Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show yesterday, via Media Matters:

You -- In 2008, in our presidential election, we had a, a, a war veteran, Vietnam War veteran, John McCain, against an elitist, five-minute career senator of a hundred and fifty days. That senator was running as a Democrat, and had actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military in Iraq -- had actively sought to undermine General Petraeus, who was the author of the surge that led to a turnaround in Iraq and a victory. And now that same man is dithering in Afghanistan while American soldiers -- not Bush soldiers, not Obama soldiers, American soldiers -- are dying. At record numbers.

The threat that people in this country who want to be free face is now within our own borders. That's the stark reality. We'll be back.

Obama and the liberals are, in the land of the Limbaughst, the True Enemies of America.

If only Limbaugh really were "just an entertainer." Then we could dismiss him as a clown. But "entertainers" don't have audiences of "dittohead" acolytes who absorb their every word as gospel truth. "Entertainers" don't make condemnations of half the country as being the "enemy within" and actually stand -- and actually stand a chance of the other half nodding its head in agreement.

This, of course, is how you whip up violence: You scapegoat, you demonize, you dehumanize, and most of all, you paint a target on people's backs and say they're they Enemy. And you can't help but suspect Limbaugh is perfectly aware of this.

I devote a fair amount of space in The Eliminationists to Limbaugh. For a lot of reasons. Obviously, he's been doing this for awhile. But he's also stepping it up quite bit.

PROMOTIONAL NOTE: I'll be speaking tonight in Mount Vernon, Wash., at the Lincoln Theater at 7 pm. I'll be discussing my book as well as the recent visit to the city by Glenn Beck.

Jon Stewart rips old "Pony Express" John McCain for stepping into the void left by Ted Stevens and his support of the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009".

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

DOWNLOADS: (1893)

PLAYS: (3813)

Rachel Maddow talks to editor and partner of BoingBoing Xeni Jardin about the bill introduced by Sen. John McCain that would block the FCC from keeping the entire Internet accessible to everyone. I completely agree with Rachel here. If I have to choose between the old guy who admitted that he doesn't know the difference between a MAC and a PC and that has also admitted he has to rely on his wife for "all of the assistance he can get" when it comes to using a computer, and who is as Rachel notes "the single largest Congressional recipient of campaign contributions from the telecom industry from Jan. 2007-June of this year", I'm going to "side with the geeks" as well who think this is a really bad idea.

Marcy Wheeler has more on this over at FDL--McCain Rediscovers His Passion for Screwing Us with Bad Telecom Policy and doesn't hold back any punches in her criticism of McCain. Harsh stuff but well deserved IMO.

McCain just joined the ranks of Ted Stevens and those Internet Tubes. Clueless, dangerous and willing to sell himself to the highest bidder on an issue he has absolutely no business being allowed to make policy on.

Gloucestershire Cheese Rolling--May 25, 2009

I think I've mentioned before that I'm married to a Dane, and I am of Irish/English descent on my mum's side. Maybe it's our genetic background, maybe it's our foodie nature, but we're big cheese lovers: from crumbled feta in our salads to creamy brie with a glass of wine after the kids go to bed to seriously stinky Danish Gamle Ole, that has powerful flavor, but can make your mouth smell like week-old gym socks afterwards. But it occurs to me, watching this video, that there is such a thing as loving cheese a little too much. It also seems to me that there is something painfully reminiscent our little Sunday get-togethers. We love that cheese--that little nugget of truth--and we go chasing after it, thinking we're going to catch it. But when it comes to the Sunday shows, it's uncatchable and we stumble and we fall and we get hurt, time and time again. And it really forces one to wonder: is it possible to want it too much?

'Cuz if it's Sunday, it's John McCain time again--this time on Face the Nation, with Russ Feingold. Health care is going to be a big topic of discussion. Of course, we have the most reactionary Republicans to lie a little more to us: Mitch McConnell on This Week, John Kyl on FNS and John Cornyn on Meet the Press. Best of all, FNS has a representative of AHIP on too. Watch that cheese roll even further out of our reach. And Afghanistan is also of note, with Afghan candidate and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah on State of the Union and Hamid Karzai appearing on Fareed Zakaria GPS. So tumbling down the hill we go, hoping beyond hope that we're gonna catch that cheese.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Helene Cooper, Dan Rather, Andrew Sullivan and Kathleen Parker. Topics: Who's the Likely Loser in the Fight Between the White House and the Right? Will Talk Radio Run the GOP's Presidential Nominating Process in 2012? Is the Far Right more likely than the White House to have its hardball tactics backfire? YES: 7 NO: 5; Do the Democratic leaders pushing the public option already know it is dead? YES: 7 No: 5.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Afghan presidential candidate and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah; Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Jim Webb, D-Va.; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - President Karzai gives his first interview since agreeing to allow Afghanistan to hold runoff elections. Many vital questions remain: why should the international community believe a runoff can be any less fraud-filled than the original August election? And if Karzai were to be re-elected, is his legitimacy now tainted? Plus Shashi Tharoor, the man who handles India's foreign affairs.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Afghan opium; Women for sale.

"Fox News Sunday" - Abdullah; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Mike Tuffin, of America's Health Insurance Plans.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

For the low, low price of $12.99, you can own a high quality 4X6 lustre print of Peggy Noonan, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger snubbing John McCain at the Reagan Foundation Dinner held at the US Capitol Building.

It's brought to you by Washington Life Magazine, which has it categorized on its "blog" under, and I am not making this up, "Pol-lywood Events."

Some days, satire just fails me.

Open Thread below....

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

DOWNLOADS: (64)

PLAYS: (400)

October 16, 2009 CBS David Letterman

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

DOWNLOADS: (1367)

PLAYS: (2693)

Bill O'Reilly was helping lead the chorus of whining that erupted on Fox News yesterday in response to Anita Dunn speaking the truth about their right-wing propaganda operation.

He opened with a Talking Points Memo segment attacking Dunn and the White House. He wrapped it up with a series of claims that could only have been uttered by someone who's pathologically delusional:

Finally, Ms. Dunn is seeing the world through the prism of the other media, like NBC News and CNN. By all accounts, those networks favored Barack Obama over John McCain, and NBC actually promoted the president's candidacy and continues to give him excellent coverage.

So by that measure, Fox News is indeed troublesome to the White House. But our hard news coverage is fair and balanced. Again, if somebody doesn't believe that, let's see the evidence because bloviating walks.

Oy. Where to begin. Over the years, there's been a mountain of evidence amassed -- both here at C&L as well as such sites as Media Matters and ThinkProgress -- demonstrating Fox News' extraordinary right-wing bias, and its utter lack of anything approaching fairness or balance. Indeed, Fox's adoption of the phrase "fair and balanced" has transformed it into a popular reference to up-is-down Newspeak.

The fact that O'Reilly blithely dismisses this mountain as the product of a "far left bias" by those groups is itself clear evidence of his own bias: It's clear he a priori dismisses any facts produced by such groups, regardless of their actual validity.

O'Reilly wants evidence of an utter lack of "fairness and balance"? OK, let's try a single sample out of that mountain: Griff Jenkins' reportage from the "Tea Party Express" in which he not only blatantly led the teabaggers in their anti-Obama chants, but where a Fox producer was caught exhorting the crowds to cheer.

Of course, O'Reilly will never accept such evidence simply because it disproves his claim. Yeh, that's the Fox brand of "fair and balanced."

But O'Reilly really severed any tie with reality in the following part of the segment, where he talked over the White House meanies with fellow Foxite Brit Hume. Reaching his apotheosis when the subject of Fox's treatment of George W. Bush came up, O'Reilly claimed:

O'Reilly: And I have to say that when President Bush was in trouble in Iraq, this network and this program, and your program as well, routinely, routinely hammered President Bush. On Iraq.

Hume: Well, we certainly -- we, we were very faithful about covering all the bad news that came out of Iraq for a very long period of time. The criticisms that were made of him were reported and discussed at length on Fox News. Um, now, he had his defenders, the war had its defenders, there was commentary on Fox --

O'Reilly: But there was no cheerleading -- There was no cheerleading of President Bush on this network when his administration ran into trouble. There was no cheerleading, you know -- it was skeptical coverage, Iraq's going south, when the economy started to wobble last September, we were right on that.

OK, done with that long belly laugh? Good. Because we all remember how Fox not only fawned over every move made by the Bush administration, but how it viciously attacked anyone who dared criticize Bush or Dick Cheney or their incompetent gang of cronies.

Recall how it attacked war critics as the situation worsened in Iraq? (It also transformed proponents of the war into "critics" when it became convenient to do so.) How it openly cheerled for Gen. Petraeus?

Remember how O'Reilly routinely attacked anyone who criticized the Bush torture regime?

Then there was the way O'Reilly consistently dismissed the Abu Ghraib scandal as unimportant.

Remember how it routinely attacked Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, and sturdily defended Scooter Libby?

And those are just a few examples of how Fox didn't merely cheerlead for the Bush administration, but also acted as its propaganda arm by viciously attacking its critics. And there's no shortage of evidence of that reality at all.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1335)

PLAYS: (2188)

Is there a more perfect example of why Republicans should never be at the table when discussing our next moves in Afghanistan? Watch how Sen. John "On Any Sunday" McCain glosses over the constant cheerleading he and his GOP cohorts did in Iraq, despite there never being a connection between Saddam and 9/11, despite there never being any real WMDs, despite the fact that we created a vacuum in the country that enabled the burgeoning of al Qaeda in Iraq.

KING: Many see a parallel to Iraq, in the sense that it’s been eight years in Afghanistan, now it’s been billions of dollars, we have shed American blood there and yet, a European commission report out just this past week says for all the efforts to train the Afghan National Army, there’s a 24% rate of attrition. And others have said that not only do they leave, but they take their weapons with them and some of them still get paid. What has gone wrong and what is the United States doing wrong when it comes to the fundamental challenge of getting the Afghans ready to do this themselves?

McCAIN: First of all, rightly or wrongly, we were focused on Iraq. I happened to believe we had to win there. Whether we should have gone in or not, weapons of mass destruction, you’ve covered on other days. But I think the important point here is that again, if the military of a country does not think they’re going to succeed, you have all kinds of problems. Look at the total collapse of the Iraqi Army at one point after we had…we had built them up.

Um, hello? Do you not get that what YOU think is important is highly questionable when you can't get the fundamentals right? Honestly, you think the problem of attrition in the Afghan army has to do with them worried that they won't succeed? Do you even know what success looks like in Afghanistan? Do you have the hubris to assume that it looks the same for the Afghanis?

As Frank Rich says, Two Wrongs Makes Another Fiasco:

Let’s be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 — when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq — bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess — even though the number of Qaeda insurgents there has dwindled to fewer than 100, according to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones.

But why let facts get in the way? Just as these hawks insisted that Iraq was “the central front in the war on terror” when the central front was Afghanistan, so they insist that Afghanistan is the central front now that it has migrated to Pakistan. When the day comes for them to anoint Pakistan as the central front, it will be proof positive that Al Qaeda has consolidated its hold on Somalia and Yemen.

To appreciate this crowd’s spotless record of failure, consider its noisiest standard-bearer, John McCain. He made every wrong judgment call that could be made after 9/11. It’s not just that he echoed the Bush administration’s constant innuendos that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda’s attack on America. Or that he hyped the faulty W.M.D. evidence to the hysterical extreme of fingering Iraq for the anthrax attacks in Washington. Or that he promised we would win the Iraq war “easily.” Or that he predicted that the Sunnis and the Shiites would “probably get along” in post-Saddam Iraq because there was “not a history of clashes” between them.What’s more mortifying still is that McCain was just as wrong about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He routinely minimized or dismissed the growing threats in both countries over the past six years, lest they draw American resources away from his pet crusade in Iraq.

All I can say is if John McCain is pushing for troop surges in Afghanistan, that's all the more reason for me to consider withdrawal.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1562)

PLAYS: (6255)

Rachel Maddow does an excellent job explaining how the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded in the past and why President Obama deserved to receive the award. The most stark example being this portion comparing then candidate Obama’s view of diplomacy compared with that of John McCain.

Maddow: The Nobel Peace Prize not always, but often awards effort. It recognizes people trying in big ways to get the world on a more peaceful path. The deadline for nomination for the prize is February first of the year in which it's awarded.

President Obama's critics say that by February first he should not have been nominated. He'd done nothing by then and by the way he's done nothing since to deserve it.

Obama: We need a fundamental change if we’re going to dig ourselves out of the hole that George Bush has placed us in and that’s going to require the kind of aggressive diplomacy— preparation yes—but aggressive diplomacy, personal diplomacy of the next president to transform how the world sees us. That is ultimately going to make us safer.

Maddow: Before he was nominated for the Nobel, Mr. Obama had persuaded the people of the most powerful nation on earth to choose him and his vision of strength through diplomacy—instead of the vision offered by his rival for the presidency.

McCain: You know that old, uh, that old Beach Boys song, bomb Iran? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb… anyway…

Rachel goes on to contrast President Obama’s words to those of John Bolton, President Bush’s choice to be our representative at the United Nations. Another stark reminder of just what we finally rid ourselves of with the end of the Bush administration.

The entire segment is well worth spending the eleven minutes or so of your time to watch. Rachel wrapped it up with this.

Maddow: President Obama’s critics railed today that winning the Nobel Peace Prize is somehow an insult. That international encouragement and hope for success for an American president is something to be ashamed of. I never thought that I would quote Charles Krauthammer, but Obama derangement syndrome appears to be upon us. The American president just won the Nobel Peace Prize. By any reasonable measure, all Americans should be proud.

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

DOWNLOADS: (489)

PLAYS: (3324)

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

DOWNLOADS: (101)

PLAYS: (475)

Countdown's Worst Persons segment for Oct. 8, 2009 with winner Michele Bachmann. Runners up, critics of Limbaugh for wanting to buy the Rams and John McCain.

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

DOWNLOADS: (50)

PLAYS: (139)

From State of the Union, National Security Advisor Ret. Gen. James Jones responds to McCain's criticism that he is playing politics with the decisions being made on troop levels in Afghanistan.

KING: But you know you have some critics. Having seen general McChrystal made his case publicly, having spoken to General Petraeus, having been to the region, some Republicans including Senator John McCain say that you, sir, and others in the White House are playing politics with this decision. I want you to listen to Senator McCain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: It's well known, it's broadcast all over television, that there are individuals, including the vice president of the United States, now, unfortunately, the national security adviser, the chief political adviser to the president, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, who don't want to alienate the left base of the Democrat Party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Is that a factor in the White House, rising Democratic opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan? Do you, sir, say, "Mr. President, no more troops because of politics," as Senator McCain says?

JONES: Senator McCain knows me very well. I worked for Senator McCain when he was a captain. I've known him for many, many years, and he knows that I don't play politics with national -- I don't play politics, and I certainly don't play it with national security, and neither does anyone else I know. The lives of our young men and women are on the line.

This is -- the strategy does not belong to any political party, and I can assure you that the president of the United States is not playing to any political base. And I take exception to that remark.

The Seminal: Demint's Sedition: Flying off to fight against the U.S.

unbossed: Beef processors' dirty secrets exposed

Steve Benen: Marine General Jones pushes back against McCain

market folly: The next financial mania

The Cunning Realist: Get a life

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Good journalism...Change?...Beck boycott goes international...Peep Creep Arrested...Branch tells the truth...Letterman, Polanski, Palin and Beck...The Sure Thing...Are search engines killing newspapers?...Ratwang-Dango...Journamalism...Conventional wisdom...Iraq Today...How can these two things both be true?...Iran fail...Is Moonie Times a real newspaper?...For-profit newspapers lose money accidentally...George Will still fulla sh*t..

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

DOWNLOADS: (1305)

PLAYS: (8831)

While discussing the success of Sarah Palin's book Mike Murphy echoes David Brooks with his statement that "the noisiest parts of kind of the conservative media machine have far less influence than the mainstream media machine that covers the Republican world thinks they do". Murphy needs to tell that to those sour-grapes Palin voters hitting those tea bag protests across the country. I also wonder if he thinks there's a difference between the "conservative media machine" and Fox News?

Rachel Maddow rightly points out they're not going to be able to dismiss Palin that easily and need to answer for the brand of conservatism that has elevated her to the position she has in the party, 2012 nominee or not.

MURPHY: No, she will sell a lot. I'm, I'm going to buy it. I'm going to wait for it to get spell-checked, but then I'm going to buy it.

GREGORY: Right. And she's number--I should point out, I mean, number one on the best-seller list for Amazon.

MURPHY: Yeah. No, no, look, she has a constituency. She'll never be the nominee, I totally agree with David. I agree with Steve Schmidt, it would be actually a disaster if she was the nominee. I do wish my friend Steve felt that a year ago when a lot of people were asking John McCain to put her on the ticket. But the truth is--and I'm going to agree with David here, too--the noisiest parts of kind of the conservative media machine have far less influence than the mainstream media machine that covers the Republican world thinks they do. These radio guys can't deliver a pizza, let alone a nomination. And you can case study that out in the last election. So I--the question is whether or not our party will learn, when we have a pretty good midterm victory due to Obama's mistakes this time, that turning up the volume is not the reason that we're going to do well, I believe, in the midterms. And the fact is to get all the way, there are a lot of things we have to do to modernize conservatism to be successful.

MADDOW: I, I do think that there's a little bit of reckoning that needs to happen on the right for Sarah Palin's success. I mean, she was the vice presidential nominee, she is going to sell a kazillion books and she is the biggest brand name in Republican politics still right now. And she's chose--the person who's writing her book, her last--the last person who she co-authored a book with was called "Donkey Cons" and it was co-authored with a guy who's widely believed to be and I believe him to be a white supremacist. So she's chosen Lynn Vincent, who's written a book with a white supremacist, to write her book, and she's the biggest name in Republican politics.

MURPHY: Oh, but, Rachel...

MADDOW: And you can dismiss her and say she's not going to be the nominee, but I do think the right needs to sort of answer for what's happened to conservatism.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1004)

PLAYS: (2784)

Fox News' Bret Baier asked Sen. Lindsey Graham to elaborate on his opinion that Glenn Beck is a "cynic" Sunday.

"What I am saying, he doesn't represent the Republican Party," said Graham.

"But at the end of the day, when a person says he represents conservatism and that the country's better off with Barack Obama than John McCain," Graham continued. "That sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I'm going to listen."

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

DOWNLOADS: (83)

PLAYS: (254)

Rachel Maddow talks to the Washington Note's Steve Clemons about Jim DeMint's attempts to travel to Honduras to deliver a political message contrary to the official position of the United States.

MADDOW: So, let‘s say there‘s a military coup somewhere in the world. In some country in the world, the military takes over and ousts the president. And our government, the government of the United States is not cool with it. We don‘t always side against military juntas, even though we like to think of ourselves as a country that does.

But in this case, we‘re really not OK with it. We refuse to recognize the new military government that ousted the president. We revoked the visas of members of this de facto government and its supporters. As one of the 47 nations of the U.N. Human Rights Council, we call for the president that was ousted by the military to be returned to office. Our government makes it really clear that we do not recognize this coup. We do not recognize the legitimacy of this military takeover of another country‘s government.

Now, consider that a United States senator has decided that he‘s on the side of the coup. He‘s on the side of this military that‘s overthrown its own government. And, in fact, as a United States senator, he‘s going to visit that country and his own country be damned. He‘s going to encourage the military government that ousted their government in that other country to resist us. To resist what our government—what his own government—is trying to do there.

What would you call that? Is it maybe a word that starts with T and rhymes with reason? I don‘t want to jump to conclusions here but I‘m just not sure what else to call this. Whatever it should be called, it‘s what Senator Jim DeMint has just tried to do. The South Carolina Republican today bragged—via Twitter of course—that he was headed out to Honduras tomorrow. Members of his staff also talked to “The New York Times” for a story in today‘s paper.

Quoting from “The Times”: “One of the de facto government‘s main supporter in Washington, Senator Jim DeMint has denounced plans to visit the capital of Honduras on Friday. Staff members said he intended to encourage the military leader of the coup and his supporters to resist.”

To resist the policies of the government of the United States of America? That‘s what he‘s advising a foreign country to do?

Continue reading »