Recruited By Mika, Guest Tries-But-Fails To Debunk Devastating Obama-Celebrity Ad

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

If you haven't seen the hilariously effective ad by Karl Rove's American Crossroads group that portrays Barack Obama as a celebrity president with a failed economic record, check it out in the video clip.

Mika Brzezinksi was clearly peeved at how well the ad was playing even with her liberal-dominated panel. After Obama fan Donny Deutsch, and no-conservative-he John Heilemann praised the ad, a Mika at wit's end sought to recruit HuffPo's Sam Stein to help her out. "Can you debunk some of the things in the ad?", she entreated. Stumbled Stein: "ah-h-h-h-h, sure, I guess." After offering a paltry defense that Joe Scarborough demolished, Stein was reduced to saying that Mika had invited him to try to debunk the ad, and that "I'm trying my best!"

View the amusing video here.

[carolinablonde]

ping

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Perot’s simple and profound truth, which would have saved America had we listened at the time:

“Giant Sucking Sound”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound

[brownsfan]

“Perot’s simple and profound truth, which would have saved America had we listened at the time:

“Giant Sucking Sound”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound";

I admit it, I voted for Perot, even though he did lose his mind at the end.

I share the disgust, Dole, McCain, Romney... all terrible. But I honestly believe Romney is the most malleable of that bunch. Oddly enough, the commies at Morning Joe made a good point, after playing the “Obama Celebrity” ad. Independents may be in the mood to look for someone vanilla, boring, you know... stable, to fix what Obama has ignored.

We could do worse than Romney... Obama.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Perot is a bit like Trump.

I first heard of Perot, with regard to something remarkable he did, when he was the strong-willed outspoken entrepreneur mogul and boss of EDS.

When Carter lost Iran, a couple of Perot’s employees were trapped in Tehran, as the situation deteriorated.

Perot himself, sent in mercenaries to rescue his employees and successfully brought them home. That’s astounding.

I’d vote for Perot now, if he ran. And I’d probably vote for Trump.

[Calvin Locke]

Does Mika seriously think people in 2012...

Normally, I'd say "look at the audience of pMSNBC...", but since it's Mika, she's hooked on the kool-aid with no sense of reality, so "Yes. she does."

[silverleaf]

OMG 4 terms

Well, FDR had WW2 and the German-Japan axis to rally people against, not George W. Bush, “the rich” and the Paul Ryan Budget

Let’s hope barry’s jiving on late night TV is not the modern equivalent of FDR’s fireside chats

(can I get an AMEN?)

[AnTiw1]

The blonde woman sounds both angry and afraid. Her god bleeds.

[Lancey Howard]

That’s pretty funny.

[CanuckYank]

Perot turned out to be a yellow bellied snake and Trump has NO one’s interests but his own at heart, and games the financial system to his personal advantage.

He is a genius huckster, slick as goose snot at promoting his own advancement at the expense of EVERYONE around him.

At least OB was honest about his intent to trash this country when elected. Trump can’t be trusted one millimeter to put the interests of the US before his personal ones.

(And BTW I too voted for Perot, much to my later regret.)

[copaliscrossing]

Do we use that same rule and give Obama a pass for rising prices and crappy employment and blame Boehner for all these problems? I like to stay some-what consistent.

Good try.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans only control 1/3 of the power structure in DC as of 2011 which isn't all that long ago. You can't do much with 1/3. You can do MORE with 2/3 and if you have the whole enchilada like Obummer and the socialist Rats did in 2007-2010 you can do a lot of damage that will take a while to undo and believe me you CANNOT do it with 1/3 of the power.

Perspective....it's a "must have" in situations like this. Some Freeper has a nice chart of Congressional control and the economy. It even denotes divided congresses and congresses with total control. It is a real eye opener and if the dumbed down sheeple could even get this concept instead of the "its ALL the president" drivel, it all becomes crystal clear that the Rats are BAD for this country. PERIOD. Especially when they get TOTAL control of Congress.

It seems to me that Republican Presidents view congress whether Democrat or Republican controlled with a lot more respect as representatives of the people, whereas Democrat Presidents view the Presidency and a means to cram their agenda down the throats of the people and those that represent the people.

