truthbus

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Tea America

Daily Show Full Episodes

Tea Party

Jon Stewart: Pope Opera

2010-04-08T17:53:00.000-07:00

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Pope Opera

Daily Show Full Episodes

Clark Kellog And Barack Obama - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Tea Party

Clark Kellog And Barack Obama - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

2010-04-06T21:21:00.000-07:00

Frumpurgation

2010-04-04T11:26:00.000-07:00

March 2010 David Frum

Waterloo
AEI Says Goodbye
Joel Whitney interviews David Frum, Guernica January 2009
David Frum Purged TPM March 25, 2010
NPR, All Things Considered April 1, 2010

The Daily Dish, Frum's Departure From AEI Reax March 26, 2010

But here's where David and I agree: we both grew up when conservatism was intellectually sharp and interesting. Its current brutal anti-intellectualism, its open hostility to moderation in any form; its substitution of purer and purer ideology for actual, pragmatic ideas: these are trends that have left a lot of us on the center right marooned. I think David may well be glad he is now formally ostracized. It will liberate him and his formidable mind. Serious thinking conservatives know that these are times for real re-thinking, not more positioning. Julian Sanchez:
One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This epistemic closure can be a source of solidarity and energy, but it also renders the conservative media ecosystem fragile.

cf. Ranking Conservatives 6.17.2007

yes we can

2010-03-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

armageddon

2010-03-24T22:47:00.000-07:00

C&L

Fox's Shepard Smith interviews Michael Steele. Really? Armageddon? Really?

. . .. oOo .. . .

GOP plans to campaign on repeal of HCR?

~ 24:00

soundbite (tpm)

"Now that we passed it, they're already promising to repeal it. They're actually going to run on a platform of repeal this November," Obama said. "And my attitude is, 'Go for it.'"

"If they wanna have that fight, we can have it," he went on. "Because I don't believe the American people are gonna put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat. We've already been there, we're not going back. This country's moving forward."

Open Letter to Conservative Americans

2010-03-23T16:41:00.000-07:00

by Russell King, TPM

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parlimentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) -- 114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.

You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.

You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford.

You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.

You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hourswhen you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attemted terror attack on his.

You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Moaist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it's too short.

You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly.

You can't praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it "treasonous" under a Dem president.

You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

You can't condemn critizising the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of 'open debate'.

If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it's 2004 or 2010. This is true, too, if you're taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN. Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution. This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God's stand, too.

When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can't send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).

You can't criticize Dems for not doing something you didn't do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.

You can't decry "name calling" when you've been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.

You can't spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare

You can't praise the Congressional Budget Office when it's analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it's unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don't.

You can't vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don't. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.

You can't call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.

You can't spend tax-payer money on ads against spending tax-payer money.

You can't condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the madates were your idea.

You can't demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don't.

You can't whine that it's unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party's former leader admits you've been doing it for decades.

You can't portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.

You can't complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you've routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain -- threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented -- and admitted it. Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.

You can't question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn't object when your own Republican president appointed them.

You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheatingon your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coherce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother;

Hyperbole

You really need to dissociate with those among you who:

assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money";
say that "Comrade" Obama is a "Bolshevik" who is "taking cues from Lenin";
ignore the many times your buddies use a term that offends you and complain only when a Dem says it;
liken political opponents to murderers, rapists, and "this Muslim guy" that "offed his wife's head" or call then "un-American";
say Obama "wants his plan to fail...so that he can make the case for bank nationalization and vindicate his dream of a socialist economy";
equate putting the good of the people ahead of your personal fortunes with terrorism;
smear an entire major religion with the actions of a few fanatics;
say that the president wants to "annihilate us";
compare health care reform with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a Bolshevik plot the attack on 9/11,or reviving the ghosts of communist dictators (update: it's also not Armageddon);
equate our disease-fighting stem cell research with "what the Nazis did";
call a bill passed by the majority of both houses of Congress, by members of Congress each elected by a majority in their districts, an unconscionable abuse of power, a violation of the presidential oath or "the end of representative government";
shout "baby killer" at a member of Congress on the floor of the House, especially one who so fought against abortion rights that he nearly killed health care reform (in fact, a little decorum, a little respect for our national institutions and the people and the values they represent, would be refreshing -- cut out the shouting, the swearing and the obscenities);
prove your machismo by claiming your going to "crash a party" to which you're officially invited;
claim that Obama is pushing America's "submission to Shariah";
question the patriotism of people upholding cherished American values and the rule of law;
claim the president is making us less safe without a hint of evidence;
call a majority vote the "tyranny of the minority," even if you meant to call it tyranny of the majority -- it's democracy, not tyranny;
call the president's support of a criminal trial for a terror suspect "treasonous" (especially when you supported the same thing when the president shared your party);
call the Pope the anti-Christ;
assert that the constitutionally mandated census is an attempt to enslave us;
accuse opponents of being backed by Arab slave-drivers, drunk and suicidal;
equate family planing with eugenics or Nazism;
accuse the president of changing the missile defense program's logo to match his campaign logo and reflect what you say is his secret Muslim identity;
accuse political opponents of being totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists; terrorist sympathizers, McCarthy-like, Nazis or drug pushers; and
advocate a traitors act like seccession, violent revolution , military coup or civil war (just so we're clear: sedition is a bad thing).

History

If you're going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they're NOT synonymous!)

You can't cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you've decided you don't like his ideas.

You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word "terrorism" or say we're at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.

If you're going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.

You can't just pretend historical events didn't happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn't make it better.)

You can't say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from "socialist utopia"; health care reform is not "reparations"; nor does health care reform create "death panels".

Hatred

You have to condemn those among you who:

call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot;
elected leaders who say "I'm a proud racist";
state that America has been built by white people;
say that poor people are poor because they're rotten people, call them "parasitic garbage" or say they shouldn't be allowed to vote;
call women bitches and prostitutes just because you don't like their politics ( re - pea -ted - ly );
assert that the women who are serving our nation in uniform are hookers;
mock and celebrate the death of a grandmother because you disagree with her son's politics;
declare that those who disagree with you are shown by that disagreement to be not just "Marxist radicals" but also monsters and a deadly disease killing the nation (this would fit in the hyperbole and history categories, too);
joke about blindness;
advocate euthanizing the wife of your political opponent;
taunt people with incurable, life-threatening diseases -- especially if you do it on a syndicated broadcast;
equate gay love with bestiality -- involving horses or dogs or turtles or ducks -- or polygamy, child molestation, pedophilia;
casually assume that only white males look "like a real American";
assert presidential power to authorize torture, torture a child by having his testacles crushed in front of his parents to get them to talk, order the massacre of a civilian village and launch a nuclear attack without the consent of Congress;
attack children whose mothers have died;
call people racists without producing a shred of evidence that they've said or done something that would even smell like racism -- same for invoking racially charged "dog whistle" words (repeatedly);
condemn the one thing that every major religion agrees on;
complain that we no longer employ the tactics we once used to disenfranchise millions of Americansbecause of their race;
blame the victims of natural disasters and terrorist attacks for their suffering and losses;
celebrate violence , joke about violence, prepare for violence or use violent imagery, "fun" politicalviolence, hints of violence, threats of violence (this one is rather explicit), suggestions of violence oractual violence (and, really, suggesting anal rape wth a hot piece of metal is beyond the pale); and
incite insurrection telling people to get their guns ready for a "bloody battle" with the president of the United States.

Oh, and I'm not alone: One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.

So, dear conservatives, get to work. Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.

(Anticipating your initial response: No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

. . .. oOo .. . .

flashback: Emergence, the geebus 4.21.2009

Obama!

2010-03-22T13:42:00.000-07:00

daily dish

And yet no-one seems to get it:

I watched Obama's rise from Hyde Park over the last 15 yrs. Two things stand out: his political rivals almost always, and fatally, underestimate the guy's abilities. I sense there's some racism there, and his opponents always try to smear him as a "radical black guy" but Obama has always positioned himself above racial street fighting. The fact is, Obama is not just smart, he's brilliant.
Second, the guy constantly fights a war of attrition, staying the course, keeping his cool, but applying constant steady pressure to the abutments of the opposition, and over time almost all of them crumble.

