DOWNLOADS: (208)

PLAYS: (2369)

Embed

CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Wednesday told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that he could be "on the wrong side of history" after he defended the Boy Scouts' ban on LGBT members by suggesting that homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles.

As the Boy Scouts of American national board was set to decide if local organizations would be allowed to include gay members on Wednesday, O'Brien asked Perkins if there was "a possibility that you're wrong" because "historically there have been core values that in retrospect turned out to be flawed?"

"You're comparing immutable characteristics with characteristics that are not immutable," Perkins explained. "In part, their policy has been to protect boys, to create obviously not a perfect environment, but one that is in line with what the parents want, to ensure their children are safe when they go out in these scouting activities."

O'Brien wondered "why it would make a difference to open up scouting to people who are gay" because the Boy Scouts had already released 14,500 pages of so-called "perversion files" showing years of sexual abuse on minors that had been covered up by the organization.

"Why would I let a man who is attracted to other males go camping with my boys?" Perkins argued.

"A pedophile has sex with children," O'Brien pointed out. "Are you saying that someone who's gay is a pedophile?"

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (243)

PLAYS: (2842)

Embed

CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Thursday scolded Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and told him he should know better than to try to link assault weapons to "black violence on blacks" because most recent mass killings had been carried out by white men.

Following National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre's Wednesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he opposed universal background checks at gun shows, O'Brien asked Grassley why not support something that seemed like an obvious part of the solution.

Grassley argued that universal background checks would burden people trying to buy a gun on Sunday.

"Obviously we have some background checks, it's how encompassing do you do it?" he explained. "Do you do it for one father selling to a son or another relative or how do you cover everything? I think that's the issue. And also, the extent to which you have private sales on Sunday between relatives, and maybe you can't access the system all the time and as fast as you want to do it."

O'Brien pressed Grassley on why he opposed an assault weapons ban, when even the temporary 1994 ban had reduced the number of crimes involving those firearms by between 17 percent and 72 percent, according to a 2004 study by the University of Pennsylvania.

"I guess you can argue over numbers," Grassley replied, adding that the Columbine High School massacre had occurred during the 1994 ban.

"Part of the argument is if you start now that there's potential down the road to make some of a difference," the CNN host pointed out. "Sometimes I hear the argument that you're never going to get rid of all the guns or you're never going to get rid of all the assault weapons. It seems to me to be a little bit of a specious argument."

O'Brien then wondered why Grassley was also against a "common-sense kind of thing" like tasking the Center for Disease Control with studying gun violence.

"The Center for Disease Control is all about studying diseases, and ownership of guns is not a disease," Grassley insisted.

"Public health?" O'Brien noted. "If you look at a city like Chicago, where there has been just massive, massive deaths from gun violence. That's not a public health issue?"

"Well, I think that's the place in our society where you would study the issue of black violence on blacks," the Iowa Republican asserted. "Most of those guns are pistols and not the guns that you're talking about on this program."

"Well, certainly when we are looking at assault weapons, I know that you know that most of the perpetrators have been white men," O'Brien remarked while noting that the CDC had spent $2.5 million studying gun violence in 1993.

"I would think that anybody who wants to figure out how to stop people from dying in gun violence -- whether it's suicide, whether it's small children being killed in a massacre, whether it's domestic violence -- that just studying the issue would be a good idea for everybody," she continued.

"I said I agree with you because that's part of the mental health issue that we have to deal with, yet, during this debate," Grassley replied. "Because in everyone of these instances that keeps cropping up, where mass killings, people had mental health issues. They shouldn't have had guns in the first place."

DOWNLOADS: (242)

PLAYS: (3064)

Embed

CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Friday advised former Republican National Committee Chairman Mel Martinez that Republicans would need to do more that just encourage African-Americans and Hispanics to get to know them better because "they know you and they decided they don't like you."

Speaking with Martinez before the the Republican Party's winter meeting continued in North Carolina on Friday, she noted that the party had launched a website asking for suggestions but wondered how it would be turned into "real change."

"Well, I think first of all, it's a great reassessment taking place within the party and I think it's very, very healthy," Martinez explained. "I'm really quite encouraged, not only by the website and the fact we're reaching out to people to input because I think we've lost the ability to communicate well and I think that's a beginning."

O'Brien pointed out that South Carolina committeeman Glenn McCall, who is part of a task force charge with moving the party forward, had suggested to The Wall Street Journal that the problem was that minorities "simply don't know us."

"In many ways, we're at square one," McCall said. "There are large portions of the population -- African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, young voters -- who simply don't know us. We have to change that."

"Is it that they don't know you? Meaning you as the GOP," O'Brien asked Martinez. "Or is that they know you and they decided they don't like you?"

"Look, I think there's a communication gap and I think that our party has done a poor job reaching out to these particular groups," the former U.S. senator insisted. "And I think this is about communicating our message."

"But on some other things you might say are core to the GOP message, I think you're going to have a challenge," the CNN host explained, pointing to the Republican Party's policy of keeping taxes low for wealthy Americans while cutting government programs that help the poor.

"Does that mean that you take the assessment and then you change policy potentially?" she wondered.

"No, I don't think you change principles, but I think you change the conversation," Martinez declared. "We shouldn't be talking about protecting the wealthy from raising taxes. We should be talking about a tax code that promotes economic growth, and that lifts all boats."

"So, the bottom line is that it's about taxes, it's about an overbearing government but it's really about how we communicate it. Are we really protecting a certain segment of taxpayers or are we looking to have a tax code that really promotes economic growth?"

DOWNLOADS: (161)

PLAYS: (706)

Embed

Tea party-backed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) on Wednesday excused Walmart's decision to decline an invitation to the White House to discuss gun violence because "they are trying to grow the economy."

The nation's largest seller of munitions told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that it refused to participate in Vice President Joe Biden's task force because of a scheduling conflict.

Walmart also explained to CNN's Christine Romans that the company had already scheduled month sales meetings in Bentonville, Arkansas and none of its 2.2 million employees could make it to Washington.

CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Thursday told Johnson that "when people tell me they have a scheduling snafu, I just don't believe them."

"They're probably out there trying to grow the economy," the Wisconsin Republican shrugged. "You know, they're concentrating on their business and I'll take them at their word."

"I think the concern is -- from people who actually do want to protect gun rights -- is that this is a fast-moving train to try and restrict those gun rights," Johnson added. "So, people are suspicious of that."

"From my standpoint, if they've got sales meetings, those things are probably pretty important. They are trying to grow our economy and that's a good thing."

New Yorker magazine Washington Correspondent Ryan Lizza pointed out that Walmart had a fleet of corporate jets in Bentonville and could easily send someone to D.C. for meetings.

"It's just a slap in the face to publicly say you've been invited to the White House and you're not going," he explained. "Whenever someone in politics says it's a scheduling issue it means they don't want to be there."

During his appearance on CNN's Starting Point panel on Wednesday, Lizza also asked Johnson to respond conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who recently asserted that liberals were trying to "normalize pedophilia" by legalizing same sex marriage.

"Senator, Rush Limbaugh and pedophilia?" Lizza pressed. "What do you got?"

"Not gonna happen," Johnson replied.

UPDATE (2:15 p.m. ET): A Walmart spokesperson on Wednesday said that the company had "underestimated the expectation to attend the meeting on Thursday in person, so we are sending an appropriate representative to participate."

DOWNLOADS: (443)

PLAYS: (2927)

Embed

I'm sure Florida's Gov. Rick Scott will come around on some reasonable gun control laws about the same time he decides to actually do something for the voters of his state other than disenfranchise them with long lines at the polls -- which is never. He did his best to feign concern for both issues on Soledad O'Brien's show this Wednesday morning: CNN Anchor Blasts Florida Governor For Ducking Gun Control, Demands Action Before ‘I Cover Another Tragedy’:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), who has an A rating from the National Rifle Association, refused to say if he would support stronger gun safety measures in the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Appearing on CNN’s Starting Point on Wednesday, Scott repeatedly dodged host Soledad O’Brien’s specific questions about which reforms, if any, he would support, at one point responding to a query about limiting assault rifles with a trite, “I support the Second Amendment.” O’Brien repeatedly pressed Scott for a more detailed reply, but the Florida governor claimed that the nation must “respect the families, mourn their losses” but avoid a detailed conversation about what can be done to prevent such tragedies in the future:[...]

