AC360

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1109)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2725)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Nicole Wallace wants us to think that the party of no has not been using scorched earth policy and trying to undermine the President at every turn-- even though she worked for the likes of George Bush and the John McCain campaign which brought us that totally non-scorched earth wonder Sarah Palin. You know... the one who said that Barack Obama was "palling around with terrorists".

How could anyone ever get the idea that the Republicans wanted to resort to a "scorched earth" policy after watching that campaign in action?

Of course, that would be asking too much of Anderson Cooper to possibly bring that up to Ms. Wallace, wouldn't it?

And she thinks Bill Frist and Jeb Bush are people "who could end up on the landscape in a presidential landscape down the road".

Really? Jeb-- who's last name is mud since his brother messed up his chances of ever running-- and the cat killer Bill Frist? Bring 'em on Nicole. Bring your good buddy Palin on with them while you're at it if that's the GOP's hope for the next presidential election. I welcome any one of them as the GOP's next nominee.

COOPER: Nicolle, have -- critics of the Republicans say, basically, look, they have a scorched-earth policy going on right now, that they are opposing anything that President Obama supports.

Is that fair?

WALLACE: That's not fair. And it's not true.

I mean, Jeb Bush has been very complimentary of Obama's Education Department secretary so far. Today, he said he was encouraged. Bill Frist was on, you know, as a very credible voice, as a doctor, talking about the need for health care reform. John McCain is -- is a statesman's statesman. And he is providing a lot of leadership and I think productive and constructive ideas...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But you're kind of clutching at straws. I mean, Jeb Bush and Bill Frist?

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: These aren't straws. These are certainly people that...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Bill Frist is like, you know...

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: But these are people who could end up on the landscape in a presidential landscape down the road.

So, I think when you -- you look at Washington, sure, you look at House members. But when you look at the American public at large, you know, not all of what happens in Washington breaks through.

Continue reading »



You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1290)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4429)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Paul Krugman writes an excellent column on the mental state of the Republican Party and compares their collective glee over the United States losing our Olympics bid to that of a "bratty 13-year-old", and who better to make him go up against but Lady McCheney who's never found someone she could not bully on the set of CNN? If CNN wanted to have an honest discussion about the points he was trying to make in his column, they wouldn't have put him up against this Cheney hack who represents everything that's been wrong with the last nine years plus of our politics in this country.

COOPER: In "Raw Politics" tonight: the mounting pressure on President Obama, under attack from his critics and on the defense about his policies. The shocks are not just coming from the right anymore. Check out who "Saturday Night Live" chose as their newest target over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE")

FRED ARMISEN, ACTOR: On my first day in office I said I would close Guantanamo Bay. Is it closed yet? No.

I said we would be out of Iraq. Are we? Not the last time I checked.

ARMISEN: I said I would make improvements in the war in Afghanistan. Is it better? No, I think it's actually worse.

ARMISEN: How about health care reform? Hell no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The sketch then went on to lampoon Mr. Obama for Chicago losing the 2016 Olympic Games.

Now, some of the president's conservative critics literally broke out in applause when the news broke that Chicago had been rejected.

Today, "The New York Times"' Paul Krugman said the GOP has become a party ruled by spite, eager to see the president fail, even if it's on something that is good for America. His latest book is "The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008."

Paul Krugman and political contributor Mary Matalin, who's -- who was a counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney, joined me earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: There is a narrative right now that -- that President Obama has lost his mojo. There was a couple people saying that the last couple days, "Saturday Night Live." Do you -- do you buy that?

KRUGMAN: No.

I mean, I think there are -- there are a lot of problems. And he -- you know, it's very difficult to be a strong, successful president when the employment picture is still worsening. And the employment picture is still worsening. And the stimulus law, while it has helped, isn't big enough to turn that around any time soon. So, he's got some problems.

But, look, health care, the -- the mood I get from the people who are really working on health care legislation is that this thing is now going to happen. A few weeks ago, there were real doubts about whether it was going to happen. But now it looks like it is going to happen. And that is going to be a huge thing.

Regardless of exactly what happens in the midterm elections, if we come out with legislation establishing universal health care by the end of this year, which I now believe we will, My God, that is transformational. We will be a different country. So, that is mojo in -- in the space that matters.

