Greta Van Susteren

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (528)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (744)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Of course, by the time Election Day 2008 rolled around, most of us were well acquainted with just how "mavericky" a Republican John McCain really was: If there was an issue he could show his "independence" on, he'd leap at it; but the end result was always to toe the right-wing line.

So McCain has had it on display this week in his assaults on the Obama administration for working to overturn the military's odious "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for gays and lesbians in the military.

First, it may be helpful to recall John McCain on the campaign trail in 2006:

And I understand the opposition to it, and I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.

Then watch him last night on Greta Van Susteren's Fox show:

McCain: I respect the views of Admiral Mullen, who said it was his individual opinion, but we have not heard from the rest of the military leadership. And I'd be very interested in hearing from our military on this issue.

... I have always said that I believe 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is working, and I believe it is.

Yup, that's John McCain, Professional Calvinball Player. How swiftly those goalposts move!



TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (31)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (90)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

McCain wants to make sure no one in the Congress quits paying attention to that propoganda machine out there because his constituents are watching it.

Van Susteren: President Obama said to the Democrats today that they need to stop paying attention to cable news and we didn’t get singled out in particular this time.

McCain: I don’t know they were referring to.

Van Susteren: I think he actually said CNN and Fox News. But he said they need to go out and pay attention to their constituents. Is this President paying attention to his constituents and are those members of the House, both parties paying attention to constituents or not?

McCain: Well, first of all, I advise my friends to go ahead and watch the cable news because our constituents are. Listen…

Van Susteren: I’ll take that plug.

McCain: Yeah. Listen I’ll walk down the street in Phoenix and they’ll say “I saw you on Greta” you know. They may say lousy job but they’ll say “I saw you on Greta”. People watch and people get a lot of their news and information and opinion from cable news. So I would advise members of Congress just the opposite because we want to know what information that your constituents are getting.

Second of all it’s always the way that we have, politicians do in all due respect—shoot the messenger. Shoot the messenger, don’t worry about the message. And the message is that we’re hearing that they’re sick and tired of business as usual. Some polls have the approval rating of Congress in single digits and that you get down to blood relatives and paid staffers. The message I think may come in this November and it might be the most interesting political election that you and I have seen.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (659)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1265)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Boy, wait till the teabaggers get ahold of this guy.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News show yesterday, after his dialogue with President Obama at the House Republican retreat:

Chaffetz: But as I said to the president, I said look, I'm just a freshman here, I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. So I don't want to hear about the background here, let's work on moving forward. And so, the rhetoric's good. I just want to make sure that the reality's good. And so, I -- you know, it was a good dialogue, I appreciate him coming. I'm not going to just bite off his hand when he sticks it out. When he has good things to offer, we'll be right there with him. But this transparency in the process is critical, and so -- I thought it was a good step forward today. We'll see if it continues above and beyond just this one event.

...

Van Susteren: Well, it seemed to me that it was a good start to have everybody talking, because it's gotten a little high school here in Washington, where the Republicans are said to be obstructionists, and the Democrats are said to be excluding Republicans. Is there another meeting planned, or is this a sort of like -- you know, if it happens one time, it looks sort of like, you know, it's staged, it's a prop. If you do this routinely, meet with the president, that seems like a huge step forward. Is there another date scheduled?

Chaffetz: There isn't yet. I mean, this is something that really hasn't happened in 12 months -- he came over in February of last year, and we had a nice, small exchange. But, you know, since what's happened with Scott Brown, and some other types of things, hopefully it's moving in the right direction.

I think both sides want that to happen. I went up to him afterward, I shook his hand, I thanked him for being here, and said, 'Look, I'm not just gonna take potshots at you. I'd love to work with you.' And he kind of reciprocated and said he had heard good things, and so I hope, I hope, I'm an optimist!

You can start your countdown for the denunciations from Tea Party types, accusing Chaffetz of being a "RINO."

Because everyone knows that real Republicans want Obama to fail. Saying you'll "work with him" is a betrayal of the Tea Party purity test. Heaven forfend.


TOPICS

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (786)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2465)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Sarah Palin confirmed on Greta Van Susteren's show last night that she's very much planning to show up and speak at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, despite the distinct odor of Scam the whole affair is giving off.