During the GOP convention in Florida, Scott made headlines when he rejected a request by Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn (D) to temporarily ban guns in the downtown area.

I'd like to see someone ask this guy how in the hell it is that a crook like himself ever managed to get elected as the governor of Florida in the first place. I'm not holding my breath for that to ever happen though.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (137)

PLAYS: (884)

Embed

It never fails. Every time we have another one of these mass shootings in the United States, someone in the corporate media is going to book this guy to carry water for the NRA and their desire to just turn us into the wild west and eliminate all gun safety laws. Gun advocate John Lott found himself getting some push back on his views from CNN's Soledad O'Brien this Monday morning though, unlike some of his interviews when he's in friendlier territory, like Fox:

CNN Anchor Destroys Gun Advocate’s Call To Abolish Gun Safety Laws: Victims’ Families ‘Would Be Stunned’:

The debate on gun control has been re-inflamed by the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT on Friday. President Obama has signaled that he may consider new legislation to prevent more attacks. Most gun rights advocates, however, have either stayed silent or insisted that the teachers at the school should have been armed. Gun rights advocate John Lott, the leading academic behind the claim that more guns result in less violence, appeared on CNN’s Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien to advance his pet theory.

O’Brien attacked Lott for his claim that Friday’s shooting means we should do away with all restrictions on guns. Lott argued that bans on guns in certain areas attract criminals to those areas: [...]

Lott’s claim that more guns result in less violence is popular with gun control advocates, but it’s simply not true. Lott’s research methods have been frequently called into question, and other experts have dismissed his work as “junk science.” As the Washington Post points out, concealed weapon bans have not increased the crime rate, as pro-gun advocates claimed, and there is no solid evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce violence.

Media Matters has more on Lott here: Who Is Gun Advocate John Lott?:

Gun researcher John Lott has made numerous media appearances in the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. to argue against the enactment of gun violence prevention measures. While Lott uses his media platform to push a multitude of statistics -- often from his own research -- he has been thoroughly discredited as a serious academic researcher. Read on...

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (267)

PLAYS: (2857)

Embed

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) on Tuesday faced tough questions from CNN host Soledad O'Brien for his plan to cut the food stamp program and "hurt people who need food," including 20 percent of his own constituents in Alabama.

Speaking to Sessions in an interview on CNN's Starting Point, O'Brien wondered if cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should be on the table as part of the so-called fiscal cliff negotiations.

"Absolutely," Sessions insisted. "This month was a record increase in food stamp participation at a time when unemployment is declining."

"But there are people who say if you're doing cuts, you invariably hurt people who need food," O'Brien observed. "It's 61 percent of households in your state have children who are recipients of the food program that they're on."

"Soledad, this program has been growing out of control at an incredible rate and there are a lot of people receiving benefits who do not qualify and should not receive them," Sessions remarked. "No child, no person who needs food should be denied that food. Nobody proposes that. We are talking about an amendment that I offered that would have reduced and closed a loophole of $8 billion when we would spend $800 billion was opposed by saying it would help -- it would leave people hungry in America, but it would have only eliminated abuses in the program."

The CNN host, however, pointed out that the Alabama Republican had voted twice to grow the program and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities had determined that "SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program."

"People highlight the program as actually not having a lot of fraud," O'Brien explained. "Most people who are on it are not somehow working the system. They're just hungry people."

"That's not accurate," Sessions replied. "They're counting the computer system fraud error rate, but they're not out counting the real people who are filing false incomes or haven't reported changes in their income."

O'Brien continued to press Sessions, noting that "the problem could be in the reverse" because less than 70 percent of the people who qualify for food stamps were using the program.

"I guess when you are thinking of things to cut, people basically say, why are you trying to balance the budget on people who are making under $23,000 a year?" she asked. "I think that range, roughly, is the national average for what a family of four would get on food stamps. So, why not cut something else? There are other things that could be on the table before you pick a program that is feeding the nations poor children."