COOPER: Mary, do you believe that he has lost his mojo? I mean, there's people saying: Look, health care has not worked out. He's been weak on. He hasn't been out in front of it enough. The situation in Afghanistan, certainly, and other issues. The Olympic thing is just the -- the latest.

MATALIN: I don't -- I don't know if he lost his mojo. I never drank the Kool-Aid in the first place.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (45)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (112)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

David Gergen apparently thinks that 30% the insurance companies are taking to move our money around is just a "secondary issue" when it comes to what's in the bill making its way through the Senate right now. He then goes on to say it's not real reform and talks about how expensive Romney-care is in Massachusetts. I don't know how anyone could square those two statements. I don't think it's any big mystery why the public option is needed. To keep costs down. I'll refer back to Howard Dean on this one:

Dean: If you're not going to have a public option, then don't call it health reform. Strip all the money out of the bill and just do something we did here in Vermont about fifteen years ago, guaranteed issue and community rating. Require insurance companies to insure everybody. Stop them from kicking people off and don't let them charge huge amounts of money for sicker patients.

That's not health reform. It's insurance reform. You won't do much for the uninsured but you will make the health insurance market work better for the people it does work for. And you know, that's an incremental step and I wouldn't want to throw that out, but I'd strip the money out of the bill because this is going to be and expensive bill and if you're not going to get reform then you shouldn't bother with the expense.

Gergen thinks we should give the money to the insurance companies, and then come back and try to fix it later. Bad idea.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1528)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3800)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Following these remarks by Jimmy Carter...

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans."

...who does Anderson Cooper think deserves another spot on his show to weigh in on the subject of racism? Racist Tea Bagger Mark Williams of course! Who else could he have possibly had on besides Williams after that insightful commentary we just had from him on the previous show?

If you're as disgusted as I am with Cooper for bringing this guy back on you can weigh in at his blog, or contact CNN here.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (86)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (286)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

As Media Matters has noted, despite CNN's president Jon Klein sending a memo out stating that the network wanted to "avoid booking talk radio hosts" because "[c]omplex issues require world class reporting", they continue to make exceptions for the likes of Tea Bag Party organizer Mark Williams.

Tonight's AC360 was another example of the network giving a hate mongering Tea Bagger with a radio show a format, but they're worried about sullying their image if they might let someone like say, Stephanie Miller back on, who's been pretty vocal about being blacked out from the network on her radio show.

If they wanted to actually give some context to complex issues, they'd allow talk radio show host Thom Hartmann on as a commenter and collectively raise the average IQ of the people who regularly appear on their programming by a few percentage points rather than let this Know Nothing hate monger on there.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1094)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2018)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

CNN's Joe Johns apparently decided that their viewers didn't need to know just how much money has been raised for Rep. Joe Wilson's opponent for his House seat in 2010 during this segment from AC360. While it is true that Rob Miller raised $200,000 overnight, at the time this segment aired, Miller was already right about at the half million mark, and it's now pushing $700,000 and rising.

If he hits a million in a day or two maybe these guys will be forced to finally report it.

If you'd like to help that happen you can donate to Rob Miller here.

UDATE: It's now over $800,000 and counting and some numbers from Act Blue.

  • First post-Wilson contribution came in at 9:31 on 09.09.09
  • In the 27 hours following he raised ~675k from ~18k donors
  • In 27 hours he eclipsed the 48-hour high water mark for a single candidate (incl. Prez/Sen) on ActBlue
  • Nearest apples-to-apples thing is Tinklenberg post-Bachmann. Over that post-Hardball evening and the day after Tinklenberg raised 240k.
  • For almost 3 hours yesterday he was raising $1k/minute
  • Total 9-09 to 9-10 haul represents $7/second over that period.
  • Avg contribution: $36
  • Median contribution: $25

UPDATE II: Rob Miller just passed the $1 million mark and has posted a thank you diary at DailyKOS.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (2118)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (6939)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

From AC360 Sept. 10, 2009. While discussing Rep. Wilson's outburst during the President's speech, Tea Party oganizer Mark Williams says this about illegal immigrants receiving health care benefits:

WILLIAMS: Everybody seems to be leaving one very important thing out of this. And that is, the federal courts have spoken with regard to illegal immigrants or illegal aliens getting benefits, especially health benefits. We tried to bar them from doing that in California back in the '90s, and the federal courts slapped us down.

Even language specifically excluding them is not going to stand a court battle. So, whatever Obama believes -- and, for that matter, I don't even know what bill he was talking about. Does he have a proposal? Does he have a plan? What's he even talking about?

He and Roland Martin get into it in the above segment after the commercial break where Williams reiterates what he said about the courts, and Martin insists that there are no provisions for illegal immigrants to receive benefits in any of the proposed health care legislation.

Dave Neiwert gave me his slant on this:

Illegal immigrants entering an emergency room for treatment will be covered under any health-reform plan – because they are already. It’s a basic legal matter that emergency rooms cannot turn away anyone in need of emergency care. The courts have indeed decided this. The question is, does Mark Williams want it otherwise? Does he want emergency rooms deciding who lives and who dies depending on their ability to prove their citizenship? Does he want people to die on emergency-room doorsteps because they are undocumented?

Undocumented immigrants get no insurance benefits under the Obama plan, but the costs of their care will be covered under a more sane system. The taxpayers will wind up covering the costs, as they do now, but the costs should be less because the payment system will be more direct.

Those are the questions Roland Martin or anyone on that panel should have been asking Williams, but I guess that's expecting too much of CNN. I also would have liked for one of them to ask Williams if he thinks going to an emergency room is the equivalent of having health care coverage as I've heard one too many Republican member of Congress assert.

BLITZER: Let's get back to our panel talking strategy on health care reform and Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst, CNN's Candy Crowley joining us, political contributor Roland Martin, and Tea Party Express organizer Mark Williams.

We're going to get what Dana just reported. But, Mark, I want to give you a chance to respond to what Roland said, that John McCain himself agrees with the president that nothing in this legislation would give illegal immigrants in the United States the opportunity to gain from this proposed legislation.

WILLIAMS: Well, Wolf, it doesn't have to, because the courts have already spoken on. And that they will speak again if -- if -- if it happens.

But this bitterness that supposedly is directed toward Obama, if I have learned anything in my work with OurCountryPAC.org, it's that it's not bitterness. It's outrage at the socialist policies being embraced by this administration.

MARTIN: Nonsense. It's bitterness.

WILLIAMS: And that goes -- that goes double for W., by the way.

And, as far as the Republican Party goes, it's no surprise to any of us working stiffs out here that they allow themselves to be a doormat for what is happening in Washington, D.C.

The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party, as a whole, is absent without leave from this debate. And our representatives, our elected representatives, are falling down on the job of upholding and protecting the Constitution. And that's why the American people are rising.

That's why I had almost 10,000 people outside Chicago at our tea party the other day. People are sick and tired of being abused and then being called a mob of Nazis because they object to that.

BLITZER: All right.

WILLIAMS: We're the people who pay the bills.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (99)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (211)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

From AC360, Fran Townsend defends the Bush Whitehouse against the latest allegations made by Tom Ridge, that he felt the administration was using the Department of Homeland Security to scare the bejesus out of everyone for political gain. Of course Townsend feigns innocence and says they'd never do that. Her excuses here sound a whole lot more to me like Alberto's "I can't recall" testimony on the Attorney General scandal than any type of straight answers.

She weighs her words very carefully to make sure she never actually answers Coopers's questions, or when she does, she throws Ridge under the bus. We never wanted to pressure him to repeat our taking points...he asked for them...lol. Yeah, right. I give Cooper a good grade for asking the right questions here, and a bad one for not doing any kind of follow up. Heaven forbid anyone on CNN is going to push a Bushie even when they know full well they're lying to their face. That wouldn't be polite, would it?

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (101)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (278)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Paul Begala on AC360 makes the case for why it's time for Democrats to stop negotiating with Republicans on health care reform, and puts out the number on just how much Democrats have given to Republicans in order to appease them for a bill they are never going to get a single vote on. David Gergen is dead wrong here. If there is decent legislation passed with some meaningful reform, the public is not going to care who voted for it.

If it's a bad bill and nothing but a giveaway to the insurance industries, then they're not going to be happy in the end no matter what the roll call is when this is said and done. And Amy Holmes is full of it. Republicans are not going to support even the watered down co-op plan. They're already calling it all the same names they would be single payer if it was on the table, and the public option. Republicans do not want any reform of the insurance industry, or anything to be done which cuts into their profits.

COOPER: Paul, we got a text 360 question based on the -- I guess, the Barney Frank thing.

Patty says, "Do you think the Obama administration is considering moving ahead because of negative Republican reaction at town hall meetings?"

I mean, do you think this -- this idea of -- of going it alone is in response to what they have suddenly seen at all these town hall meetings?

BEGALA: I think, frankly, less the town hall meetings. That hasn't moved a lot of Democrats. I have talked to a whole lot of them. They don't seem terribly rattled by that. But I think what they're seeing is...

COOPER: What about independents?

BEGALA: Well, I mean, Democratic members of Congress.

COOPER: Oh, OK.

COOPER: Among independents, it's -- Republic opposition has hardened. And that's fine. They're the opposition party.

But to try to pass something in a bipartisan fashion is just going to be very difficult, and almost impossible. Look at this. There's four committees that have already passed out versions of health care, three in the House, one in the Senate.

If you add all those committees together, they accepted, the Democrats who run the committees, 183 Republican amendments in those four committees, 183. Despite taking all those 183 amendments, you know how many Republican votes they got? Zero, zilch, as we say in the Catholic Church, bubkes, nada.

Now, at what point do you start to get the idea that the Republicans are just not going to play along? More recently, you know, we have the Senate Finance Committee as the last hope of bipartisanship. Senator Max Baucus, the chairman, is trying to negotiate with Charles Grassley, the leading Republican on the committee.

And he's been reached out to, Grassley has, and the president has praised him in the past. And, so, what does he do? He goes home. And, you know, grandpa Twitter gets on his BlackBerry and says, the president wants to pull the plug on grandma, and then he calls the president of the United States intellectually dishonest.

That's who Obama is trying to deal with. So, there's no hope of bipartisanship.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (2383)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (9094)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Add Anderson Cooper to the list of main stream media hosts that at least bothered to have industry whistleblower Wendell Potter on their show. Cooper is just shocked that right wing writers and radio hosts are taking their talking points from the insurance industry. I wasn't surprised given they're already reading off all of the RNC talking points for the day that are sent to them.

COOPER: You say that insurance companies intentionally -- and I quote you -- "confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy Wall Street investors."

How are they intentionally confusing customers and dumping the sick?

WENDELL POTTER, FORMER EXECUTIVE, CIGNA: Well, they confuse customers by not just being transparent, by not providing the information that -- a lot of us need.

A lot of people don't know that their insurance is inadequate. And that's why so many people are finding that they are in the ranks of the underinsured, because they just don't have any idea that their -- their coverages are not good enough.

They dump the sick by purposely looking at applications when someone files or has medical claims, whether you have a major illness or a major accident. If you buy your insurance through the individual marketplace, outside of your employer, you have to disclose whether or not you have had a preexisting condition.

If you leave something out, if you forget something, or don't even know something that is relevant that might be in some doctors' notes, the insurance company will use that as justification to cancel your policy.

COOPER: The forms I have seen on my insurance things are incredibly complicated. They make your head hurt. Are you saying that is intentional?

POTTER: It is very intentional. These companies make billions of dollars a year. They could certainly make these forms a lot clearer and a lot more easily understood. But it's not a priority.

COOPER: CIGNA, for the record, denies that they dump customers.

And they told us -- and I quote -- that "CIGNA complies with all regulatory requirements regarding setting rates and policy terms, consistent with our mission to provide individuals with a path to health, well-being and sense of security."

COOPER: Is that kind of statement you used to write?

POTTER: It is. And I'm not surprised.

For one thing, the regulations are not adequate to protect consumers. That's one thing. And it should be part of reform to keep this kind of from happening.

Senator Rockefeller, in the Senate, has asked CIGNA and I'm sure probably other insurers to come and make sure that they are telling the truth, because you can look through transcripts when these executives talk to Wall Street analysts, and you will hear them use the word purge. So, it is there. They -- they -- they acknowledge it. They say they do when they're talking to analysts, but they say they don't when they are talking to other people.

COOPER: You are also alleging that the health care industry right now is engaging in what you say are dirty tricks to stop health care reform from being passed.

What kind of dirty tricks are you talking about? And just specifically, to be clear, are you accusing CIGNA of engaging in these tactics?

POTTER: Not CIGNA. I'm talking about the industry, because, during my career, I served on a lot of industry committees through the trade associations and on a lot of trade groups that were funded by the -- oh, excuse me -- front groups that were funded by the industry.

The way it works is that the industry will hire big P.R. firms that create these front groups that have names that have no association with the insurance industry, and it is these front groups that do the things that you are seeing right now, that try to destroy health care reform by using terms like government takeover of the health care system, or we are heading down toward a slippery slope toward socialism, or we're going to kill your grandpa because of this health care reform bill.

COOPER: You're saying that language is written by insurance companies?

POTTER: Absolutely.

COOPER: But, I mean, the folks who are showing up at these meetings, I mean, they are not being backed by -- they're not being paid to go there. I mean, there is a legitimate anger. There is a legitimate opposition, concern not just about health care, but about massive deficits and government intrusion.

POTTER: Yes, the other thing that they do, the other way that they work is the P.R. firms have very good connections with people that those folks listen to.

They have very close ties with the conservative radio talk show hosts and commentators and editorial page writers, and they feed the talking points. They feed the...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Did you used to do that?

POTTER: I did, absolutely.

COOPER: What do you mean feed talking points to radio talk show hosts?

POTTER: Well, these P.R. firms have very close ties, they have good relationships with the producers, with the talk show hosts themselves, that will say, look, you need to understand this about health care reform or you need to know that, if this bill passes, then this is going to represent a government takeover the health care system.

It is not true, but it is the kind of language that the talk show host will welcome, because it is ideologically in synch with their world view.

COOPER: Interesting discussion.

Wendell Potter, we would like to have you back. Thank you very much.

POTTER: Thank you very much.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (827)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4508)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

My, my, isn't this special? The St. Louis tea bagger Dana Loesch has now made her way from Fox News to CNN. John Roberts asks if the tone of the rhetoric at the town halls is getting dangerous. Ron Reagan Jr. replies that it has, and points out that a gun was dropped out of one of the participant's pockets at an Arizona town hall meeting. Dana Loesch defends it by saying that maybe they have a concealed-carry license. Oh...I see Dana. That license makes what happened alright in your right wing nutter world.

Would you still be defending that person being that irresponsible if that was a loaded gun, and it went off when they dropped it?

I've got a friend who is my accountant, and who has a conceal/carry license. When getting my taxes done a little while back she went on endlessly about all the classes and hoops she had to jump through with learning about gun safety to get her license. She was actually pretty proud of how she did and how she already knew how to safely handle a gun, since all of her family are hunters and they taught her from a young age a lot of the things she was required to know in those classes.

I have not read up on what the laws are to be allowed to retain a license to carry a concealed weapon since I have no desire to do so myself. If there is not something written into any states' laws already that says if you drop a loaded gun in a crowd of people and they can prove you did it, and you don't lose your right to carry a concealed weapon, then there's something wrong with our concealed/carry laws.

Anyone who has been through the program you have to go through to get that license would know better than to allow a gun to be unsecured in a manner where it's allowed to just fall out of wherever you're holding it and hit the ground. Ms. Loesch's argument that maybe this person had a permit looks ridiculous to me for that reason alone. The opposite is true of responsible gun owners who go through the safety program for that license, and the likelihood of someone who had the license allowing something that irresponsible to happen.

Of course Loesch has no idea whether they had a license or not. She just threw that out there from the land of her butt to defend them bringing a gun there in the first place. And the big, thuggish union guys at the St. Louis meeting she went to scared her, so maybe she would have been better off having a gun there herself as well. Just who would you have shot Dana had you had that gun you're saying would have protected you? Somehow you managed to make it out of there alive and onto our TV screens without pulling a gun on anyone yourself. Ron Reagan thankfully added a bit of sanity to this segment when he wasn't being talked over.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (123)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (399)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

From AC360, David Gergen takes Heritage Foundation and Townhall contributor Peter Brookes to task over the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, and whether the American government gave anything up in the negotiations to get them back to the United States.

I think it's about time we're talking instead of the aggressive tone we've taken under the Bush administration, where the first reflex is to threaten to drop a bomb on someone's head, or label them part of an "Axis of Evil", and then wonder why they might want weapons of their own.

Of course nothing the Obama administration does is going to satisfy any of the right wingers out there, especially if it involves Bill Clinton to boot. Had this been St. Ronnie making this deal, they'd have been singing his praises to the heavens.

HILL: They are home now.

Digging deeper, though, on the global implications of how they got home, what Tom Foreman was talking about before the break. Of course, this meeting all happened at a time when North Korea hasn't hesitated to test nukes and missiles and on the heels of news that three more Americans are now being held in a country America also does not have a diplomatic relationship with, Iran.

So, does this pump up one dictator and perhaps embolden others?

We're joined now by senior political analyst David Gergen, and Peter Brookes, former Pentagon official in the Bush administration and also currently with the Heritage Foundation.

Gentlemen, good to have both of you with us.

PETER BROOKES, SENIOR FELLOW, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good evening.

HILL: David, I want to start with you. It -- it's almost impossible to ignore the message many people are saying this sends to North Korea and, for that matter, to other nations, as we just mentioned, who may be on shaky ground with the U.S., that, the next time they have U.S. citizens in their custody, they can use them as bargaining chips for perhaps access to high-level U.S. politicians, essentially rewarding bad behavior.

So, David, how does the U.S. keep that from happening?

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (96)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (249)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Dr. Warren Hern speaks out on AC360 about Dr. Tiller's death being the inevitable result of the hateful rhetoric that's come out of the anti-abortion movement and on the importance of keeping abortion safe, legal and free from anti-abortion violence and harassment.

COOPER: Dr. Hern, I guess the obvious question, if you -- if you worry about being shot and expect being shot any day at work, at home or elsewhere, why do you continue to do what you do?

DR. WARREN HERN: Well, first of all, thank you for inviting me. It's a very important question. I have thought about it a lot.

HERN: I have to say that it really comes down to the fact that, at one point, I decided that performing abortions was the most important thing I could do in medicine, and that I do it because it matters.

And it matters for the health of the woman, for the health of her family, for health of our society, and now it matters for freedom, because Ronald Reagan tried to make abortion a political crime against the state.

And we have had -- while the -- Dr. Tiller was a very good friend of mine, a wonderful man, a very courageous and dedicated physician. And his -- his -- his assassination is a terrible, terrible, unspeakable loss for his family and friends.

COOPER: When -- when you heard he had been shot, did -- did -- did you...

HERN: But I think that the -- but I think the important point I would like to make is that the assassination of Dr. Tiller was not the act of a lone, deranged gunman acting alone.

This is the result of 35 years of anti-abortion harassment, and terrorism, and hate speech, and rhetoric, and harsh names, and exploitation of the -- of the abortion issue as a political issue to get power. And this is the inevitable result of this kind of hateful behavior by the anti-abortion movement.

Continue reading »


Mark Danner: Cheney's Using Politics of Fear

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (122)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (308)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Mark Danner on AC360 calls out the Cheney father-daughter tag team for their use of fear mongering and Karl Rove style "ruthless politics of national security". As he notes it isn't good for the country or for the Republican party, not that the Cheney's seem so care.

Mark also points out the very slippery slope that President Obama is talking about taking us down with this idea of prolonged detention which is essentially preventive detention and is not something anyone should be supportive of.

COOPER: Mark, you have written extensively about the detainee issue, about these interrogation techniques. What did you think of what Vice President Cheney said today, about what Liz Cheney said tonight?

DANNER: Well, I think this is an extension of what President Obama has referred to as the politics of fear.

Both Cheneys made very serious charges about President Obama, basically saying, explicitly, that he was endangering the country, that he endangered the country, as -- as Liz Cheney said, by putting out these memos, which is a complete canard.

These techniques have been public not simply since the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, as -- as you pointed out, Anderson, but since 2005, when ABC News did an extensive report that specifically described all these techniques.

So, the idea that this was a great secret and now terrorists can train to them is completely and manifestly untrue. And, as a charge, it is a kind of ruthless politics of national security, of the sort that we have seen Republicans seize on since about four months after 9/11, when Karl Rove basically told the Republican National Committee, look, this is an issue we can win on.

This was January 2002. And you see a kind of reclaiming of this ground, or an attempt to reclaim this ground, from the two Cheneys. And I think the Republican Party in general doesn't want to go in this direction, but they're being, in effect, dragged along, kicking and screaming, by the ubiquitous voice of the former vice president.

I don't think it's good for the country. But I agree with David Gergen that it's at least interesting to see a public debate and to see President Obama come up and, in a prepared speech -- and I thought a very elegant speech -- try to take on these matters and build a consensus for a sustainable policy. And I emphasize sustainable. He wants something that we won't fight about, that can be submitted to the rule of law, that the Supreme Court will not throw out, that can last over the length of the so-called war on terror.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (136)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (644)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Anderson Cooper had some tough questions for Liz Cheney, but like any good Villager comes out swinging initially but fails to do any real follow up after Cheney lies to him repeatedly. It was nice to see someone actually call bulls#@t on some of her talking points though. It's more than I can say for Chuck Todd. Cheney also basically admits that her father's reason for speaking out has more to do with protecting his own hide than national security. The transcript of the full interview is available here.

COOPER: Most former vice presidents walk off the public stage quietly, at least for a while, but not Dick Cheney. His tough talk seems to be working for him. His approval rating, now 37 percent, has jumped eight points since leaving office in January. President Bush's approval rating has risen six points, to 41 percent, from 35.

Dick Cheney's daughter Liz served in the State Department during Bush administration, has been an outspoken defender of her father's record as vice president. She joins us now.

Thanks for being here.

LIZ CHENEY: Great to be here. Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: Is it -- is it appropriate for your father to be so out in front right now so soon after leaving office, essentially mocking the sitting president of the United States?

L. CHENEY: Well, he's not mocking the sitting president. But I think that...

COOPER: Well, saying he's pandering to Europe?

L. CHENEY: He is pandering to Europe.

I mean, I think that -- that, you know, there's sort of a level of political nicety that's important to observe, except in certain circumstances. And one of those circumstances is where the national security of the nation is at risk, as my father feels strongly that it is.

I don't think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the -- the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration, I think my dad began to feel very strongly that somebody needed to speak out, that this needed to be a full airing of views, and not a one-sided mischaracterization of the last eight years.

COOPER: But these -- you know, these are techniques which have been around. I mean, the Nazis used them. The -- the Khmer Rouge used them. The -- the North Koreans used them. So, it's not as if terrorists were unfamiliar with these techniques, if they wanted to train for them. And I'm not sure you really can train for torture or -- or enhanced interrogation.

L. CHENEY: Well, I think, first of all -- yes, I mean, I would question the premise there.

I think that you have got to look at the legal memos, actually, which now you can do. The legal memos are very clear. And this was a -- a very carefully designed program, and it was a program that the CIA designed, that they had the lawyers look at to make sure that the line that divided sort of rough treatment from torture wouldn't be crossed.

But the important point here, though, there's a big difference between a terrorist sort of Googling, you know, techniques that might be used and a terrorist who can now pull up these memos and actually see, OK, well, they're going to be able to do this, you know, to me for this many minutes, but I know they won't cross that line.

What the president has done is ensure that no future president can use any of these techniques. So, that's a big step. And that's a step that I think really does endanger the country.

And, frankly, if the president himself in the future is faced with a ticking-time-bomb scenario, it's not clear to me, you know, what exactly he will do, even though he's reserved to himself the right to take action like these techniques.

COOPER: Is it appropriate, though, for your father, who has had access to high-level intelligence for -- for eight years, to be very publicly waving a flag, saying, we're much weaker now than ever before? Isn't that, in fact, emboldening our enemies? Couldn't you make that argument?

L. CHENEY: I think that it is a moral obligation to stand up and say, wait a second. You know, when you...

COOPER: But you can write letters. You can -- you can have meetings with the president. He could have a meeting with the president and say very firmly, "This is what I believe," and the president would either listen to him or not.

But to stand up publicly and -- if...

Well,. Yes. No, absolutely.

COOPER: If a Democrat was doing this in a Republican administration, wouldn't be the Republicans be saying, this is traitorous?

Continue reading »