DISCLAIMER: This doesn't mean that a few Republicans haven't went veering off the path here and there.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The fact of the matter is that the Republicans only control 1/3 of the power structure in DC as of 2011 which isn't all that long ago. You can't do much with 1/3. You can do MORE with 2/3 and if you have the whole enchilada like Obummer and the socialist Rats did in 2007-2010 you can do a lot of damage that will take a while to undo and believe me you CANNOT do it with 1/3 of the power.”

The same argument can be made by Dems in 2007 and 2008 when they took the House and had 51 in the Senate which is not a ruling majority. Just look what Republicans here said when Bush had 51 in the Senate,

In fact Pelosi (back then) was much smarter than Republicans (now). She did everything she could to allow voters to believe that Rs still controlled congress in 2008, and it worked and a part of the reason why she won so big that election.

In 2011 Dems did everything they could to point out that Republicans took over, Obama calls it the ‘Republican congress’.
And Republicans walked right into that trap, and every-other one. They are so beaten down they are working with Obama on some things like that ‘jobs’ bill and have given up on any real stands.

I do like the House paying for tuition loans with Obama-care, that was smart. I dont want to be all negative. Pelosi called it 'another attack on women' LOL.

I like to avoid flipping my arguments 180 degrees everytime power changes hands, as say Hannity does. That would make me dizzy.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Do we use that same rule and give Obama a pass for rising prices and crappy employment and blame Boehner for all these problems? I like to stay some-what consistent.

Are you kidding me? There is a provable record of what the Dem-completely-controlled Congress passed from 2007 to 2010 and the actual effects of such legislation. The reason that we get creamed is because there is NO MESSAGE out there citing the relationship between the Pelosi-Reid Congress and every economic metric. Most simply accept the premise of "Obama inherited an awful economy" and then attempt to say, "Yeah, but now how is it?"

Republicans right now have JUST the House. In 2007, ALL of Congress was controlled by the Democrats. That is a big difference.

[copaliscrossing]

I like to avoid flipping my arguments 180 degrees everytime power changes hands, as say Hannity does. That would make me dizzy.

The same argument can be made by Dems in 2007 and 2008 when they took the House and had 51 in the Senate which is not a ruling majority.

No need to get dizzy when you look at it in a historical perspective and get out of the minutiae.

And I will cede that the way the Rats use power is much different than the Republicans but it must be really nice when you have most public media outlets watching your back for you. The Republicans have to walk on eggshells when trying to frame the argument and Reagan was the master of that. I will also point out a bit of deception on your part with the 51 Rat Senators in 2007. While essentially true, please remember they had 2 other "Independents" caucus with them giving them 53 members of their "caucus".

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Are you kidding me? There is a provable record of what the Dem-completely-controlled Congress passed from 2007 to 2010 and the actual effects of such legislation”

You seem to have blacked out the 2008 election, a huge loss for Republicans. Dems went from 51 to 58 (later 60) in the Senate. Bad memories?

In 2007 and 2008 dems had 51 in the Senate which is not a ruling majority. Nearly all Republicans (here anyway) said that 51 in the Senate is not a ruling majority when that is what Bush had in his first two years,

I like to avoid flipping my arguments 180 degrees every-time power changes hands, as say Hannity does. That would make me dizzy.

YES, I KNOW DEMS DO THAT ALL THE TIME TOO. Obama and Dems will say anything to get what they want.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”And I will cede that the way the Rats use power is much different than the Republicans but it must be really nice when you have most public media outlets watching your back for you.”

Most of the time but not all of the time.

watching Republicans operate since 2011 has not been fun. They walk into every trap and dont work together as a team.

I get the impression that they are finally learning now, given their student loan bill paid by Obama-care. That is how Dems fight.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”While essentially true, please remember they had 2 other “Independents” caucus with them giving them 53 members of their “caucus”.

Just looked it up and I WAS RIGHT, they had 49 Dems and 2 independents = 51. And Cheney made it a tie.

This is far from the 'clear majority' that EoL claims they had.

[sickoflibs]

sorry, Cheney made it 51 Dems to 50 Rs not a exact tie but an effective one given they need 60 to pass almost anything.

[copaliscrossing]

In 2007 and 2008 dems had 51 in the Senate which is not a ruling majority.

Did you read the part about the 2 "Independents" caucusing with the Rats giving them effectively 53? I'm confused now that that fact is in the conversation, why the 51 part was repeated?

[copaliscrossing]

Sorry... my bad... 49 + 2 made 51. Not 51 + 2 = 53. My apologies.

[longtermmemmory]

Mika should stick to wearing tight sweaters. That is her primary and sole function.