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

DOWNLOADS: (76)

PLAYS: (552)

Ron Reagan slams Ron Christie for his defense of Dick Cheney's recent attack on President Obama accusing him of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'. Just how much self-loathing does Ron Christie have to a) be a Republican to begin with and b) to carry that much water for Dick Cheney? God what a tool.

Transcript via Lexis Nexis.

MATTHEWS: Ron, you`re an attorney, and I respect your professionalism, but let`s take a look at the Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason against the United States. Here`s how it`s defined. According to the Constitution, the United States shall consist -- it shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The very language of the Constitution which defines treason he has now leveled against the president of the United States. You don`t have a problem with that?

CHRISTIE: I...

MATTHEWS: "Aid and comfort" is a particular constitutional set of words, "aid and comfort to the enemy" in this case. You don`t have any problem with him charging the president with doing that?

CHRISTIE: We are giving...

MATTHEWS: You don`t have any problem with that wording?

CHRISTIE: No, I don`t.

MATTHEWS: ... that wording.

CHRISTIE: We are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And to my friend, Ron Reagan, I would say, no, this has nothing to do with our justice system. It has everything to do with our justice system. The Bush administration didn`t condone terrorism. I don`t understand why you would condone a system where people who are terrorists, who are captured on the battlefield, who were not given Miranda rights, would then be allowed to come into open court, be able to challenge the evidence against them.

It would make a mockery of our system, to say nothing of the fact, Ron, that the president of the United States and the attorney general have said, Oh, they`ll be convicted and executed. As a defense attorney, I can tell you those attorneys are going to say, We can`t get a good jury pool because the president and the attorney general have already condemned the well. It`s ridiculous!

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1514)

PLAYS: (5344)

Frank Gaffney finishes up this shout-fest on Hardball by telling Ron Reagan Jr. that his father would have been ashamed of him. Can't win an argument, resort to personal attacks and name calling. Classy there Gaffney. About as classy as Matthews who can't come up for air for five seconds and quit talking long enough allow the man a chance to respond without being talked over.

And why is neo-con Frank Gaffney who just held an "awards dinner" for the likes of Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby treated like someone credible we should pay any attention to? Or Cheney for that matter? Dick Cheney speaks and these idiots all rush to cover him, like anyone cares what Dick Cheney thinks about anything. Can't he just go back to shooting his friends in the face on hunting trips and leave the rest of us alone?

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

DOWNLOADS: (1366)

PLAYS: (7281)

Ron Reagan Jr. and Joan Walsh on Hardball reminding Chris Matthews that reality seems to have a liberal bias. As they both point out, once again, the Villagers were wrong, and the "loony left," as the media likes to dismiss any of us as, were right.

I disagree with both of them on one point, though. There is nothing "honorable" about what Tom Ridge is doing. He didn't quit and speak up when he was first asked to do this. And now that he's got a book to sell, suddenly he's feeding the public some half truths about what went on to gin up some interest in it.

Glenn Greenwald and Marcy Wheeler have had a bit of an interesting exchange with The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder over his reaction to Ridge's latest revelation that are well worth the read on the topic of how the Villagers treat the left.

Greenwald: Fringe leftist losers: wrong even when they're right:

Just as is still commonly said about opponents of the Iraq War (even though they were right, they were still wrong and unSerious because their motives were bad), Ambinder acknowledges that Bush critics were right that the terror alerts were being manipulated for political ends (he has no choice but to acknowledge that now that Ridge admits it), but still says journalists like himself were right to scorn such critics "because these folks based their assumption on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence." As always: even when the dirty leftist hippies are proven right, they're still Shrill, unSerious Losers who every decent person and "journalist" scorns.

Wheeler: Ambinder: Sorry I Was So Stupid, But I Was Right To Be Stupid:

Mark Ambinder takes the opportunity of Ridge's confirmation that the terror alerts were one big political game to claim he was justified in believing that we DFHers were wrong about the alerts--and in doing so, demonstrates what is so wrong with so much of Village journalism.

Be sure to check out the rest of both posts if you haven't already. Reagan and Walsh should read them as well if they haven't. By showing such deference to Ridge they're simply feeding into the narrative they're attempting to beat back here.

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

DOWNLOADS: (831)

PLAYS: (4535)

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 »

DOWNLOAD (12)

PLAY (64)

D.L. Hughley talks to Ron Reagan Jr. about his and his family's reaction to the lifting of the ban on federal funds for stem cell research. Of course the one person in his family who's not happy about it is his wingnut brother Michael. I know, everyone's shocked right? That guy is right up there with Glenn Beck and Michael Weiner Savage for his hackery and outright hatred from the little I've been able to stomach of him.

Reagan reminds us that there is still more work to be done in the Congress to truly lift the restrictions that have been put in place. He also calls out Bush and Rove for playing politics before caring about people's lives by using this as a religious wedge issue.

Off topic from the post in general but one last note here. MSNBC is looking for someone to follow Rachel Maddow. I think Ron Reagan Jr. would make a good choice. They gave him a show and let Monica Crowley ruin it as his co-host. How about giving him a show of his own without some wingnut for "balance" MSNBC? There are some others I think would be good as well but Reagan is definitely on my list for one I'd stick around for after Maddow's show is over.

Ed Schultz gets the spot and I'll likely be changing the channel. I don't care for him much because the man obviously talks a lot more than he bothers to read. I've listened to him spout off about a number of topics he painfully knows nothing about one time too many on his radio show to want him representing liberals on a cable news network with a show of his own.

Reagan on the other hand I'd love to see get a second chance without his blonde news model wingnut co-host and forced three minute debate boxes where no serious discussion takes place as we had on their day time show.