Limbaugh now merely a parody of himself

I stopped getting angry at anything at comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth long ago. But that doesn't mean that I'll stop pointing it out.

During one of his latest tirades, well documented as always by Media Matters, the drug addicted, bloated one dropped the curtain to give us a deep look into the commode that passes for his soul to reveal his MO for the length of the Obama administration (let's hope it's 8): that he hopes Obama "fails."

All I can say is this: Typical.

I find it pretty stupefying how quickly Repubes have changes course in just over 30 days since Obama took office. For eight years, they whined, sniveled and complained about liberals and progressives "rooting for Bush to fail in Iraq" (among other places), yet now they openly despise Obama while shamelessly rooting for his policies to fail. Talk about Party Before Country.

As much as I despised Bush's policies in Iraq (and will go to my grave with the unflinching belief that our misguided war was and is a wast of taxpayer money, not to mention all of the bloodshed), I never, EVER hoped that our military would fail. I think Bush led us down many disastrous roads, but I do believe that he believed he was doing the right thing for the country and the American people. Well, that's not entirely true, though - I think the last six months of his presidency (and especially during the last three), when he knew Obama was going to be president, Bush quietly did all he could to make sure that Obama got handed a big steaming turd on January 20, 2009.

I do support Limbaugh's right to say what he says, and quite frankly I hope he keeps on saying it. Hey, God bless him - it just reaffirms my belief that Obama is doing something right if he's driving Limbaugh nuts.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see Limbaugh's ratings go up, not down; so many conservatives now feel under siege because Obama is president - you know, that they've losing their country, and blah blah blah.

However, I do think that the government should step in and do something to promote a diversity of voices over our radio airwaves. NO, I'm not advocating that anyone should have his or her "microphone taken away" (already a trite right-wing talking point), but the government should do all it can to strongly encourage companies to provide a diversity of voices on their airwaves. Actually, no, the government should REQUIRE a diversity of voices. I'm sick and tired of right wingers whining about the phantom "liberal media."

I wrote about his last fall before the presidential campaign got into high gear, but perhaps it's best to remember one of Sun Tzu's maxims from The Art of War: It is wise to present your greatest strength as your greatest weakness, and that's precisely what Republicans have been doing for the last 40 years with regard to our mainstream media. (Thanks once again, President Nixon.)

If you think I'm exaggerating, go back and find some Sarah Palin interviews from last fall's campaign - whenever bad news came out, she just went on the offensive, bashing the "liberal media," which is always red meet for the drooling drones on the right.

Anyway, Limbaugh is simply a modern-day Joseph Goebbels, although thankfully many more Americans dismiss Limbaugh than Germans dismissed Goebbels.

By the way, if you're one of the few liberals left who doesn't support and visit Media Matters, I strongly encourage you to do just that. The folks over there are doing tremendously effective and important work.

I'll be back later this evening with lots more, so please check back. (And, as usual, there I'll have lots to share on Sunday.)

Dissecting & debunking the Obama smears

I have to admit, it's pretty hard to listen to the audio (above) from two of the world's biggest liars and not become pretty enraged. But, that's how they play - when the truth doesn't fit their paradigm and ideology (and it often doesn't), then just lie, lie, lie. They must say to themselves, "Hey, if McCain can't get elected on his record (which he can't, in all likelihood, but we'll never find out with jackasses like these two around, among others), then we'll just make shit up, and if we repeat it over and over and over again, then people will soon believe it to be true! Hey, cool!" (See the lie about Al Gore saying he "invented the Internet" for a Hall of Fame reference.)

The right's been doing this for the better part of '08 about Obama - the madrassa smear, the Pledge of Allegiance myth, you name it - the litany of lies keeps coming and coming. It's like Hannity and Limbaugh are two addicts, and lies are their crack. (Oops - sorry Rush, I swear I wasn't referring to your OxyContin addiction, really! Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that a drug addict who used to put down other drug addicts before he got caught is named Rush?!? Just wondering.)

From Media Matters:

From the July 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: So how did Senator Barack Obama's oversea trip resonate with voters? A brand-new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that only Democrats were impressed, with 53 percent calling the trip positive. Republicans overwhelmingly reject -- overwhelmingly rejected the trip, while 41 percent of independents held no opinion at all. The poll also reveals voters are twice as likely to classify media coverage of Obama as unfairly positive rather than unfairly negative, and in the case of McCain, the opposite is the truth, with many more seeing coverage of him as negative.

Joining us now, nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mike Gallagher, former [House Minority Leader Dick] Gephardt [D-MO] campaign manager Steve Elmendorf, and Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley.

Mike, you and I talk about this often on the radio. No big surprises here, especially in light of him, you know, abandoning the troop visit because the cameras weren't around -- allowed and the campaign wasn't allowed. I think this is a net negative for him in the end. Your thoughts?

GALLAGHER: Oh, it has to be. I mean, it's -- it's stunning that he's not -- doesn't have a commanding lead right now in the polls. But even with the fawning media coverage, the kernels of truth slip out.

From the July 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: You say that he's stunned by the truth. What is the truth as you see it? Why -- are -- are you suggesting that Barack Obama does not value the service of our men and women in uniform?

DAVIS: No, I'm sure he does. And I'm sure that the men and women in our uniform would've valued the -- the visit that he had indicated early on that he was gonna make, you know, when he -- when he arrived in Landstuhl. I don't know what the truth is, because out of the Obama campaign themselves and Mr. Gibbs in particular, there have been probably 11 separate excuses for why they didn't visit the troops. Now, if they don't know why they didn't visit the troops, I'm sure as heck not gonna figure it out.

Above is video from a recent Hannity & Colmes, with Hannity repeating on camera the same lies he said on his radio show.

Where's the proof, you say? How about NBC's Andrea Mitchell, a reporter who historically hasn't always been very friendly to Obama - she was there, with Obama, unlike Limbaugh and Hannity.

Mitchell's take: "There was any intention, let me make this absolutely clear, the press was never going to go on the trip [to visit the troops in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center].

Oops! I certainly hope people remember this, two months from now, when McCain (or, more likely, 527s and other surrogates who are backing McCain, begin repeating the accusation over and over and over, as if it's a fact that Obama wouldn't visit the troops because cameras couldn't come.) It's not a fact, never has been, and never will be.

But, in a way, the McCain camp (with the help of State TV, Faux News) have scored a small victory, because of course this is all that the press is talking about now, not the very successful trip that Obama had overseas.

It's okay though, because McCain is looking more and more desperate as the days wear on.

Again, Media Matters has much more on this latest Obama smear that's patently absurd, and worst of all, completely false.

Wow - Michael Savage reaches new low

Michael "Savage" Wiener reached a new low this past week when he referred to autism as a "fraud" and a "racket." I'm wondering when Talk Radio Network will finally realize that employing Savage isn't worth it. And by that I mean that a corporation's reputation is worth more than dollars and cents. It's true (and I still can't believe it) that he gets decent ratings in some markets, but I don't see how. If large swaths of the American people really embrace this guy, than I have little faith for America.

