Affleck nails Olbermann, perfectly

Okay, a few more lighter pieces before returning to the serious political stuff. As any CMB reader knows, I'm a huge Keith Olbermann fan. But, even Olbermann can sometimes take things too far. He's offered up so much spot-on criticism of the Bush administration that we would not have otherwise heard in our mainstream media, he deserves a pass when his venom is a bit too much on a few selected nights.

Having said all that, his passion and bombastic outrage have made him ripe for a parody, and last night, Ben Affleck delivered. This was very, very funny.

I seriously doubt that Olbermann took this seriously. At least I hope he didn't; If anything, feeling the sting of an SNL parody gives one legitimacy and nothing more. Think about it - is anyone doing a parody of Glenn Beck these days? That's because he blows and few except the radicals on the hard right even pay attention to him.

Live Blogging the Presidential Debate

Stephen Crowley, NYT

There's about 10 minutes to go, and this promises to be interesting. Here's hoping that the actual debate is heaps more interesting than the talking head nonsense I've been listening to for the last two hours. As usual, Olbermann, Matthews, Gregory and the rest of the MSNBC crew have focused on the trivial - subjects that people probably care little about: Bill Ayers, McCain's demeanor during the last debate, and endless predictions about what the candidates will say. ZZZZZZZ The only one who had much interesting to say was Olbermann, who is doing a pretty effective job of exposing the hatred and vitriol that is increasingly becoming a staple of any Palin (and John McCain's, to a certain extent) campaign appearance.

Things are going to get started, as soon as Chris Matthews shuts up. Please check back and hit Refresh, as I will update periodically when my fingers need a break from typing.

Chris Matthews actually just brought up a good point on Countdown - how troubling it is that McCain/Palin supporters are yelling out threats and hateful remarks about Obama at campaign appearances. Of course, neither can control what people yell out, but they can and must tell people that that sort of language is completely out of bounds and unacceptable. I haven't thought about it much, but Matthews raises a good point - when these hateful remarks enter the mainstream and go unanswered, "the nuts from the right and left come out," and he mentioned Lee Harvey Oswald. Matthews is right - language by any supporters of any candidate must remain civil and decent, and I certainly hope that the Secret Service takes all of these threats seriously.

They are getting ready to throw it to Brokaw - I'm interested to hear if Brokaw referees the discussion tonight, especially if McCain pulls a Palin and ignores the moderator's questions. I don't think that either candidate can get away with that in this setting. Here we go. ...

9:03: Here come the candidates, and it's no surprise that McCain made some eye contact and greeted Obama much more cordially. (Okay, I guess I'm focusing on the inane now, too - sorry.)

9:04: The first question is on the economy - no surprise there. It goes to Obama first. He characterizes the mess we're in as the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." Absolutely. I like the fact that Obama is directly attacking the failed economic policies of Bush. I feel he came off the track already though with his mentioning the economic rescue package from last week. Booooo. But, kudos for mentioning that AIG went on a $400k junket, and he rightfully calls for that money to be returned to taxpayers and for the AIG greedy pigs to be fired. It won't happen, but I'm happy Obama said it.

9:06: McCain starts with energy independence, and I don't know that that's going to resonate. I notice that he mentions keeping taxes low, and I just don't think it's going to wash. The worst kept secret in this campaign is that the next president will have to raise taxes, period. Very FDR-esque to mention buying up mortgages - and we should - Obama should be putting forth these ideas. McCain's joke falls flat to Brokaw about his being Treasury Secretary. And he sounds a bipartisan note by looking at Obama and mentioning an Obama supporter - Warren Buffet. Edge to McCain on that question. :o/

9:08: Obama just mentioned that Warren Buffet would be a good choice for Treasury Secretary. I'll be back after I get done biting down on a cyanide capsule.

9:10: First b.s. talking point of the night - McCain just contradicts himself by saying it's a "rescue" not a "bailout," and then he proceeds to talk about greed on Wall St. I must have missed something. I knew it wouldn't take McSame long to sound like a partisan hack. Now he's attacking Obama, and he's repeating himself about stabilizing home values. What about people who don't own homes? Obama had better not let it pass that McCain's campaign manager's company was taking money from Freddie Mac up until about six weeks ago. Hit him, Barack.

9:12: I like how Obama came out with his response - "let me talk about what's in it for you..." instead of going off on a partisan attack. After that, he proceeds to attack McCain on deregulation - good. Dereg is poison in the financial markets, and I don't care what the economists say.

Brokaw is trying to trap Obama with a question during the ensuing discussion: "Are you trying to say that people need to prepare for the worst regarding the economy?" Of course, Obama says "No," and he blows it there - it IS going to get worse, but as a candidate, he can't say that.

McCain for the third time is mentioning "buying up bad mortgages" - a good idea, but how many more times will he repeat it tonight? The over/under is 8. I'll take the over. (By the way, conservatives will hate this idea, which I love - McCain really isn't conservative enough for many on the far right, and that just tickles me.) Oh yea, and who's going to pay for it? And where was McCain with this f*&$#@ idea last week - publicly pushing for this? Nowhere to be found, except trying to score political points and trying to suspend the very debates that we have watched and are watching so he could save our economy (in so many words). Talk about bold ideas... after the fact, and after McCain (and Obama, to be fair) voted Yea on a POS, pork-infested bill to bail out of Wall St.

9:18: A boring question about why should Washington be trusted with taxpayers' money. Obama's response was pretty predictable, and now McCain is pimping his resume as a "reformer" and his well-worn campaign faux witticism that "Senator Obama has never taken on a member of his own party," as if that's a prerequisite for running for president. What, no mention of Maverick?

To me, McCain is not even answering the question now - he's just attacking Obama. I don't know how this is going to play with the voters. And seriously, I'm so tired of hearing "My friends," it's making me crazy. He's just repeating a laundry list of his talking points - energy reform and eliminating our dependency on foreign oil - too bad he has consistently voted against green and alternative energy sources.

9:25: Obama mentions his proposal for $15 billion for alternative energy, and that "we can do it." Bravo. Health care is priority #2 in Obama's mind - good. Education is third, and that's good, too. I haven't heard McCain mention education yet. Obama is now going after McCain for more tax cuts for corporations. Interesting that McCain won't prioritize what's important, like Brokaw asked. Let me get this straight - you're running for president, and you can't come up with the most important thing to address in your new administration? Maybe his aides forgot to tell him what to say. Seriously, that's a pretty telling and significant gaffe.

9:27: An excellent question from a woman who lived through the Great Depression, which asks what sacrifices both candidates will ask Americans to make. McCain is now talking about a fucking overhead projector, for the second time. McDrilly, we get it. (We get how insignificant it is.) I'm waiting for McCain to get on all fours and paw the carpet, while snarling "Grrrr! Earmarks!" Again, Obama has an opportunity here regarding earmarks - will he take it? (Palin - the Princess of Pork - there are some great lines Obama could use here: "You will tell us the names of people who are looking for pork? Look on your own ticket, John." That would be a good start.)

9:29: Obama has the line of the night so far - reminding Americans what Bush wanted people to do not long after 9-11: "to go out and shop." Nice way to ask Americans to sacrifice, Dubya. I love it that Obama just mentioned Big Oil has 68 million acres of land in contracts that the aren't drilling on - the whole offshore drilling is just an opportunistic bullshit campaign borne out of greed to get more oil, OUR OIL, from underneath OUR lands. Oh yea, and Hurricane Ike did plenty of damage in the Gulf of Mexico, including plenty of oil spills, too; there goes the GOP line of b.s. about "drilling environmentally responsibly."

9:31: Obama is now on the attack about McCain's rhetoric about earmarks, which accounts for $18 billion of the federal budget. We're gonna need just a few more fat trimming of the federal budget than that, McSame.

9:35: McCain is very full of it when he's talking about how he's not in favor of tax increases for anyone. It's a total lie, and McCain knows it. He wants to keep the current tax rates, but those current tax rates FAVOR THE WEALTHY - the Bush tax cuts that McCain wants to keep in place. (Which, by the way, he was against five years ago, but now that he's running for president, he's for. Which is it?)

9:37: Brokaw is now asking a question about entitlements, and he's being disingenuous at best. Social Security will be fine for decades, and I'd love to hear Obama say that we need to raise the cap on SS from it's current rate of just over $100k per year - raise the taxable income for SS to $250k, and SS will be fine.

9:38: Obama is now coming back to McCain's mischaracterizations about tax cuts, and I'm happy that he is. McCain is trying to paint Obama as someone who will hurt small businesses, and that's bunk, too - the overwhelming majority of small businesses make less than $500,000 per year, and Obama's tax plan leaves those people alone.

9:40: McCain has just repeated himself by boasting about "taking on his own party" for the second or third time - is he going to repeat himself all night? Can we get a no-repeat debate, McSame? And stop it with the anti-lobbyist rhetoric, when you have so many lobbyists on your staff, including your campaign manager. Hit him, Barack - his gloves are down. I don't know why he doesn't exploit this opening - McCain is repeatedly giving it to him on a silver platter.

9:42: McCain is now talking about his global warming "record," if you can call it that. I'd love to hear one achievement, and so far I'm not hearing it. Now he's really on the B.S. Express talking about nuclear power - it's"safe and it's clean," eh? I beg to differ. I know that nuclear power must be part of the bridge to new energy technologies, but what will we do with the spent fuel? It's a proposal without a solution to a big problem, McSame.

I'm delighted to hear that Obama is refuting some of McCain's rhetoric about energy, specifically Obama's line when he says, "he complains that nothing has been done in Washington, but he's been there for 26 of them." Nice.

Brokaw is getting cranky about both candidates running over on time. Okay, that's fine - the more questions, the better, so keep 'em straight, Tommy Boy.

McCain is now blubbering about offshore drilling, but I don't buy for a city second that it will reduce the price of oil, and it doesn't take an economist to figure out why. I've written this many times before, and I will undoubtedly do it again - what's to stop Venezuela, Russia and Iran from scaling back production to keep the price of oil high to offset our production in would-be oil fields? In the meantime, our lands get raped, polluted and pillaged by multinational Big Oil companies, with no consequences.

9:49: A question about healthcare - this is Obama's strength - I can't wait to hear McCain's response, because his $5k tax credit is a joke, that will end up in the hands of insurance companies, according to this Website. And he must be nuts if he thinks that insurance companies won't raise the rates to sop up some of that $5k credit that Americans will get under his plan.

Here comes McCain - what line will he repeat here? Wait, wait - he wants to put health records online? He must be out of his mind. I don't want my medical records online, under any circumstances. Now McCain is on an anti-government rant- I'm so shocked, coming from a Republican. It will never cease to amaze me that America elects people to be in charge of our government, who hate government.

Is healthcare a privilege, right or a responsibility? McCain - a responsibility. Obama - it's a right. Advantage: Obama. I'm happy that Obama is refuting the myth that he is for "mandates."

One of the best lines of the night - Obama mentions that McCain voted against S-CHIP, a program that Repubes and Bush were against renewing, which gave millions of more children healthcare. I know this is true, and I remember it - I don't even need to go back and look.

9:59: McCain need a drink of water - his mouth sounds as dry as his manner and his answers. Maybe if he stops saying "My friends," his mouth wouldn't be as dry. Now McCain is calling Americans "peacemakers"; Not under this administration. I don't know how Americans feel about it, but there surely are millions around the world who are giving that line an eye roll, at best.

Wow, McCain is leaving himself more open than the town whore when it comes to his foreign policy answers. Of course, McCain mentions the Surge, all but boasting that it was a success, and of course he mentions Georgia and Russia, a sickeningly easy shot that Obama should take. I'll never forget when Georgia provoked Russia (look it up, if you don't believe me, and by looking it up, I don't mean Fox News), and McCain looked into news cameras, saying with a straight face, "We are all Georgians now." I was waiting for a drum tap, like he was joking. Oh, and we sent $1 billion to Georgia in foreign aid during the week of the Republican National Convention, a fact which received virtually no media coverage. I guess if it isn't mentioned on Faux News, then it never happened.

10:03: The Obama Doctrine - he could have and should have been much stronger in his answer. Now we get to hear the McCain Doctrine - from a guy who doesn't know a Shiite from a Sunni. To listen to McCain say it, he's never been wrong about any foreign policy decision that American's made, going all the way back to when he was in his mother's womb. Please.

10:07: A question on terrorism and Pakistan - Obama first. Obama is mentioning that the central War on Terrorism is in Pakistan (or, as he says it, Pokiston) - it is. That country, in addition to Afghanistan, is where al Qaeda is located, not in Iraq. Here comes a "rebuke" from McCain about where the front of the war on terror is - I know he'll say it.

Of course, a WHOPPER of a lie about Pakistan - Obama never, ever said that he wanted to "invade" Pakistan, and McCain knows it. Yet, he keeps on repeating this lie. It IS a lie, and McCain knows it. I can see Obama laughing in the background - I hope he has a chance to respond.

Obama is insisting on a follow-up, and McCain gets testy. So be it.

Ooo - now McCain is getting even more testy, and, dare I say it, unpresidential. Obama hits back brilliantly about Pakistan.

10:13: McCain looks really amateurish tonight during his response to Obama's response - I don't know how else to say it. He seems to be losing his composure here, talking about "getting Osama bin Laden; I know how to get him and I'll get him, no matter what." What the phuck (Philly reference) are you waiting for, McCain? Bin Laden attacked us over seven years ago - think you could drop by the Pentagon and enthrall the commanders and generals with your acumen? Empty, election-year rhetoric, period.

10:16: Now Obama is talking about Afghanistan, and I think he's right on here. "We have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and right now, it is not."

McCain is now talking about how Obama is "correct" about doubling the size of our forces in Afghanistan. Um, where are those troops coming from, McLame? I guess the folks over at Blackwater are going to start taking resumes again, and lots of them.

