DOWNLOADS: (167)

PLAYS: (1357)

Embed

Stephen Colbert took on the Heritage Foundation and Jason Richwine, the author of their racist so-called "immigration study" -- which made the claim that "the average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations" -- as only he can on his show this Tuesday evening.

As Stephen noted, Heritage is attempting to put some distance between themselves and Richwine now that he's resigned. Case in point being their VP of communications, Mike Gonzales, who put up a blog post stating:

Dr. Richwine did not shape the methodology or the policy recommendations in the Heritage paper... The dissertation was written while Dr. Richwine was a student at Harvard, supervised and approved by a committee of respected scholars... Its findings do not reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation or the conclusions of our study...

Colbert wrapped things up by explaining how they're attempting to have it both ways with that ridiculous statement:

COLBERT: Now, Heritage is saying they find no credence in Richwine's dissertation, which they are careful to point out was "supervised and approved by respected scholars" at Harvard. In other words, Richwine's paper, which says that today's Hispanic immigrants have low IQs and will for several generations, dooming them to failure is reprehensible.

And had no influence on this paper, co-written by the same guy, which says Hispanic immigrants are a burdensome underclass and will be for several generations, because they're doomed to failure.

Because this one is based on hard numbers, unlike this one, which is an offensive screed with no credibility, approved by Harvard, so it must be pretty good.

These two papers are totally different. It's like apple pickers and orange pickers... which by the way, we desperately need.

DOWNLOADS: (111)

PLAYS: (618)

Embed

(John Amato: Looks like my advice is paying off. Cooper is the latest MSM reporter who is calling RMoney/Granny Killer's 'six studies' claims bogus. )

CNN host Anderson Cooper on Monday became the latest journalist to question so-called "studies" cited by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, to prove that their proposal could cut taxes without raising the deficit.

In his "Keeping Them Honest" segment, Cooper observed that Romney had pointed to "six studies" to defend the tax plan, "but neither he nor his running mate Paul Ryan have ever specified which tax deductions they'll cap, which loopholes they'll close, or frankly give out many details at all."

"Despite that handicap, a bipartisan panel of three authors for the Tax Policy Center examined the plan and concluded that there's really no way of making the numbers work, that is unless the middle class pays more. Thousands of dollars more per family, according to the authors," the CNN host added.

But recently Romney told NBC's David Gregory that the Tax Policy Center was biased and that he had "five different economic studies, including one oat Harvard, Princeton and AEI and a couple at the Wall Street Journal" to back his proposal. Romney later increased that total to six studies while facing President Barack Obama at the first presidential debate.

During last week's vice presidential debate, Ryan also said that "six studies have guaranteed, six studies have verified that this math adds up."

"The suggestion is that these are full-blown academic studies," Cooper noted on Monday. "Actually, three are blog posts, one is a Wall Street Journal op-ed. In the Wall Street Journal piece, Martin Feldstein, who's also a campaign advisor, makes the math work but only by using a different definition of middle class than Mr. Romney uses in his own plan."

"In another study cited by Mr. Romney, Princeton economist Harvey Rosen assumes the tax cuts would generate enough economic growth to offset the cost but for many, that is -- that's a rather large assumption. One that's also by the way questioned by many conservative economists as well."

Cooper concluded: "Bottom line, though, that word assume. Every one of these authors in each of these studies or so-called studies is making assumptions. As some may be solid assumptions, others dubious, but they're all just assumptions because neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan nor any of their surrogates have yet come forward with specifics."

DOWNLOADS: (287)

PLAYS: (4057)

Embed

A woman who said she had graduated from Harvard began crying on Tuesday as she told Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan that "educated people" were "telling me what to do."

At a town hall event in Dover, New Hampshire, the woman, who said she was a first-generation American with parents from Yugoslavia and Romania, explained that she had moved from Los Angeles to Massachusetts to go to Harvard medical and dental school.

