Peggy Noonan not a "you must vote" person

This is a pretty interesting piece of vid from MSNBC last week, when Peggy Noonan (of Ronald Reagan sycophant fame) appeared on Morning Joe. The reason for her appearance is inconsequential (talented actor David Strathairn was promoting something), but her comments were pretty telling. (Strathairn narrated the video that introduced Barack Obama in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.)

First, she's not so sure that 18-year olds should have the same right to vote as a 70-year old businessman who has been paying taxes and running a business for years? Welcome to Democracy, Peggy. I'd like to know what she would like to do to "adjudicate" this "problem." And of course Noonan had to bitch and complain about the supposed "liberal bias" in higher education - more red meat for the neocon base. Whatever.

Also pretty telling that she's not one of those "you must vote people," coming from a career politico. That was borderline elitist. If I had to guess, I'd say she's referring to the people who are allegedly voting for Obama just because he's black. As a progressive liberal, I could have the same point of view about people who want to vote for McCain just because he was a POW, or people who want to vote against Obama just because he's black. But, I don't feel that way - everyone citizen has the right to vote in this country who is of age, and our democracy should do all it can to make it easy to vote. Tragically, there are much too many roadblocks being thrown in the way of people who simply want to vote.

More on that in a bit.

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.

When the goin' gets tough... pull the plug?!?

Oh yea, about that corporate media? Get a load of this one (and another major h/t to C&L for the footage). A McCain toadie, Tucker Bounds, appeared on MSNBC earlier today to discuss the blatant lying on the part of the McCain campaign. Just when things started to get heated, specifically about McCain's outright lying about earmarks, the feed went dead. Draw your own conclusions about it, but I know how I feel. Of course, I can't prove it, but that won't stop me from believing.

Transcript from C&L:

O'DONNELL: "Let me as you specifically about the comments on 'The View' because John McCain was asked about Sarah Palin and earmarks. He said, 'no, she's not taken any as Governor.' The Wall Street Journal today has a story that in fact Palin's project list totals $453 million dollars. Will we hear John McCain admit that he was wrong?

BOUNDS: "Well, the first part about that Wall Street Journal piece that you should understand is that they don't use the accumulated earmarks that Barack Obama lists on his own...

[FEED GOES DEAD]

Obama's "favorable" press endures...

Seriously, just what in the world is wrong with NBC's Andrea Mitchell? Even for her, a blatantly biased reporter in favor of McCain, this one's over the top.

During a discussion yesterday on MSNBC, Mitchell had this to say about Obama's trip to Israel, Europe and Iraq:

But what if he [Obama] is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America.

You've to be kidding me. Quite frankly, and I'm reasonably certainly Obama would agree with this, but who in the hell cares about "the parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic"? I seriously doubt that Obama is trying to court their votes anyway.

To even suggest that a favorable reception of Obama in Europe would be viewed as a a "criticism of America" is beyond the pale. In fact, I was so fired up upon listening to this, I sent an e-mail to Phil Griffin, senior vice president of MSNBC News, and Steve Capus, the president of NBC News:

Dear Mr. Griffin & Mr. Capus:
Yesterday's interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC was nothing short of an outrage. During an interview concerning Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East, this is what she said, in part:

"But what if he is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America."

Was she reporting, or was she offering commentary? I don't know about either one of you, but I certainly cannot decide. But, in either capacity, saying that if Obama "is celebrated in Europe, it might seem like an implicit criticism of America" is beyond contempt. She should apologize on air immediately for such a despicable comment, period. Either her comments become more restrained, or my viewership of both NBC and MSNBC will end, save for Keith Olbermann's Countdown.

Is she interviewing for a position on Fox News?

I'd like to know precisely what you plan on doing about her comments on your networks, because these sorts of comments cheapen the coverage of our presidential candidates. This is only one in many examples of her implicit cheerleading for John McCain and her overt contempt for Barack Obama. Thanks for your time.

