Stephanopoulos & Gingrich on drapes, race & Congressional leadership

I have a few clips from last Sunday's morning talk shows that are still worthy of mention, and the first one is from This Week.

There's a remarkable amount of b.s. in this minute-and-a-half video clip.

First, George Stephanopoulos trots out a phrase that's been hackneyed for nearly 20 years now (or maybe even longer), that Obama is "Measuring the drapes in the Oval Office..." Gimme a break. Stephanopoulos should know this line well - it's one that President George H.W. Bush used against then-Governor Bill Clinton in 1992 when Stephanopoulos was working on the Clinton campaign.

More recently, it was endlessly pimped by President Bush in before the '04 election, and even more extensively before the '06 election (see below).

Hmm - well, Republicans are many things, but certainly original isn't one of them.

Back to the video at top - I'm always pleased when networks bring in Newt Gingrich, because I never want to go too long without being reminded how much I truly despise the man. Notice how much red meat Gingrich is throwing to the far right in a very short time; I especially got a kick out of Gingrich's assertion that a President Obama will "restrict the free speech rights of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh," but notice how he gives no specifics.

So, on its face, you would think that Gingrich has some concrete proof about how Obama will suppress the free rights of Sean Goebbels and Rush Göring, but he doesn't. Know why? Because that's not what Obama wants to do; he wants to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine in some form, and to also enforce a law that's still on the books, the Sherman Antitrust Act. Those two things will undoubtedly affect right-wing hate radios hegemony over the airwaves, but it certainly won't suppress Hannity or Limbaugh's free speech rights. But, it's not a stretch to say that the GOP will spin it otherwise, especially if Obama wins the election.

Obama, if he's elected in 11 days, will have plenty on his plate, but I hope that at some point he does get around to addressing both of the above topics, because the citizens of this country will never truly "take our country back" until the corporate media is busted up for good. I know, I know - I shouldn't hold my breath, but it's what I firmly believe needs to happen. That, and keeping the Internet free from tiered services, which is what the greedy media companies are pining for. (Thankfully, with a Democratically controlled Congress and hopefully Obama in the White House, the 'Net will be safe for the time being.)

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with Gingrich on anything, but I do agree with him on one point - Congress will likely be Democratically controlled, with large majorities in each house, and both houses are in desperate need for real leadership. And that means kicking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid out of their leadership positions. Both have been miserable failures, and following the election, I will write Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and U.S. Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA), both of my Democratic legislators, to demand just that - leadership with a spine that is willing do many of the things that need to be done to get this country back in shape.

Of course, in the video above, Gingrich also railed about taxes, which comes as no surprise. But, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that taxes must be raised to combat the ballooning deficit, which is spiraling out of control. The question is by how much and who will pay more. Taxes are going to have to go up, and spending is going to have to come down in some areas - reducing the deficit must be a two-pronged approach.

Stephanopoulos also brought up "race" at the end of the clip. *Yawn* I think the predictable people will vote against Obama for this reason, but overall, I predict it won't have much of an impact. The only "race" that matters is the presidential one, and it's trending our way. But, I'm very, very wary for many reasons, so of which I will get to in successive posts this weekend.

Olbermann remembers 9/11

The other night, on the eve of the 9-11 anniversary, Keith Olbermann savaged the Republicans for its treatment of and exploitation of the worst attack on our soil in modern American history. If watched it two or three times, feeling equal parts amazement that someone had the temerity to criticize the 9-11 party (a slogan so deserving of the GOP for many reasons), and also disbelief that our corporate media allows Olbermann's voice to remain on the air when he's so critical of the party of the corporate media, the GOP. When I hear Olbermann wield his rhetorical cudgel in his uniquely sardonic way, the only conclusion I can come to as to why he's allowed to say such things is that the corporate media wants to at least have the appearance of being "bipartisan"; whenever someone (and so few do) say that the media is dominated by right wing voices (which is almost completely is), Repubes can scream "Keith Olbermann!" and "Jon Stewart!" Hey, whatever - at least Olbermann is out there, and he is more pissed than ever. Thank God for him.

