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

DOWNLOADS: (58)

PLAYS: (249)

Poor, poor old Pat Buchanan thinks that Fox News has "objective" reporters... like Chris Wallace... and that the White House was completely unfair "to say that the Fox News reporters sittin' in there are the Republican opposition". Chris Wallace huh? Have you even watched his show Pat? For that matter have you turned their station on lately as I unfortunately have?

I have watched Wallace's show on Sunday just about every stinking week for the last several years since I've been helping Mr. Amato out with video at this site, and the words "objective" or "reporter" are not what come to mind for me when watching Chris Wallace in action. Hack, partisan, corporate lackey and Republican shill are some of the kinder terms that come to mind for the likes of Wallace and his buddies over at ClusterFox.

Since Pat would probably be more comfortable in a chair at Fox rather than MSNBC which is trying to paint itself as a "liberal" network, his response is not surprising. Of course the rest of the panel chimed in that this smack down by the White House of Fox was just terrible for them. Heaven forbid they might eventually say something about what has happened to all of the rest of our sorry excuse for "news" shows which have been turned into info-tainment instead of something designed to inform their viewers.

If either the Democrats or the Repulicans cared at all what's happened to our media in this country, they'd be doing something to break this up. When six companies control the majority of what most people watch on the television, see at the show, read in the newspaper and listen to on the radio, we are no longer a democracy. Buchanan and his ilk are just a one part of a bigger problem we have, which is something that is allowed to pass itself for "news" is designed keep the American public dumbed down, ill-informed and more worried about the latest celebrity gossip than anything that will affect their daily lives.

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

DOWNLOADS: (73)

PLAYS: (174)

This is a typical Villager panel discussion that makes me want to throw something through the TV set. Extoll the virtues of bipartisanship for its own sake, everything is win or lose and about politics, like it's some game, and never take any responsibility for your own network not making sure the voters are more informed.

Apparently Bob Cesca felt the same way after watching a some of yesterday's media coverage of these poll numbers. They're Hurting America:

The disconnect, as John Cole points out, is the corporate media. They've been predictably covering the politics-as-sports debate, but not the intracacies of the policy, which they ought to be doing. So it's not surprising that cable news is leading the charge in suggesting that it's the president who hasn't been forthright enough. Let it be said that the media never misses an opportunity to make excuses for its massive breaches of integrity.

But let's say for a moment that the president explained reform and the public option perfectly. Exactly like the press is prescribing. Even then, they'd very likely 1) find another anti-reform meme to inject into their "smackdowns" and half-time shows, and 2) they'd still be inviting serial liars like Mike Pence, unabashed morons like Maria Bartiromo, and centrist capitulators like Harold Ford onto their air to spread misinformation about reform and further confuse viewers.

The one thing I agree with the CNN panel on though is that the President has not done a good enough job of laying out some details of what he wants to see in this legislation, and it's helped them muddy the waters. Bob's right though. It would probably make little difference with what the media coverage looked like.

MALVEAUX: Also joining me is CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

What does it mean, Gloria, for the president to be losing out on these Independents?

BORGER: I think it's a real possible for him. Remember that President Obama won the election with 52 percent of Independent voters. That number is down considerably to 43 percent, and Independents are the margin of difference here for him.

Now, the key to keeping those people is, right now, they are worried about the deficit. They see the president as a big spender. They see him aligned with so-called liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress. So, what he's got to do when -- after Labor Day is kind of show them that he is the kind of so-called post-partisan president that many of them thought they were electing.

The good news for President Obama in this is that they are not realigning themselves with the Republicans yet, because the Republican Party still has very high disapproval ratings.

Now, Jessica, you've been watching something as well, which it looks like to be a generational gap in these numbers.

YELLIN: Absolutely. Well, we know the president did exceptionally well with the young during the election, and that has held strong. Sixty-five percent of the young still approve of the job the president is doing, but it's seniors that we keep talking about, especially in light of health care reform.

He has only a 42 percent approval with seniors. That's very low, and that's right now. So, our numbers don't necessarily tease out that it's because of health care reform, but it's likely that this is a direct effect of the current debate. And if the president is able to get some sort of health care bill through, if he's strong on seniors, protecting them, protecting their Medicare, we could see that number rebound.

Continue reading »

While addressing Obama's recent horrible poll numbers from Newsweek on the TODAY Show Monday morning, Harold Ford was asked if Obama's flip flopping on some issues had impacted those numbers and Ford--without provocation--attacked MoveOn and the entire liberal blogosphere for not being happy with his FISA vote. There was no need to criticize us, because we weren't part of the question she asked.   So I can only conclude that Ford was referring to FISA and he took an opportunity to throw us all under the bus. I think there were a few other issues that we didn't even complain about. Why would Ford pull those attacks out of thin air? It's all to please the Villagers. That's why you're a loser, Harold.

Q: There's also a lot of accusations now about both campaigns about flip flopping, specifically against Obama about flip flopping? Do you think there's something going on, does Barack Obama have to worry now?

Ford: No....this race is fluid, this race is finally forming. Two things. Barack Obama is running for the President of the US, not the President of MoveOn.org, the President of any liberal group. He's running to lead, be a decision maker and a visionary for the country on the economy, national security and the immediate issue of Iraq.

I'd say McCain has flip flopped on many more positions than Obama has so the question is way off, which how a good Democrat should have responded, but beside that, what is Ford talking about? The country wants to move left. Check out all the numbers. Almost eight years of Bush have decimated the conservative movement and the economy, so people want a real change. Running as a liberal should be a goal to run towards, not a problem to move away from even if the media wants this race to be about personalities and not policies.

Here's a message to Ford: I want Obama to win the presidency very badly for all the obvious reasons, but I will not sit by idly while he allowed retroactive immunity to be passed. There was no need for that issue to even have been brought to the floor of Congress or for him to vote for it. He wasn't the only one to vote for it either, by the way. You can donate here to our Blue America page to help the cause. Is Jonathan Turley a dirty f*&king hippie too?

I'm sure you got the appropriate props from your media and DLC buddies for slipping that one in. Harold.

Email him here and ask why he went out of his way to attack us, but be gentle. You know how fragile he is .... harold@fordfortennessee.com

Harold Ford so very much wants to be part of the punditocracy that he does what they all do eventually. In one clip he carries himself well by telling Tweety that McCain married into a beer fortune after Chris was going into his Obama doesn't understand the working class nonsense. OK, that's pretty good. However, in the next clip he has to tell the Villagers that McCain's speech was his most powerful evah! Did he see the speech? It was awful. Giving the speech in Kenner, LA was a terrible choice because he could have gone to a Blue state to spread his message and the green background made him almost unbearable to watch. Yes, McCain's very good in intimate settings, but giving speeches to larger audiences is not one of them.

Download | play Download | play (Beer Fortune) (h/t Heather)

Ford: And he is married, and this is no disrespect or slight to his wonderful wife, but he married into a wonderful beer fortune.

Download | play Download | play (Powerful speech) (h/t Heather)

Ford: A powerful speech by John McCain this evening!

Even FOX News couldn't control their disdain for his speech. I'll have video shortly of that. Is it part of the Villager sign up card to praise McCain even when it's not called for?

It shouldn't surprise anyone when Meet The Press assembles a panel of four spin doctors* that they will furiously try to out spin one another, though in at least one instance there was a qualitative difference. Three were selling old models, John McCain and the DLC , while Bob Shrum was more or less left on his own to paint rosy pictures of that New Kid on the Block, Barack Obama.

Download | play Download | play

Former republican presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee and political consultant Mike Murphy (hired gun in the past for both John McCain and Mitt Romney, among others) were bemoaning the fact the republican brand was damaged, while trying to sell the idea that John Sydney McCain was just the tonic for a beleaguered party. Huckabee's spin was the usual tired and worn "Maverick" nonsense, McCain as the non-traditional traditional republican. Or something like that. Murphy's hyperbole would extend further, calling McCain a "Change Agent," a centrist who would bridge the partisan gridlock in Washington. (Murphy said all that with a straight face, too.)

Harold DLC Ford, Jr came in, chomping at the bit, when the conversation moved to the three recent congressional losses by republicans in heavily red districts, seats in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In each of the races Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were used by the RNC in tv advertising as the scary 'libruls' to dissuade the republican districts from voting for the democrat. This strategy was a dismal failure. But to Harold the real lesson to be gleaned from all this was that moderate democrats were on the ascendant, and that presumably the democratic party should not stray too far to the left lest it implode. The party brand might be a problem but as long as the candidate running was not 'threatening' everything would be fine.

Each selling an idea without any real facts to back up their assertions. One could ask, for instance, how Sen. Barack Obama became the most liberal in the U.S. Senate with a collective rating (80%) from liberal interest groups similar to that of Joe Lieberman (78%), while John McCain's rating (9%) by the same groups is down near the bottom of the barrel of true lunkheads like Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-SC), all at 8%.

Beware of salesmen selling you a bad bill of goods is an old and in this case, apt piece of advice.

*Informal a person who provides a favourable slant to a news item or policy on behalf of a political personality or party [from the spin given to a ball in sport to make it go in the desired direction]--Collins Essential English Dictionary