"I say all programs need to be examined in this government," Sessions shot back. "This government is wasting money every day. There is no doubt about that. And food stamps is a program that was totally exempted from any oversight when it has gone up four times in the last ten years in the amount we spend."

"Two of those times you voted for it, sir!" O'Brien interrupted. "Some people would say it's growing because people are hurting."

"I voted for the [agriculture] bill that had that in it, probably so," Sessions shrugged.

DOWNLOADS: (102)

PLAYS: (629)

Embed

From this Wednesday's Starting Point, Republicans aren't doing a very good job defending themselves for wanting to keep most Americans and our economy hostage to retain those tax cuts for the richest among us: GOP Rep. Has No Answer For Why Republicans Won’t Vote For Middle-Class Tax Cuts:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, could not explain during an interview on Wednesday why House Republicans are holding middle- and low-income tax cuts hostage to the cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the fiscal cliff showdown. When pressed by CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Hensarling first cited complaints about spending, but when O’Brien asked why he couldn’t set spending levels aside and compromise on taxes first, he had nothing but unrelated talking points: [...]

Hensarling’s invocation of Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) proposal is not only not an answer to O’Brien’s question — as it doesn’t explain what’s wrong with the simple solution O’Brien poses — but it’s also not anything close to balanced. While Boehner’s plan contains an array of draconian spending cuts, it doesn’t propose any actual increased revenue, relying instead on the same voodoo as the Romney tax plan.

As Zack noted, his analysis on the electoral math is also wrong and irrelevant.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (288)

PLAYS: (2817)

Embed

Tea party-backed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) says that former Republican President Ronald Reagan is responsible for the country's economic success under former Democratic President Bill Clinton and the American people "don't really understand" economic growth.

Johnson told CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Tuesday that it would not be necessary to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent of earners because the country could collect "$750 billion of added revenue through economic growth" without changing tax rates or closing loopholes if the economy continues to recover.

O'Brien noted that the Republican Party was in the tenuous position of opposing the will of the majority of Americans who would like to see tax rates go up on the wealthiest.

"I would imagine that 98 percent of the American population would be in favor of that because we haven't made the case for economic growth," Johnson explained. "The American people really doesn't understand that economic growth is ten times more effective."

Democratic analyst Bob Shrum pointed out that Johnson's assertion that higher tax rates on top earners hurt economic growth was faulty because "under Bill Clinton, we had taxes at 39.6 percent and we created 22 million new jobs. We cut [tax rates] under George Bush and we had almost no net job creation."

"Why do you guys keep making the argument that low taxes for the richest people in the country are the key to job creation when history refutes that?" Shrum wondered.

"We could go do a history lesson, but I would argue that Clinton's economic recovery really dates back to Ronald Reagan," Johnson declared. "He cut rates 28 percent. Listen, I started my business in the '80s, so did Apple, so did Microsoft. Those businesses came to fruition in the '90s. And President Clinton, together with the peace dividend -- also produced by Ronald Reagan -- that's what created that economic engine."

In fact, Apple, Microsoft and Johnson's company, Pacur LLC, were all founded in the 1970s during the administrations of former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

The Wisconsin Republican continued by insisting that he would have to see cuts to Obama's health care reform law, Medicare and Social Security before he would even consider raising tax rates on the rich.

"The other problem that is holding our economy back is the explosion of regulations," he added. "And I don't see that we're going to reform these agencies -- the way that you reform them is there you actually cut their budgets because that will force them to focus on the most important parts of the economy to have effective regulations. So, I'd go after the agencies, I would put structural reform to save -- and that's the important point -- to save Social Security and Medicare. And we've got to address this health care law because it is a disaster."

"This is Fantasy Land," Shrum shot back. "It's like saying Ronald Reagan invented the Apple iPad. It's crazy. Obamacare is not going to be on the table."

"Here's the bottom line: President Obama, show us your plan," Johnson concluded.

"He gave you a plan," Shrum quipped. "And his plan is not to repeal Obamacare. Not going to happen. You lost the election, buddy."

