and thus politics as a whole has to change teeters dangerously close to a sexist argument. Beyond that, it validates the attacks on women for having political opinions that Rep. Pelosi rails against to begin with. To say that people should behave more civilly lest women scurry back into their shells is to say that those who hurl sexist invective at women are right to think they are too weak for the job. It encourage women to continue scurrying away instead of standing up, fighting back and proving those who dismiss them wrong.

Rep. Pelosi has never backed down from a political position because of what 'people' would say about her for being a woman. That she excuses those who do benefits no one, especially women who would otherwise be involved in the political process but now feel justified in sitting it out.

The segment via MSNBC below:



''
» Follow Frances Martel on Twitter

• 'the minute a woman gets tough in a debate,' the subsequent characterizations can deter her from continuing to participate.

  ''

  I wonder which political party makes those characterizations'.hint it starts with a R

• I have been paying attention to politics, both casually and, more recently, professionally, for over 30 years and Nancy Pelosi is, without a doubt, the stupidest person to hold a leadership position in that time, and is, quite possibly, the stupidest elected official in the last three decades.  It's as if the liberal caricature of Dan Quayle and the liberal caricature of Sarah Palin had a baby girl and that baby was nursed using a lead baby bottle filled with formula made according to Chinese quality control standards, and then she was educated in American public schools in the worst neighborhoods in the country.  And that baby would still be smarter than Nancy Pelosi.

• Sarah Palin called Nancy Pelosi a dingbat. She's right. Nancy Pelosi is a dingbat.

• The game is already 'dumbed down' now and getting dumber every year with the foolishness going on in  Washington. Beyond personal enrichment and ego aggrandizement, why anyone wants those jobs is a mystery.

• Nancy Pelosi and Mellisa hyphen hyphen Harris hyphen hyphen Perry!!
  Now that is what you call riveting, hard hitting, must watch TV.
  I would bet they had to cuff the Camera people to stanchions in order to
  hold them in the Studio until the end of that segment!

• You claim Pelosi suggests: 'women as a whole are somehow born unable to withstand the difficulties of being a public official.'

  Where on earth do you get that she said they were 'born' that way? She didn't use that word. She said that when a woman tries to get involved in a 'tough' or 'harsh' debate, she's almost immediately going to be attacked as a 'bitch,' as you put it. That's all she says. She never said that women, by virtue of their DNA or biology, are not qualified to be there. 

  I watched the clip. No where in there did she suggest the problem was with women themselves: she clearly targeted the toxic political environment as being hostile to women with strong personalities, thus the environment itself is a deterrent to women who would otherwise get involved. It's harder for women to be in politics, so that's why there are fewer of them. And it's not harder for women because they're incapable of playing the political game; it's harder for them because the game has different sets of rules for women. Ask Sarah Palin or Sandra Fluke, two women from completely different ends of the political spectrum, and I'm pretty sure they would agree that the political game is harder to play when you're a woman.

  Thus, your Jeopardy comparison is incomplete. If women who went on the show were called 'bitches' or 'c**nts' every time they tried to buzz in, then fewer women would likely go on the show. Men would win all the time not because women couldn't answer the questions, but rather because women don't want to play the game if they're going to be treated differently while playing it. It's not that the questions need to be made easier; the environment would have to change, and that's what Pelosi is pointing out.

  I don't particularly like Pelosi because she's a grandstanding hack (walking out of the Holder vote was childish at best), but you're misrepresenting her point.

• Was Pelosi attempting to scale back all the stuff thrown at Palin while it was happening- She  was the Sopeaker of the Hosue and her side were the ones tossing the bombs and she did nothing'she is from Northern California and while Whitman was under attack where was Pelosi?  What she really means is that the GOP disagrees with her so they are uncivil- and that civility means agreeing with her'she is not out there changing the tone which she attacks- and she has the power to do it

The 13 Most Infamous Chef Feuds

Dining Diaries: Portland's Jenn Louis Doesn't Believe In Takeout

Jenn Louis is the chef and co-owner of Lincoln Restaurant and Sunshine Tavern in Portland, and was nominated for a James Beard award, as well as named on of Food and Wine magazine's "Best New Chefs" in 2012. In addition, she owns Culinary Arts, one of the city's top catering companies. So, where does this northwest chef go...

Comments: 0

Geraldo Rivera And Laura Ingraham Clash Over 'Hackery' In Fast And Furious Scandal

» 7 comments

Geraldo Rivera appeared on The O'Reilly Factor last night to talk to Laura Ingraham about Operation Fast and Furious, and the subsequent contempt vote for Attorney General Eric Holder clearly upset him as 'political hackery.' Ingraham and Rivera got into a bit of a shoutfest over the matter, as Rivera challenged the audience to stop asking about Holder's motives and instead ask, 'What is Darrell Issa hiding?

RELATED: On O'Reilly Factor, Law Professor Says John Roberts Should Resign Over Obamacare Ruling

'I don't understand for the life of me how Darrell Issa and this committee could expect a criminal contempt to result in an indictment,' Rivera told Ingraham, adding that the real question in the matter was the motivation driving Rep. Issa and not Attorney General Holder. 'Why is he so intent on creating a scandal that will go away because John Boehner and the Republicans need this like they need a hole in the head?' Rivera asked, adding that projects like Fast and Furious 'happen all the time and is a horrible idea.'

Ingraham then began to ask questions about the 'wiretap bombshell' and whether he considered Rep. Issa a 'hack,' which led to Rivera raising his voice about the matter and asking her to stop interrupting him. He continued to be upset about those who 'invoke Brian Terry's name to make a political point,' and argued that this would end with House Speaker Boehner leaving to go fry bigger fish while 'Issa will return to the obscurity of the Oversight Committee.'

The segment via Fox News below:



''
» Follow Frances Martel on Twitter

• This is without a doubt the absolute worst congress America has ever seen.

• Stedman Holder is not trustworthy and he does not represent the American people. He represents Obama and is a member of his campaign staff, and the taxpayers are paying for that.

• laura ingraham sucks wen she wrong she will talk over everybody

• Why are Democrats so opposed to investigating this? Are they assuming something illegal has been done?

• HAHAHA'Ingraham had to resort to the old dishonest Hannity trick'.'Which is it, is Issa a hack or honest?  Hmmm?!?  Answer that?!?!  Gotcha!!!' 

  It is impossible to have a serious discussion with baggers when all they want to do is play Hannity games.

  Laura, he can be both things.
  He is a political HACK for pushing this BS investigation when he HONESTLY knows he has no evidence against Holder.

   

• Why are republicans so interested in wasting money investigating thigs all the time.
  Issa said I don't know what is there but'.
  Let's not forget the MILLIONS spent investigating whitewater to find out Clinton got a BJ.

• Teabaggers use Brian Terry's parents to push a fraudlent scandal.
  That is your Republican Party in one sentence.

Roberts' Decision On Health Care Was The Only Historically Responsible Thing To Do

» 1 comment

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been the subject of intense scrutiny since he shocked the political world on Thursday by siding with the court's left-leaning justices in upholding health care reform. Some have speculated that, given the contradictory nature of his opinion on the case, Roberts had posterity in mind and not the law when he made his decision. There is merit to the argument that he was stewarding the reputation of his and future courts. But it is less likely that Roberts was thinking about the legitimacy of the court than the comity of the nation when he handed down his verdict. History is littered with Supreme Court cases that inflame conflicts rather than mollify them ' Roberts' decision ensures that the health care reform case will not be among them.

RELATED: Nevermind The Politics: Justice Roberts' Bait-And-Switch Is Today's Greatest Outrage

Much of the post-decision analysis has attempted to divine what Justice Roberts could have been thinking in composing the majority opinion. Some observers have noted that the decision on the mandate was closer to 4-1-4 rather than the official 5-4 because Roberts joined the dissenting justices in noting that the Commerce Clause could not justify the individual mandate.

My colleague Frances Martel performed an excellent dissection of Roberts' opinion and found it vexing that Roberts spent much of his decision contradicting his own findings in the case.

So, what are we to make of Roberts decision? Some have speculated that he was not merely determining the fate of the law but of his and future courts. There could be some truth to this, but there is also a slightly less tribal explanation for what happened at the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Roberts may have been aware of the tragic Supreme Court decisions in American history which furthered discord rather than resolved it. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius could have been another of those fateful decisions had Roberts joined with the dissenting justices who recommended the entire law be scrapped.

