DOWNLOADS: (83)

PLAYS: (415)

Embed

David Brooks appeared on C-SPAN's In Depth segment as part of their series, Book TV this Sunday and par for the course, the viewers were treated to a big dose of David Brooks doing his best to whitewash and gloss over the extremism we see on the right and playing the “both sides” false equivalencies game by lumping together Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz.

I won't argue with anyone who doesn't care for both Schultz and Olbermann's sometimes bombastic style and the fact that both of them can resort to hyperbole when trying to get a point across or when either of them have their backsides up because they're upset about something.

But neither Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz is a Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter because like their styles or not, they happen to keep the majority of their reporting based on something called facts. Unlike David Brooks who has built his career on trying to pretend that the Republican Party in any way, shape or form has the interest of the working class at heart and that they're doing anything other than looking out for the interests of the elite in the United States and trying to make their ideas palatable to people who should otherwise find them offensive.

Brooks was asked this question by one of their Twitter followers:

Does the inflammatory approach of the entertainment-style pundits like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter hurt the conservative cause?

Here's how he responded.

BROOKS: I guess, you know, Keith Olbermann on the other side and some of the MSNBC folks. You know, I do a show, I do two shows on a regular basis. I do the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and Meet the Press. And there we have very good discussion that I'm proud to be a part of. I feel really good when I leave the sets of those shows. And we get pretty good ratings, in fact, quite good ratings. Better than a lot of those cable shows.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (267)

PLAYS: (1661)

Embed

After being asked if Rupert Murdoch's scandal in the U.K. might affect his operation here in the United States, Tucker Carlson, who is a frequent guest on Fox News, of course carries water for his Uncle Rupert on this morning's edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

CARLSON: Well Fox News is a huge and vital part, as far as I can tell from the publicly available data on this question of News Corporation. Fox is a profit center. Fox is very successful and in my view for good reason. Um... Fox is fine. As far as I know Fox has not been implicated in this and I don't expect it will be.

Maybe someone should ask Carlson if he's read any of these posts by Media Matters.

Three Things You Should Know About NOTW's Hollywood Operation

9-11 Families: Investigate Murdoch In U.S.

Shareholder Lawsuit: Phone-Hacking Scandal Damaged News Corp.'s Image

Tucker went on to claim that a lot of the outrage strikes him as being politically motivated and said that if people are upset with what News of the World did when they were spying on people, they should be equally upset about the government doing it and that they're hypocrites if they're not. I don't remember ever hearing Tucker Carlson complain about the Patriot Act before this. And I would imagine that most of the people who are complaining about what Murdoch did don't like the Patriot Act too terribly much either and have voiced their opposition to it.

Finally Carlson was asked about the claims that Fox is ignoring the story and instead of answering the question, he immediately went on to attack the rest of the media that is covering it as being liberal and just having it out for Rupert Murdoch and Fox.

SCULLY: CNN and MSNBC, two of your former employers...

CARLSON: Yes.

SCULLY: ...have been running stories saying that Fox is ignoring this story.

CARLSON: Of course they are. They're Fox's competitors. Of course. They love it. The New York Times is going wall to wall. I mean this is like a new 9-11 for the New York Times. I was reading the Times a minute ago... I read the New York Times everyday. I think it's a great newspaper. It's a very left wing paper however and they're not good at hiding their agenda sometimes. Sometimes they are. But they've got a lot of good stuff on there in their pages, but they are just going hard on this story and gleefully so.

They don't like Rupert Murdoch. They don't like his politics. They hate Fox. They hate Fox's politics. Their editor, the guy who was the editor up until a couple of weeks ago has said so in public. So yeah, of course they're reveling in it, as is their right by the way. And you know, I understand that. When your enemy is in trouble, pounce.

DOWNLOADS: (333)

PLAYS: (515)

Embed

My favorite member of the Senate, Vermont's Bernie Sanders made an appearance on C-SPAN's Washington Journal and countered some of the talking points we've been hearing out of the likes of Alan Simpson and most of our media for that matter who are out there breathlessly talking about how we need to "reform" Social Security because it's supposedly going broke.

Sen. Sanders recommended an idea to make Social Security solvent for the next seventy five years, which was something our president advocated for when he was still Senator Obama, and that is to leave the payroll tax as it is now for those making under $250,000 a year, but over that amount of income, lift the cap and tax it as the same rate as those making under the current $106,000 cap. I'd be happy to see them do that or just get rid of the cap all together and lower the rate for everyone. Getting our politicians to go along with that is another matter entirely though. They'd rather make all of us work until we're dead or so old no one can enjoy their retirement.

DOWNLOADS: (810)

PLAYS: (1679)

Embed

During a call-in session asking viewers what they think the federal government should cut from the budget, here is what a caller from Texas told C-SPAN Washington Journal host Steve Scully this Sunday. This is what happens to your brain after listening to too much right-wing radio and watching Fox.

