Go Home

Alex Wagner

7 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (181)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1919)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Former Fox News contributor Jane Hall says that her ex-colleagues at the conservative network have been "waging a campaign" to link the words "radical" and "Islam" following the bombings at the Boston Marathon earlier this month.

In a Sunday discussion on CNN, host Howard Kurtz noted that after briefly coming together in the aftermath of the tragedy in Boston, the media had returned to its "ideological sniping."

Current TV host Cenk Uygur told Kurtz that Fox News had led the charge in making the airwaves more vitriolic by "talking about Muslims, which is ironic because this is the same Bill O'Reilly who kept calling Dr. Tiller, "Dr. Tiller The Baby Killer," until Scott Roeder shot him."

"So here's a fundamentalist who's Christian worrying about fundamentalists who are Muslims, and driving people to violence," Uygur said.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (191)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1300)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Gee, where would anyone get the idea that Fox and Bill O'Reilly would like for their Obama-hating viewers to get the impression that he just might be a secret Muslim? I can't imagine. Apparently Bill-O is very upset that MSNBC's Alex Wagner said something bad about him, so now he's going on his own "jihad" to get even.

Good luck with that tough guy. What are you going to do? Screech like a banshee even louder than you normally do every night?



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (209)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1903)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

After the release of Paul Ryan's new budget -- which looked a whole lot like his old budget -- despite the fact that the public rejected their policies when he and Mitt Romney lost the last election -- the panel members on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner this Tuesday were asked to weigh in on Ryan's proposal and this latest round of budget negotiations.

There were a lot of good points made about Ryan's ridiculous op-ed in The Wall Street Journal and the fact that he just wants to go after programs that help the poor, the elderly and the most vulnerable in our society and that his "budget" has a lot of numbers that don't add up. Ari Melber then made this point on how Ryan is regarded in political circles:

MELBER: I think Joy is hitting on something really important, which is those are the twin falsehoods, even apart from the hypocrisy of his record. One is, that just because it has numbers in it, doesn't make it a budget, right? My lottery ticket is not a budget. It's just a bunch of numbers on the page. And this thing [...] has a lot of numbers and as everyone has said, doesn't add up. It's more like fan fiction for Ayn Rand than it is a budget. And he's not a deficit hawk. To Joy's point, he's a health care hawk. He is interested in going after every health care program that's basically on the books from Obamacare, as you just articulated, to Medicaid, the program that is the most important for poor people, who need help and also for our society, because when we use medicine, preventative care for poor people, it actually saves all of us money, so it's good on both moral and efficiency terms and that's what's so frustrating here. I think Washington has called him serious for so long, they're over invested in treating this fake charade like it's a budget.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel followed up very nicely on Melber's points just a little bit later in the segment.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (161)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (630)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

I'm not sure what Politico's Ben White's background is, or if he's ever worked at a job where you were really glad you had a union in place to join, because you work in a dangerous environment, and because of those protections provided to you by the union, you could speak out about conditions on the job without fear of being fired or retribution, but it sure didn't sound like it after hearing his crass statements on MSNBC's Now With Alex Wagner.

I'm also really disgusted with the rest of the panel that was on there with him this Friday, because even though they made a lot of really great points about just what Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and his cohorts in the legislature were doing with passing this right to work for less legislation in their lame duck session, they let him get away with a really key issue that Rep. Brandon Dillon laid out so well during his speech this week.

The supporters of "right to work" don't really care about anyone's right to a job. What you're doing, as Ken already explained here, is arguing that it should be allowed that nonunion workers to get benefits that unions negotiate without having to pay their share for the process. And as Ken noted in that same post, "Proponents of 'right-to-work' laws argue that without such 'protections', workers can be forced to join unions, which is not true and is illegal under federal law and has been since 1947."

If Politico's White wants to have an honest debate about unions, rather than giving Republican taking points, maybe he could explain why it's fair for someone to benefit from the work and negotiating and legal representation a union is forced to give that employee, without that employee paying for those benefits, rather than the union being allowed to tell them that if they don't want to join, they're on their own. I thought Republicans loved the idea of someone "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps." But now they think it's perfectly acceptable for a union to protect them and pay legal fees and negotiate for fair wages for them, without them paying to make sure that union has enough money to conduct business?

And as much as I really like Joan Walsh and Joy Reid and agree with the points they made during this segment, they missed the ball by not making that exact point to White when he was so terribly concerned about the choices and benefits of these workers and whether it's unfair to have them pay their union dues or not. Here is the question he should have to answer. Is it fair to force a union to represent free riders who want representation, but refuse to pay for it?

I thought Republicans were all about personal responsibility. I guess not if it means someone being allowed to freeload from a union so you can bust them financially. Then it's perfectly fine in the name of "freedom."

If anyone would like to try to get White to respond as to why he thinks his comments here were acceptable and that unions should be forced to spend money representing those who don't want to pay to join, and why those that refuse to join should reap the benefits of what those unions negotiate for, you can let him know at @morningmoneyben.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (158)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1501)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

At a so-called "storm relief event" on Tuesday, GOP hopeful Mitt Romney repeatedly refused to answer questions about his promise to the federal agency responsible for responding to disasters like Hurricane Sandy, which devastated much of the east coast this week.

"TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA," according to a pool report. "He ignored the [questions] but they are audible on cam. The music stopped at points and the [questions] would have been audible to him."

A subsequent pool report elaborated on some of the specific questions the Republican presidential nominee refused to answer:

"Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?" a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.
Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

"Gov are you going to see some storm damage?"

"Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?"

"Gov you've been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?"

As The Huffington Post's Ryan Grimm noted on Sunday, Romney had pledged to "absolutely" abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency when asked about it by CNN's John King during a Republican primary debate earlier this year.

"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction," the former Massachusetts governor said, adding that it would be "even better" to "send it back to the private sector."

At the time, King even pressed Romney on whether he would completely eliminate federal disaster relief.

"We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," the candidate insisted."It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."

Campaign spokesperson Amanda Henneberg on Monday reiterated that Romney still believed that disaster relief should be left up to the states.

"Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions," Henneberg said. "As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA."

The Grio managing editor Joy Reid told MSNBC's Alex Wagner on Tuesday that Romney might have a good reason for wanting to avoid questions about FEMA less than a week before the election.

"Do you know who likes FEMA? Florida," Reid explained. "Florida loves FEMA and Florida is a very close state and Florida has had to rely on FEMA a lot because a lot of hurricanes have hit there. And you know who else is about to like FEMA? West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina. I mean, there are a lot of states where people say, 'I don't like the government, I don't want the government in my life.' But when something like this happens, you know who you want in your life? The government."



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (183)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (267)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

From this Monday's Now with Alex Wagner on MSNBC, former Bush and McCain adviser, Nicolle Wallace was asked about Jeb Bush's recent statement that "both Ronald Reagan and his father George H. W. Bush would have had a difficult time getting nominated by today's ultra-conservative Republican Party."

Rather than give a straight answer, she punted, proceeded to spout some of their typical nonsense about who's for or against "big government," touting what Bush did to our public education system as "reform" and praising the prescription drug giveaway to big pharma as some great achievement for seniors. And then out of the blue, she made the claim that it's just terribly cynical and inaccurate to claim that Republicans will have to suppress the vote in order to win the next election.

If she or any of her fellow Republicans actually believe that, then why do they keep doing just that? Alex Wagner's show on MSNBC is nearly as bad as Morning Joe or Andrea Mitchell's show. Lots of right wing talking points like this one are spread on there daily, usually with little or no push back. Wallace didn't get any during this show and no one bothered to point out to her that her former boss, stole a couple of elections by suppressing the vote and caging voters in Florida and Ohio among other states. And they're going to keep doing it until somebody finally puts a stop to it.

It's amazing to me that after we're seeing Florida's Governor Rick Scott just be completely brazen where he doesn't even care if everyone knows what he's doing with purging his voting rolls, this woman can come on the air and make the statements she did with a straight face. If there's anyone who knows a thing or two about being cynical, I'd say it's Nicolle Wallace. But then you'd have to be to work for the likes of George W. Bush or John McCain for that matter.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (537)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3367)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

From Raw Story -- Chris Hayes: Breitbart ‘a serial manipulator of the media’

On MSNBC’s The Last Word Tuesday night, Chris Hayes questioned why conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart was allowed to “spout off” on CNN about Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Breitbart implied Tuesday that Weiner had been engaged in inappropriate relationships with multiple young women.

“Am I wrong in my level of outrage that this person who has been so discredited, so many times, is such a serial manipulator of the media is allowed to just come on and spout off like this?” he asked.

“Andrew Breitbart is not known to be the most self-reflective, remorseful person,” his guest, Huffington Post’s Alex Wagner added. “I think in that same interview he talked about the Shirley Sherrod story being a liberal attack on him.”

As they also noted, Wagner didn't think Rep. Weiner did himself any favors by refusing to answer direct questions during his press conference today and I agree. That said, it was pretty astounding to see CNN going after him the way they did on the word of a known liar like Breitbart and allowing Breitbart on the air earlier today to attack him, where even their legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin called out his own network for their behavior.

Following Breitbart’s interview, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told host Randi Kaye that he regretted the network allowed Breitbart to make those claims.

“What Andrew Breitbart was insinuating about [Weiner] with young girls and stuff is outrageous,” Toobin said. “And frankly, it’s too bad that he got to say that stuff on CNN.”

Media Matters has more on CNN's hackery here -- One Year After Debunking Breitbart's "Slander," CNN Welcomes Him Back As Newsmaker.