10:19: Now McCain is talking about Russia's behavior, regarding another Cold War. I have to tell you, he's way off base here. First, he talks about how "wealthy" Russia is. I must have missed something there. Second, people around the world must be laughing their asses off right now, hearing McCain characterizing Russia as "an aggressor." Hmm - Iraq War, anyone?

Georgia provoked the conflict with Russia, and McCain knows it. How does he know it? A former lobbyist for Georgia has a very high position in the McCain campaign; I can't remember his name, but I'll come back to this in the coming days - it gets virtually no coverage in the media.

10:26: A question about Iran and Israel, and McCain again tries to paint Obama as some sort of pussy for wanting to talk to the Iranians without preconditions. As Obama said during the last debate, "no preconditions does not mean no preparation," and I agree with him. Whatever happened to diplomacy? For all of the necrophilia that McCain fantasizes about with Ronald Reagan, one would think some of the metaphorical pillow talk could center around the value of diplomacy.

I like Obama's response - a diplomatic one, too - he cites specific examples about what happened when Bush walked away from diplomatic talks with Iran and North Korea.

10:28: The last question of the night: "What don't you know, and how will you learn it?" Of all the questions that Brokaw could pick from through Internet submissions, that's the one he picked?

I like Obama's response - that the American dream is fading, or coming into question, and it is. We do need fundamental change, and that's his answer in so many words.