Palin: Oh, you betcha I'm going to be there. I'm going to speak there because there are people traveling from many miles away to hear what that Tea Party movement is all about and what that message is that should be received by our politicians in Washington. I'm honored to get to be there.

This, even as some of her fellow wingnuts are catching the same whiff -- namely, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn, who have pulled out of the event:

In separate statements, released by their congressional offices, the lawmakers said that appearing at the convention might conflict with House ethics rules. But they also said they are concerned about how money raised from the event will be spent.

Palin last night had no such concerns -- and said no one should be concerned about that big wad of cash the convention organizers are paying her:

Palin: The speaker's fee will go right back into the cause. I'll be able to donate it to people and those events, those things that I believe in, that will help perpetuate the message, the message being: Government, you have constitutional limits. You better start abiding by them.

Hmmmmm. It sounds like we're going to have to rely on Sarah's say-so when it comes to how she actually spends the money. Smells even more like Scam, doesn't it?

Of course, the whole scenario, as David Corn explored with Keith Olbermann last night, is developing into quite a fiasco -- mainly because Tea Partier and Birther J.D. Hayworth has decided to challenge Palin's former running mate, John McCain, in the Arizona Senate primary.

Palin is staying loyal to McCain. This has outraged the Tea Partiers, as Alan Colmes points out:

She has now chose to align herself with several bad actors. What should this be called, the Rinoization of Sarah Palin. [...]

She is certainly entitled to write a book and make money for her and her family, but other than what has she has done to support Republican and patriotic candidates. … Perhaps, Sarah was too busy talking to her agent about her Fox deal. Where the hell was Sarah?

This is what you get when you build a movement around paranoid right-wingers. There is probably no faction more historically famous for viciously turning on each other in struggles over money and power than right-wing populists.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.


TOPICS Video Cafe

Pawlenty: Don't Get Rid of the Bush Tax Cuts

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (441)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (528)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Here's one of the leading contenders for the Presidential nominiation in 2012, and his solution to fixing our economy... keep those Bush tax cuts in place for the rich and pass a Constitutional amendment that forces the Federal government to balance the budget. You've just got to love these born again deficit hawks that don't think the rich should ever have their taxes raised and think we can control the deficit without it. Pawlenty does say there should be exceptions to those budget cuts but did not elaborate at any time during the interview as to what those should be. If I had to guess dropping bombs on poor people's heads and paying for more wars would be one of them.

Pawlenty elaborated on his views here in an op-ed he wrote -- Balanced budget amendment will do just that:

As we begin a new year and Congress reconvenes, an unpleasant reality is increasingly hitting home with ordinary Americans: Leaders in both parties have irresponsibly run up debt. And, since President Obama took office, the debt crisis has grown exponentially worse. The only way to solve the problem in the long run is with a Constitutional amendment. Read on...

Of course Pawlenty thinks that the stimulus plan has failed as well and we need to put a stop to that. More tax cuts!! Yeah, that's the ticket. We all know how well those that worked with stimulus 1 that Bush put through with tax cuts that didn't do an ounce of good. Of course that's not going to get in the way of Pawlenty and his talking points.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (583)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2636)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Don't you just love how, whenever a liberal figure or a non-Fox media outlet (also known as "the liberal media") is caught in any kind of screwup or criminal activity, it quickly becomes the No. 1 Topic of Discussion at Fox?

But when right-wingers are caught with their pants down (e.g., see John Cornyn) or in the criminal cookie jar, there's some minor mumbling, a few quick reports, and then silence at Fox.

So we watched Fox yesterday to see how they would handle the news that their beloved Hot Young Investigative Journalist, James O'Keefe, Slayer of ACORN, had been arrested by the FBI for attempting to wiretap the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu.

There was a brief report on Shep Smith's news show (in which the reporter assured us that we would need to get some context first), followed by a similarly brief overview on Special Report with Bret Baier, and then wrapped up a short segment on Greta Van Susteren's show, in which she mentioned that O'Keefe had appeared on Fox "many times."

But on Fox's prime-time opinion shows, its big ratings drivers, the shows that had most avidly promoted O'Keefe and his brand of "investigative journalism" -- Glenn Beck, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity -- there was nothing. Not. A. Single. Word.

Color me surprised.


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (539)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (544)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Newt Gingrich seems to think that the Republicans terrible alternative for a health care plan just needed some more publicity but the media didn't want to let the public know it existed. How I wish that were the case. Gingrich is repeating the new meme for the month which is that Democrats need to start over and try to work with Republicans now and they'll actually get some cooperation on the health care bill. Sorry Newt, but anyone who's been following what's going on knows the Republicans have no intention of working with the Democrats to pass anything.

Steve Benen reminds us of just how laughable Gingrich's assertions here are.

Throughout the lengthy debate on health care reform, Republicans refused to negotiate in good faith. Compromises were considered out of the question. Blatantly, demonstrably false claims were the norm. Perhaps worst of all, GOP leaders would embrace specific reform ideas, and when Democrats would agree, those same GOP leaders would reject the same measures they'd already endorsed.

[...]

The Republican plan was nothing short of laughable -- it did nothing for the uninsured, nothing for those with pre-existing conditions, and nothing for those worried about losing coverage when it's needed most. It was an entirely partisan plan, written in secret. The Republican proposal sought to create a system that "works better for people who don't need health care services, and much worse for people who actually are sick or who become sick in the future. It's basically a health un-insurance policy." And as we learned in November, the plan included provisions that "mirror the suggestions put forth by the lobbying entity of the private insurance industry way back in December 2008."

Indeed, the official Republican plan didn't even offer modest provisions that the party used to support. Roll Call reported at the time, "Under the GOP plan, insurance companies would still be allowed to exclude anyone with a pre-existing medical condition from coverage, there would be no national insurance exchange and businesses would not face any mandate to provide insurance nor individuals to buy it. Boehner also left out tax credits to help the poor and middle class buy insurance -- a central pillar of most GOP reform proposals and a key feature of a four-page outline Republican leaders released in June."

The plan was quickly labeled "a major embarrassment."

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (384)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (814)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Bill-O's stalker producer Griff Jenkins does a fawning biography piece on Scott Brown which looks more like a campaign ad than anything someone could consider journalism. After talking to his high school coach, the GOP Minority Leader in Massachusetts, his auto mechanic and a neighbor Jenkins concludes that Brown is "immensely well liked and trusted". Heck of a reporting job there Griffy. Fox sure isn't doing much to put aside the notion that they're nothing but a campaign arm of the GOP with this one.

GRIFF JENKINS: Hey, Greta. We know he's from Wrentham, and we know he drives a truck, a regular guy, but with extraordinary accomplishments. He's a Tufts grad. He has a B.C. law degree. He's a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard. He's married to a local TV reporter, Gail Huff.

And when we checked in on his high school, we looked in his yearbook and we learned a few little things, like his secret ambitions in life in 1977, the year he graduated, were to be outrageously happy and play for the Celtics.

Well, we went out and talked to several people that know Scott Brown, and here's what we've found.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (410)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (858)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

I have to wonder if the Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts Senate seat Martha Coakley will get the same treatment if she agrees to come on Greta Van Susteren's show? The Republican candidate Scott Brown is allowed to lie about the health care bill and shill for campaign donations.

VAN SUSTEREN: Good evening, Senator, and, boy, this is an exciting race, not just for your state, but you're going to determine what happens in the United States Senate, whether it is filibuster-proof or not.

SCOTT BROWN: That is true. This race affects everybody in the country not only obviously here in Massachusetts, but everybody. As the 41 senator I can stop what's happening in Washington. All the backroom deals you are talking about are outrageous. People here are upset by it and people throughout the country.

And we can go back to the drawing board and do it better. We are better than that.

VAN SUSTEREN: Interesting to look at the numbers. I realize the polls I just read are very uncertain, because there are a lot of questions with those polls and they are so different, and they make me suspicious.

But according to the information we have about the state of Massachusetts, -- 37 percent of the population voting is Democrat, 11.4 is Republican, but the independents, 51.09 percent. So that's -- I assume those people you are going at heavy and hard.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (392)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1231)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Mitt Romney, who is the GOP insiders' favorite to win the GOP nomination in 2012, went on Greta Van Susteren's show the other night to talk about how much better a job he would be doing than President Obama. But Greta also brought up the, um, *delicate* subject of the Tea Parties.

Of course, we're now becoming accustomed to the Romney flip and flop maneuver. He had it on display here.

First, he was for the Tea Parties ...

Romney: I think it shows a great deal of energy and passion on the part of the American people to say stop, we're going the wrong way, enough already, let's get things right in America. And America is headed in the wrong direction -- this growing government, the increase in taxes, the more intrusivesness of government has made a lot of people very angry, and they want to see change in Washington. They want to see the Washington politicians that have been voting for this kind of intrusive government thrown out of office. And I think it's a good thing. I think Washington politicians need to understand, there's a lot of focus and energy around what's happening, and people aren't going to take it a lot longer.

Afore he was agin' 'em ...

Romney: Well, if there were a third party, and a real intent to create a strong third party, that would obviously be very damaging to the party it drew the most votes from, and if it were a Tea Party party, why, that would certainly be from conservative Republicans. I don't think that's going to happen. I think people recognize right now we're not talking about politics, we're talking about the country.

This is a really critical time for the country, both globally and in terms of our safety and security, but also economically. And if we divide the conservative vote, and therefore hand over to the Democrats more years of single-party rule and Barack Obama another four years, we would have a very different country at the end of eight years of Obama rule.

And I don't think in the final analysis that anyone is going to put their personal political aspirations above the needs of the country.

Maybe I need to clean out my ears or something, but it sure sounded to me like he was saying that voting out Obama transcends politics -- it's a national-security issue. If that's what he said, well, wow.


TOPICS Video Cafe

Cenk Uygur breaks down Karl Rove's hypocrisy and double talk on the Christmas day underwear bomber and the response or lack of by the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter.

From Think Progress--Rove Backs Off His Criticism Of Counterterrorism Center, Perhaps Remembering Chief Is A Bush Holdover:

In recent days, attention has been turning toward Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), in the failed Christmas Day bombing. Politico’s Laura Rozen wrote that it appears that “knives [are] out” for Leiter. On Tuesday, former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove also jumped on the NCTC during an appearance on Fox News, saying that the agency was “where the problem probably occurred.

[...]

It was surprising that Rove pointed the finger at the NCTC, since Leiter served with him in the Bush administration. Leiter became NCTC director in 2007, and then was retained by the Obama administration. But maybe Rove forgot these details and remembered them only after his Fox News appearance, because today during another Fox interview, he tried to shift blame away from the NCTC.

[...]

In both interviews, Rove insisted that the real problem was with the Obama administration, who decided to “treat the Christmas Day bomber as a criminal defendant” (just like the Bush administration did with the shoe bomber).

Continue reading...

As Cenk pointed out, you can blame Bush for hiring him, Obama for keeping him, and Rove for being willing to lie whenever it's convienent to cover the Bush administration's ass and change course just as quickly if it looks like he's busted for talking out of both sides of his mouth. I just assume that's the norm any time Rove talks about anything. Take it with a grain of salt and assume most of what he spews is lies.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (604)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1348)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Ex-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told Greta Van Susteren last night on Fox that she wished President Obama would stop making those unpleasant allusions to her old boss, George W. Bush. Because, you know, Bush has not been taking shots at Obama.

Oddly, nary a mention of Dick Cheney was heard.

Perino was upset that Obama, in his interview for 60 Minutes, referenced Bush's military triumphalism:

Obama: And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war.

There was a tendency to say, "We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise." When in fact, this is a tough business.

But Van Susteren at least pointed out that when George W. Bush was president, there was no shortage of blaming the previous administration:

Van Susteren: When President Bush 43 took office, was he critical in a similar way of President Clinton, his predecessor? Because one of the things I think we all want to think about, is we want our presidents having greatness about them and not getting petty.

Perino: I wasn't there at the beginning, and I think there is a certain amount of comparison that has to go on at the beginning. But almost everyone -- the left, right, and center -- columnists, even late-night talk-show hosts, are suggesting to President Obama that he lay off.

Well, no, Dana, you weren't around in the early years of the Bush administration. So maybe you weren't there for the endless list of things that Bush blamed Clinton for -- some of which included the following:

In 2002, he blamed Clinton for the recession.

Also in 2002, for the mess in the Middle East.

In 2004, for manufacturing job losses.

Also in 2004, for a shortage of flu vaccine.

In 2005, for "running from terrorists" and generally causing 9/11.

In 2006, for Bush's own failures in containing North Korea.

In 2008, for the soaring deficit.

But the best part came when she suggested Obama should not blame Bush for anything because Bush has been nice and quiet since the election and not criticized Obama:

Perino: Look, I think the other thing that you've seen is that President Bush has been an incredibly gracious post-president during the transition, and he said, 'President Obama deserves my silence.' and I would daresay that he deserves a lot more respect than he's getting right now.

Sure, Bush has been "gracious" because all Republicans have to do is send out Bush's surrogate thug, Vice President Cheney -- who in fact probably had at least as much to do with the direction of policy matters in the Bush administration as Bush himself did -- to do the dirty work for him.

Just last week, Cheney told the nation that the Obama administration was committing treason.

Before that, Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" on Afghanistan. He attacked Obama's decision to investigate torture policies under the Bush/Cheney regime. And he criticized Obama's Iraq withdrawal plans.

Yeah, pretty freaking gracious, those Republicans.

It's important to remind the public just how we got in this mess, and to remind them that the people who got us here want us to forget that fact. Their only hope is to cover their tracks, and Dana Perino is in the business of doing that.


TOPICS

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (536)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2226)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Tim Donaghy, the NBA ref who was driven from the game in disgrace after he was caught gambling on games, including those he officiated, has a new book out making some sensational claims about how the NBA is run. And he went on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox last night to talk about it.

Van Susteren: You talk about discussions you had beforehand where refs would say they didn't like a particular player, didn't like a particular team, that that sort of factored into whether you thought that the ref would maybe call something or not call something.

Donaghy: Right. I think there was a situation where certain referees, in my mind -- and it obviously proved successful -- could change the point spread in an NBA game based on relationships by four or five points. And when you talk about adding four or five points onto any line that's at Vegas it's like sitting at a blackjack table and knowing that your first card is an ace when the dealer starts to deal.

Van Susteren: You know, that actually shocked me much more in your book, than your own conduct, because as a fan, or as a viewer, I thought this was all done so straight, and then I find out that the refs are also, you know, talking trash about players and about team owners -- and that that has an impact on some of the calls. It took away, sort of, the honesty in the game for me.

Donaghy: Right, and I think the, you know, NBA fans are very knowledgeable. And over the last 10 or 15 years, they know that a lot of unusual things have taken place.

Donaghy describes how officials would single out and punish players like Allen Iverson if they felt the league hadn't punished them enough for misdeeds on the floor. And sometimes they would just pick on players because they had earned the displeasure of the refs:

Donaghy: One player where referees targeted on a continuous basis was Rasheed Wallace. He was one of those guys that just constantly -- seemed to go out of his way to embarrass referees. And when you do that to the referee staff, you know, at times they would come together, and basically try to put him in his place, or try to get him in a position where, you know, he would stop doing what he was doing.

Van Susteren: So there are the NBA players who sort of get the harsher treatment, deliberately. Are there any NBA players who are particularly well liked, or favorites that get a pass? Where maybe they've fouled somebody, or did palming or traveling, and everyone said, 'Let's let him go'?

Donaghy: I mean, there are situations, and the referees are trained in the fact that, obviously, you don't want to be throwing the stars out of the game, or you don't want to be giving a star a foul that you can give to somebody else who's in that area.

Van Susteren: You mean, you'd deliberately pick who you give the foul to? I mean, if there's a collision of players, you'd pick who you'd give the foul to?

Donaghy: Sure.

Van Susteren: So that someone who might be near the limit on the fouls and who might be a star might not get it, but you'd give it to somebody else?

Donaghy: Absolutely.

Van Susteren: Deliberately?

Donaghy: Deliberately.

Van Susteren: And was that discussed beforehand and afterwards, you know, we're going to do this if the situation arises or something like it. And afterwards, good job, you did that?

Donaghy: Well, it's the way that you were trained. Obviously you don't want to give a Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O'Neal or LeBron James a foul that may be his second or third foul in the first quarter, to where he's going to have to go to the bench. I mean, it was openly discussed in meetings that, you know, people paid big dollars to see these stars on the floor. So if there's a situation where you can have two people to pick from, you're certainly not going to pick one of them, you're going to pick someone that's the sixth, seventh, or eighth man on that team.

Van Susteren: And that's expressly said, that that's what you should do.

Donaghy: Absolutely it is.

Now, there's no doubt Donaghy has plenty of motivation to slag his former league, since profits and revenge often mix together. But what Donaghy is describing actually rings true for anyone who has watched NBA games closely over the past several decades.

It has become increasingly clear over the years that NBA officials are corrupt, but not in the usual way; they call games badly at times that are convenient most of all for the NBA, when it wants certain marketable matchups in the playoffs. They are also corrupt in that they clearly make calls based on grudges they hold, and their egos have become the most dominating force on the court.

Anyone who was watching Michael Jordan's rise as the league's premier superstar knows that, in addition to prodigious talent, Jordan was also blessed with a league that stood to gain even more by elevating his stature, and thus with taking it easy on him when it came to officiating.

I was a 12-year season ticket holder to NBA games, and have watched hundreds of NBA games live over the years, and even more on TV. And the process Donaghy describes -- wherein officials decide ahead of time to ameliorate fouls against league stars whenever possible, while simultaneously targeting both players and coaches they deem to be a threat to the officiating crews' supremacy on the court -- was fairly self-evident to anyone who watched many games.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (537)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (881)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

First question, why is this man on my television screen instead of sitting in a jail cell somewhere? Karl Rove first claims that the stimulus package didn't work even though as Pat Garofalo over at the Think Progress' The Wonk Room noted:

...the Congressional Budget Office found that it has created or saved 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs, with plenty of punch still to come.

Rove is then asked by Greta Van Susteren if the Bush administration is responsible at all for the shape the economy is in. Rove tries to blame the economy melting down on Fannie and Freddie and on Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--it's all their fault! This is the same crap Rove was peddling in his Wall Street Journal column back in January. Barry Ritholtz does a nice job of debunking Rove's nonsense here--Karl Rove’s Factually Challenged Housing Revisionism.

VAN SUSTEREN: Here's the problem with what you suggest. I mean, that may be the suggestion for the economy, and I don't mean to suggest that decisions are made on politics. But to be sort of practical and realistic, the fact that there will be an election next November, if they cut the corporate tax, as you say, for big corporations, accelerate depreciation for small businesses, the first thing I would do as an opponent is saying, Well, he finally came around to the Republican thinking. And it took him a year or so or a year behind the ball on this in terms of the role of the recession. Plus, we've spent all this money in the stimulus package and we've got ourselves now in a huge spending situation. So you know, that solution may help the economy, but doesn't that make him more vulnerable politically?

ROVE: Well, it does say that he changes course. But I mean, look, it's not working. We were told that if we did nothing, unemployment would go to 8 percent. We did exactly what the president wanted, his $787 billion stimulus bill, and unemployment has gone to 10 percent. We've gone from a situation -- when he came into office, there were 142.1 million Americans working. Today there are 138.5 million Americans working. We did what he said and it has not gotten appreciably better.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe

Dennis Kucinich vs Rick Santorum on Afghanistan

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1412)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (6010)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Dennis Kucinich takes on man-on-dog Rick Santorum on what America should be doing in Afghanistan. Par for the course Santorum has nothing but tough talk and meaningless slogans to offer. Always lots of money to drop bombs on poor people's heads, but heaven forbid don't ask anyone to pay for it by taxing the wealthy, or take care of anyone here at home instead. I think these "Christians", and I use the term loosely for Santorum, forgot about the part of the Bible that includes Christ.

QUESTION: Will the president be ready to roll out a decision in the week after Thanksgiving, or will it take longer?

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There are a series of decisions that have to be made, and the president is working through many of those decisions in order to come to what he believes is the best way forward for our national security. And I think the American people want the president to take the time to get this decision right, rather than to make a hasty decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BREAM: Next Tuesday, President Obama is set to address the nation on his proposed policy for the Afghanistan war, a proposal that may come with a $50 billion price tag. Still with us now, former senator and FOX News analyst Rick Santorum and Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Congressman, I'd love to start with you. You have great concern, I understand it, about how this Afghanistan situation could possibly affect our national security.

KUCINICH: Well, it will have an effect on our national security, and I would suggest that the fight isn't in Afghanistan, it's here in our own country. We're mired deeply in debt. We'll go deeper into debt for this war. Our gross domestic product is down. Savings are down. Bankruptcies are up. Home foreclosures are up. We're doing more foreign borrowing. This war is undermining our nation, and we need to address this issue head on and ask what do we gain from this because I don't see any up side at all.

Continue reading »