1st Republic 14th Star

Keep it up, Comedy Central

2012-02-14T21:21:00.002-05:00

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

from Daily Kos:

The so-called liberal media treats fringe conservative views as though they're credible. Again I have to point out that only "comedy" shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report showcase the stupidity of modern conservative commentary.

Learn a little more about the National Guard, please

2012-02-10T22:45:00.008-05:00

Army Wife, Army Life had some interesting comments to make about the National Guard:

After you've read her incorrect and uninformed assertions, read my reply. I couldn't post it to her blog because I'm not a subscriber.

-----

I think you need to know more about the National Guard.

I've served in the Guard since 1982, full time since 2000.

1 -- I know PLENTY of Guard members who have been deployed multiple times with no long break in between.

2 -- National Guard ACUs aren't almost the same as active Army ACUs -- they're EXACTLY the same -- right down to the U.S. Army tape over the left pocket.

3 -- If you really think that the spouses of National Guard members don't know how to "behave," let me disabuse you of that notion. National Guard members are called upon to perform state missions like disaster relief (Hurricane Irene, 1998 Ice Storm) and federal missions like overseas deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, AND they have to carry out the responsibilities of their civilian jobs. The only way Guard members can do it successfully is with the support of their spouses.

People with the "us against them" outlook drive wedges in the Army and prevent us from being as successful as we could be. Guard, Reserve, active Army -- we all have a job to do, we can do it successfully only by working together, and people from one component running down people from another does nothing to help accomplish that mission. I know on my Iraq deployment, which included Soldiers from all Army components, we made no distinction between Guard, Reserve and active Army. We couldn't have even if we wanted to -- we couldn't tell the difference.

It might interest you to know that members of the National Guard must meet the same educational and experience criteria as members of the active Army for qualification in their assignments and promotion. Moreover, they must meet those criteria while still carrying out their full time careers.

4 -- Lastly, I want to make sure that you know that the benefits and services of the Vermont National Guard's Family Readiness Program can be accessed by all military members, spouses and veterans -- it doesn't matter if you're Guard, Reserve or active duty, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine or Coast Guard. If you're in, you're in. If you need access to your benefits you get it -- with no distinction or difference when it comes to branch or component.

If you want more information, feel free to let me know and I'll put you in contact with the program manager.

Regards,

Update: The Army Wife, Army Life blog containing the post to which I replied seems to have been removed.

But I thought Obama was an anti-business liberal!

2012-02-09T23:05:00.004-05:00

From Think Progress:

243,000 Jobs Created Last Month, Unemployment Rate Falls to 8.3 Percent

Come on! 23 straight months of job GROWTH? A Falling unemployment rate? But... but... but... Obama is supposed to be a communist who believes in policies that are BAD for business.

When the conservative belief in Obama's socialism (Or is it communism? Probably both) collides with the reality of these numbers, the only response will be to deny the truth. Conservatives can never admit that anything positive is happening while the scary black man is President.

Finally! Proof Obama's bad for business!

2012-02-09T22:49:00.002-05:00

From Daily Kos:

-----

What? The NASDAQ and the Dow Jones are UP since Obama took office? WAY up? That damned anti-capitalist!

Gee, what's this do for the argument that businesses are scared of the uncertainty and over-regulation of the KenyanIndonesianHalfricanAmericanCommunistSocialistFascistNaziMuslim administration?

Hannity's ODS is obvious

2012-02-08T20:44:00.004-05:00

From Media Matters:

Hannity: Bin Laden Strike "Wouldn't Have Happened" If Obama "Had His Way"

-----

Bush said Bin Laden wasn't that important to him and that Bush didn't think about Bin Laden all that much.

Obama said that if he had credible evidence Bin Laden was in Pakistan, he'd order a strike.

John McCain promptly accused Obama of ruining our relationship with "ally" Pakistan by proposing an invasion and occupation.

Obama beat McCain and there was much conservative gnashing of teeth as Obama, not McCain, succeeded Bush.

Obama then received credible evidence that Bin Laden was in Pakistan, ordered the strike, and had Bin Laden killed.

What Bush and Obama have in common is that when it came to Bin Laden, each meant what he said and followed through on his rhetoric.

Pot, meet Kettle

2012-02-07T23:27:00.001-05:00

From Media Matters:

Karl Rove: White House "Turned Great Iconic Moment" Of Chrysler Ad Into Something Political

Says the guy who said THIS!

President Bush's chief policy adviser, Karl Rove, set off a national firestorm Wednesday night when he told a New York Conservative Party group that liberals wanted to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers" in the wake of the September 11 attacks, while conservatives "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Me? This liberal was too busy getting shot at in Iraq to offer therapy and understanding to anyone.

I'll just go ahead and say it: Oh, Bullshit

2012-02-06T23:50:00.003-05:00

From CNN:

Former intern: Book details Kennedy affair

Oh, BULLSHIT.

If John Kennedy had sex with all the women he's been accused of, or who have claimed it, he'd never have had time to do eat, drink, or sleep, let alone execute the duties of his office.

Well, Karl, if that's how YOU see it

2012-02-06T23:41:00.003-05:00

From Raw Story:

Rove: I’m ‘offended’ by Eastwood’s inspiring Super Bowl commercial

If Rove believes this ad featuring Clint Eastwood is a sly or secret pro-Democratic message, isn't he admitting by implication that Republican economic policies have failed?

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Karl. Even if you didn't intend it.

Big points for the Snake River Canyon reference

2012-02-06T23:31:00.004-05:00

The Snake River Canyon reference to Payne makes this Worst Persons in the World clip worth watching.

Why would anyone support Republicans?

2011-12-28T15:48:00.007-05:00

Take the Republican agenda piece by piece. Republicans support:

Lower wages. That means less pay for YOU. Less pay is BAD. More pay is good.

Reduced benefits. Less vacation time for YOU. Less sick days off for YOU. Less likelihood of being treated fairly in a disagreement with your boss for YOU. Fewer benefits are BAD. More benefits are good.

Unsafe working conditions. "Less regulation" and "regulatory reform" mean that YOU put your life and limb in danger every day. They mean that YOU are at higher risk for death and disease. YOU victimized by death and disease is BAD. You finishing the workday alive and with all your fingers and toes is good.

Workmen's compensation. Republicans think that if you do get hurt on the job, too fucking bad. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Oh, you don't have hands to reach those bootstraps anymore? Too fucking bad. That's not the government's responsibility, or the employer's. Leaving YOU without a source of income if you're hurt at work is BAD. Enabling you to eat and sleep while you convalesce is good.

Unemployment compensation. Laid off? Company go out of business? Company move your job to China or India? Too fucking bad. You're on your own. Oh, there are more applicants than there are jobs available? Tough. Try fucking harder you deadbeat. Leaving YOU with no source of income when times are tough is BAD. Tiding you over until you're back on your feet is good.

Social Security. Oh, you didn't save enough for your retirement? Tough -- you're on your own. (How you were supposed to save more for retirement when you were paid less is left unsaid.) Your investment broker ran off with your savings? Tough. Your investments didn't pan out? Tough. You're on your own. How anyone can be against a program that provides an income floor and ensures that you won't starve when you're old and gray is beyond me, but Republicans oppose it. YOU having to eat cat food or go without medicine when you're old is BAD. You being able to eat and take your pills is good.

Universal health care, single payer health care, or anything like it. As a result, people go without preventive care, which means that their illnesses cost taxpayers and insurers more over time. You're too sick to work? Tough. You're on your own. You should have thought of that when you were working. (How you're supposed to afford health insurance when you're being paid less and your benefits are being reduced isn't said.) YOU getting sick and dying from something treatable is BAD. You staying well or recovering so you can return to work is good.

For the life of me, I can't see why anyone who's not rich beyond comprehension would support a party that promises less money, less time off, living on the street if he gets laid off, cat food when he's old, and an early death if he gets sick.

And speaking of the Virginia Republican primary

2011-12-27T19:38:00.004-05:00

From Jake Tapper, ABC News:

Newt’s Virginia Ballot Debacle as Pearl Harbor?

-----

It's tough to believe that new Gingrich has a Ph.D. in HISTORY.

How arrogant, conceited, pompous and narcissistic to you have to be to compare YOUR OWN INCOMPETENCE to one of the seminal events in American history?

Typical Republican hypocrisy from Rick Perry

2011-12-27T19:34:00.004-05:00

From, David Nir, Daily Kos:

Rick Perry sues to get on Virginia ballot

-----

I'm a Republican. I'm against "judicial activism." I'm against "frivolous lawsuits." Well, unless the law is against ME and I need a friendly judge to ignore it. In that case, lawsuits and judicial activism are just fine.

Why Newt Gingrich Should Not Be President

2011-12-18T19:23:00.002-05:00

From Andrew Jones at Raw Story:

Gingrich: I’ll ‘ignore’ any Supreme Court ruling I disagree with:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is doubling down from Thursday’s Fox News debate on his vow to abolish federal courts if he disagreed with their decision.

According to The Hill, in a conference call with reporters, Gingrich indicated that it was in the president’s power as commander-in-chief to deem any Supreme Court ruling irrelevant if he or she in the White House disagreed.

The former House Speaker used the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Bush administration exceeding its constitutional authority in handling suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2008 as a basis for his extreme view.

“They just ignored it,” he said. “A commander-in-chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander-in-chief to protect the country.”

-----

First, imagine the Republican howling if Barack Obama suggested that HE could ignore court rulings. Republicans call Obama a communist and a socialist and a fascist and a Nazi despite the fact that these philosophies are mutually exclusive, and despite the fact that Obama is often in agreement with Republicans.

I can only imagine what new word they'd use to describe an Obama who claimed that court rulings didn't apply to him.

Second, is there a man more full of himself than Newt Gingrich? I mean, honestly, have you ever seen so much hubris, conceit and arrogance in one man?

From impeaching Clinton for an affair while carrying on one of his own to accusing Speaker Jim Wright of ethics violations and then having to pay a huge fine for ethics violations of his own to comparing himself to Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, Newt Gingrich's self love is apparently boundless.

The reason Newt Gingrich should not be President is that he reminds me too much of this guy.

What is wrong with you people?

2011-12-11T08:49:00.003-05:00

From Think Progress:

Lowe’s, Bank Of America, And Others Pull Ads From Muslim Reality TV Show After Pressure

By Zaid Jilani, on Dec. 10, 2011 at 3:00 pm

The TLC reality TV show All-American Muslim chronicles the lives of a group of Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan. The show has been well-received for its fair and realistic portrayal of the Muslim American experience in the United States. Watch a trailer for the show here.

But a reality TV show that lets Americans relate to the lives of Muslims in the United States is an offensive idea to those who want to demonize Islam. The Florida Family Association (FFA) launched a campaign earlier this year to get companies to pull their advertising from the program. FFA claims that 65 of the 67 companies targeted have done this, including home improvement giant Lowe’s and megabank Bank of America.

-----

What is wrong with you people? The idea that all Muslims are terrorists and jihadists is just stupid. The notion that only white, Protestant, fundamentalist Christians make good Americans is narrow minded and flies in the face of American history.

We can only hope that other advertisers fill the gap and keep this show on the air. Taking it off would be un-American.

Newt Gingrich lacks self-awareness

2011-12-05T07:52:00.003-05:00

From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

Newt Gingrich is Sad That Politics Has Gotten So Nasty

National Review's Katrina Trinko attended one of Newt Gingrich's town hall meetings for local tea partiers today:

One thing that struck me was his earnestness in pushing bipartisanship, not a typical theme at Tea Party events....He spoke about having to attract Democratic votes to stay in Congress during his early years as House member in Georgia, and referred to working to get Democratic votes in the ‘80s to pass Reagan’s initiatives. “I grew up in politics learning a lot about how you build bipartisan coalitions,” Gingrich observed.

....“There are a thousand small things that create bipartisanship even if you disagree about big things,” Gingrich said. “And it’s really important to remember that, all the little human things that a good leader can do to get the city of Washington to work again. Tragically, none of them are being done by the current team.”

I read that with my mouth agape. If there's a single person in the country more responsible than Newt for the poisonous state of partisan politics in America today, I don't know who it is. Remember these gems down through the years?

1978, speaking to a group of College Republicans: "I think that one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty."

1989, speaking about the Democratic leadership in Congress: "These people are sick....They are so consumed by their own power, by a Mussolini-like ego, that their willingness to run over normal human beings and to destroy honest institutions is unending."

2011, speaking about the current Democratic president: "Obama is the most serious radical threat to traditional America ever to occupy the White House."

There's no cherry picking here. These are all workaday themes for the GOP's self-proclaimed philosopher king, one of the nastiest, most malignant pieces of work ever to grace American politics. Newt Gingrich extolling the virtues of bipartisanship is like Hannibal Lecter promoting the value of good nutrition.

-----

I think Kevin Drum doesn't go far enough.

Newt Gingrich is a total dick. He's also a total partisan hack. He was willing to tear down the institution of the United States House of Representatives in order to become the head of it, using phony ethics charges and a complacent "liberal" media to ruin Jim Wright.

Gingrich is the guy who described language as a "key mechanism of control" and advised his adherents to pick the most negative sounding terms for their political opponents. Calling someone radical or corrupt merely because he disagrees with you hardly seems to be "bipartisan."

Newt Gingrich is the one who made vacuous speeches attacking Democratic leaders to an empty House chamber and then cried and whined when Speaker Tip O'Neill showed him up.

It was Newt Gingrich who insisted on impeaching Bill Clinton over an extramarital affair despite election results which clearly showed that the voters were against it, and despite Gingrich himself carrying out the very same act for which he claimed Clinton needed to be punished.

Honestly, I think that I have never seen as much arrogance, conceit, hubris and lack of self awareness in one person as I see in Newt Ginrich.

Gretchen Carlson doesn't know about the upside of unions

2011-12-02T16:21:00.001-05:00

From Media Matters:

Carlson: "Some Would Say That It's The Unions That Have Crippled The U.S. Economy And Led To The United States' Debt"

-----

Either Gretchen Carlson was born rich or doesn't know her own family history.

As for mine, I know that only two generations ago my grandfather, great-uncle and great-aunt were able to establish themselves in career employment on railroads and in the classroom. These careers included good pay and benefits including health insurance and pensions. They were able to attain this success in large part because their career fields were unionized, and the employers had to negotiate for wages, benefits and working conditions.

Just one generation ago my father and uncle were able to support themselves and their families -- my father on a railroad and my uncle as a state government legislation and policy analyst -- again, thanks to unions that helped them obtain fair wages, benefits and working conditions.

In my generation, I'm making out well now, but that wasn't always the case. My siblings have also had to deal with periods of unemployment when they couldn't find jobs no matter how hard they tried, and when the best they could do was jobs with less than satisfactory working conditions and relatively low wages.

When it comes to the next generation, my children have also had to deal with periods of unemployment and when they can find work, the conditions usually aren't great, and the pay is usually relatively low. Of course, they're happy just to be working -- apparently that's the new definition of "success" and "making it".

In my experience, my family's work history is pretty typical, so I think it serves as a pretty effective illustration of the bigger picture.

The difference is clearly unions -- when unions are enabled, working conditions improve, wages rise, benefits increase, and productivity goes up.

When unions are neutered, workers are supposed to consider themselves as among the fortunate if have the most menial employment in the most unhealthy conditions.

But for Bush...

2011-11-29T23:31:00.002-05:00

From Media Matters:

Hannity And Perino Agree: Killing Of Bin Laden Wouldn't Have Happened "But For President Bush"

-----

And the bin Laden-directed attacks on 9-11 wouldn't have happened but for President Bush, either.

'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.'

And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice.

He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer.

"All right," he said. "You've covered your ass, now."

Glenn Beck's most recent stupid statement

2011-11-29T22:29:00.001-05:00

From Media Matters:

Beck: Santorum, Bachmann Are Only GOP Candidates Who "Fall Into The Abraham Lincoln Or George Washington Character Category"

-----

Oh COME ON!

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum can barely spell "Lincoln". They could certainly never have crafted phrases like "with malice towards none" "with charity for all" or "the last full measure of devotion". Can you imagine Michele Bachmann on the dais at Gettysburg, looking left while the audience is right in front of her?

There's NO WAY Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann could ever be seen as a leader who personified a nation and transcended partisanship like George Washington. They're partisans to the core, politicians who consider their opposition to be enemies of the state rather than mere political foes.

Beck's characterization of these two buffoons as Lincolnesque and Washington-like would be laughable except that he says stupid things like this so often that no one really notices any more.

Jon Stewart and the liberal War on Thanksgiving

2011-11-29T18:30:00.001-05:00

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The idiots who annually bring us the "War on Christmas" have tried to bring it to Thanksgiving. Jon Stewart and The Daily Show writers demonstrate how stupid this Republican meme really is.

Romney versus Romney

2011-11-28T09:23:00.002-05:00

MittvMitt.com

I'm back

2011-11-28T09:22:00.002-05:00

I haven't been able to post because I've been so busy with work. I should have more to say now things have slowed down a little.

Occupy Wall Street -- "But What Do They Want?"

2011-10-10T12:03:00.002-04:00

This Modern World, by Tom Tomorrow:

"But what do they want?"

Spot on, Nancy Pelosi

2011-10-10T11:51:00.002-04:00

From Think Progress:

PELOSI CALLS OUT CANTOR’S HYPOCRISY FOR SMEARING OCCUPY WALL STREET

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called out Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) for calling the 99 percent movement a “growing mob” after having supported the Tea Party movement. “I didn’t hear him say anything when the tea party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol,” Pelosi said ABC’s “This Week” yesterday. “And he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them.”

-----

Damned right. And spitting is only one of the many bad acts committed by the Tea Baggers.

Beck is right, but not for the reason he thinks

2011-10-09T14:05:00.003-04:00

From Media Matters:

Beck: "There Is A Race War That Is Going On In Our Country"

-----

Beck says there's a race war going on in this country? I agree, but not for the reason he thinks.

The racism comes from people like him, who display racism against Obama in particular and Democrats and liberals in general, somtimes overtly, but usually covertly.

Glenn Beck saying Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people.

Bill O'Reilly expressing shock that he could walk into a Harlem restaurant full of black customers and see them exercising dining etiquette and table manners just like white people.

Tea Party protesters calling black members of Congress ni*gers.

Anti Obama signs with pictures of witch doctors on them.

Conservatives praising some disaster victims for pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (the white ones) while condemning others for supposedly expecting endless government handouts (the black ones).

If Glenn Beck really wanted to stop racism, he'd start by looking in the mirror. Of course, he wants to foment racism, not stop it, so that will never happen.

Math has a well known liberal bias

2011-10-09T00:00:00.005-04:00

Mitt Romney, via Daily Kos:

As President, on Day One, I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy. I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts. Time and again, we have seen that attempts to balance the budget by weakening our military only lead to a far higher price, not only in treasure, but in blood.

Little problem with this one, which the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman points out on Twitter. In chart form (source here, table 3.2).

-----

Now, I want someone to explain to me how increasing from $661 billion to $694 billion to $768 billion is a "cut."

I also want someone to tell me how a guy who makes a mistake (the charitable explanation) or outright lies (the more likely explanation for what Romney said) is supposed to be a financial genius who should be allowed to run the government like he'd run a business.

I say pass on Romneymath.

Let's see more of this, please

2011-10-08T12:32:00.003-04:00

Bill Maher on WhoSay

From WhoSay.com:

Alan Grayson kicks P.J. O'Rourke's ass, rhetorically speaking, on last night's Real Time With Bill Maher.

Eric Cantor's soul has been removed

2011-10-08T08:31:00.006-04:00

From Digby's Hullabaloo:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor took to the stage at the 2011 Voter Values Summit in Washington to do a little fear-mongering about the growing Occupy Wall Street protests.

“If you read the newspapers today, I for one am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country,” he said.

Cantor appeared try and connect the protests to the cries of “class warfare” Republicans are lobbing at President Obama’s jobs bill and his Buffett Rule.

“Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans,” Cantor said.

-----

So, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are "growing mobs" and "pitting Americans against Americans"?

But Cantor had NO PROBLEM with tea party protesters who spit on members of Congress and called them "faggots" and "niggers".

How can a guy like Cantor, who lies as a matter of habit, live with himself?

One of my friends suggested that in order to function as he does, Cantor must have had his soul removed. That's about as good an explanation as any, I guess.

More adventures of Middleman

2011-10-06T23:04:00.003-04:00

This Modern World, by Tom Tomorrow

Let's see if Obama's current speechifying sticks, or if he falls back on what he knows -- giving the other side 98 percent of what they want and calling it a bipartisan compromise.

Oh, no conservatives aren't racist, not racist at all

2011-10-06T22:53:00.002-04:00

From Think Progress:

Right-wing radio host and Fox contributor Laura Ingraham makes a living from race-baiting when it comes to the president. Like many of her conservative cohorts, Ingraham often insists that much of Obama’s success is solely derived from the fact that he is African-American. Yesterday on her radio show, Ingraham offered Obama’s rise to the presidency as a perfect example of “the problem with affirmative action.” This is “what happens when individuals get pushed into positions, or elevated to positions for which they’re not qualified,” she said. “People get pushed, pushed, pushed farther than their abilities can match the position, and then they just keep failing.” All “because we had such a yearning for history,” she added.

That notion, however, spurred Ingraham to contemplate the GOP’s African-American presidential candidate Herman Cain. In comparing the “blackness” of the two African American politicians, Ingraham wondered whether Cain would actually be “the first black president” because he doesn’t “have a white mother, white father.” Therefore, isn’t he the real black candidate?

-----

Of COURSE the attacks on Obama are tinged with racism! Republicans can't stand "that one!"

Need more proof?

Try this.

This.

This.

This.

This.

And this.

Here's why conservatism doesn't work

2011-10-06T22:44:00.003-04:00

From Think Progress:

Topeka, Kansas City Council Considers Decriminalizing Domestic Violence To Save Money

Faced with their worst budget crises since the Great Depression, states and cities have resorted to increasingly desperate measures to cut costs. State and local governments have laid off teachers, slashed Medicaid funding, and even started unpaving roads and turning off streetlights.

But perhaps the most shocking idea to save money is being debated right now by the City Council of Topeka, Kansas. The city could repeal an ordinance banning domestic violence because some say the cost of prosecuting those cases is just too high:
Last night, in between approving city expenditures and other routine agenda items, the Topeka, Kansas City Council debated one rather controversial one: decriminalizing domestic violence.

Here’s what happened: Last month, the Shawnee County District Attorney’s office, facing a 10% budget cut, announced that the county would no longer be prosecuting misdemeanors, including domestic violence cases, at the county level. Finding those cases suddenly dumped on the city and lacking resources of their own, the Topeka City Council is now considering repealing the part of the city code that bans domestic battery. [...]

Since the county stopped prosecuting the crimes on September 8th, it has turned back 30 domestic violence cases. Sixteen people have been arrested for misdemeanor domestic battery and then released from the county jail after charges weren’t filed. “Letting abusive partners out of jail with no consequences puts victims in incredibly dangerous positions,” said Becky Dickinson of the YWCA. “The abuser will often become more violent in an attempt to regain control.”

-----

And Rick Perry thinks that the individual states can manage Social Security? Are you fucking kidding?

Social Security -- NOT a Ponzi Scheme

2011-09-13T00:51:00.002-04:00

From Media Matters:

Juan Williams Forces Krauthammer And Carlson To Walk Back Their False Claim That Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme

-----

By MMFA contributor DAWUSS:

"Does anyone want to dispute these?"

Well, here goes...

"Ponzi schemes are unsustainable because they require an ever-increasing pool of "investors"."

That would be the youth who start paying into the system the second they pay their first tax.

"Ponzi schemes promise "big returns" for "relatively little investment"."

Someone explained that one to me and it basically involved taking the money that would have gone into SocSec and placing it into a personal investment/retirement account thingy and letting the money deposited + compound interest take over and the payout from that is supposed to be much greater than what one receives in a monthly SocSec check.

"Ponzi schemes have a chief beneficiary."

The previous generation now receiving benefits.

I could be missing something, but I think that's the gist of it.

In some ways I can see how it is (a Ponzi scheme) and in other ways I can see how it isn't.

-----

My reply:

DAWUSS, you cannot be serious.

The young people who pay into Social Security beginning with their first pay check are not investors being fleeced by the one guy running the scam, who takes the money and runs. EVERYONE who pays in to Social Security gets paid when they retire. That's the same as it's been since the program started.

In a Ponzi scheme, the operator puts in none of his own money -- he pays off old investors with just enough of the money he got from the new investors to keep all the investors from becoming suspicious. All the while, the operator is diverting to his own use as much of the money he has coming in as he can take without getting caught.

The people getting paid out in Social Security, all of whom previously paid in, are NOT running a scam, so they are not the "beneficiaries" of a Ponzi scheme.

Republicans want to divert Social Security to the private sector, where investors will make trillions.

When their investments lose money, senior citizens will be told "hey, those are the risks of the market."

When the bankers flat out STEAL, which you KNOW they will, we'll be told "no one could have predicted..." followed by a government bailout, with none of the "investors being called to account.

Before the 1930s, senior citizens had low life expectancy and it wasn't unusual for them to STARVE. Since Social Security was implemented, hundreds of millions of seniors have been able to live out their retirements with just a little less anxiety about where their next meal is coming from.

Social Security is one of the most profoundly successful government programs EVER in the history of the world. It does EXACTLY what it was intended to, does it cost effectively, and does it transparently.

This is one of those times where there are not two sides, each of which is equally credible. One side is incredibly, flat out WRONG. You need to quit listening to right wing talking points.

Oh, bullshit Luntz

2011-09-10T17:14:00.000-04:00

From Media Matters:

Frank Luntz Says 9-11 Anniversary "Allows Us To Appreciate George Bush And Dick Cheney For Keeping Us Safe

Oh, Bullshit.

The idea that Bush and Cheney kept us safe ignores several facts.

1 -- They reduced antiterrorism efforts after taking office. Richard Clarke couldn't get a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, and John Ashcroft wanted to cut anti-terrorism in favor of prosecuting pornographers.

2 -- Bush and Cheney ignored a presdiential daily briefing that gave them everything but the names of the hijackers and said explicitly that al Qaeda would attack inside the US and would use planes as bombs. Bush's response to the briefer was "OK, you've covered your ass", followed by a bike ride.

3 -- September 11, 2001 was a date that fell in Bush's presidential term by nine months. The only way he could have "kept us safe" would have been if he took over on September 12.

4 -- Several acts of terrorism happened even after September 11, 2001, including the anthrax attacks. How do they not count as terrorism on Bush's watch?

5 -- After the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and the Taliban didn't have to plot attacks within the US, because they had accomplished their goal of getting us to engage with them on their home turf.

They want the US out of the Middle East and Southwest Asia. The way they proposed to accomplish it was to draw us in, and then administer constant casualties over a long drawn out occupation. The intent was to turn US public opinion against US troops being sent overseas and send us skulking home, never to return.

On this last point, Bush played right intro their hands.

George W. Bush is easily in the bottom tier of US presidents in terms of destruction caused and lack of accomplishment. The only question left for historians is whether Bush will be judged THE WORST president.

More of this, please

2011-08-21T12:24:00.001-04:00

From Think Progress:

Former Obama White House spokesman Bill Burton had some sharp words for Karl Rove during their debate on Fox News Sunday. After a long rant from Rove attacking Obama on the economy, Burton shot back: “As someone who was a leader in the White House that turned a record surplus into a deficit, that got us in a war that we never should have been in, and turned the floor of the New York Stock Exchange into a casino — I don’t think the American people are quite ready to hear a lecture from you on good governance.”

The Octangulator

2011-08-17T12:06:00.001-04:00

By Jen Sorensen, via Daily Kos:

The author of this cartoon understands Obama perfectly. As I've said before, he will never be found manning a barricade and fighting for a principle.

Why would anyone vote for these people?

2011-08-16T18:05:00.002-04:00

Rick Perry criticizes federal farm regulations -- non-existent federal regulations.

Michele Bachmann doesn't know the difference between Elvis Presley's birthday and the anniversary of his death.

If these "top tier" candidates can get basic information right, why would anyone trust them with something as important as the presidency?

Jim Hightower has Obama pegged

2011-08-08T16:31:00.003-04:00

Obama says he'll really fight for the people... next time

Monday, August 8, 2011, posted by Jim Hightower

Listen to this commentary

Sheesh. In his big battle over the debt ceiling, Barack Obama waved his white hankie of surrender, allowing the loopiest of the tea party extremists in the Republican House to slash some $1 trillion from national programs that ordinary Americans count on. Obama's bad deal also puts Social Security and Medicare at risk, while promising to make our depressed economy (and even the deficit) worse. And he cravenly conceded to the demand by GOP/tea party extremists that tax-dodging corporations, hedge-fund profiteers and the richest 1 percent of our nation's plutocratic elite keep every dime of their subsidies, tax breaks and other federal giveaways.