From the transcript:

Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I'm not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. For a long while, we were hearing that every minority child had asthma. Why did they sudden -- why was there an asthma epidemic amongst minority children? Because I'll tell you why: The children got extra welfare if they were disabled, and they got extra help in school. It was a money racket. Everyone went in and was told [fake cough], "When the nurse looks at you, you go [fake cough], 'I don't know, the dust got me.'" See, everyone had asthma from the minority community. That was number one.

Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is.

Savage's hateful diatribes aren't even a free speech issue. Sure, Wiener has a Constitutional right to say what he likes, but no one, including Talk Radio Network, is under any obligation to help him put forth his hateful opinions.

It's as if Wiener is deliberately trying to get fired so he can cry "free speech! free speech!" At some point, hopefully Talk Radio Network will oblige him and do what it should have done long ago. Until then, let the letter writing begin. I'm not even going to bother writing Talk Radio Network - my protests will simply encourage rubes like Savage and the powers that be over at TRN. I'll simply target their advertisers, and not give them my business for supporting such a disgraceful company and radio talk show "host." Here are a few I've written so far...

To Legal Zoom, a company that advertises on TRN's Website:

LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Attn: Brian Liu, Chairman and Co-Founder
7083 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 180
Los Angeles, CA 90028

Dear Mr. Liu:
Recently I noticed that you advertise on Talk Radio Network, including the program of Michael Savage, who is nothing short of a hate-mongering disgrace. In the past few years, he's made intolerant remarks about Muslims, African-Americans and now people suffering from autism, a disease that Savage last week called "a fraud, a racket." Since your advertising dollars partially make his show possible, I will not support your company in any way until you stop advertising on both his show, and Talk Radio Network. And I am a potential customer, too; I own a photo business and I'm looking to incorporate soon.

I strongly urge you to consider the social implications of where you send your advertising dollars. Savage might have a sizable audience with a great deal of reach, but companies should stand for something. What does LegalZoom stand for? Calling autism a "fraud"? Your regular and potential customers deserve better.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours in democracy,
RJ
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I was a potential Legal Zoom customer, too. I run a part-time photography business, and sooner or later I will have to incorporate. But, by supporting hate mongers like Savage, my wallet has no room for Legal Zoom.

Here's on to Go To Meeting, another advertiser on TRN's Website:

Citrix Online Division
Brett Caine, President
6500 Hollister Avenue
Goleta, CA 93117

Dear Mr. Caine:
Recently I noticed that you advertise on Talk Radio Network, including the program of Michael Savage, who is nothing short of a hate-mongering disgrace. In the past few years, Savage has made intolerant remarks about Muslims, African-Americans and now people suffering from autism, a disease that last week he called "a fraud, a racket." Since your company supports a hate monger like Savage by partially making his show possible, I will look for alternatives to your product, or wait until you reconsider your advertising decisions. And I am a potential customer, too; I own my own business and you have a product that would certainly be of use to me.

I strongly urge you to consider the social implications of where you send your advertising dollars. Savage might have a sizable audience with a great deal of reach, but companies should stand for something. What does Citrix stand for? Calling autism a "fraud"? Your regular and potential customers deserve better.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours in democracy,
RJ
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Hey, give letter writing a try - it's quick, easy and fun. What's more, with the dominance of our absurd corporate media, it's about the only thing we have left - spending our money with organizations that don't support these animals who spread nothing but vile, hateful venom to America.

Below is a list of "happy advertising clients," according to TRN's Website, so use the letters above as a template and send your own. It only takes a few minutes, and it's amazingly empowering.

Not included in the list below is Rockstar Energy Drink, a company that was founded by Wiener's son, Russell Weiner, who serves as Rockstar's CEO. Russell co-founded the Paul Revere Society with his father in 1996, so I don't support Rockstar, either. In fact, when I was in a convenience store last week, I saw a pad of coupons on one of the doors in the refrigerated section. Boom! That was gone - 50 coupons to would-be customers of Rockstar. (At left) Hey, every little bit counts. Again, with the right's dominance of the media, we don't have much left but our dollars and sense.

Hey, one company, one letter at a time is my motto. Below is the list of TRN's clients. Happy writing. ...

ABC
Acura
American Express
Ancestry.com
Boca Java
Bochringer
Bosch
Campbells
Citrix
Consolidated Resources
Direct Buy
Dish Network
Ebay Motors
Efax
General Motors
Gallo Wines
Hoover Read the company's response Here
Legal Zoom
Marshalls
Nautilus
Nivea
Outback Steakhouse
Prudential
Purina One
Simon & Schuster
Staples
Subway
Texaco Chevron
United First Financial
Volkswagon

Write them! Let them hear from you that we aren't going to tolerate people like Michael "Savage" Wiener denigrating tens of thousands of people with autism.

h/t Media Matters for the audio/video clip

Faux News Channel's in-depth analysis on the Obamas' fist bump

It's comments like the video above that makes me insane with outrage at our nation's most ridiculous and biased news "outlet" - Fox News. You only have to watch the first few seconds to get the mindlessly stupid line - "A fist bump, a pound, a terrorist fist jab?..." Seriously, what in the world is wrong with these people?

I'm sick and tired of Fox News defenders laughing and saying, "It was just a joke." This is a media outlet that bills itself as a serious news organization. At this point, it's blatantly apparent that its on-air personalities, at the behest of the stooges that run the network, will do or say just about anything to keep the Republicans in power.

The only thing missing from the above footage is, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama!"

Footage from Media Matters

Michael Wiener: disgrace to humanity

In the political atmosphere & culture we live in today, it wasn't difficult to predict that some extremist imbecile on the right would make fun of the fact that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor that will almost certainly kill him within the next few years, or sooner.

Seriously, just what in the world is wrong with some people? Right-wing hate monger Michael "Savage" Wiener went way over the line when making fun of Sen. Ted Kennedy the other day. Listen to the above audio, and you'll quickly see that this man is reveling in the fact that Kennedy is dying. Words almost fail me - it's equal parts sad, outrageous and incomprehensible. The man is clearly rejoicing and poking fun at Kennedy, while playing a Dead Kennedys song. Classy!

First of all, anyone who renames himself Savage should already have his mental stability questioned. Then again, I guess when your given surname is Wiener, and you hope to become some sort of media personality, prudence demands action. Hence, Michael Wiener became Michael Savage.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that there aren't people out there who hate Ted Kennedy, and it's obvious that Wiener is one of them. Fine. But, do you really need to make fun of someone dying? There really is a special place in hell for people like Wiener.

Of course, there isn't a news story that's been written in the past week that hasn't mentioned the Chappaquiddick incident, when a car Kennedy was driving went over a bridge, killing Mary Jo Kopechne, in July 1969. There isn't a doubt in my mind that Kennedy used his influence to avoid an almost certain jail sentence. The truth is, the truth will probably never be known, but that hasn't stopped many on the right from claiming a host of conspiracy theories. Fine, but that was over 40 years ago, people.

One of my favorite bumper stickers that I see from time to time about Kennedy & Chappaquiddick goes something like this:

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Witty! However, I think that one should be updated by those on the left. Just off the top of my head, how about:

George W. Bush has killed tens of thousands more people than Ted Kennedy's car.

I don't believe that Kennedy intentionally killed Kopechne, despite what disgraces to humanity like Wiener would have you believe. But, he certainly acted improperly (to say the least). However, since that time, Kennedy has done a great deal of good for both his constituents and for those less fortunate than him around the country, and for that he should be applauded. After all, many on the right acknowledge Kennedy's work, so maybe it's time the rest of his opponents should as well. I'm not holding my breath.

The guy has had two of his brothers murdered in a very public way - RFK just over a year prior to Chappaquiddick. I'm completely guessing here, but he was probably petrified over public reaction and pretty damn traumatized. Maybe it's time people on the right give the guy a break. After all, the Kopechne family has. I know, I know - fat chance that's ever going to happen, just like there's a fat chance I'll ever not think that President Bush should be tried for war crimes. So be it - that's the political world we live in today.

But, as much as I disagree with almost everything that President Bush does, I would not publicly or privately rejoice were he to be stricken in some way with a fatal illness, or worse. I guess that's the difference between the so-called extremists on the left and the right - most of the ones on the right seemingly have no line they will not cross to score a cheap political point (or radio ratings). Every time I hear about hate speech, it seems like it comes from the right, be it Wiener, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. I would hope that indicates something to rational, educated people .

For instance, as much as I despised Rev. Jerry Falwell, I didn't rejoice in his death, publicly or privately. I didn't necessarily mourn him, either, but there are lines I don't cross - rejoicing in someone's death (or imminent death) is goes beyond the pale, but that's what Wiener is all about - being totally outrageous to get ratings for his miserable radio show. I'd say the man is fringe, but he clearly is not. Most stories I read about him have him ranked as the third most popular radio listener in terms of audience on terrestrial radio, behind Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. That should also tell us all something about the dominance of right-wing radio, as well as how many people filled with hate there are out there, all because they disagree with someone politically. Pathetic and sad.

The good news is that I went to Savage's Website to see which advertisers could kiss my business goodbye, and there really aren't any. (I wonder why?) The only ads I could find were pleas to send money for Wiener's "legal defense fund" and ads hawking his stupid t-shirts, mugs and hate-filled screeds that pass for books. So, it appears that most sponsors won't touch him, and it's little wonder he was fired from MSNBC for responding so virulently to a caller he disagreed with (I believe he wished AIDS on the caller, if memory serves me correctly). I don't think the man should be fired - after all, we do have the First Amendment in this country. But, any company or organization who advertises on his show should be punished for supporting such a hate-filled, churlish simpleton.

When I find out more about his advertisers, I'll share it with you.

Special hat tip (h/t) to Media Matters, an organization devoted to exposing and publicizing such hateful claptrap in the media. Of course, the likes of Savage and O'Reilly HATE Media Matters for all of their work, which is all the more reason we should admire, support and spread the word about this important organization and its work.

If you want to send your own message to Michael "Savage" Wiener, his e-mail address is: michaelsavage@paulreveresociety.com. Please, keep it polite and professional, or as much as you can.

I'm e-mailing him later today, and I'll share it with you when I send it.

New anti-McCain ad hitting airwaves

Greg Sargent over at TPM has the latest on the new anti-McCain video above, which began airing today:

Here's a first look at the first ad being run against John McCain by Progressive Media U.S.A., the new pro-Dem third-party group headed by David Brock that's planning to raise $40 million to bloody up the GOP nominee in advance of this fall's election. The ad, called "Out of Touch," will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC — which is to say, it's a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.

My first thought when I saw this - "Excellent." In years and elections past, I might have thought to myself, "that's playing dirty." But, after seeing what the GOP shamelessly did to Al Gore in 2000 and most notably the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, I hope there are many more efforts just like this one. When Democrats try to take the high road by being the "better party," they become the better, MINORITY party. Democrats won't retake the White House until they learn to fight Republicans on their turf. Is it dirty and nasty? Sure, but there's too much at stake right now to be worried about being portrayed by some as being just that - Republicans have been doing it for years, most notably since the early 1990s when an Arkansas governor decided he'd like to run for president.

It's also good to see that David Brock isn't resting on his laurels with all of his Media Matters success, although no one could blame him if he did. The more people like Bill O'Reilly hate people like Brock for what he is doing - exposing the lies and distortions of the right-wing media - the more I love and am thankful for guys like Brock.

h/t Crooks & Liars

New book: McCain's free ride in the media

A new book, Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, is due out on March 25. This one just shot up on my '08 reading list; the authors, David Brock (of Media Matters fame) and Paul Waldman discuss the free ride that McCain seems to be getting thus far from the press. I certainly agree with the book's premise; this trend doesn't look like it's going to end any time soon.

As Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone sagely said recently on Bill Maher's show, (I'm paraphrasing), you can label or call yourself just about anything, and the press will go along; run any shit up the flagpole, and the press will stand and salute it. And he's right. How did McCain get the reputation of being a Straight Talker? Because he painted it on the side of his bus. All of his lies and inconsistencies go unreported at worst, or vastly under reported at best. You cannot hear a story about McCain these days without hearing "straight talker" and/or "maverick."

Joe Connelly of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently wrote a pretty good column about McCain's free ride . In reads, in part:

McCain is allowed to dominate any and every issue on which he chooses to cross the aisle in Congress. He is omnipresent on Sunday talk shows.

Between 1997 and 2006, McCain had 135 appearances as a guest on Meet the Press, This Week and Face the Nation, far more than runner-up Joe Biden, with 91. McCain was usually able to hold forth alone rather than sharing the stage.

The favorable press coverage has airbrushed McCain's temper and remarks that would get any other politician in trouble.

It was, after all, McCain who referred to Leisure World as "Seizure World." He once joked: "The nice thing about getting Alzheimer's is you get to hide your own Easter eggs."

Connelly couldn't be more correct. Whenever you hear McCain call someone "my friend," you know he's pissed. And who could forget his stupid joke about "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," in a pathetic parody of a Beach Boys song? I can take a joke as good as the next person, but what kind of message does it send the rest of the world when a leading politician for president in this country makes such flippant, churlish jokes about bombing Iran, an idea which many war mongers in this country openly support?

Anyway, the premise of the book sounds like a good one, and a largely unexplored one at that. You can read more about the book or pre-order a copy from Amazon Here.

h/t Crooks & Liars

Dodd & O'Lielly battle; Dodd gets the KO

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

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

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

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

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

BOR... making s--- up again

Pathological Liar Bill O'Reilly's pathetic jihad against the Website Daily Kos continues. His latest? That the site "advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government." Umm Hmm. I read the site nearly every day, and nowhere, anywhere have I ever read anything even remotely close to that. But hey, why let truth get in the way of a good "story," right? Notice that BOR neglects to give specific examples of how the authors of Daily Kos want to overthrow the government, he just throws it out there.

