Go Home

Terry Moran

15 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (200)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2308)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

This was a nice change of pace, watching a Republican get shot down for their fearmongering on the air: ABC Journalist Calls Out Karl Rove: ‘Stop Scaring People’ About Background Checks:

During a heated debate about gun regulations on Sunday morning, ABC News’ Terry Moran accused Karl Rove of using “Orwellian” language to scare people about background checks, noting that the federal government is not seeking to confiscate guns but rather keep them out of the hands of criminals and people who are mentally ill. [...]

The proposals currently being drafted would require a background check on all gun purchases including those by private sellers while exempting family and temporary transfers. In some of the drafts being circulated, private dealers would have to maintain records for all private sales, while other exempt non-commercial private sales from record keeping. None of the bills would maintain a national gun registry, which is already illegal under current law. But the record keeping provision is important, advocates claim, to ensure that the checks are being properly conducted.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 88 percent of Americans, including 85 percent of gun owners, believe “those purchasing firearms at private sales and gun shows should undergo a background check.”

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (318)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2540)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) struggled on Sunday to explain presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's investments outside the United States, including Swiss bank accounts and a corporation in Bermuda.

During an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) ripped into Romney for betting "against America" with his foreign investments.

"President Obama is not running against the Almighty, he is running against the alternative," O'Malley explained. "And the alternative in this case is Gov. Mitt Romney, who had the 47th worst job-creation rate as governor, and also has a penchant, a talent for offshoring American jobs -- sending them overseas. And also maintaining offshore bank accounts in Bermuda, Swiss bank accounts."

The Maryland governor added: "I've never known of a Swiss bank account to build an American bridge, a Swiss bank account to create American jobs, or Swiss bank accounts to rebuild the levies to protect the people of New Orleans. That's not an economic strategy for moving our country forward."

Moran asked Jindal if it was even fair for voters to consider Romney's investments outside the U.S.

"The bottom line is I'm thrilled Mitt Romney has been successful in the private sector," Jindal demurred.

"Is it OK for voters to consider the money he has put outside of the country in tax havens offshore, in secret Bermuda companies?" Moran pressed. "Does that make sense for voters to consider?"

"I think voters will consider all the distractions put out by the Obama campaign," Jindal quipped. "At the end of the day, this election is about two fundamental choices. It's about President Obama, who wants to continue to spend money we don't have, incurred now a trillion dollar-plus deficit every year he's been president after he promised we'd cut the deficit in half."

But O'Malley quickly disagreed that the Obama campaign was throwing "sand in the eyes of the American voters" to divert attention away from the president's record.

"No, it's not a distraction at all," O'Malley insisted. "The relevance is this, that Gov. Romney can't claim that his state was actually great at creating jobs when he was governor so he's fallen back and said, 'Vote for me, I was a business man, I created jobs.' You want to talk about going the way of Europe? What went the way of Europe were the Swiss bank accounts and the American dollars that Mitt Romney stuffed in that offshore Swiss bank account, jobs that he facilitated companies in moving offshore, out of places like Ohio, out of Pennsylvania and Maryland."

"This is a fundamental disagreement between two different candidates and their vision for our county's future," he continued. "Barack Obama believes enough in our country to be willing to work for it and invest in it. Mitt Romney bets against America. He bet against America when he put his money in Swiss bank accounts and tax havens and shelters and also set up the secret company, the shell company in Bermuda. Which by the way in order to avoid disclosure, he put in his wife's name right before he became governor of Massachusetts."

"These are legitimate questions that a man who is holding himself as wanting to lead our country forward needs to answer."

Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs on Sunday called for Romney to release several years of tax returns to prove that he was not dodging tax laws.

"The one thing he could do, Candy, to clear up whether or not he’s done anything illegal, whether he’s shielding his income from taxes in either Bermuda or Switzerland is to do what every other presidential candidate has done, and that’s release a series of years of their own tax returns," Gibbs told CNN's Candy Crowley. "This is a guy whose slogan is ‘Believe in America’ and it should be ‘Business in Bermuda.’ That’s what Mitt Romney is all about."

(h/t: Talking Points Memo)



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (116)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (394)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Ann Coulter on Sunday was anxious to defend Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law, arguing that it should not be a part of the debate in the killing of an unarmed African-American teen.

The conservative firebrand told an ABC News panel that no matter which side of the story you believe -- either neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin, the black 17-year-old that he gunned down -- the "Stand Your Ground" law was irrelevant in the case.

Florida became the first state in 2005 to do away with the English Law concept of a “duty to retreat” when they passed a law that expanded self-defense zones to most public places.

