PBS Newshour: Shields and Brooks on GOP Candidates' Plausibility, Egypt's Bottom-up Revolution

[alp227]

Run time: 13:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyibmLQofI   Posted on YouTube: February 12, 2011 By YouTube Member: PBS Views on YouTube: 1947   Posted on DU: February 13, 2011 By DU Member: alp227 Views on DU: 1177

 


Mark Shields (the liberal analyst) criticized the CPAC speakers for not discussing Egypt: "They want to beat Barack Obama, but they don't have anybody. What impressed me the most of all there was what they did not discuss. As the world was dominated and riveted on what was going on in Egypt, they didn't even address it in their speeches." Why? Because of a lack of confidence: "The only one who was really critical that I saw was Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, who basically took the line that has been developed by both Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. And that was that the -- Barack Obama, by not supporting Hosni Mubarak in his hour of need, was turning his back on a great ally.

"And that -- that became the position. But there was nobody there really celebrating the moment of freedom and taking that, picking up that banner. And that -- that -- I think that does belie a lack of confidence, surefootedness, on a terribly important issue.

And on the 2012 election:

The lack of structure in this race, Jim, is really fascinating. Republicans always have a front-runner. I mean, in 1980, it was Ronald Reagan. It was his turn. In '88, it was George Herbert Walker Bush's turn. In '96, it was Bob Dole's turn. George W. Bush leaped to the fore. But then, in 2008, they returned. It was John McCain's turn.

I mean, the Democrats are all over the lot. They just -- they meet somebody, and they nominate him. Barack Obama, come on up here. I mean, George McGovern, who are you?

But the Republicans -- and there is no front-runner. And that really does leave a sense of uncertainty about the party.

[Enthusiast]

1. I wonder if the GOP really wants

to gain the presidency. Why invite all the myriad problems and blame that goes along with the office?

[Can of Whoop-ass]

3. As seen in the Bushtard crowd;

just pass the cowardly sissies and traitors onto our American Democrats like Banana Republican Commies, do! Then steal taxpayer money to build a statue to "re-invent" Reagan and Bush as the Champions the Pug voters really wanted in the first place!
Don't have a Kennedy? Paint Reagan as the Republican Kennedy and build the statue with a fake quote upon it's rock, made weeks before it is attributed to Reagan ("Tear down this wall...") and re-invent him as their Cavior! Cavior?
Saint Reagan the Darwin Cave-Ape, cannibal! Their Cavior!
Oh, I saw what he and they were up to back then, that making a statement like that after the Germans were already tearing down the Wall, they could use that speech in the future to 'convince' us he really did desroy the Communists, which he didn't. Osama bin Ladin did and he destroyed Bush-tard, too. Destroyed Bush-tard real good. The little coward ran from Vietnam, Panama and Iraq.

[ReggieVeggie]

2. Before he won primaries, McCain's candidacy was supposedly the weakest of the bunch

How can anyone say that in 2008 it was John McCain's turn? He won because Republicans didn't like all the other "front-runners" that the media said would win going away.

[RBInMaine]

4. He was the "establishment" candidate. That's what he means. The R's have a real split this time

between their utlra-right TeaPuke base and the "establishment" types being Thune, Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and perhaps Barber. The "Republican establishment" and the "Tea Party Fundamentalists" are going to duke it out, and it will be very fun to watch.

[suzanner]

5. Cpac didn't discuss Egypt- either they know they don't know or the talking points haven't come down

No one was going to go on record as being as ignorant as they are (and complacent in their ignorance) or making up their own spin before they receive their spin from the sociopaths that pull their strings.
Sheilds and Brooks, while above average, give such a broad-brush to issues, reaching simplified impressionistic conclusions. Meanwhile, everywhere else the RW will dig into every minutia to bolster their RW spin.
Brooks is still an idiot putting out contrived information, which is why I don't watch PBS news anymore.
PBS may lose federal funding entirely, fitting in the fact that they continue to put out RW talking points as if serious and credible, like Brooks.