This is from a well-worn page right out of the Republican playbook:

Throw a lie out there, and the damage will be done. Even though the truth will eventually come out, that won't spread as far and wide as the lie itself.

The list of lies by the right that have been debunked is getting rather lengthy. A fraction of that list...

• The Clintons murdered Vince Foster
• Bill Clinton could have had bin Laden, but turned him down
• Al Gore invented the Internet
• John Kerry didn't deserve his purple hearts
• Sidney Blumenthal abused his wife
• Media Matters is funded by George Soros
• Al Gore's carbon footprint is bigger than Greenland
• Barack HUSSEIN Obama was educated in a madrassa
• Daily Kos authors want to overthrow the government

I can't wait to see what the GOP Network comes up with next.

By the way, BOR actually says this in the clip above, and it bears repeating: "Doing business with people who traffic in hate-filled diatribes is unacceptable."

Jon Stewart must be delighted that BOR has gone to work for Comedy Central.

Oh, and that Pepsi boycott regarding Ludacris? Totally phony, just like his boycott against France and Jet Blue. I just remembered that I have to write Jet Blue to tell them to keep up the good work. Thanks for reminding me, Billy.

BOR's latest phony boycott: JetBlue & DailyKos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This story has caused me to do three things:

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

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

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

BOR foams at the mouth over Soros... again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Billy - serial slime and smear machine

This is one of the best things I've seen on the Internet in quite some time. BOR is yet to learn the one cardinal rule about an entity or group of people who continuously try to needle you - IGNORE THEM. The more O'Lielly melts down on the air about it, the more groups are only going to keep putting coins in the machine to watch you dance, Billy.

Anyway, this is BOR's response to a study by a group of Indiana University researchers who discovered that BOR likes name calling. (We need a study for that?) But, they concluded that he does it even more than probably most liberals thought possible.

The researchers found that BOR calls a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during his nightly screeds that begin his show, "The O'Reilly Factor."

"It's obvious he's very big into calling people names, and he's very big into glittering generalities," said Mike Conway, assistant professor in the IU School of Journalism. "He's not very subtle. He's going to call people names, or he's going to paint something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint."

Sweet. But, there's more...

Using analysis techniques first developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, the researchers, Conway, Grabe and Grieves, found that BOR employs six of the seven propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute in his editorials. (This includes his editorials on his hilarious Website, and in his newspaper columns.)

BOR's response to all of this - it's all Media Matters and George Soros. The people over at Media Matters must really take glee that they are getting so much free publicity. And Soros is simply doing what many other millionaires on both sides of the aisle have been doing for decades in this country - trying to influence political opinion. I'm not saying it's right, but until we finally get the real, concrete campaign finance reform this country so sorely needs, the political left has just as much of a right to do it as the political right does. I don't even have enough time (nor the willingness right now) to type all of the people who paid to smear President Clinton in the 1990s, and who have contributed millions to President Bush this decade. (Richard Mellon Scaife or Ken Lay, anyone?)

For those of you who have never visited the Media Matters Website, I have two thoughts: 1) What are you waiting for, and 2) the site is not overly political, other than to point out the wild inconsistencies in what the Republican right prints and broadcasts. I'm quite certain that Billy is just angry that there is an organization dedicated to pointing out his infinite lying and distortions. I guess if an organization were affecting my livelihood and ability to distort my propaganda that my network pays me to put out, I'd be upset, too.

Seriously though - Media Matters is a must click for any political aficionado who wants a daily dose of the facts behind the right's spin.

Here's the glaring stat that I found scariest of all: According to the 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center survey, 40 percent of respondents consider BOR to be a journalist.

A real journalist!

Bill O'Reilly - giving hope to hacks everywhere.

Hat tip to C&L on this story.

Drudge screws up again

It never gets old pointing out when right-wing blogger Matt Drudge screws up a story.

According to Media Matters, Drudge has claimed that Media Matters is a "[George] Soros operation."

No so, says the Website:

"In fact, Media Matters has never received funding from progressive philanthropist George Soros," read a statement earlier today on the site.

Soros has donated millions of his billions to liberal causes and organizations, including about $25 million of his own money in 2004 to PACs to try and get President Bush out of the White House.

My guess is, MM irks Drudge by exposing his lies. MM does it in quick fashion, too - I'm not sure how many people work for the Website, but they are always on top of questionable stories from the right-wing noise machine.

If you aren't familiar with MM, and you enjoy reading the news behind the news, then MM is a can't-miss Website. MM was founded in 2004 by David Brock to fight back against right-wing talk radio, Fox News and any other right-wing leaning organizations that don't have any problem putting misleading stories in the media.

Brock is an ex-conservative - he used to write for The American Spectator, a far-right, conservative magazine. During the Clarence Thomas hearings, Brock famously wrote in the Spectator's pages that Anita Hill was, "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." He also participated in a few of the more notable stories to attempt to discredit Bill Clinton before and during the early years of his presidency, including Troopergate and The Arkansas Project.

Brock repented and wrote Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative and never looked back. He even apologized to President Clinton, Anita Hill, and many other people he smeared during his career as a right-wing hatchet man.

Founding Media Matters for America is part of his transformation.

Gone are the days when people like Drudge can print something with the flimsiest of proof (if any), only to take the story off of his Website when the truth came out (if, in fact, it did at all).

Drudge's clumsy attempt to smear CNN's Michael Ware, after he made a fool of Judas John McCain about Iraq, fell flat. And Drudge's motives were transparent, too - Ware made McCain look bad, so it was payback time.

I urge you to visit MM often, and support the site if you have the means. It really is a one-stop shop for the liberal looking to debunk the right's lies, distortions and smears.

I click it every day and use a great deal of the media available on the site.

Fox's lame Plame lies & distortions

Like this was predictable. Fox News had its inaccurate take on the first day of the Valerie Plame testimony, so it bears a closer examination. I got this clip and info. for this post from Media Matters.

Thank God for Media Matters - a truly great organization founded by recovering Republican hate monger David Brock. MM is dedicated to uncovering the spin, hypocrisy and outright lies of the Right Wing Noise Machine that is so prevalent in our mainstream media today.

Anyway, watch the clip above before reading on. (Since YouTube is now getting suckier by the minute, thanks to corporate attorneys, it may be removed by the time you view this. If the clip isn't available, lemme know and I'll try reposting it.)

In this clip, Republican strategist Edwina Rogers appeared on the March 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto to "discuss" (distort) the testimony of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. During her appearance, Rogers falsely claimed that Plame "had been in Vanity Fair before any of this came out, sitting in a Jaguar, and she did not get permission from the CIA, which is required." As usual, a complete and total lie, fabrication, whatever you want to call it. But hey, it's Fox News, so what are the odds that it was an honest mistake? About as low as the president's approval ratings.

