Jane Hamsher just finished the on-line panel from the Washington Post. Check it out and if you can-go over to her blog and give her some props.

(Update): Jane challenges Brady to a one-on-on.

"...But the fact remains that the real debate is between me and Brady; Rosen and Jarvis were filler and Reynolds was just there as a junkyard dog. And because of all the filler, Brady was able to avoid getting pressed on a story that he has had a great deal of success fobbing off to the media which has innumerable holes if anybody with any technical sophistication were to really press him.-- Since I've shown my willingness to play by Brady's rules, I challenge him to engage in a dialogue in a neutral playing field. One-on-one, back and forth, no "background noise," no place to hide...read on"

Jarvis on Reliable Sources

Reliable Sources about the Miers nomination.

JEFF JARVIS: ...Well, no, you know, if this weren't so profoundly important, Howard, it would be a great comedy. The problem here is that John criticized his own on the right, and yes, they have been shrill and they can't figure out how the heck to get out of this mess that their boss got them into. But I'll criticize my end of the spectrum on the left, and say that I think the left has been cynical about this and say, well, maybe we should just back her because who is going to come later is worse...

I completely disagree with Jeff on this front. The left is watching the right eat their own over this pick and isn't thrilled with her nomination either, so I don't understand what point Jarvis is making other than to slam democrats. Who on the left is saying to back her for those reasons? Many of us feel this was just another crony appointment.

Armando: "... I think it would be great politically for Democrats if Bush caved in to the Wingnuts, withdrew Miers and then sent up Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen. That is a battle of ideas Dems should relish and Dems should win..."

I like Jeff personally even though I don't always agree with him, but these are the types of responses that anger bloggers on the left. This is another reason why I'm getting sick and tired of the 24/7 cable shows always putting on the same faces that are supposed to represent bloggers when most of them belong to the same club as the hosts. Hey, if I'm Jarvis and I'm asked to go on TV then I'm going. Most of the fault belongs squarely on the networks in this case.

Eric has a take on this as well.

Roger Ailes puts in his two cents: Unreliable Soreasses

Bernie was on Donnie Deutsch's show yesterday and displayed the type of moral character that good young conservatives should emulate. His premise is that Barbra Walters or Streisand are somehow destroying our culture is in itself an imbecilic argument to make, but that hasn't stopped Bernie before.

Download | play -WMP (the video is a little jumbled in the beginning- the audio is fine, and it clears up about 1:03 into it.)

Download | play -QT video is fine-better quality

Bernie completely flipped his wig as the first guest Linda Stasi ( NY Post ) asked him a rather long question to which he responded by giving her an "O'Reilly." (no not a falafel) He told her to "shut up." I have to say when he tells her to shut up a second time I did start laughing. Linda tells him that he's the culture elite.

There was no reason for Goldberg to lose it with her, but fools are hard to figure out sometimes. He's usually on FNC and treated like royalty so it must have really burned him up that Donny would line up some guests to make him explain his dumb-ass self. Bernie of course went running around crying like a washed up vaudevillian act to the moonie times(reg.req)

Jeff Jarvis slapped him around as well and has this full report on the show: Bizarro Bernie: Yesterday, I taped Donny Deutsch's show with Bernie Goldberg about his book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (earlier post here). It's going to be on CNBC tonight at 10:30p and you have to watch, for you will see a bizarre performance that continued after the cameras went off...read on

Here's my take. If I write a book attacking 97% liberals, I should expect serious grilling about the content by liberals. Message to Bernie: " Your book is an attack!" Like a publicity hound or just the "king-baby" complex, Goldberg runs back to O'Reilly to whine about the viciousness that is directed towards him. Poor Bernie, why would anyone do that to you? He's been so insulated that as far as I can tell only Jon Stewart had the chance to debate him. To be fair, Donny could have had someone on to help defend Bernie, but Sean Hannity was already working.

via Think Progress: USANext CEO Chuck Jarvis says he’s about to launch a campaign branding the AARP “the planet’s largest liberal lobbying organization.” If they’re just a liberal lobbying group, why was President Bush using their endorsement as the only justification for his Medicare bill less than six months ago?

We know the answer to that. "Queen" said it best

"We will, we will slime you!"

by Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In 2003, the powerful AARP senior citizen lobby backed the Republican Medicare bill, which revamped medical benefits for the elderly, enraging Democrats and prompting some older Americans to destroy their AARP cards in protest. Republicans had kind things to say about the AARP. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said it represented the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" on seniors' issues. read on

Need I say more? If the AARP is the most liberal lobbyist group in America, as Jarvis is trying to paint on them, then why did they back a Republican Medicare bill? (hat tip Michael)

USA NEXT benefits section:..."is a non-profit, non-partisan, public interest organization..."

Yet in their Financial Advice Headlines: USA TODAY founder Al Neuharth writes:

" USA Next, a much smaller but well-heeled conservative group."

Is a conservative group non-partisan? They obviouly agree that they are conservative or they would have refuted the article that they praise. (update via Moveleft) also as reported by E&P: Asked if USA Next was just a front group for the White House, Jarvis said he'd never had a “one-on-one” meeting with Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist, but had met him, thinks “he is a political and tactical genius,” and has attended presentations he's given at the White House.

In their News and Information section: Liberals Level Full-Scale Assault at USA Next

They list three sources of this vicious attack. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, Feb. 24, 2005. Ana M. Alaya, Newark Star-Ledger, Feb. 23, 2005. Molly Ivins, Chicago Tribune, Feb. 24, 2005.

All three wrote their column after the hideous ad that USA NEXT released on Feb. 21, 2005, which they are now being sued for.

Three column sure sounds like a full scale assault.

In their News Releases: NEW USA NEXT POLL SHOWS SUPPORT FOR PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS : Survey Rebukes AARP’s Skewed Survey; Clear Majorities Support “Major Reforms...

"Our poll is far more representative of all the American people. 52 percent of hte (it's their typo) public supports President Bush's policy of creating Personal Retirement Accounts while assuring retirees and near-retirees will be protected...."

However, there is no polling data available to back up what they say. Did they make the poll up? We couldn't tell. A call has been made to USA NEXT to have the data released.

I guess if they are going to spend something like 10 million dollars to attack the AARP, at least we could spend a few minutes taking a look at their website. More coming soon...

Jeff Jarvis has a take, which caused Hugh Hewitt to have a hissy fit; but only the Rude One knows what the Shark is all about.

function vid_placeholder(placeholder_target, vid_link) { placeholder_target.innerHTML = ''; }

Click here to watch also

It doesn't make sense to ban the Bud Light commercial and allow this one to air. Why is sexuality so offensive to right wing religious zealots?

Video Update tomorrow: Jeff Jarvis battles against censorship!

function vid_placeholder(placeholder_target, vid_link) { placeholder_target.innerHTML = ''; }

clich here to view WMP

Jeff Jarvis battles it out with Robert Knight about the role of the FCC and censorship.

Jarvis has been leading a charge against groups like CWA and PTC that want to dictate what we can and cannot see on the tube. Jeff has uncovered a huge conspiracy here: The shocking truth about the FCC: Censorship by the tyranny of the few

It is shocking enough that what tens of millions of us are permitted to see by our government can be determined by 159 ... or 90 ... or 23.

But it gets even better: I examined the complaints and found that all but two of them were virtually identical. In other words, one person took the time to write a letter and 20 other people then photocopied or merely emailed it to the FCC many times. They all came from an automated complaint factory like the one I write about here. Only two letters were not the form letter.

function vid_placeholder(placeholder_target, vid_link) { placeholder_target.innerHTML = ''; } Buster