Yours in democracy,
RJ
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I encourage all of you to write both Steve Capus, president of NBC News, at: steve.capus@nbc.com, and Phil Griffin, senior vice president of MSNBC News, at: phil.griffin@nbc.com.

h/t Media Matters for the video and transcript

Kevin James gets beaned by a Hardball

This is another piece of footage that slipped through the cracks last week, amidst all of the appeasement coverage, when President Bush disgraced himself, America and the presidency by likening Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain during a speech in front of the Knesset, the Israeli legislature. Chamberlain is the British prime minister who carved up Czechoslovakia for Adolf Hitler before World War II in the hopes it would satiate Hitler's lust for territory and power. Likening Obama to Chamberlain because Obama believes it's a wise course of action to at least talk to our enemies is laughable enough, but some of the dopes who attempted to join the Bush chorus on television was probably the funniest thing about the whole incident.

Anyway, the video above is probably the best single piece of footage I've seen this year, maybe even since I started this blog over two years ago - it's Chris Matthews absolutely taking apart conservative radio talking head Kevin James, who wouldn't know appeasement if it bit him in the face. By about the mid-way point of Matthews' thundering away at James, I almost started to feel sorry for the guy. Almost.

A partial transcript, courtesy of C&L:

Matthews starts out by saying:

Chris: I want to do a little history check on you—what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?

Kevin: It all goes back to appeasement. It’s the key term.

Chris: No, what did he do, tell me what he did?

Kevin: It's the key term.

Chris: You have to answer this question. What did he do?

Kevin: It's the same thing, it puts it all…

Chris: Well tell me what he did?

Kevin: It's appeasement.

Chris: What did Chamberlain do wrong...

Kevin: His actions, his actions enabled, energized, legitimized...

Chris: What did Chamberlain do?

Kevin: It's the exact same thing.

Chris: No stop, Kevin. I'm not going to continue with this interview unless you answer what that thing is. What did Chamberlain do in '39, tell me? '38?

Kevin: Chris, it's the exact same thing alright?

Chris: What did he do? [yelling] What did he do![/yelling]

Matthews just took him apart. I loved how Chris ends the interview, too: "Don't use the term appeasement if you don't know what it means."

Ouch!

I also thoroughly enjoyed Matthews' reference to the fact that Dana Perino, President Bush's press secretary, didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was, and admitted as much, during an appearance on NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! program a few months ago. Wow - if I'm the press secretary in the White House (Heaven forbid) and I didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was, I certainly wouldn't admit it.

Chalk up Kevin Jones (and Perino, for that matter) as two more conservatives who don't know what the hell they're talking about. And I have to confess, it's pretty fun pointing it out.

Some on the right accuse "libruls" of being "elitist" and "arrogant" when pointing these things out. Quite the contrary, but when you use these terms or claim to be some sort of expert, you really should know historical references before you start throwing them around to back up a president who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, either.

For the record, I know who Neville Chamberlain is - he's the NBA player who once scored 100 points in a game, right? Just kidding.

Olbermann on war crimes by W's cabal

This one's a little old, but it still merits a mention. Just under a few weeks ago, Keith Olbermann unleashed a tirade against the Bush administration for its conduct in Iraq. After thinking about it, Olbermann clarified his remarks backed up his proverbial bus, and ran over Bush and his war-making cabal again, calling some of them (including Bush, and presumably, Dick Cheney) "cold blooded killers." I won't apologize for agreeing with him.

Bush and many in his cabinet (but not all, as Olbermann rightfully points out) almost certainly deserve to be tried for war crimes. It's a pretty sticky issue that many would take offense to - so be it. But, any American who can possibly even try to evaluate and analyze the War in Iraq objectively would almost certainly come to the conclusion that if Bush were the leader of another country, invading a neighbor, the U.S. would most likely be up in arms, beating the drums of righteous indignation, calling for a war crimes trial. Oh wait, haven't we already done that? Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein are two recent examples that come to mind, specifically Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, an invasion we went to war over. Desert Storm was a farce in many (but not all) ways. We certainly weren't liberating a democracy, that's for sure. But, I digress.

Anyway, it's important to note that neither Olbermann nor probably the overwhelming majority of liberals (including me) lump our troops under the statement or thoughts behind his label "cold blooded killers." Olbermann in the footage above rightly classifies them as the heroes they truly are, and on this Memorial Day, it's worth mentioning again that we can and must give them the resources they will need, for the rest of their lives, to confront, combat and conquer the physical and emotional obstacles that await them once they return home from battle.

This administration and those who support it make great sport of constantly repeating, over and over, the slogan of this war by many on the home front: Support the Troops. Well, Supporting the Troops is going to take a lot more than putting a ribbon on your car in the coming years. Yet, thus far, this administration has done little more than just that for returning troops, and for many troops in the field, some of whom have had to go without adequate body armor, etc.

At the end of his Special Comment, Olbermann takes one final swipe at two of his critics by saying, "Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, why do you hate our troops?" I don't know what he's specifically referring to there, but that's bound to stoke the flames of partisan bickering in the weeks and months to come, which will surprise no one. But, in the end, Olbermann is spot on for calling out this administration for its massive, criminal negligence in not giving our troops what they need.

Olbermann truly is a voice in the wilderness - an island of reality in a sea of diarrhea that passes for what many call our "free press," which should be called what it really is - our corporate media. Frankly, it's a miracle that NBC lets him air his show at all. Make no mistake - it's only because there's money to be made, not because of his political views.

If this guy's right about oil, we're screwed

I cannot even comprehend what our economy would be like if gas were to rise above $6 or $8 per gallon, much less $12 to $15, but that's precisely what energy analyst Robert Hirsch believes is going to happen.

I'm no energy expert, and I'm certainly no economist, but you have to be neither to foresee the consequences of double-digit gas prices on our economy.

I have to confess that I find it extremely annoying that certain politicians and of course the Big Oil executives (who themselves make hundreds of millions of dollars per year in compensation) are preaching that we need to drill and explore more to combat high gas prices. What a crock. However, don't take my word for it - Read Here.

Drilling in ANWR would do little more than line the pockets of Big Oil, and the politicians who approve such a move. I can just about guarantee that there would be no price relief at the pump.

What this country needs is a sound energy policy, and fast. Okay, by fast, I mean when hopefully Barack Obama takes the oath of office next January. Heaven help us if McCain is putting his hand on the Bible at noon on 1/20/09, because that will mean plenty more of the same in the way of energy policy.

We must demand a very radical mass-transit and alternative energy plan from this next administration, which in many ways will be about 170 degrees different from what the Bush administration has spent the last 7+ years giving us.

Alternative energy and mass transit will be a major, major theme of this blog in the coming months and years, including form letters to use to write your elected legislators, news, views, ideas on how to save energy, etc., so stay tuned. This one affects us all, and there will be no hiding from it in the coming years and decades. We've already seen what rising gas prices have done to the prices of just about everything, and it's only going to get worse, unless we demand that our state legislatures and Congress do something about it.

(Major hat tip to Crooks & Liars for the video, as well as the research in finding the MSNBC link on the '04 ANWR study.)

Ventura spanks Buchanan on gay marriage

Speaking of gay marriage, this is a pretty sweet piece of footage - former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura taking Pat Buchanan behind the woodshed during a joint appearance on MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams. My favorite line in the exchange:

VENTURA: "Well, first of all, I made a statement when I was governor and stand by it today. Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it's absurd that fact it's even being debated."

That's about as poignant and spot-on statement as I've heard about this issue, ever. I haven't always agreed with Ventura in the past about certain issues, but I find myself agreeing with him and more and more. I wish this guy would run for national office and really shake things up.

Better yet, I wish Ventura would really get behind creating a viable third party in our political system. He has the right combination of moxie and determination to do just that.

h/t Crooks & Liars for the video

Tucker departs with class

I've already blogged about Tucker Carlson's show getting canceled, so no need to further comment on that, other than to bring you the video above of Carlson's last show and classy exit. My impression of him is that he's a good guy and a family man - he's a guy I really do want to like, and on many occasions I do, other than when he makes his occasional crazy statement. I'm sure he'll land on his feet somewhere, and I hope he stays in the political conversation.

Oh, and white men really can't dance.

h/t Crooks & Liars for the video

Buh bye, bow tie

I'm still catching up from with a few old items, so please forgive me, but I still think some things from the past week or so bear mentioning.

When I found out that MSNBC canceled Tucker Carlson's show, Tucker, last week, I had mixed emotions. (Okay, I know, he recently ditched the bow tie, as evidenced by the picture above.)

Carlson is a guy I so desperately want to like - he seems nice enough, he's a family man, and best of all, he doesn't kowtow to the rest of the Republican pundits like Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Lielly, etc. He's a guy who dared to oppose the War in Iraq (after initially supporting it), and he had plenty of unflattering things to say about then-candidate Bush in 1999 following some time with him on the campaign trail. He subsequently had a dust-up with Bush's communication director at the time, Karen Hughes.

