Boy, was I ready to kick in my TV when this aired. I -- and many of my fellow liberals -- furiously sent off angry emails and tweets to Dylan Ratigan for this fawning piece that ignored what a festering pustule on humanity that Breitbart truly is. James Rucker of Color of Change also found it reprehensible and led a campaign to make sure Dylan Ratigan understood how irresponsible it was to not provide context to let the average viewer know exactly how much credibility should be lent to Breitbart.

As you may know, ColorOfChange members led the charge to ensure that Breitbart's credibility and image weren't sanitized by ABC News or the Huffington Post. After we saw Breitbart on Ratigan's show, with Ratigan seemingly praising Breitbart as "smart" and a "sharp shooter who gets results," we were deeply concerned.

When I spoke with Ratigan, he explained what he was trying to do. He quickly agreed that Breitbart was a race-baiter, dishonest, and undeserving of credibility -- without question. And he frankly hadn't thought about the legitimizing effect that having Breitbart on his show -- without clearly labeling him as the race-baiter and deceiver he is -- would have.

Ratigan's core issue is exposing the corruptive nature of corporate dollars in politics (which I, and many ColorOfChange members would agree is a critical and important endeavor). Ratigan's goal in interviewing Breitbart was to ask him why he chose targets like Sherrod or the NAACP, while Breitbart and the Tea Party activists he defends seems to agree that banks and corporations with undue influence over government are actually the ones destroying our country. It's an important criticism of Breitbart. Ratigan's goal was to keep the conversation there, and he believed that if he focused on Breitbart's penchant for race-baiting and deception, it would simply trigger Breitbart, and he'd end up in the same conversation others have where Breitbart goes on a rampage and the conversation goes nowhere.

Moving forward, Ratigan said that if he deals with Breitbart at all in the future, it will be with the explicit disclaimer that Breibart is someone who deceives and race-baits. Ratigan recognizes and respects the argument that there's a problem with giving Breitbart a mainstream platform, and he's committed to making sure that his show is not used to lend Breitbart the appearance of legitimacy and credibility.

Breitbart, not surprisingly, is completely unapologetic. Can't expect a racist to give up that white robe so quickly. However, I give Ratigan and his producers credit for being receptive to this at all...too often, these kinds of issues are raised by liberals and dismissed out of hand. I'd rather that MSNBC acknowledge that people like Breitbart (and network regular Pat Buchanan, come to that) really have no right to expect a national platform for their racism and hate. I doubt very much that Ratigan or the suits at MSNBC have any idea the message it sends to people of color. But I'll take this incremental step gladly and keep pushing for more.

Kudos to James Rucker and Color of Change.

Dylan Ratigan's guest column at the Daily Bail calls out "corporate communism" and makes some pretty powerful arguments:

If you allow weak, outdated players to take control of the government and change the rules so they are protected from the natural competition and reward systems that have created so many innovations in our country, you not only steal from the citizens on behalf of the least worthy but you also doom them by trapping the capital that would be used to generate new innovation and, most tangibly in our current situation, jobs.

We are losing the opportunity cost of all the great ideas that should be coming from the proper deployment of that 23.7 trillion in capital. Everything from innovation in medical delivery systems to accessible space travel, free energy to the driverless car; all of these things may never come to bear because those powerful individuals who have failed, been passed over by technological advancements, innovation and flat-out smarts, have commandeered our government to unfairly sustain their wealth and power.

Unfortunately, they use our wealth and laws not only to benefit their outdated, failed companies, but also spend a small pittance of their ill-gotten gains lobbying and favor-trading with politicians so the government will continue to protect them from competition and their well-deserved failure.

The massive spike in unemployment, the utter destruction of retirement wealth, the collapse in the value of our homes, the worst recession since the Great Depression have all resulted directly from the abdication of proper government.

Even with all that -- the only changes that have been made, have been made to prop up and hide the massive flaws on behalf of those who perpetuated them. Still utterly nothing has been done to disclose the flaws in this system, improve it or rebuild it. Only true rules-based capitalism ensures constant adaptation and implementation of the latest and best practices for a given business, as those businesses that don't adapt fail, and those who deploy the latest innovations to their customers benefit, prosper.

The concept of communism is rightly reviled in this country for the simple reason that it is blind to human nature, allowing a small group of individuals near-total control, while sticking everyone else with the same crappy systems -- and the bill. America spent countless lives and half a century fighting against this system of government. So why are we standing for it now?

Sounds like Ratigan's right in line with an essay George Soros wrote back in 1997, "The Capitalist Threat" in which he called "untrammeled capitalism" the biggest threat to an open society. I thought it was an interesting idea at the time, but now? Can't argue a bit.

The Sideshow: Something old, something new

Lawyers, Guns & Money: To know is to hate?

Wonk Room: Mitchell reaffirms 'linkage' in remarks on direct talks

AlterNet: Dylan Ratigan's Crusade

field negro: "Your glasses or your life"

Dennis Perrin: In Gawd's Image

Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks was filling in for Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC yesterday, and had on Sam Seder and conservative blogger Matt Lewis about Netroots 2010, Right Online, and media bias.

Lewis actually started arguing that the reason liberals don't have a Breitbart is because we don't need one -- we have the whole liberal media. No, really, he said that.

LEWIS: You don't need Andrew Breitbart. You have the Washington Post and the New York Times and three tv networks. The conservatives had to invent Andrew Breitbart because of the liberal bias in the media for decades. It's only been since the advent of the blogosphere the conservatives hope to keep up.

You don't need him. You've got networks. The Washington Post and the New York Times don't run any -- whatever the liberals want them to run.
It's obvious.

It seems like only yesterday when the Times ran that investigative series exposing false intelligence and urging President Bush not to invade Iraq, doesn't it?

The Dylan Ratigan does a pretty good job of explaining the 2200 page report that exposes the Lehman scandal. It shines a bright light on why we need financial regulations and serious reforms.

The NY Times:

The bankruptcy examiner’s report filed by Anton R. Valukas on the 2008 demise of Lehman Brothers discusses some accounting gimmicks that are eerily reminiscent of how Enron tried to prop up its balance sheet back in 2001 before it collapsed. Both companies appear to have played right along the edge of properly accounting for transactions designed to make them appear much stronger than they turned out to be, becoming steadily more aggressive as they teetered on the brink of ruin.

The examiner’s report discusses potential claims that the bankruptcy trustee can bring against Lehman’s former officers and outside advisers and does not mention potential government law enforcement action.

Reading his report, however, gives strong indications that at a minimum the Securities and Exchange Commission is likely to pursue civil charges for securities fraud, and that criminal charges are certainly possible against Lehman’s former top executives. The examiner’s report gives us a new term for hiding problems on a corporate balance sheet that may become common parlance: “Repo 105.” Starting in 2001, Lehman Brothers engaged in repurchase agreements, called “repos,” which were described by DealBook as “what amounts to a short-term loan, exchanging collateral for cash up front, and then unwinding the trade as soon as overnight.”

Read here for more of the story.

Market Watch:

The report, which runs to 2,200 pages, said former top officers including ex-CEO Dick Fuld and Chief Financial Officers Chris O'Meara, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt could face legal claims for negligence of breach of duty.

Auditor Ernst & Young could also potentially face a professional malpractice claim for not challenging Lehman's non-disclosure of the off-balance sheet transactions, the report said. See full story on the Lehman report.

Lehman's collapse in 2008 really got things going.

Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest US investment bank, has filed for bankruptcy protection, dealing a blow to the fragile global financial system.

The news led to sharp falls in share prices around the world, and officials took measures to reassure markets. Lehman had incurred losses of billions of dollars in the US mortgage market.

--

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the US was "working through a difficult period in our financial markets right now as we work off some of the past excesses".

But he added: "The American people can remain confident in the soundness and resilience of our financial system."

However he warned that uncertainty remained and it was likely that there would be further "rough spots" ahead before the market was corrected.