The history of Supreme Court decisions which greatly alter federal law is mixed ' the court almost never has the final say on the most divisive of cases. Some conservatives have likened this court's decision to that of the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). In truth, there is a case to be made that this is an apt metaphor ' but not because, as some conservatives suggest, it was a disastrous decisions. Rather, it was Robert's maneuver in this case that prevented the crises which followed the Dred Scott decision.

Dread Scott resolved no conflict, as Supreme Court decisions are intended to do. Rather, it inflamed the conflict between Free Soil Republicans, abolitionist Whigs and state's rights Democrats. It took the Civil War to fully resolve the challenges that slaves as property, codified into precedent by Dread Scott, presented.

Similarly, the Supreme Court enshrined the discriminatory practice of 'separate but equal' in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This set up a half-century of brutal racial conflict that reverberates to this day. Brown vs. Board Of Education (1954) may have desegregated public schools, but it did not end the debate surrounding the legitimacy of 'separate but equal.' That required Civil Rights-era legislation to undo permanently ' and all the conflict, assassinations and civic turmoil that came with it.

The court overturned 46 state laws in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which prevented the criminalization of abortion practices. While both sides of the abortion rights issue can argue over the correctness of that decision, all can agree that it did nothing to ameliorate the conflict surrounding that controversial practice of abortion. If anything, that decision exacerbated that conflict. Had health care been repealed in total, the cause of universal health coverage could have suffered the fate of the eternally divisive decision in Roe with its supporters forever claiming to have been robbed by the court.

In 2000, it was the Supreme Court that ended the ongoing recounts in Florida that prevented the United States from being able to declare a winner in that year's presidential election. By that December, it seemed as though the crisis could stretch into the new year and perhaps even past inauguration day. The court acted and halted the recounts, effectively declaring George W. Bush the winner of that year's election. To this day, or rather this past Monday, scholars continue to argue over the legitimacy of the court's decision in Bush v. Gore. Grassroots political activists on both sides will debate over this court-imposed electoral outcome for generations to come.

Beginning in 2011, Democrats and their allies made it clear that they viewed the court's decision in the health care case as an extension of the controversial decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) which allowed the government to regulate the growth of wheat crops that were intended only for personal consumption. While Roberts rejected the fundamental justification for that decision, namely the Commerce Clause's ability to regulate even that practice, the precedent weighed heavily on this court.

The Supreme Court, a coequal branch of government with no more claim to legitimacy than the executive or legislative branches, invites trouble when it invalidates the will of the people made manifest in federal law. The history of similar broad exercises of judicial power ' as recommended by the dissenting justices in this case ' is not pretty. It took an electoral mandate to deliver health care reform in its present incarnation and it will take an electoral mandate to do away with it.

In essentially abstaining from determining whether health care reform is legitimate, Roberts has allowed the American people to once and for all settle the question at the ballot box. This has been and remains the only way to ensure lasting national comity. Roberts made the right decision in this case and his foresight has earned him a place in history.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

• Et tu, Noah?

Ed Rendell On Claire McCaskill's Skipping Dem Convention: I Thought She 'Had A Lot Of Guts But I Guess Not'

» 3 comments

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill recently disclosed she won't be attending the Democratic National Convention. In a recent appearance on Philadelphia's WPHT, Ed Rendell took note of this, criticizing McCaskill's decision.

McCaskill told reporters on Tuesday that, given her difficult election, she'll be skipping this year's convention. 'I've got a really hard election,' she said. 'If you had a really hard election and it was after Labor Day would you go to North Carolina to a bunch of parties and glad-handing or would you stay home and work as hard as you know how to convince Missourians they should rehire you?' She added that she's 'absolutely not' trying to distance herself from the Democratic Party.

On The Chris Stigall Show, Rendell said McCaskill's support for Obama was a 'big breakthrough' because she's someone who'd normally be expected to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. But now she wouldn't even appear at a fundraiser with Obama. He asked: You think anyone's going to forget that Obama's running for president and he's a Democrat and McCaskill's a Democrat?

'All people are going to think is, 'Boy, I thought that Claire McCaskill had a lot of guts but I guess not,'' Rendell said.

Take a listen, via WPHT:

• I still think we are reading too much into this decision.

  I'd be more interested in seeing if they invite one another to fundraisers and campaign stops in her state. If that doesn't happen then she's jumped ship. That seems a better tell. 

• Fast Eddie criticizing Senatress Mertz. When does Ethel fire back ?

  See how fast the Dems run from the Fraudster-in-Chief this summer.

  Even Stedman Holder won't want to be seen with him.

• Ed Rendell always looks like he just climbed out of a
  barrell of burnt cylnder oil.

Alec Baldwin Gets Aggressive With Photographer ' Again

» 5 comments

Remember that time Alec Baldwin got into an altercation with a photographer in New York City and later said his political opposition was misrepresenting the incident? Remember that time he got into another scuffle less than two weeks later? On Friday, Baldwin apparently grabbed a photographer's arm and, clearly frustrated, called him a 'little girl' and told him to leave.

RELATED: Alec Baldwin To Charlie Rose: 'Political Opposition' Misrepresenting Paparazzi Scuffle

The 30 Rock star confronted the photographer over supposedly bothering a neighbor. 'I want you to shut the fuck up,' Baldwin told him. 'Leave my neighbor alone. Get outta here.'

He then repeatedly asked, 'Did you hear what a said?' ' after walking away and coming back. Leaving, he sneered, 'You little girl.'

According to TMZ, 'sources connected with Baldwin' said the photographer had confrontations with the building's other resident prior to the one with Baldwin:

The source also says ' when one resident asked the photog to stop 'harassing everyone,' the photog told the person, 'f**k you.'

Take a look, via TMZ:

(H/T Gossip Cop)

• STAND YOUR GROUND BALDWIN!  

• Baldwin seemed pretty composed here actually.

  If my life was being hounded by these pests I'd be pretty pissed. Especially if they were following around my neighbors just to get to me' creepy.

• I dislike Baldwin a lot,,,,,but these 'photograhers' are slime,,,,they go around provoking situations such as this in order to sell pictures and sue  when they get confronted'I'd rule to acquit

  They are as bad as politicians
  Screw them all

• I don't blame Baldwin at all. But him calling this guy, who is wearing an I am Awesome T-Shirt, a 'little girl' while holding a pink stuffed animal is pretty hilarious.

• Agreed.

  but' i find the man distasteful' but he's been in some of my favorite films

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin On Health Care Ruling: This Is A Day 'For Me To Eat A Bit Of Crow'

» comments

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's chief legal analyst, heaped praise on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, whose arguments before the High Court in March he called a 'train wreck' and a 'plane wreck.' 'This is a day for Don Verilli to take an enormous amount of credit and for me to eat a bit of crow,' said Toobin.

RELATED: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin On Today's Arguments: Obama's Supreme Court Train Wreck May Have Become A 'Plane Wreck'

Toobin said that there were a number of surprises in today's ruling, not the least of which was that the arguments forwarded by Solicitor General Verrilli were upheld by the Supreme Court.

Toobin said that Verrilli was given a 'rough time' by the Supreme Court justices during oral arguments in March, but he was given an 'even rougher time by people who watched the argument, especially me.'

'He won today,' said Toobin. 'This is a day for Don Verilli to take an enormous amount of credit and for me to eat a bit of crow. Because he won and everybody should know that that argument was a winning argument whatever you thought of it.'

Back in March, when the government was defending the government's arguments about the constitutionality of the health care reform law, Toobin called the arguments a 'train wreck' and a 'plane wreck'

'This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama Administration, and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble,' Toobin said in March. 'Certainly there are some members of the court, Antonin Scalia, Justice Alito, who want to strike down the entire law, but it seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?'

