DOWNLOADS: (76)

PLAYS: (534)

Embed

The title is from Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin yesterday, who took freshman Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to task for mocking his fellow Republican senators in public over the weekend. Rubin's, and this morning Joe Scarborough's admonishments notwithstanding, it's hard to see Ted Cruz doing anything other than what he has been doing since he got elected to the senate, which is basically being a royal pain in the ass for everyone else. Certainly calling other Republicans "squishes" won't endear him to anyone.

Here is part of what Rubin wrote:

There is being principled, and then there is being a jerk. Putting down your colleagues to boost your own street cred with the base falls into the latter category.
...
Cruz’s actions suggest an immaturity and lack of sophistication about conservative governance. He might want to apologize to his colleagues for betraying their confidence and sit down and think what it is he wants to do in the Senate. Obstruction is easy; governance is hard. And if the answer is that only hackneyed gestures (e.g. push for repealing Obamacare with a Dem Senate majority, but offer no alternative) that interest him, then the people of Texas are being shortchanged. Worse, he’s doing nothing to suggest he’s a man of stature and future leader in the party.

And here are Cruz's full comments, upped to YouTube by FreedomWorks.

DOWNLOADS: (336)

PLAYS: (3301)

Embed

Following today's niceties by his fellow former presidents and President Obama, who of course felt compelled to try to come up with something polite to say about George W. Bush at the opening of his library, Chris Hayes reminded his audience that, luckily, he and his staff are under "no obligation to be nice for the sake of being nice" to Bush.

Hayes proceeded to lay waste to the Bush apologists who have been doing their best to rewrite his legacy, such as Fox "News", Jennifer Rubin and a host of his former advisers who have been making the rounds on the talk shows these days.

And then there's the bizarre "choose your own adventure" video game being featured at the library and the fact that they're trying to paint Bush as a great president because he had to make "tough decisions," regardless of how horrible those decisions were.

HAYES: This does not sound like the kind of thing that's going to make everyone realize what a great president George W. Bush was. In fact, it sounds to me like the world's easiest video game. Invade a country for no reason, or don't invade a country for no reason? Don't invade a country for no reason.

Celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans or don't celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans? Don't celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans. I could do this all day.

Torture people or don't torture people? Don't torture people. Deregulate and tax cut the country into financial ruin, or don't deregulate and tax cut the country into financial ruin? There is no reason people, to over-think the Bush presidency.

It was just as bad as you thought.

DOWNLOADS: (352)

PLAYS: (1684)

Embed

We've got stories that continue to come out about voter suppression everywhere from Arizona, to Colorado, to Pennsylvania to you name it, and stories like this one just coming out this week -- Florida 'Glitch' Wipes Out 1000 Early Votes In Black Area.

And this recent news from Ohio where their Secretary of State Jon Husted is doing his best to become the next Katherine Harris or Ken Blackwell -- Last-Minute Ohio Directive Could Trash Legal Votes And Swing The Election.

But never mind all that. If people don't like it that the Republicans are doing their best to keep them from voting or their votes from being counted, well that's too bad according to Mitt Romney's number one neocon fan-girl -- Wash. Post's Jennifer Rubin Dismisses Voter Suppression Concerns As "Sour Grapes".

DOWNLOADS: (56)

PLAYS: (223)

Embed

Karoli already broke down this lie that Romney has been telling out on the campaign trail here at C&L. This Wednesday on MSNBC, Willard's number one neocon fan girl was out there doing some history revisionism for Romney as well -- Wash. Post's Jennifer Rubin Pushes Lie That Romney Health Care Plan Covers Pre-Existing Conditions:

Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin falsely claimed that Republican candidate Mitt Romney's health care plan always included a provision insuring that those with pre-existing conditions are not denied insurance coverage. In fact, this is the exact opposite of what the Romney campaign has said.

In a recent study, the Government Accountability Office found that "between 36 and 122 million adults reported medical conditions that could result in a health insurer restricting coverage."

This is why one of the major features of the Affordable Care Act is its requirement that insurance companies not deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The ACA prohibits insurers in the private individual market from denying coverage, charging higher-than-average premiums, or restricting coverage to individuals based on the individual's health status.

During the first presidential debate, Romney claimed that his health care plan includes protections for pre-existing conditions. But as CNN reported following the debate, top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom clarified that this protection only applied to people who already had health insurance, not those seeking health insurance for the first time. [...]

PolitiFact evaluated Romney's claim following the debate that his plan insured coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and found it "mostly false."

But on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown, Rubin stated that Romney's "plan always covered pre-existing issues." Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (327)

PLAYS: (2954)

Embed

Conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, who has a reputation for reflexively defending Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, falsely claimed on Sunday that President Barack Obama had not mentioned the attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans in the same paragraph with the phrase "acts of terror."

During last week's second 2012 presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley’s instant fact check had briefly stunned the GOP hopeful by undermining his claim that President Barack Obama had not initially referred to the recent attacks in Libya as “acts of terror" during his Rose Garden speech.

Speaking to CNN's Howard Kurtz on Sunday, Rubin said that Crowley "blew it" by correcting Romney.

"The substance of the question was not whether or not [Obama] said 'act of terror' or 'acts of terror,' but whether he specifically identified this attack as terrorism," Rubin opined. "He did not."

"In the last two paragraphs, he reviewed all of the acts of terrorism that we've gone through, and at the end he said, 'acts of terror' -- not in the same paragraph with Benghazi, never said Benghazi is a terrorist attack," she insisted. "For her to take sides -- and my interpretation may be wrong, I'll grant you that -- for her to take sides and intervene went well beyond [her duties as moderator]."

In fact, the president did refer to the attacks in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead in the same paragraph with the phrase "acts of terror," according to the official White House transcript:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

"I have no idea what you are talking about," Current TV's David Shuster told Rubin as he read Obama's words. "I'm reading from the transcript!"

"No, it wasn't that," Rubin said, shaking her head. "And by the way, I don't think this hurt Mitt Romney whatsoever. His campaign doesn't think it hurt Mitt Romney whatsoever. They're delighted to have this issue front and center."

"For you of all people to criticize Candy Crowley when she didn't get the precise language when everybody knew what the president was talking about," Shuster shot back. "I mean, it wasn't some sort of mistake like [you] suggesting the Norway attacks were some specific jihadist connection."

"He's the Joe Biden of Reliable Sources!" Rubin exclaimed, referring to a recent debate where Vice President Joe Biden interrupted Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan.

Media Matters' Simon Maloy on Sunday questioned why Rubin was "so blatantly lying and mischaracterizing the president's words" when she had nearly a week to read the official transcript.

"The answer can be gleaned from a comment she made towards the end of the video above about the 'acts of terror' flap: 'I don't think this hurt Mitt Romney whatsoever. His campaign doesn't think it hurt Mitt Romney whatsoever.' That lock-step synchronicity with the Romney campaign crystallizes the broadly held opinion of Rubin's increasingly embarrassing work for the Washington Post," Maloy wrote.

DOWNLOADS: (206)

PLAYS: (754)

Embed

Last week, it was Mike Huckabee comparing the latest trumped up non-scandal to Watergate and suggesting that President Obama should be impeached over the handling of the embassy attack in Libya. Now we've got flamethrower Rep. Marsh Blackburn making the same comparison -- Republican Lawmaker: Obama’s Handling Of Libya Is ‘Worse Than Watergate’:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) joined the chorus of Republicans criticizing President Obama’s response to the violence in Libya on Monday, going so far as to suggest that the administration’s handling of the situation is worse than Watergate — the scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon:

BLACKBURN: I think this is an issue — Benghazi-gate is the right term for this. This is very, very serious, probably more serious than Watergate. And to call this a response to a video when it was obviously a terrorist attack — and when you read some of the documentation on this, and you know that there has been other sites and locations that have bind attack in Libya, when you know that the Libyan government felt there was something getting ready to transpire.

Fox News, Republican lawmakers, and conservative pundits have for weeks criticized U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for initially characterizing the attack as a “spontaneous reaction” to a movie trailer disparaging the Prophet Muhammed. Since then, however, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and even White House Spokesperson Jay Carney have all used the word “terrorist” to describe the attack. Obama himself attributed the violence to terrorism during a September 12 address at the Rose Garden.

Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly has more on how this is part of the Romney campaign's new strategy that they think is going to turn the election around for them -- Benghazi Truthers:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (147)

PLAYS: (1605)

Embed

After dismissing the poll numbers which are not moving in their favor and the uphill battle they're facing with the number of swing states the Romney campaign is going to need to win, Romney surrogate Bay Buchanan made this excuse for Mitt Romney not taking all of his charitable contributions as deductions after having said earlier that paying more taxes than he owed would disqualify him to be president.

BUCHANAN: No, that's simple. He's always paid exactly what's been required by law. Whatever his accountants said needed to be paid, he's written a check, no questions asked. And what happened this year is in January, he estimated, there was an estimate accountants gave him of what he would be paying. And when they finally did the tax return they said, Gov. Romney, I'm sorry but, you're not paying that high. And he said, well I told the people I was going to be paying that much, so that's what I'm going to pay.

And so it was just to make certain that it wasn't a misleading statement that he made in January. You know, this is what's interesting, is last night, Barack Obama said on television, he actually said that the last ten days of the turmoil in the Middle East was a bump in the road. Chris, four Americans were killed. Four Americans in a terrorist attack on our consulate. Flags... American flags are being burned... and, and, and what... this is a bump in the road. It's time to start talking about Barack Obama and how he's completely clueless on foreign policy and the economy.

Yeah, that's going to make people feel better. I had them fudge the numbers because I'm running for office for Pete's sake. I can't have them think I was lying. And then of course let's change the subject to the latest faux outrage of the day based on a lie that appears to have started with neocon Romney fan-girl Jennifer Rubin. They just keep looking more and more desperate, latching onto every single little sound byte they can find and blowing things out of proportion and out of context. They're just flailing around aimlessly, throwing mud against every wall praying something sticks.

And the Romney campaign really needs to get themselves some better spokespeople to come on television. Buchanan was so angry here, she's baring her teeth. I think it's a toss up between Buchanan and Sununu as to who the absolute worst surrogate they keep trotting out there. They're both about as equally angry and unhinged on the air.

DOWNLOADS: (804)

PLAYS: (17610)

Embed

Another winner at Meemsy.

Probably not safe for work -- especially if you work with Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (207)

PLAYS: (2361)

Embed

John Amato:

Heather sums up this segment quite well, but I want to focus on Jennifer Rubin's performance here. She is totally out of control as she freaks out on Matthews and Aravosis. Talk about being "unhinged". Rubin becomes the embodiment of unhinged-ness. My God, she's as unhinged as it gets. But let's not forget that Republicans create their own reality, so I guess in her brave new world she's just being normal. As Digby states:

Perhaps this still explains the Republican strategy better than anything else:

"When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

That's not all that different from this:

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse: "We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."

On a more prosaic level, some of this is a function of the massive amounts of information out there and the nature of the two party system. All it takes is for one side to tell a lie and the other side to call them out, for many people to retreat to their partisan corners. They don't feel capable of sorting out the truth so they rely on their tribal identificati.

Howard Kurtz apparently thinks there wasn't anyone more qualified than Mitt Romney fan-girl and neocon, right-wing blogger Jennifer Rubin to weigh in on Chris Matthews' dust up on Morning Joe last week with RNC chairman, Reince Priebus, because that's one of the guests he brought on Reliable Sources to discuss it this Sunday.

Rubin took the opportunity to call Matthews "unhinged" and attack MSNBC for their liberal convention coverage lineup and to make some snide remarks about liberalism not being in the "mainstream." As Kurtz's other guest, John Aravosis rightfully pointed out, that aggressive interview style we saw from Matthews with Priebus is "what Matthews does," and like some of his counterparts on Fox, such as Hannity and O'Reilly, he very often gets aggressive with guests, interrupts them and talks over them, although I'd never put Matthews in the same category as either of those two. Matthews can be a bully at times, but he's no Hannity or O'Reilly.

If Rubin didn't realize that before last week, I guess she never watches his show, because John is right, Matthews can be and is often very aggressive with his guests. I for one was glad he was with Priebus, but that's because I'm fully aware of how Priebus normally handles interviews, which is he filibusters and makes sure he gets all of his talking points in and then runs out the clock. He's also an unabashed liar and gets away with lying without being called for it on a regular basis.

The only reason she cares one iota about how Matthews acted this time around is it's an excuse to attack all of them for their convention coverage for supposedly being too "liberal." Note to Rubin and Kurtz on that matter: Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and Chris Matthews for that matter, are not liberals. And if Rubin thinks Matthews is "unhinged" it makes me wonder if the woman reads her own column or has watched herself on the television. She didn't mind getting into it with and interrupting Aravosis during this very interview.

Kurtz followed that by allowing Rubin to pretend that Paul Ryan wasn't really lying during his convention speech. Aravosis called her out for it and Kurtz wrapped things up with the typical Villager, we just have two different points of view and I can't dare let the audience know who's lying game. Pitiful.

DOWNLOADS: (131)

PLAYS: (463)

Embed

Former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt made the statement over the weekend that were Newt Gingrich to win the Florida primary after winning South Carolina, we might see a bit of a civil war within the Republican Party ensue. Well, I think we got a taste of some of the opening salvos of that during this interview from Sunday's Reliable Sources on CNN.

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin was not at all happy with CNN debate moderator John King for the question he asked Newt Gingrich to open up their South Carolina debate earlier in the week, but not for the same reason the audience was displeased. It's not often I agree with Rubin on much of anything, but she's right here that King lobbed Gingrich a complete softball in the way he framed the question and should have known better that Gingrich was going to go after him and attack him for it.

Rachel Maddow actually made a very similar point in her coverage shortly after the debate, noting that there were about a dozen different ways that question could have been framed for Gingrich so he would have had to answer for the hypocrisy of one, being from the party that claims to run on family values when you've got a history of cheating on your spouses. And two, the utter hypocrisy of Gingrich cheating on his wife at the same time he was trying to have President Clinton impeached for similar behavior.

Howard Kurtz did point out that Rubin is a supporter of Mitt Romney during the segment. What he failed to note is that she wrote an op-ed the previous day, basically begging a number of people in the Republican Party leadership to come together and "collectively get behind a not-Gingrich candidate." Schmidt talked about the panic that was coming if it looked like Newt Gingrich might actually have a chance to win the Republican nomination. Well, as BooMan put it in his post on Rubin's op-ed -- I Got Your Panic, Right Here.

The other thing missing from this discussion is one of the reasons for the audience at the debate being so completely hostile to John King, or to Juan Williams earlier in the week as well, and that's how many of them are potentially Fox News viewers or listen to right wing radio and have been completely propagandized to believe that you can't trust the "liberal media" and that conservatives are somehow under assault from those evil lefties that are just out to get them? We've got large swaths of this country who have been trained to believe that Fox is the only place they can trust to get their information from and as much as CNN tries to go after those viewers by catering to the AstroTurf "tea party" or with their fake balance and host of "conservative" pundits who come on the air and lie to their viewers as well, they're still going to be part of that "liberal cabal" that they've been taught to hate.

As has already been noted here, Fox viewers are less informed than those who watch no news at all. I imagine a good deal of them were in those audiences cheering for Gingrich's attack on John King and booing Juan Williams for daring to point out that Gingrich has been playing the race card. I don't expect Kurtz and his guests to be pointing that out since CNN is about one notch above Fox in the misinformation game, if not on a par with them.

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »