Politico: MSNBC canceled three shows — “The Cycle,” “Now with Alex Wagner” and “The Ed Show” — as part of the push from opinion back toward "hard news."
Hard news? I didn't know if I should laugh or puke. MSNBC is giving Chris Matthews a "thumbs up" while getting rid of Ed Schultz. That is total BS.
For a supposedly "left-leaning/progressive" cable news channel, many of MSNBC's talking heads seem to be overly (and overtly) devoted to Hillary Clinton — who is a "Third Way" Democrat, and not all that "liberal" or "progressive" — especially on her stance on economic issues, and especially when compared to those of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Yet, some MSNBC talking heads and their guests have been bashing Senator Bernie Senators — even more so than CNN, who is more ideology neutral (but sometimes right-leaning) or Fox News, who is very far-right and ultra-conservative. The MSNBC exceptions are usually Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell (and their stand-in hosts).
The biggest fan of the Hillary/Obama Democratic Party Machine coalition is Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Why does he (on a "liberal" cable news show) trash Bernie Sanders? Maybe because, he, like many others in the media, are advocating for the agendas of the 6 corporations that controls 90% of the news; and Bernie Sanders would make them pay their fair share of taxes. Unlike GE, who owns MSNBC, who sometimes pays no corporate tax at all.
But it's not just media pundits like Chris Matthews. Many pro-Hillary pundits all across the spectrum — and even some "Third Way" pro-corporate Democrats in Congress — have been trying to convince the American public that Senator Bernie Sanders has no chance at all of beating Hillary Clinton in the primary. Senator Claire McCaskill recently complained that the media has been too easy on him, and that they never called him a "socialist" (although, the media almost always does).
Some in the "liberal" media want us to believe that all of Senator Bernie Sanders' support comes from "white liberal" voters (implying that he has little support from minority groups). Of course, that's not true either — and H. A. Goodman at the Huffingtion Post writes a few posts thoroughly debunking these pro-corporate politicians and their media talking heads and their over-paid bosses.
Recently former Democratic Senator Barney Frank (co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank bill to reform the banks) wrote an oped at Politico: "Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie" where he attempted to make a case that a long primary campaign (meaning, a primary in which Hillary is being contested by Bernie) will erode any chance the Democrats have of beating the GOP nominee in the 2016 general election. (Read some good analysis at the Daily Kos of Barney Frank's op-ed piece here). To bolster his argument, Barney Frank had also defended Hillary's stance on the banks by writing:
"Without any substance, some argue that she [Hillary] has been insufficiently committed to economic and social reform — for example, that she is too close to Wall Street, and consequently soft on financial regulation, and unwilling to support higher taxation on the super-rich. This is wholly without basis. Well before the Sanders candidacy began to draw attention, she spoke out promptly in criticism of the appropriations rider that responded to the big banks’ wish list on derivative trading. She has spoken thoughtfully about further steps against abuses and in favor of taxing hedge funds ..."
Below is a short segment from Chris Matthews on MSNBC with his guest Barney Frank discussing his op-ed in Politico. Regarding Bernie Sanders, Chris Mathews' very first question is, "What's the difference between a socialist and a progressive?"
And Frank responds by saying of Sanders:
"It's kind of hard to pivot instantly now from being an Independent Socialist to being just a progressive Democrat .... Hillary Clinton has taken very liberal positions — progressive positions, whatever you want to call them — I am afraid there are people who are going to say that she 's only doing that because Bernie Sanders spooked her into it. That's not accurate."
No Mister Frank, you're the one not being accurate. Senator Sanders didn't "suddenly pivot". He's been caucusing with the Congressional Progressive Democrats all along, where even Senator Elizabeth Warren's name is not listed. And Sanders' current agenda has been his lifelong aspiration and effort (there were no "sudden" flip-flops by Bernie). And Bernie is only running as a Democrat (as opposed to running as an Independent) to be included in the primary debates — and also to not split votes among Democrats, which could give the GOP a win in 2016.
But Barney Frank knows all that. So why was he lying to the American people on national television? Did Hillary promise him a job in the White House if she is elected with his support? Or maybe a nice cushy ambassadorship in Europe?
And if Hillary Clinton has such long history of progressive ideas, then why did she need to secretly meet with Elizabeth Warren, summoning her to her mansion last year after being convinced that Warren would not be running for president? Did Hillary need progressive "talking points" for her campaign speeches, because the old Clinton-speak was stale and out-dated?
Barney Frank also mentioned his concern for Hillary Clinton (being out-financed by the GOP) and having to spend most of her money defending against Bernie Sanders in the primary. He also mentioned in his argument that economist Paul Krugman had said during the 2008 election that Hillary was more "left" than Obama — on SOCIAL issues, not ECONOMIC issues.
