Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Reagan and Goldwater Would Be Considered 'RINOs' Today, Says Meghan McCain; CNN Doesn't Challenge Her Claim
Reagan and Goldwater Would Be Considered 'RINOs' Today, Says Meghan McCain; CNN Doesn't Challenge Her Claim
Meghan McCain apparently thinks there will be a "bloodletting" in the GOP in the next election, because the party has no room for controversial socially liberal figures like her.
Appearing on CNN's "American Morning" Thursday, McCain criticized the current state of the Republican Party, which she believes is too conservative and narrow-minded to include more moderate and independent thinkers like herself. This focus, McCain warned, will cut down on the number of party voters.
When the subject of "RINOs" (Republican-In-Name-Only) surfaced, McCain asserted that conservative icons Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan "would both be called that today." In addition, McCain had dark predictions for the GOP in the "next election," predicting a party purge of sorts. "I'm scared of a bloodletting in the next election," McCain worried.
CNN co-anchor Kiran Chetry did not challenge McCain's questionable claims, but rather set up the podium for her to criticize the Republican Party. "Are you afraid that the party is changing or going in a direction that's going to leave it in the dust when it comes to attracting young people?" Chetry asked.
Chetry also back-handedly criticized Republican female candidates who have avoided the media spotlight. Referencing Meghan McCain's father Sen. John McCain, Chetry noted his openness to interviews in the 2008 campaign.
"These candidates are sort of not doing that in this time around, Christine O'Donnell and others," Chetry complained. "Sharron Angle has been difficult to get to interview, as well. Is that doing a disservice though to finding out what they do if they truly are elected?"
McCain said the GOP needs to have a bigger tent, or the young vote will abandon the party. "If you're throwing out people like me who really want to be here and really want to fight for the Republican Party and I'm considered controversial, there's a lot of people out there, especially young people, that aren't going to beg to be able to be allowed to be in the Republican Party."
A partial transcript of the interview, which aired on September 30 at 8:12 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
Appearing on CNN's "American Morning" Thursday, McCain criticized the current state of the Republican Party, which she believes is too conservative and narrow-minded to include more moderate and independent thinkers like herself. This focus, McCain warned, will cut down on the number of party voters.
When the subject of "RINOs" (Republican-In-Name-Only) surfaced, McCain asserted that conservative icons Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan "would both be called that today." In addition, McCain had dark predictions for the GOP in the "next election," predicting a party purge of sorts. "I'm scared of a bloodletting in the next election," McCain worried.
CNN co-anchor Kiran Chetry did not challenge McCain's questionable claims, but rather set up the podium for her to criticize the Republican Party. "Are you afraid that the party is changing or going in a direction that's going to leave it in the dust when it comes to attracting young people?" Chetry asked.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
<script language="javascript" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=700;cookie=info;target=_blank;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]"></script><noscript><a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" border="336" width="280" height="0"></a></noscript> Chetry also back-handedly criticized Republican female candidates who have avoided the media spotlight. Referencing Meghan McCain's father Sen. John McCain, Chetry noted his openness to interviews in the 2008 campaign.
"These candidates are sort of not doing that in this time around, Christine O'Donnell and others," Chetry complained. "Sharron Angle has been difficult to get to interview, as well. Is that doing a disservice though to finding out what they do if they truly are elected?"
McCain said the GOP needs to have a bigger tent, or the young vote will abandon the party. "If you're throwing out people like me who really want to be here and really want to fight for the Republican Party and I'm considered controversial, there's a lot of people out there, especially young people, that aren't going to beg to be able to be allowed to be in the Republican Party."
A partial transcript of the interview, which aired on September 30 at 8:12 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
CHETRY: One of the things that you talk about in your book is that, you know, the ultimate freedom – you said, once you taste freedom, that's what you seek, and that was a lot of the ideals behind the Republican Party. And you said that some of these people who we hold up – Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan – would be called RINOs, Republican In Name Only, these days, because of candidates – are you afraid that the party is changing or going in a direction that's going to leave it in the dust when it comes to attracting young people?—Matt Hadro is News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
MCCAIN: Oh, yeah. I'm scared of a bloodletting in the next election. If you're throwing out people like me who really want to be here and really want to fight for the Republican Party and I'm considered controversial, there's a lot of people out there, especially young people that aren't going to beg to be able to be allowed to be in the Republican Party. And I think that's what really dangerous right now.
And if you only want a certain group of people, you're just going to innately have less voters. So, that's where I get confused about what people are actually thinking when they call me RINO or -- you know, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would both be called that today.
