Greta Van Susteren

TOPICS Video Cafe

SNL Spoofs Fox News: 2009 Elections -The End of an Era

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (2692)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (16346)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

SNL spoofs Fox News for their coverage of the Virginia and New Jersey governors’ races and the NY-23 Congressional race. Jason Sudeikis' Glenn Beck impersonation is eerily close to the mark.



TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (39)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (113)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Gotta' love that GOP/Fox News echo chamber with this latest talking point. Lamar Alexander repeats his 'enemies list' accusation made earlier in the day on the Senate floor.

From Think Progress--GOP Communications Arm In Action: Republican Senator Takes Up Fox News’ ‘Enemies List’ Attack On Obama:

For the past couple of weeks, Fox News’ Sean Hannity has been aggressively pushing the talking point that the Obama White House is compiling an “enemies list.” That wild accusation came in response to Obama communications director Anita Dunn’s suggestion that Fox News operates as a “communications arm” of the GOP.

“I mean, is this an enemies list? Seems like it to me,” Hannity said on his program last Wednesday. “They want to come after the Fox News Channel,” the right-wing pundit complained. Almost every night in recent weeks, Hannity has badgered his guests, demanding that they take up his talking point. Last night, Liz Cheney took the bait:

HANNITY: It seems to me, it’s almost like an enemies list. Is that a fair description?

CHENEY: Well, uhh, yeah.

[...]

Yesterday, Hannity won his biggest convert yet. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) took to the Senate floor and read Sean Hannity’s talking points into the congressional record:

ALEXANDER: I want to make what I hope will be a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House, and it is this: don’t create an enemies list. […]

So in conclusion Mr. President, here’s my point. These are unusually difficult times with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list.

Watch a compilation:

As Think Progress also noted, Karl Rove accused the White House of keeping an enemies list on Fox News Sunday last weekend. And now we have Alexander following suit. For someone complaining that the White House is being unfair in claiming that Fox News is a communications arm of the Republican party, Alexander is certainly doing a good job of proving it as he does it. My only question might be which one is leading and which is following? I would imagine it's Fox following since I'm pretty sure Hannity gets all of his talking points straight from the RNC.

Steve Benen weighed in on this today as well:

While I don't doubt this will make for weeks of breathless speculation on Fox News, and give a wide variety of pundits endless entertainment, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

The most obvious problem here is that Republicans are defining Nixonian tactics down. In effect, Alexander argued this morning that the White House's opponents and detractors will go after the president and his team, but if they respond in any way, they're necessarily acting in ways similar to the disgraced 37th president.

Look at Alexander's list. Is the White House pushing back against the Chamber of Commerce's efforts to derail the administration's agenda? Sure, what's wrong with that? Did the White House impose a "gag order" on Humana? Of course not, that's absurd. Is the White House pointing out that Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party? Yep, as well it should. Has the president criticized financial institutions that brought the global economy to the brink of a depression? Yes, but I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Has the White House criticized an insurance industry that screwed over its customers and continues to fight against sensible reform efforts? You bet, but again, that's a good thing.

Alexander, Gregg, and assorted political reporters make it seem as if the White House should be a non-partisan, non-political, take-punches-but-don't-respond entity. In other words, Obama and his team are expected to just lose every fight, and take every criticism. To do anything else leads to Nixon comparisons.

It's possible the political world has a very short memory, but it's worth remembering, as Eric Boehlert does, that Nixon's White House "declared war on his enemies (including news outlets), and used the full power of the federal government to exact his bouts of revenge."

When Nixon didn't like a news outlet, he directed federal prosecutors to investigate journalists, including going through their taxes. Nixon assembled actual enemies lists, and used the power of his office to target and try to destroy his adversaries.

That any serious person would compare these tactics to routine political efforts at the White House is insane.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1173)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2897)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

We wondered, back when the Tea Party Express was running ads on Fox, why they bothered, since they'd soon be getting all the free advertising they could ask for.

And sure enough, Griff Jenkins has been filing reports from the multiple cross-country stops for the tour since its outset, provided for all the various Fox anchors (Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Neal Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, the Fox and Friends crew) to feature in their regular broadcasts.

