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

DOWNLOADS: (1044)

PLAYS: (1617)

Chris Matthews brings on "independent" woman Michelle Bernard, from the very inappropriately named Independent Women's Forum, to discuss the recently discovered thesis by the wingnut Robert McDonnell who is running for Governor of Virginia.

What's the matter Chris? Phyllis Schlafly wasn't available? Here's some background on Ms. Bernard's "Independent" Women's Forum.

The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is an organization that, according to its website, "was established to combat the women-as-victim, pro-Big Government idealogy of radical feminism.

The IWF is funded by Richard Melon Scaife, Koch Industries and other conservative groups.

In October 2003, the IWF announced an affiliation with Citizens for a Sound Economy, now the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, with whom it shares its premisis and staff.

Founded by Rosalie (Ricky) Gaull Silberman, and Barbara Olson in 1992, the IWF grew out of the ad hoc group, Women for Judge Thomas. Its main goal is opposing what it sees as radical feminism.

IWF is a secular counterpart to Religious Right women's groups such as Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America, but these groups often work together. People for the American Way describe IWF as a group that "opposes affirmative action, gender equity programs like Title IX, and the Violence Against Women Act."

IWF members include academic women who attempt to rebut arguments in favor of measures promoting what they may perceive as privileges for women in educational affairs. One of these papers, by Judith Kleinfeld, a professor of psychology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, heavily criticised a MIT study on discrimination against women in MIT's science department, calling their findings "junk science."

IWF's constantly-updated web site shows an ever-expanding sphere of concerns, which are viewed from a conservative perspective.

Continue reading....

Their National Advisory Board according to the article, Lynne Cheney, Abigail Thernstrom and Wendy Lee Gramm. Note to Chris Matthews, just because someone calls themselves "independent" doesn't mean their views are not "far right". Michelle Bernard and her organization are not anything that could be remotely described as centrist.

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

DOWNLOADS: (620)

PLAYS: (1620)

Where to even begin with this segment from MSNBC's Morning Meeting. I've really got to wonder if a single one of these people has ever done a hard day of physical labor in their entire lives to be able to carry on trashing unions the way they did.

First, Dylan Ratigan asks if unions are against health-care reform because everyone having health-care benefits would mean union members' benefits are no longer better than other non-union members' benefits, and of course the only thing unions care about is getting bigger. Ratigan doesn't seem to understand that those benefits are bargained for and part of an overall compensation package, and that if we weren't having to bargain for the health-care benefits, that would likely play out in being able to negotiate for higher take-home pay or some other benefit instead.

He also ignores the fact that this would be good for unionized companies if the burden of paying health-care expenses were taken off of their backs, which would make them more competitive, thus also benefiting the workers at those companies. Bernard follows with this:

Absolutely, the labor unions right now simply exist for one reason. To self perpetuate receiving union dues and having political influence. I think it's absolutely amazing to watch that clip from The Rachel Maddow Show last night. This guy is, he's saying to President Obama, I'm strong-arming you buddy. And my answer to this would be they are showing themselves to be as ridiculous as many members of the American public think they are. What happened to pragmatism? What happened to competition, and what actually happened to winning?

Maybe it would be great for the Democratic Party to lose the support of labor unions because quite honestly a lot of labor unions are what holds America back and keeps us from being as good as we can be.

I'd like to see these clowns try to have this conversation with someone like Leo Gerard at the table. He'd have eaten them for lunch. Heaven forbid someone who represents labor might have a seat at this table.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (130)

PLAY (332)

Leave it to Matt Taibbi to tear into Michelle Bachmann in a way only he can. Matthews had to know what type of response he was going to get here and Taibbi didn't disappoint. His reply when asked about some of Michelle Bachmann's latest hackery.

Taibbi: You know it's funny this morning outside of Penn Station I saw a guy huffing glue out of a paper bag, and he was making more sense than Michelle Bachmann was making. I can't believe it. You need to pass a written test to drive a car in this country but I bet this woman can't even write her name in the ground with a stick. I mean it's just unbelievable to me that this person is in the Congress.