ABC's Terry Moran noted on Sunday that Florida's law "short circuits" the process by preventing the justice system from coming to a conclusion about Zimmerman's guilt because he was never charged.

"Florida, unlike any other state that has a 'Stand Your Ground' law, makes it very difficult to trust out system, trust the jury, let them find the facts and do justice," Moran said.

"That is completely wrong," Coulter replied. "This had nothing to do do with the 'Stand Your Ground' law. ... because in one [version of the story], you have Zimmerman -- the white Hispanic -- tracking down the suspicious looking kids just because he's black, blowing him away. We'll the question is, did he ever have to retreat? No, he's the one doing the stalking. In the second narrative, he's on the ground being beaten up by Trayvon Martin. There's no possibility of retreating when you are on the ground."

"This does not implicate the 'Stand Your Ground' law," she added.

"The police don't have to believe one narrative or the other," Moran pointed out. "The police have to look at the fact that somebody discharged the firearm into another human being on the public thoroughfare, and what happened here."

"In neither narrative is retreating an option," Coulter continued to insist. "This is simple self defense on at least George Zimmerman's narrative."

Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday said that he expected Florida to reconsider the law after Martin's killing.

"I’m confident that the people of Florida will debate and discuss whether or not this law, that ‘Stand Your Ground’ law, whether it’s being applied as it was intended to apply, and whether or not as intended it makes sense," he told CBS News.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (220)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (851)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

I'm not sure how much "prestige" George Will thinks the Supreme Court has when there are recent polls showing more than half the country believes "the justices are swayed by their own political beliefs" and less than a third believe they they “make impartial decisions based on their reading of the Constitution.”

Given the conflicts of interests with Scalia and Thomas, I would say the only reason the public does not have a lower opinion of the court lands squarely on the laps of people like George Will and the rest of our corporate media for not doing a better job of covering and bringing attention to the problems with those two justices.

And I find it laughable that anyone would believe that the Supreme Court injecting itself into a presidential campaign did not do damage to the "prestige" of that institution, but that's the line Will was pushing during his appearance on This Week, where we're unfortunate enough to have him as an almost permanent fixture in their panel segments.

WILL: It cannot be a good thing going into the fall campaign for the most prestigious federal institution, the Supreme Court, to announce not only that the president's plan was unconstitutional but that it struck at the very fundamentals of the Madisonian architecture of limited government. That can't be a plus to a candidate.

This will be, I think either way, a 5-4 decision. Unlike, say, Brown v. Board of Education--

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't buy the argument that Roberts might try to go in the majority?

WILL: I think he'll be in the majority and write the opinion. I assume that will be the case.

But this isn't -- it was terribly important in Brown versus Board of Education having a unanimous court, because you were overturning the mores of a region and changing the thinking of society. This would overturn an unpopular law.

MORAN: But at 5-4, it will be all Republicans against all Democrats if the law goes down, just like it was in Citizens United, just like it was in Bush versus Gore. And the risk for the court is that it begins to be seen by a lot of people as just another political hacks up there who vote their partisan interests. And that hurts the long-term interest of the court.

WILL: There is no measurable evidence that Bush v. Gore, much more consequential decision had an effect on the prestige of the court.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (271)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1662)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Matthew Dowd, President George W. Bush's former chief strategist, on Sunday observed that the same conservative legislatures and governors who are championing so-called Christian values like prayer in schools are also pushing for dangerous gun laws that are counter to Christian teachings.

During a panel on ABC, "Nightline" anchor Terry Moran noted that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law gave officials cover to not arrest neighborhood watch vigilante George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old African American boy.

"No other state has a law like this," Moran explained. "Not only is it a 'Stand Your Ground' law -- in the olden days under common law you had a duty to retreat. 'Stand Your Ground' says, no, you don't have to. Florida goes one step farther. 'Stand Your Ground' is self defense -- defense at trial. It would go to trial where the jury would figure out what happened."

"In Florida, the law says if you raise a claim of self defense after killing someone in public, you can't even be arrested," he added. "It's why prosecutors and police hated this law. It sabotaged our justice system. All this discussion we've heard -- What did Zimmerman do? What did Trayvon do? -- Juries are supposed to figure that out. The Florida law destroys that American system."

"There is such irony about this," Dowd agreed. "Most of the states that have passed this including Florida and the 'Stand Your Ground' laws and the expanded gun-ownership laws where you can carry a concealed weapon are also the same states and the same legislatures and the same governors who sort of pushed for prayer in the school."

