Posts Tagged: analyst


22
Sep 10

CBS Analyst Admits National Media Hoping O’Donnell Has ‘Car Crash On Air’

Agreeing with Christine O’Donnell’s decision not to do anymore national media interviews, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson acknowledged on Wednesday’s Early Show that "the national media is not doing her any favors and, basically, a lot of people want her on so that she can have a car crash on air."

Dickerson went on to add that O’Donnell "needs to focus on Delaware….she’s got to reach out to independents and get outside of the narrow conservative constituency she won." He then remarked: "…she’s smart to keep to her knitting and she just has to hope that voters don’t penalize her for trying to kind of stay away from the national media, which might look like staying away from any kind of difficult or probing questions." Co-host Harry Smith joked in reply: "Knit one, pearl two for John Dickerson this morning."

Both Smith and Dickerson joked about how "disappointed" they were that O’Donnell would not be making anymore national media appearances. Throughout the discussion, a headline on screen made reference to O’Donnell’s witchcraft comments: "Bewitched?; O’Donnell Says No More National Interviews."

Prior to discussing O’Donnell, Smith asked Dickerson about Michelle Obama campaigning for Democrats: "How happy is the White House to be unleashing her during this campaign season?" Dickerson responded: "Well, they’re happy to the extent that she’s an asset and she plays well with important Democratic constituencies. With women, of course, but with African-Americans and with young voters." The headline on screen at that time: "Michelle to the Rescue? Dems Tab First Lady to Hit Campaign Trail."

Here is a full transcript of the September 22 segment:

7:06AM ET

HARRY SMITH: Also in Washington this morning, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. John, good morning.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: Let’s talk about Larry Summers has decided to go back to Harvard, that’s always been part of the plan, that he would go back so he could retain tenure there. At the end of the day, here’s this guy who’s this big economic adviser, does the White House look at him as an asset or a liability, if you’ll excuse the phrase.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: White House Turmoil; Top Economic Advisor Leaves]

DICKERSON: I think they look at him as an asset, for sure. I mean, he has a reputation as being prickly. And there were certainly internal battles inside the White House, but the White House thinks that the program, particularly the stimulus package the President put forward that Larry Summers helped put together, and all these emergency responses to this economic downturn have been a success, maybe not the great success, certainly the public doesn’t think so, but they think he did a good job.

SMITH: Interesting. Let us also talk, then, about the Bob Woodward book. Woodward, this great reporter from the Washington Post who has been reporting for decades and has phenomenal sources inside every White House, better than anybody’s. Really reports sort of the dirty back-fighting that goes on among people at high levels of power. It’s sort of like high school madness, almost. Should we be surprised that it took place even in a discussion as serious as the Afghanistan war?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: White House Turmoil, Explosive New Book Reveals Afghan Plan Rift]

DICKERSON: We shouldn’t be surprised that there was a heated debate. But, what we maybe should be surprised a little bit about is the motivation-questioning of all the players. It wasn’t just a debate over policy, but who was motivated to do what and who had what sort of other problems in this negotiation. The Afghanistan review is a scab on the administration that just keeps getting picked time and time again. And though the White House says these debates were well known. They’re still being fought in this book a little bit and in the reaction to it, between the administration and the Pentagon.

SMITH: Yeah and the question always continues to come up, is this middle of the next summer date certain as a time to start withdrawing troops. So it kind of never, ever goes away. Let’s change subjects to Michelle Obama, how happy is the White House to be unleashing her during this campaign season?

DICKERSON: Well, they’re happy to the extent that she’s an asset and she plays well with important Democratic constituencies. With women, of course, but with African-Americans and with young voters.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Michelle to the Rescue? Dems Tab First Lady to Hit Campaign Trail]

So they like having her out there. On the other hand, the fact that she has to go out there is a sign of the difficult position Democrats are in. But that, of course, doesn’t surprise anybody. But, they hope to get whatever kind of boost they can out of her in what looks like a difficult year.