"What I saw there is something that I've never seen on TV or in real life, that was people who had an amazing education," the woman said as she choked up. "I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they knew more than me."

She continued: "I graduated in '93 and I've been living in Massachusetts with very educated people, only to find out that it's been really great but not the secret ingredient. They've been telling me what to do. I've been helping people, but they haven't become my friends. It's been really tough."

"I've found my values again and that's why I'm voting for you. When [Democratic Senate candidate] Elizabeth Warren shows me that those roads were not just built for a businessman ... they were built for everybody, but it is me who got my education. I went to Harvard!"

The woman, who appeared to be white, added that “because of the color of my skin,” she was the “single most disadvantaged student” at Harvard.

"I did not get extra help," she pointed out. "And that was OK by me. My father taught me, life isn't fair. Not one time did I say, 'That's not fair.' And after giving $1.5 million to people in need, I have only helped one person, and that's the person who's not in debt today, who's still not asking for more and said thank you. That's all."

After a polite round of applause, Ryan explained that his campaign was about promoting "equality of opportunity," instead of equalizing "the results of people's lives."

"The philosophy that you're identifying is a troubling one in my opinion because it speaks to people as if they're stuck in their station in life," the vice presidential candidate told the woman. "You know, victim of circumstances beyond their control and that the government is there to help them cope with it."

"Your success should not be based on who you know, it should not be based on political contributions or connections, it should be based on merit. And that's the system that's draining right now, the free enterprise system, economic growth, opportunity, job creation. It's stalling. We've got to fix that so we're not looking at other people, like you say, in this country."

Earlier at the same event, Ryan had slipped and called his campaign platform the "Ryan-Romney plan" while talking about treating the root causes of poverty.

"That's what the Ryan-Romney -- excuse me," he said. "Mitt and I talk about this stuff a lot. That's what the Ryan -- Romney-Ryan plan for a stronger middle class is all about."

The woman who spoke at Tuesday's event seemed to be echoing comments that former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum had made about "smart people" during Values Voter Summit on Saturday.

“We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country,” Santorum told the conservative crowd. “We will never have the elite, smart people on our side.”

DOWNLOADS: (485)

PLAYS: (3995)

Embed

President Obama didn't pass up a chance to take some jabs at the Republicans among others during this year's White House Correspondents Dinner, and I think he may have upstaged the featured comedian this year, Jimmy Kimmel.

Here are some of the better lines from the first clip:

We gather during a historic anniversary. Last year at this time, in fact on this very weekend, we finally delivered justice to one of the world’s most notorious individuals.

Cue to a picture of "the Donald" who was the butt of the jokes during last year's dinner.

This year, we gather in the midst of a heated election season and Axelrod tells me I should never miss a chance to reintroduce myself to the American people. Tonight, this is how I'd like to begin. My name is Barack Obama. My mother was born in Kansas. My father was born in Kenya and I was born of course in Hawaii.

Followed by a wink that even had Newt Gingrich laughing.

Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later, she won't stop drunk-texting me from Cartegana.

Anyway it's great to be here this evening in the vast, magnificant Hilton ballroom, or what Mitt Romney would call, a little fixer-upper.

Jimmy got his start years ago on The Man Show. In Washginton, that's what we call a Congressional hearing on contraception.

Even Sarah Palin's getting back into the game, guest hosting on The Today Show, which reminds me of an old saying, what's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.

Here's part two and some quotes from that clip are below the fold.

DOWNLOADS: (390)

PLAYS: (2753)

Embed

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (609)

PLAYS: (8822)

Embed

Jon Stewart took a shot at Sean Hannity after his ridiculous hackery the previous night promoting the latest debacle to come out of the Breitbart lackeys, trying to paint President Obama as a "radical." Stewart opened the show promising to show viewers a tape which would reveal the "real" Sean Hannity that he didn't want you to see.

He followed with making a mockery of the latest non-scandal which Hannity is making a fool out of himself pushing with the "newly"... or not so new it turns out "secret" tapes of President Obama that Karoli already wrote about here.

Gotta' love the Clockwork Orange screen shot with what's required to force anyone to actually have to watch Hannity's show followed by Stewart calling out Hannity for hanging around with "an admitted perjurer" (Oliver North), "a convicted Watergate murderer (G. Gordon Liddy), or "a man who stomped another man to death in Cleveland" (Don King), or "whatever this is." Cut to Ted Nugent which C&L covered here -- Ted Nugent curses out Hillary, Obama, Feinstein and issues threats with Machine Guns.

Stewart wrapped things up saying if Hannity really wanted to go after President Obama for his "radical" associations or for "damaging Obama footage" he might consider his hiring of Larry Summers to fix the financial crisis he helped cause, his claim that he'll close Gitmo, or maybe he should look into that foreign Portuguese Water Dog they've got living in the White House. That last one would not be all that much more ridiculous than Hannity's latest attack sadly.

DOWNLOADS: (159)

PLAYS: (235)

Embed

From the man who hates Europe so much he hid out there to avoid going to Vietnam and who has two degrees from Harvard, we got more of the Barack Obama is a European Socialist-loving, elitist, Harvard professor who hates America during his victory speech in Florida.

This man has exactly zero self-awareness to be able to give a speech like this.

Romney came pretty close to just recycling the same dishonest speech he gave after his victory in New Hampshire.

Full text of Romney's prepared remarks below the fold for anyone who can't or doesn't want to watch the video.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (302)

PLAYS: (835)

Embed

There were so many annoying and utterly ridiculous things that came out of Peggy Noonan's mouth during her appearance on Meet the Press, it was hard to decide which ones to post, since there were so many to choose from. Here she is taking a not-so-veiled shot at Elana Kagan.

NOONAN: It is amazing to me that we are, what, nine years into-- into these wars?

BROKAW: Longest war in American history.

NOONAN: Oh my goodness. And we are not talking about it every day.

KEARNS GOODWIN: Right.

NOONAN: On the streets and in the cafe--(CROSSTALK)--and over coffee. It is amazing. It's just accepted as a fact that one doesn't comment on.

BROKAW: Well, that's because less than one percent of the country is fighting the war. I mean in 99 percent of the country nothing is asked of us. I mean--

NOONAN: So then we better get-- (CROSSTALK)--ROTC back to Harvard.

KEARNS GOODWIN: Right.

BROKAW: Well, I-- I don't think that will make the difference, with all due respect, 'cause they have a choice of whether or not they wanna join ROTC. They don't have to. It's not--

NOONAN: Sure.

BROKAW: --mandatory.

NOONAN: Of course.

h/t Mugsy who sits through this nonsense like I do every Sunday for the tip.

DOWNLOADS: 675

PLAYS: 1010

Embed

Last Sunday, Rachel Maddow gave a speech at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. It's an excellent talk: Maddow's main point is that the high temperature fighting that goes on between opposing factions on cable news is not bad for the media - ratings and revenues for that kind of thing are through the roof -- but it does not contribute to governing the country. Just like mortgage swaps mean that banks are no longer invested in keeping people in their homes, when a person like Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle can use FOX News to play at politics without actually having a stake in governing the nation, they have no interest in actually solving the problems our country faces. That lack of investment in actual solutions, and ability to gain political traction (and raise money) without actually doing the work of governing, is, from Maddow's perspective, bad for politics and bad for government.

The Harvard Crimson:

She said the lines between governing and campaigning have been erased, and the climate of intense campaigning usually reserved for the final days of political campaigns exists constantly now.

This climate, she said, creates problems for governance. As an example, she said that newly-elected Republican congressmen have been told not to join committees because committee membership is bad for future campaigns. “Committees are where Congress does a lot of its work, in, you know, making laws and stuff,” she said.

(We're still looking for a transcript if you see one online please leave a link in comments - thanks).

UPDATE: Heather: I did not find transcript but did find an embeddable video.

Rachel Maddow on Press, Policy, and Politics (2010 T.H. White Lecture at Harvard) from Boston Phoenix on Vimeo.

DOWNLOADS: (607)

PLAYS: (696)

Embed

Well, here's some of the nonsense we get to look forward to from Republicans during Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination hearings.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told ABC News' "This Week" that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan "violated the law" by not allowing military recruiting on the Harvard Law School campus when she was dean there, and added the issue is "no little-bitty matter."

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., appearing on "This Week" with Sessions, dismissed the argument as "sound and fury signifying nothing."

The controversy revolves around Kagan's decision to prohibit military recruiting directly on the law school's campus because the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy prohibiting gays from openly serving in the armed forces violated Harvard Law School's anti-discrimination policy.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out last year, the fact that the Republican Party has Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III out there as their point man on the Senate Judiciary Committee replacing Arlen Specter when he retired is just disgusting to begin with given the man's racist past. I've got to wonder if he's going to embarrass himself during Kagan's hearing like he did when Sonia Sotomayor went before his committee. It probably won't be racism this time around that Sessions manages to make an ass out of himself over, but apparently he's getting a head start on lying about her as he did here.

Media Matters has more on Sessions talking point on Kagan and military recruiters that Newt Gingrich was out peddling as well. Imagine that... two Republicans repeating the same talking points and walking in lock step. When has that ever happened before, except every time a Republican opens their mouth?

Gingrich falsely claims "anti-military" Kagan "single[d] out the military" at Harvard:

Kagan did not block the military from campus

Harvard students had access to military recruiters during Kagan's entire tenure as dean. Contrary to Gingrich's claim that Kagan tried to "block the American military from Harvard Law School," throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Kagan became dean of Harvard Law in June 2003 and continued the school's policy of granting the military a special exception to its nondiscrimination policy so that the military could work with the law school's Office of Career Services (OCS).

In accordance with the nondiscrimation policy, Kagan barred OCS from working with military recruiters for the spring 2005 semester after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could legally do so. During that one semester, students still had access to military recruiters via the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. During the fall 2005 semester, after the Bush administration threatened to revoke Harvard's federal funding, Kagan once again granted military recruiters access to OCS. Harvard's data show that Kagan's actions did not adversely affect military recruitment. The notion that military recruitment was adversely affected by Kagan's actions is contradicted by data Media Matters obtained from Harvard Law School's public information officer. The prohibition on Harvard Law's OCS working with military recruiters existed during the spring 2005 semester, meaning that it could have affected only the classes of 2005, 2006, and 2007. However, the number of graduates from each of those classes who entered the military was equal to or greater than the number who entered the military from any of Harvard's previous five classes. Read on...

Pat Leahy did a good job of trying to push back against Sessions b.s. on This Week, not that it's going to make any difference to the Republican noise machine. There are reasons to have issues about Kagan's nomination. This isn't one of them. It's a damn shame the media doesn't do a better job beating back instead of perpetuating this crap so we could spend more time on the issues that do matter. Although I doubt we're going to get any real answers on the ones that do since she's written little about them and she's rightfully not going to answer questions on cases that may come before the court. She'd have to recuse herself if she did.

I don't expect this to be of any comfort to anyone that has reservations about her which I do as well, but no matter what you might have to say about Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court, at least they're not Jeff Sessions. It always astounds me that we get all the carping over the Republican nominees that turned out to be centrist and at least not extreme right wingers and them being called "liberal". Our Villagers in the media have bastardized the label so badly most people don't even understand what it means any more. Kagan looks like an Obama pragmatist to me right now. I hope she moves to the left of what we've seen from her so far because this right wing Supreme Court needs some balance very badly and that's an understatement of how terrible they've been.

Transcript below the fold via ABC.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1795)

PLAYS: (4558)

Embed

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)