He was particularly sage when he took the GOP to task for trying to "own" 9-11, which is has virtually franchised to any Republican seeking higher office. I wonder if the Republican National Committee will soon begin collecting royalties whenever a GOP nominee for a federal, state, or local office invokes "9-11" against his or her Democratic opponent. It seems we aren't too far away. Anyway, here's Olbermann on the trademarking of 9-11 by the GOP:

9-11 has become a brand name, a Republican campaign slogan, propaganda of the lowest form. 9-11 has become 9-11 with a trademark logo; 9-11™ has sustained a president who long ago should have been dismissed or impeached. It has kept him and his gang of financial or constitutional crooks in office without literally any means of visible support.

[...]

...the political party in office at the time of attacks at the local, state and national levels, the party which uniformly ignored the warnings, and the presidential administration already through 20 percent of its first term, and no longer wet behind the ears, have not only thus escaped any blame for the criminal malfeasance and neglect that allowed the attacks to occur, but that presidency and political party have managed to make it seem as if the other political party would be solely and irredeemably responsible for any similar catastrophe in the future...

He also takes some significant swipes at Rudy Giuliani, America's Profiteer, who really can't be repudiated harshly enough for his idiotic and moronic criticisms of the Democratic Party since 9-11, as well as his endlessly pimping himself as being a "brave leader" in the hours and days after 9-11. Kudos to Olbermann for mentioning that Giuliani didn't do DICK (my word) between the two World Trade Center attacks in the 1990s, during which most of the time he was mayor of New York City, and was in a position to do much. (That would include having the city's emergency response center located at the World Trade Center, which the FDNY and NYPD were vehemently opposed to, which Olbermann mentions, and also getting a working radio system that would have allowed the NYPD and FDNY to communicate to one another on the morning of 9-11; it's not a stretch to say that the appallingly bad radios that the city did have on 9-11 cost more than a few first responders their lives.)

Giuliani is literally a political caricature, a farce, a product of little more than a slick PR campaign, that couldn't even fool GOP voters into voting for him during the primaries, when he didn't win one freaking state. I read a pretty scathing indictment of him this past spring in The New Yorker, which summed up pretty nicely how most feel about him: "Those who know him best like him least." I still crack up that a few people I see during my long commute have "Rudy" stickers on their cars - I sometimes have to strongly resist the urge to tell these people that they are "number one," or to roll down my window to tell them how mind-numbingly stupid they really are.

(Giuliani Illustration brilliantly drawn by Derek Chatwood, © 2008 All Rights Reserved)

Olbermann really slammed the GOP for it's supposed 9-11 tribute film broadcast during the GOP Convention last week, chiding the powers that be in our fear mongering party for the images and footage displayed, saying:

The Republicans gave us sociological pornography; a virtual snuff film. Years ago, the television networks, to the applause of this nation, and to the relief of its mental health authorities, voluntarily stopped showing the most graphic of the images of the World Trade Center, except with the strongest of warnings. And yet the Republicans at their convention, having virtually seized control of the cable news operations, showed the worst of it...

I can't think of much more to add to that, other than to say I'm glad that Olbermann brought up how our corporate media is run by companies who have a vested interest in seeing that John McCain gets elected. This is especially true considering that Obama has publicly stated that if elected, he wants to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act, which would effectively break up the enormous media conglomerates. This rates as a pretty big mistake; they were going to fight Obama's election anyway, but he should have waited to reveal these plans until after he's elected, if he indeed wins.

One final thought - I LOVE it that Olbermann raked McCain over the coals for Mac's patently asinine pronouncement that "he knows how to catch bin Laden." Anyone who believes that comment at face value ought to be deported, at best. Olbermann hammers the point home about McCain's pledge to run a "clean campaign"; anyone but the most rabid Republican knew that was a lie when he said it - all that was needed was time to prove how dishonest it was. Well, we now have that proof.

By the way, more specifics on Olbermann's reaction to the GOP's 9-11 "tribute film" in a bit.

Olbermann on McCain's double talk

Last night, Keith Olbermann did a pretty good round-up of all the McCain reversals. Watch the video above, and as Keith suggests, you'd better have a pen and paper, (or a good, stiff martini) handy to get it all down, or to simply start laughing after a few minutes.

From Crooks and Liars:

[Some of John McCain's more noted reversals]...
• Political Reform
• Immigration
• Gay Marriage
• Abortion
• Nuclear Waste at Yucca Mountain
• Military actions against rogue states
• Negotiating with Kim Jong Il
• Negotiating with Castro
• Negotiating with Terrorists (acceptable in 2002 when Powell went to Syria. In 2006, McCain said sooner or later we'll talk to Hamas, not appropriate now)
• Unilateral action against suspected terrorists in Pakistan (Confused leadership with Obama, not with Bush)
• Warrantless Wiretapping
• Torturing Detainees
• Indefinitely Holding Detainees
• Iraq War
• Tax Cuts for the Rich
• Estate Tax
• Privatizing Social Security
• Balanced Budget
• Windfall Profits Tax
• Offshore Drilling
• Bush Fundraisers
• Jerry Falwell
• Pastor John Hagee
• MLK Jr. Holiday
• South Africa Divestment
• the Confederate Flag
• Alternatives to evolution being taught in schools

Wow, that's a pretty stunning achievement, even for a politician. I didn't know that someone could possibly stand for so little and while running for president. Talk about not taking a stand! We've been hearing Republicans piss and moan about Democratic candidates' reversals on issues for years (some of it fair, some of it taken out of context), but I'd like to know how they plan on explaining McCain's dozens and dozens of reversals away. The answer is that they can't - all Repubes can do is continue to bring up wedge-issue distractions like flag lapel pins, gay marriage, religion, evolution, abortion, ministers of ill repute and anything else that will (lamely) try to take Americans' minds off of just how poorly things are in the country right now, be it the economy, what passes for our foreign policy, our skyrocketing debt, our disaster in Iraq, runaway inflation, monstrous fuel prices, our crumbling infrastructure, etc. What's worse, the likes of Bush and McCain have few answers in how to get us out of this mess, a mess that their party bears a pretty nasty share of the responsibility for.

I'm willing to cut McCain some slack on a few of the above - after all, issues do evolve, and if you spend enough time in a deliberative body like the U.S. Senate, positions, like public opinion, can and will change over time. But, not in the span of 4-5 years, which is right around the time McCain no doubt decided that he's take another run at the presidency, so he'd better get his ideological (party line) votes in order. Enter John McBush, candidate for president who had to court the evangelical and far right wings of the party, so he could raise enough money and support to get the nomination.

Will the press cover these McCain flip flops? Fat chance, especially when Democrats are making noise about once again enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act and re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. I sure hope an Obama administration does both.

In the meantime, I certainly hope a vast majority of American voters aren't relying on our corporate media to form opinions and make informed decisions about the '08 election.

Major hat tip (h/t) to Crooks & Liars for compiling the exhaustive list of McCain flip flops - it couldn't have been easy.

Matt Drudge: still a GOP stooge

[Click for a larger view]

Every once in a while, I enjoy pointing out just how absurdly moronic Matt Drudge is. I know, it's not particularly newsworthy, and really, it's a demonstration that I have a firm grasp of the obvious. But, every once in a while it bears repeating. Why? Because his Website is one of the most visited on the Web.

For some reason, the GOP and its shills like Drudge still seem to have a fetish for Al Gore. Perhaps its because of Gore's success and the inroads he's making in raising the warning flag about global warming. Who knows? But, the misinformation and attacks are like the Energizer bunny - They keep coming... well, you know the rest.

The above image is a screen capture from the Drudge Report a few days ago, featuring a prominent story about Gore's energy consumption. What a joke. The link goes to a story Here, by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a blatantly right-wing funded organization. (I wrote about it Here when these morons tried to embarrass Gore just hours after his ground-breaking movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won several Oscars.)

Gore's energy consumption habits aren't really of interest to me or anyone else other than the most rabid GOPers. And, of course, his energy consumption only tells part of the story. Here's a guy criss-crossing the globe trying to make a difference with global warming, in addition to the fact that he buys green energy, and he has solar panels installed on his very large home, yet he's getting his balls busted by partisan hacks who don't have anything better to do.

Meh - enough of it - I guess I'm no better than they are, but it's worth pointing out that Drudge will do whatever he can to smear prominent Democrats, and this is just another example.

I'll never tire of pointing out that the idea of a "librul media" is unadulterated bullshit. Drudge is one of the most visited sites on the Web (and many news networks report what his Website says, like it's news! And not just Fox News, either), Fox News is the most watched cable news channel during most time slots, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is the largest media conglomerate in the U.S., and the top three radio personalities are all GOP shills. Oh yea, we have a "librul media" alright.

No wonder the right is panicked about the possibility of a Democratic Congress re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine.

