DOWNLOADS: (424)

PLAYS: (2923)

Embed

I'm sure Florida's Gov. Rick Scott will come around on some reasonable gun control laws about the same time he decides to actually do something for the voters of his state other than disenfranchise them with long lines at the polls -- which is never. He did his best to feign concern for both issues on Soledad O'Brien's show this Wednesday morning: CNN Anchor Blasts Florida Governor For Ducking Gun Control, Demands Action Before ‘I Cover Another Tragedy’:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), who has an A rating from the National Rifle Association, refused to say if he would support stronger gun safety measures in the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Appearing on CNN’s Starting Point on Wednesday, Scott repeatedly dodged host Soledad O’Brien’s specific questions about which reforms, if any, he would support, at one point responding to a query about limiting assault rifles with a trite, “I support the Second Amendment.” O’Brien repeatedly pressed Scott for a more detailed reply, but the Florida governor claimed that the nation must “respect the families, mourn their losses” but avoid a detailed conversation about what can be done to prevent such tragedies in the future:[...]

During the GOP convention in Florida, Scott made headlines when he rejected a request by Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn (D) to temporarily ban guns in the downtown area.

I'd like to see someone ask this guy how in the hell it is that a crook like himself ever managed to get elected as the governor of Florida in the first place. I'm not holding my breath for that to ever happen though.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (137)

PLAYS: (884)

Embed

It never fails. Every time we have another one of these mass shootings in the United States, someone in the corporate media is going to book this guy to carry water for the NRA and their desire to just turn us into the wild west and eliminate all gun safety laws. Gun advocate John Lott found himself getting some push back on his views from CNN's Soledad O'Brien this Monday morning though, unlike some of his interviews when he's in friendlier territory, like Fox:

CNN Anchor Destroys Gun Advocate’s Call To Abolish Gun Safety Laws: Victims’ Families ‘Would Be Stunned’:

The debate on gun control has been re-inflamed by the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT on Friday. President Obama has signaled that he may consider new legislation to prevent more attacks. Most gun rights advocates, however, have either stayed silent or insisted that the teachers at the school should have been armed. Gun rights advocate John Lott, the leading academic behind the claim that more guns result in less violence, appeared on CNN’s Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien to advance his pet theory.

O’Brien attacked Lott for his claim that Friday’s shooting means we should do away with all restrictions on guns. Lott argued that bans on guns in certain areas attract criminals to those areas: [...]

Lott’s claim that more guns result in less violence is popular with gun control advocates, but it’s simply not true. Lott’s research methods have been frequently called into question, and other experts have dismissed his work as “junk science.” As the Washington Post points out, concealed weapon bans have not increased the crime rate, as pro-gun advocates claimed, and there is no solid evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce violence.

Media Matters has more on Lott here: Who Is Gun Advocate John Lott?:

Gun researcher John Lott has made numerous media appearances in the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. to argue against the enactment of gun violence prevention measures. While Lott uses his media platform to push a multitude of statistics -- often from his own research -- he has been thoroughly discredited as a serious academic researcher. Read on...

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (101)

PLAYS: (626)

Embed

From this Wednesday's Starting Point, Republicans aren't doing a very good job defending themselves for wanting to keep most Americans and our economy hostage to retain those tax cuts for the richest among us: GOP Rep. Has No Answer For Why Republicans Won’t Vote For Middle-Class Tax Cuts:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, could not explain during an interview on Wednesday why House Republicans are holding middle- and low-income tax cuts hostage to the cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the fiscal cliff showdown. When pressed by CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Hensarling first cited complaints about spending, but when O’Brien asked why he couldn’t set spending levels aside and compromise on taxes first, he had nothing but unrelated talking points: [...]

Hensarling’s invocation of Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) proposal is not only not an answer to O’Brien’s question — as it doesn’t explain what’s wrong with the simple solution O’Brien poses — but it’s also not anything close to balanced. While Boehner’s plan contains an array of draconian spending cuts, it doesn’t propose any actual increased revenue, relying instead on the same voodoo as the Romney tax plan.

As Zack noted, his analysis on the electoral math is also wrong and irrelevant.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (103)

PLAYS: (506)

Embed

Now that Mittens has gone on Fox and tried to Etch-a-Sketch his 47 percent comments, we've got the surrogates coming out to defend him. Here's the first one out of the gate this morning -- Campaign Surrogate Admits Romney Is Changing Positions Just To Win Votes:

Mitt Romney campaign surrogate Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) admitted that the GOP presidential candidates was changing his positions and moving towards the middle in order to win over voters, during an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Friday morning. Gingrey’s comments, reminiscent of Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom’s claim that Romney would “Etch-A-Sketch” his positions after the GOP primary, came in response to the candidate’s recent claim that his 47% remarks were “completely wrong.”