Not to worry, though, for Obama now says that stage two of the deficit reduction process will be better. The pampered and privileged few, he insists, will also have to "chip in," and that he'll be "fighting for" fundamental principles of fairness.

But we've all seen again and again that this guy "fights" by backing up and begging for compromise. He talks tough about fighting for fairness "next time." When will next time be now?

I know a bit about fighting, having been a small guy growing up in a small Texas town where confrontations often popped up. I learned early on that you should never hit a man with glasses; you should hit him with something much heavier. The heavy "something" that Obama has at his disposal is the fact that the American people are overwhelmingly on his side in this fight.

Rather than playing budgetary patty-cake with Republicans in the backrooms of Washington, negotiating over how much of FDR's New Deal to throw out the window, he needs to FDR-up, get out of Washington, and rally the majority to go after the greedheads and screwballs with a bold program to get America moving again – moving upward and moving together.

If it's "bipartisan" it must be good

2011-08-08T13:52:00.001-04:00

This Modern World, by Tom Tomorrow.

Deficit Memories

2011-08-03T14:36:00.000-04:00

Slowpoke, by Jen Sorensen. From Daily Kos.

Stop The Pretend Outrage, Palin

2011-08-03T14:21:00.001-04:00

From Media Matters:

Palin And Hannity Use Criticism Of The Tea Party As An Excuse To Bring Up Bill Ayers

-----

Look, except for Palin's Bizzaro World, you cannot accuse Barack Obama of "palling around with domestic terrorists" and then feign outrage when someone else uses the terrorist analogy.

Republicans know that when someone accuses you of saying or doing doing something and expresses outrage, real or feigned, there are three courses of action:

1 -- Repeat what you just said. Often.

2 -- Say something worse on the same topic

3 -- Accuse your opponents of doing it too, and say they did it first.

The whole point is to reinforce that you're not apologizing and can't be pushed around.

What Jay Carney should have said instead of apologizing was "we call on the terrorist-like Tea Party to stop acting like terrorists so it will be possible for us to stop calling them terrorists."

My view on Obama's debt ceiling compromise

2011-08-01T18:14:00.001-04:00

I think Obama takes the wrong lesson from Lincoln.

He talks all the time about Lincoln's "House Divided" speech.

The point that Obama takes from it is that everyone has to come together in a spirit of bipartisan compromise, simply for the sake of being bipartisan and compromising.

Lincoln's actual point was that there were no more compromises to be had -- that the issue of slavery had to be permanently resolved one way or the other, otherwise the factions would continue to bluster, threaten, and temporize, as they had since the Missouri Compromise.

Lincoln's point was that the country could not be half slave AND half free -- it had to be all one or all the other.

Obama seems to think Lincoln meant "we have to try much harder to make this country half slave and half free" because half one way and half the other equals "bipartisan compromise."

When the war came, Lincoln proved to be a great president because he would compromise on lots of things, but not his principles.

His ONE condition for ending the Civil War was that the South had to stop fighting and acknowledge the supremacy of the federal government. Everything else was open to discussion and negotiation. It was the the South that wouldn't compromise and decided to fight.

Later, when guys like McClellan were willing to simply stop fighting and return to the status quo, Lincoln had the moral high ground to say no because he had articulated his principle in advance, got public support for it, and refused to give in on it.

As I've said before, Obama will NEVER be found behind a barricade fighting for a principle. His ideological North Star seems to be compromise -- that any deal, any bargain, must be good, because it's "bipartisan."

We've gone from "Yes We Can" to "Meh, this is as good as it gets."

Own It, Ralph Peters

2011-07-26T22:13:00.000-04:00

From Media Matters:

Ralph Peters: Norway Terror Suspect Is "Such A Godsend To The Liberal Media" Because He Calls Himself A Christian

-----

The Norway mass murderer is not a "godsend" to anyone.

What he did was reprehensible. The reasons he did it have no place in a civilized society.

This killer deserves whatever punishment he gets.

It is also a FACT that the conservative media immediately presumed that the murders in Norway were the work of Muslim extremists.

In addition, it is a FACT that the killer is not a Muslim, but a blonde, blue-eyed Norwegian who espouses a radical, warped view of Christianity and nationalism, including calls for violence against immigrants and those who practice Islam.

It is a further FACT that this Norwegian killer not only espouses some of the same radical political views as the most extreme of the American right wing, in fact he cites them as role models and positive examples.

Those three FACTS mean that the conservative media establishment and pundit class are in some measure accountable for the killings in Norway -- you can't espouse violence and murder as acceptable courses of action, and then disavow the adherents who actually follow up on your words.

So, to Fox "News", Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Pam Geller, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of their ilk I say -- you're at least partly responsible for Anders Behring Breivik -- OWN IT.

Another False Equivalency From Fox News

2011-07-25T18:27:00.002-04:00

From Media Matters:

Tantaros Asks: Can We Blame A Massacre At A Fast-Food Convention On "Michelle Obama's Policies Toward Unhealthy Food?"

-----

Hmmm -- does Michelle Obama compare McDonald's to Nazi Germany? Does she call the owners of Burger King socialists, communists or fascists? Does she advocate "second amendment remedies" against the inventor of the deep fried Twinkie?

Nope.

Talk about a false equivalency argument...

Bob Burnett Understands Barack Obama

2011-07-25T14:57:00.001-04:00

From Alternet.org:

How Obama Squandered the High Hopes of Those Who Elected Him

Barack Obama has not been the leader progressives expected. He is competent but not transformational. He is responsible but not a visionary.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Go ahead and read the article.

I vote Republican because -- # 20

2011-07-07T20:58:00.002-04:00

I vote Republican because I think that ensuring that children are well educated so they can become productive members of society and achieve their full potential is a waste of effort, but making those same children work at menial jobs for substandard pay makes perfect sense.

I vote Republican because -- # 19

2011-07-07T18:58:00.002-04:00

I vote Republican because I supported the guy who said that he didn't spend a lot of time time thinking about the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, but I criticize the guy who hunted down and killed that terrorist.

I vote Republican because -- # 18

2011-07-07T18:07:00.001-04:00

I vote Republican because I think placing a blatant racist whose views were so offensive that he was denied confirmation for a federal judgeship in the position of passing judgment on all federal Justice Department appointments is a good idea.

I vote Republican because -- # 17

2011-07-07T17:54:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because my idol is a man who thought saying the US would never negotiate with terrorists, while simultaneously negotiating with terrorists was a good foreign policy.

I vote Republican because -- # 16

2011-07-07T17:50:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because my idol is a man who thought prolonging the captivity of the US hostages in Iran was a good tactic for a presidential campaign.

I vote Republican because -- # 15

2011-07-07T15:30:00.004-04:00

I vote Republican because I think that rich people who inherit their wealth are "up by their own bootstraps" and "rugged individualists" who have no obligation to anyone else, but the working poor and middle class who go to work every day, play by the rules and struggle to pay their bills are "moochers" who need to pay more in taxes.

I vote Republican because -- # 14

2011-07-07T11:28:00.001-04:00

I vote Republican because I believe "life" begins at conception, but ends at birth.

I vote Republican because -- # 13

2011-07-07T11:21:00.001-04:00

I vote Republican because I think it's a good idea to place a habitual criminal in charge of investigating and overseeing the federal government.

I vote Republican because -- # 12

2011-07-07T10:07:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because I think laws are for the little people, and don't apply to rich, privileged white people like me.

I vote Republican because -- # 11

2011-07-06T09:55:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because science is not a matter of fact, but opinion. If I choose to not believe a demonstrable, observable, provable set of circumstances, then they simply don't exist.

I vote Republican because -- # 10

2011-07-05T19:12:00.002-04:00

I vote Republican because I like to pretend I'm a small government fiscal conservative despite the facts that:

A -- I favor two endless wars started by the administration I support.

B -- Untold billions have been wasted on these wars.

C -- The administration I support didn't plan on how to pay for these multi-trillion dollar wars, so they just borrowed and borrowed and borrowed

D -- Not planning on paying for the two endless wars I favor has exploded the national debt.

I vote Republican because -- # 9

2011-07-05T19:02:00.004-04:00

I vote Republican because when invading another country, I will accept no exit strategy as viable.

If things are going well, we can't leave because they might turn bad.

If things are going poorly, we can't leave until we've made them good.

We're staying because we won't leave, and we're not leaving because we're staying. It's perfectly circular logic.

I vote Republican because -- # 8

2011-07-05T18:58:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because I like to pretend that I'm tough on national security even though I rabidly supported a presidential administration that revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative as an act of political retaliation against her husband.

I vote Republican because -- # 7

2011-07-05T18:57:00.004-04:00

I vote Republican because I like it when my leaders lie in order to justify attacking other countries, especially if invading them is of no benefit to the United States.

I vote Republican because -- # 6

2011-07-05T16:39:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because I believe in "strict constructionist" judges who interpret the law rather than "judicial activists" who make it from the bench.

Except when the judicial activism favors my side.

I vote Republican because -- # 5

2011-07-05T16:16:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because unlike those faggy, atheist, liberal Democrats, Republicans believe in family values.

And just for good measure:

This guy.

This guy.

This guy.

And this guy.

I could go on and on and on...

I vote Republican because -- # 4

2011-07-05T16:14:00.000-04:00

I vote Republican because I'm a Christian. I think my faith is the only one that matters, and the government and everyone else should conform to my beliefs.