I'm pleased that Obama has talked publicly about enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act if he becomes president. It's about time - no president has enforced it since Reagan effectively gutted it when he became president. It's still a law that's on the books, it's in the public interest, and it's about time that some of these huge corporations be broken up, specifically our mass media conglomerates.

Murdoch praises Obama? Don't trust it...

Hey, I took Psych 101, and when we hear a hard-line right-winger like Rupert Murdoch predicting a Barack Obama win in the fall, we all should call it out for what it really is - a big, steaming pile of GOP #2. C'mon, you don't have to be a political scientist to figure out what he's trying to do here - a lil' reverse psychology. It's not in Murdoch's best interests for Obama to win the election this fall, so don't think for a second that Murdoch and his "network," Fox Noise Channel, won't do everything in its power to propel John McCain to the White House.

For instance, Obama recently publicly said that the Sherman Antitrust Act ought to be reinforced, and if an Obama administration decided to do just that, it could possibly spell an end to News Corp's hegemony (and maybe even right-wing talk radio, too). I also think it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, something President Reagan allowed to lapse in 1987.

Anyway, here is some of what Murdoch had to say about Obama:

He is a rock star. It's fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don't think he will win Florida.....but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.

Again, I'm wary about what he's saying. Maybe, just maybe, even Murdoch realizes what most other political realists do - that McCain has an increasingly steep hill to climb to win the White House.

However, this is exactly the type of development and pronouncement that Democrats have to guard against. It isn't going to be an easy election for (presumptively) Obama to win, and Republicans and the right-wing neocons aren't going to simply roll over and die. But, they may play possum, and that's what I think Murdoch is doing here.

Photo from AP

The consumer confidence crisis is growing

It's little wonder that President Bush's approval rating is at 23 percent, which is the post-World War II low, a distinction he shares with President Truman (at the end of his second term) and President Nixon on the day he resigned the presidency. Bush's low ratings are about on par with how consumers feel about the economy right now, which is to say not very good:

Soaring gas prices and weakening job prospects left shoppers gloomier about the economy in May, sending a key barometer of consumer sentiment to its lowest level in almost 16 years.

The New York-based Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped to 57.2, down from a revised 62.8 in April. Economists surveyed by Thomson Financial/IFR had expected a reading of 60.

The May reading marks the fifth straight month of decline and is the lowest since the index registered 54.6 in October 1992 when the economy was coming out of a recession.

Economists closely watch sentiment readings since consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's economic activity.

"Weakening business and job conditions coupled with growing pessimism about the short-term future have further depleted consumers' confidence in the overall state of the economy," Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center, said in a statement.

I know this phrase is trite, and it has been used over and over again in American politics, but this year, I think it's particularly apropos. What Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic Nominee for president, should be saying over and over when referring to the Bush administration, is simply this:

Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? Four years ago? If the answer is no, then you have President Bush, and one of his principle enablers, Senator McCain, to thank for that malaise.

Why not? Very few, except for the extremely well off in this country (who have only gotten more well off under Bush) can probably look in the mirror and say, with a straight face, that they are doing much better now than in 2000. What's more, it worked for President Reagan in 1980 in his campaign against President Carter, so why not for Obama now?

If Obama can successfully run on the issues, and the corporate media actually reports on the issues (fat chance) - he should win this election running away.

Instead, what did we get all weekend, for example? Hillary Clinton's RFK gaffe. Our corporate media is hopelessly broken, hopelessly corporate, hopelessly infotainment and not "news," and hopelessly tied to the fortunes of the Republican Party. Our only hope in taking back our press is for Obama to become president. I'm certainly hoping he backs up his words about enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act. He can start by dropping a huge, fat bomb smack dab in the middle of the corporate media conglomerates that dominate not only what's news, but how it's presented. We can only hope, wait and wonder, but most of all, do all we can to make sure a Democrat reaches the White House this November.

CN8 Host fired for criticizing Bill O'Rielly

I got this from Crooks & Liars the other day, so I'm getting most of my information about this story from that site, which, by the way (as I frequently mention) is arguably the best liberal blog and information site on the Internet (along with HuffPo & Think Progress). The people over at C&L do tremendous work, and liberals owe that site a debt of gratitude for the hard work they put in by bringing us spot-on commentary and raising and highlighting issues that otherwise wouldn't get the attention they should. I get lots and lots of my video clips from that site, too. I don't always remember to post h/t's (hat tips) to C&L for providing video clips, but I try to remember. Anyway, if you haven't visited that site, 1. Where have you been? It's the best, and 2. Please spread the word and support C&L, a site that I hope CMB is 1/8th as good as, some day. Anyway, moving on...

