DOWNLOADS: (83)

PLAYS: (552)

Embed

While discussing the news of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's recent weight loss surgery and whether it's an indication that he's going to run for president in 2016, Hardball's Chris Matthews once again let his mouth overrun his brain and called Krispy Kreme doughnuts "Christie Kremes."

Oops.

DOWNLOADS: (144)

PLAYS: (631)

Embed

Here's your quote of the day from Chris Matthews after Bob Shrum told him that the only reason Republicans got control of the House is because of gerrymandering:

MATTHEWS: I think the problem is the way the votes get counted. Democrats are just doing too damn well in the big cities. They're wasting votes. [...] They need a lot more than 51 percent of the population for them to carry it because they wasted the votes in the big cities.

Here's the problem with that. Even Republicans were bragging that gerrymandering is why they won the House. It was a strategy and they're proud of it.

And what's that word for when you lump as many of the other party's voters into the same district so that their votes won't count? I know it will come to me sooner or later.

DOWNLOADS: (123)

PLAYS: (630)

Embed

After watching this segment on Hardball with Chris Matthews and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele (now one of MSNBC's regular contributors -- because heaven knows, Joe Scarborough isn't doing a good enough job polluting their the airways), all I can say is, shame on Steele for lying to their viewers about whether someone who was born in 1958 should still expect the government to be sending out their Social Security check -- and shame on Matthews for not calling him out on it.

Yes, there are some long term issues with the solvency of Social Security, but they could be solved pretty easily with measures liberals support, like raising the cap on the taxable income. Regardless of what anyone believes about how that issue should be resolved, it's just blatant fearmongering for someone who is Steele's age to pretend the program won't be there for him.

I still remember the days when Rachel Maddow was begging for an interview with this guy. That was back when he was head of the RNC and still had to be held accountable for the Republicans and their actions and policy positions. Now that he's one of their paid pundits, it seems he's free to spew as much unchallenged crap as he likes on the shows where he appears (and viewers are unfortunate enough to find him as a guest).

I'm not sure just which right wing political hack has taken "Uncle Pat" Buchanan's space (and the cot he was probably sleeping in so he could be ready for an interview at a moment's notice), but Steele certainly looks like he's in the running.

Transcript via MSNBC below the fold:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (288)

PLAYS: (2816)

Embed

Tea party-backed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) says that former Republican President Ronald Reagan is responsible for the country's economic success under former Democratic President Bill Clinton and the American people "don't really understand" economic growth.

Johnson told CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Tuesday that it would not be necessary to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent of earners because the country could collect "$750 billion of added revenue through economic growth" without changing tax rates or closing loopholes if the economy continues to recover.

O'Brien noted that the Republican Party was in the tenuous position of opposing the will of the majority of Americans who would like to see tax rates go up on the wealthiest.

"I would imagine that 98 percent of the American population would be in favor of that because we haven't made the case for economic growth," Johnson explained. "The American people really doesn't understand that economic growth is ten times more effective."

Democratic analyst Bob Shrum pointed out that Johnson's assertion that higher tax rates on top earners hurt economic growth was faulty because "under Bill Clinton, we had taxes at 39.6 percent and we created 22 million new jobs. We cut [tax rates] under George Bush and we had almost no net job creation."

"Why do you guys keep making the argument that low taxes for the richest people in the country are the key to job creation when history refutes that?" Shrum wondered.

"We could go do a history lesson, but I would argue that Clinton's economic recovery really dates back to Ronald Reagan," Johnson declared. "He cut rates 28 percent. Listen, I started my business in the '80s, so did Apple, so did Microsoft. Those businesses came to fruition in the '90s. And President Clinton, together with the peace dividend -- also produced by Ronald Reagan -- that's what created that economic engine."

In fact, Apple, Microsoft and Johnson's company, Pacur LLC, were all founded in the 1970s during the administrations of former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

The Wisconsin Republican continued by insisting that he would have to see cuts to Obama's health care reform law, Medicare and Social Security before he would even consider raising tax rates on the rich.

"The other problem that is holding our economy back is the explosion of regulations," he added. "And I don't see that we're going to reform these agencies -- the way that you reform them is there you actually cut their budgets because that will force them to focus on the most important parts of the economy to have effective regulations. So, I'd go after the agencies, I would put structural reform to save -- and that's the important point -- to save Social Security and Medicare. And we've got to address this health care law because it is a disaster."

"This is Fantasy Land," Shrum shot back. "It's like saying Ronald Reagan invented the Apple iPad. It's crazy. Obamacare is not going to be on the table."

"Here's the bottom line: President Obama, show us your plan," Johnson concluded.

"He gave you a plan," Shrum quipped. "And his plan is not to repeal Obamacare. Not going to happen. You lost the election, buddy."

DOWNLOADS: (281)

PLAYS: (388)

Embed

Pat Buchanan proves once again there's nothing Sarah Palin could say or do that he won't staunchly defend her for. Someone needs to break it to Pat that Palin still isn't going to sleep with him after this.

