DOWNLOADS: (718)

PLAYS: (907)

Embed

I'm not sure what irritated me more about this segment of Fox News Sunday: Chris Wallace being a complete jerk to Kirsten Powers or William Kristol arguing for respect for the rule of law.

Would that be the same Kristol who thinks reading Miranda rights to suspected terrorists is wrong because they can get "lawyered up"? Or maybe it's the same Bill Kristol who was totally ok with warrantless wiretaps? Or maybe it's the guy who was outraged -- OUTRAGED -- that lawbreaker Scooter Libby did not receive a full pardon and pass for his breakage of that hallowed rule?

Of course, even the New York Times said he lacked a talent for solid opinion journalism. I'd argue that solid opinion journalism requires, at its core, intellectual honesty, something we shouldn't expect from a man who sold Sarah Palin to the Republican Party.

But in Bill Kristol's mind, the rule of law applies to immigrants, but not citizens. Got it.

DOWNLOADS: (1876)

PLAYS: (3455)

Embed

Yeah, Glenn, it's a "joke." We get it. We get that you're a former shock jock, that you don't actually believe a single word you say, and that you will say anything for money. We get that the vice-presidency is even further out of your league than it is for Palin, and that's saying a lot.

Sadly, we get that it's way below your current pay-grade, too.

We also get that you're an infantile jerk.

Matthew Yglesias: Only wingnuts (and Bill Cosby) would rush to defend a police bully. One thing's certain, race wasn't involved

Democratic Strategist: The California budget battle shows how ideologues can undermine health care

Empire Burlesque: Pay for Play: Brief glimpses of the system at work

Buck Naked Politics: Fascinating reframe of Bush inTIME Magazine article

The Impolitic: Media fail on the health care presser

AIDS Action: GOP set to oppose lifting the needle exchange ban. A U.S. House floor vote on syringe exchange programs, as soon as today. The Rules Committee on Thursday night approved an amendment by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) to specifically ban funding for the lifesaving programs. Make your voice heard!

DOWNLOADS: (875)

PLAYS: (2464)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly started out his "Talking Points" segment last night like the guy who prefaces his remarks: "Now, I don't to sound like an a-hole, but ..." Because you can be certain that he will then proceed to not just sound like an a-hole but be one.

O'Reilly said he didn't want to "intrude" on the Jackson family's day of mourning, but the truth was, Jackson was a child-molesting jerk whose "incredible selfishness" was paramount (nevermind, of course, that over the course of his career Jackson in fact handed out hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to various charitable causes).

The telling moment came when he leapt to the defense of Rep. Peter King for having verbally attacked Jackson this weekend:

O'Reilly: And if you disagree with honoring Jackson the man, watch out. Congressman Peter King called Jackson a "pedophile" -- an assessment not uncommon -- and was immediately branded a racist. NAACP official Hazel Dukes and Congressman Bobby Rush both said vile things about Mr. King.

What O'Reilly conveniently omits here, of course, is that King didn't merely call him a pedophile (which, considering that Jackson was acquitted, is in fact a slanderous thing to say), he called him a "lowlife" and a "pervert". I guess that in Bill O'Reilly's book, that doesn't qualify as saying "vile things" about Jackson. But then, we're not all bold, fresh slabs of hoomanity.

He continued on the same track with Marc Lamont Hill, who points out O'Reilly's own hypocrisy for having warned everyone away from saying mean things about Jerry Falwell shortly after his death. O'Reilly tries to brush off the comparison as "apples and oranges," but it looks a lot more like Fujis and Braeburns to any sentient being watching the exchange.

It's funny how guys like O'Reilly and King are always big on the "respect for the dead" thing when it involves a white guy. Both of them would have been outraged if anyone had called Frank Sinatra a Mafiosi punk -- what O'Reilly would call a "common assessment" -- in the days immediately following his death and the multiple media homages paid to him afterward. Show some proper respect for the dead, they'd have said. It was the same with Ronald Reagan's death, but on steroids.

But they can never show that same kind of respect for black people. Funny how that works, isn't it?

And if you point that out, then these same clowns turn around and cry out, "Race card! Race card!" As if they weren't the folks who drew it in the first place.

DOWNLOADS: (2856)

PLAYS: (3187)

Embed

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

UPDATE:

Rush reacts to Newt's backtracking on Sotomayor "racist" charge: "I'm not retracting it."

LIMBAUGH: Have my words been too strong on Sotomayor? Are you asking me because Newt has retracted his -- no, my words have not been too strong. I just heard right before the program started. I didn't have a chance to do a lot of show prep late because of the Hannity interview, so I -- after the interview, I checked my email, and three members of the state-run media has sent me emails wanting my reaction to Newt's retraction of calling Sotomayor a racist, and I didn't know that he had, and I didn't know why he had retracted it, and I still don't. But -- what did he say? Why did he retract it? Did he say that he thought the word was too harsh or -- well, I have my own theory about what Newt's doing, but since I'm not doing it, I'm not going to comment.

