DOWNLOADS: (245)

PLAYS: (2061)

Embed

I expect the talking heads over at Fox to be attacking President Obama during these negotiations on the upcoming "fiscal cliff" or as some have called it, the "fiscal curb," but how bad are things for John Boehner and the House Republicans when even Bill Kristol and Laura Ingraham can't manage to come to your defense? We had an agreement among the panel on Fox News Sunday this week, and they all believe that Republicans refusing to negotiate with President Obama is just going to lead to them getting a worse deal later.

Which is good news as far as a lot progressives are concerned, since Republicans think a good deal is destroying our social safety nets and sadly there are too many Democrats happy to help them chip away at them with this talk of a "grand bargain." It seems a lot of us should be grateful that John Boehner is really bad at his job.

And of course there was no mention of just who is responsible for that debt that has been run up since President Obama has been in office. As we've noted here before on too many occasions to count, most of that deficit was due to Bush's policies.

You're not going to hear anyone say that over at Fox though. Quite the opposite as we saw with how Wallace opened the segment.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (177)

Embed

This week on Fox News Sunday, viewers were treated to yet another round of Bill Kristol giving advice to Republicans on how to negotiate on extending tax cuts for the middle class, or at least what he considers middle class.

After previously saying that Republicans are not going to be able to defend tax cuts for the wealthy, that they should not "fall on their sword" to defend millionaires, that a lot of the "tea party" groups won't care if millionaires pay more taxes and that they're going to look like they don't care about the middle class, Kristol was once again trying to get the line drawn at a million dollars in income instead of the $250 thousand threshold the President is insisting on.

Kristol went so far this time as to call raising taxes on everyone with incomes between $250K and a million "extreme" and opined about how hard it might be on those families if they're paying college tuition. These guys never seem to mind throwing additional tax burdens on those who are truly middle class all across America, or going after benefits for people on fixed incomes that rely on programs like Social Security and Medicare, but lord knows we can't burden someone who is making over a quarter of a million dollars a year with a slightly larger tax burden. They also love to give people the impression that those higher taxes would be paid on their entire income. They'd still be benefiting from the lower rates on their income below $250,000.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (137)

PLAYS: (804)

Embed

Bill Kristol decided to double down on his remarks from a couple of weeks ago on Fox News Sunday and the fact that Republicans in Congress and the GOP shouldn't "fall on its sword" to defend tax breaks for millionaires. What Kristol was in favor of though, was the idea that Republicans should be supporting an extension of the payroll tax cuts and that it would give Republicans a "huge opportunity" to be "the champions of the working class and the middle class."

I hate to break it to Kristol, but it's going to take a lot more than supporting one tax cut for that to happen. Personally, I don't like the cut in the payroll taxes, because I don't want to see the fund undermined and that used as an excuse to cut benefits later. If you want to leave it in place and lift the income cap, then I'm all for it. Somehow I don't see Kristol or any of his fellow "champions" ever going along with something like that though. While they're at it, they could lower the retirement age instead of all this talk about increasing it. I guarantee that would make them popular with the working class as well, that Kristol now pretends to be concerned about.

WALLACE: Well, that is an optimistic view. Bill, let me ask you, and you can respond to sister Cheney about this. One idea that was floated this week is for top earners to pay, instead of raising our top marginal rate, that they would pay that top rate, now, 35 percent, on every dollar they make. And let's put up this graphic on the screen, so we can try to explain it. Instead of now you pay ten percent on the top 17,000 from there to 70,000 you pay 15 percent, and the idea is instead of that, you pay 35 percent on all of the income from zero, all the way up to whatever you made if you were making over $250,000. Question: Good idea?

KRISTOL: Not particularly. And, I saw -- I asked someone on the Hill about it yesterday, and they said, well, no, we kind of realize that is not a good idea. The Republicans are going into contortions to try not to raise the top rate, while in fact trying to produce more revenues, which Speaker Boehner said he's for, and to produce them from the wealthy, since they are scared of being accused of attacking the middle class.

I don't really care if they want to find some complicated way to get more revenues, I suppose, I think it is probably easier just to give in a little bit on the top rate. But, they made that a matter of dogma, and I'm not going to break my own sword on telling them not to break their sword on it, but I would point this out. What is the one tax that -- rate that's going up on January 1, that no one is talking about and apparently both parties are not going to collude to let go of? The payroll tax. Remember that? That was cut from 12 percent to 10 percent two years ago. It's been 10 percent last two years, and I gather the Republicans have no problem, I don't know if Grover Norquist has a problem, with letting working class and middle class Americans have a two percent tax increase. That is not currently the Republican position, that the payroll tax cuts should be extended, and the administration I think quietly just happy to let that go, because God forbid they should actually cut entitlements for wealthy seniors or for others who benefit from corporate capitalism of big government. So, we have a collusion among the elites of both parties, that the one tax that gets -- that is going to go up, on January - if there is a deal, on January 1, is the payroll tax, which I think is wrong and Republicans have a huge opportunity here to be champions of the working class and the middle class, instead of screaming and yelling about millionaires.