Rogers also states that posing in such a photo "was unacceptable for the CIA."

Rogers also claimed that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who went to Niger to discover whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium for his phantom nuclear program, "had come back and didn't give the report to the CIA, but he turned it over in an Op-Ed to The New York Times." Another total lie, and testimony from the Libby trial bears this out. A CIA agent testified in the Libby trial that Wilson's findings were described in detail to the CIA more than a year before his Op-Ed was published in the Times. I

n his Op-Ed, Wilson asserted that "[i]n early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau."

It's painfully evident that this hack Rogers did no reporting or researching of her own, simply read off a script that Fox News gave her, or simply intentionally lied in another clumsy attempt to smear Plame. Does the right think that no one on the "left" side of things does any research or checks on these things? Anyway, Rogers alleges that because of these missteps, Plame "was already in the hot seat with the CIA."

The fact is, Plame's photos appeared in Vanity Fair several months after Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column disclosed her identity, and Wilson's July 6, 2003, Times Op-Ed appeared long after he delivered his report on Niger to the CIA.

After all of these inaccuracies, host Neil Cavuto asked: "But [Plame] was in the hot seat - she was in the hot seat after she was in the hot seat, right? I mean, after this stuff came out, right?" But other than that, he let Rogers' inept assertions stand without correcting her numerous inaccuracies.

More facts that destroy the otherwise minuscule credibility of Rogers and Cavuto, from Media Matters:

Plame and Wilson appeared in the January 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, and the pictures in which she and Wilson appeared "in a convertible Jaguar" were taken on November 18, 2003 - a full four months after Robert Novak revealed Plame's identity in his column.

Media Matters also previously noted that on the October 11, 2005, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, nationally syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham similarly suggested that White House senior adviser Karl Rove could not have outed Plame as an undercover agent because her identity was already known after she appeared "in Vanity Fair with her scarf and her sunglasses on."

These morons don't ever let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign, do they?

The unfortunate part about all of this is that there are plenty of sheep out there who willfully watch Faux News and believe whatever they see and hear at face value. (I know many of these people.) The lies just don't seem to matter, or Fox-o-philes simply dismiss the real facts as liberal lies presented to counter-argue the Fox lies.

These lies are intentional, too. Another example that readily comes to mind of Fox intentionally lying to make a Republican look better - the Mark Foley scandal. I'll never forget Sean Insanity, with nothing left to say and no way to spin the Foley mess, saying during a broadcast of Hannity and Colmes, "I don't mean to bring Clinton into this, but Monica Lewinsky was 19 when they had an affair." She was 22, but by saying she was 19, a total, intentional lie, it brought Monica's age closer to the age of the underage teenagers Foley was trying to bang.

As a Democrat, I realize that there are often people who aren't going to see things my way, and that's fine. But, have difference based on philosophy and beliefs, not lies.

Oh well - no one is above being smeared by the right-wing noise machine. If they can smear a presidential candidate with three Purple Hearts, they sure as hell can go after the likes of Plame.

As I watched the rest of this clip, it just amazed me how these arrogant imbeciles smear Plame. She's the victim here. Her identity was revealed in a national column, planted by members of the Bush Administration, to try and even a political score.

Lost in this whole thing, and certainly ignored by Repubes, is how her outing could have caused the her death, or other agents. Who knows if she's even in danger now? Or her husband? Kids? I've seen nothing in the mainstream media about that. She was simply a civil servant, doing her duty, and then her cover was blown.

Yet, there are a remarkable number of people who treat Scooter Libby, Robert Novak and Dick Cheney as victims.

To restate - Fox and its roster of right-wing hacks are smearing Plame for being outed as a CIA Agent. This has to anger all but the most extreme Republicans.

McCain declares, Joe Biden style...

...with a major gaffe.

Last night, Judas John McCain appeared on David Letterman to basically announce that he is going to announce that he is running for president in 2008. No real surprise there.

What WAS a surprise is when he mentioned that "we've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure over there [in Iraq], which is American lives.

I wonder how the neocon talking head morons will spin this one? Michelle Malkin comes to mind first, considering her diatribe on Barack Obama after he made a similar remark last month.

Every candidate for president is going to have gaffes along the way, and Judas John is no exception. I'm not going to crucify him for that, but in the overall context of McCain's recent position changes is quite amazing. If it's not obvious to you that this man will say or do anything to be elected president, it soon will be. McCain switches positions more than Jenna Jameson.

Anyway, what irks me more than anything is the coverage that McCain's announcement on Letterman received the next morning. Some major media outlets didn't even mention McCain's gaffe in stories about his announcement. What's that all about?

The proof is in the pudding. I went to these Websites and read the stories firsthand. Take a read. Bear with me, I know there's a lot here, but it's worth reading...

From the March 1 edition of The New York Times:

In Newly Usual Way, McCain Says He’ll Run
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Senator John McCain of Arizona took the platform of a late-night talk show Wednesday and said he would formally announce his campaign for the presidency in early April. His remarks erased entirely whatever doubt could have existed about his ambitions for the Republican nomination.

"The last time we were on this program — I’m sure you remember everything very clearly that we say — but you asked me if I would come back on this show if I was going to announce," Mr. McCain told David Letterman. "I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States."

"Oh," Mr. Letterman replied with what seemed at least a glimmer of surprise.

Mr. McCain is known as something of a free spirit, and his aides suggested that his remarks to Mr. Letterman were, if formal-sounding, extemporaneous rather than a result of careful planning by his campaign. Nonetheless, aides said, his appearance clearly fit into the campaign’s effort to stir as much excitement and interest as possible in his plans — a point Mr. McCain himself made as he and Mr. Letterman bantered on.

"By the way, I’ll be making a formal announcement in April," Mr. McCain said. By way of explanation, he added: "This is the announcement preceding the formal announcement. You know you drag this out as long as you can. You don’t just have one rendition. You’ve got to do it over and over."

Acting a bit downcast, Mr. Letterman responded, "How do you think that makes me feel?"

The exchange was the latest example of how the customs of presidential campaigns are changing. Not all that long ago, an announcement was a defining moment in the evolution of candidates, in which they truly opened their campaigns. For 2008, on the other hand, candidates have been not only announcing but also pre-announcing on Web sites and various television shows and in random interviews.

In truth, Mr. McCain has been running for the White House for nearly two years and, ever since forming a presidential exploratory committee in November, has repeatedly told interviewers that there are no circumstances he can foresee in which he would not run.

He has assembled a full campaign staff, and his organization has been churning out nearly daily pronouncements of the latest political figure to endorse him. In Iowa two weeks ago, he talked at three events about what he would do as president. And he is going to the West Coast this weekend to raise money.

Mr. McCain’s aides said Wednesday that they would not disclose any details about the announcement tour until later, no doubt in anticipation of drawing yet another round of publicity. "Details on the formal announcement will be forthcoming," said Brian Jones, campaign spokesman.

