Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

 

Mark Halperin suspended over Obama remark on Morning Joe

 

 

 

MSNBC senior political analyst Mark Halperin was suspended on Thursday by the cable network after he called President Obama “a dick†on a popular morning show and then quickly apologized.

 

“I thought he was a dick yesterday,†Halperin, who also is an editor-at large for Time, said on Morning Joe, referring to the President’s conduct during his press conference.

 

A couple of hours later, MSNBC issued a statement, saying, “Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.

 

The cable outlet also put out a statment from Halperin at the same time, saying, “I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.â€

 

During the Morning Joe show, host Joe Scarborough hoped to prevent the comment from being broadcast, saying, “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing? I can’t believe… don’t do that. Did we delay that?â€

 

Just minutes later, Halperin quickly apologized on the air to the president and viewers for his choice of words. “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn’t have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that,†Halperin said.

 

“We’re going to have a meeting after the show,†Scarborough said.

 

According to Scarborough, there had been a mishap with the seven-second delay button – a new executive producer apparently didn’t know how it worked. “You are supposed to know how to do the job,†Scarborough said of his producer. “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push.â€

 

Later in the show, Halperin again apologized, saying, “I can’t explain why I did it. It’s inappropriate, disrespectful. I’ve already apologized, and I will again to the President. I’m sorry, I’m sorry to the viewers. It is disrespectful, what I said was disrespectful to the president and the office but it also lowers our discourse.â€

 

He also tweeted to his followers, “I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President and the viewers of Morning Joe. My remark was not funny. I deeply regret it.â€

 

Scarborough and Morning Joe Executive Producer Alex Korson said they were sorry for what happened and hoped they would not be sent to Guantanamo.

 

“Certainly (host) Mika (Brzezinski) and I also apologize to viewers,†Scarborough said. “And we hear this all the time - parents come up and say, ‘Hey, by the way, we don’t just watch the show, our kids watch the show.’â€

 

 

So much for free speech ...

[Steve]

Live shows or whatever, off the cuff comments are part of being human. I wouldn't have suspended him over it. An apology should have sufficed if at all. It was his opinion at the time.

 

As for the Veterans Administration, it boggles my mind when the pols either propose or make cuts or deny coverage for certain things like battle field stress, etc.

 

Now, I can see cuts being made in the DoD. Rumsfeld found 2 trillion dollars tha vanished over a period of time when he first took the job. Yes, that's trillion with a 'T'. Some of that money could have been used in the VA. Amazes me how we treat vets in America.

 

 

[chuckwoww]

He was probably just having a Howard Stern moment.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Nah...Howard would have used a less-flattering term. :content:

 

For sure, MSNBC will not tolerate one of it's employees demeaning it's favorite son.

 

HH

[Steve]

Ethanol subsidies are a waste it seems. Its due to Iowa being the biggest corn producer so it stays because the Iowa caucus is so important.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/completely-wasteful-steven-rattner-slams-govt-support-corn-110457357.html#more-id

 

Democrats and Republicans are locked in a death-grip over how to cut the deficit but agree the government must get its financial house in order. So you'd think there'd be bipartisan support to end the $6 billion annual subsidy for corn ethanol, which most experts agree is money poorly spent.

 

Former Car Czar Steven Rattner calls the corn ethanol subsidy "completely wasteful" and almost entirely about naked politics.

 

"Almost since Iowa — our biggest corn-producing state — grabbed the lead position in the presidential sweepstakes four decades ago, support for the biofuel has been nearly a prerequisite for politicians seeking the presidency," Rattner writes in a recent NYT op-ed

 

The same video also discusses Obama probably raising a billion, yes, billion in campaign funds and talks about the possible ending love affair between him and wall street. WTF?! When the President, any President is loved by wall street its NEVER a good thing. I used to think so but the current problems in the country tells me otherwise. The Republicans won't be any different.

 

After that segment there is a debate whether financial firms need more or less regulation. Is that even debatable?

 

Edited June 30, 2011 by Guest

[Hugh_Hoy]

After that segment there is a debate whether financial firms need more or less regulation. Is that even debatable?

 

Not sure more regulation is required. But certainly more monitoring and oversight.

 

As for ethanol, yes...just a political bone thrown to a few corn-growing states. Minimal impact on reliance on oil, but substantial subsidies paid by tax payers PLUS the increased cost of many food staples.

 

HH

[ghostdog]

I'm no expert on the gold standard. Admittedly. I also would assume the genie is out of the bottle and we can't go back. The world has moved on without a gold standard. However, I'm not sure if you're saying it was always a bad idea or its just a bad idea now? We were on it for almost all of our history and became the number one nation while on it. Furthermore things got WORSE when we left. We had financial crisises before. However it wasn't due to being on the gold standard. It was from loose financial rules and which have now been corrected via regulations. During those past crisis the fundamentals of the country were solid for the future. Now, the fundamentals are not there and our future looks bleaker and the next generation isn't doing as well as the prior.

 

I think even Ron Paul knows we can't go back even if he was elected. My guess is he is smart enough to know that. We will have a proper accounting of the gold that is there though.

