As I’ve written before, I try to avoid blogging about MSNBC stuff because the viewership size doesn’t justify the effort, but sometimes it’s worth it to cite examples of how off-the-wall the Left can be — not that we need many reminders.
As I’ve written before, I try to avoid blogging about MSNBC stuff because the viewership size doesn’t justify the effort, but sometimes it’s worth it to cite examples of how off-the-wall the Left can be — not that we need many reminders. Or like yesterday, when progressives just forfeit a battle by inaccurately reporting historical events. That’s what Ed Schultz did when former Newt Gingrich spokesman (when he was House Speaker) Tony Blankley was a guest on his program, to discuss the 1995 government shutdown in light of a potential lame duck session this November. Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard captured the exchange:
Clearly underestimating his opponent, Schultz rudely introduced the subject of a Republican proposal to not have the Congress come back for a lame duck session after November’s elections by saying, “No one knows better about shutting down Congress than someone who was right there working for Newt Gingrich when it happened before.”
Not letting this stand, Blankley gave the “Ed Show” host a much-needed history lesson…
SCHULTZ: You bet. Do you think it plays to the sensibilities of Americans to suggest a plan that, gosh, the Congress would only be in session to do something for the American people several weeks out of the next four months?
BLANKLEY: Well, first of all, I’ve got to correct the record as I expected I would. Newt did not close down the government in ‘95. The Republican Congress passed two bills and the President Clinton decided to veto them because he didn’t like what was in the bill, which was funding plus requiring to balance the budget in seven years. And by the way, if you dispute it, I do have in my hot little hands the transcript from Nightline of the night the government closed down with Cokie Roberts and President Clinton agreeing that he vetoed the bill. So, putting that aside, we didn’t want to close down the government. We wanted to balance the budget….
SCHULTZ: Well, let me, so you don’t have history revisionism going on here, Tony, the fact is is that it was Newt Gingrich who made the decision based on the action of President Clinton that okay, that’s it, we’re just going to shut her down. The President was not advocating shutting down the Congress. Is that correct?
BLANKLEY: That is not, that is not true. Newt passed, we passed, we passed the bill with the money and the debt limit raise which is what was required. By the way, I have a Congressional Research Service study that says the same thing. Republicans passed the bill. The President vetoed it.
Not realizing his gaping wounds, as Sheppard notes, Schultz continued to press Blankley based on his ridiculous premise. I love it when the Left makes it so easy.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online