You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (44)

PLAYS: (213)

Donna Brazile takes the rest of the CNN panel to task for their concern for the deficit at a time when our main concern should be putting people back to work. Of course Bill Bennett continues to claim we need more tax cuts and thinks the Democrats are going to "go off the cliff" if they increase the deficit. Brazile reminds him "we've been off the cliff".

Transcript via CNN.

KING: And, Donna, on that point, I want you to listen to Larry Summers because Gloria notes they're starting to talk about the deficit because they're going to raise the federal debt ceiling this week and the numbers get incredibly high. Republicans are starting to say, you know, where's the fiscal discipline here?

And yet, if the you listen to Larry Summers, he seems convinced that they have a little more political space to make the case, that, in the short term, spending to help the economy is more important than reducing the deficit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUMMERS: We've got to do a lot more. There's no more important issue facing the country than job growth because, if we don't create jobs, we've got no prospect that the kind of budget deficits we want. If unemployment stays high, we're not going to have the strength in the world that we want, if unemployment stays high.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: They get away with that a bit longer?

BRAZILE: All the politics aside, the administration is walking a real tightrope between creating the jobs that the American people clearly want and trying to focus on the long-term fiscal health of the nation, the debt.

The Republicans raised the debt ceiling 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007. SO this is customary sometimes during a budget process, to raise it that way. But because of the additional spending that we have on the wars and other issues, we have to raise it again. That's a responsible thing that Congress needs to do.

On the other hand, I think the president is absolutely right to use some of the additional TARP money that will be utilized to pay down the deficit, but to use some of it to create jobs.

Now, hopefully, the private sector -- the president will be able to put some fire under the bankers tomorrow for them to start lending to small businesses so we don't have to continue this rate of government spending.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (52)

PLAYS: (148)

The Villagers on the Chris Matthews panel all agree on a couple of points. The dirty f-ing hippies on the left have no right to demand anything of President Obama and were silly to think he’d live up to his campaign promise to reform our health care system. And two, any bill, whether it’s terrible or not that the President signs will be “transformational” and “historic”.

It doesn’t matter to them if it’s a crap sandwich which ends up being nothing but a giveaway to the insurance industry. What matters is that it passes. Andrea Mitchell seems positively giddy at the idea that it will be “criticized from all sides”. That’s a good thing Andrea?

While I agree with them on Afghanistan and that the President did not promise to get us out of there, President Obama did promise some real reform on health care and he also talked about cleaning the lobbyists and their influence out of Washington. This is hardly what’s going on now with Max Baucus and his lobbyists writing the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

And Clarence Page conflates going between single-payer and the public option to the compromises being talked about now. Note to Clarence Page. Going from the public option to a trigger—or no public option at all—is not the same as hedging between single payer and the public option. One is an already bad compromise that might lead to reform. The other is just loading up the pockets of the insurance industry by forcing everyone into the system with no price controls.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (879)

PLAYS: (1959)

From The Situation Room Oct. 8, 2009. Tony Blankley tries to rationalize the NRCC's sexist statement about Nancy Pelosi saying 'taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place'. In Tony Blankley's world, the media doesn't pay any attention to Republicans unless they're behaving badly. Really Tony? You're joking right? Because I sure as hell don't see any shortage of Republicans getting face time in the media no matter how they're behaving. The media has had so many 'exclusive' interviews with John McCain since he lost the presidential election I'd almost swear they didn't realize who won. I can't get the man off of my television screen.

And I think Tony needs to take a look at this from the good folks over at Think Progress with a snapshot of the media coverage of Republicans from back in January-- REPORT: GOP Lawmakers Outnumber Democratic Lawmakers 2 To 1 In Stimulus Debate On Cable News

As Media Matters has documented, during the Bush administration, the media consistently allowed conservatives to dominate their shows, booking them as guests far more often than progressives. The rationale was that Republicans were “in power.”

It appears that old habits die hard. Even though President Obama and his team are in control of the executive branch and Democrats are in the majority in Congress, the cable networks are still turning more often to Republicans and allowing them to set the agenda on major issues, most recently on the debate over the economic recovery package.

On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.

The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week.

Boy Tony, how can the Republicans ever manage to get their message out without making sexist remarks about Nancy Pelosi when the media ignores them like that?

