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

DOWNLOADS: (294)

PLAYS: (450)

From Face the Nation, FreedomWorks' Dick Armey claims that the GOP's purity resolution is not a litmus test for candidates. Sure looks like one to me Dick. I'm not sure what else you'd call it when you're using it to purge moderates from the Republican Party. Steve Singiser at DailyKOS has a post up on how this push to the right could end up being good for Democrats in the 2010--On Party Purity and Eleventh Commandments.

SMITH: The headlines out of the GOP this week, this notion, the Republican National Committee considering a list of 10 principles. Some have called them the GOP 10 commandments, which include things like support for the surge in Afghanistan or opposition, for instance, to the Obama health plan.

As a candidate, if you agree with the eight out of 10 -- with eight out of 10, you’ll get support from the national GOP, and if you don’t, you’re out of luck.

Dick Armey, is this litmus test a good idea?

ARMEY: First of all, it’s not a litmus test. Secondly, it is being offered for consideration in the party.

SMITH: Right.

ARMEY: And I think, thirdly, it is seven out of the 10. But if you -- if you read the list, at least five of the 10 are right at the center stage -- center post of the big 10 of American politics today, fiscal conservatism.

I think it’s -- if the Republican Party is going to win any future elections, it has to be presented as an alternative to the Democrat Party’s fiscal spending. And -- and in fact, it’s a very reasonable thing to say, if you want the support of the Republican Party, demonstrate some allegiance to the primary positions taken by the party.

That’s not a litmus test. That’s just saying, if you want us to give you our money, our support, our -- our troops in the field, our endorsements, then demonstrate that you’re someone like us.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1930)

PLAYS: (3566)

Nope, no racism to see here. Nothing to see...move along now. Unbelievable. What year does this guy think he's living in? Now that the couple is married the good judge doesn't think he's done any harm.

From CBS News:

The Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an interracial couple said on "The Early Show" he doesn't see what the problem is with what he did now, because the couple is already married.

"I'm sorry, you know, that I offended the couple, but I did help them and tell them who to go to and to get married," he said. "And they went and got married, and they should be happily married, and I don't see what the problem is now."

Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in southeastern Louisiana, wouldn't issue a license to or preside over the nuptials for Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, of Hammond, La., who is black.

The two were later married by another area justice of the peace.

Bardwell, who's held his post more than 30 years, said he refused to perform the ceremony because of his concern for the future of the couple's children.

Bardwell told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith, "I've had countless numbers of people that was born in that situation, and that they claim that the blacks or the whites didn't accept the children. And I didn't want to put the children in that position."

Bardwell also said he does not issue marriage licenses, he just performs the ceremonies.

"I recused myself of performing the ceremony. A judge is legally -- can recuse himself of hearing a case or marrying people," he said.

However, according to Humphrey, Bardwell wouldn't issue them a marriage license. Humphrey says she initially spoke to Bardwell's wife, who said her husband would not issue the license because they are an interracial couple.

Humphrey said, "I was just completely shocked. I had no words."

McKay added, "He's not going to marry us because your black, and I'm white. ... It's 2009."

Bardwell denied on "The Early Show" that he broke any laws.

"The law says that I cannot deny mixed race marriages," he said. "And that means prevent them from getting married. And I did not prevent them getting married."

But would Bardwell refuse anyone else a marriage ceremony?

Initially, he said he would not refuse a couple on any other grounds, but then corrected himself, saying, for example, he would refuse to marry a couple if one -- or both of them -- was intoxicated.

"I can recuse myself and tell them to come back when they're sober," he said. "That's legal."

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

DOWNLOADS: (1012)

PLAYS: (1580)

h/t Think Progress. So much for that supposed "apology". Gingrich is back with more back peddling and more fear mongering over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

CBS News reported the interview this way. Gingrich Opts To "Reframe" Racist Tweet:

Later in the program, Gingrich said he wished to "reframe" his initial comment calling Sotomayor a racist, when really he does not know the nominee and meant that her words were racist.

"One of the challenges for the administration is having first chided me for language, then having said she didn't mean it, and then having said she ought to restate it. Now they face the fact that she has said this, written about it four or five time," he argued.

"If you say people of this ethnic background are superior to people of this ethnic background, take out her language and put in the word 'white,' put in 'white male' where she had 'Latina,' that person would be disqualified from the court. Also would be disqualified as a juror."

