DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (411)

Embed

This has to be one of the more pitiful segments that I've had the unfortunate circumstance of watching for a while now. Anderson Cooper really should be ashamed of himself for allowing Mary Matalin and Ari Fleischer get away with this ridiculous defense of Rush Limbaugh where they decided to start attacking Arianna Huffington for a satirical piece posted at her web site, The Huffington Post.

Here's the offending piece that apparently had Fleischer and Matalin worked into a tizzy -- The Jesus-Eating Cult of Rick Santorum.

And here's his response which was also posted there as well where he explains what he wrote and why he wrote it -- Dear Catholics: I Am Heartily Sorry, etc.:

Actually, I'm not sorry at all, but I suppose an explanation is in order.

Last week, I wrote a piece with the somewhat provocative title "The Jesus-Eating Cult of Rick Santorum." The purpose was to take Santorum to task for his persistent and opportunistic attacks on the faith of others, in particular his dog whistle references to President Obama's "phony ideology" and his assertion that it is impossible to be a Christian and liberal. My criticism took the form of a ridiculously over-the-top broadside against Roman Catholicism, a demonstration of the type of vicious religious ignorance and intolerance I too often see coming from too many so-called Christians, especially Santorum. [...]

I won't say that Catholics need to lighten up or learn to take a joke, because the piece wasn't intended to be light-hearted or funny. It was satire, meaning... well, you can look that up. (It was probably a mistake to put it in the Comedy section; the editors wanted readers to know it was not to be taken literally.)

It's traditional at this point for me to half-apologize, to say that I'm sorry if anybody was offended, but I really don't mind if anybody was offended. I hope they will now think twice before they question the faith of progressive Christians, or Mormons or Muslims. I doubt they will.

Apparently that was completely lost on Matalin and Fleischer as well, or maybe not and they know full well the piece was satire and their only defense of Limbaugh is to distract, attack and lay it on thick with the false equivalencies. And note to Maria Cardona here, the correct answer for Fleischer when he ambushes you with a question about something you haven't read is to say you haven't seen it and won't comment on it until you do and you'd be happy to discuss it later after you look at what he's talking about instead of ceding ground to their attacks.

A writer that most people have not heard of at Huffington's site writing a piece of satire and his response after the fact explaining what he did and why is in no way the same as Rush Limbaugh's nasty, personal attacks on Sandra Fluke and Fleischer and Matalin know it.

And speaking of Ari Fleischer, why is anyone listening to anything this man has to say about women's reproductive rights or contraception after that sage advice he was paid to give the Komen foundation?

And one last note to Cooper and Cardona, someone needs to call Matalin out when she conflates contraception with abortion like her buddy Rove did a little while back.

h/t Digby

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (180)

PLAYS: (872)

Embed

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel there's something rather disconcerting about about watching four extremely rich American immigrants who were all born on third base, discussing the reasons for lack of upward mobility in the United States, but that's exactly what we got here on CNN's weekend show, Your Money.

I guess they couldn't find anyone who actually grew up as a member of the working class or a union member or leader to potentially counter the likes of Mort Zuckerman, and statements such as this one that are inevitable when you allow him on the air:

ZUCKERMAN: Let me just say I really support what Arianna has just described. I think there are huge problems in this country and a lot of it, in my judgment, stems not from capitalism but from the government.

I'll focus on the first one, which is we have done a terrible job in providing enough education for the children of this country. There's a whole mismatch in terms of the number of people coming out looking for jobs and the qualifications that people need for jobs, particularly those who are educated, particularly in the world of science and technology.

There are shortages of people, there are literally millions of open jobs because we don't train --

VELSHI: But why does the free market not solve that problem?

ZUCKERMAN: Because the education is a government function. If there ever was a public function in this country from the days it started, it's public education and we've done a lousy job. Part of it is frankly because we have lousy teachers.

Part of the reason we have lousy teachers is we have teachers union that say won't deal with those issues. So there are lots of reasons why education is not being properly handled in this country.

But to me if I could think of one thing that would change it, it would be to change our system of education and make sure that our children were properly educated.

I can think of a lot of reasons as to why we are lacking upward mobility in the U.S., like outsourcing, a race to the bottom on wages (which is what Zuckerman is really advocating for here), union busting, corporate raiders and vulture capitalists like Mitt Romney and his ilk, our terrible trade laws, lowering taxes on the rich, not regulating the financial sector, privatizing our commons, and some of the issues they did touch on during this segment. But not being able to fire enough of those terrible greedy overpaid teachers that have those damned unions representing them is not one of them that makes my list.