 

The number one thing about a Ron Paul presidency is that the special interests will not have power over the office. That is the biggest thing of all. Getting rid of their influence and power over the government MUST be the number one thing if we are ever going to make it back as a country. Every thing else is just conversation.

 

Neither party has ANYONE who will not be controlled or heavily influenced by the special interests, lobbies, etc.

 

You're getting bogged down in the gold standard, something that even if he's elected has little chance of coming to fruition instead of the big picture which is a government without influence from the special interest.

 

But the fact that Paul considers it a good thing is telling. He is not to be taken seriously.

 

It also is wrong to say it is WORSE since we left it. History says otherwise.

 

So when we had the gold standard (or silver backed currency) do you mean to say we had no recessions, panics, or depressions? There were bad ones. The Great Depression happened on the gold standard's watch. Hoover had to raise interest rates and taxes to cover the gold standard, which was the last thing that was needed in a deflationary economy. The quicker the countries got off the gold standard, the better they fared.

 

The fact is, gold is just a commodity, its price is subject to many pressures not related to a nation's economy. It can put deflationary pressures on an economy that would shut it down.

[ghostdog]

I always found Mark Halperin to be a dick.

That does it, I will have to be off the board indefinitely.....

[Flashermac]

Say three Hail Mary's and wash your mouth out with Jaegermeister. Then you may come back.

 

 

[Steve]

I'm no expert on the gold standard. Admittedly. I also would assume the genie is out of the bottle and we can't go back. The world has moved on without a gold standard. However' date=' I'm not sure if you're saying it was always a bad idea or its just a bad idea now? We were on it for almost all of our history and became the number one nation while on it. Furthermore things got WORSE when we left. We had financial crisises before. However it wasn't due to being on the gold standard. It was from loose financial rules and which have now been corrected via regulations. During those past crisis the fundamentals of the country were solid for the future. Now, the fundamentals are not there and our future looks bleaker and the next generation isn't doing as well as the prior.

 

I think even Ron Paul knows we can't go back even if he was elected. My guess is he is smart enough to know that. We will have a proper accounting of the gold that is there though.

 

The number one thing about a Ron Paul presidency is that the special interests will not have power over the office. That is the biggest thing of all. Getting rid of their influence and power over the government MUST be the number one thing if we are ever going to make it back as a country. Every thing else is just conversation.

 

Neither party has ANYONE who will not be controlled or heavily influenced by the special interests, lobbies, etc.

 

You're getting bogged down in the gold standard, something that even if he's elected has little chance of coming to fruition instead of the big picture which is a government without influence from the special interest.[/quote']

 

But the fact that Paul considers it a good thing is telling. He is not to be taken seriously.

 

It also is wrong to say it is WORSE since we left it. History says otherwise.

 

So when we had the gold standard (or silver backed currency) do you mean to say we had no recessions, panics, or depressions? There were bad ones. The Great Depression happened on the gold standard's watch. Hoover had to raise interest rates and taxes to cover the gold standard, which was the last thing that was needed in a deflationary economy. The quicker the countries got off the gold standard, the better they fared.

 

The fact is, gold is just a commodity, its price is subject to many pressures not related to a nation's economy. It can put deflationary pressures on an economy that would shut it down.

 

The financial panics didn't happen because we were on the gold standard or because of it. They happened for varioius reasons OTHER than the gold standard. We created legislation like Glass-Steagal and others to stop similar types of panics. It was a total different financial world back then.

 

We are worse now. The fundamentals of the country has changed. Even back in the days of the panics the country had a lot of room to grow and did. The fact is the American currency became the de facto global currency while on the gold standard and became the number one nation as well. One could make the reverse argument that we still had stagflation, recessions and a near miss financial meltdown off the gold standard. It goes both ways. The track record since were off it is not good frankly. In the old says there were massive infrastructure projects, there was a huge industrial base. Housing boomed, there was still a lot of room for more housing. There were many working class jobs available. Wives could still stay home. Unless you're upper middle class, its almost an impossibility now. Education was tougher...and better. I would bet your average 5th grader in 1911 would run educational circles in math around a 5th grader in 2011.

 

We were passing the UK, the biggest economy at the time a hundred years ago, now we're the ones on the verge of being passed by the Chinese.

 

You are missing my whole point. With ANYONE from the two parties, the government will be run by special interests. With someone who is not run by them and hopefully on that person's coattails, enough members of Congress as well, we can at least have a national debate about the issues WITHOUT the influence of said special interest. NOTHING changes with the main candidates of the two parties. If the status quo is what you want then that's what a vote for the main candidates are.

 

Again, the NUMBER ONE problem in America is WHO runs America. The issues aren't even debatable anymore. At least not a free and honest debate. Its the view of the special interest that has that issue is what is being sold to the American public as what is best for them.

 

In a free and open debate sans the special interest, the gold standard can be proven not plausible as you said it is as well as other issues of today. Right now, there is no debate. Only what the powers that be want.

 

Even if we were to seriously consider it, it would have to be phased in over a period of years. Just like anything of that magnitude. Its not as if it would be done overnight. However, it (the gold standard) is NOT the main issue. A government free of influence to the degree that said influence makes public policy is.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Guest