O'Lielly: Huffington a "Nazi"

Bill O'Lielly is at it again - this time calling Arianna Huffington a "Nazi" and wondering aloud the difference between what the Germans did in the 1920s and 1930s and what blogs in America are doing today.

First off, and I've mentioned it many times - anyone who has to bring up Nazi Germany to make a political point has lost that political point. Period. I think now we can all finally agree - Nazi Germany has officially become the Titanic of political clichés.

You know what O'Lielly really hates about the Internet? That he's no longer free to simply make stuff up and have it believed by the masses. The Internet, and the blogosphere, are both equalizers to the propagandistic, intolerance-infested network that is State TV Fox News.

A major hat tip is due to Crooks & Liars, one of the best liberal political sites on the Web, for putting together this video, including the footage at the end that points out how BOR's Website contains just as much hate-filled tripe (and probably a great deal more) than The Huffington Post does. Let's face it, Bill - you're tried this trick before - whining and harping about a few comments on her site.

A site like Huffington's can't possibly moderate every single comment on every single day, especially considering the hundreds of articles and thousands of comments the site must surly receive.

By the way, what's to stop hacks from Fox News from putting the incriminating comments on Huffington's site? The answer is... probably nothing. Honestly, how long would it take to sign up for a Web-based e-mail address, then sign up for an account on HuffPo? Probably under 10 minutes.

It's not like there's not a precedent, either. After all, Faux News employees got busted for posting flattering information about State TV on Wikipedia last year.

h/t Crooks & Liars for the video

What cut-ups: O'Lielly & Newt blast NYT

I almost laughed myself silly when I saw this footage - Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Lielly castigating the New York Times for its report on John McCain's alleged improper relationship with a lobbyist.

My favorite part: BOR intoning that "these people [The New York Times] aren't being honest, they're not reporting the news, and we have to stop this. Make them the villain, and that will galvanize people around John McCain."

Someone, anyone who works for Fox News bitching about another media outlet "not reporting the news" is akin to Dick Cheney complaining about the federal government's awarding of no-bid contracts.

I can't neglect to mention Gingrich's claptrap, either, including "a massive tax increase" and neither Obama nor Clinton being amenable "to making English the official language" of the United States.

I seriously doubt that the average Fox viewer, much less the drones who watch BOR, will even take the time to look into exactly what the candidates said, but both have proposed rolling back the tax cuts for people who earn over $250,000. Good. If Newt wants to call that a "massive tax increase," that's fine by me. But people need to know where that increase is going, and to whom.

When I first heard Gingrich say that, I almost jumped out of my chair with an "A-ha!" moment. You see, this is the exact strategy that Bush employed when he gave the rich the ill-advised tax cut back in '01. All but the most far-right thought that those tax cuts were a bad idea - even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated at the time that the cuts would blow a massive hole in the budget.

Fast forward seven years, and of course, people like Gingrich and O'Lielly count on the fact that most people haven't paid attention. Quite naturally, it's the Democrats who are pointing out that these idiotic tax cuts can't continue (oh yea, along with two wars that are going to cost us an estimated $2 trillion), and here's Gingrich and other Repubes on TV harumphing about Democrats' "proposing a massive tax increase," when they never should have been cut in the first place.

The whole issue of English being the official language of the United States is about 787th on the list of things that should be debated in this campaign. To me, it's just a rather sad, transparent attempt by far-right, xenophobic Repubes to discriminate against immigrants.

Think I'm going too far? This is the same Republican Party that wants to have discrimination put into the Constitution by banning gay marriage.

h/t to C&L for the video

Great TMW 'toon

[Click for larger image]

I haven't posted one of his cartoons in a while, but Tom Tomorrow really hit the nail on the head this week. As his blog notes, did anyone really honestly believe that the GOP fools at bottom of the political barrel, a.k.a. the GOP hate mongers Ann Coulter, Bill O'Lielly, Sean Insanity and Rush Limbaugh, were all really going to sit on the sidelines and not support McCain vs. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Yea, sure.

They may not love McCain, but they certainly aren't going to sit idly by as one of the aforementioned Democrats makes a spirited run for the White House. It's going to be a very ugly campaign indeed, and some of the b.s. has already begun. The latest New York Times report about McCain having an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist just gives the far-right blowhards an excuse to half-heartedly get behind Judas John's candidacy.

Dodd & O'Lielly battle; Dodd gets the KO

This one got my blood boiling, but not in a bad way. Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democratic candidate for president (who'd not doing so hot in the polls), really takes it to O'Reilly about his laughably absurd jihad against the Website Daily Kos. Watch the hilarity ensue as BOR's crossed eyes nearly go straight as he foams at the mouth in the wake of Dodd's calm, steady barrage. BOR gets even angrier when his usual tactic of shouting someone down falls flat.

Quite frankly, Dodd hits the nail right on the head - it's not the few offensive comments on the site out of tens of thousands that BOR is mad about, it's the site's prevailing political point of view. (This is the same reason O'Lielly hates Media Matters, The Huffington Post, too; they expose him for the serial liar he is, period.)

I've written it before and it bears repeating - if Fox News is so Fair and Balanced, where was Billy's outrage when Rush Limbaugh accused the Clintons of murder on numerous occasions, when Ann Coulter accused 9-11 widows of enjoying their husbands' deaths, or when Dick Cheney and George Bush asserted on an almost daily basis leading up to the '04 election that "if the Democrats win, the terrorists win"? Of course O'Lielly was nowhere to be found, because calling out those agents of hate would have gone against his right-wing agenda. But, I won't let facts get in the way of a good Billy rant. It just occurred to me what BOR really is - the Jerry Springer of political talk shows. Both productions share similar traits: a few million watch, but each show enjoys about the same amount of nano-credibility; all but a few know the shows are staged bullshit to entertain; and even fewer say the words credible and either O'Reilly or Springer in the same sentence.

Hey Bill - aren't there some women you need to sexually harass? Better yet, go home and polish your Peabody Awards you didn't win (yet you publicly claimed you did).

Bill O'Lielly - giving hope to losers & liars everywhere.