I vote Republican because -- # 3

2011-07-05T15:55:00.003-04:00

I vote Republican because I'm for individual freedoms and against an intrusive government.

Except if you're gay.

Or a woman.

or Black, Hispanic, or Asian.

I vote Republican because -- # 2

2011-07-05T15:53:00.004-04:00

I vote Republican because I believe the US Constitution contains just one amendment -- the Second.

Taking steps to ensure that criminals and crazy people can't possess firearms? That's overreaching by an intrusive government.

I vote Republican because -- # 1

2011-07-05T15:31:00.006-04:00

I have a friend who posts about his politics on Facebook. A lot. He's habitually wrong about politics, but a great guy about everything else, which is why he's a friend.

Anyway, he recently started posting "I voted Democrat because" comments on Facebook. They contain nuggets of wisdom such as:

I voted Democrat, because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, even though I've never been arrested for anything, ever, and I'm a retired army sergeant and military police officer, I can't be trusted to own one responsibly and I know that my local police are all that anyone will ever need to protect me and all citizens from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat, because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they are doing, because they now think we are good people.

I voted Democrat, because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat, because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

Well, my friend has inspired me with his habitual inexactitude. I'm going to be posting here on my blog (so as not to cause a conflict with my job) my counterpoints -- I vote Republican because...

Here's my first:

I vote Republican because even when my candidate loses the election, he's still sworn into office.

Sarah Palin flubs American history -- again

2011-06-03T14:40:00.005-04:00

PALIN (Describing Paul Revere's ride while visiting Boston): "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed."

Umm, no.

Revere didn’t warn that the British were out to take anyone’s arms, just as he didn’t yell "the British are coming!"

Revere had to be quiet, at least initially, including rowing with muffled oars, so that the British didn't know that Revere knew they were coming. And Palin is also wrong about why the British were "coming" -– to seize the militia's weapons and ammunition stores, not individual arms.

In addition, actual history, as opposed to Palin's stumbling and bumbling -- notes that his warning was likely something far less epic-sounding, like "the Regulars are coming" or "the regulars are out."

This fool gets even the most basic facts about current events alone, never mind US history.

And there are people who think she's a potential President of the United States? Seriously?

While I'm on the subject of leadership...

2011-05-29T12:55:00.003-04:00

May 27 was the 100th anniversary of Hubert Humphrey's birth.

That being so, this seems like a good opportunity to recall an instance of REAL leadership, not the self interest David Gregory equates with leadership.

In 1948 Hubert Humphrey made this convention speech asking that the Democratic party bcome the party of civil rights for all Americans.

In the short term his stance split the Democratic party, with segregationist southern Democrats forming their own third party and running Strom Thurmond for President.

In the long term Humphrey's stance caused the Democratic party even more hardship, as the formerly Democratic "solid South" became Republicans. The southern segregationists were happy because they were enabled to continue practicing their racism, and Republicans were happy because they got to win elections thanks to the support of those racists.

Humphrey was still right.

And that's real leadership.

Here's the text:

Mr. Chairman, fellow Democrats, fellow Americans:

I realize that in speaking in behalf of the minority report on civil rights as presented by Congressman DeMiller of Wisconsin that I'm dealing with a charged issue -- with an issue which has been confused by emotionalism on all sides of the fence. I realize that there are here today friends and colleagues of mine, many of them, who feel just as deeply and keenly as I do about this issue and who are yet in complete disagreement with me.

My respect and admiration for these men and their views was great when I came to this convention. It is now far greater because of the sincerity, the courtesy, and the forthrightness with which many of them have argued in our prolonged discussions in the platform committee.

Because of this very great respect -- and because of my profound belief that we have a challenging task to do here -- because good conscience, decent morality, demands it -- I feel I must rise at this time to support a report -- the minority report -- a report that spells out our democracy, a report that the people of this country can and will understand, and a report that they will enthusiastically acclaim on the great issue of civil rights.

Now let me say this at the outset that this proposal is made for no single region. Our proposal is made for no single class, for no single racial or religious group in mind. All of the regions of this country, all of the states have shared in our precious heritage of American freedom. All the states and all the regions have seen at least some of the infringements of that freedom -- all people -- get this -- all people, white and black, all groups, all racial groups have been the victims at time[s] in this nation of -- let me say -- vicious discrimination.

The masterly statement of our keynote speaker, the distinguished United States Senator from Kentucky, Alben Barkley, made that point with great force. Speaking of the founder of our Party, Thomas Jefferson, he said this, and I quote from Alben Barkley:

He did not proclaim that all the white, or the black, or the red, or the yellow men are equal; that all Christian or Jewish men are equal; that all Protestant and Catholic men are equal; that all rich and poor men are equal; that all good and bad men are equal. What he declared was that all men are equal; and the equality which he proclaimed was the equality in the right to enjoy the blessings of free government in which they may participate and to which they have given their support.

Now these words of Senator Barkley’s are appropriate to this convention -- appropriate to this convention of the oldest, the most truly progressive political party in America. From the time of Thomas Jefferson, the time when that immortal American doctrine of individual rights, under just and fairly administered laws, the Democratic Party has tried hard to secure expanding freedoms for all citizens. Oh, yes, I know, other political parties may have talked more about civil rights, but the Democratic party has surely done more about civil rights.

We have made progress -- we've made great progress in every part of this country. We’ve made great progress in the South; we’ve made it in the West, in the North, and in the East. But we must now focus the direction of that progress towards the -- towards the realization of a full program of civil rights to all. This convention must set out more specifically the direction in which our Party efforts are to go.

We can be proud that we can be guided by the courageous trail blazing of two great Democratic Presidents. We can be proud of the fact that our great and beloved immortal leader Franklin Roosevelt gave us guidance. And we be proud of the fact -- we can be proud of the fact that Harry Truman has had the courage to give to the people of America the new emancipation proclamation.

It seems to me -- It seems to me that the Democratic Party needs to to make definite pledges of the kinds suggested in the minority report, to maintain the trust and the confidence placed in it by the people of all races and all sections of this country. Sure, we’re here as Democrats. But my good friends, we’re here as Americans; we’re here as the believers in the principle and the ideology of democracy, and I firmly believe that as men concerned with our country’s future, we must specify in our platform the guarantees which we have mentioned in the minority report.

Yes, this is far more than a Party matter. Every citizen in this country has a stake in the emergence of the United States as a leader in the free world. That world is being challenged by the world of slavery. For us to play our part effectively, we must be in a morally sound position.

We can’t use a double standard -- There’s no room for double standards in American politics -- for measuring our own and other people’s policies. Our demands for democratic practices in other lands will be no more effective than the guarantee of those practices in our own country.

Friends, delegates, I do not believe that there can be any compromise on the guarantees of the civil rights which we have mentioned in the minority report. In spite of my desire for unanimous agreement on the entire platform, in spite of my desire to see everybody here in honest and unanimous agreement, there are some matters which I think must be stated clearly and without qualification. There can be no hedging -- the newspaper headlines are wrong. There will be no hedging, and there will be no watering down -- if you please -- of the instruments and the principles of the civil-rights program.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People -- human beings -- this is the issue of the 20th century. People of all kinds -- all sorts of people -- and these people are looking to America for leadership, and they’re looking to America for precept and example.

My good friends, my fellow Democrats, I ask you for a calm consideration of our historic opportunity. Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past. In these times of world economic, political, and spiritual -- above all spiritual crisis, we cannot and we must not turn from the path so plainly before us. That path has already lead us through many valleys of the shadow of death. And now is the time to recall those who were left on that path of American freedom.

For all of us here, for the millions who have sent us, for the whole two billion members of the human family, our land is now, more than ever before, the last best hope on earth. And I know that we can, and I know that we shall began [sic] here the fuller and richer realization of that hope, that promise of a land where all men are truly free and equal, and each man uses his freedom and equality wisely well.

My good friends, I ask my Party, I ask the Democratic Party, to march down the high road of progressive democracy. I ask this convention to say in unmistakable terms that we proudly hail, and we courageously support, our President and leader Harry Truman in his great fight for civil rights in America!

David Gregory proves media is not "liberal"

2011-05-29T12:47:00.000-04:00

From Media Matters:

David Gregory Describes Republican Position On Medicare As "Bold Leadership"

-----

Look, selling the snake oil that decreased taxes leads to increased government revenues is not leadership.

Saying on the campaign trail that you favor reduced government spending, but not actually cutting it when you're in office is not leadership.

Saying you favor spending cuts only when Democrats control the White House, while allowing Republican presidents to spend without limit is not leadership.

Pitching tax cuts for rich people as the cure for everything while cutting wages for the middle class and working poor is not leadership.

(The economy is in good shape? Reward the rich with a tax cut. The economy is bad? Motivate the rich with a tax cut. Aliens from outer space are attacking the White House? Defeat them with tax cuts -- but only for rich the ones.)

Enabling corporations to pour unlimited, anonymous funds into political campaigns as a way to help your side is not leadership.

Passing laws making it tougher to vote as a way to hinder your opposition is not leadership.

You know what else is not leadership? Yukking it up with Republican partisans while you're pretending to be an objective journalist.

Pandering to craven self interest at your country's expense and the expense of the less fortunate is not leadership. It's just greedy and selfish.

Hannity's right but not the reason he thinks

2011-05-10T18:21:00.001-04:00

From Media Matters:

Hannity On Bin Laden: "We Must Argue That The Obama Policies Were Wrong And The Bush Polices Were Right"

Hannity's right. His side MUST argue that Bush was right.

It's the same mentality that caused Howell Cobb to admit that the Confederacy he supported was ideologically bankrupt.

When, near the end of the Civil War, some Confederate leaders proposed arming African-Americans, Cobb said:

"If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

Howell understood that any pro-slavery arguments made after that point in the conflict were hollow. The Confederacy's very reason for existing had been disproven.

