DOWNLOADS: (110)

PLAYS: (711)

Embed

Fox News host Megyn Kelly became agitated on Wednesday after a member of her "focus group" noted that the panel had only been assembled to criticize debate moderator Candy Crowley because of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's poor performance.

During Tuesday night's second 2012 presidential debate, Crowley's instant fact check briefly stunned Romney by undermining his claim that President Barack Obama had not initially referred to the recent attacks in Libya as "acts of terror."

On Wednesday, Kelly assembled a nine-member "focus group" to critique Crowley's performance, something that the conservative news network had elected not to do for moderator Jim Lehrer after Romney was seen as winning the first debate.

"Candy Crowley interrupted Gov. Romney and, according to some, went from objective moderator to active participant by actually defending the president," the Fox News host explained, adding that Crowley had later tried to "walk back" her fact check -- even though she has said she did not backtrack.

"Actually it's not just a fair charge, I would say she didn't become a participant, she became an advocate," conservative radio host Kevin McCullough opined. "The rules had kept the moderator to a limited position for a reason, for the American people to decide what the candidates were saying, not to have it interpreted by a journalist who shouldn't be getting in the way."

"Uh, huh," Kelly agreed. "You have power as a moderator, as this straight-news journalist because people will hopefully look at you and think, 'Alright, this isn't a partisan, this is somebody who's going to tell me the truth.' And so there's danger in being the fact checker on the spot. Did she abuse that power?"

Kelly continued by pointing to a column by conservative Mediaite columnist Noah Rothman which argues that Americans don't trust the media because "so many straight new journalists default to a Democratic point of view."

But Kelly's "focus group" hit a snag when Bernard Whitman, a Democratic pollster, pointed out that the premise of the entire panel was to cover for Romney's "poor performance" at the debate.

"Candy Crowley did a great job pushing back against a bully in Mitt Romney," Whitman noted. "It's sort of amazing that in the face of a relatively poor performance by Romney, all we're talking about is the moderator, Candy Crowley. That sort of underscores..."

"Don't start with me," Kelly interrupted, scolding Whitman. "This is a two-hour program, this is what this panel is focused on. We got a lot of other things in this show."

"I thought it was really despicable," Tracy Davis, a former Bush speechwriter, remarked. "Because it's like she was acting like God because, you know, they can't argue with her, she's the moderator. And suddenly, Obama -- which is typical because he's politicized this whole thing."

"Romney lost the opportunity to make a point and that's why we're talking about this!" Whitman insisted one more time before the segment ended.

In contrast to the "focus group" segment lashing out at Crowley, Fox News host Sean Hannity had invited PBS host Jim Lehrer on his show to praise his moderating skills after Obama was seen as losing the first debate.

"Now, the left tried very hard to make him the scapegoat for Obama's pitiful performance, but I think for 67 million Americans who watched, it was, well, pretty obvious the blame laid squarely with the president himself," Hannity said.

DOWNLOADS: (853)

PLAYS: (17190)

Embed

The producers at Saturday Night Live think they figured out why President Obama had such a hard time during the first presidential debate. He forgot his anniversary and Al Gore was right, and the altitude was getting to him.

My own theory is still that the sheer number of lies told by Romney that contradicted things Willard had just said the day or week before had him vapor locked as how to respond, combined with some bad campaign advice that it was better to let rMoney walk all over him rather than having the viewers, heaven forbid, think he's coming across as "the angry black man."

Let's just hope the Barack Obama we saw out campaigning a day after that debate shows up for the next one.

I know President Obama is capable of talking off the cuff and pushing back at Republican bull-pucky because we've seen him be really good at it before, like when he appeared before the House Republicans and made mincemeat of them. I'm hoping that's who shows up for round two.

DOWNLOADS: (208)

PLAYS: (864)

Embed

As Karoli explained this week, Republicans going after the funding for things like PBS, and "Planned Parenthood, NOAA, EPA, NPR, medical research, the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the OAS, and of course, Obamacare" is nothing new, but that didn't stop Romney adviser Ed Gillespie from pretending that Romney wasn't putting a target on Big Bird and PBS during the first presidential debate.

Gillespie admits that the amount of money is a pittance when it comes to what's actually adding to our deficit, but hey, we've got to start somewhere. Everyone knows they hate PBS for ideological reasons and that they aren't serious about deficit reduction unless it's an excuse to destroy every social safety that exists, or as in this case, to destroy an institution they hate because they disagree with their philosophy.

I'm not sure what else you'd call gutting the funding to PBS other than "targeting" when there's no other logical reason for going after them and when you can simultaneously repeat over and over again that raising taxes on the rich is a waste of time because you won't collect enough revenue to put a meaningful dent the deficit. If this was supposed to be some kind of a "joke" then maybe Romney needs to tell that to his friends in the House, because they're taking actual votes to cut the funding and not just talking about it.