SMITH: And finally, last but not least on our list this morning, Christine O’Donnell has said she will not do any national interviews. I know that disappoints you, personally. But in real life, does this matter?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Bewitched?; O'Donnell Says No More National Interviews]

DICKERSON: Well, no, it doesn’t matter, although, as you say, I’m disappointed and all of us should be. But, she’s smart to do this. You know, the national media is not doing her any favors and, basically, a lot of people want her on so that she can have a car crash on air. She needs to focus on Delaware. She’s got a tough run there, because she’s got to reach out to independents and get outside of the narrow conservative constituency she won –  that helped her win, I should say – the primary there. So she’s smart to keep to her knitting and she just has to hope that voters don’t penalize her for trying to kind of stay away from the national media, which might look like staying away from any kind of difficult or probing questions.

SMITH: Knit one, pearl two for John Dickerson this morning. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

DICKERSON: Thanks, Harry.

SMITH: Alright.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And just in case, Miss O’Donnell, the offer stands.

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias


19
Sep 10

Fmr MSNBC Analyst Crawford: Media ‘Playing into Dem Message’ That Tea Party Candidates Are ‘Insane’

Appearing as a guest on Sunday’s Reliable Sources on CNN, the Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford – formerly an MSNBC political analyst – admitted that the mainstream media have "listen[ed] too much to the Democratic message" that the Tea Party movement will harm Republicans rather than Democrats in this year’s congressional elections. He further charged that the media are "playing into that Democratic message that these candidates are insane." Crawford:

Sometimes we’re wrong when we listen too much to the Democratic message. That’s the Democratic party message, that the Tea Party is bad for them [Republicans]. I think we should scrutinize that a bit more, be a little more skeptical of it. The other is that they’re all crazy. And that’s the trouble with focusing on all these statements and everything. We’re playing into that Democratic message that these candidates are insane.

A bit earlier, after host Kurtz observed that the media do not "respect" Tea Party candidates and "some of us seem to be looking down our noses at these insurgents," Crawford lamented: "Yeah, and I hate to see the mainstream media doing that because I certainly respect them and their politics. They have been very successful."

Crawford notably has a history of criticizing Republicans for charging that the media are biased against them in his book, "Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media."

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 19, Reliable Sources on CNN:

HOWARD KURTZ: Craig Crawford, let’s look at the political fallout. Whether we’re talking about Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or Joe Miller in Alaska or Sharron Angle in Nevada, these people went out and beat establishment candidates, often with not a lot of money. Shouldn’t journalists respect that? Instead there seems to be, well, this is mutual antagonism, we seem to be, some of us, I don’t want to include everybody, some of us seem to be looking down our noses at these insurgents and they don’t seem to be big fans of the mainstream media.

CRAIG CRAWFORD, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY: Yeah, and I hate to see the mainstream media doing that because I certainly respect them and they’re politics. They have been very successful. The thing about the Tea Party that strikes me is it’s very similar in particular their fiscal conservative views to the Perot movement. And this argument that they’re bad for Republicans doesn’t wash as much with me because at least they’re inside the Republican party. The Perot people were outside the party and much more damaging to Republicans.

KURTZ: Craig, just briefly, what about this instant journalistic wisdom when these candidates, Christine O’Donnell being the latest, well, of course it hurts Republicans because they’re all going to lose in november, they’re too extreme, it’s one thing to win, you know, 30,000 votes in Delaware, another thing to win in state election. We’ve been wrong all year on some of these races. Could we be wrong again.

CRAWFORD: Sometimes we’re wrong when we listen too much to the Democratic message. That’s the Democratic party message, that the Tea Party is bad for them [Republicans]. I think we should scrutinize that a bit more, be a little more skeptical of it. The other is that they’re all crazy. And that’s the trouble with focusing on all these statements and everything. We’re playing into that Democratic message that these candidates are insane.

KURTZ, LAUGHING: Journalists, of course, are perfectly sane. We all know that.

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias


14
Sep 10

CBS Analyst Marks 9/11 By Hoping For ‘Backlash’ Against Ground Zero Mosque Opponents

Reza Aslan, CBS On the September 11th Saturday Early Show, CBS News Middle East analyst Reza Aslan slammed opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as having "unapologetically politicized" 9/11 and being part of a "whole wave of anti-Muslim sentiment."

While he denounced others for trying to "take advantage of this symbol for their own political purposes," Aslan made his comments only seconds after live coverage of the first moment of silence for victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks. Co-host Chris Wragge accepted Aslan’s characterization of the controversy and responded: "…this is not an opportunity to add controversy into the mix. If there’s one day, you know what, to keep our mouths quiet and let’s just reflect on the lives lost, today is it, you don’t mess with that."

Aslan followed up by admitting: "I’ll be honest with you, I hope that there is kind of a backlash against what’s going on right now. As you know, at 1pm today there’ll be a rally in support of the so-called Park 51 project, at 3pm there’ll be this international rally against it. So, I’m hoping that Americans all over the country see these images and think we’ve gone too far."

He later specifically condemned mosque opponents: "…particularly in the case of this sort of international anti-Islam rally that’s being brought by this group called Stop Islamization of America. And they’re inviting all these European anti-Muslim politicians in to speak. I mean, that’s really now taking this to a whole other level."   

Wragge also brought up Florida Pastor Terry Jones’s initial plans to burn the Koran on Saturday which were later cancelled: "It just seems as though we’re kind of, I don’t know, exacerbating some negative stereotypes that exist out there. I mean, can Muslims look at what’s going on here and say we can take – we can maybe hopefully take a positive away from this at some point?" Aslan replied: "I think Muslims in the United States can….Now, if you’re in Egypt or Syria, you don’t see that part. As far as you’re concerned, this isn’t about a crazy pastor, this is about America and anti-Islam fervor in the United States."

At the top of the broadcast, Wragge interviewed Dr. Zuhdi Jassar, a Muslim scholar opposed to the Ground Zero mosque. Jasser proposed a very different course of action from Aslan: "…it’s time for Muslims to look less about promoting ourselves, less about victimology, and more about feeling the pain of the families of 9/11 and understanding what we have to do to repair the house of Islam."

Wragge still attempted to mischaracterize mosque opposition: "Do you feel that – that since 9/11 America has become Islamophobic, so to speak?" Jasser replied: "I have to tell you absolutely not. I do think that we’re becoming – we’re getting a crash course on Islam and I we think we Muslims have to do more work to separate spiritual Islam of the faith that we love from political Islam that creates the Nidal Hasans, the Faisal Shahzads and has a continuum from moderate to radical…. It’s a fight within the house of Islam that we need to focus in and not just focus on victimology."

Here is a full transcript of Aslan’s rant:

8:46AM SEGMENT:

CHRIS WRAGGE: You’re looking at live pictures of Ground Zero. Nine years ago today, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center right there. Every year on September 11th at this time we pause to reflect those who lost their lives at Ground Zero, this is the first of four moments of silence. The next will be at 9:03, when the second tower was struck and then again, the two later moments of silence will correspond with the times that the towers fell.

Reza Aslan is with us right now, our Middle East expert here at CBS, to talk a bit about the way the world has changed here the last nine years with what’s been going on, especially here the last few weeks, with this controversy of the Islamic center downtown. And let’s begin with that. Your thoughts on what’s transpired and how now, you know, with this Pastor Jones, how it’s really kind of taken on a life of its own here.

REZA ASLAN: Well, I think the thing that’s most surprising to a lot of Americans is the way in which 9/11, and particularly Ground Zero, has become so unapologetically politicized in a way that, I think, is surprising to a lot of Americans. That would have been surprising even a year ago. Now, what is the cause for that? Some might say that the Islamic community center, you know, sparked this whole wave of anti-Muslim sentiment but I think maybe we’re far enough away, nine years now, where people do feel like they can take advantage of this symbol for their own political purposes.

WRAGGE: You think, though, that’s a big chance to take? Because the one thing that I’m hearing, especially talking from a lot of people not only down in the area, living here in the city, but also family members that say, you know, this is a day of remembrance, reflection, this is a day that changed the world as we know it now, this is not an opportunity to add controversy into the mix. If there’s one day, you know what, to keep our mouths quiet and let’s just reflect on the lives lost, today is it, you don’t mess with that.
 
ASLAN: And you know I’ll be honest with you, I hope that there is kind of a backlash against what’s going on right now. As you know, at 1pm today there’ll be a rally in support of the so-called Park 51 project, at 3pm there’ll be this international rally against it. So, I’m hoping that Americans all over the country see these images and think we’ve gone too far. This is just too far now. No matter where you fit on this controversy.

REBECCA JARVIS: And what’s the end game, then?

ASLAN: Well, I think, you know, people are just going to continue to use this to fuel their own political or economic, you know, ideologies, as it is. And I do believe that Mayor Bloomberg said something very interesting. He said that by this time next year, we’ll have the memorial finished. And I do think that once that’s done, then there will no longer be this void, this vacuum, this space that can be filled up with other people’s notions and other people’s ideas. Let’s hope so, anyway.

WRAGGE: Today, with these protests that will be going on, those in support, those that are not in favor of this Islamic center downtown at 51 Park, do you think it takes away from what we’re really supposed to be focusing our attention on here?

ASLAN: Most definitely. And, you know, particularly in the case of this sort of international anti-Islam rally that’s being brought by this group called Stop Islamization of America. And they’re inviting all these European anti-Muslim politicians in to speak. I mean, that’s really now taking this to a whole other level. The point of this is remembrance, mourning, if anything, we should be coming together as different religions and different ethnicities.

JARVIS: I-

WRAGGE: I’m sorry. It just seems as though we’re kind of, I don’t know, exacerbating some negative stereotypes that exist out there. I mean, can Muslims look at what’s going on here and say we can take – we can maybe hopefully take a positive away from this at some point?

ASLAN: I think Muslims in the United States can. In fact, one of the things that’s most remarkable about this stunt with the Koran burning in Florida, is the enormous response of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders that have come together and really wanted to use this as a way of promoting interfaith cooperation. Now, if you’re in Egypt or Syria, you don’t see that part. As far as you’re concerned, this isn’t about a crazy pastor, this is about America and anti-Islam fervor in the United States. That’s a real problem, we’re engaged in two wars.

JARVIS: Reza, thank you. We appreciate you being with us and we will be right back.

Here is a full transcript of Wragge’s interview with Jasser:

7:06AM ET SEGMENT:

CHRIS WRAGGE: One Muslim scholar is sharply critical of the planned Islamic Community Center and prayer room near Ground Zero. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is president of the Islamic Forum for Democracy in Phoenix. Dr. Jasser, thank you for joining us this morning. We appreciate it.

ZUHDI JASSER [PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY]: Thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure.

Chris Wragge and Zuhdi Jasser, CBS WRAGGE: Let me ask you if you heard a second ago, in Elaine Quijano’s piece, there are two competing rallies at Ground Zero today adding controversy to this – this sacred day. How do you feel that this situation can be calmed, if at all?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Ground Zero Divided; Rallies Planned For And Against Islamic Center]

JASSER: Yeah, I think today is – especially a day as we remember and reflect upon 9/11 and –  and looking over that pit of devastation there and feeling that – and today, we look through that lens as Americans, not as a Muslim, not as of any faith. I – I don’t look through this lens of trying to repair my – trying to promote Islam. It’s about fighting the forces that caused this. And I think if we’re able to unite under that. That’s why 71% of Americans are against this. It’s not because they don’t want mosques there, there’s even other mosques closer. Many of us have built over 2,000 mosques in the United States with very little problem. And – but I think what unites us is the freedoms and liberties that our Constitution gives us and it’s time for Muslims to look less about promoting ourselves, less about victimology, and more about feeling the pain of the families of 9/11 and understanding what we have to do to repair the house of Islam.

WRAGGE: You’re a Muslim. You’ve seen this controversy. Do you feel that – that since 9/11 America has become Islamophobic, so to speak?

JASSER: I have to tell you absolutely not. I do think that we’re becoming – we’re getting a crash course on Islam and I we think we Muslims have to do more work to separate spiritual Islam of the faith that we love from political Islam that creates the Nidal Hasans, the Faisal Shahzads and has a continuum from moderate to radical. That’s what we have to do to separate them. And there’s some confusion there, understandably, because it’s not a binary equation of good Muslim non-violent, bad Muslim violent. There’s a continuum that’s confusing. But that is some part of the educational process, part of the war of ideas that we have to fight within. This isn’t a fight between Islam and Christianity or Islam and the West. It’s a fight within the house of Islam that we need to focus in and not just focus on victimology.

WRAGGE: Can I ask you your – your thoughts on why there was such a visceral reaction to – to Pastor Jones?

JASSER: Well, because, book burning has never been anything that’s been followed by anything good in history. Book burning is something that is clearly against the Constitution and the First Amendment and shows a complete disrespect and he’s a speck of humanity of just thirty congregants and doesn’t represent America. But yet, he feeds into the Islamist narrative overseas, across the world, that America is against Islam, America is against Muslims. So he used it to have his fifteen minutes of fame-

WRAGGE: Yeah.

JASSER: -and it fed into that narrative.

WRAGGE: Alright. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, thank you very much for taking the time. We appreciate it.

JASSER: Thank you for having me.

WRAGGE: Alright.

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias


2
Sep 10

Reliable Analyst Sabato Predicts Virtual Political Katrina for Democrats In November

The University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato is one of the most reliable political analysts and forecasters in America. Unlike some popular political pundits who suggest they analyze and forecast (one in particular who I get by email) but are partisan and ideology based, Sabato is a solid political scientist who isn’t issuing forecasts for political reasons. And his latest Crystal Ball entry has grim news for Demcorats: He predicts they face a virtual political Katrina on election day. Some excerpts:

The Crystal Ball’s predictions are clinical. We are fond of people in both parties. We cheer for no one.

2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition. It has simply been a question of degree. Several scenarios were possible, depending in large measure on whether, or how quickly, the deeply troubled American economy recovered from the Great Recession. Had Democratic hopes on economic revitalization materialized, it is easy to see how the party could have used its superior financial resources, combined with the tendency of Republicans in some districts and states to nominate ideological fringe candidates, to keep losses to the low 30s in the House and a handful in the Senate.

But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats’ self-proclaimed “Recovery Summer” has become a term of derision, and to most voters—fair or not—it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered.

His forecast: Republicans are posed to take over the House and could well take over the Senate as well.

Obama’s job approval ratings have drifted down well below 50% in most surveys. The generic ballot that asks likely voters whether they will cast ballots for Democrats or Republicans this year has moved increasingly in the GOP direction. While far less important, other controversies such as the mosque debate and immigration policy have made the climate worse for Democrats. Republican voters are raring to vote, their energy fueled by anti-Obama passion and concern over debt, spending, taxes, health care, and the size of government. Democrats are much less enthusiastic by almost every measure, and the Democratic base’s turnout will lag. Plus, Democrats have won over 50 House seats in 2006 and 2008, many of them in Republican territory, so their exposure to any sort of GOP wave is high.

Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. This is a “net” number since the GOP will probably lose several of its own congressional districts in Delaware, Hawaii, and Louisiana. This estimate, which may be raised or lowered by Election Day, is based on a careful district-by-district analysis, plus electoral modeling based on trends in President Obama’s Gallup job approval rating and the Democratic-versus-Republican congressional generic ballot (discussed later in this essay). If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today.

In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react).
GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.

The seat switches are probably coming in Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware (but only if the eventual GOP nominee is Rep. Mike Castle), Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. We expect Republicans to pick off at least a couple of these states: California, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, and Wisconsin. While it is possible that Republicans will lose one or two of their own open seats, the only 50-50 chance of that right now is in Florida—and it might not happen even there. There can also be unanticipated shockers if a GOP wave develops. While we rate Gov. Joe Manchin (D) the early favorite to fill the late Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat, his Republican opponent, John Raese, is a self-funder in a strongly anti-Obama state.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Senate is on the bubble, with only a slight lean at Labor Day toward Democratic retention.

And the statehouses? He has been predicting a net gain of 6. Now he predicts 8. Go the link to read it in its entirety — and read Sabato if you want to analyze politics and some of the other consultants, forecasters and talking heads if you want to read what they are rooting to see happen.


The Moderate Voice


28
Aug 10

Analyst: the US may be the Next Bear Stearns

Given a few of the striking parallels, the federal government has a short window to change course
American Thinker Blog


12
Aug 10

The Obama Economy: Weekly Jobless Numbers Exceed Analyst Expectations, Rise to 484K

More economic bad news that according to Barack Obama the economy is headed in the right direction. First time unemployment claims rise to 484,000 as claims rose 2000 after analysts thought they would decrease. Let’s see Obama paint a rosy picture of this news or blame GWB.

New applications for unemployment insurance rose last week to their highest level in almost six months, the latest evidence that some employers are still cutting their staffs.

First-time claims for jobless benefits edged up by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Analysts had expected a drop. That’s the highest total since February.

Initial claims have now risen in three of the last four weeks and are close to their high point for the year of 490,000, reached in late January. The four-week average, which smooths volatility, soared by 14,250 to 473,500, also the highest since late February.

What do we hae to look forward to, more layoffs and a plunging stock market. By the way, did we mention that home foreclosures are up 6% this year over last? I guess that is George W. Bush’s fault as well.

The prospects of more layoffs added to this week’s grim outlook for the economy, which began Tuesday when the Federal Reserve lowered its assessment of the recovery.

Investors were bracing for another rocky day on Wall Street. Dow Jones industrial average futures, which were down about 50 points before the report came out, fell further. They were down nearly 90 points before the market opened.

Share This

Scared Monkeys


10
Aug 10

Fox analyst slams Republicans for forgetting their ‘oath to uphold the Constitution.’

Today, Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano slammed Republicans trying to change the 14th amendment to end birthright citizenship. When asked about the effort to change the amendment, Napolitano derided it as “nothing but political chatter.” He then went on to castigate the Republicans who are advocating for ending birthright citizenship, saying, “These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not part of it!”:

NAPOLITANO: The law has been upheld uniformly since 1868 and without exception. And we start with a couple of basics. The Congress cannot change the constitution of the 14th amendment on its own. It takes 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states to change the amendment. […] so this is nothing but political chatter by those who are concerned understandably by problems at the border. [...] I can’t imagine that there’d be a consensus to change the 14th amendment. [...]

KILMEADE: But if the [Birthright Citizenship Act] were carried out, you had 100 co-sponsors about a year ago, it would require at least one parent to be a US citizen for a baby to become an american citizen at birth. If you were to enact the BCA as some refer to it, is that a way to get around the 14th amendment, and get done what people like John Cornyn, and John Kyl and John Mccain, and we heard John Boehner are trying to do.

NAPOLITANO: No! That would not be a a way around it. There is no way to get around the 14th amendment. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not part of it! The Supreme Court has said you cannot take privileges or benefits away from a child because of a crime committed by the parent. Therefore everybody born here is an American citizen, no matter what their parents’ status was at their birth.

Watch it:

Not all Republicans have endorsed the extreme cause of altering the 14th amendment. Cesar Conda, who was a domestic policy adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, called the drive to change the amendment “offensive.” “The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons,” former Bush media advisor Mark McKinnon told the press.

Think Progress