Posted on 08/24/2011 8:58:12 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Guest hosting for Chris Matthews on Tuesday, MSNBC's Chris Jansing derided Rick Perry, wondering if the Republican presidential candidate is "too far off even for the GOP?"
Jansing, who normally hosts supposedly straight news coverage for the cable network, attempted to generate controversy over statements Perry made on civil rights. A MSNBC graphic for the segment, mocked, "I have a scheme."
According to Jansing, Perry's problem answer came in "comparing" the civil rights to cutting corporate tax rates. Here's Perry's full answer:
RICK PERRY: America's gone a long way from the standpoint of civil rights and thank God we have. I mean, we've gone from a country that's made great strides in issues of civil rights. I think we all can be proud of that.
And as we go forward, America needs to be about freedom. It needs to be about freedom from over taxation, freedom from over-litigation, freedom from over-regulation. And Americans, regardless of social and economic background is, they need to know that they can come to America and you got a chance to have any dream come true, because the economic climate is going to be improved
An indignant Jansing huffed, "So, does Perry really believe African-Americans' struggle for civil rights is comparable to the GOP's fight for lower taxes?"
Talking to Alex Wagner of the liberal Huffington Post, she slammed, "Is this ignorance?...Is this insensitivity?"
Piling on Republican, Jansing marveled, "I mean, when you look at this series of quotes from [Perry's] book, some of which he's backing off on, you have to sit back as a political analyst and say, is he too far off even for the GOP?"
Jansing is supposed to be a straight forward journalist. But, apparently, guest-hosting Hardball turns MSNBC's reporters into just another liberal anchor.
A transcript....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
What is a PlainBOT?
NO RINOs.
NO PerryCARE.
NO RomneyCARE.
No ObamaCARE.
Perry received $6000 from Merck, while others gave millions. I believe his donations that election cycle totaled $20 million.
Texas has very different rules for governor’s races than the National rules. We’re all limited to $2500 a piece or $5000 a couple, corporations included.
Don’t forget that the Governor’s EO publicized the “opt out” and changed the system from the legislature’s previous implementation of a paper-only request to making it available on line. That online form still stands.
It is not the amount of money.
It is the RINO sellout of Perry.
It is not important what was FORCED on the RINO Perry.
What is important is that HE attempted
to FORCE Merck’s untested vaccine on children
for Merck, selling Texas’ children as ‘lab rats’.
They are not, are they?
Who are you backing for POTUS 2012?
You realize he is a she right?
So if there is no plight equal to slavery in the US today, I guess we shouldn’t fight for anything, including greater freedom?
No, they are not lab rats, they are our children.
In February, 2007, http://lifeethics.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/texas-hpv-vaccine-2/ we had over 5 years of follow up, including 1200 girls 9-15 years old and 21,0000 others. We now have another 4 years, 55- 60 million doses, and a recommendation for boys. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm094042.htm
We are already seeing a decrease in abnormal paps.
There are no more adverse effects among those vaccinated than that found in the population that is not vaccinated.
The vaccine had been “recommended” by the ACIP in June, 2006, meaning that it would be paid for by the Vaccines for Children program, whether mandated or not. All girls who are covered by Medicaid, CHIPS, or who have no insurance for vaccines were already getting the vaccine free of charge to them, paid for by a mix of Federal and State funds.
The mandate would have pushed private insurance to pay for the vaccine.
You state an opinion which is not supported by anything other than that opinion.
LOL!
No, I never watch that show.
this is MSNBC... can you really be certain of that?
Palin may or may not endorse Perry, we will see, but to say the she is Perry's "one great last hope" is laughable considering Perry is already ahead in all the polls after only a week and a half. A Palin endorsement will seal the nomination up for Perry, that is for sure. If she endorses Bachmann or Cain instead that will help them but I can't see it rocketing them to the nod.
But that scenario is only if she doesn't run, and that remans to be seen.
But RINOs cannot do that, it seems.
Mandates by Executive Order (PerryCARE) are
not appropriate even when the Governor's office
is paid off. Ever.
No RINOs
Obama: the president who brought slavery back to the USA.
I think I have yet seen a Palin drone explain why Palin would be a great President based on her experience. They just think she has a pure heart and can do no wrong.
Part of what makes Perry appealing is he has a track record where he has made some mistakes and corrected them.
This is one reason Perry will win. Common sense and gut says Perry is the more tested and reliable candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.