This is the most stark example I've seen in quite some time as to why our corporate media needs to be broken up - now. More on that point in a minute.

Barry Nolan of CN8 in Boston, Comcast's news channel, has been fired for daring to criticize the fact that Bill O'Reilly, of all people, was being honored at the Emmy Awards.

I am appalled, just appalled," [that O'Reilly was being honored] Nolan told the Track. "He inflates and constantly mangles the truth... and his frequent target is the 'left-leaning' media - the ones who do report the news fairly. And those are the same people who will be sitting in the room honoring him."... More Here.

It's pretty refreshing to see someone have the balls to put his job on the line for daring to oppose this blowhard:

"Their take is that I was insubordinate," Nolan told us yesterday. "They wanted me to sit down and shut up." The host of "Backstage With Barry Nolan" had argued that O'Reilly, the volatile Fox News host and former Channel 7 anchor, was unworthy of the Governor's Award. (Past recipients include the likes of Mike Wallace, Ken Burns, and Natalie Jacobson.) "The idea of honoring someone who does their job with constant factual errors, name-calling, and mangling of the truth... It's ridiculous," said Nolan...

We're told Nolan was warned by his bosses at CN8 to pipe down, but at the May 10 dinner honoring O'Reilly he handed out a six-page document listing some of O'Reilly's wackier errors, utterances, and information about the talk-show host's sexual harassment settlement. Seems Comcast was concerned that Nolan's actions could harm the network's relationships with the academy and Fox. He was immediately suspended without pay for two weeks and then fired over the phone Tuesday.

One particular instance that I find incredibly nauseating is how O'Reilly goes after crime victims (or victims' surviving family members, like when he attacked the son of a man killed in the World Trade Center on his show, an then threatened him with violence). John Amato over at C&L has thoroughly documented and written about how O'Reilly went after Shawn Hornbeck, an 11-year old who was held captive for over four years by Michael J. Devlin in Kirkland, Missouri. Devlin is currently serving 74 life sentences, and if there's any justice in this world, a prisoner where he is incarcerated will test out a new shiv on him. (Posted above is video O'Lielly discussing attacking Hornbeck during a discussion with Greta Van Susteren, the princess of plastic.) Take a look at the video - it's just plain sickening and revolting. By the way, O'Lielly's attack on Hornbeck got him uninvited to a speaking engagement to the National Center for Missing Kids. (Due in part to the efforts of Amato over at C&L; predictably, no comment from BOR.)

This is just one example of the kind of sewage and filth that O'Reilly continually spews forth to his listeners. The truly frightening thing is that people listen and believe a great deal of it.

As Amato succinctly put it over at C&L the other day (and I whole-heartedly agree) - it's worth considering whether Rupert Murdoch is now going after anyone who criticizes O'Reilly, his networks or their executives? After all, he's not above going after NBC over Keith Olbermann's criticisms of Roger Ailes, the head of Fox Noise Channel.

As Howard Kurtz of WaPo has reported, last summer Ailes threatened to go after NBC if Olbermann didn't cease going after him and Fox, using BOR and The New York Post.

This is exactly why our corporate media conglomerates must be broken up. I find it outrageous that any CEO of a corporate media entity would see fit to going after a critic by using TV stations, commentators and newspapers as cudgels. But, that's exactly what Murdoch has been doing for years. Phew! Thank GOD his corporation was permitted to buy The Wall St. Journal!

I'm very thankful (and hopeful) that if Barack Obama gets elected, he will reverse this troubling trend in our press. He recently stated that if elected, he feels it's time the U.S. government start enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law that is still in the books (if you can believe that) that would break up these multi-media giants. I don't care if we're talking about liberal or conservative media conglomerates - they all are a threat to destroying our free press. (I do wonder and worry that Obama may have incurred the wrath of these multi-media giants by saying he would like to bust them up, before he wins the election. God only knows what lengths these companies will go to in order to get McCain elected now. We've always known that our corporate media is on McCain's side - Obama's recent comments did nothing to ameliorate this worrisome concern.)

In the meantime, O'Reilly goes on as one of the loudest mouthpieces for Murdoch's News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, carrying out his marching orders from the abominable Murdoch.