McCain's answer is completely incoherent - "What I don't know is what the unexpected will be." Groundbreaking. He's all but giving his answer from the Hanoi Hilton right now with many allusions to his POW experiences, with another repeat line - "We need a steady hand at the tiller."

~~~
That's it - no knockout punches, so I have to give the advantage to Obama tonight, because McCain really needed to knock off the surging Obama with some sharp, crisp answers, and he didn't do it. Obama, again left plenty of points on the table, for the second consecutive debate. There's a fine line between being and looking presidential and hitting back when your opponent is leaving himself wide open with inaccurate assertions and blatant falsehoods.

I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow with more thoughts on the debate.

Remembering an awful, watershed morning

I've been thinking about 9/11 quite a bit this morning - it's hard not to, considering the media coverage of the one of the worst anniversaries in American history (and for once, the media circus is deserved).

It almost seems like decades ago when America was in a post-Cold War cocoon of prosperity and growth. There 1990s brought out the best of America and the worst of America, but more bad than good. We can honestly look back with a little more hindsight with each passing 9-11 anniversary and truly realize how asleep we really were.

Unfortunately, it's pretty difficult to have a discussion about 9-11 these days without it becoming intensely political. And that trend is not helped by politicians who try to make hay out of homeland security issues, and the whole "we can protect you and they can't" ridiculousness. I'm referring to Repubes like Rudy 9iu1ian1, who never misses an opportunity to pimp 9-11 like he's participating in some sort of celebrity endorsement. John McCain is a little more subtler, but not by much; he often insinuates that American will be much less safe if Obama is elected president. It's shameful, disgusting and despicable, but that's never stopped any of them.

Some day, I really would like the whole truth about 9-11 to come out, including its causes, and who was responsible for the tragedies seven years ago. Unfortunately, there seems to be little political will to truly get to the bottom of 9-11 with a bipartisan, independently appointed commission (unlike the 9/11 Commission that was hand-picked by President Bush and his cronies in the GOP-controlled Congress).

I can't help but sit here and wonder if we ever will find Osama bin Laden. Maybe this October the Bush-controlled Pentagon will get around to finding him. No one could possibly be surprised if that happens.

Keith Olbermann had plenty to say about the 9/11 anniversary last night. More on that in a minute.

John McCain: what a comedian

Well, John McCain had better win the presidency, because his potential as a comic is about as low as Bush's approval ratings.

I have to admit, though, that Keith Olbermann is nitpicking like crazy, going all the way back to 1986 for a crude, tasteless joke that McCain said? C'mon - there's plenty about McCain circa 2008 to not like. His more recent, um, "jokes" about killing Iranians (and also bombing them) are certainly relevant to his suitability to be commander in chief. (And there's no statute of limitations for reportedly calling your wife a "cunt.")

It all goes to character. I don't know that this disqualifies him to be president - I have plenty of policy reasons to vehemently oppose his candidacy. However, this can't be helping with the women vote - I hope all of those misguided women who vowed that they would vote for McCain if Hillary didn't get the nomination are listening to remarks like these.

Spot on by Rachel Maddow to compare and contrast this scant coverage to the 'round-the-clock coverage of Jesse Jackson's disparaging comments about Barack Obama. It's only a matter of time before she has her own show. She's certainly earned it.

I was happy to hear Olbermann and Maddow discussing McCain's record, too, since he takes almost a perverse pleasure in distorting it. These inaccuracies lies by McCain must be pointed out each and every time he does it. Thankfully, the Obama camp seems to have learned plenty of hard lessons from John Kerry's candidacy during the '04 election, and that's the cost of letting lies and distortions from the other side linger unanswered in the media.

Latest must-see: Donahue's Body of War

Phil Donahue was on Real Time With Bill Maher last night to talk about his new film, Body of War, which he executive produced. In short, it's an absolute must-see; this one just vaulted to the top of my movie list. By all accounts I've heard and read, it's an extremely moving movie - last night, even Maher said, without humor, that he teared up watching the movie. A brief description of the film:

Body of War is a 2007 documentary following Tomas Young, an Iraq War veteran paralyzed from a bullet to the spine, on a physical and emotional journey as he adapts to his new body and begins to question the decision to go to war in Iraq. From soldier to anti-war activist, the film takes an unflinching view of the physical and emotional aftermath of war through the eyes of an American soldier.

A pretty poignant description of the movie comes from Donahue himself, who last night was speaking about the fallacy of the GOP Supporting the Troops and about the war in general:

...[Young] is paralyzed from the chest down, and he wants his fellow soldiers to come home; he is a full-time anti-war voice, you can't take your eyes off him when he speaks, he's out there with his mom, and he thinks that one more death in this war is morally indefensible.

[Snip]

[On Democrats and the GOP regarding the Iraq War] Thomas Frank, who wrote the book What's the Matter With Kansas, offers us an explanation as to why the core of the Democratic Party has rushed to the Republicans - because the Republicans have convinced [Democrats] that they are the party of values. They've got God, and no one else does. The party of values has been a trojan horse that has concealed an economic agenda that has allowed wealthy people to become more wealthy, reduce taxes during war time, which doesn't oblige us to pay it, but will give the bill to our children.

Those last few sentences just about had me jumping out of my chair in agreement.

By the way, Donahue knows just a little bit about getting screwed in a time of war, too. Mind you, not nearly on par with the subject of his movie, Tomas Young, but Donahue knows the cost of war in a different way. His former political program, Donahue, was canceled in 2003, despite being MSNBC's highest rated show. The reason? The New York Times revealed an internal NBC memo that stated Donahue should be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."

Example 8,955,411 of how our so-called media has morphed into a talking piece for this administration; it's also turned into a virtual cheerleading squad for John McSame. Yes, I know, there are exceptions, but far too few dissenting voices are being heard today, about the war, the economy, and the disgraces and outrages that have become so commonplace in the federal government under Bush that they've almost become cliché. Abuses of power by a rogue administration should never become cliché, they should become impeachable offenses for all the world to see.

Democratically controlled Congress, you incomplete me.

Anyway, see Body of War - support Tomas Young, one of many Ron Kovics from our latest military disaster, and also support Donahue, who certainly deserves it after being railroaded by a network for having the temerity to stand up to a government that had lost its mind in 2002-2003. Sadly, things are worse than ever. I really do wish MSNBC would give him another shot - a time slot right after Olbermann would be just about right.

McCain, Murdoch: two clueless men

I got a kick out of this one - the other night, Keith Olbermann rightfully took aim at Rupert Murdoch for sticking his mom with a multi-million dollar tax bill, and to John McCain for being... John McCain.

It's been said on liberal blogs the world over for the last 48 hours or so, but it's my turn...

This guy is running for president based on his foreign policy credentials, yet he makes the same mistake three times in a 24-hour period about who is training Al-Qaeda?!? This is to say nothing about how he would undoubtedly lead the American economy, likely right down the crapper just like Bush.

I find it amazing, but not surprising, that propaganda networks like Fox News could actually succeed in getting tens of millions of Americans to vote against their best self interests because of a preacher's racist comments.

It sure could happen; we have to keep fighting so it doesn't.

Olbermann slams Hannity for Rudy butt kissing

Since in a while I haven't posted any Keith Olbermann clips in quite a while, this seems like a good place to begin - the other night's Worst Person in the World - none other than college drop-out Sean Hannity, the biggest Giuliani suck-up of them all. Not like we needed any more proof, but Insanity is as partisan as it gets. Even for a talking-head political pundit, it's more than over-the-top to be introducing America's Profiteer at one of his fund raisers.

MSNBC "Report" on U.S. "plans" to attack Iran

Want to know what's wrong with our media? Here's a shining example - a "report" on MSNBC about how we have absolutely no plans to attack Iran. My favorite part of this is how MSNBC correspondent Kevin Corke says that despite what his sources tell him, on and off the record, there is no evidence of any plans to attack Iranian nuclear plants, "it makes for interesting conversation."

Can someone explain to me where the news is here?

This is exactly the type of "reporting" that got us into Iraq in the first place - the press doing the administration's bidding. And it doesn't take a political science major to know that the Bush administration would like nothing more than to start up a war with Iran. It's not hard to imagine some Bush strategists smiling from ear to ear upon seeing his "report."

If it weren't for Keith Olbermann, MSNBC would be as unwatchable as CNN and Faux News.

KO apologizes for Wendy Vitter remark

Keith Olbermann has apologized for a remark made on Countdown last week while the show was hosted by Alison Stewart. Some comments were made about Wendy Vitter, wife of Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who is caught up in the D.C. Madame Scandal.

I give Olbermann props for apologizing, but it shouldn't have run in the first place, really. Without knowing how the show is produced and who decides what airs, especially when Olbermann is absent, I'm guessing the producer is at fault here. However, Olbermann sets the tone, and he should know better.

There's no need to attack Republicans, or their spouses, for what they wear. These bumbling buffoons are doing a terrific job of hanging themselves for other misdeeds, so KO's nightly rants need not get personal in most cases. Just give us the facts, KO, because the facts are damning enough.

Neither Olbermann, nor his producer(s) are perfect though, and I give him credit for saying so. Therein lies the difference between the likes of Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly. Both make sometimes inappropriate remarks in the heat of the moment (BOR much more frequently), but only Olbermann has the words "I apologize" in his vocabulary.

Imagine if Bill O'Reilly said this. First, there would have been no apology. Secondly, if someone brought it up six months from now, this is what BOR would scream: "Nope. Never said it. Bring me the tape of it, then. You don't have tape because I never said it." What O'Reilly hates about Websites like DailyKos and Media Matters is that they actually save this stuff and call him on his b.s.

At any rate, kudos to Olbermann for admitting a mistake. Hopefully it won't happen again.

Apple announces... iBodyArmor?

Sometimes, you just hope a story is true and not some stupid hoax making its way around the Internets. This is one of them.

I found this on Keith Olbermann's blog, TheNewsHole, and it brought a smile to my face.

Pictured above, according to Olbermann's blog and a link to Flickr where the photos originated, is a picture of Christine and Kevin Garrad. And they have reason to smile.

Evidently, Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was patrolling a street patrol in Iraq and as he rounded the corner of a building he came face to face with an insurgent. As the two were just a few feet apart, they both opened fire. The insurgent was killed, and Garrad was hit in the left chest where his trusty iPod was in his jacket pocket. His iPod slowed down the bullet enough that that it didn't pierce his body armor. He reportedly escaped the incident unscathed and unwounded.

This sort of brings life into perspective, doesn't it.

I don't think this one will be playing songs any time soon.

I'd love it if Apple sent Garrad another iPod - jacked up with all of the bells and whistles. The Apple people should send him the top-of-the-line model, complete with lots of songs and an engraving on the back, thanking him for his service in Iraq.

Here's hoping you get home safely from iRaq in one piece, and that you get a new iPod soon, Kevin.

I'm going to write Apple Computer to find out if they have heard of this story, and also asking them to send Garrad a new one.

Snoop Dogs O'Reilly

Warning: This video isn't for work or around the kids, or for the easily offended, for that matter. Proceed accordingly.

I'm not a big fan of Snoop Dog, but this is a pretty good piece of footage that you won't hear on Extra!, Entertainment Tonight or even Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

In this clip, Snoop takes aim at Billy's head, and connects.

Okay, I'll admit, it's amateurish and childish, no doubt, but it's nice that the Internet is able to bring us coverage of Snoops metaphorical blows to O'Reilly that we other wise wouldn't hear.

And that's precisely why the government wants to end Net neutrality, and why everyone should be writing their representatives in Congress to make sure that the Net maintains neutrality. It's the last frontier we have left, and that's why the government wants to take it away from us. Sensible regulations, yes, but I'm sure sooner or later, a Repube administration will take away the Net's neutrality, but I digress.

Anyway, does this mean that we can expect another Billy boycott? France must be awfully happy.

Are there going to be Snoop CD smashing contests now, vis a vis The Dixie Chicks?

You'd better watch yourself, Dixie Dog - the radical religious right and Bill O'Reilly's army of one are going to come after you.

My two favorite TV commentators together

I love this interview - two of my favorite political personalities on television. In addition to The Daily Show & The Colbert Report, if you're missing Bill Maher Friday nights on HBO and Keith Olbermann every weeknight on MSNBC, you're missing some ot the best political commentary on TV.

And Maher has a point about Bush's reaction upon hearing the news the morning of 9-11. I've often what went through this mind at htat moment. Obviously, we'll never know, but I've always thought it was something like, "Wow, the presidency isn't going to be a cakewalk after all."

My thoughts on troop funding

I've updated this post - take a look at the 5th video down - the one with Donald Rumsfeld. I posted the wrong one yesterday. This new one isn't quite as good resolution wise, but it's much longer, and you get to hear Rummy tripping over his arrogance when trying to answer the soldiers' questions as he's put on the spot. When you hear the audio, you'll know it doesn't make a difference.



Lots and lots of rhetoric is flowing out of Washington, D.C., about funding and supporting the troops.

Perhaps no one is more eloquent on this subject than Patrick Murphy, a freshmen Democrat from Pennsylvania's 8th District (my old district!). He beat incumbent Republican Mark Fitzpatrick in a bitterly contested and very close election last November - the final vote count was 125,656 to 124,138. You can bet that the Republicans will go after Murphy three times as hard in '08. If we are still living in Pennsylvania next year when the election rolls around (heaven forbid), I'm campaigning for this guy, and contributing, too. He's a wonderful guy, an Iraq war veteran, and a true American patriot. Here's my favorite passage of Murphy's from the video clip above:

To those on the other side of the aisle who are opposed, I want to ask you the same questions that my gunner asked me when I was leading a convoy up and down Ambush Alley one day. He said, "Sir, what are we doing over here? What's our mission? When are these Iraqis going to come off the sidelines and fight for their own country?" So to my colleagues across the aisle - your taunts about supporting our troops ring hollow if you are still unable to answer those questions now four years later.

Pretty tough words from a man who has earned the right to say them. However, something tells me Republicans will figure out a way to try and smear him. If Max Cleland and John Kerry can get smeared, Murphy can to. Watch your back, Patrick. Better yet, Pennsylvania Democrats will have your back, and you can count me among them.



Speaking of men who have earned the right to talk tough about the War in Iraq...

Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who knows what it's like to wear the uniform, also had some pretty harsh words for the president after the House passed the spending bill which set a withdraw date for our troops.

Murtha at times can be a loose canon, but he's right on here. I flat out love the guy - he's courageous, respected in the military community, and he backs up his tough talk with action. Most importantly, he's got something Dick and Bush can only dream of ever having - credibility on military matters.



But, President Bush was at his bullshitting best following the passage of the House Bill that sets a deadline for the troops to come home.

Let's set the table, shall we? Because there's lots to feast on in this 4:17 meal.

I love how the president never misses an opportunity for a photo-op when it suits him politically, like here, with soldiers and vets lined up behind him. But, did anyone catch the news a few weeks ago that an amputee from the Iraq War was uninvited to a ceremony at the White House because he refused to wear pants instead of shorts? You probably didn't, because it didn't get a whole lot of press. Apparently, we have a president who doesn't like to see the real costs of war, in this case an amputee veteran, unless you count going to the one Marriott-like ward at Walter Reed to meet with a few of our wounded.

Bush wastes no time working in the empty "Support Our Troops" line - which should be to no one's surprise. Too bad Bush wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase if it hit him in the face - lack of adequate body armor, too few troops, mandating stop-loss for troops due to leave the military, ridiculous and appalling conditions for our returning wounded, Bush's proposal to cut health care in his latest budget sent to Congress, the list goes on and on. About the only thing this president does do to support the troops - coming up with slogans the press eats up like a cannoli in South Philly. And "Getting our troops the resources they need to do their job" is another line from the video clip above that's fit for Comedy Central.

But, don't take my word for it - I'm just a blogger who's sick of all the GOP's rhetoric. How about we hear from some people who are out on the front lines, putting their lives on the line each and every day, regardless of the idiocy of this war. Let's roll some tape, shall we?



Pathetic, sad and outrageous that any U.S. soldier would ever, ever have reason to say this on film. Want another example of this administration not giving soldiers the resources they need? Mission Accomplished!...



What an amazing piece of footage. Keith Olbermann is right on the mark - this type of candor from any leader is extraordinarily rare in wartime, so for that I'll at least give Rumsfeld a nanogram of credit.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that these are issues that are raised by troops in the field, so this footage is bulletproof, unlike the armor issued to our military for troops and Hummers. No word yet on whether Dick Cheney has questioned the soldiers' patriotism or if Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have whined that the soldiers asking Rummy those questions "hate America."

Rummy's whopper "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" is a line that will live on in infamy. That might be true when you are attacked, like when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but that doesn't hold up for two seconds when referring to the War in Iraq.

Other than that, Rummy's comments defy description. Words fail me to describe the absurdity of his responses. His pathetic answer about production problems as the reason why our troops didn't have the resources they needed at the time (and it still holds true) is probably his biggest lie and distortion during his six years as secretary of defense. To its credit, the press was all over that one, exposing it for the lie that it truly was. I even remember representative from the company that makes body armor being interviewed, and he explained that they had the capacity to make twice as much as they were delivering to the military.

Yes, yes, Rummy's gone, but you know what? These clips are highly indicative of how seriously this administration has taken "supporting the troops" during the four years of the Iraq War (three and a half of which Rummy was the secretary of defense). How dare the Republicans say that Democrats "don't support the troops"! It makes my blood boil. The best way for Democrats to support them is to bring them home, since this administration, and the generals taking marching orders from these people, have not done the job, or have not had the tools to do the job.

This administration has zero credibility, except with the most partisan and ideologically driven voters and Republican hacks. I say this not out of joy (and that's the God's honest truth - believe it if you will) - I say it out of disgust for our troops who continue to come home maimed physically or mentally, or in body bags.

One last thing that really gets my Irish up. Whenever people such as Patrick Murphy, Jack Murtha or Nancy Pelosi propose that we put limitations on additional troops being sent in the field by making sure they are adequately trained and properly equipped, they were venomously attacked by the Bush Administration once more. Can anyone possibly explain what's wrong with that? Nothing, but this administration's only possible response to those who suggested it was to attack the messenger, not the message.

Back to Bush's message above...

If true, (and I'm sure it probably is, to a certain extent) Democrats deserve some criticism for tacking on stuff to a bill that have nothing to do with winning the War on Terrorism. But, that criticism coming from Bush is outright hilarious, since he has made spending an art form. Bush has yet to veto one spending bill during his entire administration, so his whining about Congressional pork rings very hollow.

And the act of tacking stuff onto a bill so the opposing party will vote it down is done by both sides - Republicans did this time and time again during their rule in Congress over the last 12 years. One instance of note came during the creation of the Department of Homeland Security - Repubes tried to take away government workers' right to collective bargaining, knowing full well that Democrats would oppose such a move. When Democrats did, they weren't "concerned with winning the war on terrorism."

Bottom line - Bush doesn't like having to work and negotiate with Democrats, since he never to and showed no propensity for wanting to during his first six years in office. Now, he has no choice. But, my prediction, hardly a revelation, is that he will get out his veto pen instead of trying to come up with solutions, all the while decrying Democrats' "obstructionism."

In a way, the House bill annoys me though - because it gives Bush and his devoted sheep a bit of ammunition. Just watch the tape above - about two minutes in, he's whining about how this bill is depriving the troops of resources just as we are turning the corner (I'm paraphrasing). So many people will listen to that garbage and believe it.

By the way, our arrogant president persists in saying that if Congress cuts off funding, he still won't be forced to accept restrictions and timetables for withdraw? I know even he doesn't believe that. If Congress is successful in cutting off the purse strings, the troops are coming home, and Bush would have little say in the matter. We're far from that happening right now, but this legislative fight is far from over.

I'll end with one more example of this administration's giving our troops old, outdated equipment to do the job in Iraq. This is a campaign ad that was used against former Virginia Senator George Allen last year in his race with Democrat and eventual winner Jim Webb. Take a look...



Now that's supporting the troops!

Sleep tight, Mr. President.

KO weighs in on Plame's credibility

It's been awhile since Keith Olbermann has made an appearance on CMB, so this video clip is the best way to break that unintentional drought.

KO rightfully slams the right wing noisemakers who are now suggesting that Valerie Plame was an insignificant, "third rate" agent. My favorite was a simple-minded moron on Fox who hilariously suggested that Plame didn't have to leave the Central Intelligence Agency, that she could have transferred. So, where could she have gone, Human Resources? (Actually, yesterday I posted footage of this "simple-minded moron" - Republican strategist Edwina Rogers, a complete imbecile who spewed more lies during a two minute appearance on Neil Cavuto's Fox show on Friday than Richard Nixon did in a lifetime.)

Later on in this piece, Olbermann interviews Larry Johnson, a former CIA colleague of Plame's, who confirms that Plame was a covert agent. But, Johnson be damned - Brit Hume says it's untrue! Who should the American people believe - Hume, a Fox News hack, or a former CIA agent who worked with Plame?

Better yet, the current DCI, Michael V. Hayden, submitted a statement during the Scooter Libby Trial confirming the fact that Plame was a covert agent. So I guess the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency has it wrong, and Fox News has it right, right? I don't think Hollywood could come up with a more "out there" script than this.

The right's clumsy, pathetic attempts to smear Plame speaks a great deal about contemporary political discourse in America - the fact that the press will endlessly debate the meaning of "covert" and whether Plame was or wasn't, instead of focusing on the real issue here. Why is this still being discussed? It's clear she was covert, but the more time people on Fox and other networks devote to debating this already-established point, the less time people spend trying to get to the bottom of this administration's role in the outing of Plame in the first place.

One more thing people are missing. Often in political debates, I like to reverse the roles in a situation, to change the players, and reason if the outcome would be the same. Chew on this cud for second - imagine if someone in the Clinton Administration had blown the cover of a CIA agent in 1999 during the War in Kosovo. For instance, imagine a CIA agent's husband speaking out against the war. Try to go back in '99, to that politically charged, witch-hunt atmosphere. Can you even begin to imagine the outrage against Clinton if this would have happened then? It's not impossible to think that there probably would have been another impeachment trial.

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.

Glenn Beck melts down

I love this guy - this is total classic. Add Glenn Beck to the list of right-wingers who are melting down and withering in the face of Olbermann's slow, steady debunking of the right.

I think what annoys right wingers more than anything is that liberals finally have a voice who isn't afraid of their b.s., won't hesitate to point out the lies and inaccuracies of the right, and who won't back down and in fact looks for a good fight.

The constant back and forth angers some, and causes others to be apathetic, but I'm not in either camp. I'm glad to see liberals have some fight for once, and at least for right now, Olbermann's one of our spokesmen.

A great Olbermann interview, & his top 5

Earlier today, I read a pretty good interview of Keith Olbermann in Rolling Stone, "The Most Honest Man in News," by Mark Binelli. It's a pretty good insight into the man behind the anger. For the entire interview, click Here.

Keith Olbermann is my favorite broadcaster on television today. I don't have a short answer why that is, but there are a number of reasons:

• Even his detractors have to admit that the man has a pretty big set of cojones - he's not afraid to take on President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or, most bravely of all, Bill O'Reilly.

• He certainly seems real to me. I realize that we essentially only know about celebrities and broadcasters what they want us to know, as well as what we see and hear on the air, but there's just something about KO that resonates with me and rings true. And I'm not saying that just because of his politics.

• He's unafraid of feuds, and in fact he seems to welcome them, and it doesn't matter where his opponents come from - e-mail, other networks, etc. This includes Bill O'Reilly, and most recently, Geraldo Rivera. To wit, recently Rivera challenged him to a fight, to which Olbermann responded in the Rolling Stone interview, "Geraldo, you should not give me a hard time. I can still remember when you were a big deal . . . when I was a kid."

• Olbermann is utterly fearless about what he says and who he says it to. I read recently that he attributes this fearlessness to his résumé - "I can go back and do sports any time I want to," he said. He sure can, but with his ratings rising over 85% in one year, he will only have to if he wants to. Olbermann recently signed a four-year contract extension with NBC, so Countdown with Keith Olbermann isn't going away any time soon. Sorry, Bill-O (as Olbermann refers to his chief nemesis).

Although, to be fair, Olbermann has a long way to go before he catches up to the 2o million viewers who take in O'Reilly's pseudo-outrage every week. (Yes, it's truly amazing and frightening that this many people listen to blowhard Bill's screeds every week.)

Anyway, Rolling Stone came up with a top five of Olbermann's rants, so here they are (with descriptions from Rolling Stone). I'm not sure that I agree with the order the magazine puts them in, but the list is about right.

5. Think another speech attacking Republicans for compulsively lying about their Democratic opponents would be predictable and boring? Not from Olbermann. (10/5/06):

Part One



Part Two



4. After controversial comments from Colin Powell, Bush spat that it was “unacceptable to think” that there could be any similarities between the terrorists and America, Olbermann demanded that President Bush apologize to the American people. (After careful consideration, Bush decided not to.) (9/18/06):



3. The night before election day, Olbermann did his part to get out the vote by showing how Bush had hypocritically started using oil as a campaign tool (11/6/06):



2. Taking President Bush to task for soaking habeas corpus in gasoline and setting fire to it, Olbermann himself made the not-at-all-inflammatory statement that President Bush has done more to hurt America than the terrorists (10/18/06):



1. Was staging his Bush corrective in sight of the holy hole at Ground Zero gratuitous and heavy-handed? Sure. But perhaps no Olbermann comment was more powerful than this one, calling President Bush out for using September 11th as just another political gimmick (9/11/06):



###

Anyway, if you haven't checked out Olbermann's show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, I urge you to check out a few episodes. It airs on MSNBC weeknights at 8 p.m. with a repeat at 12 a.m.

KO has come a long way since his days on CNN & ESPN. I still miss him on SportsCenter, but he's much better in his current profession. He really is the left's answer to Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and all the rest. He's got a way to go until he catches up with Bill-O, however; although Countdown's ratings were up 85% in Jan. '07 vs. Jan. '06, he's still millions of viewers away from O'Reilly's impressive 20 million viewers per week. Actually, scary is probably a better word for O'Reilly's audience - for the life of me, I can't believe that there are that many people per week who listen to O'Lielly's bluster, lies and distortion.

Probably the biggest difference between Olbermann and those who have failed (Hi, Phil Donohue) is that Olbermann isn't afraid to get down in the gutter and slug it out. Some probably say that "Olbermann shouldn't lower himself to the level of Limbaugh and O'Reilly." Nonsense. Democrats and liberals must lose their fear of being labeled as hateful or nasty - Republicans have been doing it for years. Olbermann (and Al Franken before him) isn't afraid to state his point of view in particularly harsh language if he feels that what it takes.

Some will also say that Olbermann is participating in petty, childish and sophomoric name calling. True, but again, Republicans have been doing it for years. Keith's merely fighting fire with fire.

Olbermann's gaining on O'Reilly, and it's great to see Billy feeling the heat. He's practically issued a fatwa against NBC, which lately I've been watching with great enjoyment (I'll blog more on that later).

With the 2008 election now on the horizon, we'll soon find out if Olbermann has appeal beyond liberals.

So far, his formula seems to be working.

My thoughts on Bush's State of the Union

I've been stewing about President Bush's State of the Union Speech for a few weeks now, and to be honest, I've been a bit too busy to have the time to finish off my thoughts - the beginning of the semester, along with our trip to Vegas have both not allowed me to have much time to write (plus a nasty cold that I'm fighting), but I'm ready at last.

But, before I comment on Bush's last relevant State of the Union speech, I figured it would be cool to look at his SOTU from a few years ago. Watch the clip above, and then read on...

Too funny, eh? God, I have to add video-editing capabilities to my list of New Year's resolutions. I got a kick out of that one.

###



Before getting to my comments, the clip above is worth a look - it's of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann did a quick review of Bush's past SOTU speeches.

Okay, on to Bush's real speech, delivered a little over two weeks ago. Better late than never, right?

Bush's last SOTU address that even matters (next year’s will be an irrelevant lame duck speech, and his '09 goodbye will be a yawner, just like Clinton's was in January '01) should have aired on Comedy Central, because it was about the funniest speech I've ever heard him deliver.

First, I laughed out loud when I heard Bush intone that he's ready for bipartisanship and to work with Democrats. Anyone who's paid attention to five minutes of Bush's Presidency knows that line is fit for the B.S. Hall of Fame. Bush and his speechwriters must really hold the American public in low regard, if they think we are this frickin' stupid.

A few things about Bush's bipartisan olive branch, and I'll move on to other topics of his speech. When you include the '00 presidential primaries and election, Bush and his Rasputin, Karl Rove, have spent the last seven years doing their best to divide, conquer and scare the American electorate, and they've been mostly successful.

During the Bush Presidency, whenever it's an election year, the playbook has become all too predictable – terrorism, 9-11, terrorism, 9-11, abortion and its first cousin - stem cell research, terrorism, 9-11, gay marriage, terrorism, terrorism, 9-11, Iraq was a danger *cough cough Al-Quaeda – hey we didn’t say that!*, terrorism, 9-11, ban flag burning, terrorism, 9-11, etc. You get the idea. And they've been able to get away with it, because, up until the '06 election, voters have not given this administration a proper check and balance in the form of Democratic control in one or both Houses of Congress. But, all that’s changed now, and Bush is putting on his bipartisan face, a face that even a passive follower of politics knows is about as genuine as Pamela Anderson’s bust.

So, he comes before the American people, congratulates Nancy Pelosi (that must have reeeeeeeeaaaaaalllllllllly hurt) and then proclaims he's ready to work with Democrats. Like he has a choice! I would have given the president credit had he sounded a note of magnanimity when Republicans were still in control of Congress, but for him to say that now is the sound of a desperate man. And I like seeing him desperate. It's a face I wish he had to wear long before now, but history's history – nothing to be gained by looking back now.

Anyway, the one thing that really irked me from jump was how he referred to the Democratically controlled Congress:

"Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate, and I congratulate the Democrat majority," said Bush.

How childish. One may expect a certain level of churlishness (and sometimes, vulgarity) from a progressive, liberal blogger *ahem*, but not from the President of the United States.

(Oh, and before Bill O'Reilly, six months from now, gets on the air during his Fox News Show and declares, "Bush never said it! Never said it!" click on the link of the transcript from the Washington Post Here.)

This is the kind of stuff that makes me truly despise people like Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who rates a close second behind Karl Rove on my political hate meter. It's people like Luntz who make me ashamed that I teach public relations. I really mean that. To people like him, it's not the policy or the position that's important, it's how you say it. One could imagine him working for Adolf Hitler and advising him: "It's not the Final Solution, Mr. Hitler. Let’s call it Jewish relocation." I mean, really? Could Luntz (and Bush, by his use of this phrase) be any more petty or spiteful about the Democratic victory last November?

After the speech, there were even traditionally strong conservatives were on TV poking fun at the president's having said "Democrat Majority": Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, to name a few.

Seriously, can you imagine if Clinton had done that during his presidency? I truly believe Fox News would have been calling for Congress to go to Defcon 2. Well, I don't mean to keep repeating myself, but it was petty and stupid (and don’t think for a second it was unintentional), but there were even better laughers in the speech, for sure.

The president's health care initiative is dead on arrival, as it should be. The last time Bush tried to sell us something this disingenuous, it was the privatization of Social Security. Now, the president wants to find another way to award his corporate buddies (Read: political donors), while simultaneously sticking it to the middle class, right where the sun doesn’t shine. Sorry, Mr. President – I know the difference between you-know-what from Shinola.

It's truly amazing that even a president with the set the size of Bush's could bring this before Congress and the American people. He now wants people who are lucky enough to have medical benefits through their jobs to have those benefits taxed? He must be joking, right? Someone please e-mail me and tell me when his real State of the Union speech is, because this has got to be April Fool's Day, but earlier. Wait, maybe we were all being Punk'd?

I admittedly won't pretend to know all of the fine print of the Bush's health care proposal, but so far, from what I've read, I’m less than impressed, as are most experts. It's amazing how hard most Republicans fight against doing the right thing on Social Security and Universal Health Care. I've previously blogged about Social Security, so I won't get into it much here, other than to reiterate once more that there was never anything urgently wrong with Social Security in the first place. It wasn't due to go broke for decades, yet GOPers saw that as a great excuse to try and mess with a system that has worked for nearly 70 years, all the while promising that "current recipients will receive no reduction in their checks." It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines in that statement: "If you're years away from retirement, count on getting a lot less than you thought."

I've been paying into the system since I was 15 years old, and now you’re telling me I'm going to see greatly reduced benefits so your buddies on Wall Street can get some of my money to play with under the guise of "private accounts?" Dream on. I've done plenty of reading on what Bush wanted to do with Social Security, and it was just another way to award his big political donors – stock brokers, big business, accountants, and a whole slew of other people who are just dying to get their mitts on some of the billions in the Social Security trust. No sale. And thankfully, the American public wasn't buying it, either. Funny how I haven't heard Bush mention Social Security recently. He knows it's DOA, just like he knows his new scheme for health benefits will suffer the same fate.

As far as universal health coverage, I don’t think I'll ever understand why our government just cannot or will not get it done. As wealthy of a country as we are (at least in theory – actually, Bush is bankrupting us, but that's another post), it's stupefying how politicians can sleep at night knowing that tens of millions of Americans lack health care.

Oh well, on to other topics.

I loved his comments on balancing the federal budget, without raising taxes. One could audibly hear the laughter when the president uttered that doozy. In the name of political ideology, Bush would rather bankrupt future generations than get the government back on the right course by repealing his ludicrous tax cuts from earlier this decade that were enacted in the first place on projected surpluses that no one really believed were going to come to fruition, anyway. (And those rosy predictions were before 9-11 and the contemporary War on Terrorism.)

Fast-forward to the president’s radio address from yesterday, when Bush warned that there will have to be domestic spending cuts to keep the budget in "balance," or his version of balanced, anyway. Bush calling for "fiscal discipline" in Washington during his SOTU speech is analogous to Mark Foley chairing the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. Oops.



One of my favorite parts of his speech, though, was his calls for energy independence. Coming from a president and his party, both of whom have done nothing to that end in nearly six years, it rang pretty hollow. Even more hilarious was Vice President Dick Cheney, who visibly snickers from behind the president’s shoulder. (See the YouTube clip above.) It was almost as if Dick was snickering to the rest of us, "I know something you don’t know." When it comes to the Big Oil, there's plenty that Dick knows. Big Oil hasn’t been performing energy exploration, it's been exploitation.

I do give Bush at least some credit in a few areas, though:

1. Taking a stand against fossil fuels at all, since he’s done little more than lip service during his presidency. We'll see if this is more of the same, or if he really means it.

2. Calling on increased nuclear power production. No question about it, this is a critical part of our energy solution. However, we need to find a way to safely store the waste. Yucca Mountain appears dead in the water, so proposing increases in the number of nuclear plants requires a solution to this problem, too, and there aren't any easy answers.

3. Bush acknowledged global warming, which is no small admission by this president. But, I'm sure this will prove to be hollow, but I pray it doesn't. I’ll be writing lots more on global warming in the next day or two – it's been in the news quite a bit this past week.

As usual, his speech contained plenty of fear mongering about the War on Terrorism. His rehashed bravado about stopping a plot to fly an airliner into the tallest building on the west coast is older than old news. That one I knew about, but Keith Olbermann discovered plenty of other instances, too. Check out the YouTube clip above.

The president's call to increase the size of our active armed forces by 92,000 over the next five years is seems like small potatoes to me. If I were president, I’d double that, and while I was at it, I'd damn near double the pay of what our soldiers are getting now, which isn't much. Sure, the cost would be high, but you know what would cost even more, in terms of money and blood? Restituting the draft. And if we keep going the way we are, that's precisely what we are going to have to do.

Most incredible is not one word in his speech about New Orleans or Hurricane Katrina, despite the fact that the city isn't even close to being where it was before the storm about 18 months ago. (I mentioned this in an earlier post yesterday.)

And then there was Bush's call for America to continue to support the "cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus and Burma," and to "continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur."

Two things – 1. Thank God we've got Belarus, Burma and Cuba covered, and 2. What in the world has the president done for the people of Darfur? It sounds good for the press to mention it, but what has Bush really done?

I do give Bush credit for increasing U.S. funding to combat AIDS in Africa, and other humanitarian aid, too. Bush remarked:

"We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease. And that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa. Because you funded the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. And I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries."

Again, it's a start, but we could and should be doing so much more. Too bad Bush is so ideologically driven and that this administration won’t fund family planning in Africa, which would also go really far in helping combat AIDS. I know what many religious people believe, too: "Don’t have sex and you can’t get AIDS." I'm not going to get into that too much now, other than to say that it’s as myopic as it is unrealistic.

Even better than Bush's speech is some of the coverage after it. Here are two clips of coverage that I found entertaining – Keith Olbermann (of course!) and a pretty ignorant clip from Fox News, with college drop-out Sean Insanity and another rube named Karen Hanretty. Pretty entertaining.



Above, Keith Olbermann ticks off the lies from Bush's SOTU speech. Take a listen (above).



Here is the Fox News piece I referred to above. Can't you just feel the hatred?

Olbermann outdoes himself, again

As the Kerry farce continues to rage (and hopefully die down, but I'm not holding my breath), I just sit back and wonder in amazement that this is getting the coverage it's getting. The real story should be that this non-story is a story. Yea, yea, yea, Kerry can be a doofus, a fool, a blowhard and an elitist. We GET it, GOP.

But, the Republicans have a few bloviators of its own - politicians and commentators alike (the latter of which the GOP has a favorable lead in sheer numbers; the only lead it's going to enjoy this election season, and yes, that's a prediction on the Senate and House).



Above is Part I



And Part II

I'll comment more on this later today.

Keith Olbermann is a true American patriot. I don't know if he writes his commentaries or someone else does, but I haven't heard anything more succinct and devastating to this presidency since Bush has been in office.

And this is a guy who used to do SportsCenter? I'm glad you've found your calling Keith, and it's not sports. This is the most poignant, well-thought out TV commentary I've heard in years, maybe ever.

Again, more on this later.

Get me a fucking faith-based thing!

...those were the words of Karl Rove to President Bush's political advisors regarding co-opting the religious right (and evangelicals) for political gain.

I wonder what Rove's words will be once he reads this book? How about, "Just get me a fucking new career!" We could only be so lucky.

Just in time for the '06 mid-term elections, it looks like we're being treated to another devastating political exposé by a former top level official in the Bush administration. David Kuo, most recently the #2 man in charge of the president's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, has penned a bombshell, Tempting Faith, that is bound to be a best seller. (I know I'll be contributing to sales!)



Keith Olbermann has plenty to say about this book. I love the clip above; it begins with W in the Rose Garden, holding a press conference on Iraq. W starts out with those quote:

"The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements, that use religion to achieve objectives," said the president. Oh, and he was talking about Iraq, by the way, in case you thought he was referring to another country.

I won't get into it too much now, but Kuo in the piece above, as described by Olbermann, evidently outlines how Rove, the president and co. routinely refer to religious right leaders as "goofy" and "the nuts." My first thought about hearing that is, "it serves the right right" for being so blindly partisan that it would just mindlessly vote for Bush.

Now, after nearly six years, we find out that Bush's religiosity was a phony act for votes? Shocker!

What does trouble me though, is how many of these religious groups are getting tax breaks and tax exemptions, seemingly all because we have an evangelical Christian in the White House. My tax dollars going toward this kind of stuff is an outrage.

Part II of Olbermann's look at Kuo's book is below.



This book is on my must-read list, and when I get it and read it, I'll bring you a review post-haste. It's looking like a pretty good book, in the vein of Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke. And of course, like the aforementioned two administration "defectors," you have to know by now that Bush and Rove won't let Kuo's claims go unanswered, or should I say, Unswiftboated. Stay tuned.