You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (580)

PLAYS: (1252)

Ex-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told Greta Van Susteren last night on Fox that she wished President Obama would stop making those unpleasant allusions to her old boss, George W. Bush. Because, you know, Bush has not been taking shots at Obama.

Oddly, nary a mention of Dick Cheney was heard.

Perino was upset that Obama, in his interview for 60 Minutes, referenced Bush's military triumphalism:

Obama: And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war.

There was a tendency to say, "We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise." When in fact, this is a tough business.

But Van Susteren at least pointed out that when George W. Bush was president, there was no shortage of blaming the previous administration:

Van Susteren: When President Bush 43 took office, was he critical in a similar way of President Clinton, his predecessor? Because one of the things I think we all want to think about, is we want our presidents having greatness about them and not getting petty.

Perino: I wasn't there at the beginning, and I think there is a certain amount of comparison that has to go on at the beginning. But almost everyone -- the left, right, and center -- columnists, even late-night talk-show hosts, are suggesting to President Obama that he lay off.

Well, no, Dana, you weren't around in the early years of the Bush administration. So maybe you weren't there for the endless list of things that Bush blamed Clinton for -- some of which included the following:

In 2002, he blamed Clinton for the recession.

Also in 2002, for the mess in the Middle East.

In 2004, for manufacturing job losses.

Also in 2004, for a shortage of flu vaccine.

In 2005, for "running from terrorists" and generally causing 9/11.

In 2006, for Bush's own failures in containing North Korea.

In 2008, for the soaring deficit.

But the best part came when she suggested Obama should not blame Bush for anything because Bush has been nice and quiet since the election and not criticized Obama:

Perino: Look, I think the other thing that you've seen is that President Bush has been an incredibly gracious post-president during the transition, and he said, 'President Obama deserves my silence.' and I would daresay that he deserves a lot more respect than he's getting right now.

Sure, Bush has been "gracious" because all Republicans have to do is send out Bush's surrogate thug, Vice President Cheney -- who in fact probably had at least as much to do with the direction of policy matters in the Bush administration as Bush himself did -- to do the dirty work for him.

Just last week, Cheney told the nation that the Obama administration was committing treason.

Before that, Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" on Afghanistan. He attacked Obama's decision to investigate torture policies under the Bush/Cheney regime. And he criticized Obama's Iraq withdrawal plans.

Yeah, pretty freaking gracious, those Republicans.

It's important to remind the public just how we got in this mess, and to remind them that the people who got us here want us to forget that fact. Their only hope is to cover their tracks, and Dana Perino is in the business of doing that.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (522)

PLAYS: (2166)

Tim Donaghy, the NBA ref who was driven from the game in disgrace after he was caught gambling on games, including those he officiated, has a new book out making some sensational claims about how the NBA is run. And he went on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox last night to talk about it.

Van Susteren: You talk about discussions you had beforehand where refs would say they didn't like a particular player, didn't like a particular team, that that sort of factored into whether you thought that the ref would maybe call something or not call something.

Donaghy: Right. I think there was a situation where certain referees, in my mind -- and it obviously proved successful -- could change the point spread in an NBA game based on relationships by four or five points. And when you talk about adding four or five points onto any line that's at Vegas it's like sitting at a blackjack table and knowing that your first card is an ace when the dealer starts to deal.

Van Susteren: You know, that actually shocked me much more in your book, than your own conduct, because as a fan, or as a viewer, I thought this was all done so straight, and then I find out that the refs are also, you know, talking trash about players and about team owners -- and that that has an impact on some of the calls. It took away, sort of, the honesty in the game for me.

Donaghy: Right, and I think the, you know, NBA fans are very knowledgeable. And over the last 10 or 15 years, they know that a lot of unusual things have taken place.

Donaghy describes how officials would single out and punish players like Allen Iverson if they felt the league hadn't punished them enough for misdeeds on the floor. And sometimes they would just pick on players because they had earned the displeasure of the refs:

Donaghy: One player where referees targeted on a continuous basis was Rasheed Wallace. He was one of those guys that just constantly -- seemed to go out of his way to embarrass referees. And when you do that to the referee staff, you know, at times they would come together, and basically try to put him in his place, or try to get him in a position where, you know, he would stop doing what he was doing.

Van Susteren: So there are the NBA players who sort of get the harsher treatment, deliberately. Are there any NBA players who are particularly well liked, or favorites that get a pass? Where maybe they've fouled somebody, or did palming or traveling, and everyone said, 'Let's let him go'?

Donaghy: I mean, there are situations, and the referees are trained in the fact that, obviously, you don't want to be throwing the stars out of the game, or you don't want to be giving a star a foul that you can give to somebody else who's in that area.

Van Susteren: You mean, you'd deliberately pick who you give the foul to? I mean, if there's a collision of players, you'd pick who you'd give the foul to?

Donaghy: Sure.

Van Susteren: So that someone who might be near the limit on the fouls and who might be a star might not get it, but you'd give it to somebody else?

Donaghy: Absolutely.

Van Susteren: Deliberately?

Donaghy: Deliberately.

Van Susteren: And was that discussed beforehand and afterwards, you know, we're going to do this if the situation arises or something like it. And afterwards, good job, you did that?

Donaghy: Well, it's the way that you were trained. Obviously you don't want to give a Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O'Neal or LeBron James a foul that may be his second or third foul in the first quarter, to where he's going to have to go to the bench. I mean, it was openly discussed in meetings that, you know, people paid big dollars to see these stars on the floor. So if there's a situation where you can have two people to pick from, you're certainly not going to pick one of them, you're going to pick someone that's the sixth, seventh, or eighth man on that team.

Van Susteren: And that's expressly said, that that's what you should do.

Donaghy: Absolutely it is.

Now, there's no doubt Donaghy has plenty of motivation to slag his former league, since profits and revenge often mix together. But what Donaghy is describing actually rings true for anyone who has watched NBA games closely over the past several decades.

It has become increasingly clear over the years that NBA officials are corrupt, but not in the usual way; they call games badly at times that are convenient most of all for the NBA, when it wants certain marketable matchups in the playoffs. They are also corrupt in that they clearly make calls based on grudges they hold, and their egos have become the most dominating force on the court.

Anyone who was watching Michael Jordan's rise as the league's premier superstar knows that, in addition to prodigious talent, Jordan was also blessed with a league that stood to gain even more by elevating his stature, and thus with taking it easy on him when it came to officiating.

I was a 12-year season ticket holder to NBA games, and have watched hundreds of NBA games live over the years, and even more on TV. And the process Donaghy describes -- wherein officials decide ahead of time to ameliorate fouls against league stars whenever possible, while simultaneously targeting both players and coaches they deem to be a threat to the officiating crews' supremacy on the court -- was fairly self-evident to anyone who watched many games.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (529)

PLAYS: (831)

First question, why is this man on my television screen instead of sitting in a jail cell somewhere? Karl Rove first claims that the stimulus package didn't work even though as Pat Garofalo over at the Think Progress' The Wonk Room noted:

...the Congressional Budget Office found that it has created or saved 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs, with plenty of punch still to come.

Rove is then asked by Greta Van Susteren if the Bush administration is responsible at all for the shape the economy is in. Rove tries to blame the economy melting down on Fannie and Freddie and on Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--it's all their fault! This is the same crap Rove was peddling in his Wall Street Journal column back in January. Barry Ritholtz does a nice job of debunking Rove's nonsense here--Karl Rove’s Factually Challenged Housing Revisionism.

VAN SUSTEREN: Here's the problem with what you suggest. I mean, that may be the suggestion for the economy, and I don't mean to suggest that decisions are made on politics. But to be sort of practical and realistic, the fact that there will be an election next November, if they cut the corporate tax, as you say, for big corporations, accelerate depreciation for small businesses, the first thing I would do as an opponent is saying, Well, he finally came around to the Republican thinking. And it took him a year or so or a year behind the ball on this in terms of the role of the recession. Plus, we've spent all this money in the stimulus package and we've got ourselves now in a huge spending situation. So you know, that solution may help the economy, but doesn't that make him more vulnerable politically?

ROVE: Well, it does say that he changes course. But I mean, look, it's not working. We were told that if we did nothing, unemployment would go to 8 percent. We did exactly what the president wanted, his $787 billion stimulus bill, and unemployment has gone to 10 percent. We've gone from a situation -- when he came into office, there were 142.1 million Americans working. Today there are 138.5 million Americans working. We did what he said and it has not gotten appreciably better.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1404)

PLAYS: (5955)

Dennis Kucinich takes on man-on-dog Rick Santorum on what America should be doing in Afghanistan. Par for the course Santorum has nothing but tough talk and meaningless slogans to offer. Always lots of money to drop bombs on poor people's heads, but heaven forbid don't ask anyone to pay for it by taxing the wealthy, or take care of anyone here at home instead. I think these "Christians", and I use the term loosely for Santorum, forgot about the part of the Bible that includes Christ.

QUESTION: Will the president be ready to roll out a decision in the week after Thanksgiving, or will it take longer?

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There are a series of decisions that have to be made, and the president is working through many of those decisions in order to come to what he believes is the best way forward for our national security. And I think the American people want the president to take the time to get this decision right, rather than to make a hasty decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Next Tuesday, President Obama is set to address the nation on his proposed policy for the Afghanistan war, a proposal that may come with a $50 billion price tag. Still with us now, former senator and FOX News analyst Rick Santorum and Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Congressman, I'd love to start with you. You have great concern, I understand it, about how this Afghanistan situation could possibly affect our national security.

KUCINICH: Well, it will have an effect on our national security, and I would suggest that the fight isn't in Afghanistan, it's here in our own country. We're mired deeply in debt. We'll go deeper into debt for this war. Our gross domestic product is down. Savings are down. Bankruptcies are up. Home foreclosures are up. We're doing more foreign borrowing. This war is undermining our nation, and we need to address this issue head on and ask what do we gain from this because I don't see any up side at all.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1054)

PLAYS: (1086)

John a.k.a Mr. Nuke Chicago, and Mr. If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference Bolton does a bit of concern trolling for the safety of New York with no acknowledgement of how the Bush administration brought us to this place to begin with. Why Fox News and Van Susteren thinks anyone should care what war mongering embarrassment to the United States Bolton thinks is beyond me. Van Susteren was happy to give Bolton a format to keep that fear ratcheted up over heaven forbid the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed taking place in New York instead of a kangaroo court military tribunal.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, like it or not, they are coming here. Five 9/11 co-conspirators, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, are coming to New York City for a trial in a federal civilian court. Opposition is loud and fierce.

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton joins us live. Good evening, Ambassador. And Ambassador, you're not wild about this idea, are you, sir.

JOHN BOLTON: No, I think it's a major strategic mistake by the administration. I think it reflects a pre- 9/11 mentality that you can treat terrorism like it's a law enforcement matter, rather than what it is, a war on the country. And I think the signal that it sends to the terrorists overseas is very, very dangerous for the country down the road.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (43)

PLAYS: (171)

Sarah Palin walked into some more friendly territory on Fox News and told Greta Van Susteren that President Obama has not acknowledged the sacrifice our troops have made. Palin seems to have a bit of selective amnesia on this topic, doesn’t she? Not that Van Susteren was going to point that out. The entire interview was such a word-salad tsunami of talking points it was hard to listen to.

Palin: The worst thing, you know, I think there's been a lack of acknowledgement by our President in understanding what it is that the American military provides in terms of obviously the safety, the security of our country--the comment made the other night you know about you know the troops make for a good photo op and I'm giving you guys a raise and that's the applause line you need.

Van Susteren: What do you want from him?

Palin: I want him to acknowledge how the sacrifices that these individual men and women our sons our daughters our moms our dads our brothers and sisters are providing this country to keep us safe--this service that they are providing that is to something greater than self; they are making sacrifices they are putting so much on hold right now so that the homeland can be safe and they can fight for democratic ideals around our world. I want to see more acknowledgement and more respect given to that.

Palin went on with more of the "President Obama needs to listen to his Generals" nonsense--as though they make policy rather than follow it. And we need to "win" in Afghanistan which of course Palin has no definition for other than basically "whatever the Generals say".

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (377)

November 09, 2009 News Corp

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2973)

PLAYS: (18723)

SNL spoofs Fox News for their coverage of the Virginia and New Jersey governors’ races and the NY-23 Congressional race. Jason Sudeikis' Glenn Beck impersonation is eerily close to the mark.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (40)

PLAYS: (186)

Gotta' love that GOP/Fox News echo chamber with this latest talking point. Lamar Alexander repeats his 'enemies list' accusation made earlier in the day on the Senate floor.

From Think Progress--GOP Communications Arm In Action: Republican Senator Takes Up Fox News’ ‘Enemies List’ Attack On Obama:

For the past couple of weeks, Fox News’ Sean Hannity has been aggressively pushing the talking point that the Obama White House is compiling an “enemies list.” That wild accusation came in response to Obama communications director Anita Dunn’s suggestion that Fox News operates as a “communications arm” of the GOP.

“I mean, is this an enemies list? Seems like it to me,” Hannity said on his program last Wednesday. “They want to come after the Fox News Channel,” the right-wing pundit complained. Almost every night in recent weeks, Hannity has badgered his guests, demanding that they take up his talking point. Last night, Liz Cheney took the bait:

HANNITY: It seems to me, it’s almost like an enemies list. Is that a fair description?

CHENEY: Well, uhh, yeah.

[...]

Yesterday, Hannity won his biggest convert yet. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) took to the Senate floor and read Sean Hannity’s talking points into the congressional record:

ALEXANDER: I want to make what I hope will be a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House, and it is this: don’t create an enemies list. […]

So in conclusion Mr. President, here’s my point. These are unusually difficult times with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list.

Watch a compilation:

As Think Progress also noted, Karl Rove accused the White House of keeping an enemies list on Fox News Sunday last weekend. And now we have Alexander following suit. For someone complaining that the White House is being unfair in claiming that Fox News is a communications arm of the Republican party, Alexander is certainly doing a good job of proving it as he does it. My only question might be which one is leading and which is following? I would imagine it's Fox following since I'm pretty sure Hannity gets all of his talking points straight from the RNC.

Steve Benen weighed in on this today as well:

While I don't doubt this will make for weeks of breathless speculation on Fox News, and give a wide variety of pundits endless entertainment, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

The most obvious problem here is that Republicans are defining Nixonian tactics down. In effect, Alexander argued this morning that the White House's opponents and detractors will go after the president and his team, but if they respond in any way, they're necessarily acting in ways similar to the disgraced 37th president.

Look at Alexander's list. Is the White House pushing back against the Chamber of Commerce's efforts to derail the administration's agenda? Sure, what's wrong with that? Did the White House impose a "gag order" on Humana? Of course not, that's absurd. Is the White House pointing out that Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party? Yep, as well it should. Has the president criticized financial institutions that brought the global economy to the brink of a depression? Yes, but I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Has the White House criticized an insurance industry that screwed over its customers and continues to fight against sensible reform efforts? You bet, but again, that's a good thing.

Alexander, Gregg, and assorted political reporters make it seem as if the White House should be a non-partisan, non-political, take-punches-but-don't-respond entity. In other words, Obama and his team are expected to just lose every fight, and take every criticism. To do anything else leads to Nixon comparisons.

It's possible the political world has a very short memory, but it's worth remembering, as Eric Boehlert does, that Nixon's White House "declared war on his enemies (including news outlets), and used the full power of the federal government to exact his bouts of revenge."

When Nixon didn't like a news outlet, he directed federal prosecutors to investigate journalists, including going through their taxes. Nixon assembled actual enemies lists, and used the power of his office to target and try to destroy his adversaries.

That any serious person would compare these tactics to routine political efforts at the White House is insane.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1174)

PLAYS: (2941)

We wondered, back when the Tea Party Express was running ads on Fox, why they bothered, since they'd soon be getting all the free advertising they could ask for.

And sure enough, Griff Jenkins has been filing reports from the multiple cross-country stops for the tour since its outset, provided for all the various Fox anchors (Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Neal Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, the Fox and Friends crew) to feature in their regular broadcasts.

Quelle surprise: they haven't had to run any ads on Fox since they started touring.

Most of the time, Jenkins -- who's clearly cheerleading this effort and not trying in the least to act like an actual reporter -- at least has bothered to mostly feature interviews with attending teabaggers, so as to at least create the appearance of some semblage of journalism in these reports.

But last night, on Sean Hannity's show, Jenkins just dropped the pretense, and gathered the teabaggers in New York behind him as props and launched into a rant about how these events were all about average Americans taking back America from an out-of-control federal government. He wasn't reporting; he was essentially being a paid propagandist for the Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which is the sponsor of this event.

And the funny thing is, as we reported earlier, the Our Country Deserves Better PAC has ALWAYS been about opposing whatever policies President Obama pursues. That is, this is a specifically anti-Obama campaign, and the rhetoric about "out of control government" is a fig leaf:

The "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC, in fact, was founded in August 2008 -- before the election -- specifically to oppose Barack Obama and his policies. (They called it "drawing contrasts between Senator Barack Obama and John McCain".) In October 2008, for instance, Williams was out on the stump campaigning against Obama as a "socialist" on a previous bus tour called the "Stop Obama Express". They've also runs ads comparing Obama to Hitler.

Jenkins claimed this was "black and white," but the crowd shots are almost completely of white faces. Moreover, I'll wager that every single one of them is a disappointed Republican -- if not a McCain voter, then a Ron Paul voter.

In fact, a better name for the whole enterprise would be The Sore Loser Express. Because that's who's coming out for these things -- people who think they can get a do-over on the election.

Including the fine folks at Fox, evidently.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (82)

PLAYS: (283)

September 07, 2009 News Corp

COLBY: Health care reform quickly becoming the make-or-break issue for this presidency, and sources are saying the White House is planning to draft its own bill to make sure that reform happens. And just when you thought the debate could not get any more heated -- you've seen those town halls -- enter Reverend Jeremiah Wright!

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what do you think about the health care bill?

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT, PRES. OBAMA'S FORMER PASTOR: I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLBY: So shocking it is, I'm going to play it for you again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what do you think about the health care bill?

WRIGHT: I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLBY: I'm joined again by Marc Lamont Hill and Amanda Carpenter. Marc, let me start with you. The Reverend Wright -- we haven't heard much about him. Now he's speaking out, to all places, TMZ, on health care reform. What's going on?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (271)

Dick Morris once again lives up to his name on Fox News. Somehow in Morris' pea brain, Louise Slaughter not wanting to put up with Birchers and birthers and tea baggers at these town halls where the astroturfers have gotten the wingnuts whipped up in to a frenzy is just like the "old Southern politician" who doesn't want to deal with the African Americans in his district. Yeah... that's just the same Dick. How come I didn't make that connection after hearing what she said? Project much?

He makes sure he gets in some more death panel, the government is going to kill grandma fear mongering before it's over as well. Republicans... now the great defenders of Medicare. That's rich.

MACCALLUM: Well, not every member of Congress thinks that facing down voters at town halls as part of their job creation -- job description, I should say. Democratic congresswoman Louise Slaughter is one of those. Listen to what Louise had to say.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D), NEW YORK: I'm not doing town meetings. I'm -- I'm not going to give those people a forum. I went through it with the Clinton health care bill, with the John Birch Society, where we had to have police around and people were hysterically crying. I'm not -- and frankly, to tell you the truth, Ron, my own dignity and the dignity of the office I hold is important to me. And I know what that is. It's not a spontaneous uprising of my constituents. I've got the best relationship with my constituents anybody could ever even imagine.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: All right, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, I should say. Dick Morris joins me now. He's the author of the book "Catastrophe." Dick, what do you make of that? She's saying, you know, Look, I have a great relationship with my constituents. It's beneath the dignity of the congresswoman, she says, and the dignity of her office to subject herself to the folks like we just saw in Waco, Texas, who have something to say.

DICK MORRIS, DICKMORRIS.COM: She reminds me very much of the old Southern politicians, who were racists, who used to say, Oh, I have a great relationship with people in my district, the black people in my district. And they didn't call them black. And if only the outside agitators would leave them alone, I'd have such great relationship with them.

The point is that -- that the -- Ms. Slaughter's constituents want to speak to her. And how else are they going to do it? This bill is going to go through the House without debate, probably be everybody'll be given two minutes to debate the bill. It'll probably pass in a week's time. The committees didn't hold hearings on it. There have been no public hearings on the issue. And then they're probably going to try to jam it through the Senate not only without debate but without even permitting debate by getting it through on a reconciliation with 50 votes.

So how are people supposed to speak out?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1330)

PLAYS: (4595)

Greta Van Susteren asks Michael Steele the question that should be asked of Republicans every time they claim they really care about "reforming" health care/insurance. Why didn't your reform it when you had control of the House, the Senate and the White House? Of course she forgets that we did get the Republicans idea of health care reform when they were in charge, with the giveaway to the big pharma in the form of Medicare Part D.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, what is this "bill of rights" that you've unleashed? And -- well, let me just start there. What is this "bill of rights"?

STEELE: Well, the "bill of rights" is really kind of a placeholder as we begin the fall discussion on health care. We watched at the beginning of the spring and summer the administration say we were going to have a health care bill by July 31 with no real input or discussion by the American people, let alone the Republican members of Congress. They were going to try to get it done by then. We raised some concerns and we talked a little bit more about it and laid out clearly what we thought we should be doing.

Town halls began to take place as citizens began to get ahold of it. And in the process of this discussion, the one thing that struck me that was being left behind was our seniors. When the administration's kind of slipped out there the idea of cutting $500 billion from the Medicare program with no indication of whether that's going to be cutting waste or if that's going to be cutting the substance of programs or what that was, I thought it would be appropriate to put a placemaker out here to very clearly delineate what we should be doing and how we should be doing it on behalf of the seniors as we begin this debate in the fall.

So I wanted to lay out about six principles that kind of talked about the -- you know, the doctor-patient relationship, the role of government, the decision-making process involving seniors or their caregivers, and I wanted to be as fairly clear as I could about it.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, but this -- so this is not an exact answer to the 1,500-page bill that the Democrats have put forward. This is sort of just your principles of how you and the Republican Party would like to see things proceed, so just broad-based principles, right?

STEELE: It's broad-based principles and -- and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate will come back with the legislative, you know, bills and amendments to the HR 3200 or whichever bill the House and Senate are going to be working on, to put into law those guidelines or those protections, if you will, for our seniors.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are the Republicans sort of sitting back, waiting to see what the Democratic bill is so they can then punch some holes in it or rewrite it, or are they -- or are they writing their own, saying, Look, scrap the Democrats. This is the bill we should have.

STEELE: Well, I think -- well, this is -- that's a very good question, Greta, and I'll tell you why, because between the House and the Senate, there have been over 800 pieces of legislation and amendments to various bills introduced by Democrats in the House and the Senate that have been rejected outright. So they've tried that, writing the bill, if you will, or putting their input into the documents that have been produced, and it has all been rejected.

So I think in this instance, what I thought was, Let's put a placemarker in place, then let's just follow back up. And now that the rhetoric has heated up from the American people, maybe the House leadership will pay attention to what Republicans want to put on the table because, quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of all this conversation about all bipartisanship and bipartisanship that, when, in fact, the House and Senate leadership are not doing anything to bring Republicans to the table in any meaningful way, and the president is giving lip service to this idea, when he's not encouraging, and in fact, demanding that we work together in bipartisan fashion on this problem.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, I understand that a lot of Republicans want reform. In fact, most have said some reform is needed. I understand that they don't like the public option, or the government option. I understand that they say there's no bipartisanship. But can you sort of, you know -- you know, bring me in on the secret why the Republicans didn't do health care reform when they owned the House, the Senate and the White House? Do you have any idea?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1128)

PLAYS: (2075)

Looks like Mr. Man-on-dog Rick Santorum's irony alert button is broken, but that's nothing new. While complaining about the mean old President saying that one network is devoted to doing nothing but attacking his administration, Santorum makes his point for him.

VAN SUSTEREN: Former senator Rick Santorum joins us here in Washington. Senator, I think he watches cable news!

SANTORUM: It's not cable -- he's watching FOX. I mean, he's talking about the cable chatter. He's certainly not talking about MSNBC. I mean, my goodness, they're the biggest cheerleader -- you know, they're just -- they're all over Barack Obama. This -- this is an attack on FOX. this is -- this reminds me of what Hugo Chavez was doing down in Venezuela, trying to shut down the voice of opposition in the media! This is -- this is not good, really, in my opinion, not good at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's -- I mean, it's sort of a -- I mean, we have some people on this network who are, you know, politically conservative. Sean Hannity -- no one's going to dispute that.

SANTORUM: Sure.

VAN SUSTEREN: So he goes after him. But -- but we have a lot of news gatherers, as well, who are just gathering the news.

SANTORUM: And case in point, you. I mean, I don't think anyone's going to come and say, Well, you're just -- you've been brutal on Barack Obama. You've not been brutal on him. You've put the case -- you've made the case for and against him. When you thought he was right, you stood -- you stood out there and said it.

He's -- he's overreacting. This is a very thin-skinned president. This is a guy who's not used to being criticized. And the fact that some here on FOX are taking him on and some, like yourself, are just holding him accountable when he's crossing the line in the wrong direction -- you know, his reaction, I think, is really unprofessional.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1008)

PLAYS: (2810)

You gotta love the mentality of Greta Van Susteren, reducing the whole union-hating, Ayn Rand-loving, universal health care-dismissing ravings of Whole Foods founder John Mackey to a question of whether he's a "bad man." She's using the same language I use with my 6 year old when talking about "stranger danger." Sheesh.

Even as a diehard foodie (My husband and I plan our weekends and vacations around meals and restaurants. Seriously.), I actually don't shop that often at Whole Foods. I find it...well, elitist and overpriced. I much prefer Trader Joe's and our local farmers' markets to Whole Foods, though many of my friends are major patrons. But now that I've read Mackey's diatribe in the WSJ in all its Randian glory, I have to wonder if he considered at all who shops in his stores. GastroNomalies.com's Ali Savino writes on Whole Foods' rotten core:

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote a thunderous comment piece in which he derided the public option, Barack Obama's biggest campaign promise to progressives, and put forward a stridently conservative view of healthcare for America.

Does Mackey know who his customer base is? Did he really not foresee the backlash that has ensued – the howls across the blogosphere and Twitter, the Facebook petition to boycott Whole Foods?

Pundits argue that Mackey hasn't gotten a fair shake. He sells food after all, not health insurance. He's a successful businessman who has wisdom to share. But Whole Foods is more than a supermarket. From the cooking classes and wine tastings to the monthly event calendar on the wall, Whole Foods aims to be a way of life.

The brand Mackey created caters to a specific clientele. Customers are greeted with signage boasting of local farmers and grass-fed cattle. Whole Foods touts announcements of Green Prom projects and 100-best-companies-to-work-for accolades. The reusable shopping bags and shelves filled with yoga mats and all-natural beeswax lip balm aim to capture the same folks clicking "donate" on the MoveOn fundraising appeals.

These are the same people who pay large sums for a pint of organic strawberries, laughing off or even defending the "Whole Paycheque" label. They tell themselves: It's OK to pay double what those strawberries would cost elsewhere, because they're chemical-free, healthier, environmentally and ethically sound. Whole Foods customers want to feel good about their purchases and believe they are being better citizens for shopping there.

Now Mackey, the face of the company, is not only at odds with a central tenet of progressivism, but a supporter of free-market evangelism that has no space for the community-based, egalitarian solutions his customers support.

One of the site team wrote to Whole Foods after the op-ed was published and Whole Foods responded quickly with a somewhat disingenuous response, but also one which disavowed Mackey's stance (The exact phrasing was "Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue"). If you're on Facebook, you can join the "Boycott Whole Foods" group now.