I don't think conservatives have yet figured this out about a guy, who now, is their biggest danger to future political relevance. He's grinding them, slowly, into dust.

It's why I supported him. Because he was change; and because he actually thought change was needed for substantive reasons; and because he had proven his capacity not just to argue for change, but to persist in it, zigging and zagging, waiting and holding back, but still persisting. ...

. . .. oOo .. . .

3.22.2010 TPM Results ...

3.21.2010 the geebus Healthcare Reform

11.11.2008 the geebus Obama Didn't Budge

Lies, Damn Lies, and Rovean Books

2010-03-13T11:36:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Larry Wilkinson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and Larry O'Donnell really let Karl Rove have it on Countdown last night for cheerleading torture from the safe distance of his office:

Wilkerson, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell tonight (12 March 2010) on the matter of Karl Rove's book and its attempts to justify the use of torture techniques during the Bush administration.

WILKERSON: "Let me say this, I saw - I had the highest clearance, Top Secret SCI - I saw almost everything Secretary Powell saw. I saw no proof of any of the things that Karl Rove indicated, and, as a matter of fact, no proof that any of the interrogation techniques, other than those used by the FBI, early on, had a real impact on actionable intelligence.

And I've got something else to say about Mr. Rove: No political counselor should have - he doesn't have the need-to-know. He shouldn't have access to that kind of classified information. He has NO BUSINESS having access, so if the White House allowed him to, THAT is a no-no. And I will guess that he's getting his information from Dick Cheney, because he did not have access to that kind of information."

"He's trying to sell his book."

On Rove's contention that waterboarding was not torture because doctors were present, Wilkerson said: "Slick it up with some doctors, and slick it up with some other medical personnel present. That sounds like the Nazis... Nuremburg cites the responsibilities of physicians in that regard and it isn't positive what they say about them..."

O'Donnell started the segment pointing out that Cheney and Rove and Mark Thiessen, the big fans/cheerleaders of torture, never served in the military.

O'DONNELL: "As a military man, what does that feel like to watch the cheerleaders safely positioned on the sidelines, their whole lives, try to tell you what is the most effective process and technique in war?"

WILKERSON: "Well, it says to me, and I'll make no bones about it, that they're all cowards. I mean, it's plain and simple, they're all cowards."

New Media Watchdogs

2010-03-08T13:21:00.000-08:00

via HuffPo

New Media Watchdogs from Kimberly Butler on Vimeo.

. . .. ... .. . .

John Stewart and Jim Cramer truthbus March 13, 2009

funny or die skit

2010-03-04T10:22:00.000-08:00

Funny or Die's Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

Fact Check

2010-03-03T17:45:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(see above)

& HuffPo

& TPM

. . .. ... .. . .

Senator Hatch? Lying?

Oma

2010-02-26T19:42:00.000-08:00

I very rarely consider something worth e-mail broadcasting – this one is. We have been caring for Oma more intensely for some time now. And she finally had an unlucky day and broke a hip. Not at all unheard of at her age, but a bit sad all the same. But more to it, she was has received very poor care since. Currently she is being comforted by her eldest daughter Chris. Karolyn will have to go to Oakland tomorrow. Karolyn is out about 2 days and then one day back right now. It’s altogether not so easy right now, but this is family and this is how it goes sometimes. I am taking this situation and waving it in the face the “don’t let government steal healthcare types” who need a cold splash of reality.

I think it’s a story worth telling particularly since Obama is back talking healthcare reform. You are one of my most thoughtful friends – perhaps you can see this posted or sent to get the message out.

In the meantime – the rest of us are well, if not a little preoccupied.

Best.

Scott

. . .. ... oOo ... .. . .

February 24, 2010

President Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

Crooks and Patsies Oppose US Healthcare Reform While Oma Suffers

My mother-in-law broke her hip on Monday, President’s day. She went to a ManorCare Health Services facility on Tuesday - a supposedly skilled nursing facility. My wife and her family have been making daily trips to make sure she is well. They have found her on the floor, wading in her own urine and abandoned with her intravenous lines pulled out. A horror everyday. Just three days later my mother-in-law had to be transferred out of ManorCare with a dislocated hip. Right this minute she sits in a hospital emergency room because she was sent to the wrong hospital and they won’t admit her.