Quelle surprise: they haven't had to run any ads on Fox since they started touring.

Most of the time, Jenkins -- who's clearly cheerleading this effort and not trying in the least to act like an actual reporter -- at least has bothered to mostly feature interviews with attending teabaggers, so as to at least create the appearance of some semblage of journalism in these reports.

But last night, on Sean Hannity's show, Jenkins just dropped the pretense, and gathered the teabaggers in New York behind him as props and launched into a rant about how these events were all about average Americans taking back America from an out-of-control federal government. He wasn't reporting; he was essentially being a paid propagandist for the Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which is the sponsor of this event.

And the funny thing is, as we reported earlier, the Our Country Deserves Better PAC has ALWAYS been about opposing whatever policies President Obama pursues. That is, this is a specifically anti-Obama campaign, and the rhetoric about "out of control government" is a fig leaf:

The "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC, in fact, was founded in August 2008 -- before the election -- specifically to oppose Barack Obama and his policies. (They called it "drawing contrasts between Senator Barack Obama and John McCain".) In October 2008, for instance, Williams was out on the stump campaigning against Obama as a "socialist" on a previous bus tour called the "Stop Obama Express". They've also runs ads comparing Obama to Hitler.

Jenkins claimed this was "black and white," but the crowd shots are almost completely of white faces. Moreover, I'll wager that every single one of them is a disappointed Republican -- if not a McCain voter, then a Ron Paul voter.

In fact, a better name for the whole enterprise would be The Sore Loser Express. Because that's who's coming out for these things -- people who think they can get a do-over on the election.

Including the fine folks at Fox, evidently.


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (80)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (238)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

September 07, 2009 News Corp

COLBY: Health care reform quickly becoming the make-or-break issue for this presidency, and sources are saying the White House is planning to draft its own bill to make sure that reform happens. And just when you thought the debate could not get any more heated -- you've seen those town halls -- enter Reverend Jeremiah Wright!

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what do you think about the health care bill?

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT, PRES. OBAMA'S FORMER PASTOR: I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLBY: So shocking it is, I'm going to play it for you again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what do you think about the health care bill?

WRIGHT: I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLBY: I'm joined again by Marc Lamont Hill and Amanda Carpenter. Marc, let me start with you. The Reverend Wright -- we haven't heard much about him. Now he's speaking out, to all places, TMZ, on health care reform. What's going on?

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (54)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (226)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Dick Morris once again lives up to his name on Fox News. Somehow in Morris' pea brain, Louise Slaughter not wanting to put up with Birchers and birthers and tea baggers at these town halls where the astroturfers have gotten the wingnuts whipped up in to a frenzy is just like the "old Southern politician" who doesn't want to deal with the African Americans in his district. Yeah... that's just the same Dick. How come I didn't make that connection after hearing what she said? Project much?

He makes sure he gets in some more death panel, the government is going to kill grandma fear mongering before it's over as well. Republicans... now the great defenders of Medicare. That's rich.

MACCALLUM: Well, not every member of Congress thinks that facing down voters at town halls as part of their job creation -- job description, I should say. Democratic congresswoman Louise Slaughter is one of those. Listen to what Louise had to say.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D), NEW YORK: I'm not doing town meetings. I'm -- I'm not going to give those people a forum. I went through it with the Clinton health care bill, with the John Birch Society, where we had to have police around and people were hysterically crying. I'm not -- and frankly, to tell you the truth, Ron, my own dignity and the dignity of the office I hold is important to me. And I know what that is. It's not a spontaneous uprising of my constituents. I've got the best relationship with my constituents anybody could ever even imagine.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: All right, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, I should say. Dick Morris joins me now. He's the author of the book "Catastrophe." Dick, what do you make of that? She's saying, you know, Look, I have a great relationship with my constituents. It's beneath the dignity of the congresswoman, she says, and the dignity of her office to subject herself to the folks like we just saw in Waco, Texas, who have something to say.

DICK MORRIS, DICKMORRIS.COM: She reminds me very much of the old Southern politicians, who were racists, who used to say, Oh, I have a great relationship with people in my district, the black people in my district. And they didn't call them black. And if only the outside agitators would leave them alone, I'd have such great relationship with them.