And during the interview, Chris Matthews was also trying to make the point that Republicans were trying to boost Bernie Sanders ratings to get Hillary out of the running — and he showed a clip of Senator Ted Cruz praising Bernie Sanders for his honesty, and who had quipped: "I enjoy watching Hillary Clinton explain to the voters how she's just as much of a socialist as Bernie Sanders."
But to date, Sanders would actually do better than Hillary against all GOP candidates. So either this supposed Republican strategy (turning Democratic voters from Hillary to Bernie) would backfire on the GOP, or Chris Matthews is pushing for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, even despite being a potential losing candidate against any GOP candidate.
During his segment with Barney Frank, Chris Mathews displayed one poll result to make his very biased and misleading case for his beloved Hillary Clinton.
Wow! It looks like a landslide, and poor Bernie has no chance at all of winning! And a Quinnipac Poll showed almost similar results, with Hillary Clinton getting 55 percent of Democratic voters nationwide, with 17 percent for Senator Bernie Sanders. But oddly, nothing was ever mentioned about Independent voters. A recent Gallop Poll shows 31% of voters identify as Democrat, 25% Republican and 41% as Independent.
A CNN poll shows Bernie Sanders leading all Republicans, beating out Hillary — and the most recent Quinnipiac Poll shows that in a hypothetical general election match-up in 2016, Bernie Sanders tops Trump 44% to 39%. In contrast, the survey found that Hillary would be in a very tight race with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
And that poll's results mirror findings in a CNN/ORC poll conducted last week showing that among all registered voters: Clinton would defeat Trump 56% to 40% — but Sanders would defeat Trump by a wider margin: 59% to 38%.
And Republicans who might otherwise consider voting for Bernie, would vote for any Republican candidate to vote against Hillary if she won the Democratic nomination.
But media pundits such as Chris Mathews, or former politicians like Barney Frank, or any of the current pro-Hillary "Third Way" Democrats in Congress can't seem find the nerve to mention these other polls. That lack of honesty speaks to why Congress has had such historically low favorability ratings — by clinging to their power (at any cost) for their own personal gain, rather than doing what's right for the American people.
In her recent economic speech (full video and text), Hillary gave a lot of lip service to reforming the banks (probably by getting her "talking points" from Senator Elizabeth Warren), saying:
"We’ve imposed tough new rules that deal with some of the challenges on Wall Street. But those rules have been under assault by Republicans in Congress and those running for President. I will fight back against these attacks and protect the reforms we’ve made."
Maybe she has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale also. And the problem is, it isn't just Republicans who are trying to weaken Dodd-Frank, many "Third Way" Democrats (like Hillary, who also support Hillary) are also trying to erode the Dodd-Frank bill (link and link); whereas Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders fully support implementing all aspects of the bill, and even expanding these regulations.
That's why so many people find it very odd that the former-Senator who co-sponsored this bill (Barney Frank) would support a presidential candidate (Hillary Clinton) who only pays lip service (with a nod and a wink to the bankers) to actually reforming the banking industry — someone who is paid big money by the banking industry to give speeches — someone whose biggest campaign donors is mostly from the banking industry (whereas Bernie Sanders is primarily supported by labor unions.)
In other words, former Senator Barney Frank wants to put the Hillary fox into his own hen house.
Many of these politicians and media pundits (i.e. Mathews, Frank, Senator Claire McCaskill, etc.) have been emphasizing Bernie Sanders as a "Socialist" (with a capital "S") to deliberately misrepresent Bernie's political association as one in allegiance with Russia's late Joseph Stalin — using this implication as a scare tactic (the way Joe McCarthy once did), rather than telling the truth and describing Bernie as a "social Democrat" — an ideology that shares almost exactly the same values and beliefs of the progressive Democrats that we have already have in Congress today (advocating for the issues that FDR had advocated for).
In another short segment on MSNBC, Chris Matthews is forcefully trying to get his guest (DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to define the difference between a "socialist" (Bernie Sanders) and a "Democrat" (Hillary Clinton) in another attempt to demean Senator Bernie Sanders. To her credit, she didn't fall for Matthews' trap — and even said of Bernie: "The appeal that he has across the board — the progressive populist message that he has — resonates deeply and wide with the American people, not just with Democrats." (Unlike Hillary, Bernie doesn't have to pretend to have populist message.)
Bernie has real progressive ideas (not ones he recently learned), and if he had a lot more progressive Democrats in Congress, as president he could bring back America's middle-class — as well as fix a host of other things that have plagued this country over the past 40 years (such as income inequality, bad trade deals that offshore jobs, corporate domination, social injustice, corrupt campaign laws, etc.).
A lot of work needs to be done, and it can't happen with the same old stale politicians we currently have dominating our political parties (i.e. Clinton and Bush). They are the very ones who have long been the biggest part of our problems all along. Like Bernie says, “Now is not the time to think small. We need a political revolution".
But with people like Hillary Clinton (phony progressives), we don't stand a chance in Hell. It will be just more of the same old BS that we've already had for several decades.