So it is with Hannity, et. al.

If they admit that Bush got it wrong and Obama got it right, then they admit that all of their conservative "MuslimKenyanIndonesianFascistSocialistCommunist
Obama" arguments are BS.

Hannity and the rest can't admit that their movement is ideologically bankrupt, so they're forced to delude themselves.

Chris Wallace is a partisan hack

2011-05-08T14:10:00.001-04:00

From Media Matters:

Chris Wallace Suggests Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Were "Key" In Killing Osama Bin Laden

-----

Just remember that whenever Fox "News" is being accused of compromising journalism in furtherance of a political agenda, they claim a "wall" or a "line" between their "opinion" programs and those which contain "straight news".

Then they hold up Chris Wallace as an example of an impartial journalist.

Clueless Brent Bozell

2011-05-07T14:44:00.002-04:00

From Media Matters:

Oblivious: MRC's Bozell Asks Of The Media, "Where Were They When George Bush Won Us The War In Iraq?"

-----

Bush received almost uninterrupted positive media coverage from the time he became a candidate until near the end of his second term.

His positive coverage includes the media's trashing of Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It also includes their cheer leading for Bush during the period between election day and the BS Supreme Court decision awarding Florida to Bush.

When Bush "won" us the Iraq war, the media was ignoring his culpability for allowing the 9-11 attacks in the first place.

They were giving him uninterrupted positive media coverage and discussing the size of his "manly attributes".

They were ignoring the evidence that the Bush administration had fabricated "evidence" of false WMD charges against Iraq.

They were permitting the Bush administration to divert the military to Iraq, at the expense of the effort against al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters in Afghanistan.

They were refusing to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein had no link to the 9-11 attacks or al Qaeda, enabling the Bush administration's lie.

They were allowing the Bush administration to lie about John Kerry's Vietnam War service.

They were permitting Republicans to question the patriotism of heroes like Max Cleland, an Army officer who left his legs and an arm in Vietnam.

They were enabling the Bush administration to reveal the identity, destroy the career and ruin the life's work of a covert CIA agent, whose specialty happened to be preventing proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Iran.

They were allowing the Bush administration to equate even the mildest criticism of Bush with treason.

They were permitting the Bush administration to usurp the civil rights of American citizens with "sneak and peek" searches, warrantless wiretaps, and detention without charges.

I don't want to hear that the Bush administration wasn't treated fairly by the media. Bush received an uninterrupted "liberal" media hummer from his governorship in Texas almost through the end of his presidency.

K.O. commentary -- "As Dead as bin Laden"

2011-05-04T23:59:00.003-04:00

Spot on.

Obama kept his word, Hannity lies

2011-05-02T23:02:00.002-04:00

From Media Matters:

Hannity: In Going After Bin Laden, Obama Did "Almost The Opposite Of What Candidate Obama Said He Would Do"

Oh, bullshit:

Obama in office did EXACTLY what he promised to do about Osama while Obama was campaigning in 2007 and 2008.

Obama said he would authorize action against Osama in Pakistan if the US had actionable intelligence.

McCain said he wouldn't, because Pakistan is sovereign.

Republicans mocked Obama for supposedly being naive and inexperienced.

Republicans falsely claimed that Obama had said he would "invade" Pakistan.

Then Obama authorized a strike against Osama in Pakistan based on actionable intelligence. And it worked.

Obama the president did exactly what Obama the candidate said he would.

Oklahoma Republican's white robe is showing

2011-04-28T12:52:00.004-04:00

From Jillian Rayfield, Talking Points Memo:

Oklahoma GOPer: It's A Fact That 'Blacks' Don't Work As Hard

Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R) says that she's seen "a lot of people of color who didn't study hard because they said the government would take care of them."

The remarks came during a debate on an amendment to the state's constitution that would eliminate Affirmative Action in the state government. It was proposed by State Rep. Leslie Osborn (R), who said: "This proposed constitutional amendment makes clear that all men are created equal and should be treated as such by their government. If voters approve this constitutional amendment, state government will not be allowed to discriminate against Oklahoma citizens based on race or gender - period."

Kern voted for the amendment, arguing that minorities earn less because they don't work as hard. "We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that's tragic," Kern said, "but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don't want to study as hard in school?

"I've taught school," she added, "and I saw a lot of people of color who didn't study hard because they said the government would take care of them."

-----

Unbelievable. Here are some facts:

Most welfare recipients are white.

One out of three people living below the poverty line will rise above the line within 12 months, so the myth of generations of poor black people just popping out babies to increase the size of their monthly checks is just that -- a myth.

Fewer than half of the nation's poor receive cash benefits from the government.

Why don't you just stop the coded language and say what you mean -- niggers don't deserve equal rights or equal opportunity. Go ahead -- you know you really want to.

What a pathetic excuse for a human being, let alone a political leader.

Olbermann debunks Civil War revisionism

2011-04-18T20:21:00.003-04:00

From Friends of Keith:

Transcript:

Of course the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. It was a fight over which color was better: Blue or Gray.

The new polling this week tells a terrible story of historical revisionism, rationalization, and lousy education. 42 percent of this country says that slavery was not the main cause of secession nor of the Civil War.

150 years later and we’re collectively less honest with ourselves about our greatest American tragedy than we were as it happened. The greatest attack on this nation, on its freedoms, on its independence – the greatest act of terrorism against the United States of America, the greatest act of treason, our nation at its worst — and four out of ten Americans are willing to lie about its cause.

That’s right: Lie. Because if you believe slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, you are either lying, or mentally impaired, or a grammar school dropout. There are no other choices.

You have doubts about that? Do not bring them to me. Bring them to William Henry Gist.

Mr. Gist was the Governor of South Carolina in 1860, one of the Southern leaders who proposed secession, who – in advance of Abraham Lincoln’s election – met with other governors to plot their treason, who got Florida and Mississippi to follow South Carolina out of the union, and whose actions led — as much as any man’s did — to the Civil War.

What did Governor Gist say about it?

Let me quote from Adam Goodheart in the New York Times from December 3rd of last year, about Governor Gist:

In one address to the legislature at the end of November, he whipped up his listeners with talk of laws that would reopen the African slave trade, officially declare white men the ruling race, and punish “summarily and severely, if not with death” any person caught espousing abolitionist views.

So obviously secession had nothing to do with slavery. Nothing. Laws passing summary judgment on anyone merely advocating an end to slavery in South Carolina – a death penalty for proposing the abolition of slavery – obviously those would have had nothing to do with slavery.

The Governor of one of the United States of America promising legislation that would formally pronounce whites “the ruling race” – why to think that had anything to do with slavery is the height of absurdity!

And reopening the slave trade? Why, how could reopening the slave trade have anything to do with slavery? It’s preposterous!

One more thing from Mr. Goodheart’s piece from last December needs to be emphasized. It was about what happened in Charleston, just before Governor Gist made his promises to the South Carolina legislature:

…local militia had placed the American military arsenal in town under guard, ostensibly to defend it in case of a slave revolt.

Well, that settles it! What would fear of a slave revolt have to do with slavery?

In fact, what does slavery have to do with slavery? You make it sound like the words “slavery” and “slavery” mean the same thing!

There is no gray area about why the Civil War started. None. The south seceded to protect and maintain slavery – period. They would not have seceded over a federal tax on Sorghum.

This is not a debate, this is not a nuance, this is not an interpretation. To maintain otherwise is, in fact, to strip whatever dignity remains for traitors like Governor William Henry Gist and President Jefferson Davis and the others.

At least when they spat on this nation, when they took up arms against their own country and spilled the blood of those carrying our flag, they told the truth about why they were doing so.

Their descendants are without facts, without dignity, and most importantly – without honor.

Keith Olbermann
April 14, 2011

GE proves that conservative economics is BS

2011-03-29T18:39:00.005-04:00

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

General Electric proves that the Republican/conservative view of job creation is BS.

Here's the Republican view, in a few sentences:

1 -- Taxes on businesses are too high.

2 -- Regulations on business are too onerous.

3 -- If only the government would cut taxes and regulations, businesses would hire everyone, and there'd be no unemployment.

Now, that theory is just BS. The truth is that companies don't hire workers because the companies have extra money laying around. When they have extra money, they bank it, they pay bonuses to executives, they buy back their stock.

Companies hire workers only when the companies realize they can make a profit by providing a good or service that they can't provide with their existing workforce. Companies will first maximize the production of their existing workers. Only when there's a demand for the good or service that can't be provided by the existing employees will the company hire more.

Now, as shown in this video from The Daily Show, General Electric shows that the Republican/conservative theory is BS.

GE made over $14 BILLION in profit. Not only did the company pay ZERO in taxes, it received over $3 billion in tax credits back from the federal government.

So, since General Electric has all that money, Republican/conservative theory dictates that GE will hire millions and millions of American workers, right?

And yet GE is reducing its American workforce and creating lower paying jobs in other countries.

In short, GE has proved that Republican/conservative economic theory doesn't work.

The Daily Show says what the mainstream media won't

2011-03-22T20:29:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show - Odyssey Dawn
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show - Odyssey Dawn - Unconstitutional War
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show - America's Freedom Packages
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Jack Davis gets Republican philosophy almost right

2011-03-17T21:39:00.007-04:00

From Raw Story:

Congressional candidate Jack Davis said in a Republican Party endorsement meeting that Latino farmworkers should be deported and that inner-city African-Americans should be bused to farms to pick crops.

Several sources who attended the endorsement interview confirmed Davis' statement to Buffalo News.

The remark echoes a similar comment he made to the Tonawanda News in 2008.

"We have a huge unemployment problem with black youth in our cities," Davis said. "Put them on buses, take them out there and pay them a decent wage; they will work."

Davis is seeking to represent New York's 26th Congressional District, a seat vacated by Republican Rep. Chris Lee hours after it was reported the congressman, who is married, advertised himself on Craigslist as divorced, single and looking for a woman.

"It may not be politically correct and it may not be racially correct, but when you have African American people in Buffalo who do not have jobs and are out of work, why are you bringing people into this country illegally to take jobs?" Davis spokesman W. Curtis Ellis said.

-----

Except for the part about paying a decent wage, Davis's proposal exactly sums up the way Republicans view the world -- force people to go places where they don't want to be, compel them to carry out tasks they don't want to do, and pay them slave wages, all because it benefits rich business owners.

Davis missed the slavery part. Otherwise he was spot on.

NPR isn't prejudiced -- Fox "News" is

2011-03-13T18:39:00.003-04:00

From Media Matters:

Fox News' Trotta Lauds "Spunky Kid" O'Keefe, Claims Video Exposes NPR's "Prejudices Against The Republicans"

-----

Hmmm -- Liz Trotta says that Fox "News" doesn't have an agenda.

She also praises O'Keefe for his alleged "exposing" of NPR's supposed liberal bias.

Therefore, I should be able to find numerous instances of Fox "News" exposing someone's conservative bias.

I should also be able to find numerous instances of Liz Trotta praising some "spunky" liberal for leading the charge.

However, I can't find any instances of Fox "News" exposing conservative bias.

I also can't find any indications of Liz Trotta praising someone for using surreptitious methods to play "gotcha" videography with conservatives.

How can that be? I mean, Fox "News" is "Fair and Balanced", right?

And according to Lis Trotta, Fox "News" has no agenda, right?

So, where are the instances of Fox "News" exposing conservatives?

Come on, Liz -- I'm waiting...

James O'Keefe -- lies so blatant Glenn Beck doesn't believe them

2011-03-13T13:28:00.001-04:00

2. Sharia law cut from Naked Emperor News on Vimeo.

From AMERICAblog:

James O'Keefe is such a liar and a fraud that his latest effort -- an attempt to smear National Public Radio -- was exposed by the staff at Glenn beck's website.

GLENN BECK!!!

When crazy, paranoid Glenn Beck says you're a liar and a fraud, you must REALLY be a liar and a fraud.

The lesson of the 2010 elections

2011-03-06T13:37:00.003-05:00

From Media Matters:

Fox Primary: FNS Panel Slams "Non-Candidate" Gingrich, Says He's "Undisciplined" And "Carries A Lot Of Baggage"

-----

I don't know how Gingrich irritated his masters at Fox "News". He seems like exactly the kind of poser corporatist shill that "news" organization likes.

Given the current White House statements on the budget, it's apparent that Obama doesn't see himself as a Democrat. He sees himself as an arbiter between Democrats and Republicans.

First, I don't see why he'd consider Republicans credible, given their track record of lying and destruction.

Second, these "negotiations" always end up with Democrats giving in, while Republicans get everything they want.

Third, I don't believe "Mediation We Can Believe In" was Obama's 2008 campaign slogan.

Democrats had a mandate from 2006 and 2008, and gave it away by not holding Republicans accountable for he crimes of the Bush years, not leaving Iraq, not leaving Afghanistan, not closing the Guantanamo prisons, and not making the rich pay their fair share.

The lesson Obama seems to have learned from the 2010 elections is that Democrats should be more like Republicans.

The real lesson is that when Democrats don't honor their promises and live up to their ideals, voters will punish them by staying home or voting Republican.

Jimmy Carter is THE man

2011-03-05T18:58:00.003-05:00

From Huffington Post:

Thanks to the work of The Carter Center and its partners, Guinea Worm is soon expected to follow Small Pox to become the second human disease ever eradicated. Although it remains in Sudan, Mali, and Ethiopia, Guinea Worm has been reduced by more than 99 percent since 1986 -- from 3.5 million cases in 20 countries when The Carter Center first began its campaign, to around 1800 cases today. You can read all about the scientific stuff in the New York Times or in a report by the World Health Organization.

-----

All I can say is: remember this when people tell you what a horrible president Jimmy Carter was.

Jimmy Carter was right in the 1970s, and he deserved better than to be turned out thanks to the lies of the Reagan campaign, collusion by journalists, and backstabbing by intelligence and military professionals.

And Jimmy Carter has been even more right since leaving office 30 years ago.

Thanks to President Carter, a scourge is about to be completely wiped off the face of the earth.

When George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush or any other Republican who calls himself a Christian does anything even remotely approaching this, I'll accept that he's a credible leader. Until then, Jimmy Carter has set a bar that naysayers and opponents can only HOPE to meet.

Liz Trotta's lie isn't even plausible

2011-03-05T17:48:00.003-05:00

From Media Matters:

Fox's Liz Trotta: "We Don't Have An Agenda" At Fox

-----

No agenda?

Then how do you explain that almost every major Republican candidate for President is on the Fox "News" payroll, and NO Democrats?

How do you explain that the "Democrat contributors" on Fox "News" are less than major figures like Alan Colmes, or straw men/punching bags like Pat Caddell?

How do you explain that "Hannity and Colmes", which was mostly
Hannity, is now ALL Hannity?

How do you explain that there are NO liberal commentary shows on Fox "News"?

By contrast, MSNBC, the alleged liberal mirror image of Fox "News" devotes three hours a day to a conservative former Republican member of Congress.

In addition, hosts like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, the liberals at MSNBC, frequently have on conservative guests who are treated with respect and given an opportunity to present their points of view, something that liberals NEVER get at Fox "News".

The agenda is the very reason Fox "News" exists. It's not a news gathering organization and outlet. It's a clearinghouse for Republican talking points.

Republicans prove voter fraud -- not the way they intended

2011-03-04T15:01:00.003-05:00

Finally! The Republicans have gotten someone charged with voter fraud!

That damned ACORN! This PROVES that the liberal Democrat party is a bunch of cheaters.

Oh, the guy who was arrested is the Republican Secretary of State of Indiana?

Nothing to see here, move along...

The Daily Show is still doing the real journalism

2011-03-04T14:44:00.001-05:00

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Why does the "liberal" media hate the working class?

2011-02-22T06:11:00.003-05:00

From Media Matters:

Wash. Times Compares WI Labor Protests To "A Spoiled Brat's Temper Tantrum"

In a February 21 editorial, The Washington Times wrote that "Wisconsin's labor protests have been likened to the Middle East uprisings, but they have more the flavor of a spoiled brat's temper tantrum." The Times added, "It is as if labor activists have adopted the motto, 'Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.'"

-----

So, to sum up: Glenn Beck or the Tea Party get a few thousand people to show up at a "protest" and the "liberal" media trumpet that it's a good thing that these 22 trillion concerned citizens have taken to the streets to yell "I want my country back!"

If hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest the Iraq war or the unilateral attempt of a state governor who thinks he's a dictator to take away the rights of workers, that gets almost no attention from the "liberal" media and the little attention it does get is almost uniformly negative.

This is what happens when we let corporations have the same rights as individuals, and when the government allows almost all of the outlets to be owned by only a few of the rich, connected, and powerful.

Tom Salmon is a weaselly politician

2011-02-19T09:37:00.004-05:00

From Shay Totten, Seven Days:

Tom Salmon Won't Seek Reelection, Mulls Future

State Auditor Tom Salmon announced to his 3539 friends on Facebook last night that he won't seek reelection in 2012 — less than two months after he was sworn into a third term.

"I have enjoyed my service to the state but will not seek re-election as state auditor," Salmon wrote around 9 p.m. "It has been an honor to serve with such a talented team at the SAO (State Auditor's Office). Thank you all."

What's next for Salmon? He's not sure: Possibly a run for U.S. Senate, or dropping out of politics entirely and seeking a degree in mediation and conflict resolution.

-----

One pro-Salmon commenter in particular irritated me with his effort to excuse Salmon's arrest and conviction for driving while intoxicated. As the video of his arrest shows, Salmon tried to claim he hadn't drunk as much as he had. Then he tried several lame excuses.

The commenter who irked me wrote: "Salmon took the consequences."

The hell he did.

Watch the video. Salmon tries the "don't you know who I am" defense. He tries the "why don't you cops go out and catch some REAL criminals" defense. He pulls the "I served in Iraq and arresting me means you hate America" card.

It's only after Salmon has been cuffed and placed in the back seat of the police car that his demeanor changes into something resembling acceptance of responsibility, and even then he tries to suck up to the cop by saying he served as an enlisted man and didn't obtain an officer's commission because he thinks of himself as just one of the guys.

Tom Salmon is a weaselly politician. He used Democrats to get into office, then became a Republican, showing Democrats that for him loyalty only goes as far as the last campaign contribution.

He mishandled his office. There was an embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the state government over several years, and it went undetected by Salmon.

Salmon is personally abusive. Just look at the e-mail he sent Shay Totten:

Tom Salmon doesn't deserve the office he holds. I HOPE he runs against Bernie Sanders in 2021 so that Sanders can end Salmon's political "career" once and for all.

Ann Coulter's revisionist history

2011-02-17T06:15:00.002-05:00

From Media Matters:

Fox Promotes Coulter's Column Calling "Barack" A "Crazy Muslim"

Today Fox Nation posted an excerpt of Ann Coulter's February 16 column, which states:

The Middle East is on fire again, and crazy Muslims with funny names aren't helping things -- Mahmoud, ElBaradei, al-Banna, Barack ...

The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?

-----

And before Saddam was removed, where were Republicans when the US stopped genocide in the Balkans? Oh, yeah -- yelling "Wag the Dog" when Bill Clinton struck at Bin Laden, accusing President Clinton of manufacturing a crisis to divert attention from his "scandals" and telling us that the United States shouldn't be "the world's policeman" and engage in "nationbuilding" overseas.

The Republican lust for blood and demand to support the use of military force ebbs when Democrats are in power and flows when Republicans take charge. Let Bill O'Reilly explain THAT tide.

My GOD, are you people stupid

2011-02-10T22:33:00.002-05:00

No, Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim.

If he was, it still wouldn't matter -- Muslim does not equal terrorist.

But he's NOT. Barack Obama is a Christian. Period.

"Low Information Voters"? How about NO Information Voters?

Texas Tea Party leader goes one better

2011-02-09T18:36:00.004-05:00

And just to prove how stupid redneck Texans are, Phillip Dennis of the Tea Party decides to one up the "if our kids learn Arabic they'll be supporting terrorism" parents.

DENNIS: … Oh, I have a big problem with Islam. I think that it, uh, they call itself the religion of peace, when every day around the world it continues to show itself to be anything but. So I think those people have a right, certainly it’s understandable that they might have a problem that our President might be Muslim. Absolutely.

Honestly, how stupid can people be?

2011-02-09T18:21:00.002-05:00

Fucking idiots.

Texas schools nix Arabic classes over fears of Islam

A Texas school district has canceled some Arabic classes after complaints from parents about Islam

[Cindy] Henderson acknowledged that some parents were upset that their children were learning about the Middle East.

"We don't want to discriminate against the entire Middle East," she said, "but [9/11] is hard to forget. They said they aren't going to teach religion, but I don't see how you can teach that culture without going into their beliefs."

-----

Look, stupid:

1 -- Arabic does not equal Muslim.

2 -- Muslim does not equal terrorist.

What say broaden your perspective a little? Not everyone in the world is a Texas redneck.

The Daily Show -- again, they do the media's job

2011-01-25T19:10:00.001-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

24 Hour Nazi Party People

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

The Daily Show on Facebook

How is this a dirty trick?

2011-01-22T21:20:00.005-05:00

From Mark Feldstein, in the January 14 Washington Post:

JFK's own dirty trick

It began in the fall of 1960, when the Kennedy campaign spread word that Vice President Nixon had secretly pocketed money from billionaire Howard Hughes, whose far-flung business empire was heavily dependent on government contracts and connections. Reporters for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Time magazine corroborated the allegations, but their editors feared publishing such explosive information in the last days of the tightly fought campaign.

So the Kennedys turned to two crusading liberal columnists, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, who had been attacking Nixon for the past decade. It was "a journalistic atrocity" to conspire with "the Kennedy hawkshaws to help us get the goods on their opponent," Anderson admitted, but scoring a scoop to destroy Nixon was simply too tempting to pass up.

Anderson dropped by the Washington office of Kennedy lawyer James McInerney. With "a pride that only the diligent investigator can know," Anderson recalled, the Kennedy operative pulled out "a neatly arranged packet which I devoured unceremoniously."

The confidential documents revealed how Hughes had funneled to the Nixon family $205,000 (worth about $1.6 million today) using various intermediaries, including one of Nixon's brothers, to disguise the transaction. Later evidence would show that the vice president had personally phoned Hughes to ask for the money, which was used to help Nixon pay for an elegant, 9,000-square-foot Tudor house in Washington with eight bedrooms, six bathrooms, a library, a butler's pantry and a solarium.

-----

Here's what I want to know. How is telling the truth about a candidate for president a "dirty trick?" Nixon took money from Hughes. Even Feldstein's own article says so. How come the story isn't "liberal media refuses to report truth about Nixon?"

Oh wait, now I get it. from Feldstein's university bio:

His book Poisoning The Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson, and the Rise of Washington's Scandal Culture, will be published in September 2010.

-----

You know what's a dirty trick? Having your campaign manager arrange with a foreign government to hold Americans hostage in order to affect the outcome of your election, and then claiming credit for the release of the hostages.

Let's tell the truth. Richard Nixon was a lying, habitually dishonest, paranoid man. he was also a bribe taking crook. Telling people that is not a "dirty trick." it's a historical fact.

Thoughts on Olbermann's departure from MSNBC

2011-01-22T15:20:00.005-05:00

I want to make the following points about Keith Olbermann leaving MSNBC.

1 -- Olbermann will be paid for the final two years of his contract -- some $14 million. I thought conservative Republican businessmen were brilliant financial strategists and AGAINST welfare. How's paying someone to do nothing smart business or teaching him self reliance?

2 -- Conservatives can never again say that the reason liberal hosts don't do as well in TV and radio is that "the market decides." TWICE now MSNBC has fired the host of its top rated program simply for being liberal. Market forces have nothing to do with it. Ideology does.

3 -- Conservatives can never again whine about the loss of free speech rights the way they did when Juan Williams got fired at NPR. If they really believe that talking on TV is free speech, and if they believe that free speech is a right, then they should be as upset at Olbermann leaving MSNBC as they were when Williams left NPR. The fact that they're gloating about Olbermann exposes them as the hypocrites they really are.

The Republican party -- forward to the 1870s!

2011-01-14T21:17:00.005-05:00

Senator Mike Lee, Regressionist from Utah, thinks child labor laws are unconstitutional.

OF COURSE Mike Lee hs no problem with child labor. He's a wealthy, well connected lawyer. HIS kids aren't going to take low skilled, high risk jobs for pennies a day

What he means is that child labor is just fine -- for YOUR kids.

Issa's new investigation target

2011-01-14T21:14:00.002-05:00

Dead woman donates to political campaigns! Chicago style politics!

Quick, someone -- alert Darrell Issa!

Oh, wait. She's a Republican. Nothing to see here. Move along.

The Daily Show flays the "mainstream" media

2011-01-14T21:10:00.002-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Veiled Criticism

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

The Daily Show on Facebook

It's bad enough that so many people were killed in the Tucson mass shootings, including a judge and a nine year old girl. In addition, a member of Congress was nearly killed.

But the media decides to be critical of a memorial service, treating it like it's a campaign event or a TV show? Unbelievable.

Leave it to The Daily Show to set them straight.

Best Mel Gibson joke I've heard yet

2011-01-14T21:05:00.006-05:00

Tom Coburn -- A Waste of a Senate Seat

2010-12-22T20:27:00.003-05:00

Senators on both side of the aisle came together to unanimously pass a bill to give continuing health benefits and compensation to first responders who got sick after the 9/11 terror attacks.

The bill passed after Senate Democrats struck a deal Wednesday with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who agreed to drop his objections when the cost of the bill was reduced by about $2 billion. The proposal later passed through the House, 206-60, and is headed for President Obama's desk.

Despite its popularity, the 9/11 health bill was delayed in Senate by Coburn and the Oklahoma Republican had come under withering criticism for opposing the bill on the grounds that it provided "overly generous funding" and included "unnecessary and duplicative compensation funds."

Coburn emerged Wednesday from a closed-door meeting that included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand to reveal that that a deal has been worked out that will likely enable the bill to pass the Senate – and then the House – by the end of the day.

Under the deal, the total cost of the bill over ten years would be reduced from $6.2 billion to $4.2 billion. Of that $4.2 billion, $1.5 billion will go to health benefits for the first responders, while $2.7 billion will go to compensation for them.

-----

Tom Coburn is unbelievable. I have no fucking idea what could cause the voters of Oklahoma to keep sending this motherfucker back to the Senate term after term.

This bastard voted YES for tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. He voted YES to exempt them from the estate tax. He voted YES to give these same rich people additional benefits in the form of capital gains tax cuts. Yet, somehow he had the balls to vote NO on taking care of the 9-11 responders who risked everything to respond to the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil on the grounds that it's too expensive. How can he possibly rationalize this?

Oh, it also looks like Alan Grayson was right, too. The 9-11 first responders fund will be active for only five years. Those 9-11 responders who are already sick now have a reason to die quickly.

Dan Choi gets his ring back

2010-12-22T17:14:00.002-05:00

First Lieutenant Dan Choi, a West Point graduate discharged under Don't Ask Don't Tell, gave Harry Reid his West Point ring, saying that until gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly in the military, the memento had lost its meaning. Reid agreed to keep it until DADT was ended. Today Reid returned Choi's ring.

Pretty powerful video...

Oh, no, Haley Barbour isn't racist. Not at all

2010-12-21T16:50:00.002-05:00

First Governor Haley Barbour recalled the South's segregationist past through rose colored glasses.

Then he took it back and claimed he really isn't a racist.

Oh, bullshit.

From Politico:

The context is a 1982 New York Times article on Barbour's challenge that year to the octogenarian incumbent Democratic Senator, John Stennis. The piece's tone is almost sneering about Barbour -- " Mr. Barbour, now 34 years old, won renown as a high school linebacker and as a dedicated attender of parties at the state university" -- but this is the passage that he'll get asked about on the campaign trail:

This being Mississippi, race is a factor in the campaign, but mainly because neither candidate has offered much to black voters. The Republicans have tried to remind them that in 1964 Mr. Stennis sponsored legislation to export Mississippi blacks to states that wanted to practice integration.

But the racial sensitivity at Barbour headquarters was suggested by an exchange between the candidate and an aide who complained that there would be "coons" at a campaign stop at the state fair. Embarrassed that a reporter heard this, Mr. Barbour warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.

Oh, no. There's nothing racist about Haley Barbour. Nothing at all.

The Daily Show -- doing the news media's job again

2010-12-21T16:43:00.001-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The South's Secession Commemoration

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

The Daily Show on Facebook

The Sons of the Confederate Veterans try to claim that the southern states didn't secede over slavery. Larry Wilmore of The Daily Show sets them right.