The point is that -- that the -- Ms. Slaughter's constituents want to speak to her. And how else are they going to do it? This bill is going to go through the House without debate, probably be everybody'll be given two minutes to debate the bill. It'll probably pass in a week's time. The committees didn't hold hearings on it. There have been no public hearings on the issue. And then they're probably going to try to jam it through the Senate not only without debate but without even permitting debate by getting it through on a reconciliation with 50 votes.

So how are people supposed to speak out?

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1327)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4578)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Greta Van Susteren asks Michael Steele the question that should be asked of Republicans every time they claim they really care about "reforming" health care/insurance. Why didn't your reform it when you had control of the House, the Senate and the White House? Of course she forgets that we did get the Republicans idea of health care reform when they were in charge, with the giveaway to the big pharma in the form of Medicare Part D.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, what is this "bill of rights" that you've unleashed? And -- well, let me just start there. What is this "bill of rights"?

STEELE: Well, the "bill of rights" is really kind of a placeholder as we begin the fall discussion on health care. We watched at the beginning of the spring and summer the administration say we were going to have a health care bill by July 31 with no real input or discussion by the American people, let alone the Republican members of Congress. They were going to try to get it done by then. We raised some concerns and we talked a little bit more about it and laid out clearly what we thought we should be doing.

Town halls began to take place as citizens began to get ahold of it. And in the process of this discussion, the one thing that struck me that was being left behind was our seniors. When the administration's kind of slipped out there the idea of cutting $500 billion from the Medicare program with no indication of whether that's going to be cutting waste or if that's going to be cutting the substance of programs or what that was, I thought it would be appropriate to put a placemaker out here to very clearly delineate what we should be doing and how we should be doing it on behalf of the seniors as we begin this debate in the fall.

So I wanted to lay out about six principles that kind of talked about the -- you know, the doctor-patient relationship, the role of government, the decision-making process involving seniors or their caregivers, and I wanted to be as fairly clear as I could about it.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, but this -- so this is not an exact answer to the 1,500-page bill that the Democrats have put forward. This is sort of just your principles of how you and the Republican Party would like to see things proceed, so just broad-based principles, right?

STEELE: It's broad-based principles and -- and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate will come back with the legislative, you know, bills and amendments to the HR 3200 or whichever bill the House and Senate are going to be working on, to put into law those guidelines or those protections, if you will, for our seniors.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are the Republicans sort of sitting back, waiting to see what the Democratic bill is so they can then punch some holes in it or rewrite it, or are they -- or are they writing their own, saying, Look, scrap the Democrats. This is the bill we should have.

STEELE: Well, I think -- well, this is -- that's a very good question, Greta, and I'll tell you why, because between the House and the Senate, there have been over 800 pieces of legislation and amendments to various bills introduced by Democrats in the House and the Senate that have been rejected outright. So they've tried that, writing the bill, if you will, or putting their input into the documents that have been produced, and it has all been rejected.

So I think in this instance, what I thought was, Let's put a placemarker in place, then let's just follow back up. And now that the rhetoric has heated up from the American people, maybe the House leadership will pay attention to what Republicans want to put on the table because, quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of all this conversation about all bipartisanship and bipartisanship that, when, in fact, the House and Senate leadership are not doing anything to bring Republicans to the table in any meaningful way, and the president is giving lip service to this idea, when he's not encouraging, and in fact, demanding that we work together in bipartisan fashion on this problem.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, I understand that a lot of Republicans want reform. In fact, most have said some reform is needed. I understand that they don't like the public option, or the government option. I understand that they say there's no bipartisanship. But can you sort of, you know -- you know, bring me in on the secret why the Republicans didn't do health care reform when they owned the House, the Senate and the White House? Do you have any idea?

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1128)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2045)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Looks like Mr. Man-on-dog Rick Santorum's irony alert button is broken, but that's nothing new. While complaining about the mean old President saying that one network is devoted to doing nothing but attacking his administration, Santorum makes his point for him.

VAN SUSTEREN: Former senator Rick Santorum joins us here in Washington. Senator, I think he watches cable news!

SANTORUM: It's not cable -- he's watching FOX. I mean, he's talking about the cable chatter. He's certainly not talking about MSNBC. I mean, my goodness, they're the biggest cheerleader -- you know, they're just -- they're all over Barack Obama. This -- this is an attack on FOX. this is -- this reminds me of what Hugo Chavez was doing down in Venezuela, trying to shut down the voice of opposition in the media! This is -- this is not good, really, in my opinion, not good at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's -- I mean, it's sort of a -- I mean, we have some people on this network who are, you know, politically conservative. Sean Hannity -- no one's going to dispute that.

SANTORUM: Sure.

VAN SUSTEREN: So he goes after him. But -- but we have a lot of news gatherers, as well, who are just gathering the news.

SANTORUM: And case in point, you. I mean, I don't think anyone's going to come and say, Well, you're just -- you've been brutal on Barack Obama. You've not been brutal on him. You've put the case -- you've made the case for and against him. When you thought he was right, you stood -- you stood out there and said it.

He's -- he's overreacting. This is a very thin-skinned president. This is a guy who's not used to being criticized. And the fact that some here on FOX are taking him on and some, like yourself, are just holding him accountable when he's crossing the line in the wrong direction -- you know, his reaction, I think, is really unprofessional.

Continue reading »


Why Progressives Should Boycott Whole Foods

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1008)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2797)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
(h/t Dave)

You gotta love the mentality of Greta Van Susteren, reducing the whole union-hating, Ayn Rand-loving, universal health care-dismissing ravings of Whole Foods founder John Mackey to a question of whether he's a "bad man." She's using the same language I use with my 6 year old when talking about "stranger danger." Sheesh.

Even as a diehard foodie (My husband and I plan our weekends and vacations around meals and restaurants. Seriously.), I actually don't shop that often at Whole Foods. I find it...well, elitist and overpriced. I much prefer Trader Joe's and our local farmers' markets to Whole Foods, though many of my friends are major patrons. But now that I've read Mackey's diatribe in the WSJ in all its Randian glory, I have to wonder if he considered at all who shops in his stores. GastroNomalies.com's Ali Savino writes on Whole Foods' rotten core:

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote a thunderous comment piece in which he derided the public option, Barack Obama's biggest campaign promise to progressives, and put forward a stridently conservative view of healthcare for America.

Does Mackey know who his customer base is? Did he really not foresee the backlash that has ensued – the howls across the blogosphere and Twitter, the Facebook petition to boycott Whole Foods?

Pundits argue that Mackey hasn't gotten a fair shake. He sells food after all, not health insurance. He's a successful businessman who has wisdom to share. But Whole Foods is more than a supermarket. From the cooking classes and wine tastings to the monthly event calendar on the wall, Whole Foods aims to be a way of life.

The brand Mackey created caters to a specific clientele. Customers are greeted with signage boasting of local farmers and grass-fed cattle. Whole Foods touts announcements of Green Prom projects and 100-best-companies-to-work-for accolades. The reusable shopping bags and shelves filled with yoga mats and all-natural beeswax lip balm aim to capture the same folks clicking "donate" on the MoveOn fundraising appeals.

These are the same people who pay large sums for a pint of organic strawberries, laughing off or even defending the "Whole Paycheque" label. They tell themselves: It's OK to pay double what those strawberries would cost elsewhere, because they're chemical-free, healthier, environmentally and ethically sound. Whole Foods customers want to feel good about their purchases and believe they are being better citizens for shopping there.

Now Mackey, the face of the company, is not only at odds with a central tenet of progressivism, but a supporter of free-market evangelism that has no space for the community-based, egalitarian solutions his customers support.

One of the site team wrote to Whole Foods after the op-ed was published and Whole Foods responded quickly with a somewhat disingenuous response, but also one which disavowed Mackey's stance (The exact phrasing was "Whole Foods Market has no official position on the issue"). If you're on Facebook, you can join the "Boycott Whole Foods" group now.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (879)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1213)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

On three separate Fox News programs yesterday -- on Neil Cavuto's show, on Sean Hannity, and on Greta Van Susteren -- the hosts specifically referred to the Democrats' decision to go through "reconciliation" sessions to settle on the final form of the health-care legislation as "the nuclear option."

Eh?

Now just a gol-darned minute. The "nuclear option" always referred to the possibility of permanently changing Senate rules regarding filibusters so that the minority could not use it so readily to frustrate majority-approved legislation -- and it was an invention of Republicans who were considering bringing it against Democrats.

No such steps are being considered here.

Instead, we're seeing the health-care legislation go through the "reconciliation" process, which assures that it will only need 51 votes to pass. This is a long-established Senate procedure, and was indeed used frequently by Republicans when they controlled the Senate from 2001-2006.

Media Matters has the complete rundown.

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)

These people never quit when it comes to twisting reality for their agenda, do they?


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (655)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (929)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Great Van Susteren last night on Fox News ran a segment exploring whether or not illegal immigrants were going to be dragged into the health-care debate by conservatives eager to find anything to latch onto to drag the legislation down.

Most notably, Sen. Jon Kyl has been giving them aid and comfort:

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday defended critics of Democratic health care reform plans who claim the proposals would provide subsidized health care to illegal immigrants. Kyl said Democrats have long sought to block curbs on public services for people illegally in the country.

“It’s a logical question for people to ask,” Kyl said during a conference call with reporters, maintaining that during last year’s State Children’s Health Insurance Program debate and other legislative fights, Democrats blocked efforts by Republicans to include curbs on health care for illegal immigrants.

“In the last couple of bills … there were efforts to ensure that only eligible people would get the benefits … those efforts were defeated by Democrats,” Kyl argued, pointing out that hospitals currently are required to provide illegal aliens — as well as anyone else — with health care if they are in need.

“That illegal immigrants get care ... it’s a big burden on hospitals,” Kyl said.

Well, just like the "death panels" and "euthanasia" and "socialized medicine" claims, this one is wholly false, with no basis in reality whatsoever.

Media Matters has compiled a handy list of health-care myths propagated by right-wing talkers, and the "illegal immigrants will receive benefits" is No. 4 on the list:

REALITY: House bill stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance. Under the "Individual Affordability Credits" section of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:

SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

(a) DEFINITION. --

(1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) --

[...]

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Senate HELP bill excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the Affordable Health Choices Act:

(h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. -- Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

PolitiFact has a further debunking. Antonio Olivo in the LA Times had a good piece examining the issue awhile back.

Have no fear: The fact of the claim's provable falsity will not deter the teabaggers from adopting it. Indeed, it probably increases the chances we'll be hearing it a lot more in the days to come.


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (646)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2205)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

From Greta Van Sustern's show Thursday night after the mess at Russ Carnahan's town hall meeting. Dana Loesch claims she's just an ordinary person showing up at these town halls to speak her mind and no one told her or any of the rest of them to show up. Just one problem with that. She's one of the ones telling others to show up, actively promoting these protests on her web site, on her Twitter page, and she works for 97.1 FM Talk in St. Louis, Mo., which has a big flashing banner across the front of its web site right now on how to get more info on town hall meetings.

And no one has ever said that the majority of the people showing up at these protests are not really genuinely angry Americans. We've just pointed out who the ones are whipping them into a frenzy with misinformation, like you, your radio station, Fox News, right wing blogs, and your Tea Bagger organization.

VAN SUSTEREN: The mob. Is that true? Joining us live is Dana Loesch. She's a radio host and works with the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition. Dana went to a health care town hall held by Senator Claire McCaskill's office.

Good evening, Dana. You're part of the angry mob, apparently. Your reaction to being called that?

DANA LOESCH, RADIO HOST 97.1 FM TALK: I want to know who this "they" is. Who is this they, Republicans? Because I'm not a Republican and not every single person associated with the tea party movement is a Republican, just like everyone who went out to protest Bush was a Democrat or anything else. It's -- it's just -- you know, and I'm tired of all these accusation that are just being leveled at us, like, oh, well, we're paid GOP hacks. Honestly, if I were in this for the money, I would have gone and worked with ACORN because, I mean, even though they paid their people late, still, at least they paid their people.

But these are just -- you know, these are moms, these are dads, grandparents, senior citizens, kids, college kids. All of these people are coming out just to voice their concerns. And it kind of makes me sad that we live in an era where the president of the United States and his political party would try to sort of, like, wash off people by saying that their valid concerns are just echoes of an angry mob. It doesn't maybe make any sense and it's really sad.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you part of any group, or did you go to this meeting, this town hall meeting yourself? I mean, are you part of any club, or were you -- like, did someone just summons you, like, some organization, I mean, or did you just show up?

LOESCH: I just showed up. I don't have a satin jacket. I don't have a laminated club card, I just showed up like everyone else. And I went to Congressman Russ Carnahan's health care town hall forum just this evening and just, you know, with a bunch of other people. We just showed up. No one told us to show up. No one told us what questions to ask or even to ask any questions at all.

They just -- they have concerns about this health care legislation. And are our elected officials so out of touch with their own districts that they don't even recognize the people in their districts and they can't understand why they would have any kind of questions?

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (74)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (159)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Mr. Compassionate Conservative Rush Limbaugh has a solution to our health care problem. You're on your own. So if you're a fat cat like Rush Limbaugh who can afford to stay at the Ritz, you're fine. You're like most of the rest of us, well...too bad so sad.

LIMBAUGH: This is an insurance problem, catastrophic problem, basically. This is not the way to fix health care.

VAN SUSTEREN: How...

LIMBAUGH: This is not the way to reform it.

VAN SUSTEREN: How would you fix it?

LIMBAUGH: Well, long-term, easy. The answer is easy. Health care, other than catastrophic, accident, severe illness -- health care's got to be priced the same way a hotel room is or a car is. You want to stay at the Ritz, you pay for it. You want to stay at a Motel 6, you pay for it. You don't -- we don't have insurance for hotels. We don't have insurance for airplane travel. We have it for health care because the government's been paying it, or insurance companies have been paying it for 50 years. People now assume it's their right to have it because they're Americans.

Now, that would take a while but these health savings accounts could get the ball rolling on that. But a first thing -- catastrophic insurance is what the government ought to provide or what people -- that somebody -- the ordinary, everyday doctor visits, check-ups, and so forth, pay for it yourself or go buy your own policy that you can afford, that covers what you want covered, if you don't want to pay for it yourself. And then have the catastrophic stuff that everybody's worried about wiping them out -- you would save so much money.


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1130)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (7808)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Media Matters' Karl Frisch takes us through just how the right wing noise machine works, and a photo that starts out being criticized on Free Republic ends up making its way into the main stream media.

A classic example of how the right-wing noise machine works was unfolding before the American people. A non-story starts on a right-wing website and works its way into the mainstream. It usually involves Drudge, the fedora-wearing boy who cries wolf (almost daily) on the Internet, and mainstream news outlets follow his lead, offering up under-researched and factually inaccurate story lines.

Had the mainstream media done their job -- you know, checking the video to get the context from which the photo was taken -- they would have clearly seen that Obama was attempting to navigate high steps, while reaching back to help someone behind him do so as well. As Fox News host Greta Van Susteren said after airing video of the event, "Yes, a still picture can lie. And this one does."

Of course, the next morning after Van Susteren's show, the Fox & Friends crew went right back to trashing the president with lascivious speculation that was contradicted by easily accessible fact.


TOPICS

Nazis in the U.S. military: SPLC will ask Congress for action

Shawn Stuart-764380_36d56.jpg

In his "about me" section, "SoldatAMG" describes himself as a "Sergeant in USMC stationed at Camp Lejeune. I recently returned from my 3rd trip to Iraq. I fight every day to stem the tide of multicultturalism and to ensure that my children have a better world. SIEG HEIL!" -- Stars and Stripes

Why, it feels like only yesterday that every right-wing talker on the planet -- from Michael Savage to Greta Van Susteren -- was denouncing the Department of Homeland Security for supposedly "smearing our veterans" by issuing a bulletin for law-enforcement officers warning that right-wing extremists and neo-Nazis intended to recruit members of the military and returning veterans.

Well, we've already seen just how prescient the bulletin actually was -- after Richard Poplawski, Scott Roeder, and James Von Brunn all proved its point.

Now Stars and Stripes is reporting on just how far, indeed, neo-Nazis have infiltrated our military ranks:

It is Facebook for the fascist set, and the typical online profiles of its members reveal expected tastes.

Favorite book: “Mein Kampf.”

Favorite movie: the Nazi propaganda film “Triumph of the Will.”

Interests: “white women.”

Dislikes: “anyone who opposes the master race.”

But there’s one other thing that dozens of members of newsaxon.org, a white supremacist social networking website, have in common: They proudly identify themselves as active-duty members of the U.S. armed forces.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Ala.-based watchdog group that tracks extremist hate groups, has compiled a book containing the online user profiles of at least 40 newsaxon.org users who say they are serving in the military, in apparent violation of Pentagon regulations prohibiting racist extremism in the ranks.

The military has been shrugging this off. So the SPLC is going to take the matter up with Congress:

On Friday, the SPLC will present its findings to key members of Congress who chair the House and Senate committees overseeing the armed forces and urge them to pressure the Pentagon to crack down.

“In the wake of several high-profile murders by extremists of the radical right, we urge your committees to investigate the threat posed by racial extremists who may be serving in the military to ensure that our armed forces are not inadvertently training future domestic terrorists,” Morris Dees, SPLC co-founder and chief trial counsel, wrote to the legislators. “Evidence continues to mount that current Pentagon policies are inadequate to prevent racial extremists from joining and serving in the armed forces.”

Added Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a magazine produced at the law center: “The Pentagon really has shrugged this off and refused to look at this in any serious way.”

We've been reporting on this trend for some time now, and have discussed especially the ramifications of this development.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (70)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (113)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Now that the deficit spending is for something like trying to get our economy out of the ditch George Bush put us into, Mitch McConnell is suddenly very concerned about that mounting debt we're accumulating, unless of course we accumulated more of it for some additional tax cuts. Endless wars and occupations, well that's alright in McConnell's world. Spending to try to get people back to work, not so much.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is a second stimulus package coming? Some Democrats, including House majority leader Steny Hoyer and Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, are not ruling out the idea.

What are they saying on the other side of the aisle? Joining us live is Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader. Nice to see you, Senator.

MCCONNELL: Good to be back, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, first of all, before we get to this possibility of stimulus 2.0, second stimulus package, how much are we spending on interest on the first one? Do you have any idea?

MCCONNELL: About $100 million a day on interest on the first stimulus.

VAN SUSTEREN: One hundred million...

MCCONNELL: A day.

VAN SUSTEREN: ... each day that passes we're spending to support that original one.

MCCONNELL: Yes, and figures just out a few minutes ago, this fiscal year, we're spending -- we have an $800 billion greater deficit at the end of the third quarter of the fiscal year that we're currently in that ends September 30th than last year. We're spending like drunken sailors.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, so 2.0, people are talking about. It's not a done deal, necessarily. I mean, there are some Democrats who are talking about it. They are not wedded to it, right? This is not a certainty, it's just a beginning point, a discussion about it.

MCCONNELL: Well, I sure hope not. I mean, we had a great saying down home in Kentucky that there's no education in the second kick of a mule. I mean, we passed the first stimulus on the representation the president made that it would keep unemployment from going above 8 percent. Well, we now know it's going to go above 10 percent. And we just discussed how much interest we're paying every day on this ill-begotten venture. To suggest that we want to do it again is truly astonishing.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any sign from that $875 billion stimulus package that was passed in February -- are there any positive indicators? I realize that unemployment is sort of a lagging indicator, but are there any signs that it's working?

MCCONNELL: Not yet. I mean, what's been done with most of the money, according to GAO, is states have used it to plug holes in their budgets. In other words, their revenues are down, too, because of the economic slowdown, so they just used our borrowed money to prevent them from having to make as many tough decisions as they would otherwise have to make. And of course, we're sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren.

Continue reading »