So, there are plenty of things I like about Carlson. But then, he comes out and says something really stupid, right out of the Limbaugh play book. For instance, recently on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show on Sirius (he's a weekly guest), I heard him say this about Hillary Clinton:

"I'm convinced that if she were to become president, a million people would die."

Oh, you mean like our current occupant of the Oval Office, Tucker? I guess Carlson hasn't been paying attention since the war began five years ago; an estimated 600,000 to 1 million Iraqis have lost their lives, to say nothing about the estimated 4 million who have fled the country, as well as the nearly 4,000 Americans who have lost their lives and countless more who are permanently maimed physically and mentally.

Even more outrageous, what proof does Carlson have that that would happen? He doesn't, and it was just a flat-out stupid thing to say (And it wasn't the first time I'd heard him say it, either). So it appears that MSNBC's attempt to be the next Fox News has hit a roadblock. Good, because having one channel that endlessly spews propaganda in America is enough; we certainly don't need two of them.

Now, if only CNN would get the message. I'm sure not holding my breath. The network seems desperate to recapture the fame and ratings it achieved in the first Gulf War in the 1990s, even if that involves hiring conservative hosts hacks like Glenn Beck, who is an absolute disgrace. Take one week and listen to his show on CNN Headline News (I have), and if you're even close to being a fair- and open-minded person, you'll see how this guy has zero credibility. The scary part about it is that more than a handful of people watch this fool - after all, he's on the air.

To be clear, I don't advocate CNN kicking off Beck, or MSNBC kicking off Carlson, because I disagree with their political views. (Or any talking head I disagree with.) The bottom line is that I'm just not going to patronize the advertisers that support these shows. I'll have more on this in the coming weeks - I'm going to TiVo these shows and just watch the commercials. I'm sure I'll have plenty of companies to add to my Boycott List.

Dem debate tonight @ 9; I'll live-blog it

The Democratic presidential candidates are here in Philadelphia for another debate tonight ~ this time it's at Drexel University, just a stone's throw from where we live. (At left, workers prep the room for tonight's big donkey showdown.) I thought about going over there tonight to try and hear what's going on and maybe even get some pictures, but I decided against it - I'm sure security there will be tight and intense, and I'd much rather be in front of the TV where I can hear everything.

The debate starts at 9 p.m. tonight on MSNBC, and I will live blog it, so check back often for my thoughts on how things are going. Downer ~ it's been hosted by the intolerably arrogant Brian Williams. I won't even get into why I dislike him - I've blogged about that at length already.

Anyway, it should be interesting tonight to see how the front runners do, and how they attack each other. The Iowa Caucus for the Democrats is scheduled for January 14, just two-and-a-half months away. It's go time, and the heat is getting turned up on the likes of John Edwards and Bill Richardson, both of whom are sagging quite badly in the polls.

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.

Stephanie Miller's debut on MSNBC

I got a chance to watch Stephanie Miller this morning on MSNBC, and her show was great. The well-known liberal talk show host normally broadcasts out of Los Angeles, but she's on (presumably) a three-day trial run to replace Don Imus, broadcasting yesterday, today and tomorrow from lovely and scenic Seacaucus, New Jersey.

Miller is bright, smart and witty, and I'd love to see her replace Imus. I know I would watch every morning. God only knows I'm looking for a show that's better than The Today Show. Matt Lauer isn't exactly how I like to start my day.

Take a look at the clip above (which is from her MSNBC debut yesterday), and if you like what you see, drop MSNBC a line and let the network know that you'd watch Miller if she were to get the slot. It only takes a few minutes, and it really would be good to see a progressive take to the airwaves in the morning.

Miller's morning show replays on Sirius Talk Left (channel 146) every evening from 6-9, and I never miss it if I'm in my car.

Olbermann jumps back into sports

I'm unequivocally a huge fan of Keith Olbermann, and I never miss Countdown, his nightly screed against Republicans and the Bush administration. However, I'm not a fan of his being hired for NBC's Sunday Night Football studio show.

Olbermann will be the fifth voice on NBC's highlights show in the fall, joining Bob Costas, Cris Collingsworth, Jerome Bettis and Tiki Barber.

Olbermann made his bones in the sports world as an anchor of ESPN's Sportscenter. I still miss KO hosting the Sunday night "Big Show" with his tag-team partner, Dan Patrick. But, Countdown has grown hotter and hotter as of late, and fortunately he recently signed a four-year contract extension with NBC.