And Zakaria wasn't much better with basically saying we have to choose between our social safety nets or investing in infrastructure and education as though we can't do something about the unfairness in our tax structure and controlling the costs of providing medical benefits to Americans, like say, single-payer, and do both. I will give him credit though for admitting that austerity isn't going to solve our economic problems and at least bothering to mention that the people who are still employed are in the jobs you can't outsource. It would have been nice to hear the topic of the pure greed of a few and the race to the bottom that got us there though, which I don't expect from the likes of CNN. They play the same "fair and balanced" game Fox does. They're just not as blatant about it.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (212)

PLAYS: (1904)

Embed

While discussing The Huffington Post's new hub for baby boomers on Morning Joe, the panel of Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough, Arianna Huffington, Rita Wilson and Mike Barnicle basically turned the conversation into one big sales pitch for raising the retirement age to infinity.

While I think it's wonderful that Brzezinski is lucky enough to have both parents still apparently, happily working well into their eighties and that Wilson's mother who's approaching ninety is still doing well and independent, listening to all of them talk here left little doubt in my mind that all of them are certainly living in a different world than your average American out there who is doing any kind of physical labor for a living.

And I'm sorry but using the example of Andy Rooney who just retired from his one day a week gig at 60 Minutes giving a few minute opinion piece at the end of the show as an example of someone who's still “working” into their nineties is just ridiculous. Most Americans would consider what Rooney got paid to do for a living or what Brzezinski's father does jetting around the world more like a vacation than anything you could rightfully describe as “work.”

If Scarborough and Brzezinski think working into your old age is so great, I'd welcome her to come spend a little time along with her parents waiting on a few tables, or spending some time on a factory floor on an off shift, or maybe out digging some ditches with a construction crew, or perhaps answering an emergency call-out for some hot, filthy job at 3am in the morning. I have a feeling they'd reconsider their position after an hour or so if they lasted that long.

DOWNLOADS: (204)

PLAYS: (913)

Embed

Fox Business Network senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino insisted Sunday that the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network had provided adequate coverage of the scandal involving their parent company News Corp.

"It's a story, we've been covering it a lot," Gasparino told ABC's Christiane Amanpour. "Thank God I cover Wall Street. I don't have to report on my boss."

"If you look at this from a purely business standpoint, you know, the market -- I think the stock fell to $13 a share. Nineteen was the high. After Rupert Murdoch spoke [to Parliament], it went up to $17 a share. When they heard his explanation, they believed him. Confidence was returning back to the company."

"Actually, the coverage on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of the story has been embarrassing for journalism," The Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington pointed out. "Editorials in The Wall Street Journal -- forget Fox, nobody really expects Fox to do this seriously..."

"Fox has covered this very seriously, Arianna," Gasparino objected.

"The Wall Street Journal's editorial is whitewashing what is a very serious scandal that we have not seen the end of," Huffington continued.

"I think we have covered this well. We have straight news reporters that have covered this all day," Gasparino claimed.

In fact, the Pew Research Center found that Fox News' coverage of the Murdoch scandal trailed far behind CNN and MSNBC between July 6 and July 15.

Fox News had devoted less than 30 minutes to the story, while CNN and MSNBC each devoted over 140 minutes.

DOWNLOADS: (961)

PLAYS: (2042)

Embed

As Steve Benen pointed out, Joe Lieberman proved he can get foreign policy and feminism wrong at the same time on Morning Joe today:

Gail Collins noted this morning the Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has "reached a point in his public career when every single thing he does, including talking about his grandparents, is irritating."

That's true, but some things are clearly more irritating than others.

Take this morning, for example.

During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) continued to insist that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction even though none were ever found after the invasion of Iraq.

The senator, retiring his seat in 2012, also said that despite the enormous cost to the U.S. in blood, prestige and treasure he does not regret his vote for war and would do it all over again.

This was an astounding appearance. Lieberman insisted the "most official and comprehensive report" proved Saddam Hussein was developing WMD, and that the regime was "beginning really tactically to support the terrorist movements that had attacked us on 9/11 and today."

None of this is connected to reality in any substantive way. Every available shred of evidence makes clear that Saddam's regime had nothing to do with al Qaeda, and for Lieberman to still be suggesting otherwise is disgraceful. For that matter, the notion that even the most confused observer would still believe that Iraq was developing WMD, and that this somehow justifies the invasion, is breathtaking.

As part of the same MSNBC segment, Arianna Huffington asked Lieberman to substantiate his claim about Saddam Hussein was working on weapons of mass destruction, a claim even George W. Bush abandoned. The senator replied, "I'm basing it on the so-called Duelfer Report. Charles D-U-E-L-F-E-R conducted the most comprehensive report on behalf of our government."

When Huffington said there's nothing in the Duelfer Report to bolster Lieberman's conclusions, the senator replied, "I don't think you've read it, sweetheart."

I find it nothing short of remarkable that a United States senator in 2011 would be so condescending as to call a woman "sweetheart" on national television. In context, Huffington was calling Lieberman out on his transparent falsehoods, which no doubt irritated him, but frankly, I don't care what the context was. Huffington deserves an apology.

Agreed. And as Steve and the Huffington Post pointed out as well, Lieberman doesn't know what he's talking about -- Joe Lieberman Insists Iraq Was Developing WMDs Despite No Evidence. And good for her for saying this to Lieberman's face:

HUFFINGTON: Well, based on this completely unfounded assumption, I sincerely hope for the sake of the country that you do not become Secretary of Defense.

Amen sister.

DOWNLOADS: (294)

PLAYS: (567)

Embed

C-SPAN aired a panel discussion hosted by Tavis Smiley this week which included Cornel West, Arianna Huffington, David Frum, Dana Milbank, David Brody, John Chen, Maria Teresa Kumar and Maria Bartiromo. I didn't get to watch all of it but enjoyed the part I did catch because of moments like this one from Cornel West.

WEST: Black people's struggle has been the leaven in the democratic loaf. We look at the catastrophe and like the Blues, we responded with a smile, not revenge but justice, not hatred, but compassion. That's what Martin King's about. That's what Curtis Mayfield is about. You know what I mean? That's what John Coltrane is about. That's our tradition at our best.

But what happened during the Reagan years was the black freedom movement was confined to just another special interest group. Neo-liberal and neo-conservatives, intellectuals tried to reduce our movement to be just our self interests as if the black struggle was just for Negroes. That has never been the case. Never.

We start with Negroes, we start with black people and it relates to every citizen, poor working class, gay, lesbian and so forth, at our best. That's the legacy of Martin King. But what we get now, especially in the media is any time you talk about “the black experience” they view it as just a special interest group. You see what I mean?

It's like the corporate agenda. Is that just for corporations? Well see, in a democracy, once those labels begin to ossify; now here I agree with brother David on the end, that once they ossify then we can never communicate. That's where we've been for the last twenty five years. We can't even communicate.

So then brother Rush Limbaugh will say well, civility just wants to police me, so I can't express myself. No brother Rush, you can say what you want. We just want you to be truthful, don't be cruel and vicious and try not to lie. That's all. That's all.

But things are so polarized, they're so polarized that it's difficult for us to proceed and in a democracy you don't have high quality communications when it relates to public interests, you gonna' end up with private interests reigning and private interests have to do with might and power. Whoever has the power will define what's right. And no society can survive based on that kind of empty, empty orientation.

Here's the entire segment if anyone wants to watch more of the panel. Warning, it's three hours long if you want to watch all of it.

DOWNLOADS: (555)

PLAYS: (1448)

Embed

I guess George Will forgot about the good old days when all the media pundits were telling Americans that it was unpatriotic if the Democrats didn't concede to George Bush's will because he had a "mandate." Now the obstruction we've seen for the last two years that will worsen after the mid-term elections means that the government is working. Okay George. George Will thinks whatever gets Republicans elected is just fantastic no matter how much harm it does to the country or our economy.

And like the rest of the talking heads in our media cooperation and bipartisanship means Democrats going along with everything Republicans want and ignoring their base.

WILL: Doesn't matter, though, because if Mitch McConnell has 48 senators, he will always have 41 senators for whatever he wants to have 41 for.

Let me just say this. The Republican Party is being told to be the party of no. No more stimulus spending. No cap-and-trade. No card check. None of this other stuff. Gridlock is not an American problem. It's an American achievement. The framers of our Constitution didn't want an efficient government; they wanted a safe government. To which end they filled it with slowing and blocking mechanisms. Three branches of government, two branches of the legislative branch, veto, veto override, supermajority, judicial review.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: And we added to that the partisan rate so that we not only have institutional gridlock, we have partisan gridlock, which the voters overwhelmingly voted for.

WILL: What I'm saying, Cokie, is that when we have gridlock, the system is working.

DOWNLOADS: (726)

PLAYS: (3036)

Embed

Dick Armey apparently doesn't care for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's satire on their shows, since he attacked them during the roundtable discussion on ABC's This Week. Here's Armey projecting his own bad behavior onto Stewart and Colbert.

It sure is funny to hear Dick Armey worry about civility. This is the same man who:

-- Told Joan Walsh: "I'm so glad that you could never be my wife because I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day".

-- Organized right wing hooligans to interrupt town hall meetings during the health care debate.

-- Called Rachel Maddow "Rachel Maddox" at one of his teabagger rallies to get even with her for making a fool out of him on Meet the Press.

What a guy.

Here he is Sunday:

AMANPOUR: Let me go to Dick Armey, who is joining us from New Orleans. Dick Armey, thank you for joining us. You obviously a big supporter and organizer of the Tea Party. Do you think that there's anything wrong with common sense and civility? Because a lot of people have said that the Tea Party is really helping the extreme end of the spectrum.

ARMEY: No, obviously we need civility. I agree with George Will. You don't be confused between having sharp and sincere differences of opinion and being civil with one another.

I thought yesterday was a fun day. I was quite amused at watching these very important national comics stand up and decry with such sincerity that which they do every day on their shows. And, you know, I said -- I thought it was so remarkable, I want you all in America to quit acting like we do on our show every night with our militant vilification of everybody with whom we have a disagreement.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (783)

PLAYS: (1827)

Embed

Arianna Huffington sparred with Liz Cheney during the panel segment on This Week over whether the Bush-Cheney administration deserves part of the blame for the disaster in the Gulf with Cheney of course coming to the defense of her father and Halliburton. Rather than address Huffington's points about deregulation and the mess that the MMS had become under their watch, Cheney accused her of repeating left wing talking points and just wanting to demonize the Bush administration.

After Huffington said Halliburton was responsible for the cementing on the rig and had defrauded the U.S. government out of hundreds of millions of dollars, Cheney cut her off and said her assertions had no relationship to the truth. They both said they looked forward to PolitiFact fact checking the show.

PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter page for This Week is here. I don't think Liz Cheney is going to fare too well there once they update the site for this panel segment.

One other note on Cheney's appearance on This Week, if she's going to be allowed to filibuster the show and talk about half the time and over the other guests, why even bother to have a moderator?

HUFFINGTON: George, the truth is that right now we have precisely the regulatory system that the Bush-Cheney Administration wanted -- full of loopholes, full of cronies and lobbysists filling the very agencies they're supposed to be overseeing --

WILL: So it's Bush's fault.

HUFFINGTON: -- the industry.

WILL: Just clear this up.

HUFFINGTON: It is absolutely 1000 percent Bush-Cheney's fault, plus the fact that the Obama Administration has not really done enough fast enough to change what's happening at the MMS agency, at all sorts of other agencies. Not just when it comes to the energy problems, when it comes to Wall Street, all over, we are seeing the complete success of the kind of regulatory system that Bush-Cheney wanted. And we're seeing this is the inevitable result of what they wanted.

CHENEY: You know, it's truly amazing. I mean I actually heard George Bush was responsible for the breakup of Tipper and Al Gore's marriage too. I mean it's incredible the extent to which people are now trying to shift blame. And frankly --

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (762)

PLAYS: (710)

Embed

From Think Progress -- ABC Panelists Criticize Ailes’ Evasion Of Why Fox News Cut Away From Obama-House GOP Conversation:

Guest host Barbara Walters cut off the conversation though, since the show was over. However, discussion on the topic then continued in the green room, even though Ailes wasn’t present. Both Huffington and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the network for its hypocrisy:

HUFFINGTON: Their framing of the President is that he’s radical, that he’s taking us down a dark, fascist or Bolshevik future — depending on the day. And there he was, rational, charming, and in full command of his facts. So the narrative fell apart and so the cameras stopped showing what was happening.

KRUGMAN: Yeah, I mean it’s — I thought it was actually quite funny except it has real consequences. There you have Roger Ailes, with this powerful, popular news network, whining about how the media are unfair to Republicans. I mean, he is a powerful person in the media — and of course, you know, “Fair and Balanced” is truly Orwellian and we know that. So it’s clear that Fox — I felt like yelling to him, “you can’t handle the truth,” because that was what was actually happening on the Fox coverage.

I wonder where Ailes and Walters were for this after the show segment. And of course George Will decided to defend Ailes and Fox News saying that the media we have now is better than what we had back when there were just three networks to choose from. Not without some push back from Huffington and Krugman. And of course Will feigns ignorance on just how bad Glenn Beck's show is by claiming he never watches it. I highly doubt George Will doesn't actually know just how bad Glenn Beck's show is. That just gives him an easy out to pretend he doesn't.