From the March 1 edition of The Washington Post:

McCain Says He'll Seek Presidency, Plans to Make It Official in April

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007; A01

Sen. John McCain of Arizona declared last night that he will join the 2008 race for the White House and will formally announce his candidacy in April.

McCain used an appearance on CBS's "Late Show With David Letterman" to say what has been clear for many months, erasing whatever doubts may have existed that he intends to battle for the Republican nomination, which eluded him in 2000.

"I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States," the former Navy pilot and Vietnam War prisoner told Letterman.

McCain's decision to use the program to declare his intentions followed a pattern increasingly common in this presidential contest, as candidates have used multi-step announcement schedules to garner maximum attention for their bids.

In this case, however, McCain, 70, may have additional motives for using the late-night comedian's show, as he tries to rekindle some of the spontaneity and unpredictability from his first campaign. He cast himself as an insurgent politician in 2000, but this time, weighed down by a supportive position on the Iraq war that is out of step with the public even as he methodically woos the GOP establishment, he has struggled to project the buoyant personality of his first effort.

McCain lost a bitter contest for the Republican nomination to George W. Bush in 2000. But he emerged as the early leader in the race for the 2008 GOP nod, in part because of his support for the president's leadership on the Iraq war but also because he has spent months courting Bush loyalists and the Republican establishment that had spurned him.

In recent months, however, his star has been eclipsed somewhat by that of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who now leads McCain in many national and some state polls testing the Republican field. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday showed Giuliani leading McCain 44 percent to 21 percent. A month ago, Giuliani's advantage was much narrower, at 34 percent to 27 percent for McCain.

McCain advisers said the decision to declare that he will join the Republican race was not a direct result of concern that Giuliani has gained ground in the past two months but rather part of a long-planned strategy to make his intentions known around this time.

McCain is one of the leading congressional advocates for Bush's troop increase in Iraq, a position that has tied his presidential aspirations to progress in the conflict there. McCain has been highly critical of the administration's management of the war, describing what has taken place over the past few years as a "train wreck" and calling Donald H. Rumsfeld "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

In addition to McCain and Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is seen as a potentially strong candidate for the GOP nomination. The McCain and Romney camps have been circling each other for months, attempting to corral activists and major fundraisers both nationally and in states with early contests next year.

Other Republicans already in the race or contemplating running include former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson, former Virginia governor James Gilmore and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) may also join the race, although he appears likely to wait until at least late summer before deciding.

McCain was one of the first Republicans to establish a presidential exploratory committee, filing papers with the Federal Election Commission weeks after the GOP drubbing in the midterm elections last November. At that time, McCain also filed a statement of candidacy, in essence a declaration of his intentions to run.

He recently made his first trip to Iowa as a prospective candidate and made clear that he would run hard for the Republican nomination.

The 2000 race was hard-fought and highly negative. Bush entered as the dominant front-runner, while McCain, who had often parted company with the GOP, was seen as a dark horse.

McCain chose to skip the Iowa caucuses that year and concentrate on New Hampshire, where independents play a more significant role in the process. His maverick style and "Straight Talk Express" theme caught fire and he soundly defeated Bush in the nation's first primary.

That set up what turned into a nasty clash in South Carolina, where McCain was the subject of scurrilous attacks. His advisers blamed the Bush camp for the attacks, but Bush advisers said they were not responsible. Bush won the primary and McCain and his team emerged angry and bitter.

McCain would later find himself in conflict with religious conservatives after he delivered a speech sharply critical of the influence of Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, among others, describing them as "agents of intolerance."

Those kinds of remarks have soured some conservatives on McCain as a potential party standard-bearer. Some doubt his commitment to social issues, despite a long record opposing abortion rights, and others believe he has not been a strong advocate for supply-side tax cuts, which have been at the heart of GOP economic philosophy since the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

Some Republicans who opposed McCain in the past have warmed to the prospect of his candidacy, in part because they see him as a potentially strong candidate. But those moves to court conservatives have cost some support among independent voters, and the issue of the war has further complicated McCain's ability to project himself as a nominee who could attract Democrats and left-leaning independents.

And finally, from The Los Angeles Times:

California titans join McCain's campaign team

Although the GOP senator hasn't officially joined the presidential race, he tells David Letterman he is in

By Dan Morain, Times Staff Writer
March 1, 2007

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) unveiled a presidential campaign finance committee Wednesday dominated by Californians and New Yorkers, including some of the biggest donors to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush.

McCain's 13 national finance committee co-chairmen include five Californians: Orange County billionaire Donald Bren; investor George Argyros; Univision Chairman A. Jerrold Perenchio; Cisco Systems Chief Executive John Chambers; and San Francisco venture capitalist J. Gary Shansby.

Altogether, McCain named 70 Californians, 68 of them men, to his finance team. They will be expected to raise $100,000 or more for the campaign.

"I'd be very disappointed if I didn't raise over $2 million," said Shansby, former chairman of Shaklee Corp., who helps run an investment fund.

The California list includes executives in the entertainment, investment, banking, telecommunications, real estate, gambling and alcohol industries, and current and retired politicians.

Other co-chairmen include New York Stock Exchange Chairman John A. Thain; JP Morgan Vice Chairman James B. Lee; New Jersey banker Lawrence E. Bathgate; GOP fundraiser Lewis M. Eisenberg of New York; and former New Jersey Rep. James A. Courter, chairman of the telecommunications firm IDT Corp.

Though McCain hasn't officially announced his candidacy, he said in a taping of the "Late Show With David Letterman" on Wednesday that he was running and would "announce" it in April.

The release of his finance committee is aimed at showing other candidates the depth of his support and convincing donors that he is the front-runner.

Perenchio is one of at least eight Californians on McCain's list identified as a Bush "pioneer," meaning he raised in excess of $100,000 for the president's campaigns.

Perenchio is Schwarzenegger's largest single donor, at $4.8 million. McCain also tapped Schwarzenegger's lead fundraiser, Marty Wilson, as part of his California
finance committee.

Argyros, Bush's first ambassador to Spain, has spent more than $960,000 on federal campaigns since 1997, including $200,000 on Bush's 2005 inaugural.

Chambers has given more than $1 million to federal campaigns since 1997, and his company has accounted for $1.6 million during the last four years.

Bren and his wife, Brigitte, have given $267,000 to federal campaigns since 2003. Bren's Irvine Co. has accounted for $250,000 to Schwarzenegger.

Shansby has been a relatively small federal donor in the last decade, giving $35,000, Federal Election Commission records show. But as managing director and chairman of TSG Consumer Partners, a San Francisco-based fund that invests in consumer products, he has the potential to raise significant sums.

Damn liberal media!

Absolutely absurd and inexcusable that three of the leading papers in the country would fail to report McCain's gaffe. And a deadline is no alibi here; there is plenty in each story on McCain about not only his announcement, but quotes from the "I'm announcing that I'll announce" candidate.

A special shout out has to go to Media Matters - an organization that does a fantastic job of monitoring stories just like these.