And David Gergen tries to rewrite history pretending that St. Ronnie would never have behaved so badly. Two words David. Southern Strategy.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (70)

PLAYS: (156)

This is a typical Villager panel discussion that makes me want to throw something through the TV set. Extoll the virtues of bipartisanship for its own sake, everything is win or lose and about politics, like it's some game, and never take any responsibility for your own network not making sure the voters are more informed.

Apparently Bob Cesca felt the same way after watching a some of yesterday's media coverage of these poll numbers. They're Hurting America:

The disconnect, as John Cole points out, is the corporate media. They've been predictably covering the politics-as-sports debate, but not the intracacies of the policy, which they ought to be doing. So it's not surprising that cable news is leading the charge in suggesting that it's the president who hasn't been forthright enough. Let it be said that the media never misses an opportunity to make excuses for its massive breaches of integrity.

But let's say for a moment that the president explained reform and the public option perfectly. Exactly like the press is prescribing. Even then, they'd very likely 1) find another anti-reform meme to inject into their "smackdowns" and half-time shows, and 2) they'd still be inviting serial liars like Mike Pence, unabashed morons like Maria Bartiromo, and centrist capitulators like Harold Ford onto their air to spread misinformation about reform and further confuse viewers.

The one thing I agree with the CNN panel on though is that the President has not done a good enough job of laying out some details of what he wants to see in this legislation, and it's helped them muddy the waters. Bob's right though. It would probably make little difference with what the media coverage looked like.

MALVEAUX: Also joining me is CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

What does it mean, Gloria, for the president to be losing out on these Independents?

BORGER: I think it's a real possible for him. Remember that President Obama won the election with 52 percent of Independent voters. That number is down considerably to 43 percent, and Independents are the margin of difference here for him.

Now, the key to keeping those people is, right now, they are worried about the deficit. They see the president as a big spender. They see him aligned with so-called liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress. So, what he's got to do when -- after Labor Day is kind of show them that he is the kind of so-called post-partisan president that many of them thought they were electing.

The good news for President Obama in this is that they are not realigning themselves with the Republicans yet, because the Republican Party still has very high disapproval ratings.

Now, Jessica, you've been watching something as well, which it looks like to be a generational gap in these numbers.

YELLIN: Absolutely. Well, we know the president did exceptionally well with the young during the election, and that has held strong. Sixty-five percent of the young still approve of the job the president is doing, but it's seniors that we keep talking about, especially in light of health care reform.

He has only a 42 percent approval with seniors. That's very low, and that's right now. So, our numbers don't necessarily tease out that it's because of health care reform, but it's likely that this is a direct effect of the current debate. And if the president is able to get some sort of health care bill through, if he's strong on seniors, protecting them, protecting their Medicare, we could see that number rebound.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1037)

PLAYS: (1599)

Chris Matthews seems to think that bloggers don’t do any fact checking, and that we’re going to lose that if the newspaper industry goes out of business. While it’s true that beat reporters and those doing the footwork out there are sorely needed, to say that bloggers don’t fact check is just a cheap shot at the on line community that he and his ilk have such disdain for, probably because we’re the main ones fact checking the likes of him.

What Matthews fails to note here is why the industry is in such bad shape. The Economist lays out some of the problems in their article Who Killed the Newspaper.

Nobody should relish the demise of once-great titles. But the decline of newspapers will not be as harmful to society as some fear. Democracy, remember, has already survived the huge television-led decline in circulation since the 1950s. It has survived as readers have shunned papers and papers have shunned what was in stuffier times thought of as serious news. And it will surely survive the decline to come.

That is partly because a few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which often benefit society the most are in a good position to survive, as long as their owners do a competent job of adjusting to changing circumstances. Publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal should be able to put up the price of their journalism to compensate for advertising revenues lost to the internet—especially as they cater to a more global readership. As with many industries, it is those in the middle—neither highbrow, nor entertainingly populist—that are likeliest to fall by the wayside.

The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account—trying them in the court of public opinion. The internet has expanded this court. Anyone looking for information has never been better equipped. People no longer have to trust a handful of national papers or, worse, their local city paper. News-aggregation sites such as Google News draw together sources from around the world. The website of Britain's Guardian now has nearly half as many readers in America as it does at home.

In addition, a new force of “citizen” journalists and bloggers is itching to hold politicians to account. The web has opened the closed world of professional editors and reporters to anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Several companies have been chastened by amateur postings—of flames erupting from Dell's laptops or of cable-TV repairmen asleep on the sofa. Each blogger is capable of bias and slander, but, taken as a group, bloggers offer the searcher after truth boundless material to chew over. Of course, the internet panders to closed minds; but so has much of the press.

Ironically we see Bob Woodward saying journalism lives on after playing stenographer for the Bush crowd to get some books sold rather than reporting on what he found out. And he holds up Tina Brown’s operation at The Daily Beast as a business model for making money on line and some hope for journalism's future.

Just how different would this conversation have been with a completely different panel? The viewers might have learned something had it been our own Dave Neiwert and Susie Madrak who’ve worked in the newspaper industry and turned to blogging instead, and Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo and Eric Boehlert from Media Matters, who’s sites look more like the future of journalism to me.

When the fourth estate doesn't do its job, people are going to turn to other sources that will. Something that seems to completely elude Chris Matthews and his panel here.

Another thing Matthews fails to note is that most bloggers who use other people’s reporting link back to that material and allow their readers to evaluate their assertions for themselves. We are not just taking stenography from press releases or other people’s reporting. And when we get something wrong, there’s generally a swift retraction. Something you cannot say for too many in our “mainstream media” who tend to circle the wagons rather than admit mistakes. And while Joe Klein is claiming that his commenters “fact check” him, just how many of those comments does he actually read?

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

"President" Newt Gingrich on Da Ali G Show

Oh look, President Newt Gingrich is on the Sunday shows. Again. Gosh, I'm so glad that the media is around to tell us just who embodies the change for which we voted. And looking around, it's no better on any other show: former Bush attorney Ed Gillespie on This Week, former governor Mitt Romney on Fox News and every single milquetoasty DINO booked (I'm looking at you, Feinstein and Specter) is paired with a camera-hogging, sound-byte ready (if fact-negligible) Republican like John Kyl, Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham. Hello: reality-based community to media--it's 2009, not 2000. Catch the hell up already.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Cornyn, R-Texas; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Pre-empted for the French Open.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Gloria Borger, Dan Rather, John Heilemann, Katty Kay. Topics: Has President Obama solidified a lasting majority for the Democratic Party? How should Republicans respond to Obama, and who are their promising stars? Meter questions: Will Senate Republicans attack Sonia Sotomayor as a liberal or show deference to her? YES: 10 NO: 2; Is Obama winning the national security policy debate with Cheney? YES: 11 No: 1.

CNN's "State of the Union/Reliable Sources" - Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; Gillespie; Sameh Shoukry, Egypt's ambassador to the U.S.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - In a speech in Cairo this Thursday, President Obama called for a "new beginning" for relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Fareed brings together a panel of experts from around the Muslim world and the region to react to and analyze the speech...and what it means for U.S./Arab relations. Plus, author Michael Lewis on the economic crisis and the future of Wall Street.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1814)

PLAYS: (3421)

Michael Steele bids Arlen Specter good riddance. So much for that big tent.

Steele: For the senator to flip the bird back to Senator Cornyn and the Republican Senate Leadership, a team that stood by him, who went to the bat for him in 2004, to save his hide to me is not only disrespectful but down right rude. I'm sure his mama didn't raise him that way.

DOWNLOAD (2655)

PLAY (10996)

While I think it is premature to write an obituary for the Republican Party, it's hard not to watch this clip and not come to the conclusion that the party is in critical condition.

What is a consensus amongst the talking heads is that the GOP is lost today: no leader, no clear idea of what values to champion, no clear idea if it should be centrist or move even further to the right. Of all the things that the Bush administration destroyed in their term of office, their own party is probably the most surprising.

And who is it poised to rise again like Lazarus to prove the divine right of the GOP, according to those Beltway insiders? Newt "Love means never having to say I'm sorry to my other wives" Gingrich. Even Chris Matthews cannot hold back his patented guffaw at the thought.

Ultimately, the group agrees that it remains to be seen whose idea will resonate with the general public, but it appears that no one currently vying for the top role has been able to offer an idea that we haven't seen for the last 30 years. So have I got this straight? No obvious leader, rudderless and no new ideas?

Awwww....couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

DOWNLOAD (46)

PLAY (89)

Tony Blankley has lost his ever-loving mind. He compares the statements about Rush Limbaugh being the leader of the Republican party to Richard Nixon's enemies list. You have got to be kidding me. These guys having some fun with a prominent right wing gas bag while the GOP implodes with infighting is not the same as what Richard Nixon did nor does it even remotely resemble it and Limbaugh is enjoying every minute of it.

DOWNLOAD (89)

PLAY (105)

On The Situation Room, while discussing some "implied criticism" (in Wolf's words) of the Bush administration from Barack Obama about his choice for AG Eric Holder -- who Obama says might actually adhere to the Constitution and that Hillary Clinton will restore America's diplomacy around the world -- panel members Dana Milbank and Gloria Borger let Wolf know the criticism wasn't so much "implied" but pretty straightforward.

The conversation then moved to discussing the series of exit interviews that George Bush is giving, and Bush's admission that he was not "ready for war". Stephen Hayes then fills us in with this little tidbit:

Yeah it's pretty, it's pretty amazing stuff. I mean, I think that in his discussion about immigration and regretting the tone of the debate, I mean clearly I think that was a criticism of his own party. We're going to be seeing a lot more of this and there's an ongoing Bush legacy project that's been meeting in the White House, really, with senior advisers, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes has been involved, current senior Bush administration advisers and they are looking at how to sort of roll out the President's legacy.

Milbank counters with a bit of reality:

The whole country has been on a Bush legacy project and it's not looking very good for him. I think the extraordinary thing is how does he fix from among the various things to choose from? Now he looks at immigration. Something that certainly helped to torpedo John McCain and of all things now he tells us categories to say that to say that uh....

Blitzer interrupts him before he gets to finish his point and Borger finishes by saying that how Iraq goes will determine how Bush goes down in history. Ya think?

Gloria, don't you suppose there's already enough evidence now of how that debacle, and its accompanying theft of our tax dollars, has gone to make that assessment? Just how much more proof of the Iraq war being one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of our country do you need, exactly, to make a call on that one?

And Bush is working on a "legacy project", with the help of Karl Rove?? Excuse me while I lay on the floor laughing about this one for awhile. Who do they think they're fooling? I guess the twenty-some percent who still to this day think Bush was a good President, but I truly hope the history books are not so kind no matter what sort of "project" they have in mind, and no matter how many soft-shoe interviews Bush decides to give before he finally does us the favor of leaving.

Legacy project? Spare me. I wonder how much they'll be paying Hayes and his buddies to help work on it along with those Bush advisers?

DOWNLOAD (37)

PLAY (91)

This is truly a sad statement on the state of journalism in the US today. That the question "How is Obama different from Bush?" even needs to be posed -- much less discussed -- is truly insulting to the intelligence of the waning viewers that these guys get.

Hmmm....let me count the ways: One's a divisive ideologue who has risen to undeserved levels of status given his personal mediocrity and intellectual laziness due to his connections versus one who believes in a post-partisan government that gets things done who has had to overcome many personal obstacles to achieve great levels based on intelligence, charisma and hard work. I can totally see why the public would need this clarified.

The thing that continues to be so frustrating is the continued post facto admissions by the Villagers as to the deficits that we've had over the last eight years with Bush. Sure, now that he is two months away from walking out of the White House for the last time, we can admit that the world hates us and doesn't want to work with Bush, as Katty Kay does, or that he is stupid (to put a more honest term to Woodward and Borger's "intellectually incurious) and finds the whole "understanding other people's points of view" boring.

But where were they for the last four years? Where was their outrage and coverage of this then? How many soldiers' lives could we have saved if the media had been more honest about Bush? How many poor Iraqi civilian lives? Time and time again, the media abdicates their role in presenting context and in this case, their acceptance of the catapulted propaganda has led the country to the brink of ruin. And yet they feel no culpability. Instead, they treat us to these faux-hard hitting dialogues comparing and contrasting Obama to Bush. Brilliant.