DOWNLOADS: (211)

PLAYS: (2592)

Embed

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol says that Republicans in Congress should "take Obama's offer" to raise taxes on the wealthy because the GOP shouldn't "fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires."

During a panel on Fox News Sunday, Kristol predicted that "Republicans will have to give in much more than they think" because of President Barack Obama's overwhelming electoral defeat of Mitt Romney.

"Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama," the conservative pundit explained. "It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it's a fact. Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate. The president is in good shape. ... I think there will be a big budget deal. It will be an Obama budget deal much more than a Paul Ryan-type budget deal. Elections have consequences."

He continued: "The leadership in the Republican Party and the leadership in the conservative movement has to pull back, let people float new ideas. Let's have a serious debate. Don't scream and yell when one person says, 'You know what? It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.' It really won't, I don't think."

"I really don't understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000 -- make it $500,000, make it a million," Kristol insisted.

"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of them live in Hollywood?"

DOWNLOADS: (109)

PLAYS: (893)

Embed

First of all, if Bloody Bill Kristol is serious about the notion that Republicans are making a mistake by conflating any of these various "Obama scandals" he might want to ask Chris Wallace to go have a little chat with Neil Cavuto and tell him to simmer down.

Second, it's pretty obvious that his advice is going to fall on deaf ears, because he was promptly ignored by Lady McCheney Mary Matalin who, while sitting on the same panel with Kristol, proceeded to do just that.

And third, of course Kristol doesn't think that scooping up the data from millions of American citizens by the NSA is any big deal, but the drummed up IRS "scandal" where those poor teabaggers had to wait for a tax exempt status they never should have been granted in the first place, that is supposedly a national tragedy and a "very serious" abuse of power. Par for the course, it's upside down land over at Faux "News."

I was hoping we wouldn't see much of Matalin after she and her husband parted ways with CNN. Looks like she landed right where someone as toxic as she is belongs -- on Fox.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (125)

PLAYS: (1853)

Embed

Conservative Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol is lashing out at Karl Rove and his American Crossroads super PAC for using last year's attacks in Benghazi to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 presidential race.

During a Fox News panel segment on Sunday, Kristol complained that there had been a "partisan reaction" to both the attacks in Benghazi and the news that the Internal Revenue Service had targeted tea party groups to find out if they had violated their tax exempt status.

Kristol pointed to a web video released by American Crossroads last week that attacked Clinton for allegedly participating in a Benghazi "cover up."

"I do not like the conservative Republican groups putting ads up about Hillary Clinton," he said. "What is the point of that? That is just fundraising by American Crossroads and these other groups. It's ridiculous! There's no campaign going on!"

"Let's pull the partisanship back. It's a genuine outrage what happened in Benghazi, it's a genuine outrage what the IRS did... So I wish the Republicans would just be quiet for while -- I mean, the partisan Republican groups that are fundraising off this -- would be quiet on both issues for a while, and let's find out what really happened."

DOWNLOADS: (146)

PLAYS: (1118)

Embed

Here we go again. Another Sunday, another week with Bloody Bill Kristol pushing for more military intervention: Fox News Sunday Beats Syria War Drums:

Subhed: Fox Analysts Urge "Irresponsible" Obama To Do "Something," But Won't Say What

William Kristol wants to go to war in Syria, but he won't say what that war should look like. Appearing on Fox News Sunday to discuss reports of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the Weekly Standard editor (and noted Iraq war hawk) attacked President Obama as "totally irresponsible" for indicating that he doesn't want "to start another war," saying: "You've got to do what you've got to do."

When host Chris Wallace pointed out to him that there are "no good choices" for intervening in the Syrian conflict and asked, "so what do you do?," Kristol brushed it off without indicating how he thought the president should respond: "You do what you think is best. You're commander in chief, you've got an awful lot of options."

They were all happy to use this as en excuse to amp up the rhetoric on Iran as well. Kristol didn't want to give specifics himself, but the one thing you can be sure of is, it won't matter how President Obama responds, they'll attack him later if things don't go well. Never mind that Wallace admitted there are no good options.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (150)

PLAYS: (1435)

Embed

How bad are things when former Rep. Jane Harman is sounding like the voice of reason when it comes to our treatment of terrorism suspects? From this week's Fox News Sunday, she and Bloody Bill Kristol sparred over whether the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing should be treated as an enemy combatant or read his rights and tried in civilian court.

I'm not sure what good Kristol thinks it's going to do to try to interrogate someone who apparently has been shot in the throat and can't communicate right now if they wanted to, but the right does seem to love stomping all over our Constitutional rights (unless it's guns, of course) at every given opportunity.

Steve Benen made some of the same points as Harman during her back and forth with Kristol in a post he wrote yesterday which described what a dangerous game these Republicans are playing: The legal process ahead for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:

The broader question -- I'm reluctant to call it a "debate" since the path seems so obvious -- is what happens after that. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have some thoughts on the matter.

Two powerful GOP senators are calling on the Obama administration to treat the captured suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings as an "enemy combatant" and deny him counsel even though he is reportedly an American citizen. [...]

Regardless his citizenship status, McCain and Graham say Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gave up his rights to a criminal trial when he allegedly participated in the bombings.

"Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel," McCain and Graham said.

McCain and Graham are playing a dangerous game here. In case anyone's forgotten, we're talking about an American citizen, captured on American soil, accused of committing a crime in America. These Republican senators are arguing, in effect, that none of this matters anymore.

The same week in which Senate Republicans insisted that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, McCain and Graham are arguing that the Fourth Amendment is a nicety that the nation must no longer take seriously.

By all accounts, the Obama administration is prepared to ignore the senators' suggestion. [...]

That's encouraging. Even for those on the right who are indifferent to civil liberties, the fact remains that civilian trials for terrorist suspects have proven to be an effective method of trying, convicting, and sentencing criminals, including accused terrorists. Military commissions, meanwhile, have proven to be an ineffective method.

When it comes to national security, foreign policy, and counter-terrorism, McCain and Graham have a track record of being remarkably wrong with incredible consistency. The more the Obama administration ignores their advice, the better.

Double that for Bill Kristol. And note to Chris Wallace in regard to the clip above, please quit calling the United States "the homeland." It's creeping me out.

Transcript via Fox below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (158)

PLAYS: (784)

Embed

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol says that Latino voters decided to support President Barack Obama over former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 because they wanted government handouts like free health care "and thought Obamacare provided it."

During a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday, Kristol told host Chris Wallace that the Romney campaign believed that the candidate's so-called "self-deportation" policy -- which encouraged undocumented immigrants to deport themselves by making their lives in the U.S. more difficult -- had very little impact on the election.

Kristol explained: "This was the line that the campaign took and they claim their polls showed and focus groups showed that lower-income Hispanics were not put off by what Gov. Romney said during the primaries about self-deportation and his attacks on Gingrich and Perry for being more moderate on immigration, but that they like the promise of Obamacare and that even though the national polls showed that Obamacare was unpopular among a majority of the public that this helped him with lower-income voters and especially Hispanics."

"I personally think it's a bit of an excuse to explain away the damage he did to himself with what he said about immigration and in the fall," the conservative pundit admitted. "And also on Obamacare, maybe he did lose some votes on Obamacare for those that didn't have health insurance and thought Obamacare provided it."

"I think one can say that Gov. Romney didn't prosecute the case against Obamacare terribly aggressively, and to be fair to the governor, the Republican Party as a whole didn't prosecute an alternative proposal for health care to explain to the uninsured, how we're going to -- Republicans are going to take care of your problems more effectively than the Democrats."

In a conference call with donors after the election, Romney had insisted that Obama bribed Hispanics, African-Americans, women and youth voters with “gifts” like “free health care” and “amnesty for children of illegals.”

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (1109)

Embed

Someone needs to explain the definition of insanity to Bloody Bill Kristol. During a discussion on Fox' Special Report With Bret Baier, Kristol was asked about the Republicans and their recent efforts to "rebrand" the party, and it seems Kristol believes if they just start obstructing President Obama again and vote for things like repealing "Obamacare," they won't have to worry about how they look!

Of course, no one on the panel pointed out to him that that is exactly what they've been doing already for the last four years and it hasn't gone so well. Not that what the others want to do -- keep the same policies but just try to make them sound more palatable to the public -- is going to work, either.

And note to Kristol: Your party doesn't care about doing anything to improve access to health care, making it more affordable or regulating the banks. We don't need to hear their words or yours to know that. All we have to do is look at their voting records to see what their priorities are. The notion that the GOP has any alternatives to fixing anything that is not more of the same is laughable.

Here's more from Real Clear Politics: Kristol: GOP Should Worry Less About Looks; Act On Conservative Principles:

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: If I hear another politician talking about rebranding the party or changing the image, why don't they just advance policies? Republicans control the House of Representatives, right? They very much dislike Obamacare. Fine, pass a bill repealing Obamacare or delaying it and then pass a replacement. It's not going to pass the Senate, President Obama's not going to sign it, but it will show how Republican policies help.

Republicans dislike the financial regulations in Dodd-Frank, pass different regulations that help community banks. If you can't pass the whole thing, pass bite-sized pieces of legislation that would help the country. I mean, I really think they should talk less about rebranding themselves and actually pass some legislation, either big legislation or medium-sized bites that which embody conservative principals.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS: Why have they been losing so badly on messaging, Bill?

KRISTOL: They haven't been losing that badly on messaging. They lost the presidential election by 3 points, they held the House of Representatives, the Democrats got 1 million more votes for the complete House out of 110 million cast, or something like that. And if they simply govern effectively, if they do their best in the House and they oppose President Obama, they'll do fine. They should worry less about how they look and they should just act according to conservative principles.

Continue reading »