Our family is well informed, “well insured” and a few of us are health care providers ourselves. We are beside ourselves and everyone is turning their lives inside out to make sure that our Oma is as comfortable as possible. ManorCare, which is owned by the Carlyle “War Profiteer” Group based in Washington DC purchased Manor Care - a formerly well run company - in 2007 for $4.6 billion. Carlyle barrowed against ManorCare’s paid for buildings, put the company in debt and used that money for other investments. They have driven ManorCare into the ground! I’m sick just thinking about the ungodly people who make money by stealing from health care so they can make their rich pals richer.

This is wrong. For-profit healthcare is breaking America’s back. It has dislocated my Oma’s recently replaced hip. And I will see to it that obstructionist bullies who vote against health care reform are put out in the street. They are shills for the “healthdeterrence” and “pharmoverprescription” industries and shame on them.

/s/

. . .. ... oOo ... .. . .

Scott,

Thanks for sharing. I am so sorry to hear about Oma's circumstances. It is good that you are joining your voice with the thousands of others whose experiences have been similarly outrageous. I observe that President Obama hears and understands these stories, and has them firmly in his mind as he faces down the talking points. He has been rather explicit and consistent in expressing this, very notably yesterday.* Did you happen to see any of Obama's Jan. 29th visit to the House GOP Caucus retreat? Worth watching. Summary version (2:12) and full Q&A (66:45) available here.

Many people focus on the so-called 'political theater' of these events, dismissing their significance. Without wading into the debate about the significance (or non-) of the events politically, I very much like the tone being set by the President. Highly substantive. He does not put up with talking-points BS, and is the single most effective starer-down of BS that I have ever witnessed. He is an absolute master of his passions, which enables him to obviate the ancient rhetorical minefields in half a sentence. So if nothing else, it's cathartic and soothing to watch. But I think it's more than that: I recognize his M.O. as a highly effective strategy set, and these events have served as highly visible platforms for him to self-exemplify its use. I expect we will see more and more of this. It's something to root for, and gives me hope.

Best to the whole family,

2010-02-26T18:02:00.000-08:00

C&L

Remember way back in 2008, during the big primary, when Rush Limbaugh was telling Republican voters in Ohio and Texas to switch to a Democratic registration just so they could vote for Hillary and screw up the primary? People listened and obeyed, and now it looks like it could be coming back to haunt them:

Victoria Robertson has been an avowed Republican for decades, working tirelessly for conservative candidates and causes.
That is until a typo by a pollworker changed her party affiliation, elections officials say. Now she can’t even run for re-election to the GOP central committee.
“You’re a Democrat as we speak until the primary, and that cannot be changed until you get the right box checked,” Butler County Board of Elections Chairman Tom Ellis told her at a board meeting Wednesday, Feb. 24 — the deadline to certify the May primary ballot.

Now I have no reason to not believe that this was an accident that happened to Robertson. As matter of fact, one of the Democrats on the board even believes so:

“I find it to be a very disturbing situation,” Democratic board member John Holcomb said. “I think it is really a situation that cries out for procedural reform to take that power away from pollworkers.”

I know John and if he believes that then so do I, but there is something else in this article that really got my curiosity going:

Robertson was one of seven candidates for Republican central committee who were disqualified for pulling Democratic ballots in the 2008 primary. She was the only one to contest it, officials said.

Now let me pretend I am a lawyer making some closing arguments. In these closing arguments I want to present all the facts again. Here they are in nice bullet point form:

Butler County, Ohio has a population of 332,000
Butler County is a very red county, voting for McCain over Obama in 2008 by 61%-38%
In 2008 Butler County made national attention when people proudly proclaimed their obedience to Rush stating that they did exactly what he asked for.
In 2010, the next election cycle, 7 Republicans have been disqualified from running for voting Democratic in the 2008 primary
In 2010 0 Democrats have had this problem.

Coincidence? Sure, it could be, and unicorns could also roam the earth.