CHETRY: And why is that? Is it social issues? I mean, what is galvanizing people to vote for some of the more conservative and more to the right candidates? Christine O'Donnell, you were displeased that she was talking about, you know, personal sexuality and sort of trying to enforce -- not enforce but sort of insert herself into that whole debate about what you do in the privacy of your own home.
(...)
CHETRY: The other thing that I thought was interesting is there's been a lot of questioning about the intelligence. I mean, Karl Rove got in a little bit of trouble and took some heat for saying "I don't know. She says whacky things. Does she really understand the principles speaking?" of Christine O'Donnell, but people also launch this against Sarah Palin, and said she just maybe doesn't have the smarts to represent our country. Is that a woman thing or are these faults on the part of the individual candidates?
(...)
CHETRY: That's right. But when you say a better job, if candidates aren't granting access -- I mean, I remember during the campaign, I interviewed your dad one-on-one, I interviewed him at campaign events in New Hampshire, he came on our show dozens of times to answer questions that, you know, we were asking but really the broader public wanted to know. These candidates are sort of not doing that in this time around, Christine O'Donnell and others. Sharron Angle has been difficult to get to interview, as well. Is that doing a disservice though to finding out what they do if they truly are elected?
More Free Air Time: MSNBC Maddow Show Airs Almost Ten Minutes of Obama DNC Speech, Obama's NBC PSA
More Free Air Time: MSNBC Maddow Show Airs Almost Ten Minutes of Obama DNC Speech, Obama's NBC PSA
While liberals complain that Fox News is too helpful in offering its air time for Republican candidates and campaigns, MSNBC continued the recent string of NBC-Universal properties bowing to President Obama with gobs of unchallenged free air time. On Thursday night's Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC offered two large chunks of a speech Obama gave to the DNC's "Gen 44" initiative for young people. Seconds before the first speech clip, MSNBC aired a 15-second NBC public service announcement starring Obama. (See Mark Finkelstein on that.) The event was a fundraiser expected to raise $750,000. Two honorary co-chairs of the DNC effort are the actors America Ferrera ("Ugly Betty") and Dule Hill ("The West Wing" and "Psych").
This wasn't a standard presidential press conference or interview. This was a campaign event, aired by Maddow in a four-minute clip and then a five-and-a-half-minute clip, both followed with analysis by liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. In both clips, Obama attacked conservatives for ruining the economy and civil discourse, including claims like this:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
<script language="javascript" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=700;cookie=info;target=_blank;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]"></script><noscript><a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" border="336" width="280" height="0"></a></noscript> For the last decade, the Republicans in Washington subscribed to a very simple philosophy: You cut taxes, mostly for millionaires and billionaires. You cut regulations for special interests -- whether it's oil companies or banks or insurance companies. You cut back on investments in education and clean energy, and research and technology. And basically, the idea was that if you had blind faith in the market, if you let corporations play by their own rules, if you let everybody else fend for themselves, including young people, including the next generation, then somehow America would grow and prosper. That was the theory. Now, look, here's what we know. The philosophy failed. We tested it. We tried it. We tried it for eight years; it didn't work.The first clip seemed to be live. The second clip was definitely not -- because the speech transcript puts it before the first clip. This is where Obama says gee, the Democrats wanted to be bipartisan, but the Republicans decided not to say yes to socialism:
When I arrived in Washington about 20 months ago -- some of you were there. It was really cold. It was a cold day. (Applause.) It was a cold day, but the spirit was warm. (Applause.) And our hope was that we could pull together, Democrats and Republicans and independents, to confront the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. What we hoped was that we could get beyond some of the old political divides -- red states, blue states -- that had prevented us from making progress for so long. And we came into this with that spirit because we understood that we're proud to be Democrats, but we're prouder to be Americans. (Applause.)
And instead, what we confronted when we arrived was just politics, pure and simple; an opposition party that was still stuck in the same failed policies of the past -- whose leaders in Congress were determined from the start to just let us deal with the mess that they had done so much to create.Maybe you could argue that this was both a stem-winder at a DNC fundraiser -- and a news event. But then consider what surrounded Obama on Maddow's show.
She began the show with a long 15-minute segment devoted to one liberal Congressman in Oregon who's upset he's being opposed. Maddow found it incredibly weird that a shadowy group called Concerned Taxpayers of America was running more than $80,000 of ads against Rep. Peter DeFazio. (This first appeared in the Washington Post.) Since she's into Democrat video, Maddow ran DeFazio's own sting video, starring himself, confronting the CTA at an address they use in DC, then interviewed DeFazio so he could express more outrage at being opposed.
After the Obama speech clips, Maddow ran a goofy skit where an orange-skinned man with a cigar pretending to be "John Boehner" handed out checks on the House floor from the tobacco companies, referring back to a Hedrick Smith PBS documentary wailing about the negative influence of corporate money on socialism -- ahem, democracy. Boehner admitted to Smith that he had done that, but would not do it again. Whatever liberals want to paint Fox as a GOP network ought to watch their own MSNBC stars and wonder just how much of a partisan production they're putting on in the last weeks of an election season.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
WaPo Editorial Presents Virginia as Armory for Criminals, Proposes More Gun Control As Solution
WaPo Editorial Presents Virginia as Armory for Criminals, Proposes More Gun Control As Solution
In today's print edition of the Washington Post, the top editorial, "Virginia is for gun lovers,"* attacked the Old Dominion as "one of the nation's leading gun-buying bazaars for out-of-state criminals."
"[T]he commonwealth's gun shows -- where criminals can purchase weapons without a background check -- and its gun shops are a regular source of easy-to-get firearms," the Post complained.
While there's no state requirement for purchasers at gun shows to submit to a background check, Virginia state law requires all sellers at gun shows to have undergone and passed criminal background checks and to have filed the appropriate paperwork with the state:
Any person who sells firearms at a licensed dealership or gun show must submit to a national and state criminal history records check by the Department of State Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation. Firearm sellers must complete form SP-69A and submit a completed fingerprint card to the Firearms Transaction Center.What's more, many gun shows employ stringent security measures and strongly encourage background checks. For example, Southeastern Guns & Knives Ltd., which runs gun shows throughout Virginia, notes that:
A gun show crawling with uniformed and undercover cops? Yeah, that's precisely the place where interstate criminal gun runners love to hang out.On-duty police officers are present throughout the show hours to answer questions, provide security, and set the tone of the show by their presence.Story Continues Below Ad ↓<script language="javascript" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=700;cookie=info;target=_blank;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]"></script><noscript><a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" border="336" width="280" height="0"></a></noscript>
[...]
Typically, the state police maintain an office at each show and conduct instant background checks for the purchase of firearms. Undercover troopers usually circulate throughout the show to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.
Towards the close of its editorial, the Post laid out its demands:
Virginia should require purchasers to obtain permits to buy handguns and allow local police the option to deny concealed-carry permits on a case-by-case basis, as about half the states do now. The state should also prohibit gun purchases by anyone convicted of a violent or threatening misdemeanor -- meaning assault, battery, harassment and stalking -- and require that gun owners report to the police when their weapons are lost or stolen. In addition, state lawmakers should allow cities and counties to adopt more stringent local weapons laws if they choose.Of course, even here the Post doesn't get all its facts straight. Contrary to its assertion that "about half the states" permit "local police" to veto concealed-carry permits, in truth, most states (38) have "shall issue" laws governing concealed carry, only two states (Wisconsin and Illinois) ban concealed carry and the remaining 10 states have "may issue" concealed carry, according to USACarry.com.
But why let facts get in the Post's way of hyping a "crisis" the solution for which, predictably enough, is abridgement of gun rights?
*The online edition headline reads "Gun laws make Va. a mecca for felons with credit cards."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters. You can follow him on Twitter here
Lawrence O'Donnell Draws Parallel Between Extreme Militia Groups and Tea Party
Lawrence O'Donnell Draws Parallel Between Extreme Militia Groups and Tea Party
What do Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, a domestic terrorist who was developing a nuclear weapon, and Tea Party activists concerned about lavish government spending have in common? Nothing, unless you're a newly-minted cable news anchor with a liberal agenda.Interviewing a Time magazine writer who conducted an in-depth investigation into right-wing militias, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on the September 30 "Last Word" tried to draw a parallel between the reported resurgence of extreme militia groups and the rise of the Tea Party.
"The surge in recruits to what could be the training ground of our next Timothy McVeigh parallels the rise of the Tea Party and includes at least one man who had serious plans to kill the president by going nuclear," warned O'Donnell, before enlisting the help of Barton Gellman, author of "Locked and Loaded: The Secret World of Extreme Militias," to connect the dots.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
<script language="javascript" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=700;cookie=info;target=_blank;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]"></script><noscript><a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" border="336" width="280" height="0"></a></noscript> After laying the groundwork with questions about Holocaust Museum killer James von Brunn and a man who was fashioning a dirty bomb to assassinate President Barack Obama before being killed in his sleep by his wife, O'Donnell peddled his offensive comparison: "Now, do you see any relationship in the parallel rise in time only – I'm only suggesting there's a parallel in time – of the Tea Party and this tripling of the militias?" Just as prefacing an insult by giving someone all due respect does not absolve the critic of the uncouth statement that may follow, O'Donnell's attempt to cover for himself does not excuse his highly objectionable insinuation.
Instead of receiving reflexive agreement for such a shrewd observation, O'Donnell was refuted by the Time editor-at-large: "It's tricky because I do not want to give the impression that I'm associating the Tea Party with these militias. It almost doesn't matter what the anti-government extremists believe. What matters is that they are arming and training and practicing and planning for bloodshed."
Apparently O'Donnell missed the part where Gellman dismissed the comparison between extreme militia members and Tea Party activists: "Theirs is not Tea Party anger, which aims at electoral change, even if it often speaks of war. In the world of armed extremists, war is not always a metaphor. Some of them speak with contempt about big talkers who 'meet, eat and retreat.'"
After only one week on the air, O'Donnell has managed to malign Tea Party supporters as "narcissistic," interview a Rolling Stone "reporter" who insulted them as "incredibly stupid," and compare the conservative activists to the likes of McVeigh and von Brunn.
Classy, Lawrence.
A transcript of the segment can be found below:
MSNBC
Last Word
September 30, 2010
10:20 p.m. EDT
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Locked and loaded. Since Barack Obama became president, the number of heavily-armed anti-government militias has tripled. That's right, tripled. The surge in recruits to what could be the training ground of our next Timothy McVeigh parallels the rise of the Tea Party and includes at least one man who had serious plans to kill the president by going nuclear. Joining me now is the author of Time magazine's special investigation, "Locked and Loaded: The Secret World of Extreme Militias," Barton Gellman, Time magazine's contributing editor at large. Tell us about the guy who was building – really seriously building a nuclear device that he hoped would take the president.
BARTON GELLMAN, Time magazine: Well, a dirty bomb, he hoped – a radiological dispersal device.
O'DONNELL: This is what we fear from al-Qaeda, that there will be some suitcase bomb, there will be some dirty bomb, so called, that will end up on the New York City subway. But we had a domestic terrorist who was working on it.
GELLMAN: Well, two things to say about this guy. One is he probably is the most serious – came the nearest to being able to actually build a dirty bomb of any of the domestic threats we've ever heard about, certainly way more than Jose Padilla, the accused al-Qaeda dirty bomber. On the other hand, he wasn't – he wasn't ready yet. He wasn't there. But it is by the happenstance that he was killed in his sleep by his wife that we found out about it at all.
O'DONNELL: And why was he killed in his sleep by his wife? So, there were things wrong with him as a husband as well as a citizen.
GELLMAN: There were issues. The judge – the judge found that she had suffered so greatly in terms of domestic abuse that he waived any prison sentence at all, even though she killed him in his sleep.
O'DONNELL: Lenient judges have their place in our judicial system. You write that the Holocaust Museum killer, James von Brunn, that he had written, was that on his Web site that he wrote this or?
GELLMAN: No, actually, more chillingly. When he went and killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum, he double-parked his car, got out, raised a rifle and shot the guy point-blank in the chest. In his double-parked car was his planning notebook. And in that notebook, you found evidence of the other targets he had in mind.
O'DONNELL: He had a note there saying "Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do." And he had other names on the card?
GELLMAN: He did have other names. One of them was David Axelrod, the president's closest political adviser. And you don't have to think that one life is more important than another to understand that it would have been a very different kind of event had an assassin killed one of the president's, you know, inner circle members. And a thing that put a jolt through the Secret Service and Homeland Security and FBI was that this is a guy who demonstrated motive, means, intent to kill – actually did kill. And he had a plausible plan to get to David Axelrod.
O'DONNELL: Why didn't he go after the president or Axelrod? Was the Holocaust Museum just easier? All you had to do was walk in?
GELLMAN: Actually, it's not clear to me it that the Holocaust Museum was easier because, you know, having cased the place, he knew there were armed guards all over the place. That does not happen to have been the case at David Axelrod's home and the address was listed. I think that Jews were whole central to this guy's whole concept of evil in the world that he couldn't resist.
O'DONNELL: Now, do you see any relationship in the parallel rise in time only – I'm only suggesting there's a parallel in time – of the Tea Party and this tripling of the militias?
GELLMAN: It's tricky because I do not want to give the impression that I'm associating the Tea Party with these militias. It almost doesn't matter what the anti-government extremists believe. What matters is that they are arming and training and practicing and planning for bloodshed. In most cases, they consider it defensive. They're expecting, you know, Obama to send troops to declare martial law, to seize their guns and round them up in concentration camps and so on. But they are training to kill opposition forces that look exactly like the ATF or the FBI or National Guard unit.
O'DONNELL: Now, having been with these people, is it your sense that the election of President Obama has provoked this increase in the militia, or at the same time the worst economy, you know, since the depression has provoked to this, or something else?
GELLMAN: Well, both. The FBI calls that a perfect storm. You had – you had – look, anytime you have the bottom drop out of the economy, it increases discontent greatly, and it sort of increases the voices of people who think that, for example, special interests are running the world to their own detriment, who were alienated from Washington. And many of the people in this sort of highly alienated, anti-government Right have hated every recent president. They hated the Bushes. But Obama also sort of jolted that movement because in one guy, you united – because of his race, because of what they imagined his religion was, because of what they imagined his, you know, his birthplace was – he united the bigotry of racists and religious bigots and nativists. And so, he was a perfect symbol for all of them.
O`DONNELL: Barton Gellman with the cover story of Time magazine this week, "Locked and Loaded," an amazing story. Thank you very much for joining us tonight.
GELLMAN: Thank you, Lawrence.
Omission Watch: Communist, Socialist 'Partners' of One Nation Protest Left Out of News Accounts
Omission Watch: Communist, Socialist 'Partners' of One Nation Protest Left Out of News Accounts
An official NAACP video for Saturday's One Nation rally (featuring their leader Ben Jealous, among others) claims that their movement includes "Conservatives and moderates, progressives and liberals." But a look at the actual "endorsing organizations" on the One Nation website doesn't list conservative groups, but it does include the Communist Party USA, the Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (founded as a "moderate" wing of the CPUSA), the International Socialist Organization (publishers of SocialistWorker.org), and the Democratic Socialists of America (as well as its Chicago, Detroit, and New York chapters). And the liberals get mad when you associate them with socialism. Well, what are these groups doing on this list, then? Where are the media worrying about "fringes" and "extremists"?
These endorsements have been missing from news accounts. AP's pre-protest dispatch by Nafeesa Syeed surgically began "Groups pushing for progressive policies will gather in the nation's capital this weekend for a march aimed at recapturing momentum for their agenda and mobilizing supporters before next month's midterm elections." Krissah Thompson left this angle out in her Washington Post story.
On the National Public Radio show Tell Me More, host Michel Martin welcomed in three liberals on Wednesday, but tried so very hard not to identify them or the march as "liberal" or "left-wing." The issue of fringy endorsing organizations never came up. She began:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
<script language="javascript" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=700;cookie=info;target=_blank;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]"></script><noscript><a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5235/1131671/0/0/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=[group]" border="336" width="280" height="0"></a></noscript> But first, we want to tell you about One Nation Working Together. That's the name of a rally scheduled for Saturday here in Washington. The group spearheading the march includes civil rights organizations, gay rights activists and labor groups, among others.The idea that "progressives" were trying to accomplish political goals did seep in, and Martin professed that this did seem to be about electing Democrats. But reporters aren't finding any reason to see trouble for Democrats in extremist elements in their base.
The rally is pitched as a challenge to Glenn Beck's attention-getting march in August, but it's also scheduled for exactly a month before this year's midterm elections in November, and it's attempting to focus the nation's attention on jobs, justice and education.
We wanted to know more, so we've called two of the many people scheduled to speak at the event. With us now is Janet Murguia, the president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza is, of course, the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. Also with us is Randi Weingarten. She's the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which has about 1.5 million members. I welcome you both. Thanks for joining us.
And for additional perspective on the midterms, we've also called Karen Finney. She's a former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and a commentator on MSNBC. Welcome to you, as well.
Perhaps the worst example was Steven Greenhouse in The New York Times on Monday. He began:
Hoping to overshadow last month’s large rally led by Glenn Beck that drew many Tea Party advocates and other conservatives, a coalition of liberal groups plan to descend on Washington on Saturday to make the case that they, and not the ascendant right, speak for America’s embattled middle class...—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Organizers of the rally say their demonstration complements, rather than competes with, the Rally to Restore Sanity that the host of “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart, has announced for Washington on Oct. 30. Those behind next Saturday’s rally assert that their event shares themes with Mr. Stewart’s in opposing Tea Party negativism and extremism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)