DOWNLOADS: (192)

PLAYS: (3179)

Embed

From this Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Darrell Issa wasn't the only one who had a contentious back and forth with Attorney General Eric Holder: Holder smacks down Gohmert over Boston bombings–’You cannot know what I know’:

An already-ugly House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday turned even nastier when Texas Republican Louie Gohmert took the wheel on questions related to last month’s Boston Marathon bombing–specifically, about what the FBI did and did not do after receiving information from Russian intelligence that suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been radicalized.

Attorney General Eric Holder had already faced a heavy grilling on both the AP and IRS scandals plaguing the Obama administration this week when Gohmert began pelting him with accusations that the FBI shirked a thorough examination of Tsarnaev because of “political correctness.”

“On the one hand, we go after Christian groups like Billy Graham’s group, we go after Franklin Graham’s group, but then we’re hands off when it comes to possibly offending someone who has been radicalized as a terrorist,” said Gohmert.

The Texas lawmaker added that though he “appreciated” the concern of racial profiling, he believes “there were a lot more people in America concerned about being blown up by terrorists.”

Holder fired back that Gohmert was speaking “as a matter of fact” about information not fully available to him.

“Unless somebody’s done something inappropriate, you don’t have access to the FBI files,” said Holder. “You don’t know what the FBI did. You don’t know what the FBI’s interaction was with the Russians. You don’t know what questions were put to the Russians, whether those questions were responded to. You simply do not know that…I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know.”

Yeah, old "terror babies" Gohmert is back at it again, fearmongering as usual.

DOWNLOADS: (115)

PLAYS: (691)

Embed

I'm not sure just how "humble" former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has been when he's done things like ask his ex to manage his campaign, introduced his mistress to his children for the first time onstage after he found out he won his primary race, trespassed on his ex-wife's property and then took out a full page ad explaining it, or having a mock debate with a photo of Nancy Pelosi -- but that's what he claimed during his debate this Monday evening with his Democratic opponent for the U.S. House seat vacated by now Sen. Tim Scott, Elizabeth Colbert Busch

SANFORD: Yeah, I was just going to say, the second part of what I think I would bring to bear is, you don't go through the experience I has back in 2009 without a greater level of humility. And what I would say, what I would say is that willingness to sit down with a Republican or a Democrat alike and say, you know, I know what I believe, I believe what I believe. I believe the facts support what I'm suggesting, but let me just sit down with you and let me just a little bit better understand where you're coming from.

Wow. So it made him more willing to reach across the aisle as well. Who'd have thought getting caught with your mistress "hiking the Appalachian Trail" would do all that for you? Sanford may be a lot of things, but "humble" or "bipartisan" sure as hell aren't the first two things I think of when I hear his name.

Colbert Busch was tough. She did a really good job during the debate, but it's a blood red district, so we'll see how things turn out on election day. Here's more with a recap on the debate for anyone that missed it: Sanford, Colbert Busch square off in SC debate:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (297)

PLAYS: (2729)

Embed

I don't think we're ever going to top the Donald getting roasted a few years ago, or Stephen Colbert and his appearance back in 2006, but for anyone who missed it and wants to watch, here's President Obama at this year's White House Correspondents Dinner.

He managed to get in a few good zingers aimed at Fox, CNN, the conspiracy theorists, birthers and Maureen Dowd among others.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (97)

PLAYS: (349)

Embed

For anyone that didn't catch it, Democracy Now's Amy Goodman was featured on C-SPAN's Book TV series, In Depth, this weekend and spoke to host Peter Slen for three hours about a wide range of topics, including her books Exception to the Rulers, Standing Up to the Madness, and The Silenced Majority.

During the opening of her interview, she discussed how Democracy Now first started broadcasting and their studio's proximity to the World Trade Center during the attacks on 9-11 and the importance of independent media in America where information is not brought to the viewers courtesy of corporate America.

You can watch the entire interview here at C-SPAN's web site. Lots and lots of really interesting and important topics were covered ranging from everything from how close she's come to being killed trying to cover genocide which the American media ignored due to our government's complicity in it being allowed to go on, among a host of other stories which her show has covered that the corporate media here in America ignores.

They discussed what the role of journalism should be in the United States, the Occupy Movement, the Arab Spring, whistle blowers being prosecuted, Gitmo, and many more topics than I've got the time to mention here.

She took questions from viewers, most supportive, a few that sounded a little bit nuts and if you've got three hours to spare and are a fan of Goodman's, I don't think you'll be disappointed about making the time to watch the whole thing.

C-SPAN is generally pretty terrible about the number of right-wing authors who they have on the air as part of their Book TV series. It was nice to see the give this amount of air time to someone from the left for once. It doesn't happen that often on their network.

DOWNLOADS: (152)

PLAYS: (1084)

Embed

If anyone didn't think this guy was quite insufferable enough during his interview on Piers Morgan last month, you're in luck. You can be treated to almost an entire hour of his whining about how liberals are keeping the poor conservative white man down.

This was a talk he gave at Jim DeMint's wingnut Heritage Foundation a couple of weeks ago.

Yes, Breitbart protege Ben Shapiro has got a book to sell, so naturally he's being promoted by the likes of C-SPAN, which sadly leans way, way to the right with their Book TV series. They ended up treating their viewers to what was one long exercise in projection, claiming that liberals just want to silence conservatives, making ridiculous claims that conservatives are somehow shut out of the political debate in the United States, and are being oppressed by some secret liberal cabal out there who makes sure no one can hear their message.

[Insert laughter here.]

In Shapiro's world, Media Matters has a whole lot more influence than I'd give them credit for. Plus, there's some grand conspiracy to keep conservatives out of Hollywood and our educational institutions. And you can't dare call a conservative a racist ever... never, ever... and don't dare call voter suppression racist or mention anything about their policies being racist, because then you're just pandering and trying to pick on them and YOU JUST BETTER SHUT UP.

And heaven forbid someone picked on poor ALEC and forced them to run away from the "stand your ground" laws. Yes, and Al Sharpton is a big bad meanie who, along with the rest of the "liberal media," tried to frame George Zimmerman.

I don't know if anyone's got the stomach for the rest of his pity party, but you can watch the entire event here. I'll leave everyone with a quote from one of my fellow contributors here at C&L, Mugsy, who relayed his feelings on this pity party of Shapiro's by email:

As noted, classic "projection". I've been saying for years that "if a conservative accuses you of something, it's only because they either did the same thing themselves or would if they were in your shoes."

Ding, ding, ding, ding... give that man a medal. That's exactly what we had here -- in such blatant form that it's almost laughable, or it would be, if not for the fact that there are still people who consider this guy some kind of "serious" conservative thinker.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the new fresh face of the Republican party -- which, oddly enough, looks just like the old face of the Republican party.

If they need any help with their "rebranding" effort, I sincerely hope they give this guy a call. I'm sure it will work out just as well for them as the recent efforts by Eric Cantor and Bobby Jindal.

DOWNLOADS: (190)

PLAYS: (1651)

Embed

Esquire's Charles Pierce hit the nail on the head with his assessment of this Thursday's confirmation hearing of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense -- and you can watch part of Sen. Lindsey Graham's petulant display during the hearing in the clip above.

Today In Hagel Bashing:

It was a bizarre, devotional exercise. Hagel was not being asked for his qualifications to lead the Department Of Defense — which, it should be noted, is largely an administrative one when it comes to the country's foreign relations. He was being asked to engage in a vague kind of theological debate. He was not being asked to profess his faith to Israel so much as to recant his heresies against the policies of the United States that were produced by adherents of a certain sect. He wasn't being asked to endorse Bibi Netanyahu so much as he was being asked to recant his unorthodox opinions as regarding the good works of Bill Kristol or John McCain. He was being asked, en ensemble, by Republicans old and young, essentially the same question John McCain spent six minutes hollering into the wind.

Please admit that we were right.

No. You were wrong. You were wrong in 2003 and you were wrong in 2006 and the Iraq war was a murderous cock-up from start to finish and Hagel, at least, figured that out in midstream.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (285)

PLAYS: (1544)

Embed

McCain was in full grumpy old man mode during the confirmation hearing for his former friend and colleague Chuck Hagel this Thursday -- and he really was not happy when he didn't get an answer that suited him on Hagel's criticism of the troop surge in Iraq back in 2007, which he called the "most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

"Were you right?" McCain said. "Were you correct in your assessment?"

"Well, I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out," Hagel said.

"This committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge," McCain pressed.

"I'll explain why I made those comments," Hagel said.

"I want to know if you were right or wrong," McCain interjected. "That's a direct question. I expect a direct answer."

"The surge assisted in the objective, but if we review the record a little bit," Hagel said.

"Will you please answer the question," McCain said. "Were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the 'most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.' Were you correct or incorrect, yes or no?"

Hagel wasn't willing to give him the sound byte he was looking for and it just got more contentious from there: McCain: Hagel on ‘the wrong side’ of history on Iraq:

As Hagel offered to “explain” his remarks, McCain cut him off. “I want to know whether you were right or wrong. That’s a direct question, I expect a direct answer.”

“The surge assisted in the objective,” Hagel said. “But if we review the record a little bit…

“Will you please answer the question?” McCain jumped in. “Were you correct, or incorrect, when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam? Were you correct or incorrect? Yes or no?”

“Were you right or wrong? That’s a pretty straightforward question,” McCain said.

“I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer,” Hagel said. “If you would like me to explain why…”

“No, I actually would like an answer, yes or no,” McCain cut him off.

“I’ll defer that judgment to history,” Hagel repeated. But he added that his Vietnam comments referred to “the overall war of choice, going into Iraq” and called the March 2003 invasion “the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam.”

“I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it,” McCain said. “And your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether to vote for your confirmation or not.”

“I hope whether you will reconsider,” McCain said.

McCain's got a lot of nerve lecturing someone else about foreign policy blunders, but as we've come to expect from McCain and his fellow neocons, introspection isn't one of their strong points.

DOWNLOADS: (134)

PLAYS: (630)

Embed

Better get used to the idea of the coming anarchy people. According to Sen. Lindsey Graham, all of us need to arm ourselves to the hilt, because if he has his way with the upcoming budget cuts, we won't be able to count on the police for help: Graham: We Need Guns Because Of Budget Cuts, Fewer Cops:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argued on Wednesday that Congress should think twice about passing new gun control regulations because future budget cuts in cities will constrain the size and quality of police forces across the country, thwarting effective response to violence.

Lindsey Graham: GOP-Forced Budget Cuts Will Mean Fewer Cops, So People Need To Arm Themselves:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been among the Senate’s most vocal backers of draconian budget cuts and has opposed increasing funds to put more police officers on the streets, said Wednesday that he will oppose gun violence prevention legislation because budget cuts will mean inadequate police forces to protect the public.

Graham told Baltimore Chief of Police James Johnson and former naval Captain Mark Kelly (husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords) that he planned to oppose the gun violence measures because people will need high-capacity magazines to compensate for the police response times these austerity measures will force:

GRAHAM: The point is, we have different perspectives on this. The reason I will oppose the legislation, Chief Johnston, is because i respect what your do as a lot — what you do as a law-enforcement officer. Has your budget been cut?

JOHNSON: Yes.

GRAHAM: Do you think it be cut in the future?

JOHNSON: I am optimistic that it is not.

GRAHAM: Well I hope your right, but I can tell people throughout this land, because of the fiscal state of affairs we have, there will be less [SIC] police officers, not more, over the next decade. Response time are gonna be less, not more. So, Captain Kelly, I really do want to get guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I honest to god believe that if we arbitrarily “say nobody in this country can own a 10-round magazine in the future, the people who own them are the kind of people we’re trying to combat to begin with.” There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here.

DOWNLOADS: (126)

PLAYS: (898)

Embed

I agree completely with Patrick Caldwell's assessment of wingnut Sen. Ted Cruz and his remarks this Saturday at the National Review Institute Summit about two "highly decorated former veterans" John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. This guy is quickly proving himself to be the Michele Bachmann of the Senate, constantly willing to throw red meat to their base: Chicken Hawk Ted Cruz Smears Kerry and Hagel:

Cruz appeared in Washington, D.C., at a forum hosted by the National Review Institute, the non-profit arm of the conservative magazine. "We've got two pending nominations, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Both of whom are very prominently [pause] less than ardent fans of the U.S. military," Cruz said to chuckles from the crowd.

A quick refresher about the two men he claims somehow oppose the U.S. military. In 1966, secretary of state nominee John Kerry, while studying at Yale University, enlisted in the U.S. Navy. In 1968, at the peak of the conflict, he requested to serve in Vietnam. The U.S. government ultimately awarded Kerry three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star for his service. Contra the despicable Swift Boat ads trotted out in the 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry is indisputably a war hero.

In 1967, Chuck Hagel, the secretary of defense nominee, was called before the draft board and volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army. Hagel saw combat in both Vietnam and Cambodia. Along with the shrapnel from a mine explosion still lodged in his chest, Hagel walked away from the war with two Purple Hearts and a host of other commendations.

The two men would later serve together in the U.S. Senate—Kerry as a Democrat, Hagel as a Republican. Neither voted consistently against the use of American forces abroad. Both, in fact, approved the resolution granting George W. Bush approval to pursue the foolish Iraq War.

Yet for Ted Cruz, who never served in the military, both Kerry and Hagel are dangerous peaceniks who cannot be trusted. Cruz, who has quickly earned a reputation in Washington for serving up Michelle Bachmann-style red meat to the right-wing crowd, didn't elaborate on his statement on stage and ducked out of the conference without fielding questions from the media. But it's simple to see where his objection lies: President Obama nominated Kerry and Hagel. If a Democratic president has nominated you, you must loathe the military. And if you're just another chicken-hawk Republican, you must love it more.

And here's more from the HuffPo:

Cruz went on to say that former President Ronald Reagan was more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than every other nominee put together for his stance towards the Soviet Union. Cruz threw in a reference to the only vice president ever to resign from the office, Spiro Agnew, who served under former President Richard Nixon, saying Reagan overcame the "nattering nabobs" at the Department of State to tell Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, "Tear down this wall."

"My view of national security and foreign policy is exactly that of Reagan's," he said.

You've got to love these Republicans. They just can't stop worshiping their imaginary version of St. Ronnie that only exists in their minds. The GOP has been so quick to prop this guy up because they're hoping he's going to help them with the Hispanic vote. Good luck with that.

DOWNLOADS: (105)

PLAYS: (484)

Embed

From this Friday evening's forum “Vision for a New America: A Future without Poverty” hosted by Tavis Smiley, which included guests Cornel West, Jonathan Kozol, Mariana Chilton, Newt Gingrich, Jeffrey Sachs, Rep. Marcia Fudge, John Graham and the National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro, I wanted to share a portion with Smiley and DeMoro which was also highlighted over at Daily KOS here: 'We Need a Real Economy' to Eradicate Poverty in the U.S.:

“We have to have an economy – a real economy. What do we have now? We want our jobs back. We want our pensions. We want our healthcare. We want to raise standards for everyone in America. We want a civil society…. Where’s our country?”

These questions, posed by National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro set the stage last night as TV and radio host Tavis Smiley convened a group of eight individuals for a landmark national broadcast promoting his goal of a “Vision for a New America: A Future Without Poverty.” [...]

Smiley is calling on President Obama to convene forthwith a White House Conference to Eradicate Poverty. He is asking people to sign on to this letter to the President. [...]

One solution for both the healthcare crisis and poverty, DeMoro said, is a single-payer healthcare system. “ It would cover everyone. The insurance companies would be gone. We could have cost, quality and access and the ability to be a civil society. If we had a single payer healthcare system, we could generate almost three million jobs, which would actually serve to stimulate the rest of the economy so you’re building and actually taking care of the people of America.” [...]

Continue reading »