BOR bores with more Kos crap

I have to confess, I'm beginning to have a fetish for Bill O'Lielly's fetish about Daily Kos. It's actually getting pretty hilarious. His latest outrage is a picture that appeared on DK. Here it is...

Personally, I laughed for about five minutes when I first saw it. Okay, no one ever accused me of being the most mature person in the world, 24 hours a day, nor to I portray myself to be. But, this picture is using humor to make a serious point, and that point is that Joe Lieberman is a flat-out liar. Where do I get that from?

When Lieberman ran as an Independent in 2006 after he lost the Democratic Connecticut Primary to Ned Lamont, he promised that if elected he would caucus with Democrats that that he would remain a Democrat in spirit. I'm still waiting to see it.

He has continuously supported the Bush administration regarding the War in Iraq since he was elected last year.

BOR calls Lieberman a patriot. Hardly. As far as I'm concerned, Lieberman has just as much blood on his hands as Bush and Cheney.

Oh, and as for BOR whining that DK traffics in hate? Hmm, I wonder if Bill's brain is out to lunch, perhaps sexually harassing someone other than Andrea Mackris so he doesn't get sued. (More on that in a minute.)

But seriously, where was BOR when Rush Limbaugh was accusing the Clintons of murder, or when he called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog? Or when Ann Coulter was on television saying that the 9-11 widows are enjoying their deaths? How about this doozy - when Dick Cheney suggested that people who don't side with the administration on terrorism (Read: Democrats), they are siding with Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden or fill in your terrorist here that the administration tries to scare the American public about: _________. Oh, and Cheney has been on Rush Limbaugh's program numerous times, most notably early this year.

I'm not going to make a laundry list here, because why bore you with what's already mostly understood - that BOR merely spits out GOP-authored subjects and ideas.

Even one of the segments on his show is dubbed Talking Points Memo !!

Bottom line, and I've written it so many times it's bordering on trite - if you dare disagree with O'Lielly or Fox News and you call him/the network out on their lies, then you're a hate monger or you're operating a hate site.

Color me happy - O'Lielly thinks I'm a hate monger. Sweet.

Please do me and yourself a favor - visit Daily Kos each and every day. (Click logo above to go right to the home page.) Take a look around. Kick some tires. If you're a Progressive, you're going to like what you read. In addition to that, it's a way to support the Website, which is more than worth supporting. I just signed up for a Daily Kos premium account a few hours ago - it takes about two minutes. I urge you to do the same - it's a way to support the site and keep it going to fight the good fight against blow hards like Bill O'Lielly.

BOR's latest phony boycott: JetBlue & DailyKos

Bill O'Lielly, the Misinformation Minister himself, is at it again. Even passive viewers of his nightly show, The O'Reilly Factor, can pretty quickly detect a pattern in his attacks against people, TV personalities, Websites, and just about everything else with a "D" associated with it (or, heaven forbid, the horrific LIBERAL label).

O'Reilly latest target? DailyKos, a very popular liberal Website that dares to take aim against the Bush administration's propaganda, lies, fear mongering and distortions, all of which BOR is a more than willing purveyor of. BOR's beef with the site? Some idiots who posted some disparaging comments about Tony Snow, Dick Cheney and others on the site. What BOR neglects to tell his viewers, many of whom will probably believe just about anything Billy tells them to believe, is that the offensive material he reads on his show are from comments following stories that appeared on DailyKos, not in the stories themselves.

To be fair, yes, the site should be more vigilant about taking hateful, inexcusable comments down. It's news to no one that there are nut jobs of all stripes in the political world, liberals included. Arianna Huffington weathered a similar O'Reilly rant earlier this year when some morons posted hateful things on her site, The Huffington Post.

But, you know what? ANYONE can post a comment on a Website like that after registering, which takes about two minutes, typically with the validation of an e-mail address. To take it a step further, any conservative (or staffer from Billy's office) could go on DailyKos, post something offensive, and VIOLA! - a story to slam another liberal Website.

This is such a non-story. By far the most interesting aspect of this is how BOR will pursue anyone with an agenda of uncovering his well-documented penchant for lying.

But, someone posting something hateful in the comments section of a Website is a far cry from a Website posting commentary that Tony Snow is better off dead or musing at America's bad luck that Dick Cheney wasn't killed in Afghanistan.

If you can manage to get through the entire length of the footage, you'll notice that not ONCE during the entire rant does BOR mention that these offensive opinions were in the Comments of the Website.

Typical. It's not like I'd ever expect the accurate, precise truth from a blowhard like Bill O'Reilly.

The best part? Another phony BOR boycott. The latest company that will feel no effect whatsoever? JetBlue.

O'Lielly is miffed the JetBlue, a fledgling airline, has sponsored a DailyKos event. I'm sure the CEO of JetBlue, David Neeleman, lost loads of sleep this week because of a Bill O'Reilly distortion that any educated person could see through after about five minutes of clicking and researching on DailyKos.

DailyKos is simply the latest Website to be targeted by BOR, who loves to call them "hate sites," because he cries that sites like Media Matters, the Huffington Post and DailyKos have the temerity to call him on his lies.

This story has caused me to do three things:

1. Check JetBlue's prices, and if possible, fly the airline whenever I can,

2. Visit DailyKos every day to increase the site's ad revenue,

3. and start recording The O'Reilly Factor to see who is sponsoring this Republican Party propaganda, and I'll boycott them (and of course, right about it). I'll let you know of my findings.

BOR foams at the mouth over Soros... again

The Bill O'Reilly smear and fear machine knows no bounds. His latest target: Retired General Wesley Clarke, George Soros and Retired General John Batiste.

BOR's attacks on Soros are quickly becoming cliché to the point of absurdity. Soros, a self-made millionaire, has an intense dislike for President Bush. (So does 72 percent of the rest of the population, at last check.) So, Soros is putting his money where his mouth is with his contributions and activism. And that's making BOR mad. Reeeeeeallllly mad.

I'm wondering if anyone else thinks it's the height of hypocrisy that O'Reilly criticize a billionaire with a political agenda, since Rupert Murdoch signs his paychecks. Soros may have deep pockets, but Murdoch has that, and a world-wide media empire to slant, distort and report the news as he sees fit. In this country, there are laws about how much campaign cash you may contribute, but there apparently are no longer limits about how big your media empire can become. We need to put more effective limits on both.

BOR has pounded the drum to exhaustion (it's making me exhausted, at least) that Soros has contributed to Media Matters, a liberal-watchdog group devoted to debunking the lies and distortions of people like BOR. It seems like MM has hit a nerve, and that's good. (I can just imagine staffers at MM high-fiving every time O'Reilly goes on a rant about them.) The bottom line is that O'Reilly feels threatened. He should.

Quite frankly, I don't care if Soros has contributed to MM or not. In fact, I hope he does. If the group is performing activities that he supports, open up your checkbook. MM was started by David Broder, a converted conservative smear monger, without the help of Soros, but if he wants to chip in, so be it.

At the risk of being as repetitive as BOR, it's worth mentioning again that in addition to Murdoch, there are many high-profile billionaires who have contributed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to groups who have made it their mission to bring down the Democratic party. But, I digress.

Anyway, here's BOR taking aim at Batiste for his VoteVets ad that is critical of Bush and the War in Iraq. He then turns his aim elsewhere. Notice how calm and composed Clarke is.

Well done, general. I hope Clarke plays a role in a Democratic administration beginning in January 2009. And for the millionth time, I'm sick and tired of Repubes' opining that everyone should keep their mouths shut in time of war.

Hey Bill, if you want to tend sheep, why not move to New Zealand? There's millions of sheep there.

This footage is so ridiculous, it's almost unwatchable, but I'll never get tired of calling O'Reilly the foaming-at-the-mouth fraud that he truly is.

Here's the VoteVets ad that has gotten so much attention lately, most notably from O'Reilly and Fox News. Visit their Website for more information.

Billy vs. Rosie - ZZZZZZ

Sometimes Rosie O'Donnell gets under my skin, but I gotta tell you, she makes sense here, hands down. And, I'll also say that conspiracy theories also usually get on my nerves, but she's making some sense here, too. WTC 1 and WTC 2 came down because planes hit them, but there are some fair questions about WTC 7, and there is some weird evidence of something fishy. But honestly, what's the big deal? So what if WTC 7 was brought down intentionally? No one died, and to my knowledge, no one was even injured.

I'll also go on record as saying I'm not one of those people who believes that President Bush had any knowledge of 9-11 before it happened. I do believe that it could have been prevented had the incompetent people at the top of this administration been paying attention.

I don't mind saying that it's mindless sheep like Elisabeth Hasselbeck who get us into these messes in the first place, by mindlessly saying, "We're in a war, we have to support the president!" Bush wishes there were 300 million more just like you, Elisabeth, and thank God there are not.



So naturally, Rosie's comments got Bill O'Lielly's Irish up, and he took the to the airwaves at Fersatz News to denounce her.

A few thoughts here. It's not de rigueur to say it, but O'Donnell's right - the Iranians have been demonized. I'm not siding with them, I'm merely saying that during the Cold War, we even talked to our sworn enemy, the U.S.S.R. Bush won't even bother, publicly stating that "If I thought it would do any good, I'd talk to them." How do you know if you're not talking? World peace is a little too important to be relying on the diplomatic grapevine.

I guess that leads me to the problem that Bush thinks it's a sign of weakness to listen to your enemies. No one said capitulate to them, but what's wrong with talking? With this administration, everything. Ever since Bush was appointed president, it's been a "take it or leave it" attitude. Sometimes, that's not good enough.

Bernie Goldberg is the biggest moron alive. Okay, I partially retract that - he's got some pretty heady competition on the right, but for him to say "she's [O'Donnell] mainstreaming hateful nonsense" is high comedy, since Goldberg is saying this on Fersatz News Channel.

Goldberg doesn't stop there. He calls ABC viewers "politically, the most unsophisticated viewers in America." Really, Bernie? Are you forgetting all of the sheeple who watch Faux News?

I also get a kick out of all of the networks that Billy has declared war on. If you're keeping score at home, that would be all three of the traditional networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. Sure Bill - it's not you and your "network" - it's the rest of the world that's screwed up.

There isn't a network or 24-hour news network on television that doesn't have some warts from being in the news business - that goes with the territory.

Honestly though - I find Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limpbaugh worlds more offensive than Rosie O'Donnell on her worst day. I could recap what these mindless rubes have said in the past, but what's the point? That's just shootin' ducks in a barrel, and I've got better things to write about.

O'Reilly goes on to imply that Ann Coulter deserves her own show. He must be off his meds.

Jane Hall suggests that there are many shows on cable where there are a variety of viewpoints expressed, but she can't think of a show where there isn't a counterpoint expressed? Did I miss something? I guess every night at 9 p.m. Hall transports herself to an alternate universe when the "balanced" Hannity and Colmes takes to the airwaves on Fox.

It's also pretty funny to hear Bill O'Reilly talking about a show losing viewers, since his show has done just that in 2007.

One more point - "Ann Coulter is smarter than all four of the women on The View put together"? That's a good one, Goldberg.

Ahh, anyway, that's enough - I just had to weigh in on these two clips. The Bill O'Lielly craziness in the second video is almost like a New York play, because it's hard to believe that a show like his has any popularity whatsoever in America.

It's slowly slipping away for Bill O'Lielly

The more Bill O'Reilly goes insane, the more I just eat this stuff up. Between the fall of Bush and the rise of Keith Olbermann, O'Lielly loses his preciously tenuous grip on reality little by little every day.

This is actually a pretty good montage of anti-Bushism by some well-known celebrities. However, as Jeanne Wolf says, the celebrities' use of name calling isn't elegant, and I agree. But, it is indicative of the level of frustration in our country right now. I share that frustration.

O'Lielly says this is "hurting our country abroad." Really? How is that?

But, these celebrities do have a point. I can never recall, going back to Reagan, any sort of nasty attacks against a president by celebrities to this level, even when there was strong disagreement at times. Sure, there were always people against Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan, but I don't recall anything like this. Why? Because none of the aforementioned presidents came close to getting us into the mess we are in today.

And for Billy to bring up "ad hominem attacks" smacks of hypocrisy, too. (By the way, it's pronounced "ad HOM-EH-NEM" - if you're going to say it, learn how to pronounce it.) Ad hominem attacks are how the right earned its keep during the Clinton years - nothing was too trivial to go after Clinton about. Anyone remember the brouhaha over Clinton supposedly holding up flights at an airport while he got a haircut aboard Air Force One? This was a story that was in the press for days and days. (I remember all of the "Hair Force One" headlines.) Too bad the story was bogus, but it's funny how the falsehood never got as much press as the lie. Ahh, the good 'ole 1990s, when life was simpler, yet much more petty and trivial.

In a very, very small way, I dread having a DemocratIC president, because it will just renew the hatred and defamation that Fox News, Sean Insanity, Billy, Rush and all the rest earn their keep - by defiling and distorting what a DemocratIC president does, at every turn. But, I said I dread a DemocratIC president in a very small way - actually, I relish a good political street fight, and I'm not afraid of these bullies. I like to fight with facts, though. Okay, and a little bluster of my own, but that's what 6+ years of George W. Bush does to a progressive liberal.

Probably my favorite part of this is O'Reilly saying Richard Gere "just killed his movie." Uh oh - I smell another phony Bill-Oh boycott coming up, none of which has ever accomplished anything. From Pepsi to France and now to Richard Gere, no one pays attention to his boycotts, but they are entertaining. Keep up the good work, Bill, and you keep on avoiding french fries and french dressing, if it makes you feel better. You truly are making a difference in the world.

One last thought - I love how Billy gets all up in the face of these liberal celebs who aren't on his show. I'd love to see him go up against Chris Rock. He says that Rock would last "about 35 seconds" on his show. Anyone else agree with that? Either way, I'd love to see it.

To be fair, Billy's appearances on The Colbert Report and The Daily Show went pretty well, but Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert both held their ground, too. I'd love to see O'Reilly go on Bill Maher's show - now that would be good TV.

Seek therapy and medication, Billy, it's only going to get worse for hateful conservative blowhards like you over the next few years.

O'Reilly slams anti-war demonstrators

I love Bill O'Lielly. He kills me - he really does. Toward the middle of this piece, I thought he had a few points that were worth considering, and I really was trying to listen with an open mind. But, Bill being Bill, he then finishes up with a few whoppers, including the proverbial reference to World War II (can a right winger ever avoid a good 'ole fashioned Nazi reference?). What Bill-Oh neglects to mention is that FDR desperately wanted to get the U.S. into the war long before Pearl Harbor, but he lacked the support of Congress.

The other thing I LOVE about Billy's commentary above is his opining that if we had pre-emptively attacked Al-Qaeda, there would not have been a 9-11. Fair enough, but Bush had eight months to do just that, but he was busy "ranching" in Crawford, Texas during the entire month of August, 2001. There was the fateful memo in early August, 2001, warning against the possibility of terrorists hijacking civilian airliners. The president's administration yawned.

One more point - the outgoing Clinton Administration repeatedly warned the incoming Bushies about the threat of bin Laden and terrorism, and they were taken with a grain of salt. After all, they were with Clinton, so they couldn't have been right.

I know what many of you might be thinking - it's old news. And yes, in most ways, it is. But, when people like O'Lielly are on TV talking about how if we would have pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan then 9-11 could have been prevented, then people need to be reminded of this stuff.
The bottom line is that O'Reilly can't stand it when celebs side with liberals and Democrats. It really drives him nuts, and if you listened to just Bill, you'd think that no one famous has ever been a Republican, or supported one. I guess Bill thinks some of us have amnesia and that we've forgotten about the likes of Dennis Miller, Ted Nugent and Charlton Heston.

Okay, I guess conservatives have me here - relevant celebrities largely support Democrats and liberals.



I found the clip above today from early January, and I thought I'd add it. It's Bill again, blowing off steam against an anti-war protester, calling her a lunatic multiple times. So, anyone who disagrees with Bill is a lunatic, I guess.

###

Like I told Vandra on the way back from Vegas - had we been home, I can guarantee that we both (or me, if she wouldn't have wanted to go) would have been down in D.C. in the middle of it all. It's only about 3-3.5 hours from Philly. A small commute and sacrifice to make when compared to what our soldiers are going through in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, I'm sure we'll have more opportunities to demonstrate in the capitol if things don't change.

Air America lives

As a subscriber and listener of Air America since the network began, yesterday was bittersweet. The fledgling liberal radio network announced yesterday that it has been purchased by SLG Radio LLC, an entity controlled by Stephen L. Green. The sale is expected to close by mid-February. The announcement was made by Air America CEO Scott Elberg.

"We are extremely pleased to have reached this agreement with Mr. Green, which will solidify Air America’s future," said Elberg. "When you combine Steve Green's business skills and successes -- with his brother Mark Green's history as a respected progressive policy voice, including as a frequent guest and host on our network-- Air America will be in the best hands to sustain our powerful radio voice, expand our reach and broaden the audience."

I know I'M pleased about it. No one can tell me that there isn't a demand for a liberal radio network in this country, because there is. Look at all of the people who voted against Bush in '04 and against his party in '06? No one can make the case to me that this radio network can't survive. It's just been unfortunate that it's had poor management.

Yesterday also marked the announcement that Al Franken will be leaving Air America, effective February 14. That was a disappointment to me - I've listened to Al since day one. His material is good, but his voice and radio hosting skills are wanting. But, in the end, he brought me to the network, and I love his knowledge, wit and political smarts.

Fans of Franken shouldn't weep, though. We haven't heard the last of him, via his great books, or perhaps as a candidate. He has expressed interest in running for the Senate in his home state of Minnesota.

Yesterday, he said he will make his decision soon. I for one think he has as much smarts as many who occupy the Senate chamber today.

So long, Al. It's not an overstatement that if it weren't for your star power, Air America would have gone under probably long ago, so well done. And keep writing those books and engaging rightist blowhards.

And sorry, Matt Drudge, Bill O'Lielly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity - you don't get to have your Air American funeral. Boo hoo.

Blowhard Bill never runs out of gas

O'Lielly is at it again - he's now calling George Soros "the most dangerous man in America."

The sexual harasser is angry because Soros pays lots of his own cash to try to get Democrats elected. Seems to me that the "culture warrior" is also angry because Democrats now have their own Richard Mellon Scaife ~ that is, a man with deep pockets who isn't afraid to put his money where his political mouth is.

However, there's one big difference between Soros and Scaife - one has a soul, and the other, well, to call him soulless would be too kind.

Soros (right) has a bad hairdo, but is a self-made billionaire who knows what it's like to be persecuted, and have no money. (His family endured the Nazis in Hungary during World War II, and the Soviets afterward.) He became very wealthy by earning his money, not inheriting it. Yes, there have been some accusations of wrongdoing - he was convicted of insider trading in France, but he denies guilt and claims the information he knew was public knowledge.

Scaife (below) is another type of animal altogether. He's little more than a right-wing nut job with a fat checkbook. He inherited almost all of his wealth, and he's paid millions trying to defame and destroy those who differ with him politically, socially and philosophically. His funding of the Arkansas Project is the subject of many books, articles and even a few documentaries.

The best book about Scaife's b.s. is The Hunting of the President, an eye-opening page turner that is worth a read if you'd like to know how a billionaire with a hard on for Democrats will go to any lengths and will make up almost anything in an attempt to destroy someone.

Scaife's ties to Kenneth W. Starr are not well known, but they're not well-hidden, either. Starr was named the first dean of a new school on public policy funded by Scaife at Pepperdine University. When controversy arose over this appointment, Starr decided against taking the position. Of course, Pepperdine denied any link between Starr and Scaife. Ummm Hmmm. Once the controversy passed, Starr became dean of Pepperdine's School of Law in 2004.

Now you tell me, who is a more dangerous man in America - Scaife or Soros?

The biggest right-wing shill in America would be wise to rethink calling Soros "the most dangerous man in America" by looking inward toward his own twisted political party.

I've got my own nominee for the moniker Most Dangerous Man in America - how about Roger Ailes?

Uniter or divider? You decide.

I've written it before and I'll write it again - I dislike copy/pasting stuff to the blog, but this one must be read to be believed. After spending the last 6+ years dividing and conquering the electorate, suddenly President Bush is changing his tune, now that he doesn't have a rubber-stamp Congress at his beckon call.

All of a sudden, Bush is calling for bipartisanship and cooperation from a Democratically controlled Congress. I wonder if he'll get it, but more importantly, I don't really feel he deserves it. The president and his party have willfully ignored almost every Democrat in Congress during his entire administration, and now he offers a phony olive branch, so if Democrats begin to give the president and the minority party a difficult time, Republicans will paint the Democrats as the partisan party.

Phooey. I ain't buyin' it, and neither should Democrats or the American public. Of course, there will always be a certain amount of the populace who will buy whatever Bill O'Lielly or Rush Limbaugh tells them. Not much can be done about that, but this is classic Bush. Quick example, and I've written about it often.

Following 9-11, the president was steadfastly against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The Democrats and a few Republicans were on the other side of the debate, favoring a massive reorganization of the federal government to enable it to more effectively fight terrorism. When public opinion also came down on the side of creating the DHS, Bush (Read: Rove) abruptly not only favored a DHS, but Republicans structured the bill in such a way that there was no way that most Democrats would vote for it. How did they do that? By trying to take away the collective bargaining rights of the over 300,000 federal employees. Bush glibly claimed he "needed flexibility" when setting up the new department.

The result? Many Democrats voted "No" on the initial bill, and right away, they were "siding with the terrorists." And of course, anti-union Republicans ate this whole thing up like a sizzling South Philadelphia cheese steak. It was those "damn unions" again. Of course, that's not what's really happened, but few people I knew at the time cared to get beyond the political rhetoric.

It's just one in a long list of examples of Bush and Rasputin Rove changing tactics and trying to take the credit, just as they are now. The minute Democrats disagree with the president or try to to deny him his agenda, they will be painted as "obstructionists," a cry we heard from a desperate party a lot prior to the 2006 mid-term election. It ain't obstructionism, folks, it's accountability and oversight -- and this president has had precious little both.

Anyway, on to the president's editorial, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday. Two quick thoughts, and then on to the piece.

First, the piece appeared with a graphic of a hand similar to the one on the left of a hand reaching down, as if toward reconciliation. Umm Hmm.

The piece should have appeared with the picture at right.

Bush running for president in 2000 with the campaign slogan "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is a lie that will take its place in presidential history alongside these:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"

"Read--My--Lips...No--New--Taxes!"

"People need to know whether or not their president is a cook. Well, I'm not a crook."

Second, it's pretty fitting that Bush's piece appears on the Wall Street Journal's blood-soaked editorial page. The WSJ's witch hunt against people in the Clinton administration, most notably Vince Foster, is well documented. It's also well known that the stories the WSJ printed about Foster sent him into a deeper depression, and it's not a stretch to say those pieces played a part in his suicide.

Anyway, here's the president's totally sincere piece. Read, enjoy, laugh, repeat.

What the Congress Can Do for America

Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well

BY GEORGE W. BUSH

Tomorrow, members of the 110th Congress will take their oaths of office here in Washington. I will have the privilege of working with them for the next two years--one quarter of my presidency, plenty of time to accomplish important things for the American people.

Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today's Washington. To do that, however, we can't play politics as usual. Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve.

In the days and weeks since the November elections, I have been encouraged by the productive meetings I've had with many of the new leaders in Congress from both parties. I am hopeful we can find common ground without compromising our principles.

I believe we share many of the same goals for the people we serve--and with good will and hard effort, we can find practical ways to advance the American Dream and keep our nation safe.
My principles are no secret. I have campaigned on them in my races for governor and in two presidential contests, and I have worked hard during my presidency to translate these principles into sound policy.

I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure. I believe that wealth does not come from government. It comes from the hard work of America's workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses. I believe government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable. I believe government plays an important role in helping those who can't help themselves. Yet we must always remember that when people are hurting, they need a caring person, not a government bureaucracy.

These are all common-sense principles, and they provide the basis for how I will approach governing with the new Congress. We've proved it can be done: When our nation was attacked, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the Patriot Act and reform our intelligence agencies. When our economy was struggling, we worked together to pass tax relief that has helped our economy grow, create jobs, and raise the standard of living for the American people. When we saw that our public schools were failing our children, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, insisting on high standards, accountability and better options for parents.

The outcome of the elections has changed the balance of power in Congress, yet the priorities for keeping our country safe and prosperous go beyond party labels.

Our priorities begin with defeating the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001--and who are working hard to attack us again. These terrorists are part of a broader extremist movement that is now doing everything it can to defeat us in Iraq. In the days ahead, I will be addressing our nation about a new strategy to help the Iraqi people gain control of the security situation and hasten the day when the Iraqi government gains full control over its affairs. Ultimately, Iraqis must resolve the most pressing issues facing them. We can't do it for them.

But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq--and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war.
America's priorities also include keeping our economy strong. The elections have not reversed the laws of economics. It is a fact that economies do best when you reward hard work by allowing people to keep more of what they have earned. And we have seen that businesses can expand and hire more workers when they have more money to invest--and since August 2003, America's employers have added more than seven million new jobs.

It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues. Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending, we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that. The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people.

By balancing the budget through pro-growth economic policies and spending restraint, we are better positioned to tackle the longer term fiscal challenge facing our country: reforming entitlements--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--so future generations can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country.

One important message I took away from the election is that people want to end the secretive process by which Washington insiders are able to slip into legislation billions of dollars of pork-barrel projects that have never been reviewed or voted on by Congress. I'm glad Senator Robert Byrd and Congressman Dave Obey--the Democrats who will lead the appropriations process in the new Congress--heard that message, too, and have indicated they will refrain from including additional earmarks in the continuing resolution for this fiscal year.

But we can and should do more. It's time Congress give the president a line-item veto. And today I will announce my own proposal to end this dead-of-the-night process and substantially cut the earmarks passed each year.

The strength of our economy also requires us to address some of the biggest issues facing the American people--greater energy security, comprehensive immigration reform, and affordable health care. While progress has been made in each of these areas, we must do more. I look forward to working with Congress on these difficult issues.

Our Founders believed in the wisdom of the American people to choose their leaders and provided for the concept of divided and effective government. The majority party in Congress gets to pass the bills it wants. The minority party, especially where the margins are close, has a strong say in the form bills take. And the Constitution leaves it to the president to use his judgment whether they should be signed into law.

That gives us a clear challenge and an opportunity. If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for our nation. We can show the American people that Republicans and Democrats can come together to find ways to help make America a more secure, prosperous and hopeful society. And we will show our enemies that the open debate they believe is a fatal weakness is the great strength that has allowed democracies to flourish and succeed.

To the new members of the 110th Congress, I offer my welcome--and my congratulations. The American people have entrusted us with public office at a momentous time for our nation. Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well.
Mr. Bush is the president of the United States.

####

I've said it before and I'll say it again - it should be an interesting two years until the next election.

My Person of the Year

I wasn't going to do a Person of the Year, but then I figured, why not? Everyone else does, so I might as well join the party.

Just like my Rear of the Year, I'll pick one every year and post it on my blog. And next year I'll pick both a bit earlier.

My Person of the Year won't be the typical Person of the Year, though, like Time Magazine's or other national media outlets. My POY will be someone who I feel has affected America in a profound way, and more importantly, me. Don't take that the wrong way - I don't say that in an egocentric way at all, but I mean it in that I will have had some sort of contact with the person - politically, etc. I know that's not too clear, but then again, I'm kind of thinking this up as I go along.

Anyway, as you already know by the picture, my first annual Person of the Year is Keith Olbermann, anchor of MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

He has had quite an impact in the world of politics and political discourse. He's not afraid to take on people who he feels are blowing smoke up Americans' behinds, from Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and most notably Bill O'Lielly neé O'Reilly.

Yes, I love Olbermann because he's a liberal, but more than that, he's a realist. He doesn't take on the above characters and more with more political puffery of his own; he takes them on with facts, their own lies, and, best of all, videotape of those lies.

Bill-O, and Olbermann calls him, lies so much, he probably doesn't even know what the truth is anymore. But, before Keith came along, there really was no one with any kind of substantial following who called him on it. Well, those days are over, and that's why O'Lielly hates Olbermann so much -- the No Truth Zone gets called out daily on Countdown.

However, Olbermann isn't above some controversy of his own. Appearing on The Tonight Show, he sported a mask of Bill-O and did the Nazi salute. He did it to prove a point, but I'd say he already proves his point with his words - he doesn't need to resort to such tactics. Anyway, he apologized and went back to doing what he does best, and that's making talking heads, mostly right wingers, look like the small-minded rubes they really are.

Olbermann's success when he first began on MSNBC was anything but assured. His ratings were in the tank, and many people believed he would never make it with a talk show, especially a political one. His lineage before MSNBC was sports, starting with local stations in Boston and California and then ESPN, where he rose to national prominence. After a feud with ESPN's management, he left for MSNBC.

However, one Iraq War later, and Olbermann found his voice, and it's a voice that has become a loud one in our political discourse. I rarely miss Countdown to hear Olbermann's sage voice of reason and honesty.

Nice work this year, Keith. Most importantly, keep the stooges who try to hoodwink us from both sides of the political spectrum honest.

Announcing my first ever "Rear of the Year"

After much deliberation and thought, and a totally scientific poll involving my wife and father in law, I'm pleased and proud to announce my first annual Rear of the Year: Ann Coulter.

First, who else could it be? Who even comes close?

I came up with one, and it will come as no surprise to you...

Bill O'Lielly. Bill's just not deserving of the award. Why? Because he's always been this annoying.
But, he's taken it up a notch this year, getting caught in lies to numerous to mention.

Most notable from Bill's '06 résumé is his annual War on Christmas blarney, and also his Malmedy Massacre inaccuracy. Even when his blatant Malmady inaccuracy was pointed out, of course he didn't correct it.

I also love his phony boycotts, too, which don't accomplish anything, but of course, if you listen to him, they make all the difference in the world. Yiiiiiiite, Culture Warrior.

Anyway, on to Ann. I could go on and on about the moronic and idiotic remarks that she's made this year, but it really only comes down to one Coulterism - saying the 9-11 widows are "enjoying their husbands' deaths" and also blabbering on and on about how they have become millionaires.

She hypocritically pointed out that Democrats always trot out people who can't be criticized (such as Christopher Reeve and the 9-11 widows). I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time shooting holes in that, but evidently Coulter was particularly outraged that 9-11 widows made campaign phone calls for John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election.

As Matt Lauer so correctly chided Coulter on the Today Show, 9-11 widows don't lose their ability or right to have a political opinion because their husbands died. A few other points about that, too: 1. Had those 9-11 widows made campaign calls, I can guarantee Coulter wouldn't have had problem with it, and 2. Coulter is a bit more clever than I give her credit for. In all honesty, I don't believe anyone could be so soulless, including Coulter, to believe most of the sewage that comes out of her mouth. I believe she says these things to: get publicity, stay in the news, and ultimately, sell books.

Speaking of her books, Coulter also managed to distinguish herself in 2006 by putting out a book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, that is rife with numerous and documented cases of plagiarism.

Bravo, Ann. Keep up the bad work. I don't think I've ever enjoyed disliking someone this much. Wait, I could probably make a pretty long list of people who would make that list, most of them Republicans.

Bill O'Reilly "Analysis"

Okay, I'm not quite done bringin' you some analysis of Tuesday's election. Hannity and Matalin kill me - I could listen to these two all day, and then have even more fun shooting holes in their bullshit.

Hannity is about as distorted as it gets, and I have no idea which universe he's been livin' in these past six years, but it hasn't been in Bush's America. He wonders why Democrats polled better on tax cuts, reducing the deficit and spending? How about because they've failed miserably at all three, for starters.

-You have to love Bush's tax cuts, if you're a millionaire. How many of those were polled? Probably not many because there AREN'T many when compared to our population of 300 million.

-Reducing the deficit? Hmmm - how has the deficit done since Bush took office? Just asking.

-Spending - typically not a Democratic stronghold, I'll admit, but show me one spending bill that Bush has vetoed. I'll save you the trouble - there isn't one! The one and only Bush veto to date is his misguided, religiously driven veto of a stem cell bill in June of this year.

Oh, and one other thought - controlling spending and reducing the deficit are "bread and butter" Ronald Reagan?!? More like Miracle Whip - as in, that's what Sean is using to come up with that premise. Spending and the deficit spiraled out of control under Reagan and only came back down to a balanced budget under Clinton (and he had to shut down the government twice to get the budgets he wanted). Part of the deficit's problem under Reagan was his fetish for missile defense - a fetish that has rubbed off on President Bush, too, costing us hundreds of billions.



Here's a little more Bill O'Lielly. Yep, Bill's got it allll figured out, as usual. If he's this bad at political analysis, it's too bad I'm not better looking, because I could do worlds better than him. So, just the war cost the Republicans? And Abrahamoff? How about Foley? Hastert? Haggard? Rumsfeld? Cheney? The lies? Good 'ole Bill-Oh is looking for one or two easy reasons to package to his viewers, and it's not nearly that simple. But, you keep agonizing, Billy boy, and I'll keep laughing.

Letterman vs. O'Reilly, Part II

Bill O'Lielly was on David Letterman earlier this year (I think, or late last year), and the two went round and round, about Cindy Sheehan (more on her in a post later today), the War in Iraq, President Bush, etc., and it was pretty entertaining.

Naturally, I was pretty happy to hear that there would be a Round 2. Well, it didn't disappoint. To be fair, O'Lielly got in his licks, too, and brought up a few good points, but I'd give this one to Letterman in a split decision - it was no knock-out, though. Bill's a good debater, and he knows how to handle Letterman; it's obvious O'Lielly was well prepared. But, Letterman stood his ground and isn't intimidated, and that's no small feat against a brow beater like Bill. O'Lielly is a lot like President Bush - guys I'd very much like to like, but I just can't because of their ideology.

But, in the end, these two guys engaged in spirited but largely civil political discourse, and it seems like that's in short supply these days. Well done, men.

Leslie Stahl latest CBS disgrace

Above is Part I of a a 60 Minutes interview of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi by Leslie Stahl this past Sunday.

I can honestly say that I haven't been more appalled at a 60 Minutes interview in a long time. Stahl might just as well have been working for the Republican National Committee. Don't get me wrong, I've got no issue or problem with a tough interview or probing questions of a politician affiliated with any political party - that's what journalists are for. But, Stahl revealed her bias with idiotic and leading questions and comments that had me wheeling me around in my chair. (I was listening more than watching; Sunday is often a busy day of writing and planning.) First, take a look at part II:



I'll get to the specific questions and comments I found highly dubious in a minute. However, after watching the interview, I'm wondering why CBS would air such an interview with such an outrageous slant and bias. We'll probably never find out, but I'll suggest a two-word motive - Dan Rather. Ever since Rather aired an unflattering story before the '04 presidential election about President Bush's time in the Air National Guard based on questionable documents, the network has been dogged with accusations of liberal bias.

Perhaps CBS thinks it can placate the far right with interviews like this one?

In short, Stahl is embarrassing herself and CBS News. Stahl begins her interview with this whopper: "I mean, you're one of the reasons we have to restore civility in the first place". Correct me if I'm wrong, Leslie, but it's Republicans who have controlled the House since 1994, and it's the GOP that has been setting the partisan tone in the House. Sure, the Democrats can take part of the blame, too, but wasn't it the Republicans who led the witch hunt against Clinton? Isn't it the GOP who have been ramming bills though Congress, mostly without reaching across the aisle and even working with Democrats? Isn't it the GOP that has been rocked by scandals, be it Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, etc?

