You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 8

PLAYS: 2

(Joseph Califano - Two Years in the hotseat and a pink slip for the trouble)

During the early days of the Carter Administration Joseph Califano was appointed Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. By all accounts it was a strained relationship which eventually led to his firing in 1979. From 1977 until 1979 he was the center of several controversies, including the banning of Saccharine, Affirmative Action and quotas in the College system, the Medicare/Abortion issue, a National Health Insurance proposal, smoking and even the 1977 outbreak of Swine Flu (yes, there was Swine flu even then). Califano was not handed softballs, to be sure. As these two exchanges from a 1977 appearances on Meet The Press will attest:

Carol Simpson (NBC News): “Mister Secretary, the Swine flu mass immunization program was a disaster from start to finish, and I have a two part question: first of all, to find out whether your agency, given the same information as was given the agency a year ago, would have embarked on such a program? And secondly, what are you going to do now that the American people have really become frightened by mass immunization programs and what are you going to do if we have a similar vaccine in the future that might be necessary to be given to the people?”

Joseph Califano: “Miss Simpson, I am not prepared to say what I would have done had I been in the government a year ago. It is not clear to me in what ways different decisions would have been made. I intend to look at that thoroughly and carefully as I think that kind of public health decision is difficult as the Secretary has to make. The greatest damage the Swine flu program has done, aside from the human tragedy of the individuals paralyzed and killed has been the impact on immunization programs, particularly for children. There are sixteen million children in this country under the age of fourteen who have not been immunized against Polio, and a large part of that is attributable to the peoples fear about immunization programs. We’ve got to restore confidence . The first step we’ve taken is to open up the entire process for selecting the vaccines for next year. We’ve done that and we haven’t made the selections yet, but every fact that’s relevant to that will be available to the public. We also intend to have a substantial stepped up program of education for children and parents in the immunization area , and to try and get the children of this nation immunized.”

Nancy Hicks (New York Times): “President Carter campaigned on a promise to bring National Health Insurance to the American people. Does this still have a high priority, and if so when might we expect a legislative draft?”

Califano: “This has a very high priority. I regard the Social Security issue, the welfare reform issue, the American family issue and National Health Insurance is four central Presidential priorities for me. We would expect to have legislation before Congress next year in this area. I will be working with and recommending a program during this year.”

Hicks: “Beginning of the year or end of the year?”

Califano: “I don’t know whether it will be the beginning or the end of the year. If President Carter continues the way he’s going on other programs it will be the sooner the better, and closer to the beginning of the year than the end of the year.”

Needless to say, 1977 was not the year of Universal Health Care. Nor was 1978 or 1979 for that matter.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 18

PLAYS: 12

(Abraham Ribicoff - Secretary of Health, Education And Welfare in 1961 - also Hand Holder, Paranoia Assuager, Debunker)

In 1961, JFK introduced a bill that would provide medical assistance to the Aged. It later became known as Medicare and would later pass in 1965 during the Johnson Administration. As is always the case, the mere mention of anything connection with a government aid program where Healthcare is concerned is immediately tossed into the realm of Socialized Medicine. And in 1961 it was no different.

Newly appointed Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Abraham Ribioff was confronted by a dizzying array of skepticism from the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries who instantly labeled any kind of Healthcare reform as Socialized Medicine. As is evidenced by this exchange between Ribicoff and Meet The Press co-founder Lawrence Spivak:

Lawrence Spivak: “ Mister Secretary, as you know the AMA and others have charged that the Medical Bill for the Aged under Social Security is an opening wedge to Socialized Medicine. Now if you thought there was a chance that the bill might be an opening wedge to Socialized Medicine, would you still be for it?”

Abraham Ribicoff: “ Well, it’s not an opening wedge to Socialized Medicine, I’m for the bill.

Spivak: “No, I’m asking if you thought that it was an opening wedge . . .

Ribicoff: “I would be against it . . .I would be against the bill if it were Socialized Medicine. . . “

Spivak: “If it opened the door to Socialized Medicine?”

Ribicoff: “It doesn’t open the door to Socialized Medicine”

Spivak: “Would you tell us what makes you so sure that it doesn’t?”

Ribicoff: “Because you and I and every other American, Mister Spivak has the right to choose his own doctor. There is nothing in this bill that has anything to do with doctors. This bill takes care of the health needs to the people of America, our aged over sixty-five, and basically takes care of their hospital bills, their nursing home bills and their visits to the home for home care. The bill specifically provides that each and every American has the right to choose his own doctor and his own hospital.”

The bill wound up being defeated, owing to a Congress recess and an overheated paranoia campaign (sound familiar?). But the Medicare Bill did finally pass in 1965.

The eerie sense of Deja-vu is everywhere.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 34

PLAYS: 7

(Ernst Reuter - first Mayor of Postwar Berlin - no easy gig)

With the 20th anniversary of the end of the Berlin Wall coming up, I've been running through some events involving Germany, and most notably Berlin, during the height of the Cold War.

Ernst Reuter had the somewhat herculean task of being the first Lord Mayor of postwar Berlin. In 1948 he was faced with the blockade of Berlin by the Soviet Army which effectively cut off all supplies of food and fuel to the city. Reuter appealed to the West for help and it began the famous Berlin Airlift, which singlehandedly saved the city from starvation.

On March 30, 1949, Reuter visited the U.S. and was invited to participate in a segment of Meet The Press where the subject of Berlin and the Cold War in general were discussed.

May Craig: “Mister Mayor I’m thinking of it in the larger sense, as long as the Communists hold the basic doctrine of world revolution how can there be peace unless everybody else submits?”

Ernst Reuter: “ As long as Western powers and the free world is not insisting on the liberation and not fulfilling the task to liberate these peoples who want to be free, that will be very difficult. But in the long run the Soviets cannot stay against the greater moral strengths of the western peoples, that is impossible. I don’t know, maybe after twenty, thirty years we will have a war, I don’t know. But for the time being I can see the possibility to come to a solution, at least for the time being without a war.”

Reuter, who died in 1953 never got to see the fruits of his labor, but he was a very integral part of the Big Picture.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 37

PLAYS: 5

(Willy Brandt, 1961 - You'd chain smoke too if you had the Russian Army staring at you all day)

Since next week signals twenty years since the infamous Berlin Wall came down, I thought I would post a few items dealing with Germany during the Post-War years. Talk of reunification had been going on since 1946, with the Russians vehemently opposed to it at every opportunity. There had been showdowns between east and west at various times all the way up to November 9, 1989. Always Berlin was perceived as the flash point in any heating up of the Cold War and life in Berlin was regarded by many as life under a heated microscope.

But before August of 1961 there was no wall separating the two Berlins. Only miles of barbed wire fence and checkpoints and troops.

Willy Brandt had the dubious distinction of being Mayor of West Berlin during this time. It was certainly no easy task.

On March 12, 1961, Brandt sat down to a panel interview on Meet The Press and asked about the situation as it currently was in Berlin.

Stewart Hensely (UPI): “Mister Mayor, Soviet Premier Khruschev a few weeks ago sent a communication to Chancellor Adenauer which he restated the demands on Berlin and Germany. This came after a period of relative quiet. Do you anticipate that this Spring or this Summer we’re going to see another increase in pressure on Berlin to bring a crisis as we had in ’58 and ’59?”

Brandt: “It’s hard of course to predict what will happen, but personally I’m inclined to believe that we will not have a new Berlin crisis within the next few months. But the memorandum indicates that new pressure might come sometime later this year.”

Prophetic words from Brandt, since less than five months later the Russians constructed a vast and inescapable wall, dividing the two Berlins. Frequently referred to as "The Wall of Shame", it stood in mute testimony to just how tenuous peace was. And it stood there for 28 more years.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 51

PLAYS: 10

(In case you were getting all dewey-eyed for the 70s)

Before George P. Schultz landed in the Reagan Administration as Secretary of State, he served for a while as Treasury Secretary under Richard Nixon, right during the fabled Energy Crisis of the 1970s.

Granted, we hadn't gone through this kind of thing before. It was 1973 and we were about to be distracted in a big way by Watergate, but the thought of skyrocketing gas prices, panic buying at the pumps and oil companies raking in massive profits just hadn't happened this way before or to this extent.

And so everyone, including Schultz was busy scratching their heads wondering what to do as is evidence by this exchange during his appearance on Meet The Press from December 2, 1973.

Irving R. Levine (NBC News): “Would not higher prices for gasoline favor higher income groups to the disadvantage of lower paid people?”

Schultz: “Not necessarily. The . . obviously you have a family budget with so much purchase of gasoline and fuel oil, and to the extent that lower income groups use proportionate to their income a little bit more than higher income groups, it has some of that effect. But I don’t think it’s a major problem in the family budget.”

Levine: “ But would not a lower . . .

Schultz: “It’s much more of a problem than if we don’t pay the price that is necessary and we don’t have any fuel.”

Levine: “But would not a person with a big income feel free to buy whatever amount of gas is necessary to do the driving that he wishes to do, where a lower income person would not be able to?”

Schultz: “That is true of all kinds of things that are reflected in the buying power of people at different incomes.”

Levine: “ Do You oppose rationing entirely, even as a last resort?

Schultz: “Well I said it should be the absolute last resort, and I’m not really sure that it is a genuine alternative in the sense of being really a workable type of system. Of course there are various kinds of rationing, and depending on how its designed it could work better or worse. I think it is worth remembering that toward the end of World War Two we had patriotic fervor and so on, we had six thousand people in OPA, enforcing . .getting after people in the black market, which I think gives you an idea the difficulties of a rationing system.”

Okay, no simple answer. But the disconnect associated with "well, only higher income people drive" strikes me as typical Republican response. Even during the course of the interview, Schultz offers a few snide asides about higher and lower economic brackets. And of course, he was very much in favor of letting the marketplace go insane.

Remember the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results - or as a friend put it, doing the same thing over and over and knowing what the results are going to be.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1873)

PLAYS: (2741)

David Gregory talks to author Jon Krakauer about his new book 'Where Men Win Glory' and Gen. McChrystal's part in the cover up of Pat Tillman's death.

GREGORY: Jon Krakauer, I want to get to a key element of your book, "Where Men Win Glory," about Pat Tillman and how it relates to this current conversation about Afghanistan. Because it does involve General Stanley McChrystal, who was obviously critical on the stage now and was critical in the Tillman story of well. As a reminder, if you look at pictures of Pat Tillman, the NFL star with the Arizona Cardinals, decides to enlist in the Army, serves in the Rangers after 9/11. This was certainly a big story when he enlisted. And at the time, General McChrystal was actually head of Special Operations command.

So Pat Tillman was killed in a friendly fire incident and ultimately won the Silver Star, and that's what you focus on in the book and in a subsequent piece that you wrote for The Daily Beast. And here's what you wrote: "An October 5 Newsweek article [said, about General McChrystal] that `he has great political skills; he couldn't have risen to his current position without them.

But he definitelydoes not see himself as the sort of military man who would compromise his principles to do the politically convenient thing.' In the week after Tillman was killed, however, this is precisely what McChrystal appears to have done when he administered a fraudulent medical"--excuse me--"a fraudulent medal recommendation"--we're talking about the Silver Star--"and submitted it to the secretary of the Army, thereby concealing the cause of Tillman's death." Briefly explain what happened.

KRAKAUER: The--after Tillman died, the most important thing to know is that within--instantly, within 24 hours certainly, everybody on the ground, everyone intimately involved knew it was friendly fire. There's never any doubt it was friendly fire. McChrystal was told within 24 hours it was friendly fire. Also, immediately they started this paperwork to give Tillman a Silver Star.

And the Silver Star ended up being at the center of the cover-up. So McChrystal--Tillman faced this devastating fire from his own guys, and he tried to protect a young private by exposing himself to this, this fire. That's why he was killed and the private wasn't. Without friendly fire there's no valor, there's no Silver Star. There was no enemy fire, yet McChrystal authored, he closely supervised over a number of days this fraudulent medal recommendation that talked about devastating enemy fire.

GREGORY: And that's the important piece of it. And, and he actually testified earlier this year before the Senate, and this is what he said about it.

(Videotape, June 2, 2009)

LT. GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL: Now, what happens, in retrospect, is--and I would do this differently if I had the chance again--in retrospect they look contradictory, because we sent a Silver Star that was not well-written. And although I went through the process, I will tell you now I didn't review the citation well enough to capture--or I didn't catch that if you read it you could imply that it was not friendly fire.

GREGORY: Even those who were critical of him and the Army say they don't think he willfully deceived anyone.

KRAKAUER: That's correct. He, he just said now he didn't read this hugely important document about the most famous soldier in the military. He didn't read it carefully enough to notice that it talked about enemy fire instead of friendly fire? That's preposterous. That, that's not believable.

GREGORY: All right, part of this debate. Thank you all very much.

We'll continue our discussion with Jon Krakauer in our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web Extra. Plus, read an excerpt from his book, "Where Men Win Glory." It's all on our Web site at mtp.msnbc.com. And we'll be right back.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (57)

PLAYS: (231)

Former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe weighed in on Meet the Press on the role Sarah Palin is now playing in the Republican Party and her interjection into the NY 23 District Congressional race. This was before the news broke that Scozzafava endorsed Blue-Dog Democrat Owens over the Conservative Party candidate Hoffman today.

GREGORY: You talk about Palin. Let's put up what you wrote about her. "It was early morning, Denver time ... when my cell phone erupted with calls." This is when she was selected. "Palin--it took me a moment to place the name. ... Palin was a bolt of lightning," you wrote, "a true surprise. She was such a long shot; I didn't even have her research file on my computer. ... I started Googling her, refreshing my memory while I waited for our research to be sent. ... I thought it was downright bizarre, ill-considered, deeply puzzling. ... [McCain] had been shouting from the rooftops that Obama lacked the experience to be president. ... With the Palin pick, he had completely undermined his core argument against us. ... `I just don't understand how this ends up working out for McCain. In the long term, I mean ... when voters step back and analyze how he made this decision; I think he's going to be in big trouble. You just can't swing--wing something like that--it's too important.'" That was then Senator Obama speaking. What about Palin now? Is she a force to be reckoned with in 2012?

PLOUFFE: Well, I think we should thank John McCain for picking her, in terms of how it helped us win in 2008, but I think we should doubly thank him now. What's going on in the special election in New York 23 I think is a remarkable phenomenon and could affect our politics for years to come.

GREGORY: She endorsed the, the independent, more conservative candidate.

PLOUFFE: Yes.

GREGORY: And now we've got the Republican candidate who's stepped aside.

PLOUFFE: So a centrist Republican has been ridden out of that race. And I think what you're going to see in the coming months, if not years, is Sarah Palin--you know, by the way, she kind of playing the role as pied piper in the Republican Party, which is something I'm quite comfortable with.

So Sarah Palin, the other Republican candidates who are likely to run, the Limbaughs and Becks of the world are basically hanging a "moderates need not apply" sign outside the Republican National Committee headquarters. And for a party that has historic lows right now, because centrists and moderates are leaving them in droves, they have catastrophic problems with younger voters, Hispanic voters and African-Americans, it's a various curious strategy to kind of repair this damage. So I think they're becoming more a very motivated corps, but a small corps of about 23 percent of the country.

Steve Singiser has more over at Daily KOS on the latest turn of events in that race--NY-23: Did Doug Hoffman Throw The Democrats A Lifeline?

With the battle between Democrat Bill Owens and third-party insurgent candidate Doug Hoffman within the margin of error, Hoffman should have picked off the bulk of the Republican vote from Scozzafava's remaining core group of supporters, and that should have been the ball game.

Few people suspected that in an historically Republican district, Owens could survive without split opposition.

But, then, by virtue of his own gracelessness, Doug Hoffman complicated matters...for himself. [...]

To give a succinct recap: Owens praised Scozzafava and promised to work for upstate New York. Hoffman cackled a quick "I told you so" before returning on the attack.

That might explain why a large number of Scozzafava supporters, from the head of the state's Independence Party to several voices within organized labor, immediately turned to the Democrat Owens rather than her fellow Republican, Hoffman. This morning, one of the more prominent newspapers in the district, The Watertown Daily Times, followed suit, switching its endorsement from Scozzafava to Owens.

And then, in the second shocker from her in as many days, the Republican nominee endorsed the Democratic nominee. [...]

In the final analysis, it might not matter, of course. Owens is still fighting upstream in a GOP district against what is now for all intents and purposes a single GOP opponent. But Hoffman's own lack of class might have made this a lot of harder on him than it could have been.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 20

PLAYS: 3

(Gen. Lauris Norstad - leaving the picnic early)

As my colleague Jason Sigger over at C&L pointed out this morning, it's been hard getting other NATO allies to commit their fair share of troop strength during the current Afghan crisis. Sad to report, it's always been that way.
In fact, it's had wide ranging political ramifications for quite some time. As evidenced by this Meet The Press interview from January 1963, then NATO Commander General Lauris Norstad was asked why it was difficult to some NATO allies (in that case France) to commit to a security force in the region of Europe.

Marquis Childs: “General Norstad, during your six years as Supreme Commander of NATO, one of the important duties was to try and persuade the French, and in the last four years President DeGaulle, to integrate his forces with NATO. But progressively the direction has been the other way, toward not . . toward against integration. What is your explanation for this?

Norstad: “Mister Childs you’re laying a tremendous responsibility on my shoulders, I’m not so sure I deserve all of this. But, to answer your question, I think General DeGaulle has made it extremely clear throughout the years, and perhaps particularly in his press conference earlier . . last week that he feels very strongly that France must have some independent strength. He is increasing the strength of France including the military strength, but he is not putting it within the Alliance. I may deplore this, as a matter of face I have deplored this, but I think we should recognize first that he is increasing strength. I hope that circumstances, and these are political considerations and not military considerations as you appreciate – I hope that circumstances will permit him to commit these forces to the Alliance in the future.”

Granted, Norstad was a big believer in nuclear weapons as a viable and active option. Something that staggers the imagination today. But even at the height of the Cold War, it was difficult to get support from a unified NATO without walking through a political minefield in order to do it. It was widely thought the fallout between Norstad and DeGaulle quickly aided in his premature resignation from his NATO command

It begs the question just why there still is a NATO, since it really was the byproduct of the Cold War and could be considered something of a historic curio. But I will leave that up to my colleagues to discuss at length and with better information at their disposal.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1310)

PLAYS: (1775)

To hear Joe Scarborough on Meet The Press, you would think he was sitting on Harry Reid's lap clutching an E-Ticket during the healthcare bill negotiations. Not only does he know exactly how many votes the "opt-out" option has in the Senate, he knows for a bonafide fact that the White House wants to protect "conservatives and Blue Dogs" during the 2010 election cycle by favoring a "trigger" scheme over the public option.

Scarborough is really good as usual at hoping we will read his loud, pompous 'certainty' as honesty. But not so fast, Joe: The White House issued an official communique Sunday afternoon:

A rumor is making the rounds that the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option. Those rumors are absolutely false.

Where does Joe Scarborough get his leaks? Who, exactly would take Scarborough's call? Could it possibly be...opponents of a public option?

In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition. That continues to be the President's position.

Senator Reid and his leadership team are now working to get the most effective bill possible approved by the Senate. President Obama completely supports their efforts and has full confidence they will succeed and continue the unprecedented progress that is being made in both the House and Senate.

Okay that last paragraph is a bit of Rahm-approved blah blah blah, which points to the urgent task at hand: to continue to pressure the White House to get much more involved in pushing for a public option in the final bill. Mister President? It's double overtime, and if you really want to score on the public option? Mere cheerleaders do not put the ball in the net.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1308)

PLAYS: (2508)

From Meet the Press, Joe Scarborough and Dan Senor think it's just fantastic that the GOP is running their "moderates" out of the party. Great game plan guys. Keep this up and maybe the GOP can get down to 15% instead of 20% of Americans that want to identify themselves as Republicans.

GREGORY: All right. Let--I've got about a minute left here. I want to talk politics here. Joe Scarborough, there seems to be, within the Republican Party, a litmus test going on. You had Sarah Palin on Facebook endorsing the conservative independent candidate in New York for that congressional seat in the 23rd district.

SCARBOROUGH: Mm-hmm.

GREGORY: Is this what's going on inside the Republican Party, this sort of run to see who can be the most conservative as a means of retaking power in 2010?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, it, it depends. How could any Republican, how could--let me strike that. How could any conservative be against the person that the Republican establishment in D.C. is for if they're conservatives? This woman, this Republican candidate, is for card check. She was for the Obama stimulus package. She has voted for taxes. I mean, she's been one of David Paterson's best allies. Why would a conservative support that Republican? This is, this is just one more example of how the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is so disconnected from conservatives.

SENOR: You're seeing a revolt all over the place. In Joe's state, in Florida...

SCARBOROUGH: And, and I'm saying...

SENOR: ...Marco Rubio, who's running against Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate...

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.

GREGORY: Right.

SENOR: ...the Republican establishment in Washington rallied behind Charlie Crist because he was supposed to deliver the general election. Suddenly the polls in the Republican primary are closing, all the Republican primary conservative support is getting behind Marco Rubio, who's the start-up candidate.

SCARBOROUGH: And by the way, people love...

MAYER: This can't be good for the Republicans that have their own base being fractured, is it?

SCARBOROUGH: No. It's great for the Republican Party because...

SENOR: It's fantastic for the Republican Party.

SCARBOROUGH: ...when I, when I ran in 1994, the Republican Party on the state, national and local level tried to run against me a moderate Republican. And I'm not talking, I'm not talking abortion or gay marriage, I'm talking taxes and spending, small government. That's great to reinvigorate the base.

GREGORY: All right. And the president's out there for two big governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia this week, which a lot of people will see as some kind of referendum. We're going to leave it there.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (52)

PLAYS: (167)

Jane Mayer's expose in the The New Yorker explains how the U.S. is conducting a secret war in Pakistan using unmanned Predator drones. Americans have largely come to accept the Predator drone strikes as necessary but PBS' Tavis Smiley warned the attacks could turn futures generations against the U.S. "Killing is killing and somebody ought to say that," Smiley said Sunday on NBC.

TrueSlant: Hire Rachel Maddow to fix Meet the Press.

The Zoo: A Question to Ask, with an interesting comment thread

Mad Kane: Bystander President

Kickstarter: A 'geekoid novel for smart people' seeks funding

Hot Chicks With Douchebags: I hope this is the most difficult decision I have to make today. Who is douchebag of the week (exceptin' Jon Kyl)?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1496)

PLAYS: (4196)

It looks like David Gregory is reading C&L and many other blogs because I've been saying that for the cost of the wars, America would have health care bought and paid for. David Gregory finally asked a Republican the same question. This clip also shows that republicans are living in a land far, far from reality if they actually go on TV and say Americans aren't dying because they have no health care.

David writes: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told NBC's David Gregory that the war in Afghanistan is a "necessity" but health care reform is not as important.

"And is it a necessity to tackle the fact that there are more and more Americans who die because they don't have access to health insurance?" asked Gregory.

Kyl disagreed with the premise of the question. "I'm not sure that it's a fact that more and more people die because they don't have health insurance. But because they don't have health insurance, the care is not delivered in the best and most efficient way," said Kyl.

Talking Points Memo notes that it is indeed a fact that Americans die from a lack of health insurance.

I imagine Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) -- of "Republicans want you to die quickly" fame -- might have a field day with this one.

And for the record, a highly-publicized Harvard study released last month said that 45,000 deaths are linked to lack of health insurance coverage each year -- and that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher death risk than their privately-insured counterparts.

It would have been nice if Gregory followed up and asked Kyl to back up why he thinks Americans aren't dying over health care. That's what he does week after week. Show quotes and news reports to back up his questions, but to just let Kyl ignore the premise of the question is ridiculous. Gregory knows thousands are dying every month. It's not a secret or some super duper liberal code word. And the country shouldn't be spending blood and treasure on the two Bush wars like it is and the country knows it too.

But I don't want to focus on Gregory too much because at least he asked the question. Sen. Kyl is either a stone cold liar or really is that ignorant.
(David helped me with this post)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 21

PLAYS: 10

(Ramsey Clark in 1968 - in something of an uncomfortable place that year)

February 18, 1968. In anticipation of another "long hot summer", as had been the case for a few years running, Meet The Press hosted a panel which asked Attorney General Ramsey Clark what was going to be done about the problems with our violent cities, with the protesters, the extremist groups - generally everything that was destined to make 1968 a milestone year.

To say Clark had his hands full is an understatement, but the level of fear and paranoia being voiced by the media was something else. But then, so was the resistance to change in a lot of perceptions.

James Kilpatrick: “Mister Attorney General, in his recent message on crime, the President devoted a significant passage to narcotics laws. In recent months there’s been a considerable controversy about marijuana and its dangers. Some authorities appear to take the view that its non-addictive drug, no more risky to society really than tobacco or whiskey. What is your own view on marijuana?"

Ramsey Clark: "My own view is that the use of marijuana, the sale of marijuana is a federal crime. And we will investigate and prosecute where that use and sale of it is found. I also think in our time, and particularly among our youth, the atmosphere of permissiveness is a danger, a clear and present danger to our kids. Marijuana is so frequently coupled with LSD and other highly dangerous drugs that we have to enforce very effectively in this field to protect those youth from themselves, and to protect our society."

And this was only February.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1380)

PLAYS: (7223)

I do think that the wingnut glee in the IOC deciding to award Rio with the 2016 Olympics has really been a perfect example to show how reactionary the republicans and conservatives have become. Actively cheering something that would have helped an American city (and American jobs and the economy) just because they perceive it as hurting the president? Serious derangement.

On Meet the Press, Rachel Maddow just can't believe the level of Obama Derangement Syndrome necessary to cheer against an American victory:

The unseemly cheering on the right for America losing the Olympic bid I think is going to be the taste that lingers a long time after this failure. Certainly, the President tried to get something and he didn’t get it, and people who hate the President feel like that’s a cause for celebration, but to see, for example, the Weekly Standard, post “Chicago loses! Chicago loses! Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard headquarters” I think says a lot more about the Weekly Standard, says a lot more about the right right now than it does about this loss.

I know that facts are pesky and frequent ignorable and non-essential things for conservatives, but all four final candidate countries were represented by their respective head of state. If Obama hadn't gone, the right would have excoriated him for losing the bid because he didn't show. And it's the same hubris and American exceptionalism that dismisses that King Carlos of Spain and Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama were also snubbed. So there was no scenario in which Obama could have not gotten slammed by these wingnuts.

And it is in that Catch-22 that the wingnuts lose even more supporters, because these idiots are happy for failure for this country just to score some cheap political points, as Republican strategist Mike Murphy so aptly proves.

These are the people to guide America? I don't think so. They don't care about America. They don't care about Americans. It's the same mentality that fights against real health care reform, and helping struggling homeowners over insurance companies and financial institutions. And try as they might, Americans saw that "party over everything" attitude in 2008 and voted accordingly. And if the right keeps letting the wingnuts control the dialog like this, I have no fears over 2012 either.