Watch Toobin's offer his mea culpa below via CNN:

Watch Toobin's comments from March below via CNN:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

Fox News Releases Statement After Initially Reporting Individual Mandate Was 'Gone'

» comments

Fox News has released a statement explaining its mistake earlier today, when network anchor Bill Hemmer erroneously reported that the Supreme Court had declared the health care law's individual mandate unconstitutional. Here's what Hemmer said earlier on Thursday:

We have breaking news here on the Fox News Channel. The individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional. This was a part of the law that was at the center of the oral arguments three months ago on this day when the justices hammered away at the White House and the administrations attorney questioning the validity of the individual mandate and asking the following pointed question if you can legislate healthcare where can the federal government be stopped. Shannon Bream is live outside the Supreme Court now with more'

Bream then correctly noted that Chief Justice Roberts had declared the mandate cannot be sustained under commerce law, but incorrectly added that this meant the mandate 'is gone.'

Fortunately for the team, Megyn Kelly caught the mistake within the minute based on conflicting information she was reading on SCOTUSBlog, a site devoted to covering the Supreme Court:

Wait. We are getting conflicting information, we are getting conflicting information. If you follow SCOTUSBlog.com ,which covers the high court, they say that despite what Shannon just read, that the individual mandate is surviving as a tax. This is not confirmed by us yet; this is according to SCOTUSBlog.

Michael Clemente, the EVP News, Editorial at Fox News, issued the following statement regarding the initial mistake, noting that the Fox News team 'gave our viewers the news as it happened:'

We gave our viewers the news as it happened. When Justice Roberts said, and we read, that the mandate was not valid under the Commerce clause, we reported it. Bill Hemmer even added, be patient as we work through this. Then when we heard and read, that the mandate could be upheld under the government's power to tax, we reported that as well'all within two minutes.

By contrast, one other cable network was unable to get their Supreme Court reporter to the camera, and said as much. Another said it was a big setback for the President. Fox reported the facts, as they came in.

Have a look at how it unfolded, via Fox News:

Obama On SCOTUS Decision: Declares Health Care Fight Over And Asks Nation To 'Move Forward'

» comments

President Barack Obama addressed Thursday's Supreme Court ruling that kept the health care law in place. He said that the law is important and will let improve health insurance for millions of Americans. Furthermore, the concept of covering the uninsured with a mandate was once supported by many bipartisan legislators ' including his Republican presidential opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

RELATED: NY Times Buries The Lede: Anderson Cooper's Ratings Surge At 8PM

President Obama said that the Supreme Court ruling today has 'reaffirmed a fundamental principle, that here in America ' in the wealthiest nation on earth ' no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin.'

The President said that there will be political discussions about the Court's ruling, but 'that discussion completely misses the point.' He said that the true victors in this decision are the American people.

He went on to describe the benefits of the Affordable Care Act for the millions of uninsured Americans the law is intended to help. He said that 215 million Americans who have insurance will keep their insurance''this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.'

President Obama said that insurance companies cannot discriminate against preexisting conditions and will allow individuals to stay on their parents insurance up to the age of 26. He said 5 million seniors have received a three-figure discount on their medical services because of the Affordable Care Act.

'By this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses and not you're health care,' said Obama.

Furthermore, starting in 2014, the uninsured will have access to an 'array of quality, affordable private health insurance plans to choose from.'

He said that states have the leeway to craft their own insurance exchanges under the law ' women and those with preexisting conditions will remain protected.

The President continued, saying that the Supreme Court upheld the principle that is enshrined in the law ' that 'people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance.' He said that it is necessary of them to do so in order to cover the costs of those who cannot afford health insurance ' which drives up premiums for everyone.

Obama said he was reluctant to conclude the provision, but it was necessary and ' at one point ' supported by members of both parties including Romney when he was the governor of Massachusetts.

'I didn't do this because it was good politics,' Obama concluded. 'I did it because I believed it was good for the country.' He concluded by telling the story of a woman who fell through the cracks and was nearly bankrupt by her health care coverage after she received treatments for cancer.

He said that it is now time to move forward and implement and improve on the health care law and refocus on the economy, the debt and the confidence of the American people.

Watch Obama's address below via Fox News Channel:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

Poll Finds Which Candidate Americans Trust To Handle An Alien Invasion

» 9 comments

Who would you rather have a beer with? Who would you prefer have babysit your kids? Who would you rather take on a road trip to see the annular eclipse? These and other meaningless questions are asked of voters every quadrennial presidential cycle as pollsters' tire of the boring and static head-to-head matchup. Well, a poll by USA Today, commissioned for National Geographic, has finally pierced the heart of the issue voters are really concerned about about but dare not speak of ' which candidate would better handle an alien invasion. The answer: President Barack Obama.

RELATED: NY Times Buries The Lede: Anderson Cooper's Ratings Surge At 8PM

65 percent of those surveyed trust President Obama handle the crisis that accompanies an alien invasion of Earth better than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

21 percent would prefer Marvel Comic's Hulk would take on the invaders. Only 12 percent left the crisis to the capable hands of Batman and just 8 percent said the same of Spider-Man.

17 percent of poll respondents do not believe in aliens while 36 percent do. 48 percent were not sure.

However, 79 percent believe that the government has kept information about alien life secret from the public. 55 percent of those surveyed believe there is a federal agency akin to the Men in Black whose job it is to keep those who spot UFOs from spilling their findings to the press.

The survey was commissioned for National Geographic Channel's new series Chasing UFOs which primers on Friday at 9 p.m. EST.

h/t Politico

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• Imagine Mittens giving that speech at the end of the movie.Oh boy'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

• Wonderful!!!

  When Romney becomes president, he can appoint Obama as the 'Alien Czar!'

• Well Krugman gets my vote on this issue as he has already suggested that our government begin investing billions to thwart off the eventual attack.

• Scientologists would be all buddy-buddy with them.

• Silly poll, everyone knows Obama would 'bow down' to the aliens, then they'd have us for lunch.    

  I think of the scene from Independence Day where the President gives an inspirational speech where he assures we'll stand up to the attackers saying 'We will not go quietly into the night, we will not lay down without a fight' Today is our Independence Day!' ' and then watch a snippet of George Bush standing on the wreckage of 9/11 giving an impromptu response to a fire fighter 'They will hear ALL of us soon!'.    Both the fictional and non-fictional were powerful moments, and epitomize America's willingness to stand up to evil acts, even though unfortunately we also many times pretend to ignore evil acts.  Still, what makes us different than other countries is we both have the capability and the will to stand up to those who would enslave us or our friends.   Don't hold your breath on a Socialist government doing that.

• Obama would be good because he speaks their language.

• This stuff matters, sadly. How would a cretin like Bush get even close to winning the presidency otherwise? If people don't like you, you need a disater to hit the other guy in order to win. Mitt knows this and is hoping the economy gets a lot worse between now and November. Let's face it, if the economy doesn't get worse, Mitt ain't winning shit.

• 65 percent of those surveyed trust President Obama handle the crisis that accompanies an alien invasion of Earth better than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

  Mittens has a personal relationship with the head man from planet Kolob.  Figured for sure he would win this one.

  Are you sure Rasmussen didn't do this poll? It seems to be about as accurate as most of their work.

• So why did Bush win in 2000?  Why did Bush Sr win in 1988?    You are clearly filled with a lot of hatred, but perhaps hidden in there is an actual opinion based on some (hopefully not warped) reasoning?

On House Floor, Rep. Luis Gutierrez Rails Against AZ Law With 'Guess Who's The Immigrant' Quiz

» comments

Rep. Luis Gutierrez took to the House floor on Wednesday morning to address Arizona's immigration law ' particularly the portion of it that the Supreme Court refrained from striking down. Railing against what he saw as the inherent racial profiling in the policy, Gutierrez hammered his point with what was basically a game of Guess Which One's The Immigrant.

Beside an easel that presented side-by-side pictures of the celebrities he invoked, Gutierrez said the 'show me your papers' aspect of Arizona's policy isn't just a problem for anyone who looks 'like they might have come to America from somewhere else. It's a problem for every American who cares about freedom.' Sarcastically commending Arizona law enforcement for being able to discern undocumented immigrants not by their looks, Gutierrez said, 'Maybe with practice we can all become like Arizona politicians and police officers who are able to telepathically determine who to accuse of not belonging in America.'

With that, he commenced with his quiz. First up: Geraldo Rivera versus Ted Koppel. We might venture to guess Rivera's not from this country, he said, but his mustache certainly wouldn't confuse Arizona officials. Rivera was actually born in Brooklyn, he informed, but Koppel? He 'was born in Europe, moved to flee from Hitler and Nazi Germany.'