It looks like 60 Minutes should restore civility to its show by yanking Stahl from its line of traditionally respected correspondents. That's certainly an opinion she could have and should have kept to herself. Can you just imagine the cries of "liberal media" if Stahl led off an interview with, say, Vice President Dick Cheney with a comment that he's one of the reasons we have to restore civility in Washington? Rush Limbaugh would have wet his pants and popped 10 Oxycontin.

At the top of the interview, after Stahl makes the absurd "restore civility" comment, she just gets rolling. I love it when she asks Pelosi about the names she's called the president, Pelosi said, "Oh, I was being nice when I said those things." Stahl voices over, "Oh reeealllly?!?" Someone correct me - does Stahl now work for Karl Rove or the Republican National Convention?

It gets worse. Stahl then asks Pelosi, with a straight face, "How are you going to work with him [the president]?" I find this amusing, since this administration hasn't really given too much thought to working with Democrats since Bush took office. In short, it's because Bush hasn't had to; he's enjoyed an almost total domination of Congress by the GOP since he was appointed president. It sounds like Bush, if the Democrats take back one or both Houses of Congress, is the one who's gonna have to worry about working with Democrats. And it will be an uphill battle indeed, since Bush and Karl Rove has spent almost six years pissing in the eyes of political opponents whenever they've had the chance.

Hey, I've got no problem with Stahl being a conservative, if she is in fact one, but the entire tone of this interview and broadcast is sickening. Later, in the interview, Stahl comments that Pelosi was pregnant while she was working, and then almost forces Pelosi's daughter to defend her mother on camera that they were amazingly still “fed and clothed” while Pelosi worked. What the hell are we in, the 1950s again?

Oh, there's more that got me full hot about this interview. How about Stahl's comments about Pelosi's clothes and how much she eats? Is that relevant in any way tp this piece? (A few quick examples by Stahl: "Here's Pelosi in Armani" and "Here she is in Cowboy boots" and "She ate not one but two pork chops.") I ask you, if this interview were about a man, would ANY of these comments been made about clothes or eating habits? Without question, no. Stahl's comments do nothing to add to the piece; they merely add to the perception that this is a Pelosi hatchet job (oh CHRIST, I sound like Bill O'Lielly now).

One would think that in the 21st century, a woman journalist would not put such ridiculous questions and comments in a broadcast about a potential first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history. Pelosi, if she does get elected the next Speaker if the Democrats take back the House, would signify a significant leap forward for all women. What kind of message is Stahl sending by asking such misogynistic questions? Not a good one. Stahl might as well have been a man circa 1955 wearing a wife beater, bellowing from the couch, "Get me another beer, bitch! When's dinner gonna be ready?!?"

I'm curious if Stahl would have treated woman pioneers Sally Ride, Sandra Day O'Connor or Madeleine Albright this way? I seriously doubt it.

Stahl ought to be ashamed of herself. I bet Stahl's daugher is real proud of this interview.

However, the Pelosi hysteria on 60 Minutes if just a small snippet of the drumbeats of doom that are being pounded hourly about a potential Pelosi speakership. Who can we count on to keep the "liberal hysteria" going? Why Bill O'Lielly, of course! Take a listen, and I won't even comment - the piece speaks for itself. Caution, you're about to enter the Dipshit Zone...



Thanks for validating my every political belief, Bill.

A Bill O'Lielly "interview" with Bush

Pop question - who do you think would have the balls to plug a book in the middle of an interview with the President of the United States? Give up? It's Bill O'Lielly, of course! The implied message here - when BOR (pun intended) interjects himself into an interview with the president - is that he thinks he's the most important person in the room. Personally, that's debateable. Is there a third choice?

For BOR to whine that he's the second most attacked person in America during this interview, bitching how he gets so angry about it was one of the highlights of this classic clip. Hey Bill - quit lying and distorting on a nightly basis and people would back off. From Malmedy to saying you won two Peabody Awards (you didn't) to lying about just about anything because you believe people won't go back and check it (and they always do), your record is so rife with lies, the question now is, "When don't you lie?"

I always laugh with glee when BOR has a meltdown about being called/caught in a lie. It's always tape that will stand the test of time. If you've been a reader of this blog, you've seen some great examples of this, and it'll always be a staple.

My favorite part of the interview is trying to figure out who lies and distorts more between these two.

Oh, and Bush told a whopper about half-way through:

Anyone remember this question by a reporter at a press conference during the run-up to the Iraq war? I'm paraphrasing, but I'm sure I'm pretty close:

Reporter: Mr. President, do you ever call your father for advice?

Bush: No, I have a higher father that I talk to about big decisions.

##

And people like Bush and O'Lielly wonder why people are so skittish about their religious beliefs. It's because those beliefs are constantly being shoved down our throats. And for Bill to assert (and surprise! Bush doesn't correct him) that people falsely claim the president is "an evangelical Christian" is a lie of the tallest order.

The president is an evangelical Christian! A careful review of his record since his time as the governor of Texas would certainly prove it.

If these two boobs make it to heaven, I wouldn't want to be in hell.

Pure gold- Olbermann putting W on ice

Just when I thought Olbermann delivered the best political commentary this decade, much less this year (Go back to that Here - a commentary on Clinton's dust-up with Fox News), Keith outdoes himself. The clips above and below are more than a shot over W's bow, they are a full frontal assault on the president's integrity, his motives, and most importantly, his lies. (Watch the one at top first, then the one below - the clip is too long and it had to be broken into two parts)

I couldn't agree more - I really can't add a whole lot to Olbermann's sage words here, other than to offer this - with one irrelevant blip a few years back, the Republicans have rules Congress for 12 years. They will not go quietly, and lying or worse is more than just part of their game plan - it is their game plan.



I'm forever grateful that in the age of Bill O'Lielly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, we have Keith Olbermann. Keep 'em straight, Keith - you've got an admirer for life.