“[T]he Republican, the conservative candidate in the primary, is always going to lean right and come back to the center for the general, the opposite for the Democrat,” Gingrey explained. “That’s all you are seeing here. It is very typical. We strong conservatives understand that. There are a lot of undecideds in this country…we want those votes too. So, this is campaign strategy.”

Romney began moving towards the center during Wednesday night’s debate, distancing himself from his $5 trillion tax cut plan, embracing portions of his Massachusetts health care law as a model for the states, faulting Wall Street reform for providing “the biggest kiss that’s been given to New York banks,” and considering eliminating tax deductions for oil companies.

I can't believe they're trying this stunt so close to the election and think they're going to come across as anything other than craven liars, but then, that's all Romney has done since he started campaigning, so it's nothing new. The man has been on every side of every topic imaginable, so why stop now? He's gotten some push back like this interview from the media, but for the most part he's been given a pass for his behavior.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (176)

PLAYS: (1876)

Embed

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a time that the anagram for RNC chair Reince Priebus was more appropriate than this one, but that's the first thing that came to mind when I heard he and his team at the RNC are deploying a "rapid response team" to be ready at all times during this week's Democratic National Convention. Heaven forbid they might take their cue from the GOP and lie like rugs in their speeches.

And who wants to take dibs our lazy corporate media will be happy to follow along and "report" on a lot of what they send over to them, without "fact-checking" their counter points to the speeches given? If what Priebus said in the interview here is any indication, they're not off to a good start. He got a good deal of push back from O'Brien on some of his lies, but not nearly enough in my opinion.

Priebus was still trying to pretend that the world started the day that President Obama got elected and refused to acknowledge that Republican obstruction had anything to do with the fact that the economy is not doing better than it is now.

He pretended that Republicans really just love that Bill Clinton, who they treated with almost as much animosity as they have our current Democratic president and who they tried to impeach impeached. Now he's the good guy and him speaking at the Democrats convention must of course be bad for President Obama.

But Republicans pretending that Bush didn't exist and making sure he didn't speak at their convention is no big deal and is not bad for Republicans. Talking about him is just a distraction. Who cares if he was the one that drove our country into a ditch we still weren't out of when President Obama took office? Pay no attention to that man President Obama had to clean up after. Everything was great while he was in charge and then that terrible black president came in there and made everything worse in Priebus' world.

Priebus was also probably one of the earlier ones during the day to recite the "are you better off than four years ago" nonsense which ended up being repeated endlessly throughout the day. As I noted in my previous post, it's a B.S. meaningless question in the first place. It doesn't get to the heart of what actually needs to be done and policy questions which should rightfully be answered by all sides about what the solutions are to get our economy back on track, who wants to do what and who's responsible for pushing forward or blocking what policies and why.

Priebus doesn't want to talk policy which was made evident by this interview, among others. He'd rather play politics and try to turn this election into St. Ronnie vs Jimmy Carter, which is what the "are you better off" question is really all about. It's politics and trying to turn President Obama into Jimmy Carter and a game they've been playing and have hoped will stick but hasn't for months on end now.

And as far as old RNCPRBS trying to blame that debt and deficit on Obama, I've got a few charts for you to read here buddy:

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama

How the Deficit Got This Big

I'm quite sure his "rapid response team" will be ignoring any data on those charts.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (289)

PLAYS: (789)

Embed

As Think Progress reported this Monday morning, Senators John McCain and Kelly Ayotte are out there raising fears about the pending cuts to the military budget which are coming as part of the sequestration plan passed by Congress during the debt ceiling debacle, but they had some trouble making a legitimate case on CNN as to just how those cuts would be "devastating."

McCain Can’t Explain Why Military Spending Cuts Would Be ‘Devastating’:

In their current campaign against automatic military spending cuts, Republican Senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH) claim the reductions will be “devastating” to the U.S. military. But when asked to provide specifics on that claim on CNN this morning, McCain came up empty: [...]

Panetta does repeatedly say the military spending sequester would be “devastating” to the U.S. military but he has also failed to explain why. Panetta’s most specific remark on this point has been to say that the U.S. would have to reduce its presence in Latin America and Africa — i.e. hardly a “devastating” blow to the military or U.S. security. Moreover, a recent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office report found that the automatic spending cuts would bring the Pentagon’s budget back to what it spent in 2006.

As for McCain’s jobs argument, defense industry CEOs and other experts have said warnings that the military spending cuts will damage the economy and cause massive layoffs are “overblown.” And if you’re going to argue that federal spending is necessary to create jobs — a concept Republicans are now embracing in order to protect the nation’s bloated military budget — it’s probably better to, as one study has found, try to direct those dollars away from the Pentagon toward other domestic priorities.

Neither of them did a good job of explaining why we need a military budget, as O'Brien pointed out, five to eleven times larger than China, Russia or Britain. And McCain just completely brushed off the fact that his party is protecting the wealthy by refusing to raise taxes on the richest among us. And sadly neither of them were really challenged on any of their assertions by O'Brien. Another softball interview where politicians are allowed to spew their talking points unchallenged from CNN. It doesn't do much good to ask the right questions and then refuse to do any follow up when those questions aren't answered or answered with lies.

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (163)

PLAYS: (1398)

Embed

Apparently CNN thinks as little about wasting their viewer's time as Tennessee Rep. Marsh Blackburn thinks of wasting her constituents' time with utterly meaningless votes that are going nowhere to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They actually had this flame thrower on there for the better part of the show. Richard Socarides rightfully called Blackburn out for exactly what she and her fellow House members are doing, which is purely political theater.

Par for the course with their unwillingness to ever admit they're wrong or lying about anything, Blackburn refused to admit that's what they're doing was theater, but then proving his point, said she wished they were taking those votes every single day. If there's one thing Republicans are good at, it is theater because they sure as hell don't care about actually governing. And they continue to prove it with stunts like this one.

Things got a little heated with the back and forth, but that's nothing new for Blackburn.

ROMANS: All right, Congress is back to work this morning after a Fourth of July recess. In just two days, House Republicans plan to call a vote to repeal the president's health care overhaul law.

But it's mostly symbolic, a symbolic vote because any repeal effort would likely die in the Democratic-controlled Senate. And of course, the Supreme Court has ruled on this, it is the law of the land, health care reform.

Yet Republicans want to fight it to the bitter end and I'm wondering, should Congress people be spending more time helping constituents comply with the law rather than continuing all of this uncertainty?

BLACKBURN: Well, when you have 2,300 new regulations and 158 new federal bureaucracies that is are created by this law, then there's a lot of uncertainty and a lot of we don't know exactly how it's going to be.

ROMANS: Do you have people in the back office who are answering the phone calls saying if you have fewer than 50 workers, small businesses, don't worry, it doesn't apply to those who have fewer than 50 workers?

BLACKBURN: We have all sorts of information on our web site, Facebook.

ROMANS: So you're going to help people comply?

BLACKBURN: Yes. It's the law of the land.

ROMANS: We're going to make this not come true, not here is how we're going to help you get your business --

BLACKBURN: Our goal -- our goal is going to be to get this off the books. Here is what we want to do --

SOCARIDES: This is like a piece of theatre, all right. This is not going to get through the Senate.

BLACKBURN: Let me tell you this is not a piece of theatre.

SOCARIDES: So you're just doing it to make a point.

BLACKBURIN: No. It is not a piece of theatre because what the American people want to hear Congress say is that Obamacare was a mistake.

SOCARIDES: So you're making a statement.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (88)

PLAYS: (238)

Embed

Looks like someone's having a little trouble keeping their talking points straight. RNC Chairman Contradicts Romney Camp, Says Mandate Is A Tax:

The Romney campaign has been taking pains to emphasize they believe the individual mandate is not a tax. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus didn’t get that memo.

On CNN’s “Starting Point” Tuesday morning, Priebus said that the position of both the RNC and the Romney campaign is that the mandate is, in fact, a tax.

“Our position is the same as Mitt Romney’s position,” Priebus said. “It’s a tax.”

Priebus said that while he disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the health care law, the decision defined the provision requiring people to either purchase insurance or pay a fine as a tax. “It’s a tax, and the reason why it’s a tax is because the Supreme Court, No. 1, ruled it was a tax and No. 2, it’s what Barack Obama’s lawyer argued before the Supreme Court,” Priebus said.

The only problem: Priebus’s assessment, though he framed it as the joint belief of the RNC and the Romney campaign, is directly at odds with Romney’s recent statements.

In a rare agreement between the two campaigns, the Romney camp has shied from calling the mandate a tax because doing so would imply that Romney, too, created a tax in Massachusetts under his health care reform plan. “The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that it was a tax,” senior Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said Monday on MSNBC. Fehrnstrom said it was “correct” that Romney and President Obama agree on the issue.

Here's more from our regular commenter Mugsy on why the Republicans are so desperate to call it a tax and why it's not: Sorry Right Wingers, the Health Care Penalty is NOT a “Tax”. Roberts says so. (Updated with video)

Transcript of Priebus' exchange on CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »