You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (548)
PLAYS: (1405)
The right's latest fake controversy is what happens whenever any Democrat happens to bring up historical truths about conservatism -- like the fact that it has been on the wrong side of right and wrong for much of the nation's history. They scream and shout about how mean liberals are and then cover over these truths with a pile of afactual excrement.
Here's what upset them so. Harry Reid accurately laid out the sorry history of conservatives in America whenever important and momentous advances in civil rights and the betterment of life for all Americans happen to arise: They stick up for the forces of oppression, hatred, and economic deprivation.
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this slow down, stop everything, let's start over."
"You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn't quite right.
When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
The only thing right-wingers heard was that "Reid compared opponents of health-care reform to opponents of slavery."
Well, not exactly: He was pointing out that there was continuum to all of these, a common thread. That is, the opponents of health care, just like opponents of civil rights for minorities, and opponents of the vote for women, and opponents of ending slavery all had one big thing in common: They were all conservative.
Rather laughably, Sean Hannity and Karl Rove try to cover this over -- as does Michelle Malkin -- by pointing out the wonderful things Republicans have done over the decades, such as Lincoln freeing the slaves. Of course, what they don't mention is that these things were achieved by people who would today be considered liberal Republicans. Malkin also wants you to remember those Democrats who fought against civil rights: Of course, she conveniently omits the history of the Southern Strategy and the way old-line bigots like Strom Thurmond joined the GOP en masse in the 1960s and '70s, thereby transforming the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Neo-Confederates.
(Oh, and a reminder to Karl Rove, who claims that "Joe Wilson got in trouble for speaking the truth": He should ask Wilson sometime his views on Lincoln.)
And what they especially avoid confronting is that Reid is right in that opponents of ending slavery were CONSERVATIVE, and opponents of health-care reform are CONSERVATIVE. The contexts change with the shifting challenges of our respective eons, but we can always count on one thing:
When conservatives stand up to fight against common-sense advances that improve the lives of Americans, we can feel a sense of surety that history will prove them wrong. It always has in the past.
By the way, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was whining on Fox's Your World (with Eric Bolling filling in for Neil Cavuto) that Reid's remarks were "over the top" and asking him to apologize:
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (36)
PLAYS: (102)
December 07, 2009 FOX News
This morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to make a plea for passing health care reform, comparing it to the fight for civil rights, women's suffrage and an end to slavery. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took offense on FOX News. "That's not only offensive! That's language that should never be used!"
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and a Democratic colleague filed a highly anticipated health-reform amendment on Monday that would bar any federally subsidized insurance plan from covering elective abortions.
The issue of abortion coverage within health insurance exchanges has turned into one of the largest roadblocks for reform, inflaming an already intense partisan debate.
The Senate is expected to vote on the measure Tuesday and even Hatch expects it to fail. But the amendment, which is also sponsored by Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, isn't expected to be the final word on the topic.
The Democrats need Nelson's support to pass the overall health reform bill and he has threatened to buck his party if they don't include tougher abortion restrictions.
The Nelson-Hatch amendment would bring the Senate bill in line with the House health reform proposal, which would not allow any government-run plan to offer elective abortion coverage. The amendment would also bar anyone getting a federal subsidy from selecting a plan sold in the exchange that would pay for abortion services.
Those who use their own funds could buy such a plan, or what is known as an insurance rider specifically for abortion coverage. This amendment would not impact people who get their insurance through their employer.
Hatch has pushed for the tougher abortion language in the committee debates earlier this year to no avail. The amendment would need the support of 60 votes and it is unlikely that 20 Democrats would join the 40 Republicans to pass such a proposal.
Democrats argue that their bill already bars federal money to pay for abortions because it requires insurers to separate federal subsidies from the premiums paid by customers. Under their bill, only premiums could be used to cover elective abortions.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (2576)
PLAYS: (6086)
Rachel Maddow wins my semi-famous "Don't Sugarcoat It" award for her talented muckraking in this segment. It's becoming abundantly clear to everyone in the left-wing activist community that without loophole-free campaign finance reform we are unlikely to change anything in Washington lobby/legislator love-fest. With an assist from blogger David Sirota, Maddow exposes the business lobby that would attempt to hide their desire to continue to import products made from child, slave, and prison labor. Given the American public's unending appetite for cheap plastic junk, it's easy to see why those profiting from that hunger would want their gravy train to continue. Sadly, Maddow must remind us, all of us, that, um, slavery is wrong, even when it occurs across the oceans.
Stupak probably doesn't have the votes will be joined by the Republicans and will probably get his amendment passed. Again, I ask: Why does someone's personal religious beliefs get to infringe on mine or anyone else's rights? Abortion is legal, in case anyone forgot.
WASHINGTON — The House opened debate on its health-care bill Saturday after Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote on an amendment from antiabortion Democrats.
The agreement early Saturday could break a stalemate over abortion that was threatening the bill's prospects.
If the House approves the bill, it would be the first time a chamber of Congress has passed legislation aimed at guaranteeing near-universal access to health care.
A final vote on the health measure could come late Saturday or early Sunday morning. House Democratic leaders were still scrambling to come up with the 218 votes needed to pass the bill, and aides predicted the vote would be a cliffhanger.
[...] Abortion has divided Democrats, with antiabortion lawmakers saying they couldn't allow any federal funding of abortion under the new health-insurance exchanges the bill would establish.
Rep. Bart Stupak, an antiabortion Democrat from Michigan, explained his amendment before the House Rules Committee just after midnight Saturday. He said it provides that federal subsidies cannot be used to purchase a health plan including coverage for abortions other than in cases of rape or incest.
The amendment from Mr. Stupak and Rep. Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.) is set to come before the full House for a vote later Saturday.
The concession to allow a vote is significant because House Democrats aren't allowing votes on any other substantive amendments, save one Republican amendment that is an alternative to the Democrats' plan.
Nearly 90% of private health insurance policies now offer abortion coverage, and almost half of women with private insurance have it. But women covered under the new system would have to find supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for an unanticipated procedure that can cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity. For anyone unable to afford it, this would amount to a de facto ban.
But here's the catch: The bill makes it so financially unattractive for insurance companies to offer abortion coverage - even if you pay for the insurance yourself - that they're likely to stop offering it except to the largest groups. Got it? This is not a minor amendment.
And unless it's rejected by the Senate or in conference, women have once again been stripped of the ability to get abortions.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1046)
PLAYS: (3906)
Does anyone think that Howard Kurtz isn't fully aware of the documentation that Media Matters has done of the daily bigotry and racism that comes out of Limbaugh's mouth? Kurtz plays devil's advocate to ESPN's Mike Wilbon as to whether it was fair or not for the NFL to decide they didn't want Limbaugh owning a team and for black people to feel that he is racist.
Kurtz points to a single quote which Limbaugh claims he never said, and uses that as a reason to either ignore or pretend he doesn't know about all of the other racist things Rush has said on his radio show.
While I would not expect Mike Wilbon to be aware of the work Media Matters has done with documenting Rush Limbaugh's quotes, I don't know how Howard Kurtz can call himself a "media critic" and not be. Maybe he chooses to ignore them since he's been in their line of fire as well. Who knows.
I don't want Rush Limbaugh or anyone else having things they didn't say attributed to them. But Kurtz buying into Limbaugh's claim that he's some kind of victim and not actually a racist because one lousy quote out of hundreds might have been wrong looks like lazy journalism to me. One click here- Limbaugh Wire- and taking the time to read some of the work that's gone into that site and Kurtz wouldn't have to be asking his black guests what black people might have heard from Limbaugh on the radio that offended them. He'd already know.
KURTZ: Mike Wilbon, welcome.
WILBON: Thank you, Howie.
KURTZ: Let me play for you something you said on "Pardon the Interruption" soon after the news broke that Rush Limbaugh was part of a team trying to buy the St. Louis Rams.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
WILBON: I don't know whether Rush Limbaugh is a straight up bigot or he simply plays one on TV and radio, but he is universally reviled by black people in this country.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
KURTZ: So, maybe a straight up bigot, universally reviled by black people. In retrospect, do you think you went a little too far?