Pat Buchanan: Sarah Palin's Use Of Blood Libel Was 'Excellent':

Pat Buchanan said Wednesday that Sarah Palin has been a victim of the media in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), and she was right to use the phrase "blood libel" in defending herself from charges that her language had anything to do with the mass shooting.

"Frankly I thought it was an excellent statement with regard to the phrase 'blood libel'," Buchanan said. "That of course refers to the libel that was used in the Middle Ages, charges against Jews that were utterly unsupportable slanders and I think she's using it in that context."

MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell (as you'll see in the video below) didn't seem quite sure where to go after that.

Buchanan offered a full-throated defense of Palin, who he said "is not a dispenser of hate, she's a victim of hate."

"I think to say what she did -- calling it what it is as reprehensible and insupportable slander -- and the other part of her statement I thought was exactly right," Buchanan said. "She waited for four days while this was going on before responding was correct and I thought it was an excellent statement."

DOWNLOADS: (362)

PLAYS: (2221)

Embed

Cenk Uygur filling in for Ed Schultz asks the question I'm sure so many of us have as well on President Obama's deficit commission.

Why did we elect a Democrat if we`re going to get a conservative deficit commission that`s going to cut our Social Security?

As Bob Shrum rightly responds, if the Democrats join with Republicans to destroy Social Security, it's going to spell big trouble for the party, and rightfully so. Alan Simpson and the whole commission need to go.

UYGUR: The White House is circling the wagons around former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, the co-chairman of the president`s deficit commission after he went berserk about Social Security.

Simpson likes to talk about the budget in terms of farm animals. In an e-mail to an older voter advocate he wrote that Social Security was like a cow with 310 million -- I think you get the picture.

The White House has responded, quote, "Alan Simpson has apologized and while we regret and do not condone his comments, we accept his apology and he will continue to serve." Catering to loathsome Republicans, the Obama White House at its best.

For Simpson, this week it was a cow. Last month it was a pig. Speaking to a gathering of the nation`s governors in July, Simpson compared the Recovery Act to a pig saying "the pig is dead. There`s no more bacon to bring home."

Get a load of this guy. He thinks you`re milking the system as if it`s his money. You paid into social security. It`s your money. You`re not milking a damn thing and when we try to stimulate our economy or keep teachers on the job, he says the pig is dead. Who killed the pig?

Simpson and his friends in Congress who spent all of your money including the Social Security surplus on tax cuts for the rich and endless wars. Old Simpson had a farm on it he had a bunch of rich Republicans who milked the system dry then told us they killed our pig.

Joining me now is Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. He`s a professor at New York University. Bob, look, this whole talk about how Social Security is going bankrupt, you don`t understand, you guys are milking it dry, doesn`t it have a $2.5 trillion surplus? Isn`t all this one big fat lie?

BOB SHRUM: Yes, it is actually. The truth of the matter is that before Simpson loves to say Social Security goes bust in 2037. That`s not true.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (718)

PLAYS: (1430)

Embed

Peggy Noonan, as Bob Shrum rightfully points out, attempts a bit of history revisionism with her defense of the poor downtrodden Robert Bork and the reasons he was not confirmed for a position on the Supreme Court.

NOONAN: Mm-hmm. Look, I think that since the Bork hearings it has been very hard for young lawyers who want to go forward in the judiciary to realize anything but this. If you are colorful, if you are interesting, if you are forthcoming and share your thoughts and philosophy and views on the way up, when you get to your confirmation hearing for the court, they will put a noose around your head, hanging you with every interesting thing you've ever said. I, I happen to think the Senate Judiciary Committee has not done a good job of vetting and bringing out the thoughts of, of Supreme Court nominees for a long time. I think they should change. Let those nominees be forthcoming, let them speak. And I think this whole sense we've got that you can't say anything interesting on the way up ought to just go away. Oliver Wendell Holmes today would not be allowed on the U.S. Supreme Court because he said such fabulous, interesting things.

SHRUM: He wouldn't have, he wouldn't have to have a confirmation hearing, Peggy, because they didn't have them in those days.

NOONAN: Well, fair enough. Fair enough. But we do have them now, and they ought to summon thought, and they ought to respect individuality and taking a different view, and creativity, frankly.

SHRUM: Well, look, here's what should...

NOONAN: Those things shouldn't kill you.

Yeah...colorful and interesting. That's not exactly how I'd describe him. Here's an op-ed from People For the American Way back in 1987 explaining the reasons for their opposition to his appointment and defending this ad narrated by Gregory Peck.

BORK HEARINGS SHOWED HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS; A Very Small Poll Tax:

To the Editor:

You say (''Who Torpedoed Judge Bork?'' editorial, Oct. 13) that the critical factor in the opposition to confirmation of Robert H. Bork as an associate justice of the Supreme Court was the merits as ''ventilated in fair, exhaustive, sometimes brilliant hearings.'' We agree and are proud of the role People for the American Way played, with others, in contributing information and ideas to the debate.

But you also say there were ''exaggerations'' in an ad narrated by Gregory Peck and produced by our group to educate the public about Judge Bork's record. We disagree.

At Robert Bork's confirmation hearing to be Solicitor General, he defended the poll tax struck down in Harper v. Virginia, saying, ''It was a very small tax, it was not discriminatory, and I doubt that it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other.'' In his 1987 confirmation hearing, he held firm to this view, stating, ''It was just a $1.50 poll tax'' (committee print draft, page 129).

Judge Bork's statements on literacy tests are also a defense of their use -he characterized the decisions upholding Congressional authority to ban literacy tests as ''very bad, indeed pernicious, constitutional law.'' Under his theory, the courts and Congress would be prevented from taking any action, and the only remedy would be through constitutional amendment. While Judge Bork recognizes that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, one form of a right of privacy, at his confirmation hearing he reiterated his long-held view opposing an unenumerated right, ''I do not have available a constitutional theory which would support a general defined right'' of privacy (print draft, page 266).

Judge Bork was not running for the legislature; he sought a lifetime seat on our nation's court of last resort. We have no reason to believe, and we did not suggest, that as a legislator he would vote to enact a poll tax. Judge Bork's statements clearly indicate, however, that as a judge, he would defend a state legislature's ability to enact a poll tax. It is on his judicial philosophy, not his personal preferences, that his nomination must be judged. JOHN H. BUCHANAN ARTHUR J. KROPP Washington, Oct. 13, 1987 The writers are, respectively, chairman and executive director of People for the American Way.

Shrum did a nice job of making those points during the segment. Full transcript via MSNBC below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (218)

PLAYS: (422)

Embed

Pat Buchanan with some help from Andrea Mitchell repeats the Republican talking point of the day on the British Petroleum oil spill, "Will this be Obama's Katrina?" Andrea Mitchell, the AP and ABC's The Note are apparently reading from the same script this morning.

AP: BP misled government about oil spill, now it's Obama's "crisis":

The latest, as the news media continues its clumsy, GOP-friendly attempt to politicize the Louisiana oil spill. And worse, to politicize it in only one direction.

...According to the AP, "people" are wondering if the oil spill will be Obama's Katrina. But after reading the article, in which nobody mentions Katrina, it's clear that by "people," the AP means the AP.

For ABC's The Note, oil spill = political problem for WH, but not for "Drill, baby drill" GOP:

If you ever want to see a clear example of how GOP talking points miraculously transform into mainstream media 'news,' check out today's inside Beltway crib sheet, The Note, which goes on and on and about how the week-old oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is (or, might) be morphing into a political problem for the White House. (It's just like Katrina!)

But guess who the spill is not a problem for, according to The Note's coverage? Answer: Republicans. (Or the oil industry.) At ABC News, the political party that's synonymous with a pro-drilling agenda has nothing to fear from the massive oil spill. And guess what? The GOP's pro-oil VP candidate who made "Drill, baby drill" a household phrase, also has nothing to fear from the massive oil spill. (Her name never comes up.)

Add the panel on Morning Joe and Mitchell and Buchanan here to the list. Buchanan can't even manage to keep a straight face when Bob Shrum calls him out for his hackery.

Here's the talking point that should be sticking. Via Bob Cesca:

Bill Maher via Twitter:

"Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill Baby Drill' should have to report to the Gulf Coast today for cleanup duty."

Bob Shrum does what everyone who is calling themselves a Democrat on the television needs to do when they go up against one of these Cheney apologists like Ron Christie -- call them a liar to their face. Ron Christie does his best to spin his former boss Dick Cheney's lies on This Week about terrorism trials and Shrum calls him out for it, much to the shagrin of Christie.

Christie seems to be having a bit of trouble remembering that the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration on military tribunals and Shrum reminds him of why they changed course. I get tired of seeing Christie be brought on as a guest on any of these talking head shows because you know ahead of time what you're going to get out of him. Water carrying for the crimes of the Bush administration and lots of lies and feigned indignation if someone else manages to get a word in with him.

MATTHEWS: Ron?

CHRISTIE: Well, I`m glad you brought that clip, Chris, because 2001 to 2005, the United States did not have the full infrastructure in place.

President Bush, after there were a couple of Supreme Court cases that we took a look at, he went back to the Congress. He passed the Military Commission Act of 2006, which allows enemy combatants to be tried in a military tribunal...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CHRISTIE: ... designating those who were aligned and affiliated with al Qaeda.

So, for Bob to say, well, the Bush administration tried Richard Reid this way -- Bob, you have to look at history. Richard Reid was apprehended right after 9/11. The Bush administration acted swiftly and responsibly in a bipartisan manner with the Congress to say, we need to recognize we`re at war. We need to make sure we have the right tools to prosecute this war and to fight this war.

MATTHEWS: OK.

SHRUM: Ron, Ron...

CHRISTIE: And that`s exactly what they did.

SHRUM: ... that`s just a lie. That`s a lie.

CHRISTIE: How is that a lie? Bob, I hate to...

SHRUM: Swiftly? 2001 to 2006 is swift? Whose definition of swift is that?

The Bush administration didn`t do that because they wanted to. They did it because, in 2006, they had set up these military commissions, and the Supreme Court threw them out as unconstitutional.

CHRISTIE: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

SHRUM: They used civilian trials. Those civilian trials worked.

Continue reading »