Fox News joins MSNBC in allowing GOP strategist Tantaros to characterize Obama as a "fancy lad"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: A week after referring on MSNBC to Sens. Barack Obama and John Kerry as "two Ivy League fancy lads," GOP strategist Andrea Tantaros again referred to Obama as a "fancy lad," this time on Fox News' America's Newsroom. In neither case was her remark challenged by the anchors of the shows.
One week after she appeared on the July 7 edition of MSNBC Live and referred to Sens. Barack Obama and John Kerry (D-MA) as "two Ivy League fancy lads," Fox News hosted Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros on the July 14 edition of America's Newsroom, during which she called Obama "a fancy lad." Tantaros was discussing the possibility of Obama's speaking in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate and called the proposition "risky," adding that "Obama needs some gravitas, and so that's why they're sending him there. He's a fancy lad. He likes fancy language with fancy backdrops. And that's exactly why they're putting him there." On neither MSNBC nor Fox News was her remark challenged by the anchors of the shows. On MSNBC, Democratic strategist David Goodfriend responded to Tantaros by saying: "Well, first of all, just in response to what Andrea said, there isn't a single Ivy League fancy guy on that ticket."
From the 4 p.m. ET July 7 edition of MSNBC Live:
DAVID SHUSTER (anchor): I mean, Andrea, I'm gonna ask you about that, but first, you know, we've got that campaign alert on the screen. Senator Jim Webb [D-VA] issuing a statement today saying that he does not want to be Barack Obama's vice president. What is your reaction to that news, and also, would Republicans savor the opportunity to go after John Kerry again, or would they fear John Kerry as Obama's running mate, simply because he been through this process before?
TANTAROS: Yeah, I mean, any person that says they don't want to be vice president, I mean, talk about a grain of salt. I think we got to take it with a triple helping of salt. And I think we've also got to take this John Kerry Washington whisper campaign also with a grain of salt. You know, I don't think that he does bring politically too much to the table. You said Massachusetts, I mean, if Barack Obama's worried about getting Massachusetts, he might as well pack it in right now. And I think, also, he's been branded and beaten by President Bush already. He's been branded as indecisive and a flip-flopper, and that's the last thing Barack Obama needs. And the Democrats don't need two Ivy League fancy lads on their ticket this year either. So --
SHUSTER: And David. What is it --
TANTAROS: I think Republicans might -- Republicans, they already -- they've already beaten John Kerry once, so I think they would get excited, they know how to beat him and they'd likely do it again.
SHUSTER: I'm going to agree and I think this is simply -- wait a second. I want to --
DAVID GOODFRIEND (Democratic strategist): Well, I find it -- I find it hard to see how --
SHUSTER: No. I just want to take on Andrea's point. Look. I think -- I think you're on to something Andrea, and I think this may be an effort more -- more to simply please John Kerry, and say, look, we owe it to you because of everything you gave us -- 2004 to at least have your name in the mix. But David, one of things that Obama certainly would like in the mix is to put Virginia in play, and doesn't this hurt him now with Jim Webb saying, "You know what, I don't want any part of being on the ticket."
GOODFRIEND: Well, first of all, just in response to what Andrea said, there isn't a single Ivy League fancy guy on that ticket. Barack Obama is an up from the bootstraps kind of guy. He did it himself. He didn't rely on his inheritance or any Roman numerals after his name, unlike other candidates. But let's talk about Virginia for a second. Barack Obama has put that state in play.
From the July 14 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
BILL HEMMER (co-anchor): On the trail now, Barack Obama is heading overseas soon, going to Germany in part to deliver a speech, perhaps at the Brandenburg Gate. That is in the heart of Berlin, a symbol of unity between the former East and West Germany. He won't be the first American to do this. Remember these moments of presidential history. First John F. Kennedy about 45 years ago, then Ronald Reagan about 20 years ago, both at the Brandenburg Gate.
KENNEDY [video clip]: In the world of freedom, the proudest boast is, "Ich bin ein Berliner"
REAGAN [video clip]: Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
HEMMER: Huge moments in history. Barack Obama, though, is not the U.S. president yet. He's still running for office, and that has raised a few eyebrows, both here and also in Germany. Is it appropriate for a candidate to deliver what is essentially a campaign speech from such an iconic site in another country? What do you think? Let's bring in Fox contributor and Democratic consultant Bob Beckel; Andrea Tantaros, political analyst and a Republican consultant as well. All right, Bob, is it a big deal?
BECKEL: Well, I don't think -- first of all, tell Megyn [Kelly, co-anchor] it's a good idea that the air traffic controllers don't drink, so it's -- that's important.
HEMMER: Let's hope not, huh?
TANTAROS: I see his point. He may be on to something.
HEMMER: At least not on the job, right?
BECKEL: That's right. The answer is I don't -- I don't quite get what the big furor is. Look, on the one hand, the guy gets beat up because he doesn't have enough foreign policy experience and that he ought to go over and meet our allies. He's going over to meet our allies and giving a speech. And look, for the last eight years, we've had a president of the United States that gets booed when he goes to Europe. It'd be a nice idea to have someone to be cheered. My guess, he'd get cheered.
HEMMER: Well -- well, it would be one thing, if just Americans were against it, but the German chancellor came out, she said it's a bad idea. The local mayor, by the way, says he's OK with it. Andrea, where do you come down on this?
TANTAROS: Yeah, well, I think it's risky, you know, and moreover, even though I disagree with Bob, I'm glad he's not an air traffic controller. I'm glad he went into politics and not that field. But you know what, I do think it's risky. I think that -- look, Obama needs some gravitas, and so that's why they're sending him there. He's a fancy lad. He likes fancy language with fancy backdrops. And that's exactly why they're putting him there. But look, I think it's going to help. A lot of liberals love Europe. They think Europe does everything better than the United States. Although our country is facing so many domestic crises, I just don't know if it's wise for any candidate to go over to another country to spend a lot of time campaigning. I think they're better off in this country. But you know what, we'll just have to just wait and see. I think it's risky.
HEMMER: Well, we're going to see this trip go from Europe to the Middle East, possibly into Iraq and places beyond.
TARANTOS: Well, why isn't he in Iraq, Bill, you know? He's going to Germany before Iraq.
HEMMER: Well, I mean that -- I mean apparently that -- that'll be one of the stops along the way. A lot of that stuff is held pretty tight because of security matters.
"Well, first of all, just in response to what Andrea said, there isn't a single Ivy League fancy guy on that ticket. Barack Obama is an up from the bootstraps kind of guy. He did it himself. He didn't rely on his inheritance or any Roman numerals after his name, unlike other candidates. "
And this is just one more reason why Obama is going to beat McCain by numbers not seen in quite some time!!
Many American's know this..... of course the media will do all it can to downplay it..... but I think that a majority of this country has had it with Bush, McCain, Republicans in general, fake conservatism, fake patriotism, fake outrage and fake politicians!
Perhaps Obama becomes another useless politicians..... but from where I stand and what I see at this moment.... I don't see that as the case!
I have the audacity to hope that it remains that way!
And this is just one more reason why Obama is going to beat McCain by numbers not seen in quite some time!!
Very nice speculation, but unfortunately for you, thats all it is.
From the daily Rasmussen Report:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. The candidates had been tied at 43% for the past two days.
When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%. For most of the past month-and-a-half, Obama has led McCain by approximately five percentage points
If anything, shows they are in a virtual tie, in polling anyway, not to mention BO has lost a few percentage points. Polls aren't the deciding factor, but they have more merit than your outlandish speculation of this landslide you speak of.
Wait until the debates between Obama and McCain begin. My prediction is that you'll begin to see Obama pull ahead by leaps and bounds. The debates is where it's at, IMHO. Obama will wipe the floor with McCain.
See, people want to hear about the candidate who can bring them hope. They want to hear that we can bring our soldiers home. They want to hear that we can bring bin Laden to justice. They want to hear that they won't be losing their homes to unscrupulous lenders. People want to hear that they can and will have health insurance and won't have to worry about having to eat dog food in order to afford their medications. Obama brings a message of hope - and with the recession we're in (give me ONE Republican president in the last 30 years under whom we've NOT had huge inflation/recession) and with the fear that people have regarding their personal financial situation, Obama has the clear lead. Republicans cannot and will not allay the average American's financial fear.
McCain doesn't offer hope. He offers only a continuation of the bullsh!t we've seen for the past 7 1/2 years - fear, recession and a continuation of a massive shift of wealth from those that have the least to those who have the most.
Nice post, Mari. I enjoyed reading it.
You sir, are an insult to scientists. Try some actual ANALYSIS of the data for a change instead of the typical knee-jerk, conservative reaction of seeing some data and leaping to a conclusion. This site: http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml is run by a conservative. He does however do a pretty in-depth analysis (important step, that!) of the rleavent data. And he's got Obama projected to win in a fairly lopsided victory. (Not a 'landslide' to be sure, but still pretty lopsided.) I've yet to find any site tracking state polls and other info (wether liberal or conservative) that reaches a different conclusion.
A lot can happen between now and Nov., but as it stands the only gain y'all are likely to make is if Joe Lieberman switches parties. (And then his @$$'ll be voted out next time around.)
Well, MAYBE, I don't know. Personally I judge that by the electoral vote, and IMO, these are 12 LANDSLIDES (at least since 1876:)
1936: FDR 353, Landon 8
1984: Reagan 525, Mondale 13
1972: Nixon 520, McGovern 17
1908: Reagan 489, Carter 79
1964: LBJ 486, Goldwater 52
1932: FDR 472, Hoover 59
1956: Eisenhower 457, Stephenson 73
1940: FDR 449, Willkie 82
1928: Hoover 444, Smith 87
1952: Eisenhower 442, Stephenson 89
1912: Wilson (D) 435, Taft (R) 8, Teddy Roosevelt (P) 88
1944: FDR 432, Dewey 99
In each of these, the margin of victory was over 30% of the ELECTORAL VOTE. (Meaning the cadidate had at least 80% of the electoral vote.)
There were many lopsided victories (1892, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1920, 1924, 1968, 1988, 1992, 1996). In each of these the margin of victory was between 10% and 30% of the electoral vote. (So the winner had 60-80% of the total EV.)
The rest were under 10% margin of victory (of the EV now) and I call that close. (Winning with under 60% of the EV.)
HERE's SOME TRIVIA (by the above definitions):
FDR won four landslides.
Nixon lost a close election, won a lopsided one, and won in a landslide. (No one else has been invoved in each of the three.)
GWBush is the only one to win 2 close elections.
Hoover is the only one to both win and lose in landlsides.
Stephenson is the only candidate to lose in two landslides.
[/threadjack] :)
"I just don't know if it's wise for any candidate to go over to another country to spend a lot of time campaigning. "
I wonder if Tantaros ever thought of the posibility that Obama wants the EU to see what they have coming..... to perhaps allay the nerves of many in the world on whether America will finally wake up from its 8 year nightmare and elect someone that will actually try?
Nah.... she's a corporate shill....... I doubt it!
I wonder if Tantaros ever thought of the posibility that Obama wants the EU to see what they have coming.....
Err, Obama breathes socialism, so its a better prospect to assume he is around the EU to see how he can model his policies.
You keep using that word (socialism).
I dunna think it means what-a you think it means.
"In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
Free access....paid for by by someone else.....
Science101, I hope you never use my socialist road system. I hope you never use my socialist police force. I hope you never use my socialist fire department. I hope you never use my socialist court system. Are not the government funded? Socialist? You are one.
And why are you calling Sen Obama a socialist..convince me..with an example.
The items you are referring to are things that benefit ALL people of society. Socialism takes things and holds down the "haves" in order to make the unsuccessful on an even playing field (robin hood, more less).
Redistribution of wealth (welfare), government subsidies, etc.
An example of Obama's? How about taxation on the American public to send everyone to college? I wasn't aware that it was my responsibility to pay for my own, and everyone elses college education. Everyone is eligible for stafford loans. If you cannot afford it solely on certain loans, perhaps you should have done a bit better in school and applied at additional schools.
And you expect me to pay for a fire department if I never use it. WHY?
Should I pay for a court system if I never use it? WHY? My question to you is, "Do you use public roads?"
And you expect me to pay for a fire department if I never use it. WHY?
Should I pay for a court system if I never use it? WHY? My question to you is, "Do you use public roads?"
If you'd rather not use a fire department, and not pay it while having a computer system tell the fire department NOT to go to your house in an emergency, then I'm fine with that.
Of course I use public roads, and I pay for them through my local and state taxes. But I also pay for public transportation - that I do not use.
You do use a court system, perhaps more indirectly than directly. For example, if the court system has removed driving privelages of DUI law breakers in your city, then they have benefitted you by reducing your chances of being killed in a car accident.