And Gillespie's remarks about Big Bird being "commercially successful" are pretty callous when the people who rely on that type of programming are the ones who can't afford to be making donations to PBS, and may very well not be able to afford cable.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1450)

PLAYS: (1646)

Embed

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday suggested that Big Bird's death at the hands of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney didn't have to be in vain because the Sesame Street character could be suitable for "eating."

During Wednesday night's presidential debate Romney had told moderator Jim Lehrer, "I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not gonna keep on spending money on things to borrow from China to pay for."

CNN host Piers Morgan asked Santorum on Thursday if he would also "kill Big Bird."

"Well, as a matter of fact, I've voted to kill Big Bird," Santorum replied proudly. "That doesn't mean I don't like Big Bird. You can kill things and still like them. I mean, maybe to eat them."

"That's probably not -- can we go back on that one," the former Pennsylvania senator added, waiving his hands at the camera.

"That was beautifully, badly phrased," Morgan agreed.

At a campaign event in Denver on Thursday, President Barack Obama had blasted Romney for refusing to close corporate tax loopholes and ruling out raising additional revenue to balance the nation’s budget.

“And when he was asked what he would actually do to cut the deficit and reduce spending, he said he’d eliminate funding for public television,” the president explained to boos from the crowd. “That was his answer. I mean, thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird. It’s about time.”

“We didn’t know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit,” Obama quipped. “Elmo too.”

In fact, the $444 million in subsidies the U.S. government provided to Corporation for Public Broadcasting last year only accounted for .037 percent of the nation’s $1.2 trillion deficit.

(h/t: The Huffington Post)

DOWNLOADS: (88)

PLAYS: (426)

Embed

On this week's Fox News Sunday, Bloody Bill Kristol had some advice for Willard for the upcoming presidential debate – just ignore the moderator and don't answer his questions and attack the President instead.

WALLACE: Well, Bill, you just heard Paul Ryan say that Romney will offer the country a clear choice of two different economic futures. Is that what Romney needs to do Wednesday? Is that enough?

KRISTOL: Well, I think it will be good just to win the debate. That’s my main advice to Gov. Romney and it's sort of time to begin panicking a little bit and I think that means offering his own way ahead and really explaining why the next four years under President Obama will be disastrous.

Shouldn't focus on the last four years. Focus on the next four years – a clear choice – but really lay out what four more years of Obama policies in terms of debt, in terms of no economic growth and in terms of failed foreign policy would look like. Lay out the Romney alternative.

And I think he needs to go right at Obama. My main advice would be, ignore Jim Lehrer, ignore the moderator – sort of like what Juan does with you – you know when Juan and I, when Juan argues with me and just ignores your questions and all that – he's got to take – do not answer Jim Lehrer, go after President Obama directly. Speak to him in the second person. Say you have failed unfortunately and here's what we can do differently and really make it a stark contrast.

Yeah, that should help to humanize Romney. Have him go on the attack. Romney didn't exactly come across as warm and fuzzy during the Republican primary debates and was often aggressive with the other candidates, so I didn't expect anything much different from him this time around. That said, I think listening to Kristol's advice here and just completely ignoring the moderator and straight out refusing to respond to their questions could very well end up backfiring on him.

DOWNLOADS: (162)

PLAYS: (2126)

Embed

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham is warning Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney not to even try to create a "human moment" by attempting to connect with voters during Wednesday's debate because it would be a "fools' errand."

During a Sunday panel on Fox News, The Chrisitian Science Monitor's Liz Marlantes suggested that Romney had to win the upcoming debate to even have a chance at the White House.

"Having said that, I think it might not be that hard for Romney to get a win in this first debate," she explained. "Challengers tend to get the win in the first debate against the incumbent."

"If he comes across as too negative, that could be risky," she continued. "But I think Romney could win this debate with one genuinely good human moment, which is something people have been hungering to see from him throughout this entire campaign. If he could have one moment where he gives voters the sense that he's throwing the talking points out the window and telling them what he really believes. And it doesn't even matter what the issue is. I just think if he could connect with voters in some way, that would actually probably get him a win."

But Ingraham dismissed the idea that Romney needed a victory on Wednesday.

"I think this laying the benchmark, 'It's the debate, it's the debate' falls into the media meme, Romney has to perform and if he doesn't it's just another excuse for another round of -- in my mind -- you know, disgustingly biased pieces against Mitt Romney," the conservative radio host explained.

"I think he wins not by having a -- quote -- 'human moment' -- I think that is a fools' errand -- but having a moment of real leadership and real maturity. Contrasting that with the celebrity president [Barack Obama], who seems much more comfortable with Ellen [DeGeneres] or, you know, any of these late night hosts."

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, however, contended that Romney's situation was so dire that winning the debate was his only hope.

"I think it will be good just to win the debate, that's my main advice to Gov. Romney," Kristol insisted. "I think it's time to start panicking a little bit and I think that means offering his own way ahead and explaining why the next four years under President Obama will be disastrous."

"My main advice would be, ignore Jim Lehrer, ignore the debate moderator."

DOWNLOADS: (215)

PLAYS: (1884)

Embed

From The Last Word's Rewrite segment this Thursday evening, Lawrence O'Donnell gives his take on Rush Limbaugh "working the refs" by attacking the presidential and vice presidential debate moderators, calling them "far left-wing liberal" Democrats when it's clear to everyone that they are not that.

While I agree with him on why Limbaugh is doing this, I disagree with his characterization of the moderators. They're not neutral. They're corporate, inside the beltway Villagers. And I haven't watched a lot of Lehrer or Raddatz on the air, but I do catch Crowley and Schieffer on a regular basis and they're both neither fair or balanced and are always more hostile to Democrats than they are to Republicans and both are pretty useless when it comes to addressing issues or matters that actually have any real impact on most voters' lives.

Limbaugh knows full well these hacks aren't liberals. You want some real liberals, let someone like an Amy Goodman, or Paul Krugman, or Sam Seder or Rhandi Rhodes moderate the debates and then we can literally watch Limbaugh's head explode in the studio. Although, sadly we'd never get the Democrats agree to have any of them asking questions either because they'd be asking both sides questions they don't like.

Here's more from O'Donnell's blog: Rush Limbaugh attacks debate moderators as 'far left-wing liberal Democrats':

Rush Limbaugh has a problem with the four journalists selected to moderate this year's presidential debates. As Lawrence O'Donnell highlighted on The Last Word, Rush thinks they are all "far left-wing liberal Democrats."

Jim Lehrer of PBS, whjo'll be hosting the first encounter, has previously hosted eleven debates. Limbaugh called him a "far left-wing liberal Democrat."

CNN's Candy Crowley, who will host the second "town-hall" style debate, is a "far, far left-wing liberal Democrat momma," Limbaugh said.

Rush dubbed CBS's Bob Schieffer a "far, far left-wing liberal Democrat...and dinosaur."

And he called ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz, who is hosting the vice presidential debate, the same—except instead of a "dinosaur," Rush dismissed Raddatz as an "infobabe for ABC."

“It’s the same old media hacks handling the debates,” said Limbaugh.

That last line I actually agree with. Just not for the same reasons as Limbaugh. Sadly these so-called "debates" are so scripted and structured that it's not always going to make a whole lot of difference who's moderating them. They're not real debates. They're media events.

DOWNLOADS: (66)

PLAYS: (373)

Embed

I've heard a lot of idiotic statements in my lifetime, but this one by David Brooks on the PBS Newshour this Friday evening takes the cake. Brooks is so desperate to paint Mitt Romney as some "every man" during this GOP primary race, that he actually goes so far as to call him someone who is "running to be Tom Sawyer" and he thinks that's going to work for his campaign.

This makes my head hurt trying to even figure out what there could possibly be about Mitt Romney that would make the analogy of Tom Sawyer pop into that centrist loving, GOP apologizing, false equivalency propagating head of his, so I'm not even going to try. I'll leave that to anyone else that wants to analyze what goes on in the brain of David Brooks.

In the mean time, here's his hackery from this Friday's the PBS Newshour:

JIM LEHRER: All right, let's talk about Romney for a moment, beginning with you, David. How do you read the situation on Romney right now, where he stands and what his prospects are in Iowa?

DAVID BROOKS: He's exuding confidence. I think his people are exuding confidence.

I went to a rally this morning in the rain, and he was he was with Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. And it was just a smooth, effective, not-too-long, but sort of a corporate race. It was like George Bush in year 2000.

And what's interesting is the tactic he's taking. It's very short on policy. It's very long on patriotism. He talks about driving across the country looking at the national parks. He talks -- he sings, or at least recites, some verses from "The Star-Spangled Banner." It's as if he's running to be Tom Sawyer.

And I think it's a way to establish a connection with voters, even despite questions they may have about Mormonism or anything else. I think it's a way to distinguish, in his eyes, between him and Barack Obama. He's more mainstream.

And then, again, this theme of returning, as -- posing as Tom Sawyer, he's returning to some earlier values. And, you know, that may play this year. Mark is absolutely right. Rick Santorum and a lot of the candidates are very negative, the guy who won it four years ago, Mike Huckabee, very positive. But the mood here has darkened appreciably. And maybe they're in tune with what the voters are hearing right now.

And they pay this guy how much money to write a column for the New York Times every week? David Brooks... more proof that wingnut welfare pays much better than actually having anything you talk or write about actually based in reality.

For more on why David Brooks should never be allowed to write another column or appear on television again, I highly recommend Driftglass' tireless work following his legacy of whitewashing horrible right wing Republican policies and trying to dress them up to sound reasonable to most of the public.

DOWNLOADS: (480)

PLAYS: (1333)

Embed

There are a whole lot of things I find troubling about this situation we've got going on right now over raising the debt ceiling -- the fact that the Republicans decided to take the entire United States economy hostage with their initial refusal to just pass a clean bill, or that President Obama has continually ceded to Republicans one talking point after another on everything from tax cuts and the so-called "job creators" to putting Social Security out there as something to negotiate with when it adds nothing to our budget deficit among others.

The one thing that is not a problem with what's been going on in Washington over the last few months, is President Obama being too harsh with Republicans or not talking to them nicely enough if he wants to bring them along. I wish he'd done the George W. Bush routine after they refused to give him a clean vote and gone on television day after day and hammered them for being completely irresponsible by not giving him an "up or down" vote, and explained to Americans that what they were refusing to do is pay for spending that the Congress -- whether these "tea party" a.k.a. extreme right wing Republican freshmen were a part of that or not -- had already consented to when they voted to approve the spending with these illegal invasions of countries that were not a threat to us or their giveaway to the pharmaceutical industries with Medicare Part D, not to mention Bush using the excuse of a surplus to jam through his tax cuts for the rich.

Naturally David Brooks, always eager to make excuses for the extremists in the Republican Party or pretend as though he's surprised that they have finally devoured that party when this faction has always been the one they've catered to in order to win elections, now just thinks even at this late hour that if President Obama just talked to all of them a bit more nicely, they would not act like the extremists they are that are perfectly willing to just burn the whole house down for some so-called political purity on taxes.

Brooks also ignores the fact that these astroturf "tea partiers" might be more than happy to see the United State's economy crash and burn for reasons Karoli laid out in her post here. I doubt that our president just talking a little bit nicer to them would make any difference at all if their agenda is to help anyone profit from crashing our economy, but Brooks sure would like the viewers of PBS to think so.

I'm of the opinion that quite the opposite is true, but that's what I think about most of what David Brooks -- our great American turd polisher for horrible right wing policies we should always push back against -- has to say about anything.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, tell us what's going on.

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, what you have just seen is the rupture of the summit. This had been a summit deal involving the speaker of the House, a Republican, and the Democratic president of the United States.

Nobody else had been really party -- party to it, other than Eric Cantor, the Republican House leader. But the Democratic leadership, the House and the Senate were not party to it, and nor were the Republicans in the Senate.

So, what it came down to, we're now at a he said/he said breakup. And the time is now short. I mean, the grand deal appears to be in shambles. And now the urgency is to raise the debt-ceiling and get it done.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think happened?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, shambles, a complete meltdown, apparently. I have never seen a presidential press conference with a president so angry in public.

And I -- you know, I sort of think he's maybe mostly right on the substance. He laid out -- apparently in the next few hours, they are going to be laying out the details of what the White House offer was. And there was a lot of revenue cuts. There was some -- or spending cuts -- there was some entitlement cuts. There was some revenue increases.

So if those are real, then I think it was a pretty good deal. But the president's tone of being the only adult in Washington, everyone else is a child, that he's going to summon people to the White House as if they are kindergartners, well, even if you agree with them on the substance, it's kind of hard to go along with someone who is insulting you all the time.

And so I think the president took a big risk. Maybe we will see his tone, as he is giving it to them, he's angry, he's treating them like children, but a lot of people will take a look at it and say, a little -- there's some arrogance and self-superiority there.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (332)

PLAYS: (1201)

Embed

Why is it every time we hear the word "serious" it always means sticking it to the working class and the poor? David Brooks takes his turn throwing Newt Gingrich under the bus during this segment on the PBS Newshour for daring to call Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system "right-wing social engineering" on Meet the Press last week.

While Brooks admits that a lot of Republicans are running scared now after voting for Ryan's budget plan, he pretends his problem with Gingrich isn't so much what he said, but the manner in which he said it. I hate to break it to David Brooks, but all the talk in the world of how "serious" that plan is from you and your fellow Villagers isn't going to make the voters like the idea of getting rid of Medicare. And the problem with what Gingrich said is not how he said it. It's that he dared to tell the truth.

And now that almost every Republican in the House of Representatives has hitched their wagons to Ryan's plan by voting for it, we can't have any of that, now can we?

Transcript via PBS below the fold.

Continue reading »