Turmoil would continue in financial markets until the housing correction was completed, he added.

Mr Paulson said he was committed to working with regulators in the US and abroad, as well as policymakers in Congress to take the necessary steps "to maintain the stability and orderliness of our financial markets".

But he gave no details of what such steps might mean.

And remember these magical words by President George Bush?

Earlier in the day President George W Bush said: "In the long term I am confident that our financial markets are flexible and resilient and can deal with these adjustments."

This BBC article brings back really bad memories, but I hope they remind the Congress to get financial reform done, now.

The Progressive Electorate: And the Democratic establishment can kiss my DFH a$$, too

William K. Wolfrum Chronicles: ""Lazy-ass Americans like being unemployed." A talking point winner for the GOP

The Big Picture: Dylan Ratigan talks reform with Rob Johnson & Josh Rosner

Seeing the Forest: Conservatives caused huge deficits, blame Obama

Sensen No Sen: A sphincter-puckering moment for Rumsfeld...and Cheney

Andy Borowitz: GOP lawmaker demands recall of car that drove him to a gay club!

DOWNLOADS: (986)

PLAYS: (9614)

Embed

(h/t Heather for the video)

C&Lers know that I've had a history with the odious Mark Williams over the years. He once sent out an email claiming that we were trying to hurt his dog to drum up support for his failing radio show.

With no where to go he turned to the tea party movement and now is leading one of those buses that drives around screaming about death panels and calling Obama an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief' who is taking away our freedoms and whatnot. Dylan had him come on the air following Mark Potok of the SPLC, who issued a new extremism report that says hate groups have exploded in 2009. Dylan wanted to know from Williams why they tolerate hate groups becoming part of the tea party movement.

Mark, how do you draw the bright line between the very admirable and understandable principles that are advocated by so many....and the more radical views and hide if you will inside the tea party umbrella?

Williams: That's real simple. There's wingnuts and there's normal people...

Ratigan: It's not that simple...

{}

What confuses me about the tea party, is the tea parties willingness to accept the wingnuts as you put it

Williams: So it's our fault that they are nuts?

Ratigan: You have not shamed them Mark....Do you accept racists and Nazis in the tea parties?

Williams: Here at Sacramento...

Ratigan: I'm asking you a question my man, do you want to have a conversation or do you want to come on my TV show and do a commercial for yourself?

Ratigan walks off camera.

Williams: I'm answering the question. We have a women here from a local NBC affiliate who after an anti-Semitic rant at Sac State was promoted from reporter to anchor does that make NBC, does that make you an anti-Semitic?

Ratigan: Mark, do I run NBC? Are you a guest on my show? Do you have any intention of answering any of my questions because I don't want to continue to fool with this. You're wasting valuable oxygen. Can we please cut off this man's microphone, He has no interest in answering my questions, Mark a pleasure. Actually not really a pleasure. It was offensive, you're offensive. Your treatment of my show as a vehicle to spread your propaganda, ignore my questions, offensive and an indication of what is wrong with the dialogue in this country. Period. Not to mention that a group that would accept Nazis and racists.

The comedy started as soon as Williams tried to separate himself from wingnuts. Mark is never on to answer any question and Dylan got a taste of what an idiot this man is. Williams will never be able to justify the Radical-hate filled-Patriot-racist-right wing elements that make up the tea parties.

FOX News and movement conservatism reached out to the outer fringes of Planet Wingnuttia to build the tea party movement. Obviously not everyone is part of the Patriot movement that has joined in, but a large segment of these haters do inhabit there and have found a nice new home to be very open with their beliefs. They certainly carry enough signs around at their tea party events to let the world know what and who they are.

Ratigan gets mad props for dislodging Williams from his show. Yes, it's unfortunate that he gets asked to come on many cable news shows, but this is the best possible treatment. It's too bad that not enough Villagers take the few minutes to understand the teabaggers. They are merely an extension of the movement conservatives of the 80's only they didn't have a the media infrastructure that they do know.