Gingrich admitted that it is "very doubtful" that her comments would disqualify her as a high court pick. "I think she was a good prosecutor. I think she was an acceptable district court judge," he said.

But, Gingrich added, lower level judges "aren't in a position to live out whatever their prejudices are because they're bound by the Supreme Court," arguing that a lifetime appointment would put her in a position to radicalize the Court.

Gingrich's actual words:

When I did a Twitter about her, having read what she said, I said that was racist — but I applied it to her as a person. And the truth is I don’t know her as a person. It’s clear that what she said was racist, and it’s clear — or as somebody wrote recently, “racialist” if you prefer.

This "reframing" just looks another excuse to fling some more mud at her. I wonder if Newt has looked at what racialism actually means either. From Wikipedia:

Racialism is sometimes used as a synonym of racism.

or

Racialism entails a belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, but not necessarily in a hierarchy between the races, or in any political or ideological position of racial supremacy.

So which one is it you're smearing her with today, Newt? Synonym, or the latter? Newt's double talk makes my head hurt.

Between Gingrich and Liz Cheney, I can't decide which one I'm more sick of seeing on the television.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1252)

PLAYS: (3053)

Apparently Pete King either hasn't read Janis Karpinski's book, or he thinks that the rest of the public hasn't and will believe his spin while arguing with the ACLU's Anthony Romero on Face the Nation. I had a hard time watching Congressman King because he looked like he was so excited he was hyperventilating for the entire interview while he made the ACLU out to be pretty much the equivalent of evil incarnate.

Everyone knows the ACLU is just an evil, partisan, liberal front group and would never come to the defense of someone like oohhhh... a Rush Limbaugh....right?

Heaven forbid we might want some accountability for torturing prisoners which we are finding out came from the top, was as Mr. Romero indicated wide spread, and was not used to keep America safe, but to justify invading another country that was never a threat to us.

You can watch the entire exchange at CBS's web site.

Smith: Let's move on to the interrogation photos. It's a rather significant reversal of Obama policy because it was quite clear, two courts have already decided these photos should be made public. Then apparently on the advice of Gen. Odierno and Defense Sec. Gates, that these photos should be held. What do you think?

Romero: Well we're all concerned about the safety of our soldiers. That's obvious. Look what's also true is that it's not the photos that put them at risk. It's the policies that authorized torture and abuse that was authorized at the highest levels and then went down the chain of command across the theaters of war. When we're talking about 2000 photos that talk about abuse or torture in American custody, we're not talking about a few rogue apples.

We're not talking about a few rogue soldiers. We're talking about decisions made at the highest levels of our government and the only way to deal with that would be to have investigations and prosecutions to insure accountability.

Smith: We'll get to that in just a second. Congressman, should these photos be made public or should they be kept secret?

King: Absolutely not. They serve absolutely no purpose and it is absolutely wrong to say this was approved at the highest levels of government. Not just President Bush, but President Obama, President Obama said that those who were guilty of this have been punished. It was a few people and the fact is anyone involved in this absolutely disgraceful conduct, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But to somehow think that by floating all these pictures out there, somehow we're going to find that somebody at a high level was involved, this is absolutely wrong.

It does put our troops in danger and it serves no purpose other than to denigrate and down grade the military of the United States and this canard is always out there. People at the highest levels approved it. I don't know anyone at the highest levels that approved Abu Ghraib, but if President Barack Obama for a moment thought that somebody at a high level had approved it he would go after them.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (48)

PLAY (117)

From Face the Nation March 22, 2009.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told CBS News’ Harry Smith on Face The Nation Sunday that the executive branch ought to use its leverage as a majority shareholder in AIG to sue the company for its wrongful use of retention bonuses.

Retention bonuses are to a great extent extortion, Frank argued. “I think there was an element, frankly, with some — not all of them — of almost extortion, where they said, 'We know what you need to know and we will quit if you don’t bribe us,'” Frank said.

He argued that there is a large pool of very talented people who have lost their jobs in the financial crisis and that AIG could replace the bonus recipients (some of whom are responsible for creating the firm's now-toxic assets) rather than bribe them with retention bonuses.

Rough transcript to follow.

Continue reading »