SCULLY: Next is John from San Antonio. Good morning.

CALLER JOHN: Good morning. How we doing today?

SCULLY: Fine thank you.

CALLER JOHN: I missed a lot. I don't think half the people calling in understand anything about government and how the rich get rich. The rich don't get rich because of government. They get rich because of themselves and when they put a product on the line that the people buy.

Government on the other hand, does not create wealth. They only create debt. Every time you hire one of these suckers, that's one of me too. Every time you hire one somebody in the private sector's got to pay a debt. Think about what we do for government. They are very, very rich and because of the private sector.

They have a generous retirement pay. They have a generous health care pay and because of the private sector, not because of government. Government is like, like old Egypt, when they had the Pharaohs, and everybody else and the serfs had to go out in the field and give 90% of what they earned to government, just like we do in America here during the slave trade, during slavery time.

Those guys are out in the field giving all of this stuff to the slave owner and that is exactly what we're doing right now. We've got the ruling class, government, taking all of the riches of America unto themselves. And then got you believing the problem we have is the rich man who got up off his rear end and went to work and earned what he got today.

I want to be rich one day and I darn sure don't want government telling me when I can be rich and how long it's going to take me to become rich as a result. Now in these budgets they've got, if they're not cutting the costs, the labor costs of government, moving it down to the private sector area, then they're blowing smoke and lying to us all.

SCULLY: Okay.

There are a lot of arguments you could make about how ridiculous and wrong every single thing this man had to say was, including being completely backwards when it comes to large corporations and people getting rich off of our tax dollars. But that aside, I wish someone would also ask this man to read or listen to this (the video is at the original post).

Thom Hartmann: Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (379)

PLAYS: (1103)

Embed

Newt Gingrich is obviously either confused about whether Keith Olbermann has ever moderated a Republican debate or the former Republican Speaker of the House was just pulling factoids out of his posterior on this Sunday's edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

Gingrich: No debates moderated by Olbermann or Matthews:

Newt Gingrich, a potential 2012 Republican presidential contender, said Sunday that he would not participate in a debate moderated by Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews.

“There's no possibility that I would ever go to a debate and have Olbermann or Chris Matthews asking questions,” Gingrich said on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.

The former House speaker said he thought the two cable channel hosts were biased against Republican candidates while they favored their Democratic counterparts. He called the two “relentlessly hostile” and “so left-wing.”

“I watched the debate a couple of years ago and it was an embarrassment because they were so relentlessly hostile and they were so left-wing that every question they asked of the Republicans was designed to embarrass and divide the Republicans. And every question they asked the Democrats was designed to make them look good. Well, why would we participate in that?” Gingrich said.

Though Olbermann and Matthews did not moderate any of the three 2008 general election debates between President Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), they did moderate some debates during both parties’ presidential nominating contests.

For example, Matthews moderated some Republican-only candidate debates in 2007. Olbermann also moderated a forum for Democratic candidates sponsored by the AFL-CIO that same year.

As Mediaite noted, Keith Olbermann responded via Twitter:

Just read Gingrich ripping me for my questions last time I moderated a GOP debate. But I've NEVER moderated a GOP debate!

While I don't disagree with Gingrich that there could be some major improvements in the terrible debate formats hosted by our media outlets, I don't think Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann hosting them is the problem; the format that Gingrich was complaining about is. A real debate where the candidates get to ask each other questions and have some back and forth without a moderator cutting them off before a topic is covered thoroughly would be preferable in my book.

DOWNLOADS: (381)

PLAYS: (388)

Embed

Anyone want to take a guess how many of these "Tea Party" rallies this woman has been attending? That or how much Fox News she's sitting around watching every day. She's reading straight from the Dick Armey/Glenn Beck I've got mine and the hell with everyone else script.

From the Oct. 10, 2010 edition of The Washington Journal.

SCULLY: Michelle is joining us, last call Flat Rock, NC. Good morning.

CALLER: Good morning. My comment is about people’s attitude of entitlement, not only the Congressmen but the average American. I realize there are a lot of good hard working American people who are out of work with no fault of their own. But I still see a lot of people with this extending unemployment and that where they aren’t really looking for a job.

Now here are possibly the five best sentences you’ll ever read. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them. And when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they worked for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. I do not understand that we’re going to punish the wealthy. I am not wealthy by any means, but I am very middle class. But, what is the incentive of working hard and making more money if you’re just going to have less of it.

SCULLY: Thank you Michelle.

DOWNLOADS: (150)

PLAYS: (318)

Embed

From C-SPAN's Newsmakers, Rep. Joe Barton with more Climate-gate nonsense. Barton thinks it's a "fair question" to ask if climate scientists are "brainwashing themselves" into believing their peer reviewed studies on climate change. Of course he says he's not actually saying they're brainwashed...wink, wink. Just that it's fair to ask if they are.

Leave it to C-SPAN's resident winger Steve Scully to give him a chance to drum up the fear mongering a bit by jumping in there and asking him if they're trying to brainwash all Americans as well.

Gemen: I guess I’m still just a little bit puzzled by how so many scientists across such a spectrum in your view could have all gotten it so catastrophically wrong?

Barton: Well if they all believe in the theory and they’re funded and they’re part of a group that it’s in their academic, professional career to prove that theory right, they can kind of brainwash themselves. Now I’m not saying they’ve done that, but I’m saying that’s a fair question. And the more that comes out the more relevant that question becomes.

Scully: Are they brainwashing Americans?

Barton: I think some of them have tried to. I certainly, I mean when you read—again when you look at some of these emails and they say, you know, so and so is um…apparently gone over to the dark side and we may have to get him removed as, in his current position because he’s not with us any more—I think that’s troublesome. I mean the true scientific method, you put your theory out there and you put your data out there in an open transparent fashion and have people either try to prove it wrong, or have them replicate it and prove it right. That’s not happened in the climate issue.

The IPCC models, there are a number of them, but they’re all developed by the same people and they all have the same basic assumptions. And they’ve all been wrong. They keep predicting temperatures going up and up and somewhat up in an escalating fashion and that simply is not happening. So at some point in time you either have to change your theory and admit it’s wrong or just admit that it’s not a, it’s not a scientific theory. It’s some sort of an ideology.

He wrapped up the clip with this doozy:

Barton: I think I’ve got an open mind. Again, I want an environment that’s as benign and supportive of mankind that it’s possible to be, but I also want a modern lifestyle that—you know have hot water in the morning and air conditioning in the summer in Texas. I can hop in a private vehicle and take my family or my self where I want to in a convenient comfortable way. I don’t want to go back to the 1870’s where my great-grandparents lived on a dry land cotton farm in Texas with no running water and no electricity and their power source was their own muscles or animal power. I don’t want to do that. And an 83% reduction from the 2000 baseline of CO2 emissions in the United States—you couldn’t burn fossil fuels in the United States in the year 2050. Can’t be done.

Yep. We're going back to the days of horses and carriages and no running water if they try to cap CO2 by 83% in 41 years from now. I think the one with an agenda is Rep. Barton trying to keep those campaign donations flowing in.

You can watch the entire segment here.

DOWNLOADS: (144)

PLAYS: (765)

Embed

Think Progress posted part of this interview yesterday, but IMO they cut the clip a little bit short and left off the best part. Here's the post from Think Progress--Grassley: ‘I’ve lived off the public tit’ as a congressman.:

On C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was asked if he thought the health care reform bill before the Senate amounted to socialism. “No,” Grassley said, but he then attacked the public option aspect of the bill, calling it “socialism.” Later in the program, a caller argued that as a public official, Grassley has been, in some ways, living off the government. After Grassley noted that he was a farmer for 50 years, the caller asked if he had ever received government subsidies. “Yes I participate in the farm program,” Grassley replied. The Iowa senator continually interrupted the caller but eventually acknowledged that he has been receiving substantial government assistance.

What followed was fairly comical and the caller left Grassley speechless and looking to be saved by C-SPAN's Steve Scully.

GRASSLEY: For the first 16 years I made $3,000 every other year as a state legislator. Now do you expect me to live on $3,000 every other year? No I was a factory worker for 10 years and I was a farmer for that period of time and I farm with my son now. So if you’re trying to make a case that I’ve lived off the public tit all these years, I think you’re saying correctly in the years I’ve been in the Congress but not the years before I came to Congress.

CALLER: Well my dad earned a lot less than $3,000 during those years, but don’t you know that the Lewin Group is also owned by United Health Care? You keep injecting The Lewin Group.

GRASSLEY: Yeah, I quote The Lewin Group because Democrats quote The Lewin Group and I think it’s, if it’s a bipartisan respect and is quoted by both parties then it’s legitimate for a Republican to quote from them.

CALLER: I’ve never heard a Democrat say The Lewin Group.

GRASSLEY: Well, Sen. Baucus used…er…Sen. Wyden used ‘em to cost out his bill that he put in a year ago. Sen. Wyden’s a Democrat from Oregon.

CALLER: They’re owned by an HMO.

Followed by Grassley with a severely pinched look on his face and looking from side to side for someone to save him, which C-SPAN's little winger Scully was happy to oblige and move the conversation along for him. Good for that caller and shame on Steve Scully for not asking him to respond.

Citing one Democrat who has used The Lewin Group in a cost study hardly excuses the fact that Republicans like Grassley constantly cite research from a company that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for private insurance companies to keep their profits up to make arguments against reforming our health care system.

I for one agree with the caller. I follow a lot of media and I have never once heard a Democrat cite The Lewin Group as a credible source for their arguments on health care reform, including Ron Wyden. I have never heard Wyden quote The Lewin Group in any interview I've seen him do on television. I have heard Republicans like Grassley and his buddy Orrin Hatch among others, quote them on a regular basis.