Round Two: Justin Bieber versus Selena Gomez. One half of this couple is helping the other get accustomed to American ways. Gutierrez began to say how he's sure Bieber's been a great help to Gomez ' but, wait! Gomez is from Texas, and she's the one helping Bieber, who hails from Canada. He even had a personalized message for the heartthrob: 'Justin, when you perform in Phoenix, remember to bring your papers.'

Round Three: Jeremy Lin versus Tony Parker. Lin clearly sounds foreign, he said, but an Arizona official would know that it's Parker who came to America from Belgium. And finally, Round Four: Supreme Court Justice Edition. Sonia Sotomayor versus Antonin Scalia. Who'd look more suspicious in a Starbucks? 'Neither is an immigrant,' Gutierrez said. 'But Justice Scalia's father came through Ellis Island from Italy, and Sonia Sotomayor is a proud Puerto Rican with generations of U.S. citizen ancestors.'

Trick question, sir. Gutierrez boiled down his point: 'The idea that any government official can determine who belongs in America and who doesn't simply by looking at them is completely ridiculous, unfair, and un-American. And yet this absurdity is the law of Arizona.'

Take a look at his speech, via C-SPAN:

(H/T HuffPo)

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Manly Man Nick Offerman Gives Dramatic Readings Of The Tweets Of 'Young Female Celebrities' On Conan

» comments

The trick to the perfect late night talk show bit is its simplicity. These things fly by quickly and a half-asleep or fully-inebriated audience needs to be able to understand it and why it's funny almost instantaneously. That's why whoever created the Conan segment 'Nick Offerman from Parks and Recreation Reads Tweets from Young Female Celebrities' deserves some kind of special Emmy. When the segment first premiered a few months ago, I wrote that it 'needs to be a recurring segment like yesterday.' Well, I guess today is yesterday (gosh, I hope no one fully inebriated is reading this now and trying to understand that sentence) because it's returned and it's just as awesome.

The only thing that could make this more fun would be if he was actually building the same thing in each bit. I hope that, by the time we're on like the eighth of these (we'll need an entirely new batch of young female celebrities by then!), Offerman's got half a log cabin done.

Watch the video from TBS below:

(h/t Splitsider)

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Suspended Politico Reporter Joe Williams Tweeted 'Racism' Politico's 'Secret Sauce'

» 38 comments

Politico White House correspondent Joe Williams, who was suspended by the site for commenting that Mitt Romney felt 'relaxed' in the company of the 'white folks' at Fox and Friends, tweeted in March that 'what's most irritating is the overlay of blatant racism. that's the secret sauce in the Politico shitburger,' reports The Daily Caller's Dave Martosko. Martosko also reported an earlier tweet which read 'we're supposed to be about justice and the truth, but we're mostly about posturing, arcane rules and CYA [Cover Your Ass]. annoying.'

Martosko reports that Williams commented on the tweets 'I was having a bad day,' then referred him to attorney Jeff Jacobovitz for comment. As Martosko pointed out, it's possible that Mr. Williams intended those tweets to be private direct messages.

That tweeted accusation of racism, along with the fact that Williams has retained legal counsel, are intriguing developments. When Joe Williams was hired in June of 2010, Politico was under fire over a perceived lack of diversity in its newsroom after a CNN video segment on one of the site's editorial meetings revealed a lily-white, mostly male team of decision-makers. When Mr. Williams was hired as deputy White House editor, he became the site's first black originating editor, joining director of photography Michael Schwartz and reporter Abby D. Phillip as the only black members of Politico's editorial staff.

Williams was subsequently demoted, however, and his Politico bio now describes him this way:

A veteran political journalist and telegenic, quick-witted analyst, Joseph Williams is the White House Correspondent for Politico, where he covers the Obama administration cabinet and domestic policies, as well as examining the intersection of race and politics.

Mr. Williams has become a regular on the cable news circuit, which is where he ran into trouble while examining that intersection of race and politics.

Politico has thus far declined to comment for Mediaite (as has Joe Williams), but a review of the 114 editors and reporters listed on the site reveals that, including Joe Williams, Politico employs six black reporters and one black editor, Politico Pro Deputy Managing Editor LaRonda Peterson. While diversity is a problem for the news media in general (The Daily Caller is whiter than Hoth camo), the racially-charged suspension of Joe Williams, and his as-yet-unexplained charge of racism at the site, could make it a factor for Politico, especially considering the two years that have elapsed since they came under fire for it. While even Joe Williams concedes his words were poorly chosen, dismissing him could be problematic for Politico, should they decide to go that way.

Follow Tommy Christopher (@TommyXtopher) on Twitter.

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• If you're looking for racism, Joe Williams, look in the mirror first, and then knock the chip off your shoulder.

• Wow.

  The racial demographics at Politico look about like the racial demographics of the Obama campaign. Oh, those wacky enlightened liberals!

  Compare this Obama campaign picture to the one from Politico:

  http://www.larryelder.com/b/An-Obama-Campaign-Photo-That-Looks-Like-a-Young-Republican-Rally/888192416915360101.html

• Tommy continues his Daily Caller hate fest, but why not also call out Obama's campaign staff (prior to be called out on it)?   Mediaite with a side of political bias'

• The truth about politics is that Republicans ' regardless of the nominee ' are a mostly white party, and have been for decades ~Jim VandeHei 

  Double standard?

• Racial demographics aside, though, I have to wonder of it ever occurred to Joe Williams that he just may have been fired because of what he said and did, not what he looks like.

  Nah.

  That would require acceptance of personal responsibility. Playing the race card is SO much easier.

• Its funny that the first affirmative action president had a entire white campaign team in 2008 and this time too.

  this guy joe williams better be able to weasle some money from politico through threatening racism as being behind his firing, cause this loser has zero chance of getting another job in the MSM after the well, looney and deranged, way hes been acting.

• what people like Tommy and almost all Obama fanboys dont get is that Obama is going to lose BECAUSE of this constant race baiting.

  They think that because it worked against the Clintons and scared the superdelegates silly and had them give the nomination to Barry despite him getting less votes than Hillary and many, many less votes than actual democrats that this will work with the Indy voters who will decide the election.

  This is as wrong a misjudgement as any I have ever seen in politics and all youd have to do is look at the 2009 and 2010 elections to see this, but team Obama and the fanboys actually believe that thye political reality is what they see on the cable news shows (mostly on MSNBC) and you cant get more deluded and dumb than that.

• Who is 'allowed' to discuss race on the air?

  Give me names.

  'Cobra

• I love Tommy Christopher, who cannot be surpassed for sheer entertainment value.  This reporter trashes his employer with crude vulgarity, and later shuts down his Twitter account to prevent people from seeing what he has said.  And Tommy calls these 'intriguing developments' and demands answers not from the reporter, but from the employer that got smeared.

• What is an 'Obama campaign picture'?  There's no credits.  How do we know where and when it was taken.  And by whom?

  This is bad journalism.  

• Politico is gonna have to pay up.  This looks bad if he was suffering from workplace hostility in addition to being given a quota position?

  Man they're deluded.  Every attorney in the country wants that case. 

• I see this reporter has closed his twitter account after more of his tweets were exposed:

  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/26/Politico-Reporter-Suspends-Deletes-Twitter-Account

  Gotta admire a man with the courage to back his convictions. This isn't him, though.

  Mock, blame, then hide what you said and run for the hills while screaming 'racism' when someone quotes you.

  It's the liberal way.

• Try reading the article. And, by the way, I'm not a journalist.

  But then, neither are most of the people who work for the MSM. They just have credentials that get them through doors.

• If people don't like the 'race card' being played.  Don't play with a stacked deck.

• I'm confused. Where did I say anything about anyone being 'allowed' to discuss race?

• Why would I need to read the article?

  An image is supposed to have the correct attributions and claims of copyright.  A caption too to link the scene to the body of the article.

  Why would you link to a very bad example of journalism and call it substantiated proof?

• Obama's campaign about what?

  You can counter Tommy's article with one of your own.  It's called journalistic debates.  And they contributed to the development of journalistic science.

  Unless you feel commenting under his articles is the best you can do.

• Then why are people always commenting about Valerie Jarrett as the closest one to him that has more influence upon him than ANY other staffer or adviser?