DOWNLOADS: (74)

PLAYS: (253)

Embed

After House Speaker John Boehner made his first counter offer to President Obama during this stalemate over the so-called "fiscal cliff," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) did his best to give Boehner and his disingenuous offer some cover.

As host Soledad O'Brien pointed out, the math doesn't add up and she pushed back at Coburn's assertion that John Boehner was citing a "plan" from Erskine Bowles. As John already told us here, even Bowles himself called Speaker Boehner out for that one.

That didn't stop the Senator from attempting to paint their proposal as some sort of reasonable compromise, which it's not. Coburn also used this as an opportunity to push his yearly exercise and his latest report, titled "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous."

As Marie Burns explained after The New York Times editors praised Coburn's report, Coburn’s plan is anything but populist:

The editors do note, as an aside, that “the senator remains opposed to raising tax rates on the rich,” but they drop that factoid without further remark. That aside, it turns out, is more important than the editors let on. Perhaps they would have found Coburn’s populism less convincing had they read Charles Pierce’s take on Coburn’s motives. In his Esquire blog, Pierce writes:

The problem, of course, is that, even if you believe Coburn is sincere, and not using this as a dodge to avoid putting the top rate back where it belongs, every one of these loopholes can be recreated in a heartbeat when the ‘millionaires and billionaires’ and their tax lawyers get a hold of whatever ‘reform’ passes to close them.

Oh, and another thing. The New York Times editors don’t even mention this nugget from the last paragraph of Coburn’s cover letter: …

we expect everyone to contribute and to demonstrate personal responsibility. Government policies intended to mainstream wealth redistribution are undermining these principles.

Coburn expects “everyone to contribute”? What does that mean? Here’s a translation: Flat Tax. Tom Coburn is a member of the Congressional Flat Tax Caucus. This summer, in response to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial writer’s question, a spokesperson for Coburn replied, “The senator ” would prefer to get rid of all subsidies and move toward a flat tax .”

Loopholes or no, we have a progressive federal income tax. The wealthy pay at a higher rate than do lower income taxpayers. The rate is not progressive enough, and surely the loopholes Coburn highlights mitigate the income tax’s progressive aspect. But to move from a progressive tax, which is what the income tax was intended to be and always has been, to a flat tax, would change the very purpose and concept of the federal income tax. It would also work an immediate hardship on poor and middle class Americans. [...]

So yes, it’s pretty easy to agree with Tom Coburn’s zeal for cutting tax loopholes for the rich. But the editors of the New York Times misled their readers by suggesting that Coburn had the “less fortunate” in mind when he compiled his report. The editors had a duty to tell us that Coburn’s agenda doesn’t stop with closing loopholes, loopholes that can be reopened at the whim of Congress or the ingenuity of a tax lawyer. The premise that underlies Coburn’s plan is anything but populist. It is not born out of a concern for “the less fortunate.”

This is nothing new for Coburn. Here's more from Jon Perr on his appearance on Charlie Rose's show last year: Coburn Turns to Myth-Making on the Debt:

At a time when the federal tax burden is at its lowest since 1950, Coburn like his GOP colleagues refused to countenance raising new tax revenue. And when fellow Gangsta Dick Durbin balked at Coburn’s demand to slash another $150 billion from Medicare on top of the $400 billion pledged by President Obama, Coburn stormed out.

Now, Coburn is back, pushing his plan co-authored by Joe Lieberman to drain $600 billion from Medicare over the next decade. Those savings come from raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, means-testing wealthier beneficiaries, adding new co-pays and a $550 deductible, and instituting a new $7,500 maximum for “out of pocket” expenses.

Go read the rest of both posts, but it's just more of the same from the Koch brothers backed Coburn and his cohorts in the GOP. They know who they're looking out for and it sure isn't the working class in America.

The one thing I was grateful for with this interview is that it was Soledad O'Brien, who was filling in for Erin Burnett on CNN. At least Coburn got some push back on a number of his assertions, but sadly it didn't stop him from being allowed to tell a ton of lies that weren't challenged before he got off the air.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »