Gilliespie Makes Excuses For Bush Not Picking A Woman For The Supreme Court

Whether or not George Bush was seriously considering a woman for the Court when he nominated Samuel Alito, former RNC head and all around GOoPer Ed Gillespie had the worst excuse for Bush not going with a woman. How could he seriously say there were no women out there that were qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice:



I'm sorry but that is just pure unadulterated bullshit.

Howard Dean Speaks About Sebelius As HHS Secretary

Always a man of character, Howard Dean is full of praises for Governor Sebelius becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Of course this doesn't mean that Dean will just go away and do nothing. Expect plenty from him in the months and years to come as a staunch advocate of progressive issues.

#39's Advice To #44

Jimmy Carter was on CNN with Wolfman Blitzer to give President Barack Obama some useful advice:



Thank you President Carter! Obama tried reaching out to Republicans, but clearly they do not know the meaning of compromise. For the GOP it is either their way or no way and when you are put in the minority by the American people...the message should be clear on what to do if you are Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Charles Barkley Thwarts Blitzer's Attempt At Distorting Obama's Tax Plan

Wolf Blitzer had former NBA player Charles Barkley on his show today in an attempt to unfairly portray Barack Obama's tax plan. TP has the screen shot of what CNN put up on their show and apparently, you don't count if you make less than $161,000 dollars a year. Maybe their demographic reports show that their viewers are wealthy, but most Americans do not make that money, specifically 95% of us. Since Wolf would never invite someone on about this that makes the median salary, Charles Barkley showed up for the rest of us, despite being a multi-millionaire.

From ThinkProgress:

Using his deceptive chart, Blizter tried – but failed – to get Barkley to voice his opposition to an increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for national priorities:

BLITZER: If Obama has his way, you would spend another $701,885 in taxes. $700,000 above and beyond – you pay a lot of taxes right now if you’re making millions of dollars a year as you are. How do you feel about that?

BARKLEY: Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life.

Let’s be realistic. I’ve been very fortunate and blessed. I did a great job of saving my money. But I got no problem if I’m making that type of money, paying more in taxes to be honest with you.

Yeah, nice try Wolf. Although Charles didn't have a chart that showed his willingness to pay taxes, talking about the fact that the rich will always stay rich was plenty good. ThinkProgress did put up a chart showing the differences in the tax plans between the candidates for the rest of us, where those that make less than $112,000 get more from Obama than McCain. Around the median level, taxpayers save approximately $700 more than with John McSame McCain.

Oh and on a sidenote, I just watched Dennis Kucinich speak on stage at the DNC and he rocked the semi-full house, calling on America to wake up and reclaim our country from the wealthy few that have ignored the many.

Talking About Iraqi Infrastructure, Hayes Is Clueless

During this exchange on CNN, Cafferty points out many different facts about the status of Iraq infrastructure. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard seems to paint a picture that the infrastructure was "deplorable" before we invaded, despite the truth of the matter. Perhaps he's only concerned with the state of the oil rigs, since that is all Iraq is worth to people like Hayes.

Boehner Claims No Animals In ANWR As He Shares A Screen With Them

The quality of this YouTube isn't of the highest resolution but you can clearly see House Minority Leader John Boehner dismissively talk about how it is unlikely there are any animals in the controversial ANWR area. I don't know if a CNN staffer put the B-roll on of ANWR animals as a joke, but it made Boehner look incredibly stupid as he talked (not that he needs background images to do that in any case).

Ron Paul Hinting At Obama Endorsement?

Of course we are still in a heated primary battle (so the pundits and "experts" tell me) and Barack Obama has to beat Hillary off amongst the party faithful. Once that is done he'll be going after the independents and moderates who are demanding change in our government just as we are. Well it looks like he might just have one crazy Republican (aren't they all) and semi-moderate Ron Paul to back him in those parts Democrats rarely go yonder in. Oh and nothing is official about this either but what is important is that he Paul can't stomach McCain.

From CNN:

In an interview on The Situation Room, Paul told Wolf Blitzer that endorsing Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, “would really confuse” his supporters “because they know we have a precise program and we have to defend that program.”

Having a Republican win the upcoming presidential election is “secondary” for Paul who is more interested in defending the Constitution, having the country go in what he considers the right direction, having a sound currency, and achieving balanced budgets. Paul parts ways with McCain over McCain’s support for the Iraq war, his approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and his willingness to spend federal dollars to support military operations in Iraq.

Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy. “But that’s doesn’t mean that’s an endorsement,” Paul quickly added.

Of course it isn't an endorsement Ronnie, don't worry, I won't tell. Oh and to all those Hillary supporters that still think Obama isn't electable, does this mean people with an independent/right-leaning streak don't count either?

Chris Wallace Is One To Talk

Here and there, I find myself agreeing with Chris Wallace of Fox News. Now is one of those times. He felt himself getting 'even stupider' watching the CNN debate in Nevada last week, well so did I (from what I saw afterwards that is). As Chris said, Wolf Blitzer did a terrible job, but did anyone expect him to be anything other than an maestro for the media narrative of the Democratic candidates?

Now as for Chris...Mr. Wallace works for Fox News and is therefore a representative of the network. As any clearly thinking person knows, Fox is an outlet of propaganda for the right, not any type of purveyor of truth (not that the other networks excel at that either). Chris mentioned that Fox is "smarter" at doing debates because they let people talk. That is just utter nonsense. All you need to do is look up Bill O'Reilly in the dictionary to refute that piece of garbage.

The thought occurred to me while reading that story that Chris was making an appeal to host a debate for the Democrats. That would be atrocious if the candidates accepted an offer from Fox. Thankfully Democrats (led by Edwards) turned them down earlier this year. The questions from Chris and Co. wouldn't just follow a media narrative, it would be far worse. I could just imagine the questions..."Why do you hate America?" and "Why do you decry George Bush while the country is doing so well due to his policies?" Yeah, if watching CNN's debate is like hearing fingernails scraping across a chalkboard, Fox would waterboard us for two hours.

So instead of Chris being high and mighty about Fox versus CNN's pathetic attempt at hosting debates, he might just want to STFU unless he wants to talk about the truthiness at Fox first.

One Last Thing About CNN's Nevada Debate

I seriously do not understand how the traditional media gets to spin their circus show debate any which way they please. Everyone with a mic and a camera are saying that Hillary won the debate, especially CNN. At least the chief MSNBC political hack Chris Matthews had a couple of progressive viewpoints told on his show that refute the unconventional wisdom.

From Crooks and Liars:

Download (125) | Play (140) Download (136) | Play (71) (h/t Heather)

Tweety had progressive radio giants Mark Green and Ed Schultz on to talk about Hillary’s big win at the debate in Las Vegas Thursday night and apparently Schultz didn’t get the memo.

Schultz: “I think all this postmortem of this debate about how wonderful Hillary is a bridge too far. I think it’s a sad day when a candidate has to start saying well its mud-slinging if you point out what my voting record is.” … “CNN, and especially Wolf, I think they were bending over for Hillary big-time last night.”

Ed also went on to make several other good points too that went against what’s become conventional wisdom regarding who “won” the debate. I’m not saying Hillary did poorly, because it surely was an improvement over her last debate in Philly and clearly she owned the audience all night who were quick to come to her defense to boo Edwards and Obama when each tried to attack her record, but she had a lot of help from CNN too. Not only was the network completely unfair in the amount of time they gave to most of the other candidates, they also were caught planting a softball question from the audience specifically for her to end the night that they had to admit to and then they followed that by having James Carville and David Gergen featured on their post-debate show, both of whom had previously held positions in her husband’s administration and Carville is currently listed as an “informal advisor” to her campaign. That’s quite a coup for any campaign to pull off and should be cause for anyone to re-evaluate the entire evening. Quite frankly, if Hillary won the debate, then any record of the win deserves an asterisk beside it.

So I’m wondering. Who do you think won the debate?

I personally think we all lost. No one really won the debate, because it wasn't a debate. Our democracy is being pulled asunder by the cable news networks so that they can create a narrative that sells their "product." Hillary may have won some points in the horse race, but that is exactly what it is, a horse race. This is not a public forum where voters can choose a candidate based on real issues.

Enough With These Damn Debates

I've complained before and I'll complain again about these faux debates that the networks host for candidates to come on to pomp and preen. Last time it was Tim Russert and MSNBC that got the blame for ridiculous questions, now its Wolf Blitzer and CNN. These people are all the same, its really revolting. To them it is about entertainment for entertainment's sake, not asking real questions to inform the voting public. It is people like Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert that help to undermine our democracy, slowly but surely.

Matthew Yglesias nails it:

As ever, it's really striking to observe the difference between the audience-generated questions and the journalist-generated questions. Wolf Blitzer's main interest is in asking questions designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver's licenses or "merit pay" for teachers that aren't really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice -- piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad.

The real people, by contrast, ask about problems in their lives. The mother of an individual ready reserve member wants to know about Iran policy. The mother of an active duty soldier wants to know about military pay versus pay for military contractors. An Arab-American wants to know about racial profiling. Then the candidates explain what they think about these issues.

The voters are curious and want to learn where the candidates stand. Blitzer doesn't care about informing the public about the issues -- he actually objects when candidates try to explain their views on broad immigration policy issues -- he's just interested in trying to embarrass the candidates.

Perhaps we can try a citizen's style debate. Let the candidates have at it on YouTube, maybe that kid who interviewed Mike Gravel in his dorm room wants a second shot at fame. Seriously anyone can do better than Wolf or Tim.

George Bush's Misplaced Priorities

Michael Moore Versus The MSM?

Blog You Like A Hurricane made a great appeal to Michael Moore for his next possible film. It is about the traditional media, the "MSM." The idea came after seeing Moore eviscerate Wolf Blitzer on CNN not only for their critique of SiCKO but their coverage of the war. It touched a lot of us and created a buzz around the blogosphere and boosted CNN's controversy meter so they got some extra ratings as a result. I think Moore should definitely do a movie about the media, it is long overdue by someone of Moore's stature. BYLAH makes some good points in the post on why it should happen.

From Blog You Like A Hurricane's letter to Moore:

You (and many others) have called out the media's blind flag-waiving during the lead up to the Iraq war. You have plainly stated that the media is responsible for (most of) the American public support for the invasion, and gone so far as to say that the blame for deaths of our soldiers can be placed on the American media.

As is often the case with such bold claims, important questions are being raised. Do we need media ownership regulation reform? Is ownership regulation itself the problem? Should the media be held accountable for their actions/reporting? Can they be? By whom?

Fortunately, today we have the internet. I no longer have to sit in front of the television and take what I am told as fact. Regular people like myself can share opinions, research facts and (perhaps most importantly) organize. Websites like Digg, Reddit and even your own allow popular opinion to be shared with a (relatively) large audience. Unfortunately, the internet affords such organization and dissemination a fairly limited reach in the grand scheme of things. And that is why I am writing you.

Make a movie about the media. Extend our reach on the issue. Bring it to light. Name names and cite sources. Make a scene. Start the discussion.

These are all important questions that need to be talked about outside of the blogosphere. Moore has helped people wake up and take a look at GM, gun violence in our society, the run up to 9/11 and now the U.S. health care crisis. The media plays a huge role in all of these subjects and many more. They have become more a tool of the government and corporate America than the fourth estate that our founders envisioned. It is time for a change in how the media operates. Moore can definitely start that discussion.

Moore Versus Blitzer: Part Deux

In this second round, Moore is invited back and Wolf shows us the unedited film from the initial spat. Blitzer is much more subdued this time, constantly saying that "it was a powerful movie" over and over again. Any arguments against the facts was limited by the CNN host and when they were presented, it was in an easy fashion for Moore to slam them down.

Michael Moore Rips Wolf A New One

CNN's Wolf Blitzer had Michael Moore on his show yesterday to talk about SiCKO, but not before "fact-checking" his work with their own Sanjay Gupta. Much like in the article from a week and a half ago, CNN says Moore is somewhat right, but with a lot of smudging of the facts. Well that lit Moore's fuse and he fired off salvo after salvo at Blitzer and CNN as a whole.

From RawStory:

"That report was so biased, I can't imagine what pharmaceutical company's ads are coming up right after our break here," said Moore. "Why don't you tell the truth to the American people? I wish that CNN and the other mainstream media would just for once tell the truth about what's going on in this country."

Moore argued that CNN has such a lousy track record of reporting the truth about the war in Iraq and asking tough questions, that Americans should be skeptical of their reporting on health care.

"You're the ones who are fudging the facts," said Moore. "You've fudged the facts to the American people now for I don't know how long about this issue, about the war, and I'm just curious, when are you going to just stand there and apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn't sponsored by some major corporation?"

Blizter grew defensive and backed up his fellow CNN employee, saying that he would stand behind correspondent Sanjay Gupta's record on medical issues. Moore, in response, vowed to post a rebuttal to his website, MichaelMoore.com, showing that Gupta's facts weren't accurate.

Wolf was on the defensive from the start and never recovered. He tried to redirect the conversatioin, but Moore wasn't having any of that. Since Michael hasn't been on the show in three years, he laid it into Wolf about the war and their free pass for Dick Cheney. He demanded an apology from Blitzer to him and the American people for their shoddy journalism on the war and on the health care crisis. After he left Jack Cafferty had a pity party for Wolf, saying that CNN doesn't pay him enough.

Oh please, save the pity and do your jobs. I'll give Cafferty some credit on his reporting as of the last few months, but Wolf has done nothing but crap on television. Remember when he promised great questions for the Democratic debate a while back? He had nothing of the sort, in fact it looked like more of a conservative hit job than being a moderator.

I would personally like to thank Moore for attacking Wolf yesterday. He has had it coming for a long time. I would have loved to lambast Blitzer on the air, but since the likelihood of myself being interviewed on CNN is pretty much slim to none, Michael took care of it for me.

Elizabeth Edwards Talks About Her Exchange With Coulter

Elizabeth talked with Wolf Blitzer on CNN about the well publicized confrontation with Ann Coulter. Ann makes it about money, but Elizabeth wants the hate speech to be toned down. I can't agree more.

Barbara Boxer Puts Lindsay Graham In His Place

Republicans like Senator Graham waste no time telling outright lies to make Democrats look bad if they think it can help them with their degrading image in front of the American people. Graham tried to tell a whopper about Harry Reid this morning on CNN's Late Edition.

From Crooks and Liars:

BOXER: I don't know anyone who opposes this war that ever said our troops are losers. Our troopers are winners.

GRAHAM: Harry Reid did.

BOXER: Excuse me. He never said our troops are losers. Now, Lindsey, just be careful what you say. The bottom line here is, the losers are the ones who have, you know, engineered this war, made a huge mistake, Dick Cheney, we're in the last throes, the war will last six months, and all of you who have supported this escalation and have turned us away from fighting al Qaida into putting us in the middle of a civil war.

Boxer: "The loser is the Commander in Chief who has not lead our country well."

Thank god for Democrats like Barbara Boxer. Republicans can say just about anything that is false and misleading, so we need people that live in reality to set them straight. The losers are indeed Bush and his miscreants in Congress. The American people get that, now it is time for the small segment of the population that live in Washington to give up their miscreant ways and represent the people instead of the White House that is charging off the cliff.

Lieberman Has Serious Blinders On

Holy Joe continued yesterday to parrot the new right-wing talking point on how great things are becoming in Iraq. Recently John McCain claimed (then disavowed) that General Petraeus rides around in an unprotected Humvee. Now Lieberman is talking about how much safer things are and how confident the troops are becoming around Baghdad. Unfortunately after he said this to Wolf Blitzer, on the ground reporter Michael Ware interjected a heavy dose of reality into the show.

From CNN:

LIEBERMAN: But I'll tell you most significantly, the American soldier is more confident walking the streets of Baghdad today. And that's a very important change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You speak to American soldiers all the time.

Are they more confident walking the streets of Baghdad today?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're certainly never fully confident.

But do they see that there has been some kind of adjustment in the broad climate?

Absolutely, as has been well noted by these soldiers' U.S. commanders. Their enemies, the insurgents and the Shia militias, are, by and large, laying low at the moment, waiting to get the shape of this surge.

Nonetheless, in one of these areas that has been so prominently second by the U.S. military and its Iraqi partners, where U.S. troops are now basically patrolling all the time with this great confidence, an area that had been controlled by the Mahdi militia, today more than 70 people died when two men detonated themselves in a busy market.

And don't forget, we're looking across the country at about 80 American soldiers, sailors and Marines being killed. In March, we're approaching that number again, the third month in a row.

Things are definitely changing in Iraq. Adding 20,000 troops will alter the situation....to a degree. Unfortunately no amount of troops is going to prevent the civil war from happening now. Eventually Al-Qaeda and other groups will reassess the situation and keep attacking Shias, Sunnis and our own U.S. troops.

Paging Doctor Murtha

Our country is in dire need of a doctor to solve our woes and unrelenting bleeding of money, morale and the lives of our soldiers. Iraq is a lost cause, it is time to leave and we need to do that as soon as humanly possible. Jack Murtha was on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer this weekend and clearly explained what the DC elite can not get through their thick heads.

So let me explain. If you go to a doctor, and he says you are perfectly fine, then you have a heart attack. Would you still trust his judgment? Yes??? Well okay, humans are imperfect. So a few months down the road he tells you to have brain surgery and it has to be done right away. You relent, even without a second opinion and have the operation. After waking up out of a botched surgery and a two month coma while your left side is paralyzed, you still decide to go to him for medical advice. Would that be insane? Of course it is, and that is why listening to people like Dick Cheney is pure insanity.

Jack Murtha lays it out on the show:

MURTHA: Why would I believe that? I mean, all the things that they have predicted have — everything I predicted turned out to be true. Nothing they predicted turned out to be true. Why would I believe there's going to be chaos in the Middle East just because they say it? The Iraqis don't believe that. The countries on the periphery don't believe that and the public doesn't believe it. The public wants us out. They spoke in the last election.

Right, there is no reason to believe them. Just as you would run away from that doctor and file a massive lawsuit, there is ample reason to throw out Cheney for his lies and falsehoods and impeach him. There is absolutely no reason to keep them around....unless you like your doctor to keep slowly killing you.

Sy Hersh Has The Goods On Iran

Despite the claims to the contrary from the Bush Adminstration, it appears that the escalation in the Middle East is ramping up yet again. Many denials have been issued that plans to attack Iran are in the works but Sy Hersh has found the proof it exists.

Sy Hersh with Wolf Blitzer on CNN:



In a nutshell, the article from The New Yorker says:

Hersh says the U.S. has been "pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight" for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to "stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence." Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of "three Sunni jihadist groups" who are "connected to al Qaeda" but "want to take on Hezbollah."

Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: "We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11."

If Charles Barkley Says It, You Better Believe It, Punk!

My fondest memory of Charles Barkley was at a Los Angeles Clippers game a number of years ago. We (the crowd) taunted him so much that he threw his shoe up into the audience. He isn't one to mess with to be sure. So when Sir Charles says that the GOP is bogus, you know it has to be true.

As a potential gubernatorial candidate in Alabama three years from now, the basketball player turned politician has to get his game on and this is one way to do it. Speaking out against the war and the GOP in general has become a very popular thing to do and Charles is playing to his audience yet again.

Barkley went on CNN yesterday with Wolf Blitzer:

"I want to be a politician," Barkley said. "I think I understand how the system works, I think a lot of politicians are corrupt, and it's about time we put some people in there who are going to look out for the majority of the people instead of the rich people."

When asked about the war in Iraq, Barkley replied that the situation was simple, "It's an easy call for me. We've got to get out of Iraq. [Saddam Hussein] is dead. That situation hasn't gotten better. So, anything that the Republicans say about the war in Iraq -- it's just bogus. I mean, it's a terrible situation. We've got a lot of innocent kids getting killed over there, and we're never going to be safe over there."

Barkley labeled himself as an Independent, a change from his Republican status not too long ago. He isn't a big fan of Democrats either but he knows the Republicans are far, far worse. He credited the Republicans with losing the 2006 elections and not the Democrats winning it. Perhaps he should look more closely at the party with an actual plan to lead the country and enacting a tremendous amount of legislation with two months. However, since he is a political novice, he has a couple years before he runs to get the facts straight.