Dowd continued: "To me, there is such and irony here, that we want to be a Christian nation and we want to act in a Christian manner, but oh, by the way, we don't believe in the turn your other cheek and we don't believe in love your enemy. We believe in loading citizens and basically giving them an opportunity to shoot people."



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (244)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (990)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

While discussing the upcoming arguments before the Supreme Court starting Monday on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, ABC's Terry Moran and guest Matthew Dowd both pointed out the obvious, much to the chagrin of This Week regular George Will, that there is politics involved with the Supreme Court deciding to hear this case.

MORAN: They took it at a different time, in some ways. The Republicans, Michele Bachmann, are making this the number-one issue. Some of the biggest mistakes the Supreme Court has ever made is when they decided cases they didn't have to. And John Roberts as chief justice, loves the court, is very protective of its institutional authority. The more it gets involved in politics, the more that authority comes down.

WILL: I really disagree with Terry on this. I think the Supreme Court is composed of nine intelligent, conscientious judges who are prepared to judge in this case. Why did they take it? Because the circuits are in conflict, and the circuits -- some important circuit judges say -- in very persuasive opinions -- that portions of the law -- at least two portions -- are unconstitutional, the Medicaid expansion, which is a burden that eviscerates (ph) federalism and, of course, the mandate.

What Will, Moran or any of the rest of them on this panel failed to mention was the name Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni and whether Thomas ought to be recusing himself from the case. It's been astounding to me to watch most of the media coverage over the last week and not see their names mentioned once.

If anyone needs a reminder of why Thomas should not be hearing this case and just how "political" his involvement is, I'll just refer you to these posts:

Clarence Thomas "Forgot" 20 Years of Disclosure? Really?

Justice Clarence Thomas Should Resign For His Egregious Conflicts of Interest and Unethical Behavior

Ginni Thomas as Lobbyist? Really?

Clarence Thomas Fails to Disclose Citizens United In-Kind Contributions

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (246)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1247)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

I presume someone actually pays Matt Dowd to come on television and utter this drivel. Dowd first of all pretends that there wasn't anyone out there protesting the invasion of Iraq early on, which is not true. There were millions of people protesting and the media refused to cover them. And to add insult, to injury he calls anyone who was protesting extremists.

He also wants us to think that the Republican re-branding operation called the "Tea Party" hasn't already been co-opted by big business. Thankfully, CBS reporter Terry Moran was there to point out that there is some very big money already behind the "movement," but that didn't seem to faze Dowd.

Dowd: All movements in this country start out with people on the extremes and the success of those movements over time are either... are when one of the parties co-opt that movement and the tactics and the messages, then moderate it.

It started with, Barack Obama who sits in the White House was the beneficiary of a very extreme movement that started after the Iraq war, which was very few people were protesting the war. In the end that became a majority in this country and Barack Obama got elected based upon that movement.

The conservative movement, Ronald Reagan was not considered a moderate when he ran against Gerald Ford in 1976. He ran against moderates. He then ultimately mirrored the country and got elected. All movements start out that way.

Amanpour: So you think then that what they're saying right now is not going to be what they say if they get elected?

Dowd: No, what I'm saying is that if somebody co-opts this movement, which is an anti-Washington, anti-federal government movement and then takes that movement and then puts a brand of politics on that that moderates and can appeal to younger voters it will have a huge amount of successes. […]

Moran: But as far as co-opting the party, and that is important, a lot of the money behind the Tea Party is not mom and pop money.

Amanpour: It's very wealthy money.

Moran: Very wealthy money. People definitely purchasing or trying to purchase the Tea Party movement and a lot of those issues, free trade, the kinds of issues the Chamber of Commerce and some of the other big money behind the Republican Party this year is trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement. I'm not sure quite how many of those Tea Party activists would agree with that.

Dowd wraps things up by saying the Chamber of Commerce and big business should fear this movement. That might be true -- if they hadn't already co-opted it.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (498)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1073)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Shorter Matt Dowd, nothing is ever the Republicans fault and they're just doing the will of the people with their obstruction. Another one of these a pox on both of your houses arguments and completely ignoring the media's role in drumming up public anger and hyping these tea baggers and not explaining to the American people that the reason very little is getting done is because the Republicans in the Senate have decided to block everything. I'm also tired of them acting like the Democrats ever had a true 60 vote majority when they had to court "Independent" Joe Lieberman and the ConservaDems that constantly do their best to make what legislation they get passed as terrible as possible.

Donna Brazile and Arianna Huffington did their best to try to beat back Dowd's nonsense but they may as well have been talking to the wall.

DOWD: Yes, they do love Glenn Beck. I mean, he's popular among a segment of the party.

I mean, I think this is more -- the commentary about this is more about the volatility of politics in this country today. Because if you think back a year ago, everybody said, well, what happened to the conservatives? What happened to the Republican Party?

And now people are saying, well, what happened to Barack Obama? And it's 13 months later, after the inauguration of Barack Obama.

And I don't think Republicans can sit there and say, oh, we're going to have this great success. This is not about the Republicans right now. This is about why people are mad at the Democrats in Washington and the incumbency in Washington. That's what people are mad about.

This is not a bunch of people flocking to become Republicans. But CPAC and the tea party is best representing people's anger right now, in the country, on the right. And I think that's what this is about, is people are angry, whether they're Democrats or Republicans or independents; they're mad at Washington, and anybody that represents Washington is bad.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (364)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (281)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

How pitiful is this? George Will reaches back to Abraham Lincoln to defend the Republicans being the "party of no". Note to George Will. Lincoln would be called a flaming liberal evil socialist Marxist by the standards of today's Republican Party. And Matt Dowd, if memory serves those Democrats who didn't like the Civil Rights movement, I believe there's a name for them... Dixiecrats. I believe their ilk would now be called Southern Republicans. Comparing President Obama bucking his base now to LBJ going up against those Dixiecrats is an utterly ridiculous analogy.

DOWD: Civil rights is a perfect example. Democrats, throughout the history of civil rights, sought to kill civil rights, throughout the whole -- throughout the whole thing.

MORAN: Until the 1960s.

DOWD: Until the 1960s, until Republicans, who cast more votes on behalf of civil rights legislation to get it done. But in the end, some Democrats -- LBJ had to take on elements of his own party and risk political problems, which he did.

MORAN: And President Obama really isn't doing that.

BRAZILE: I think President Obama is leading. But, unfortunately, you have a Republican Party that has decided that, by saying no, they could, you know, perhaps gain more at the polls this coming fall.

Look, one-tenth of the Republican caucus in the House has announced their retirements, OK, only 13 Democrats in the House. We have more Republicans retiring in the United States Senate than -- than Democrats.

We know from 1994 as well as 2008, when you look at two volatile periods that if you have to defend open seats, it's very difficult. So for Democrats right now, the game is to hold as many seats as possible and to not retire. For Republicans, they still have to come up with some ideas to go out there and galvanize the electorate. One-third of the American people is still with the president, one third is against the president. There's 30 percent of the American people that is still up for grabs. And if this president leads, he will be able to capture those people.

WILL: I want to say something in defense, particularly to Donna, of being the party of no. The Republican Party elected its first president because he said no to a bright idea a Democratic senator had, which was I'll solve the problems, said Stephen A. Douglas, of expansion of slavery into the territories. Let's have popular sovereignty. People can vote it up or vote it down. A lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, named Lincoln said no, that's a bad idea. We're going to stop that idea. Now is the Republican Party the party of no, you bet they weren't.

BRAZILE: You know, George, is the Republican Party going to defend the 39 percent rate hikes on insurance premiums this coming week when they hold the health care summit? Will the Republican Party continue to defend all of these job cuts across the country when you see governors having to eliminate very popular programs? Let the Republicans continue to say no. I think Democrats have to lead and it's up to the president to demonstrate that.

MORAN: It is a challenge, and let's turn to the health care summit. It looks like Republicans are ready to come and say, no, take that bill off the table.



Schwarzenegger slams GOP stimulus hypocrisy

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (3589)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5067)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Many Republican politicians have railed against the stimulus while praising or taking credit for stimulus money provided to their districts. One prominent Republican governor is calling out his colleagues' hypocrisy.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was proud to accept stimulus dollars for his state praised the program for creating or saving over 150,000 jobs. "I have been the first governor of the Republican governors to come out and to support the stimulus money because I say to myself, this is terrific," Schwarzenegger told ABC's Terry Moran Sunday.

In contrast to many Republicans, the California governor believes the stimulus has created public and private sector jobs. "Anyone that says that it hasn't created the jobs, they should talk to the 150,000 people that have been getting jobs in California," he said.

Schwarzenegger lashed out at those GOP politicians who voted against the bill then took credit for benefits provided to their states. "Well, you know, to me I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying this doesn't create any new jobs, and then they go out and they do the photo ops and they are posing with the big check and they say, 'Isn't this great?'" said Schwarzenegger.