However, I don't want politics with my football. As a nation, we are constantly bombarded with political messages, issues, and advertisements. On Sunday afternoon and evening, I like to take a break from all of that.

Olbermann will be a success, though. Forget any comparisons to Rush Limbaugh, because there aren't any. Limbaugh is a political hack who knows nothing but cigars, OxyContin, Viagara, hate speech and how to find the partisan angle in everything. Olbermann has a successful history in sports and will handle his new role just fine. I wish he wasn't doing it, but more power to him for getting a second gig.

I just hope Countdown doesn't suffer; for liberals, it's the most informative show on TV.

MSNBC bids Imus adieu

Look at that punim. Don Imus has reason to be cranky today. Yesterday, he was abruptly fired by MSNBC, ending an 11-year relationship with the network. The fate of his radio program is still in question. For now, CBS is maintaining that he'll be suspended without pay for two weeks. So far, that's the extent of his punishment.

I'm already tired of this story, to be honest, but I'd be remiss to leave out a few things. First, a good parody...



Stephen never disappoints.



Michael Smerconish brings up some interesting points here - he is right that people in our society walk around just waiting to be offended, but he's way off base with regard to the Rutgers women's basketball team. Words DO have meaning, and consequences. Yes, he was looking for a cheap laugh, by using racially hateful and insensitive comments.

Smerconish is normally a conservative I respect and listen to, because of his noted lack of hateful comments; he's level-headed and reasonable. But, he's got the Imus case all wrong.



I'm anticipating that this will be the first and last time in my life that I will agree with Laura Ingraham about anything, but I give her credit for reacting the way she did in this clip. The footage runs out, but evidently, she didn't return for the next segment.

It's hard to overstate how much I despise the insipid Hannity, and the footage above is precisely why the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson getting involved in this controversy clouds this issue. It gives conservative jackals fodder for the hypocrisy cannon, and distracts from what Imus said or what this whole story is about in the first place.

These two morons have a history of making highly racial and insensitive remarks themselves, so for them to come to the "aid" of Rutgers basketball players is absurd, and the height of hypocrisy.

What annoys me even more is the fact that Repubes are trying to make political hay out of the Imus remarks, when they really should keep their mouths shut. Take a look at this footage...



Terry Jeffrey, editor-at-large of Human Events magazine, probably says the most idiotic and contradictory statements I've heard on television in quite a long time.

"Don Imus represents the decline in standards in American broadcasting"?!? Surly you jest, Mr. Jeffrey.

Apparently Jeffrey's never heard broadcasts of Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Tom DeLay, etc.? Talk about selective outrage. I'm choking on righteous indignation. Jeffrey almost (almost!) sounds like the right's idiotic answer to this whole mess vis à vis Sharpton and Jackson on the left.

As Keith Olbermann rightfully pointed out tonight on his show, where's the outrage over the "racist right's" comments. A recent sampling:

• Rush Limbaugh calling Barack Obama [and Halle Berry] "Halfrican American"

• Michael Savage saying the Voting Rights Act means "a chad in every crackhouse"

• Neil Boortz saying Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), an African-American Congresswoman, "looks like a ghetto slut"

• How about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay comparing Democrats to Nazis? (Scroll down a few messages and you'll hear audio of it.)

These are just a few examples. I don't have enough time or energy to cite them all, but that's a pretty good "worst of" list.

Jeffrey winds up this clip with a breathtaking bomb:

"I think this type of programming underestimates the intelligence for the potential audience it has."

I'll remember that the next time I hear Rush Limbaugh comparing Democrats who oppose funding a destructive, idiotic war to Stalin, while Vice President Dick Cheney plays the role of Ed McMahon, nodding in agreement and braying like a donkey. (I blogged about this last weekend.)

By the way, and I know I've mentioned this before, but when you have five minutes to kill, drop by the Human Events Website - it really is a kick.

Here's a press conference that the Rutgers Womens Basketball Team held yesterday...



Elegantly said, and well put. It will be very interesting to hear what comes of the meeting between Imus and the team. I give those girls a lot of credit for even agreeing to meet with him; it's going to be a pretty uncomfortable meeting all around, but mostly for Imus. It should be.



Here's Al Sharpton on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. I agree with just about everything Sharpton is says, but it's tough to get past the messenger. He's got such a checkered past, it's tough to look past his credibility problem. But, he's right about Imus.

I'll say it one more time, and then I'm movin' on, because I've had enough of this story already, but I hate it that Sharpton's even involved in this matter, because it's just fodder for the right's cannon of hate and intolerance.

I find it profoundly sad that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are spokesmen for African-Americans today in any capacity. Seriously, it undermines the issue whenever these two idiots show up and preen before the cameras and sound as if they've never done anything wrong in their lives.

Anyway, one down, one to go - time for Imus to go from CBS, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

I do wonder, getting back to Terry Jeffrey's comments, if this will be another excuse for Republicans to try and arrogantly push their morality on the rest of us. The FCC has done it before, and they'll undoubtedly try again. I really hope this isn't another Janet Jackson moment.

Imus suspended for two weeks

Don Imus has been suspended for two weeks. Big deal. So CBS and MSNBC gave the old lizard a two-week vacation.

Earlier today, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's radio program, and it got pretty heated - people were calling in and shouting at Imus, and of course Imus returned the fire.

After I put up a post about this earlier today, I did some more reading about this incident, especially a lot of opinion pieces about Imus. The one thread that many of the articles had in common was this - politicians who go on his show enable his behavior, whether they consciously wish to or not.

If the guests didn't call in or show up, he's clean up his act or get out of the business.

The same thing applies to Rush Limbaugh. By Dick Cheney frequently going on his program, it does nothing but verify Limbaugh's legitimacy in the eyes of the mindless people who gobble up every syllable of hate that comes out of Rush's mouth.

So, people like Rush and Imus are only around because the people who go on his show and the sponsors who advertise on them are enabling this to happen.

That is in no way excusing the crap these two fill our airwaves with every day, but it is an explanation as to why the companies that employ these two continue to do so.

Here's partial video (apologies for the Fox clip)



For a full-length video clip, click Here.

What annoys me most about Al Sharpton getting involved is that he's despised by many, many people, so that merely distracts from the issue of what Imus did in the first place. That distraction has already started.

I know it's just a stupid comment on a Website, but I couldn't resist reposting this comment from the YouTube clip above, from a mindless GOPer...

Imus is a moron, but Sharpton is a liar and a hate monger. Now that he's involved in this, Imus doesn't seem so bad at all. Sharpton what the hell do you do for a living? Are there people really that stupid to donate to your self serving cause?

I'm not a fan of Al Sharpton's, and never will be, for many reasons. His getting involved in this just distracts from what Imus did, and that helps no one. Unreal.

A must-read book on cable news

This looks like a pretty good book I'd like to check out - Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, by Jeff Cohen.

Cohen has worked for MSNBC, CNN, and Fersatz News, so he has a fair amount of insight into not just how one cable news channel operates, but from a multitude of sources. I'm particularly interested in this book, since I've come to despise cable news so much recently. That doesn't mean I don't watch, but I'm extremely annoyed at what passes for news these days.

Hat tip to Truthdig for doing an interview with Cohen. Click Here to read an excerpt from the interview, and you can also download an MP3 file of the entire interview.

My favorite passage of Cohen's from the interview, and I found myself saying out loud "YES!" as I read it:

Schooled in the protocols of cable news, the Bush administration brilliantly exploited the medium's worship of live events. When I was at MSNBC in 2002/2003, I witnessed producers nearly orgasm at word that the White House would soon be serving up a photo-op or briefing. Upon hearing of these events—called "pressers" — all else is put on hold to assure that the second the administration event starts, MSNBC and the other news channels are ready to air it live.

Team Bush might schedule a White House press secretary's briefing ("the president stands tough against terrorism") ... followed by a Pentagon briefing ("war on terror is on track") ... followed by an afternoon speech from President Bush in front of a patriotic flag backdrop and cheering handpicked crowd ... followed by a briefing on the latest terrorism arrest or scare from the Justice Department or Homeland Security. Through its ability to dictate the rhythms of the news day, the White House's often singular view of reality would air at length in near monologue fashion.

I've got a specific, contemporary example.

When the hearings on the U.S. Attorney firings started, on the first day, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was going to make an opening statement. At the exact moment Leahy was scheduled to begin the hearing, which was covered live on every cable network, Bush begins a press conference, and the networks cut away to him. Thom Hartmann talked about this at length on his show last week.

Yet another way that the Bush administration will do just about anything to control the news and to stay atop the polls. About the only thing this administration hasn't done to maintain popularity is use the military. Wait...

Anyway, this looks like a good book, and I'd like to get to it this year, but there are literally 20 other books ahead of it. I'm starting my political book reading schedule about 9 months ahead of time, and I've got a bunch to get to.

I'm also very behind on writing some book reviews, which I hope to get to in the coming weeks.

Russ Feingold on Bush's threatened veto

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann a few nights ago to talk about President Bush's promised veto and rhetoric about the emergency appropriation for the War in Iraq. Feingold is as spot on and articulate as anyone I've heard on the subject.

Feingold rightfully points out that there is plenty of precedent on ending funding for combat operations during war time, most notably during the Clinton Administration when we had forces in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. After we lost 18 U.S. troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. (By the way, I tire of hearing Repubes deride Clinton for the loss of those soldiers - he deserves some blame, but it was President George H.W. Bush who put our troops in Somalia in December 1992.)

Anyway, Feingold hit it right on the head - if Bush vetoes the spending bill, it's going to be on his head, or at least partially. He rightfully reasons that the Democrats were sent to Congress to do the bidding of the people, and that's to end this war:

Well, it's just incredible to me that the president of the United States is planning on vetoing a bill that actually provides the funds that he wants for this next phase of the war. And the reason is, is, that he thinks he shouldn't have to follow the will of the American people, which was expressed in November, and that is that somehow this war has to start to end.

The bill is a very reasonable approach, and the president is being beyond stubborn in saying that we have to provide the funds and have no reaction at all to the fact that the people of this country want us out of this war. It's incredible to me that the president is this detached from reality.

Of course, some hear this and get all hysterical, that the Democrats are simply Bush hating. No, they are not. What we are seeing now is a president who had no oversight for the first six years of his presidency. Bush is totally incapable of compromise, or reaching across party lines. For a man who ran in 2000 as "A uniter, not a divider," he's shown a shocking indifference to even having a dialogue with the Democrats. More from the interview:

OLBERMANN: He referred to, in this news conference, in some of the questions, some who believe our strategy there is not working, a group who believes that we should not be there in the first place. Is it possible, do you think, Senator, that the president does not realize that this group of some people constitutes about seven out of every 10 Americans?

FEINGOLD: Well, he must know at some level, but he refers to the fact that we're back in our states, listening to the people in our states, as a vacation. Well, he needs a vacation like that, or he needs to get back onto a place like Wisconsin, in the rural areas where I am this week, Keith, doing town meetings, where people are telling me, For God's sakes, when are you going to get out of there? How can you possibly have this thing continue? What is the president thinking?

He is truly out of touch with the people of this country. This is not a position of a few people in the Democratic Party. It is virtually a consensus of the American people that we have got to have an orderly end to this war, safely redeploy the troops in the next few months.

[...]

Senator Harry Reid and I have concluded that a bill or an amendment that would make that date a year from now, March 31, 2008, is the next step, if necessary, if he truly does veto the supplemental bill.

OLBERMANN: To the power of the purse, for all the president's talk of alleged irresponsibility on the part of Congress in his news event this morning, it would seem, in his answer to that question about the power of the purse, the president was forced to admit that what you and your colleagues are doing is, in fact, entirely legitimate. And if that's true, and he says it's true, doesn't that make his veto the cause of any interruption of funding for the troops, in the unlikely event that happens?

FEINGOLD: Absolutely, Keith, unless we've shifted into a monarchy. The whole idea of our system is that these powers are divided. The president's the commander in chief, but the Congress is given the power of the funding, the appropriations power. We had to provide the funding in the first place, and if we decide this war is a bad idea, which I think just about everybody's concluded, then it's our—not just our right, but our responsibility to say, "Well, by X date, we will no longer do the funding."

And if you—you can ask Republican senators who say this is a bad idea, why did they vote for a date to cut off the funding for Somalia in the early '90s? Remember Black Hawk Down, we lost those 18 brave Americans, and we said, You know, this isn't working out very well, we ought to stop this.

And so John McCain and John Warner and all of us voted for a date certain by which the troops were safely redeployed. And at the end of it, the funding was cut off. They've already voted for this approach. It's not extreme. It's right in the absolute core of our constitutional powers and our responsibilities as members of Congress.