WILBON: Universally reviled by African-Americans. That's no surprise. Anybody who wants to walk down any boulevard in predominantly African-American communities will find that out very, very quickly, Howie. No, that assessment is a very easy one to make.
KURTZ: But when you say he may be a straight up bigot, you're saying he doesn't like black folks.
WILBON: He may be. I mean, if you listen to what he says on his show -- and I stopped a long time ago, and I can't tell you specifics of what he said. Meeting him in person is one thing. I have. Communicating with him one-on-one is one thing.
His radio persona, which is all that most people have of Rush Limbaugh, particularly black people in this country, that's a different perception. And I would not back away from that comment at all.
KURTZ: All right. Let's talk a little bit about this alleged "slavery" comment.
Now, this was purported to have been said some years ago by Limbaugh: "Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back, I'm just saying it had its merits."
Let me briefly run through the chronology here. This was published in a book about three years ago. It made it on to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, and then it was picked up once the Rams story broke by Bryan Burrwell and "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch," Drew Sharp in "USA Today," CNN's Rick Sanchez, and then you mentioned it on your ESPN program.
In a fiery speech that had her conservative Colorado audience cheering, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann railed against the dangers of health care reform and other Democratic initiatives, warning the proposals “have the strength to destroy this country forever.”
“This cannot pass,” the Minnesota Republican told a crowd at a Denver gathering sponsored by the Independence Institute. “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”
“Something is way crazy out there,” Bachmann said in her remarks, billed as a “personal legislative briefing” by the Golden-based Independence Institute, which bills itself as a “free market think tank.”
“This is slavery,” Bachmann said after claiming many Americans pay half their income to taxes. “It’s nothing more than slavery.”
In a speech filled with urgent and violent rhetoric, Bachmann — who proudly acknowledges she is the country’s “second-most hated Republican woman,” behind only former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin – drew a clear line on health care reform.
Matthews: You're from what state? Tennessee. You're from a Southern state that was part of fighting the Civil War from the other side. What about people from Pennsylvania whose ancestors went down and fought, and fought the Civil War and got killed? We lost 600,000 men in that fight in the Civil War who died at point blank range. These guys were killed fighting the evils of slavery, and now you want them to apologize. It makes no sense to me.
Why should the whole country apologize for what a good half or more of the country got killed opposing, sir.?
Cohen: Well, first of all....
Matthews: I mean you're from Tennessee. Maybe you should apoligize first before you ask the rest of the country to. Why should Pennsylvania apologize for something it fought and died... you're laughing! It's not funny! Why should anybody apologize for your sins!
Cohen proceeds to attempt to give Chris Matthews a little history lesson and explain to him that the sins of slavery in the United States were not limited only to the south.
You know, I was thinking about this. You know, if you were a slave in the old South, what did you get as a slave? You got free room and board, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children because that was just, you know, tomorrow's slave. So, you got a free house, you got free money, and you got rewarded for having children. Can I ask a question? How's that different from welfare? You get a free house, you get free food, and you get rewarded for having children. Oh, wait a minute, hold on a second. There is a difference: The slave had to work for it.
Students at one of the area's largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures."
Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using "Southern Slavery, As It Was," a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people think.
Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.
"You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective," he said. 'SOUTHERN SLAVERY, AS IT WAS'
Here are some excerpts from the booklet:
* "To say the least, it is strange that the thing the Bible condemns (slave-trading) brings very little opprobrium upon the North, yet that which the Bible allows (slave-ownership) has brought down all manner of condemnation upon the South." (page 22)
* "As we have already mentioned, the 'peculiar institution' of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories." (page 22)
* "Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence." (page 24)
* "There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world." (page 24)
* "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)
* "But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." (page 27)
* "Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South -- and had a much easier existence." (page 30)
The booklet's other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group.
"Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have essentially constructed the ruling theology of the neo-Confederate movement," said Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report.