I'm not retracting it. Nobody's refuted it. You know, they're out there saying, "It's too harsh. It's distracting, Rush. I mean, it's calling -- you know, you just don't want to use the word." Why? If the word means something -- words mean things -- and if it fits, I use it. Now, they may say, "Don't say it, Rush. Dial it back a little bit." But nobody's saying I'm wrong. Nobody's saying I'm making it up. I mean, when she says she'd do a better job than a white guy, what is it? It's racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it's still racism. She would bring a form of racism, bigotry to the court.

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

The Mahablog: Who's the meanie?

Common Cause Blog: What kind of impact do Clean Elections have on participants in democracy? A big one.

Princess Sparkle Pony's Photo Blog: Condi meets...Kiss?

American Street: South Korea doesn't want our beef

The Opinion Mill: It's the Weasel Boy Special vs. the Straight Talk Express! Should Republican sleaze weasels be rewarded for telling the truth after the fact? Should presidential candidates be rewarded for retooling themselves along the lines of the people they ought to despise? Only the Opinion Mill's Sunday Bookchat dares to ask!

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: The jerk at the podium..."What liberal media?" department...Press corpse getting Iraq war wrong all over again...What does the decay of journalism have to do with our appetite for celebrity gossip?...It took years, but our press finally noticed the frightful surge in Iraq vet suicides...Killing your customers is a bad business model...Find out what the world thinks about US...WSJ bizarrely claim surge's "success" means troops must stay

Hey folks, it's Blue Gal, with a special "great blogs with unusual names" round up:

Princess Sparkle Pony - dissecting Robin Givhans as she dissects John McCain's "gay sweaters."

Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes - dishes on Dinesh d'Souza. With grade B maple on top. Yum.

Circle Jerk at the Square Dance - The Bush administration can't tell you what classified information they're destroying because that's classified.

And don't forget Thrift Store Adventures , Carpe You Some Diem!, and of course, The Nefarious Lair of Lesbian Gangs Packing Pink Pistols, Inc.

Hello, all. It's Michael Stickings from The Reaction here, and I'll be subbing for Mike through next Saturday. It's a great pleasure to have this opportunity.

Come on over and visit us at my place -- me and a fantastic group of co-bloggers: diverse, eclectic, stridently and unapologetically liberal, in an unabashedly progressive way -- but, without further ado, here are some links well worth exploring. Click away.

-- Reaction co-blogger J. Kingston Pierce at Limbo offers one of the very best commentaries on Al Gore's Nobel victory I've seen.

-- Sir Oolius of She Flies With Her Own Wings rounds up the frothing-mouth, Gore-hating lunacy of the right. Prairie Weather says "we don't deserve Gore," so immature is America, and he may be right. Tom Watson says "these are the early days of The Liberal Century," and I hope that's true.

-- Shaun Mullen of Kiko's House examines Giuliani's "really big skeleton," Bernie Kerik. Lance Mannion points out that Giuliani seems to be going after "the racist jerk vote," not just Philly cheese steaks. (See Attytood, too.)

-- Mark Gisleson of Norwegianity addresses Sanchez, Gore, and much else besides. For more on General Sanchez, wingnuttery, and the horrors of Abu Ghraib, see Taylor Marsh.

For tips, recommendations, and comments, or to discuss the political philosophy of Leo Strauss and/or the meaning of human existence, if there is one, contact me at mjwstickings [at] yahoo [dot] ca.

Dusty at It's My Right To Be Left of Center has video of a Japanese journalist being killed in Burma. I had to look away. *link fixed

Buck Naked Politics spends a Sunday in the Park with George Bush.

Orcinus, Sisyphus Shrugged and Roger Ailes think that maybe Matthew Shepard has been bashed enough.

That old-time religion: Higgaion on a teacher fired for questioning Genesis and The Smirking Chimp on the Theology of the American Empire.

Circle Jerk in the Square reports on Bill O'Reilly's visit to a Chinatown restaurant.

Driftglass presents The Adventures of Sgt. Iraq.

This was the last Blog Round Up hosted by noted conservative blogger Jon Swift. Tomorrow Steve from The Opinion Mill is hosting. Send your tips to Steve at steve.theopinionmill [at] gmail [dot] com. I want to thank everyone here at Crooks & Liars for being such great hosts and all the readers and commenters, even the ones who mercilessly attacked me. In fact, I think I'll miss you most of all. Have a piece of schadenfreude pie on me. And thank you also to everyone who sent me tips and my apologies if I didn't get to yours. Whatever Atrios might think, your blogs don't suck.