DOWNLOADS: (342)

PLAYS: (3850)

Embed

Chris Matthews just couldn't seem to make it through another segment talking about the Republican's recent overreach with their assault on women's access to affordable contraceptives without bringing on the Catholic bishops favorite water carrier, Melinda Henneberger.

Henneberger's recent piece at The Washington Post attempts to blame Democrats for ginning up the recent debate purely for political and fundraising purposes as though the backlash against the actions of the Catholic bishops and some of the recent statements from presidential candidate Rick Santorum, or the invasive transvaginal ultrasound bill that it appears Virginia Bob McDonnell has now backed off of, was not real or sincere.

Thankfully Salon's Joan Walsh was there to push back at Henneberger's assertions and I'll just lead readers over to her column where she has more on the interview above -- Did crafty Dems make contraception a campaign issue? :

First Rush Limbaugh, now the Washington Post women's blog, claim the GOP was set up by its enemies on birth control

Did you know the GOP doesn’t want to be talking about contraception? That it’s an issue ginned up by opportunistic Democrats? Rush Limbaugh made that case last week (while also insisting Republicans would win an election decided on culture war issues, so I’m not sure what his problem was.) But Wednesday it made its way to the Washington Post’s women’s blog, in a piece by Melinda Henneberger headlined: “It’s Democrats who are putting focus on birth control.”

Now, Henneberger is not a Republican. She’s a sorta-liberal, a veteran of the New York Times, Huffington Post, Slate and Politics Daily, who too often gives Republicans the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it comes to reproductive health issues. She emerged as a leading voice criticizing President Obama’s decision to require all employers, even religiously affiliated ones (though not churches) to provide contraception coverage in health insurance policies. You know my stand on that. But her questionable views on the politics of birth control got my attention a few weeks earlier, when she carried water for Rick Santorum and let him whine in an interview that Salon’s Irin Carmon had been unfair to him in her piece “Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control.”

Much more there where Walsh takes Henneberger's arguments apart, so go read the rest.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (336)

PLAYS: (2505)

Embed

I'm still just flabbergasted that the Republicans are doubling down on the idea that running on an anti-contraception platform and basically calling women who want to use birth control sluts, as Santorum Super PAC funder Foster Friess more or less did this Thursday during his interview with Andrea Mitchell, and that somehow is a good idea for them to make some electoral gains in the upcoming election.

Chris Matthews has been pretty terrible with a lot of his coverage on the issue and carrying a lot of water for the Catholic bishops, between his interview with Melinda Henneberger, or having the gay Tory Andrew Sullivan on as some expert on women's reproductive issues later in the week.

He made up for it a bit today with the inclusion of Rep. Jackie Speier and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton on his panel to discuss Darrell Issa and his Congressional hearing on "the intrusion of government into religion" and got some of their feedback on how women are being used as a political punching bag by the right.

All I can say is that when someone has finally over reached to the point where you've even lost Chis Matthews on the issue of abortion and contraceptive rights for women in America, you've lost that battle.

Matthews warned that candidate Rick Santorum had better do something quick to fix the mess that his funder Friess made on Mitchell's show, or he's going to lose every woman voter out there. I would apply that same logic to anyone who wants to vote for any Republican period that supports taking us back to the 1950's with these battles that should have long been over with women having a right to use contraception, or to anyone that actually ever considered voting for Rick Santorum before this dust up.

Jackie Speier made a really good point that is not included in the video above, and that was asking if the Catholic church has any objection to vasectomies for men being covered in health care plans, since that's a form of contraception as well. I'm guessing the answer is no, since they only seem to be concerned about the right for someone to control their own reproduction and bodies if it means keeping those uppity women in line who haven't learned their place yet.

Lawrence O'Donnell had on Santorum's Super PAC funder Friess that same night and I don't think he really did his candidate a whole lot of favors here. His response to O'Donnell asking what he meant with his statement to Mitchell was basically, it was a joke and Rick Santorum really does believe in providing contraception to women, even though he couldn't explain his statements contrary to that.

Video below the fold from O'Donnell's show.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (145)

PLAYS: (396)

Embed

Chris Matthews has been on a tear all week ever since the announcement that the Obama administration was going to require some religious institutions' health insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control. So who better to bring on as one of his guests than the Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger who just wrote an op-ed full of, as NARAL's Blog for Choice noted "misleading claims from anti-contraception groups regarding the Obama administration's decision to ensure millions of Americans have insurance coverage of contraception."

You can read their rebuttal to Henneberger's column here -- Counterpoint to Henneberger's Column in The Washington Post. You can read their entire response to Hennenberger's claims of discrimination and on the contraceptive coverage in their post, but I wanted to share wanted to share part of it here:

Response: Henneberger's claim implies that she knows the myriad of reasons why all women who happen to work at a religiously affiliated hospital or service agency might need contraception, including those whose doctors prescribe contraception for health reasons and not for pregnancy-prevention.

A recent story in The New York Times ("Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges," January 29, 2012) illustrates the dire consequences for women's health when institutions are allowed to block coverage of contraception:

One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically -- along with her ovary.

"If I want children, I'll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary," she said.

Henneberger claims that the criticism of this new rule threatens the Affordable Care Act.

Actually, this woman's story from Georgetown is one of the key reasons the Obama administration's decision is a win for women. Now, women in this situation won't have to fight for insurance coverage of medication that could prevent them from having health-related complications in the future.

Something that was completely lost on both Matthews and Henneberger in the interview above. As Digby noted earlier today "Said it before and I'll say it again --- with friends like Melinda Henneberger women don't need enemies."

Taylor Marsh had a few words for Matthews and his ilk that are worth sharing here as well -- Rachel Maddow Slams ’60-something Male Pundits’:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (126)

PLAYS: (355)

Embed

After all of the demagoguing of activist and community organizer Saul Alinsky that we've seen from the likes of Newt Gingrich, I'm glad to see segments like this one start to make their way into our corporate media. Chris Matthews spoke to The Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger and the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet about Gingrich constantly comparing President Obama to Alinsky during this Republican primary race and the fact that most people don't even know who he is, unless of course you're a consumer of right wing radio and Fox News and listen to or watch the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

As Henneberger noted during the interview on Hardball, those people are unfortunately more than familiar with his name since they've been using him to fearmonger about President Obama since the time he first got elected, but most people don't have any idea just who Alinsky is, much less his background and what he stood for.

And as Henneberger wrote in a recent article of hers which they discussed some of here, President Obama is not the one employing Alinsky's tactics -- Saul Alinsky would be so disappointed: Obama breaks ‘Rules for Radicals’. The people who are employing those tactics are Newt Gingrich himself and members of the so-called AstroTurf "tea party," some of whom as they noted here have even praised Alinsky for his tactics.

Gingrich and his ilk are employing one of their favorite tactics with the use of Alinsky's name to attack President Obama, which is to take what you're doing and project it onto your political opponent and hope those listening to you don't know any better. In the case of the right-wing hate radio listeners and Fox viewers, that's a given that they won't know the difference. I hope to see more discussions like this one for those who don't watch or listen to those venues so they are aware of how the right is trying to smear Alinsky while emulating him and are made aware of just how utterly hypocritical and ridiculous their attacks on him are.

And right on cue, Bill Maher I'm sure without meaning to proved their point about the fact that no one on the left even knows who the hell Saul Alinsky is, we got this New Rules segment. Video below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (698)

PLAYS: (2276)

Embed

I put together a mash-up of Chris Matthews on Hardball expressing his deep concern for poor old Joe Lieberman being treated so badly by Al Franken on the Senate floor. Tweety's all a flutter over heaven forbid someone in the Senate upsetting the usual decorum they have with each other. I say good for Al. Anything that gets Tweety and Grandpa McCain worked into a frenzy over something as minor as this is alright by me. Give 'em hell Al.

Transcript via Lexis Nexis.

MATTHEWS: Let`s take a look at this fight today. I want you to listen to this. It`s not definitely on your territory, but it`s got to fascinate you.

AXELROD: OK.

MATTHEWS: Here`s Joe Lieberman being told by Al Franken, the senator from Minnesota, to basically shut down and get out of the way, that you don`t have any more time. Let`s watch this. This is how fractious things are getting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: ... will provide an opportunity for broad savings in health care and health insurance for pretty much everybody in our country...

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D), MINNESOTA: Senator? Senator, you`ve spoken for -- I`m sorry -- the senator has spoken for 10 minutes.

LIEBERMAN: I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for just an additional moment.

FRANK: In my capacity as senator from Minnesota, I object.

LIEBERMAN: Really? Oh, OK. Don`t take it personally. I will ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be included in the record as if read.

FRANK: Without objection.

LIEBERMAN: I thank the chair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: I`ve never seen that, David. Working on the Hill, following the Hill, I`ve never seen a senator cut short on a -- you know, a casual request for an extra minute to continue speaking in a Senate that`s allowed to speak forever. Let`s face it, we understand you can speak forever in the Senate. Does that show how hot things are getting or what?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (190)

PLAYS: (339)

Embed

Even after admitting that Tom Ridge's revelations that he felt the terrorist threat level was being used for political purposes was pretty stunning, Matthews and his guests go on to just diminish this as politics as usual and some kind of running joke they were all in on. Too bad the media didn't treat it as such when it was occurring instead of doing their part to help scare the crap out of gullible Americans who didn't see right through this stuff. And this is not politics as usual. It's criminal. But our media treats the criminal as politics as usual, so sadly their reaction isn't surprising.