###

Uh oh - I'm bringing up those pesky 1990s again. How inconvenient. I not-so-fondly remember Repubes howling and screaming whenever President Clinton did anything militarily. No matter the cause, he never, ever had the support of a Republican-controlled Congress - Somalia (which he inherited), Bosnia, Kosovo or any actions to combat terrorism.

At every turn, it was Republicans who were screaming about Clinton's misuse of the military, or worse. Funny how I never heard "When troops are in harm's way, we don't question the operation - we get behind the president." Feingold rightfully reminded viewers of this the other night.

Speaking of supporting the president, one final thought. I realize that it's difficult for most of us (myself included, on most occasions) to reflect on our foreign policy in the 1990s through a 9-11 looking glass. Fine.

But, what really roils me is the persistent, idiotic rumors that float around the Internet about Clinton not doing enough about Osama bin Laden while he was president. Part of that is a valid point - he even admitted as much during his contentious interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace last September.

However, I also vaguely remember President Clinton wanting to do more to fight terrorism, but the Republican-controlled Senate and House wouldn't give him the budget increases he asked for. I also remember his missile attacks on Baghdad in retaliation for the attempted assassination of President Bush Sr. in Kuwait, and also the missile attack on a bin Laden compound that missed the terrorist by hours.

But again, to hear Republicans talk about it, they all wanted to invade Afghanistan and get bin Laden immediately, but Clinton didn't want to. Lies, lies, lies. In fact, when Clinton was leaving office, the one thing that the Clinton team told the incoming Bush administration to pay particular attention to was bin Laden. Call that one Operation Ignore, as the Bushies did nothing.

Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert, served under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and until 2003, President George W. Bush. He's confirmed the current Bush administration's willful indifference to bin Laden during the first eight months of the administration. And this has also been confirmed by Bob Woodward and Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. But, they're all lying, right Mr. President?

For more reading, I highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies; and Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.

These are two fantastic books, told by former Bush administration insiders, and they both offer insight into how Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq before 9-11, a conveniently forgotten fact.

The truth of the matter is that Bush and the far right want perpetual war, with no end in sight. It's hard to conclude otherwise, considering their stubbornness and obfuscation in the face of Democrats' attempts to end this war.

Fox News idiocy example no. 1,955,430

I know I've touched on this one already, but I wanted to bring you Keith Olbermann's take on Hannity's use of a blatant anti-Democratic Party Chyron, which in no uncertain terms says that "Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq."

As usual, Olbermann is spot on, and I love his response. Just imagine if CNN had done something like that, but against Repubes. Can you imagine the outrage? Wait, we've had a similar example - some dolt at CNN, when the network was broadcasting a live speech of Dick Cheney, put an "X" over the vice president's face. This person was later fired.

No word on who's going to be promoted, er, "fired" at Fox for airing such an idiotic "mistake" during Insanity's show.

For those of you who think it's a "mistake," there have been too many of these "mistakes" to be mere coincidence...

Disgraced Congressman Mark Foley is a Democrat, huh?

This is a screen shot from Sean Hannity's show. Outrageous and absurd. Keith Olbermann's take in the video above is about right.

Fox News: Where the right is Right and the left is rife with a bunch of pussy, communist-loving liberal hypocrites who want to cut and run, tax and spend and who hate you, America and everything in it and who side with the terrorists and love Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Al Gore's electric bill and CLINTON DID IT and Hillary is the devil and oh yea - Clinton did it - it's all Clinton's fault, yea that one always works uh oh Bush is in trouble well what about Sandy Berger? More on Berger in a minute.

This about sums up Fox...

A little more Gore

I just had to bring you a little more about Gore's testimony on Capital Hill last week. Pretty interesting to hear about the campaign to smear Gore, too. This shouldn't come as news to anyone. Just as Howard Fineman said, Gore is winning the argument, which is only going to ramp up attacks against him.

Inhofe is one of the most pathetic shills ever to serve in Congress. I loved hearing Fineman talk about one of Inhofe's attack dogs buzzing around the press table, handing out disparaging press releases about Gore, and that this same guy used to work for Rush Limbaugh's TV show. Yea, there's a reliable source!

Also interesting to hear that in many communities, it's illegal to put up solar panels.

I really hope Gore gets in the race, but it's looking a little more unlikely that he will. But, I still haven't given up hope.