Now let’s think about this. Jumping parties in the primary like people did is actually a crime in Ohio. Out of 7 Republicans having this problem, only 1 has come forward to contest it. And keep in mind that these aren’t just your run of the mill Republicans, these are people who are involved in local politics. They are running for a position that is a foreign word to most people - “central committee”. That means they are devoted to party politics and now are considered to be on the enemy side, yet they aren’t contesting it? Something smells fishy here and I would go back to the plea by the GOP leader, Rush Limbaugh, asking his minions to jump party lines in Ohio in 2008.

....

Stewart on SOTU

2010-01-29T17:02:00.000-08:00

Speech Therapy - Post-Racial

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Stewart Special Comment

2010-01-22T16:54:00.000-08:00

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling

moose in headlights

2010-01-16T17:59:00.000-08:00

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Crazy Like a Contributor

The War On Leno - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

The War On Leno - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

2010-01-15T21:10:00.000-08:00

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

2010-01-06T19:35:00.000-08:00

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Give it to 'em, Sheldon

2009-12-21T21:22:00.000-08:00

fraud

2009-12-11T08:41:00.001-08:00

Beck - Not So Mellow Gold

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

WATCH: Bill Maher Auditions Sarah Palin's Writers (VIDEO)

what goes around lies down medicine

2009-10-19T09:07:00.000-07:00

HuffPo Rachel Weiner

[Keene utters something short of a threat, actually: "I'm not going to hit you but I'd like to, because you deserve it," in a calm voice. Seems to me a perfectly appropriate locution, commensurate with the degree of assholishness exhibited by Ziegler. You're not allowed to hit people in civilized society; and when you go around acting like an asshole, it's like hitting people, or polluting, or worse. ]

John Ziegler, voracious defender of Sarah Palin against all media criticism, has turned his sights from the liberal news to conservative politicos.

In his movie "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted," Ziegler went after the mainstream media for perceived liberal bias and slights against the Alaska governor. This weekend at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference (WCPAC), Ziegler went after a target closer to home: David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. In the end, the documentarian gets cursed at and kicked out of the conference. In response he's put video of the entire encounter on Mediaite.

Read more

"Leave It There"

2009-10-13T10:05:00.000-07:00

Scarborough Fair

2009-10-05T17:08:00.000-07:00

TPM TV

& 2009.10.04 Paul Krugman, "The Politics of Spite" (NYT op ed)

WATCH: Bill Maher Auditions Sarah Palin's Writers (VIDEO)

2009-10-03T21:20:00.000-07:00

‘The Boss’ Turns 60 - Well Blog - NYTimes.com

2009-09-25T21:24:00.000-07:00

‘The Boss’ Turns 60 - Well Blog - NYTimes.com

paleography

2009-09-18T13:05:00.000-07:00

Steve Ross
HuffPo

What happened, you ask? I'll tell you what happened, even if you didn't ask: digitization. Look it up. It will rock you to your very foundation, and put your petty, trivial concerns in perspective. And while you're perusing your online dictionary, try these terms; "disruptive technology", "disintermediation", and the one nearest though not dearest to me: "dinosaur".

more

YouTube - The Gonzales Cantata trailer - "I Don't Recall"

2009-09-03T14:34:00.000-07:00

Dished from the Dish:

YouTube - The Gonzales Cantata trailer - "I Don't Recall"

iTunes store

.O.O

2009-09-03T04:28:00.000-07:00

UNASSISTED TRIPLE PLAY: Phillie Eric Bruntlett Makes History (VIDEO)

2009-08-25T00:42:00.000-07:00

UNASSISTED TRIPLE PLAY: Phillie Eric Bruntlett Makes History (VIDEO)

transitioning

2009-07-16T11:42:00.000-07:00

TPM

I find it kind of comical that Craig Crawford says that the upshot of the Sotomayor hearings is that Obama is now free to go "hard left" in his next Supreme Court appointment. But the rest of his post is actually right on target.

"Racially-tinged inferences, snide liberal bashing and the shameless pandering to anti-intellectual sentiment that once won the day for Republicans are now falling flat," he writes.

Indeed, the attacks have "showcased just how narrow and out of touch their political base has become."

This is actually a very acute takeaway from this entire drama.

Consider that probably as much as 50% of the Republican attack on Sotomayor has been about this 'wise Latina' comment, in essence an overwhelmingly white and (in terms of elected officials) overwhelmingly male party accusing a Hispanic woman of bringing racism into the public square.

This is one of those cases where a discussion of the actual situation is apparently verboten.

I doubt anyone thinks that Sotomayor believes or ever believed that Hispanic women are inherently superior at legal reasoning than white men. I take it that a comment like this is a bit of hyperbole in response to decades and longer in which the mentalities and reasoning power of marginalized groups like Hispanic women were taken to be too limited and parochial to achieve the kind of disinterest and breadth required to administer the rule of law. That, and perhaps a sense that not only are they good enough but have particular experiences to bring to the job that these traditional worthies do not. ...

--Josh Marshall

Daily Show Takes On Lenny Dykstra, Jim Cramer (VIDEO)

2009-07-15T14:35:00.000-07:00

Daily Show Takes On Lenny Dykstra, Jim Cramer (VIDEO)

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Lenny Dykstra's Financial Career

Joke of the Day

comic relief

2009-06-22T16:19:00.000-07:00

Clear the Channel

2009-06-11T11:19:00.000-07:00

HuffPo

Barney Frank (~ 2:22)

... I'm sorry, please stop interrupting me. Alright, excuse me ... do you want to lose me? Do you want to lose ... excuse me.

... I apologize but this interview is over. I got three different questions, different angles; I try to respond; you want to interrupt because you don't like what I'm saying, then you can find someone else to interview.

Perspective

2009-06-08T21:20:00.000-07:00

Larry Gellman: My Pro-Israel Friends Need Pro-Zac

HuffPo

... I am so shocked and dismayed over the debilitating pathology that has gripped much of the organized Jewish community today--particularly those of my friends who proudly call themselves 'pro-Israel.'

What was once a proud, smart, intelligent, nuanced, and diverse movement has devolved into a combination cult-booster club championed by a handful of amazing people who lead a throng of angry, paranoid, one-issue folks with tunnel vision who often blur the difference between being a player and a fan.

more ...

Pants on Fire

2009-06-04T17:45:00.000-07:00

. . .. ... oOo ... .. . .

2003.9.16 Boston Globe

2003.9.18 Commondreams.org

2004.6.18 CNN

2009.5.21 McClatchy

2009.6.5 Andrea Mitchell

Torture Apologia Chart

2009-06-04T17:03:00.000-07:00

vagabond scholar

It can be difficult keeping up with all the torture apologist appearances and their BS du jour. Generally, they rotate through the same old long-debunked arguments, although occasionally they try out new lines of defense and attack. Some, like Clifford May on The Daily Show, try the "shotgun" approach combined with the style of a pushy car salesman – don't stop talking, talk over everybody else, change the subject if challenged, you-don't-buy-that-well-how-about-this, what can I do today to get you in the seat of amnesty for war criminals, friend?

Typical of torture apologists, it's a disingenuous performance that makes much more sense if one realizes he's arguing from a conclusion, not larger principles - don't prosecute or investigate any of the culprits. Because of this, torture apologists frequently offer extremely convoluted and even contradictory arguments. As I've written before, their defenses normally fit into a pattern of descending denials: We did not torture; waterboarding is not torture; even if it is torture, it was legal; even if it was illegal, it was necessary; even if it was unnecessary, it was not our fault.

... [M]any fine sites have offered detailed debunks of individual arguments in the past, and I've given my shot in "Torture Versus Freedom" (This is also in part a companion to an earlier piece, The Torture Flowchart.) Regardless, if you like visual aids to dissect your daily dose of hackery - and somewhat busy, low-res charts - here ya go.

Oy Vadersmir

2009-06-03T11:08:00.000-07:00

Cheney's Campaign To Keep Lawmakers In Line On Torture

tpm | zachary roth

The Washington Post reports today that, during 2005, Dick Cheney sat in on several of those CIA torture briefings, in an effort to persuade wavering lawmakers to keep backing the torture program.

The news doesn't really come as a shock -- indeed, some close observers had already guessed that the then-veep was involved in the briefings. But it does add to the picture of Cheney embarking during the middle years of the Bush administration on a focused, stealthy campaign to make sure the US didn't give up what he saw as its right to torture.

There's evidence that Cheney's efforts paid off by keeping GOP members in line on torture. For instance, according to the Post, the first briefing in which Cheney was involved occurred in March 2005 -- two days after the New York Times ran a detailed report on harsh interrogation techniques. One of the lawmakers briefed, Senate Intelligence chair Pat Roberts, had at the time been indicating he might support calls for an investigation of the techniques used on high-level detainees. But it looks like just two days after sitting down with the veep, Roberts announced his opposition to such a probe.

And at another briefing, this one in October 2005, Cheney tried to persuade Sen. John McCain to back off an amendment that aimed to ban practices like waterboarding, and that had broad support in the Senate. (In the end, the measure passed, though in a weakened form.)

This all jibes with what we know about those classified CIA memos which Cheney claims will, if declassified, show that harsh interrogation techniques produced intelligence that saved lives. Those memos, we now know, were dated July 13, 2004, and June 1, 2005.

As former TPMmuckraker Spencer Ackerman has pointed out, those dates are significant.

OK, July 13, 2004. What had happened then? Two important developments. First, in May, CIA Inspector General John Helgerson had completed his review of how the interrogation program worked in practice, a still-classified document that appears to have found the agency had exceeded the boundaries demarcated for it by the 2002 Office of Legal Counsel memo that gave the program legal sanction. And second, in June, the new OLC chief, Jack Goldsmith, revoked that 2002 memoranda, which sent Cheney legal adviser David Addington into a sputtering rage.

And:

Next, June 1, 2005. No, not merely a birthday present for me. That's the day after new OLC chief Steven Bradbury had released the final of his three May 2005 memos that reauthorized the CIA's interrogation program -- rulings that found, among other things, that waterboarding (which the CIA says it had not performed since 2003) did not cause "severe physical pain." All the memos, taken together, determined the CIA's interrogation program was, in every material respect, legal. But it's likely that Cheney recognized this wouldn't be the end of the debate on torture -- either internally, or with Congress and the Courts. Having material from the CIA -- especially a CIA helmed by his ally, Porter Goss -- arguing for the need for the program's continuation would be powerful ammunition for any bureaucratic fight.

In other words, the evidence suggests that Cheney commissioned those memos at specific times in order to bolster his position in fighting efforts to crack down on torture. And today's report in the Post suggests another element of Cheney's campaign -- directly lobbying key lawmakers, at critical times, about what he saw as the vital importance of the program.

Of course, Senators Carl Levin and Russ Feingold have both said they've seen the CIA memos at issue, and that they don't support Cheney's claim that enhanced interrogation got results. Rather, said Levin, they discuss the program for high-value detainees as a whole, which included harsh techniques but also other methods.

tpm obama/cheney mashup

2009-05-21T16:13:00.000-07:00

tpm

Jesse Ventura body slams Sean Hannity

2009-05-19T14:29:00.000-07:00

HuffPo Jason Linkins

Thanks to all the Media Monitors who highlighted last night's entertaining tilt between Sean Hannity and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura. Hannity, didn't "want to go down the old road" last night with Ventura, who's made his antipathy for the Bush administration abundantly clear. So the Fox host instead pitched a segment of "new questions" to Ventura. And then, within seconds, the conversation immediately shifted to teleprompters. Jeezy creezy. Have you heard about how our monster president became the first person to ever employ this Satanic device of Pure Fraudulence?

This is new: "George Bush inherited the negative impact of 9/11." That's apparently a new counter to the old refrain about how Obama "inherited" all sorts of turd sandwiches from his predecessor. I suppose I'm supposed to accept the premise that a President can "inherit" the fallout of an event that happens nine months into their term.

Jesse Ventura, I like the way his mind works! Hannity attempts a weird a rambling case about the Clinton administration's inattention to terrorists, and just as I am imagining the obvious rebuttal, Ventura calmly enunciates it:

HANNITY: There were a group of radicals that were at war with the United States and we weren't at war with them. We saw the first Trade Center bombing, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and we think radicals that think God is going to reward them in Heaven with virgins. Jesse, how do you stop them.

VENTURA: Well, you pay attention to memos on August 6 that tell you exactly what bin Laden's gonna do.

Things get pretty much awesome from there. And a little weird. And yet very "Minnesota nice!" The conversation basically has it all: Ross Perot shout outs, Monica Lewinsky weighed against 9/11, bin Laden conspiracy theories, and Ventura refusing to accept that the interview is over. But the best moment comes toward the end when Hannity basically presents LOVING REAGAN as some sort of personal accomplishment, earned through diligence and sweat, only to have Ventura shoot him a withering "so what?" face.

[WATCH]

. . .. ... .. . .

Jesse vs. Brian Kilmeade 5.19.2009

Logic

2009-05-14T11:09:00.001-07:00

tpm

merits

2009-05-13T11:50:00.000-07:00

tpm

& Lindsey Graham 5.13.2009

& Jack Nicholson!

& Bob Graham 5.15.2009

heartened

2009-05-13T09:34:00.000-07:00

tpm

by Josh Marshall

Many people are clearly and understandably incensed by Vice President Cheney's on-going media campaign advocating state-sponsored torture and his making what appear to be all sorts of false claims about how effective his torture policies were. But though it's maddening and offensive, I'm more on the side of being heartened or at least glad to see the exposure he's getting -- not so much because it's politically damaging to the Republicans, which is probably true, but because he's (as is his puppet daughter) showing and can't help but show more and more about who he is.

That's also one of the things that would be so healthy -- and if I can be allowed some guilty pleasure, entertaining -- about a full and detailed airing of all of Cheney's role.

Cheney's conceit is that he's tough enough, perhaps best to say, icy enough to make the trip to what he calls 'the dark side' to protect America. But the picture emerging even from his own comments is very different. It's of a small and paranoid man, a half-comic character off the pages of mid-20th century anti-totalitarian fiction, with a seemingly inordinate protectiveness for torture practices that seem to have been only marginally effective at best. And yet here he is with the classified memo he keeps in a special folder in his desk making the case for his torture policies. Here he is at another moment metaphorically tightening the screws on this or that detainee trying to get confessions about the fairytale al Qaida-Iraq link, though it's worth wondering whether he's really sure it's there or is open to getting false confessions that can then be leaked to this or that journo at the Washington Times or, sad to say, The New York Times.

You start to get the sense that just as Cheney committed his historic goof of launching off into Iraq while forgetting about dealing with al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan he was doing something similar getting all wrapped up in the tough guy porn of torture that he remained ignorant of or just plain ignored the actual nuts and bolts of taking down or disabling terrorist organizations.

So by all means let him keep talking. As TPM Reader BH notes, he seems unable to maintain his famed self-discipline and indifference to public opinion as his own sorry record dribbles into the public record. The more that comes out about him, the more pathetic he seems. Paranoia, serial poor judgment, inability to distinguish desires from facts and an almost adolescent inability not to get drawn into the thrill of the 'dark side'.

. . .. ... .. . .

David Corn 5.14.2009

truthor

2009-05-12T14:52:00.000-07:00

via huff po

M - Th 11p / 10c

Wanda Sykes' Jokes

thedailyshow.com

Economic Crisis

Bloggingheads.tv - Lost in the Cosmos

Rope-a-Dope

2009-05-11T16:56:00.000-07:00

andrew sullivan

So Obama plays defense on torture, urging that we move forward, while releasing crucial information and letting others use up the vacuum. Cheney blunders in ... and even Lieberman has to take up arms against him. This is how this president operates. After Clinton and McCain, Cheney is the latest victim. And by demanding more and more transparency, the former vice-president slowly exposes ... himself.

facebook friends (2)

2009-05-11T14:27:00.000-07:00

Hannity's Liberty Tree

2009-05-08T16:57:00.000-07:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Sean Hannity's Liberty Tree

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News | Comedy Central

Gay Marriage

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News | Comedy Central

2009-05-02T21:07:00.000-07:00

Moment of Zen - Giant Petri Dishes

M - Th 11p / 10c

thedailyshow.com

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News | Comedy Central

Economic Crisis

First 100 Days

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News | Comedy Central

2009-05-02T20:59:00.000-07:00

M - Th 11p / 10c

Large Hadron Collider

thedailyshow.com