Contessa Brewer: Insane Liberal of the Week

Age: 35

Birthplace: Parsonsfield, ME

Claim To Fame: MSNBC news anchor

Why She’s the Insane Liberal of the Week: for actually having the gall to accuse a U.S. Senator of not wanting to fund education, denying she said it (it’s right there on TV Contessa) and then throwing a hissy-fit when she got called on it.

Most of America is well aware that MSNBC shills for Barack Obama and the Left. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthew, Rachel Maddow and Co. are nothing but smear merchants for the 21% of Americans who call themselves “liberals”. And that’s fine. After all this is America, everyone has a right to their views and no one watches MSNBC anyway.

Yet, for all the left-wing hyperbole Krazy Keith and his minions spout on air, you’d think they’d tread more carefully when dealing with an elected politician, regardless of which side of the aisle he or she was on. Guess Contessa Brewer must’ve missed the memo.

While interviewing Republican senator Judd Gregg this past Thursday, Brewer and co-host Melissa Francis questioned Sen. Gregg about the money Obama is proposing to spend on jobs and whether it should go “hand and hand with other programs that integrate job training, vocational skills and certainly educating very young people.” Gregg responded in kind, talking about government spending and his desire to “control the rate of growth of government.” Francis then chided the senator, saying that sounded “good in theory,” which led Gregg to get upset, retorting, “that’s not theory. Don’t tell me that’s good in theory”:

FRANCIS: That’s good in theory, senator. How would you practically…
GREGG: It’s not theory. It’s not theory. Don’t tell me that’s good in theory.
FRANCIS: Well, how would you, tell me how to put it to work.
GREGG: No, you don’t tell me it’s good in theory.
FRANCIS: Tell me very practically…
GREGG: How do you get off saying something like that?

After Gregg calmed down and ticked off a list of the ways he thinks the Obama administration has been fiscally irresponsible, Brewer interjected that Francis was “really asking for specifics” of “which programs” he was willing to cut. “Are you willing to tell schools ‘no money for you?’” Brewer asked pointedly. And at that moment Gregg let Brewer know that she wasn’t dealing with a rank amateur:

GREGG: Well, first off, nobody’s saying no money for schools. What an absurd statement to make.
BREWER: Well, I’m asking you, what we’re…
GREGG: And what a dishonest statement to make. On its face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.

After calling out Brewer’s lame attempt to frame the issue unfairly , Gregg said that he would freeze discretionary spending, “eliminate the TARP money,” “end the stimulus spending” in June, and reform entitlement spending. He then returned to slamming Francis and Brewer’s questions, calling the question about education spending “the most irresponsible question I’ve heard probably in a month.”


Brewer, clearly flustered at being pwned on her own program (the soon-to-be canceled “It’s the Economy”), then proceeded to throw a fit, slamming down her notes and attempting to cut the interview short. But Senator Gregg wasn’t having it, as he continued to question the journalists “integrity” and called them “irresponsible”.

Maybe it is time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, because with journalism like this, MSNBC will soon be broke and out of business.


  1. You’re reaching here. Judging from the transcript you’ve provided, the question that set Gregg off – what programs would you cut from the budget? – was hardly an unreasonable one. And she didn’t actually accuse Gregg of wanting to cut education – she was asking if Gregg wanted to do so, or if not, what else would he cut? It was a legit follow-up and Gregg was engaging in a little old-fashioned overwrought outrage while answering the question.

  2. Well, I have to agree with Jeff, at least to some extent. The specific question that set him off was kind of dumb, as if anyone wants to cut school funding to zero. That said, I thought the Senator overreacted somewhat. It was a bit like watching Arlen Specter go off on Michele Bachmann about a week ago.

  3. Jeff: “You’re reaching here.”

    I had exactly the same reaction, Jeff, as you so well described. I think anyone who reads the full transcript would in all fairness come to the same conclusion you did. Gregg, instead of continuing the interview, interrupted the questioner frequently, sometimes attacking her instead of answering her questions. In fact, I find nothing untoward about the behaviors of Brewer and Francis, rather I find an angry Senator who wanted his views to be heard irrespective of the interviewers, and was happy to be rude to get that done. Gregg needs a good night’s sleep.

  4. the “insane liberal of the week” award is always good for some laughs, as it’s actually the “unhinged mouth-foaming overreacting rant of the week” – half of them amount to “someone said something I don’t agree with! that’s INSANE!”

  5. Here is an interesting view on the education question. (It wasn’t insane at all.)

    President Ronald Reagan promised during the 1980 presidential election to eliminate the Department of Education as a cabinet post, but he was not able to do so with a Democratic House of Representatives. In the 1982 State of the Union Address, he pledged:

    The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education.

    He still your hero?

    That quote was from here:

    The same bit of tape from the liberal point of view:

  6. Nang: You bet. There’s no NEED for the feds to get involved in education. None. It’s a state and/or local matter. Or, at least it should be.

  7. Why do we need the Federal Government involved in Education? For over 150 years the state and local governments did fine. If you look around the country, each, and/or region needs education tailored to that area. In the Midwest, farming education was big, but in an Eastern state it would not work. All that is to say there is no one size fits all approach.

    I think we took a giant step backwards with the Dept. of Ed. because with all things Federal comes giant strings attached. And with No Child Left Behind it became ropes attached. And now BO wants to “improve” NCLB and I imagine it will come with chains attached.

Comments are closed.