McCain's split personality examined

It's becoming impossible to keep track of Judas John McCain's multiple stances on any given position. Last weekend, the flip-flop du jour was Roe v. Wade. This time, McCain stated publicly that the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S. should be no more, stating, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned."

This position stands in stark contrast to his previous multiple positions on abortion. Take a quick read of these, from Media Matters:

On August 25, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain had told its editorial board:

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. ... But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."

The Chronicle added:

But on Sunday [August 22, 1999], in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, McCain said he favors the ultimate repeal of Roe vs. Wade, "but we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be (undergoing) illegal and dangerous operations."

The next day, according to the Chronicle, McCain issued what the Chronicle called a "clarification," which reportedly stated: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal."

On the June 19, 2005, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, however, McCain adopted yet another position, saying that he agreed "to some degree" that Roe should be overturned, but adding: "I don't think it is [going to be overturned] at least not any time soon."

In 2006, McCain issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except in those situations in which the life of the woman is threatened, but that he "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included."

That's pretty impressive, actually. I guess McCain's Straight Talk Express [circa 2000 presidential campaign - bus at right] is trying to make each and every stop on the road from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice and back again. If that's McCain's goal, it's time for the president to land on an aircraft carrier again, because it's Mission Accomplished.

However, it seems that McCain is just getting started when it comes to wearing all sorts of phoney hats in a laughable attempt to appeal to everyone right of moderates on the political scale. Earlier this week, the Arizona Senator let fly probably one of his biggest whoppers to date. Read on...

It now seems, according to McCain, that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wasn't so great after all. What bravado! What courage! Start measuring the Oval Office drapes, Senator, because you've got this baby all but sewn up.

Quickly now - except for the heartiest of neocons, who among you didn't come to that conclusion years ago? Rumsfeld's arrogance, pomposity, hubris and incompetence were on display from practically day one of the Bush Administration. Even more importantly, who could disagree that McCain is calling Rummy crummy purely for political gain to curry favor among conservatives and moderates for his presidential campaign?

Take a read on what McCain said on Tuesday in South Carolina (from ABC News.com):

"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause.

However, McCain was singing a different tune shortly after Rumsfeld resigned in November, when he said:

"While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service."

If John Kerry was guilty of some flip flopping in 2004 (I won't get started on that smear campaign), then John McCain has grown a dorsal fin.

Thanks for standing up to Rumsfeld when it really counted, Senator. Sleep tight tonight, you moron. I'm sure the troops in Iraq really appreciate your candor about one of the principle architects of this misguided war, post mortem.

It strikes me as beyond ironic that McCain would slam Rummy much in the same way that he was smeared in the very same state in 2000 by the Bush campaign. I'm in no way defending Rumsfeld, who I do believe will go down as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history, but it cracks me up (and enrages me) that McCain is emptying rounds from his political machine gun into the dead carcass of Donald Rumsfeld NOW, four months after his resignation.

Now that takes real political courage.



I have to once more bring you one of my favorite videos in this embryonic 2008 presidential campaign - McCain vs. McCain. It's quality stuff.

Top picture graphic from JG
Third photo from top from AP

A right-wing media buffet of love

This one is too good not to share. My favorites are Sean Insanity (of course), Pat Robertson (a Godless, gutless turd if there ever was one) and Michael Savage, who really has no soul whatsoever. Think I'm being a crazy liberal? Listen to this, and tell me who's crazy.

I found this video on YouTube while just browsing around, but the Website listed on the video is kooky at best, Bush Politix. The site looks like it was built by 14-year olds, and I could only get through about one minute of its choice for video of the month in the upper right-hand corner of the homepage. But, there must be someone sane behind the Website, because again, I like this video.

The thing I love most about videotape is that people who make hateful, ridiculous or at best inaccurate remarks can't hide when the tape starts rolling.

I got a particular kick out of Michael Savage in this clip - I can't even comprehend which planet he's from. I saw on Media Matters today how he called Diane Sawyer a "lying whore" who "in essence, is agreeing that the Holocaust didn't occur." Think I'm exaggerating? Click Here to read about it and listen to the audio clip. And, for those of you who think Savage is a nut job with no audience, think again - he has about seven million listeners a week, according to Talkers Magazine, which places him behind two other GOP blowhards, Sean Insanity and Rush Limbaugh.

Franken bids adieu, declares for '08

I felt just a little bit older on Thursday. That's because I spent the drive to work listening to Al Franken's last broadcast of The Al Franken Show via podcast. I fondly remember Franken (above, taking off his headset for the last time after his show on Wednesday) on Air America Radio when the network made its debut.

At first, I had mixed emotions on Franken the radio broadcaster (above, after his last show). I've always loved his books, going all the way back to Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. It was clear from the outset that he was a neophyte in the radio business - his transitions were awful, his voice not much better, and the show wasn't always as planned as it should have been.

But, it didn't take Franken long to find his voice. His show began in March 2004, and I started listening on the Internet as soon as it became available. Looking back, '04 was a pretty big, exciting year for me politically; presidential election years always are for me, but 2004 was more so than any other so far in my life. At the risk of sounding sappy, Franken built up liberals and progressives, and then built us up again after the disaster that November.

Along the way, Franken honed his skills as a host, and sharpened his wit and rhetoric. The last year of his show, Franken really rounded into form - he ratcheted down the sarcasm and ramped up his game, bringing top notch guests to the show every week, including Joe Conason, a noted and respected author; David Brock, the founder of Media Matters; Jonathan Alter of Newsweek; Thomas Oliphant of The Boston Globe; Melanie Sloan and Norm Ornstein. Heavyweights all, and some of them were Republicans.

And, like Olbermann, Franken spent a considerable amount of time taking shots at Bill O'Reilly (whom he christened "O'Lielly" in one of his books - and as readers of The Journey know, I've been carrying that flame). Originally, Franken dubbed his radio show The O'Franken Factor. He's had some legendary run-ins with BOR and even Fox News. In 2004, the network tried suing him for copyright infringement for using its term "fair and balanced" in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. The judge overseeing the case, in the midst of throwing Fox's suit out of court, noted the irony of a news network, which is supposed to protect First Amendment rights of free speech, suing someone over their right to free speech.

Anyway, at the end of Franken's show on Wednesday, he declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2008. Franken will face Norm Coleman, who won Paul Wellstone's seat in the aftermath of Wellstone's death in 2004. Wellstone and Franken went back many years - both are from Minnesota, and the two had a close relationship. It will be poetic justice if Franken wins the seat next year.

I know there are many who will sell Franken short because of his history as a comedian. Those who underestimate him do so at their own peril. Personally, I can't wait to see Franken tear Coleman to shreds. If Franken holds to form, he will realize success as a candidate just like he has as a comedian, author and radio host.

However, one can predict the Coleman and his staff's plan of attack. For starters, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of audio clips available that can and will be taken out of context by his opponent(s).

On Wednesday, Franken offered up an example of just what his opponents had in store for him. He likes to use a joke about John McCain (that McCain now uses himself). It goes something like this -

People paint John McCain as some sort of war hero, but I don't know why. Real heroes fight, but McCain sat out the war for five-and-a-half years. I don't see how he's a hero.