So we all pay for something we may or may not ever use. All we need now is someone to decide what is fair for everyone concerning all types of socialist-like stuff.
Maybe a free college education for EVERYONE will help people get better jobs which will increase pay which will help the tax base which will only be a benefit to this country.
Guess it all comes down to who decides what happens to the money.
The problem is that the people who are paying for the taxes need to be included into the group who's benefitting as a whole. By saying "were going to give all children free college education" - well for one, its not free. Secondly, how about the middle aged 50yr old couple who are trying to prepare for retirement who have no kids?
I'm not against expanding social policy, but I am against it when it calls for additional spending of people who do not benefit. In terms of education, we have such a problem with high schools that need to be taken care of before reforming college education. Pumping money into it is not the solution - giving more money to teachers is not going to motivate students. One of the main problems that I see with it, is that people tend to appreciate things more when they have to pay for them. For example a 16yr with their first car bought by their parents is never appreciated as much as the second car they get when they have to pay the payments. College is in the same boat - I took much more serious my college education when I knew I'd be paying back 30k in loans.
How about Reagan's bailout of Chrysler...
The Chrysler bailout took place in 1979 - during the Carter Administration. It amounted to a set of loan guarantees that enabled Chrysler to reorganize itself and save thousands of American jobs. And it Lee Iacocco's credit, he was able to turn Chrysler around and repay all the money to the government way ahead of schedule. The Chrysler Bailout is an example of government action that worked far beyond expectations.
You're on the case WzWriter. I could have sworn it was Reagan for some reason.
Would you call the action a form of socialism or no?
EVERYONE, as a whole, benefits from an educated republic, regardless of whether they have children enrolled in it or not. An educated republic is a republic that provides a self-sustaining economy with people who possess the basic skills necessary to enter the workforce, to master a trade, to be productive, to be innovative, to be entrepreneurial, and contribute to infrastructure, public safety, public health, and economic prosperity.
It is your free-market extremist philosophy that will turn education into a luxury that's reserved strictly for those children whose families can afford it, ushering in an unwelcome resurgence in illiteracy and further national loss of global competitiveness.
As far as free college education, a very simply way to get recipients to take it seriously is to make its continuation dependent on academic performance.
Science,
In the world economy we need our populace to be better educated. Helping more students afford college will also help employers. This in turn will allow our economy to continue to be competitive in the world market. In the end our growing economy will allow that 50 year old couple without children. It is the same ROI as public educations in the early years. Even people without children benefit from the programs.
"Secondly, how about the middle aged 50yr old couple who are trying to prepare for retirement who have no kids? "
The kid that used public education these 5oyr olds paid for will get a good job and pay for the well being of these 5o yr olds when they turn into 70-80yr olds.
An example of Obama's? How about taxation on the American public to send everyone to college? I wasn't aware that it was my responsibility to pay for my own, and everyone elses college education.
Hell, why stop at college? How dare they expect me to pay for someone else's kindergarten!
Socialism takes things and holds down the "haves" in order to make the unsuccessful on an even playing field (robin hood, more less).
Well maybe we need a little more of your "socialism". After all, in the past 8 years we have seen the greatest shift in wealth from the "have-nots" to the "haves" since the robber baron era.
Sweden leads the way while we play "bipartisanship" with the ball-and-chain party to try to catch up.
The US is now so backward and reactionary that the "socialism" that's talked about here (not real socialism) has already worked over and over again in practice in the civilized world. There isn't even an excuse to debate it anymore.
Ahh yes. Cuba, Venezuela, N Korea, and Russia are living proof of that! How about France's unemployment rate & standard of living index?
Its so much easier to adopt social policies when your target group is about the size of a small US state.
I'm beginning to think that science101 used to come here under a different name, only to leave that name with his tail between his legs and having to change his name and persona?
I wonder who he used to be? It will only be a matter of time before it is figured out.......
Any guesses?
Columbus, Roger7, a Col Roy has been mentioned, there are two or three others. Concurrently Sands seems to be the same person also. We'll be picking up more similar, likely paid for trolls, and other graduates of how to argue with a progressive school(s) as the election cycle advances.
Psychoactives if yah gottum. Might be useful as its going to get stranger and stranger. A Dr. Gonzo quote springs to mind,"When the going gets weird. the weird turn pro.
Obama breathes socialism....
No, he doesn't. Science101, on the other hand, breathes stupidity.
maybe it is not a job you have to have a resume for and no requirement to choose the best candidate.
Pretty much sums up the presidential election.
The constitution defines very clearly the requiremnts for presidential candidates.
Requirements =/ Qualifications
Requirements =/ Qualifications
Not particularly. While some things may be minimum requirements for the position (U.S. Native, 35 yrs old), one may appeal to the electorate by possessing superior qualifications, such as holding a "C" average or cheerleading in college, or being a failed AWOL pilot in the National Guard, or leading an oil company in bankruptcy, or the inability to correctly ingest a pretzel, or possessing English as a second language...
Requirements=Qualifications?
I don't think so... The requirements for being elected President are set forth in law. Qualifications are the personal characteristics of the candidates, which may include such things as intelligence, experience and temperament, which voters, in their subjective opinions, weigh in order to determine which candidate is best suited for the office.
So you're saying McCain is not qualified?
Why do you hate the troops?
Ooops, I dropped this:
/sarcasm
So you're saying McCain is not qualified?
But McCain was shot down and taken POW. What more could qualify a candidate? ;>)
Wouldn't NOT being shot down make one more qualified? If one were shot down, I would think that evading capture would make one more qualified than being captured does.
(to be fair, McCain was badly injured and escape/evasion weren't really options for him)
Prior to hiring, however, you DO have to take a mirror test.
If a reflection is detected, you are immediately disqualified for the position.
"Fancy Lad"?
NEW OBAMA SMEAR: He's a metrosexual!
Give it up: Your fearless leader went to Yale as a legacy. When will they learn how stupid they sound?
Asnd when will the C-students of America realize how dumb these right-wingers and their lapgdog press actually are?
Let me see now. Who is a "fancier lad"?
Obama's Dad = goatherder from Africa
McCain's Dad - Admiral in the US Navy
I'd say McCain was fancier.
Obama education = bought and paid for by himself.
McCain's education = bought and paid for by US taxpayers
I'd say McCain was fancier.
Obama's place of education = Harvard
McCain's place of education = US Naval Academy
I'd say McCain was fancier, mostly because it is harder to get into the Naval Academy than it is Harvard. Plus, I'm sure his father, the Admiral, might have "helped out" a little in getting him in. No such luck from Obama's goatherder dad getting into Harvard.
I'd say, just on the surface, and even when you deeper into it, old Johnny "Maverick" McCain is a lot more blue blooded and "fancier" than Obama, who is more of a pull yourself up by your bootstraps kind of guy, and we (meaning the media) judge him as being elite because he chose to get himself well educated, and chose to get himself into a great school, and chose to graduate towards the top of his class. Yeah, those are really bad things you want in a President that's for sure. What happened to the American dream of becoming anything you wanted to be and working towards that? Obama personifies that doesn't he? Raised by a single mother and his grandmother, born of meager means, born a black man in a racist country, and he not only goes on to be succesful, but he also goes on to be the nominee for the democratic party for the President of the United States of America. McCain, on the other hand, had basically everything given to him because of his lineage. McCain was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and even if he had never been a Senator, his life would have been comfortable and secure, and he might have had never had to work at it. Much like George W. Bush. Who, self admittedly, was a drunk a lout well up until his 40's. If he hadn't had the family he had, he would have been homeless and out on a street corner somewhere.
Obama is not some fancy lad. He worked to get where he is today. I shouldn't say McCain didn't work to get to where he is, he did, but he is far from being some "salt of the Earth" kind of down home one of us working class kind of folks. Obama is, or was, a lot closer to what I am today than John McCain will ever be.
I'm tired of this stupid little thing about Obama being elite this, and elite that. As Jon Stewart once said, I want my President to be embarassingly elite, and a lot smarter than I am.
"In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
Free access....paid for by by someone else..... science 101. Science show me in this definition you use about Socialism where it says free access paid for by someone else?
.
Is "fancy lad" another way of saying "pretty boy"?
Firstly, Andrea is seriously hot. Secondly, she is simply trying to point our that Obama has the same effete snobby view of the American people. Kerry lost in part because he was perceived has haughty and arrogant.
Honestly, is there absolutely no criticism of Barack allowed?