  Unless that statement was etch-a-sketched.

  Joe Williams will start his own publication house.  You know.  The Black kind you don't like.

• This post made me curious about Mediaite's staff.  If you're going to mock other outlets about their lack of diversity, does that mean you're leading by example?

  Please note that I'm not making an accusation, just asking.

•  Well, every thought in Tommy's mind centers around the color of the people involved.  He doesn't look at the quality or character of the person, that doesn't matter.  All that matters is what shade of skin color the individual happens to have.  Well, unless they're conservative.  Then, black, white, brown, purple, they're all evil racists!

• Really?  Then why can't Romeny formulate an answer today from a historic Supreme Court decision.

  You know why?  Because he knows he lost the election yesterday.  If he and Rubio don't agree on the national model of legislation for immigration.  Then it's bad.  He just lost Florida too.

• 'Why would I need to read the article?'

  Ah, the liberal mentality in a nutshell. Thank you.

• Politico is gonna learn social responsibility.

• You call it liberal.

  I call it Photographic Citation APA styleguide.

• What to know who else is relaxed around Whites?  Jesse Jackson'.

  'There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to
  walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about
  robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved'. '

• Again, Mr. Williams has a long and storied history of racism'.Politico made a huge mistake positioning him covering the White House ( Is that racist?'shouldn't it be Black house now that Obama is pResident?)

  He'll end up at the grio.com or some other racist website'.perhaps he'll write for Calypso Louie,,,the crazy 'leader ' of the Nation of islam'he'll be a perfect fit

• Notice 'lack of diversity' is only used AGAINST WHITES.  It is never said that the Congressional Black Caucus 'lacks diversity.'   Like the charge of 'racism' it is simply a code word used by those who hate White people.

• Tommy Christopher and Joe Williams would never meet your approval.  That shows the basis of the transgressions.  How do you not see your hypocrisy?

  Any CM attorney will tell you to shut down communications.  And that twitter feed is probably not the ONLY example of him being stressed.  The more examples the better.

• What is a 'Black publication house?'

• Why won't black conservatives come on talking about black conservatism?

  Where are they?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_book_publishers_in_the_United_States,_1960-1980

• Stuck on uninformed?   Valerie Jarrett works in the White House, she's not a campaign staffer.  Obama surrounds himself with people he trusts, many of whom happen to be black (but not all).  His campaign is run by people who seem to have difficulty finding ANY black persons they trust, even as staffers, all while putting out press releases about how diverse their party is and how there's a war on women, even though they themselves don't like to hire women or pay them as much as their male staffers.   Racism has no party line, many racists in this country are liberal, all you have to do is look at the Democratic party and who its run by.

• That doesn't make any sense.

  So there should be a bevy of African Americans with long resumes of working in politics to be campaign professionals.  

  HOW?  

  You see how this President is treated?

  How you gonna keep jobs if you have to go through what this article is about?

  Circular logic you gotz.

• Joe actually did make a mistake.  Mitt Romney isn't really comfortable around anybody.

• Or maybe he'll just buy Politico shares and buy it out.  Romney style.  

  Then sure Brietbart.com the same way Shirley Sherrod is doing to Brietbart's estate.

  Briebart.com won't be around much longer.  Especially once the Loesch's involvement gets investigated.  And subpoenaed. 

• We'll see if you still feel that way once Romney's Mormonism and his 'self-deportation' claptrap comes back up during the time of the debates.

• ' 'but a review of the 114 editors and reporters listed on the site reveals that, including Joe Williams, Politico employs six black reporters and one black editor, ''

  Maybe black people don't care for journalism as a career' ever consider that?  Kinda like hockey, inner city kids from the south don't seem to clamor for that as a possible career choice.

  The article has not one example of perceived racist act towards Joe Williams. So is it since you fired me, I am black, it must because you are a racist. 

  How far we have fallen in three short years'

• Says a native from the Obananation..:)

Changes At CNN And HLN: Kyra Phillips Swaps Networks, Ashleigh Banfield Gets Own Show

» 1 comment

A few changes at CNN and HLN have been announced Tuesday morning.

First, CNN Newsroom anchor Kyra Phillips will move to HLN to host a new daytime program later this summer. 'The show will be built around Kyra's personality and passions, which include looking at the state of parenting and the modern family, civil rights and discrimination, children with disabilities and military families,' said an HLN executive.

In addition, CNN announced that veteran ABC News correspondent John Berman will join the network to co-anchor Early Start with Zoraida Sambolin. Berman had previously been a regular contributor and correspondent for a variety of ABC News programming.

Berman will replace Early Start co-host Ashleigh Banfield, who will move to CNN Newsroom during the day, where she will host the 11 a.m. hour.

The changes are expected to take effect in several weeks.

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• Yawn.

Sen. Marco Rubio Agrees Jon Stewart: Nothing Gets Done In The Senate

» comments

After canceling last week on urgent Senate business, Sen. Marco Rubio made good on his promise to stop by the Daily Show and have a chat with Jon Stewart' one that extended three segments longer than what aired on television, deep into policy detail. But even more interesting than Sen. Rubio delicately dismantling most of the Stewart opinions that go unchecked on his program nightly was how transparently frustrated Sen. Rubio is with being a legislator, a not-so-subtle hint that he is looking to find himself a place where he can get more done.

RELATED: Rubio: Obama's Immigration Directive An 'Election Year Stunt' That 'Poisons The Well'

'I learned many things from this book' one, you married up, let's not lie,' Stewart began the interview, joking about Sen. Rubio's wife and his college days as a 'not very good' football player. They didn't spend too much time on pleasantries, however, diving straight into immigration. Explaining that he considered the issue 'oversimplified on both sides,' Sen. Rubio argued that much of the Senate 'wanted to talk about immigration, they felt that it had been a very bad experience' when they last revisited it in 2005.

Calling the increase in Republicans filibusters recently 'very Senateyish,' Sen. Rubio tried to explain that the problem with the Senate is the majority party won't allow Republicans to vote on many amendments' 'until last week, when they specifically lined up 7-8 votes to avoid my ability to come on your show.' On a serious note, he argued that Democrats were 'trying to protect their incumbents from voting on these difficult issues,' meaning that the minority party had to either add amendments to irrelevant bills because 'that's the only vehicle moving' or simply not have a say in ideas.

'So all that is happening because the Democrats are so bad?' Stewart asked mockingly, though Sen. Rubio's reply seemed to indicate it was more of a Congressional problem than one with the Democrats. He declined to say whether one or the other party is to blame, but he didn't accept that Republicans had an 'accountability issue,' either. The interview gave the impression that Sen. Rubio was severely frustrated with the process, though coming from an exclusively legislative background before going to the Senate. And that frustration is important, first and foremost, to understand the dynamic between Sen. Rubio and the Republican Party.

The Republican Party has a serious problem on its hands. Reince Priebus would very much like to be the chair of the Republican Party on the watch that dethrones President Barack Obama. That seems unlikely with a candidate like Romney who, much like the chair himself, is insipid and tame, with an untrustworthy record in the eyes of a party base Republicans desperately need to energize. As a rule of thumb, voters don't respond to well to choosing a chief executive candidate that is vastly overshadowed by his #2' a look at Sarah Palin versus Dan Quayle (or, conversely, Al Gore versus pre-scandal young upstart senator John Edwards), proves that. If the presidential candidate can't even fully represent the ethos of his party in a commanding way, how can he be expected to control the party?

Mitt Romney already has that problem, without having chosen anyone to run alongside him. He very clearly does not have command of the ethos of his party. Sen. Marco Rubio does' looking at how often he is mentioned in the media and his favorability among party members, it is hard to see anyone else as the leader on the Republican side. And he doesn't like jobs where he isn't allowed to do anything, as he told Stewart persistently for more than half an hour.

The subtext is clear in this interview' Sen. Rubio wants a job where he can get things done, the sooner the better. Vice President is not that sort of job, so his rebuke of Congress for being inefficient and useless can easily be interpreted as a sign that he wants nothing to do with this 2012 ticket. Which leaves a fairly open question as to what he does want, as clearly the Senate isn't cutting it for him. And the answer could lie with a look back at former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.