Even McCain thinks it's funny. But, according to Franken, some people have criticized him for the joke, opining that he's making fun of a war hero.

There'll be a lot more of that in the next 18 months. I'm rooting like crazy for Franken, and whatever happens, he will certainly add a lot of wit and wisdom to the 2008 election.

I've got $20 that says Coleman won't debate Franken more than twice, if at all. (Assuming Franken gets the nomination.) Matching wits with Franken would be a very bad idea for Coleman.

Very bad.

In the meantime, Thom Hartman (above) will take Franken's place on Air America Radio. The future of the fledgling network is still uncertain, but the network was recently approved to emerge from Chapter 11.

Clearly, there's a market for a liberal radio network; Air America has merely been the unfortunate victim of bad management.

For the moment, I've dropped my subscription. I'll admit that Franken was the biggest reason for my subscribing to Air America. It irked me that I had to subscribe at all, but Air America doesn't have an affiliate in Philadelphia, and its satellite agreement is with XM Satellite Radio, and I'm a Sirius man. So, I was paying to listen to Air America's podcasts a day late. But, I'm spending enough money on subscriptions right now, so Air America loses out. Maybe in the future again, someday.

I'll wait and see how Hartman's received, and then maybe sometime in the future I'll subscribe again. (Above, Hartman's bulletin board outside his radio studio.)

I'm certainly rooting for Air America's success, just like Franken's. God only knows that there needs to be more voices to combat the far right blowhards like Insanity and Limbaugh.

GOP strafes Pelosi regarding plane

I got a pretty big kick out of the non-story story from this past week - how Nancy Pelosi was requesting an enormous airplane for her trips to and from California. I have to give credit to the press, for the most part, about this story though (but not in all cases).

A few Republicans, most notably staff at the Republican National Committee, tried to make political hay out of Nancy Pelosi's request for an airplane for trips to her home state of California and back. What many of Pelosi's detractors conveniently forgot was that former Speaker Dennis Hastert also had access to a plane to his home state of Illinois.

Each and every Speaker of the House should have secure, sufficient protection, which should include a secure aircraft, and it doesn't matter who the speaker is, or from what party.

This policy began following 9-11, since the speaker is third in line to the presidency, and I'm happy that policy is in place.

However, a report on the CBS Evening News by Sharyl Attkisson this past week stated: "The fuss is over whether Pelosi should fly on the same small jet used by her predecessor Dennis Hastert ... or the much bigger military 757."

However, Attkisson's report neglected to mention that the White House and the House Sergeant at Arms both defended Pelosi's need for a plane that can fly nonstop to and from her district on security grounds, if such a plane with that capability is available.

Here's a press release from the House Sergeant at Arms, as reported in Talking Points Memo:

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

That's not all. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow also thought the whole issue was a non-issue, too stating:

[The White House] position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.

On Thursday of last week, Tony Snow came right out and said that he thought the whole story was "unfair to the speaker."

That didn't stop some from coming after Pelosi anyway, facts be damned.

The Republican National Committee, while Tony Snow was defending Pelosi, issued a press release with this heading:

I won't even get into the details of the press release, which I have read, but I'm sure you can guess.

As Media Matters reported:

A February 9 Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt flatly stated that the C-20, one of the military planes used by former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) for domestic travel when he was speaker, "can make the nonstop flight year-round" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) California district from Washington, D.C. But media reports from the previous two days had reported that the C-20 cannot make it to California nonstop under all conditions. The article by Scarborough and Hurt did not attribute its contrary assertion about the flying range of the C-20 to anyone.

Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, was quoted by ABC News two days earlier saying that the C-20 is "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter." Also, on February 8, the Los Angeles Times reported that the aircraft used by Hastert "require[d] ideal weather conditions to make the cross-country trip without stopping to refuel."

Of course, my favorite Republican Strategist and Pollster, Frank Luntz, weighed in on Sean Insanity's show with his own ill-informed propaganda, first, with this:

LUNTZ: And let me tell you, Sean, this situation with Nancy Pelosi and the aircraft -- that's going to play very badly for the Democrats, and I think that's going to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton who, at this point, is the front-runner.

Later in the same show, this exchange, and it's amazing that Alan Colmes actually grew a set, for once:

COLMES: Frank, you took a shot at Nancy Pelosi. The fact of the matter is: She did not initiate this. It came from the sergeant of arms. Conservatives are making a bigger deal of this than really exists. And we got very little press when there was a Denny Hastert issue when he asked for the same thing. So, you say it's going to resonate and be -- and hurt the front-runner for the Democrats. I disagree. I -- where are you getting this information?

LUNTZ: Well -- no, here's the issue. The public said "no" to the Republican Party in 2006 because they thought that they'd gone native -- that they'd gone Washington -- that there wasn't a sense of accountability. But they will say the same "no" to the Democrats if they seem to be -- abuse their power. And she doesn't need a huge, gigantic plane.

COLMES: She didn't ask for one. She just wants a nonstop --

LUNTZ: If she wants to deny everybody else from flying -- you know what?

COLMES: -- doesn't want to have to refuel. It's a security issue whether or not she should stop to refuel.

LUNTZ: She does -- it is not a -- it is not a security issue. She doesn't need a plane, and American taxpayers -- I can promise you, Alan -- the American taxpayers don't want to be paying for her private flights in huge jets.

COLMES: But it's not her decision, it's the sergeant at arms. She doesn't make that decision, Frank.

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): All right, we gotta run.

LUNTZ: She can say no. She can say no.

MICHAEL BROWN (Democratic strategist): The American taxpayers do not want to pay for a war they don't agree with --

HANNITY: She was offered the plane.

LUNTZ: Just say no, Alan.

HANNITY: She -- he's asking for the bigger plane. She, herself is asking --

COLMES: She didn't make that decision.


HANNITY: -- and it would be $300,000 round trip for the American taxpayer.

COLMES: It was not her decision.

LUNTZ: Exactly.

HANNITY: This is a bad political play, Frank. Frank, I agree with you.

##

Luntz has a long history of disparaging Pelosi, saying on Insanity's show last year, "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a face lift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.'"

First of all, as someone who looks like Howdy Doody (left), Luntz (below, right) has preciously little room for criticizing Pelosi's appearance. Secondly, Luntz should grow up - leave the elementary put-downs to bloggers and such - you're supposed to be a professional. Wait, you consistently appear on Faux News - so much for being a professional. Okay, this IS the sort of thing we should expect from you. Forget everything I just said - keep meeting our lowered expectations of you, Luntz.

I know I'm writing and bringing a lot to you about this, but it's just one example of how the radical Republican press forges ahead, facts be damned.

Give Pelosi her damned plane, like every speaker deserves, and get on with the business of running the country and making our lives better. Republicans seem pretty angry that Democrats so far have made some progress, so we get this pseudo scandal about an airplane.