Political Base asks the obvious "elephant in the room" question: At what point should we start calling Bachmann "treasonous"?

DOWNLOAD (230)

PLAY (101)

Where did Michelle Bernard come from, and why on earth would anyone ask her opinion on the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which President Obama signed into law last week?

The first question is easier to answer. Bernard is President of the deceptively-named Independent Women's Forum, a thinktank that is neither "Independent" (Prominent members include Kate O'Beirne, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Lynne Cheney and the Podhoretz boys' wife and mother, Midge Decter. Funding comes from organizations like the Castle Rock Foundation and the Scaife Foundation. Sound independent to you?) nor particularly interested in furthering the welfare of women. In fact, some of their declared stances are against gender equality, like Title IX and the Violence Against Women Act. A curious case of self-loathing that must be given an inordinate amount of airtime, don't you think?

And who better to ask to speak on monopolize a segment on a bill that simply gives women the right to sue if they discover--years after they've been hired--that they have been working for less money for the same job than their male counterparts, as Lilly Ledbetter discovered. Naturally, Bernard and the IWF do not support the Ledbetter Act. How dare women think they should be entitled to equality, those silly little things?

What happened is…the case was overturned at the Supreme Court on a technicality. Instead of being forced to bring a lawsuit that alleges discrimination within a 100 days…180 days, women now have a longer period of time to do that. The problem with the legislation that was signed yesterday is we don’t know what the unintended consequences are going to be. Number one, it tells women that you’re a victim. Number two, we don’t know what the burdens are going to be that are going to be put on employers. Will employers all of the sudden say if I…maybe I should hire less women…fewer women in the workplace because they might sue me 20, 30, 40 years from now. Insurance is going to go up. What is the negative impact that this could possibly have on women, and for that reason, the Independent Women’s Forum and the Independent Women’s Voice does not think that this is a great day in America for women.

Holy cow, my blood pressure is rising just re-typing that drivel. First, it teaches women to be victims? Once again the wrong-headedness of conservative logic rears its ugly head. This law now acknowledges women who have already been victimized by sexist employers and cheated out of fair wages. Those unexpected consequences, Michelle, will be employers--those ones afraid of lawsuits 20, 30, 40 years from now (which you realize means they have been cheating their female employees out of fair wages for that time)--actually abiding by the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Chris Matthews, bless his clueless little heart, confuses issues by getting into an area that Bernard feels more comfortable--the issue of fair pay. As far as Bernard is concerned, anyone who goes into female-dominated professions like teaching or nursing should just suck it up, because that revered "free market" has spoken and their jobs just don't merit higher wages. I'm completely serious and she's seriously deranged.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (25)

PLAY (76)

From Hardball Dec. 3, 2008. Chris talks to Joan Walsh and Michelle Bernard about George Bush's interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC.

Matthews: Joan I'm not sure what the message there is. Is the President saying in retrospect that he would not have invaded and occupied Iraq as a matter of geopolitical policy had there been no weapons of mass destruction? Is he saying that that was the single definitive reason why we went into that country and occupied it? Is that what he's saying?

Walsh: Yes. It seems like it. Charlie Gibson did follow up with that question Chris and he wouldn't quite answer it. But I just have to say that is the most astonishing, buck passing, self pitying answer I could have imagined. He acts as though the Intelligence agencies where some wholly owned subsidiary of some other administration, rather than his, his responsibility. He acts like people outside the administration agreed when he was responsible for pushing that faulty intelligence, for stove piping it and ignoring everything. That any kind of doubt, any kind of dissent and really cooking the books in terms of the case for WMDs. I mean it's really scandalous how he's distancing himself.

Somebody had to say it. Of course Matthews and Bernard are a day late and a dollar short with their commentary that follows. Matthews does some truth telling now when he was a cheer leader for the invasion along with the rest of them before we went in there. Bernard thinks that somehow Bush was trying to apologize to Powell during the interview. Yeah, sure he was.