Before Corzine exposed himself as an incompetent and likely criminal political entity, he too was a young senator with higher executive aspirations, and he too was frustrated with the legislative process. So he ran for governor and won, which is as much a statement on the people of New Jersey as it is on their Republican Party. With executive experience, a governor who used to be a senator could be an unstoppable force on the national stage, arguing with the experience of two branches of government. Sen. Rubio, whose main weakness as a national-level player now is his lack of experience, must be aware of this. He must also be aware of the fact that there is a gubernatorial election in Florida in 2014, and while Rick Scott is a decent enough governor, he wouldn't be first Florida governor whose political career was cut short by a Rubio run.

Granted, this is all speculation, but Sen. Rubio's increasingly vocal discomfort with his job' a job that is a liability of President Obama's resume today' is worth noting two years ahead of a job opening that could give him executive experience and potentially make him President.

The segment via Comedy Central below:



''
» Follow Frances Martel on Twitter

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Women Dont Want To Have Sex Anymore

You've Got To Be Kidding

Human Extinction Must Be Near Because Women Allegedly Don't Want To Have Sex Anymore

11:30 am, June 25th | by Laura Donovan

 

You know that whole 'Fifty Shades of Grey' craze? It's in no way indicative that women enjoy getting it on. 'How to Stay Married' author and long-time journalist Jilly Cooper says sex is no longer a thing because 'women don't want to have sex any more.' News to me.

The writer argues that it's less marketable today than in the past because the friskiness of females has decreased considerably:

'Doctors' waiting rooms are absolutely brimming these days with women suffering from low libidos. Ours is now a terribly under-sexed society. I have talked to a lot of young women about this and they just don't seem to do it any more. Honestly. I suppose it's because we all have so many other demands on our time now.'

On the widespread 'Fifty Shades' obsession? She says people just like the 'zeitgeist' of it. Gotcha. Forget the jump in sex balls sales, 'Fifty Shades' classes, or popularity of the sex books. Clearly, we'd rather read about it than do it. I guess the end really is near.

[The Telegraph]

TAGS:

• The New Fad: Feeding Tube Diet for Brides
• Cats Improve Everything, Including Famous Paintings
• Top Search: Bear Gall Bladder
• Bill Clinton Goes Vegan

• Funny, I just scheduled sex with the boyfriend for my lunch break. Guess now I have to cancel because, as a woman, my libido is just soooo low. Perhaps doctors' rooms are swarming because women actually WANT to have sex now.

• Scheduled sex?  Wow'how exciting.  Gives new meaning for the 'To-DO' list, though.  

•  It is, actually. Anticipation and what not.

President Obama, Gov. Jan Brewer Declare Victory After SCOTUS Ruling On Immigration Reform

» comments

President Barack Obama's White House released a statement on Monday afternoon celebrating the Supreme Court ruling which struck down most of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law. However, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a vocal proponent of her state's law, also declared victory after the court left one key provision intact.

RELATED: Supreme Court Strikes Down Most Of Controversial Arizona Immigration Law

'I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system ' it's part of the problem,' reads the White House statement.

At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes.

Arizona's Republican Gov. Brewer also released a statement on Monday where she celebrated the Supreme Court's decision a 'victory for the rule of law.'

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

While the Supreme Court invalidated the critical portion of S.B. 1070 which allowed Arizona to enforce federal immigration laws ' a ruling which could reverberate in states with similar laws like Alabama and Georgia ' the provision that allows law enforcement to check the citizenship status to remains intact.

'The case for S.B. 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling,' Brewes told reporters on Monday. 'Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights.'

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also weighed in on the Supreme Court verdict. In a statement, Romney's campaign said that that the law sought to address an issue where 'the federal government failed to meet its responsibilities.'

Romney said that the ruling 'underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President.'

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Happy Monday! Here's A Video Of A Crazy Anti-Semite In An Elmo Costume Ranting In Central Park!

» comments

Anyone who's watched the documentary Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey knows that there's something special about Kevin Clash. The puppeteer may just be manipulating red felt while speaking in a squeaky voice, but, somehow, he's able to embue that felt with an amazing spirit, a childlike joy that children around the world feel connected to. Also, he rarely if ever makes Elmo go on profanity-filled rants about a Jewish conspiracy. As unlucky families in New York's Central Park have discovered recently, that kind of thing totally ruins the whole Elmo mystique.

Yesterday, a man in an Elmo costume was taken away in an ambulance after yelling at tourists in the Central Park Zoo and around the Park. Apparently, the clearly disturbed man has been doing this for quite some time and the folks over at Gothamist have some cell phone footage to prove it. The videos from throughout the past year feature 'Elmo' ranting and raving about Jewish costume makers and that he works for John Gotti'all while posing for pictures with small children.

Here's just one of the many videos, this one taken by YouTuber xxraggedyandyxx. Watch and enjoy but don't blame me if a little bit of your childhood dies.

(h/t Gothamist)

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Rick Perry: Obama Administration Looks 'Nixonian' By Withholding Fast & Furious Documents

» 13 comments

During an appearance on CBS's Face the Nation earlier today, Texas governor Rick Perry weighed in on the continuing investigation into the Fast & Furious scandal, telling Bob Schieffer that the cover-up from the Obama administration seems 'Nixonian' in nature, and wondered what information is in the documents so damaging to the administration that they would need to withhold them from the House Oversight Committee.

RELATED: Jay Carney Explains Why Obama Asserted Exec. Privilege In Heated Exchange With Press Corps

After touching on his tough primary fight with Mitt Romney, Perry made it clear he fully supports the GOP nominee over Obama. Schieffer reminded Perry of his brief scuffle with Romney over immigration during one of their debates, specifically the moment when he rebutted Romney on helping young illegal immigrants pay for their tuition by saying 'you don't have a heart' if you oppose that. Perry quickly shifted to Obama's recently-announced executive order on immigration, saying that he quite blatantly bypassed Congress and attempted to score political points in an election year.

In talking about immigration and securing the borders, Perry brought up the Fast & Furious scandal and couldn't help but remark on the level of obfuscation going on in the Obama administration.

'This is almost Nixonian, if not absolutely Nixonian, in the cover-up that's going on with this Fast & Furious, don't you agree with that?'

To that, Schieffer asked Perry what he thought the next step should be in the investigation. Perry suggested that this case might even be worse than Watergate, because as opposed to a 'second-rate burglarly,' Obama is asserting executive privilege in a case where a U.S. border patrol agent died as a result of a government operation. He wondered what could be so important that the Obama administration would need to withhold so many documents.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CBS:

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• Man of man ' Rubepulican gunther efforts to get rid of the stench of Watergate just never end.

• Not just Brian Terry, but ICE agent Jaime Zapata and hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered with these untracked weapons. 
   Tricky Barry fouls up almost everything he touches. 

  If he doesn't screw it up at first, he circles around and does it later.

   For example, getting bin Laden, then immediately blabbing about it, destroying any info gained in the raid.
  Then, outing SEAL Team Six, endangering their families.
   Then, giving classified info to a movie company.
  Then, trying to use it in his campaign, saying Romney wouldn't have made the call.

  Now, saying ' I got Osama' is a punchline.

• 'Nixonian'

  Perry managed a polysyllabic word ' good for him. 

• Seems more 'Bushonian' to me.

• I thought his 15 minutes of fame expired at the end of the first debate. My bad.

• Such pretty hair.

• Rick Perry is the lowest IQ Governor in the country. People who vote for him are the low IQ Conservatives/Tea Baggers/Republicans.

  What he says and thinks is not important.

• F&Furious is in the mainstrea arena now ' that's all people wanted. If there's nothing there, show it and let's move on to more important things.

  Like steroid use in baseball.

• 'Now, saying ' I got Osama' is a punchline.'

  Only for you birther nuts.

• Isn't it true that people kill people, not guns kill people?

  Where are all you NRA hacks when someone is blaming a gun for the death of a person? EH?

  You must agree that the guns had nothing to do with the death of anyone; it was always the person responsible. 

  NRA where are you!! 

  No but really, the war in Iraq comes to mind. GW sent 4500 of our soldiers to die in Iraq and to this day we still don't know why. Was it oil? Was it revenge? Did America get to see the private deliberations of public officials then? NOPE!

  Either way, gun running happened under Bush's term as well. The fact that a border agent died is tragic but as Republicans like to say all the time, 'people kill people, not guns'. So do Republicans now agree that it is guns that kill people?

  The use of executive privilege is not something we like to see, but we see it all the time and it is the only way the executive branch can protect its internal conversations. Executive Privilege is like attorney/ client privilege. 

  This is a textbook witch-hunt, but it's all the Republicans have against Obama so we are going to hear allot about it in the coming weeks.

  Issa's committee is investigating 'Fast and Furious,' that botched gun smuggling operation that could have led to the death of a U.S. border patrol agent.

  'could have led'

  Witch-hunt!

  The point is you all of a sudden Republicans want to change the playing field for president Obama'he has invoked executive privilege 1 time and it still puts him on pace to have the most transparent administration in recent history'.officer terry's death is a tragedy but remember he applied for the job a knew the consequences'..issa is playing politics plane and simple'.and Republicans are desperate.

• Yes I'll trust Rick Perry knows what's going on lol.

•  and Republicans are desperate.

  They always are, and they're ALWAYS lying.

• 'I got Osama' is a punchline?
  The low IQ Conservatives/Tea Baggers/Republicans are not known for appreciating competence.

On CNN, Romney Advisor Won't Say If Romney Will Repeal Obama's Executive Order On Immigration

» 8 comments

Since President Obama is currently leading Mitt Romney by double-digit margins in some states with Hispanic voters, the Republican presidential candidate is currently walking a fine line talking about immigration reform. On CNN's State of the Union today, Candy Crowley asked Romney advisor Ed Gillespie if Romney would immediately repeal Obama's executive order targeted at younger immigrants or if he would keep it in place. Gillespie said it would be up for review, but would not say exactly what Romney would do about it.

RELATED: New Obama Ad Hits Romney For Refusing To Say Whether He'd Repeal New Immigration Policy

Crowley told Gillespie that at this point, it remains unclear whether Romney would do away with Obama's executive directive on immigration or not. Gillespie explained that every single executive action taken by Obama during his presidency will be the subject of review, and could end up being repealed. Crowley pressed Gillespie for a definitive answer on this specific policy, because young Hispanics who meet the criteria lined out in Obama's order to get working papers could lose all of that the minute Romney is sworn in, and so explaining his position before the election would at least tell voters what they should expect.

Gillespie suggested that the executive action by Obama was merely taken only to win over certain voter demographics, but as the segment winded up, he didn't tell Crowley either way what Romney would do about the order, merely insisting once again that it would be thoroughly reviewed.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• Really? You expect Mittens to take a stand on any controversial political issue. You have to be kidding. And when he finally gets around to it, he will change his position, anyway. 

• Crowley correctly enunciated the key reason why Romney should be pressured to say in advance what he is going to to do with the 'deprioritize the deportation of dream qualified illegal aliens' executive order, because lots of qualified dream actors are wondering if they should come out of hiding to accept the work authorization card that goes with the executive order (and which requires them to make a trip to the INS and give up their address and so forth), since that will put them on the Justice Department radar screen if Romney comes in and revokes the order. In fact, illegal aliens are always suspicious of the INS and quite a number will take no chances with this order and stay underground.

• Romney already said he would replace the Pandering Preezy's Empty Promises.

  Obama's Fast and Furious, started in Fall, 2009, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens. How do Hispanics feel about that ?

• I think he will take a position, but he is still trying to work it out politically. He's in a tough position in that I am sure he would like to keep the dream alive, but a lot of people in his right wing base do not. He has to figure out some way of making both happy, if that is possible.

• 'Romney already said he would replace the Pandering Preezy's Empty Promises.'

  With what? 

• This is a phony issue, of course. No one is deporting any children or students.

  The border must be closed first and then the citizenship question can be dealt with responsibly.

• They do hate the fact that so many weapons are coming down to Mexico and ending up in the hands of some real nasty people who use them to kill people pursuant to the turf war going on over providing drugs to the several billion dollar a year US illegal drug market. With lots of innocents being killed, and police and government officials also getting killed trying to rein them in. Certainly they have a right to be mad about the FF guns, though they probably appreciate at least the ATF sentiment of wanting to stop the illegal gun pipeline that partially supplies the cartels. And with tens of thousands of such guns floating around, there are plenty of guns for the bad guys to choose from besides the few hundred FF guns that ended up down there. Like these 9000 AR-15 US made assault rifles: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/

  Do you support closing down the sale of weapons to Mexico? There are tens of thousands of guns down there already, and thousands more ready to go at the factory?

  Wouldn't legalizing marijuana go a long way toward ending those drug wars, and the associated violence, too?

• Mitt comes out against of Obama's action/Dream Act he loses the small
  Hispanic support he has ' Mitt comes out in favor of Obama's action/Dream Act he loses the overwhelming xenophobic support he has

Rep. Darrell Issa Admits There Is No Evidence Connecting White House To Fast & Furious Scandal

» 14 comments

Congressman Darrell Issa is leading the investigation into the Fast & Furious ATF scandal and his committee recommended Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt charges, but he admitted to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday today that so far, there is no evidence connecting the scandal directly to the White House and Obama administration.

RELATED: Rep. Issa On Fast & Furious To Greta: Obama Is Invoking 'An Executive Privilege That Doesn't Exist'

Wallace played a clip of House Speaker John Boehner saying that the invocation of executive privilege is 'an admission' of guilt on the part of the White House. Wallace asked Issa directly if 'any evidence' currently supports the claim that White House officials were at all involved with the operation or a cover-up of any kind.

Issa said quite clearly that it doesn't, and expressed the hope that the entire investigation stays with the Justice Department and that it doesn't turn out later on that they were involved.

Watch the video below, courtesy of Fox:

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• 'Issa admits there is no evidence in connecting white house to fast and furious'

  No shit' he never said there was.  Misleading headline

• After the dozens of scandals during the Bush administration, republiklans have tried desperately to create ONE, just one, for the current administration.  Solyndra didn't work, so try something else.  After O's re-election they will continue these futile efforts unless they lose the house.  Anything to distract from the fact that they have achieved nothing.

• Fishing expedition.

• Admit it, Isaa. It will make you feel better. You are pursuing this matter because you must mollify the racists in the Republican party.

• There's no evidence because Holder won't turn over the evidence.

  The conjecture is that Obama is not doing this on principle, because he has none, but because he he protecting himself till after the election.

   It will come out.

•  Misleading headline?
  Nope, he was asked a question and answered it, nothing misleading whatsoever.

• Right, there ain't much of evidence here, don't think it'd be right to do this speech''. http://bit.ly/z1DdHY 

• 'There's no evidence because Holder won't turn over the evidence.'

  No''..there is no evidence just as Issa said. Get over it, you're not ever gonna find his birth cert as well no matter how many times you're proven to ignore the facts'.birther boy.

• Oh well back to the drawing board, Fox News Republicans (fake conservatives). But never underestimate the imagination of Fox News Republicans to pin some invented crap on Obama between now and the election. They have only just begun to do their best Don Quixote impressions.

•  But Obama is still coming for all our guns right? Tell me that much is still true Mr. Issa

• all you need to know about Fast & Furious ' http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/23/video-follow-the-ideology/

• You're right ' terrible headline.  Issa never said there was. The headline is deliberately written to make it sound like he's correcting a previous assertion under media pressure. But, this is Mediaite ' you get what you pay for.

  However, Boehner is correct (must be his one time this year) ' there is now one gigantic piece of evidence connecting the White House to the Fast & Furious scandal ' the President asserted Executive Privilege over a set of documents related to it.  He's saying the Congressional Oversight committee can't have them because he (the President) cannot be expected to do his job if the documents become public.  It's a tacit admission of involvement in the program, and direct evidence of involvement in the scandal/cover up.

• This scandal is fast becoming the straw that broke the back of the incompetent Obozo administration, and the libs/progressives and the mainstream media are furious about it.

•  Just poke your pointy sock head back in the sand, mkay?

Oops! Fox News Plays Footage Of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels During Sandusky News

» comments

During a routine news update on Fox News this afternoon, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels appeared extensively in archival footage as the news was read, despite him not really doing anything in the news lately. In fact, someone in the editing department seems to have mistaken Gov. Daniels for Jerry Sandusky, the convicted pedophile who will likely face life in prison for the 43 counts of child sexual abuse he was found guilty of last night. Oops!

RELATED: Red Eye Airs Hilarious Blooper Of Guest Ombudsman Untangling A Mic From His Chair

Anchor Uma Pemmaraju tossed to Molly Henneberg for the story, which she delivered apparently unaware that she was reporting on Sandusky over footage of Gov. Daniels. At the end of the report, Pemmaraju apologized: 'We had a technical problem and we were showing Gov. Mitch Daniels in the video when we were talking about Jerry Sandusky, so we apologize for that.'

The blooper via Fox News below:



''
» Follow Frances Martel on Twitter

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Rachel Maddow, Nick Gillespie And Bill Maher Square Off On Obamacare And LeBron James

» 3 comments

Once the televised show was over, Bill Maher shepherded his (fairly contentious) into the online-one Overtime segment, where the group answered a rapid-fire round of questions about everything from the increase in Asian immigration to why Cleveland insists on hating LeBron James.

RELATED: Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, And Reason's Nick Gillespie Have Epic Showdown Over Fast & Furious

The first question in the segment was about how America will change given the high number of Asian immigrants coming into the country. 'We'll have fewer Ls and Rs in our language,' Mort Zuckerman joked, before adding, equally stereotypically, 'The Asians, I have to tell you, certainly in New York City, are the most remarkable community imaginable' they're the most serious, their kids are wonderful in school.' 'Very high test scores, we've all cheated off of them,' Maher added.

The panel got much more excited about arguing over the Miami Heat's victory this week, with Maher arguing that it made no sense for Cleveland to be mad at LeBron James. 'Do we all want to live in Cleveland for the rest of our lives? Is that what America is all about?' he asked, to which Nick Gillespie added they were probably just upset not to go with James to his new venture. 'We can't all live in Miami,' Maher retorted, before Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Maddow got into an excited, way too inside baseball (basketball?) discussion on the NBA season for this editrix to follow.

Thankfully, this gave way to a debate on Obamacare once again. 'This Supreme Court is kind of an out there Supreme Court,' Maddow asserted, by way of arguing that it was likely the Affordable Care Act would fall before the Court. The panel (Gillespie the notable exception) seemed all to agree that single-payer would be a preferable option to Obamacare' even Zuckerman, which was a shock to Maher. 'I care about good health care at a reasonable cost,' Zuckerman explained. Following the Medicare model, Gillespie argued, however, would not work. 'Literally everybody who pays into it gets more out of it eventually; it is the definition of unsustainable,' he argued, while Maddow pointed to signs that seniors were overwhelmingly pleased with Medicare.

Maher concluded the show himself, declaring: 'the problem with Obamacare is not socialism, it's capitalism.'

The clip via HBO below:



[h/t Reason]


''
» Follow Frances Martel on Twitter

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• Madcow is such a partisan hack.  She won't even admit it either.  Asked to name one time she has sided with a Republican over a Democrat, she was speechless

• Mark Ruffalo's an idiot' the total cost of the 2 wars put together has been $1.3 Trillion over 10 years ($130 Billion per year).  That's about half of what we are expected to spend on obamacare over the same period of time

• Progressives need to spend less time theorizing and more time in the real world.

  Cancer survivability is as good a yardstick by which to rate the quality of a nation's health-care system as anything else, and the United States has been number one in that regard for about 20 years.

Sandusky's Lawyer To Anderson Cooper: 'I Promised The Jury Jerry Would Testify'

» 1 comment

'Tomorrow I gather my wits and we start thinking about sentencing,' attorney Joe Mendiola told Anderson Cooper last night in his first interview after the jury announced a verdict 43 times finding Jerry Sandusky guilty of child sex abuse. The attorney argued he saw a path in the appeals process to get Sandusky out, and that he had 'promised' Sandusky would testify and had to rescind that because of Sandusky's son's declaration that he too had been abused.

RELATED: Jerry Sandusky Found Guilty On 45 Of 48 Counts

'If you win on one of the appeal issues, everything probably falls,' Amendola told Cooper, arguing that no matter how many charges Sandusky has against him, one legal foible can cost the court the entire decision. Amendola reiterated that he did not want a plea deal, nor did Sandusky ever claim anything but innocence or consider anything but a trial. 'For better or worse,' he continued, 'none of us were there when any of these things happened.'

Amendola then attacked the Commonwealth of Virginia for bringing in 'literally at the last moment' Matt Sandusky, the adopted son that claimed abusy himself this week. 'At that point, I objected to the surprise and explained to the judge' we had always intended to testify, and it tremendously undercut our defense.' He called it a 'really bad situation' for him to cancel Sandusky's plan to testify because he 'promised the jury' he would, but it would have been 'absolutely catastrophic' to have Sandusky's testimony followed up with his son. He did say he had 'all the other five siblings as well as Dottie [Sandusky, his wife] prepared to testify to rebut what Matt had said,' but he didn't seem confident that that would have changed things.

The interview via CNN below:



''
» Follow Frances Martel on Twitter

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• Remember this clown?

  This is the lawyer who, as a FORTY-NINE YEAR OLD, got a 17 year old girl pregnant in an out of wedlock affair, then married her. This is the lawyer who thought it was a SWELL idea to accompany his client onto a national TV network and submit to an impromptu public interview by certainly the sharpest and arguably the smartest sports journalist in the country in Bob Costas, during which his client not just arguably and but strictly technically CONFESSED to sexually abusing children, and moreover showed himself to be both a deeply creepy person and a disastrously bad witness.

  So ' for months Matt Sandusky tells the police, and the prosecution, for YEARS Matt Sandusky leads everyone in the community to believe that, there is absolutely nothing going on between his (adopted) dad and him, never has, OTHER than he loves his (adopted) dad no different than if he was a real dad. Then, after having listened to and been SO MOVED by the testimony of betrayed, abused former young boys and their suspicious, quite understandably now deeply embittered parents, Matt finally confronts the fact his own abuse, with which he has no doubt lived in horrible denial for all these years, whereupon the scales of denial drop from his eyes, to be replaced by the scales of justice ' and somehow this is the COMMONWEALTH'S FAULT?

  THIS is a get-out-of-jail-free card? This is his killer, no-brainer winning legal grounds of appeal?

  Here's my prediction on this ridiculous piece of 'ground' Mendiola claims he's going to try to stand on: The very moment he raises it before even one single appeal court judge, ANY appeal court judge, anywhere in the country, especially in Pennsyltucky, no matter what that judge's political identification or ideological bent, the instantaneous millisecond that judge hears this 'ground', a tsunami of bile is going to rise in the back that judge's throat, so fast and furious and hard that it'll spill out and fill the courtroom and drown Mendiola in a dinghy of his own absurd hubris, weighed down by the massively leaden effect of his own utterly oblivious denial.And as for backing this up: forget any crummy 'have you got ten thousand dollars' bully bet ' I'll take on all comers, from anywhere, for any amount. It is impossible, utterly impossible, for Mendiola's client to ever go free again. Im. po. si. ble.

Dick Cheney's Daughter Mary Marries Her Long-Time Partner

» 2 comments

The Daily Caller reports that on Friday morning, Mary Cheney, the openly-gay daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has married her long time partner Heather Poe. The wedding took place in Washington, D.C., and in a statement provided to The Daily Caller, the former VP and his wife, Lynne, expressed delight that the couple could have their 'relationship recognized.'

'Mary and Heather have been in a committed relationship for many years, and we are delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognized,' the Cheneys said. 'Mary and Heather and their children are very important and much loved members of our family and we wish them every happiness.'

Mary Cheney's sexual orientation became a national issue when she took flak for supporting the George W. Bush administration despite its stance on gay marriage. Despite his avowed conservatism, her former VP father has openly endorsed gay marriage, lobbying for it recently in the state of Maryland.

Cheney and Poe have two children together. 'This is a baby,' Mary Cheney told Glamour Magazine in 2007 about her son Samuel. 'This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.'

We at Mediaite would like to extend our congratulations to the newly-weds!

(H/T The Daily Caller)
(Photo credit: AP)

>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Like Mediaite on Facebook.

Follow @Mediaite on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

• And the normalization continues apace. 

• Good on 'em. But matching black on black?
  'Why so serious?'