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

DOWNLOADS: (1928)

PLAYS: (7788)

I've posted a lot of clips with Jane Hall on The O'Reilly Factor. She often was paired up with the uber-right winger Bernard Goldberg and usually BillO would wind up yelling at her because she didn't agree with his point of view. Her demeanor has always been gentle so I always found it upsetting that BillO would scold her. I mean, he even cut off her microphone once, which was odd for such a mild mannered speaker. She left FOX recently and I did wonder why.

Howard Kurtz tackled the "Should have the Obama administration called FOX News the opposition?" question in his Sunday "Reliable Sources" segment on CNN, and although Hall thought it wasn't a smart move by the administration, she let it out that she quit FOX because they stopped debating the issues. She cited Glenn Beck's "scary" presence as a reason why she left. It kinds of makes the arguments moot at this point by the mainstreamers who are sticking up for FOX. Can't they handle the truth?

Another big problem I have is the way cable TV uses pundits, and it's not just FOX. They constantly will pair up a right-wing opinionator with a journalist who they just assume is a liberal. The journalist usually will go on TV, but isn't in love with this because it puts their "neutrality" at issue. Hall also expressed her displeasure on that front.

KURTZ: Did you feel like you were being used to give Fox a certain degree of legitimacy, coming on as a media professor?

HALL: No, I didn't. The reason I left was in part because they've had less debates than they used to. Is it a fair point to say how much debate is there on MSNBC? How many Republican strategists? We have a bifurcation of the media.

KURTZ: Wait a second. The reason you left is because you feel they have less debate than they used to. In other words, it used to be "Hannity and Colmes," now it's just Hannity. It used to be Bernie and Jane. Now it's just Bernie.

HALL: I think there's less debate than there was. And I'm also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it's scary.

KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?

HALL: Yes, it was.

You can see that she didn't go on gunning to attack FOX; Kurtz simply caught a remark and seized on it. Then, as usual, Howie had to defend FOX News, but in so doing, he admitted that Lou Dobbs is an offensive right-winger, just like Beck, in his own commentary about the dispute.

KURTZ: Let me give you my two cents here. This is also polarizing. You either have to take the position that Fox is a courageous news organization or a threat to western civilization. I have criticized things that O'Reilly has said, that Hannity has said. Certainly, on this program, I told Glenn Beck that he was being offensive with words that he had for a Muslim member of Congress. At the same time, I don't think an entire organization should be judged by a few commentaries, any more than I think it is fair to judge CNN by the things that Lou Dobbs says. Look at some of the people at Fox.

I wrote down some names here. Major Garrett used to work at CNN. Bill Hemmer used to work at CNN. Greta Van Susteren used to work at CNN. Chris Wallace used to work at ABC and NBC. Did they all drink the Kool-Aid when they went there? Sometimes, Fox's reflexive opposition to Obama bleeds into its news coverage, as you were saying, Nico. But I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. You want to take that on?

Look, Howie, Ailes sets the agenda. Even if certain people working on Fox haven't been drinking the "Kool-aid" (*cough*Shep*cough*Smith*cough) the cable network is a propaganda arm. If you don't like Obama saying so, fine, but the truth is the truth.

PITNEY: I think you paint it a little too moderately. Take their flagship news program "Special Report With Brett Baier." George Mason did a study, 80 percent of the coverage is negative.

KURTZ: Toward Obama?

PITNEY: Toward Obama.

KURTZ: Is that on the opinion round table?

PITNEY: No. Just the first 30 minutes.

Says it all.

CNN's media critic, Howard Kurtz, came up with THE answer to all our complaints:

KURTZ: And if liberals or conservatives like David Brooks don't like what the high-decibel pundits say or think they're peddling misinformation, they should go after them in the media marketplace, not with boycotts or name-calling or screaming or shouting, but on the battlefield of ideas.

Wow, that's so simple. Why didn't anybody think of that? Wait a second. Just hold on there. Isn't organizing a boycott an actual idea which then takes a ton of work to be successful? Isn't leading a boycott against a Glenn Beck or a Lou Dobbs actually going into the media marketplace and hitting them right in the pocketbook?

Can Howard suggest what battlefield of ideas I should go on? Does he consider Reliable Sources one of those battlefields? Can Howard help fund a radio program for me that will air either before or right after Sean Hannity, on all the same nationwide affiliates so I can at least partially compete with Hannidate's audience and have a chance to express my ideas at his level?

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

DOWNLOADS: (814)

PLAYS: (1713)

Liz Cheney told Fox News' Chris Wallace that President Barack Obama should not travel to Oslo in December to accept the Nobel Prize. Cheney called the prize a "farce" that could only be legitimized if family of U.S. military accepted it.

"I think the president himself understands he didn't earn this prize and therefore the notion that this white house has said he would go to Oslo to accept the prize would add to the farce," said Cheney.

She offered the following proposal: "I think what he ought to do, frankly, is send the mother of a fallen American soldier to accept the prize on behalf of the U.S. military. Frankly, to send the message to remind the Nobel committee that each one of them sleeps soundly at night because the U.S. armed forces, because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today."

It should come as no surprise that neoconservative columnist Bill Kristol disagrees with the Nobel committee. He responded to the award with sarcasm. "It's hard for me to be objective about this because I'm so disappointed personally. I was up early Friday morning. I thought the phone might ring, you know. Pundits for peace. I deserve it pretty much. President Obama and I have done about the same amount to bring about world peace, I think," said Kristol.

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

DOWNLOADS: 75

PLAYS: 11

(FDR - taking the right-wing brickbats in stride)

From April 28, 1935, his seventh Fireside Chat since taking office in 1933. FDR took the opportunity to lay out his plans for Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. The Social Security plan hadn't been voted on yet and was about to be introduced, along with a flood of relief and New Deal legislation. In 1935 these were new ideas that hadn't flown before.

FDR: “The program for Social Security that is pending before Congress is a necessary part of the future unemployment policy of the government. While our present and projected expenditures for work relief are fully within the reasonable limits of our national credit resources, it is obvious that we cannot continue to create governmental deficits for that purpose, year after year after year. We must begin now to make provision for the future. And that is why our Social Security Program is an important part of the complete picture. It proposes by means of old age pensions to help those who have reached the age of retirement to give up their jobs, and thus give to the younger generation greater opportunities for work. And to give to all, old and young alike, a feeling of security as they look towards old age. The Unemployment Insurance part of the legislation will not only help to guard the individual in future periods of layoff, against dependence upon relief, but it will by sustaining the purchasing power of the nation, cushion the shock of economic distress.”

Then, as now, any sort of social legislation that involving the common good was viewed with skepticism by the right-wing. This one was no different. Charges of Socialism popped up in the media, not to mention to aborted takeover attempt of the government by business and Wall Street interests in 1934.

FDR had his hands full. But he was able to weather the storm and the pundits and create many Programs that are in place today (although, it should be pointed out that a number of programs, including Social Security have withstood attempts at gutting during the Reagan years). Not listening or caving in to special interests or the hysterics proved to be the wise choice in the long run. The interests of the American people were what concerned him.

Something we could use a bit more of, especially today with the Health Care battle raging.

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

DOWNLOADS: 33

PLAYS: 10

(Jerusalem 1948 - Same as it ever was - Same as it ever was)

With the recent news of the attempted kick starting of talks between Israelis and the Palestinians, I was reminded just how long this entire odyssey has been going on - a lot longer than many people have been on the planet, for one thing.

But it seems there was a time when the U.S. had actually considered sending troops over to the region, acting as a sort of buffer between factions. The notion that we'd still be over there, some sixty years later gives pause as to how it could end up with us now in Afghanistan. When, during the election John McCain entertained the possibility of the U.S. being in Iraq for a hundred years, everyone recoiled. But in retrospect, it appears we're rather good at suggesting those sorts of things. Thank God we don't act on our instincts all the time.

But in 1948, with the British getting ready to leave the region and fighting between Jews and Arabs going full tilt, the Chicago University Roundtable hosted a discussion, featuring several pundits (aka: "experts"as they were called at the time) to venture an opinion on whether our involvement in the Middle East was a good idea or not.

The opinions ran the gamut, although it's interesting to note that no one actually from the region (i.e. Arab or Jew) was included. So there is something of a strange bias to be had going into this discussion, one of an "armchair" viewpoint rather than one actually on the ground, with the possible exception of Arthur Creech-Jones who was Colonial Secretary in charge of Palestine at the time. But times have changed. I don't think this type of discussion would take place today (unless it was Fox). But it's interesting to see what factors formed an opinion some sixty years ago.

John A. Wilson: “First, Palestine cannot survive economically if it’s carved into two zones. Second, a policing and occupying army does not bring a country together. It rather pulls it apart. Let’s look at the other countries which have been carved apart and held apart by force. Germany and Austria have been arbitrarily divided into zones, cutting off the normal and traditional flow of goods. Four enforcing armies hold Germany apart and prevent normal economic life. In Asia, Korea is in exactly the same situation, cut by an arbitrary line into two zones. A drastic surgical operation divided India into a Muslim state and a Hindu state at a cost of perhaps a quarter of a million lives. Partition is bad economy in Germany, Austria, Korea and India. It will be bad in Palestine. Imagine American and Russian military contingents inside Palestine. Would they bring the country together? Or would they push it further apart? How soon could they leave? It is not a pleasant outlook. American and Russian troops eyeing each other in Palestine for our lifetime. Everyone who argues a population increase in Palestine has done so on the basis of potential water power there. Well certainly, a Jordan Valley Authority like our TVA would be a marvelous asset to Palestine.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1470)

PLAYS: (2181)

(h/t Heather)

Why is it so hard for the media to discuss the obvious racial overtones of so much of President Obama's opposition? The right-wing fanatics are not even trying to cover it up and still the media try to avoid the obvious by framing it as a pundit problem.

Howard Kurtz wonders why the media is having problems these days with Americans in terms of perceptions about their accuracy. (Pew: Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low)

I understand that calling someone a racist is no small thing, but facts are facts, and I can't deny what I see with my own two eyes. Can you? Can the media? (John Aravosis had a great post last week with plenty of visual examples.)

Instead of Howard Kurtz really taking a look at the racist underbelly that has risen to new heights at the town halls, he frames it like this:

Kurtz: So are the pundits and the press inflaming this debate about race?

To the media, the debate isn't about the racism that is actually happening on the ground and in front of our eyes, but whether it's the media's fault for actually covering the racist a-holes that have taken over the Republican Party.

When a Michael Steele tries to say that it's only one in a hundred who carry around racist signs about Obama at the psycho town halls, that's a LIE. All you had to do is look at the teabagger protests in DC. Even Andrea Mitchell was stunned.

CNN's Reliable Sources:

Kurtz: Eric Deggans, should the media be devoting all of this time and energy to explaining or examining or exploring whether some of Obama's critics are, in fact, motivated by racism?

ERIC DEGGANS, ST. PETERSBURG TIMES: I think it's an appropriate subject just because for a long time people who have been covering these rallies, covering these protests, have an sense that there's an undercurrent of something that goes beyond just opposing the president politically.

And there's been an effort to try and explain that. Why is there such visceral hatred for what Obama's trying to do among the certain core, a certain percentage of people who are at these rallies and then we found that these weird e-mails pop up of photos of Obama looking like a tribesman, you know, weird racial jokes that seem to be passed along by e-mail by some people who oppose him. So we're trying to explain that, and I think it makes sense to try.

KURTZ: Some of that, of course, may come from the fringes. Amy Holmes, is there a danger that journalists are perhaps insinuating or suggesting or implying that many of Obama's critics must be motivated by racism?

We know some of the racism is coming from the fringes, but now it's bubbling up and overflowing from the fringes to the mainstream. Even CNN's Jon Spellman reported that a dark undercurrent has overtaken the tea-baggers: CNN's Jim Spellman on the teabaggers: There really is a dark undercurrent running through them

Spellman:...we saw handguns from time to time, but running through this subculture that's developed around these tea parties is a bit of a dark undercurrent. The bulk of the people are for lower taxes and less government control, but there really is an element that's got these kind of outlandish conspiracy theories about death camps and about this take over, people comparing President Obama to Hitler. It really is a sizable...It's not just a couple of people around the edges. One of the big questions will be if this movement go forward while maintaining this kind of element on the edges...

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1639)

PLAYS: (8275)

It seems respectable Republicans who like to think of themselves as "intellectual" conservatives are growing dismayed at the living, breathing monster they themselves have unleashed upon us:

Such insiders point to theories running rampant on the Internet, such as the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus ineligible to be president, or that he is a communist, or that his allies want to set up Nazi-like detention camps for political opponents. Those theories, the insiders say, have stoked the GOP base and have created a "purist" climate in which a figure such as Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is lionized for his "You lie!" outburst last week when Obama addressed Congress.

They are "wild accusations and the paranoid delusions coming from the fever swamps," said David Frum, a conservative author and speechwriter for President George W. Bush who is among the more vocal critics of the party base and of the conservative talk show hosts helping to fan the unrest.

"Like all conservatives, I am concerned about this administration's accumulation of economic power," Frum said. "Still, you have to be aware that there's a line where legitimate concerns begin to collapse into paranoid fantasy."

Frum and other establishment Republicans have spoken out in recent days against the influence of what they view as their party's fringe elements.

Some are pressuring the Republican National Committee and other mainstream GOP groups to cut ties with WorldNetDaily.com, which reports some of the allegations. Its articles are cited by websites and pundits on the right. More than any other group, critics say, WorldNetDaily sets the conservative fringe agenda.

Well, as observed last week, getting unentwined from the liked of WorldNetDaily and its extremist clientele is easier said than done.

No, the right-wing populist beast is loose. You fellas have the right idea, but you're a bit late. We're already well into the great thrashing about that comes with any set of death throes, such as those now besetting movement conservatism. You can see how it plays out on the ground now, particularly at the Tea Parties. And it isn't pretty.

A camera crew from Free Speech Radio showed up in D.C. on Saturday for the big GlennBeckFest. It was frightening and disturbing and even got ugly. The reporter, Leigh Ann Caldwell, describes what happened:

We met a group of nearly a dozen "912ers." They adorned t-shirts with the fractured Revolutionary War snake, the symbol of their group created by Glenn Beck. At the end of the 10-minute interview, they demanded my contact information and a picture so they could "find" me if they didn't like our work. I took that as a threat, declined to give them my contact information and walked away. They followed and continued with their demands. I continued to decline.

One of the women then yelled into her megaphone that "the woman in the black shirt works for ACORN." She commanded the crowd to take my picture. They found out my last name from a previous interviewee, so she then yelled my full name into the megaphone and nearly 50 people surrounded and swarmed me, putting cameras in my face as they heckled and laughed. The crowd then followed me down Pennsylvania Avenue for the next ten minutes.

Robin Bell, the cameraman, posted that and other videos at his channel at YouTube.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: 171

PLAYS: 6

(Need you ask?)

Every so often I will run across some talk show from the past that points out just how naive we all were as a country, many years ago.

On October 5, 1958 the Open Mind program hosted a discussion on the future of television in politics and how advertising could possibly be used to make or break a candidate or issue. Fifty years ago, remember?

Bear in mind, TV wasn't as all-encompassing as it is today. Stations routinely went off the air at midnight. Color was new. Video tape was new. Most homes had TV's that were, at the most 17" and usually encased in a massive console. There were virtually no live on-the-spot reports and there were lots and lots of talking heads.

So, when Open Mind brought on Professor Eric Goldman (author of the book "Rendezvous With Destiny"), John Elliot Jr. from the BBD&O Ad Agency and Lloyd Whiteburke, an advertising consultant. The conversation about the possibilities that Television could influence a political campaign were very real.

Lloyd Whiteburke: “There’s no FTC, no Federal Trade Commission in political advertising. If a product is falsely advertised, as you all know, the Federal Trade Commission will seek an injunction against the advertiser and have that advertising changed and penalize the advertiser. The only person penalized for buying a candidate who is not what he represents himself for is the voter. And he’s got four years to wait to throw him out, throw out this candidate. So it imposes a tremendous sense of responsibility on the advertising fraternity to make darn sure that something isn’t done, that isn’t correct for which the FTC does not have call. And that’s why some of the practitioners do, in the course of their work, say things and do things that are perhaps not exactly right. And we have to watch that and we have to police our own . . . “

Television was still in its infancy. The 1952 Presidential campaign, being the first to utilize Television in a prominent way, was recent history. The Kennedy-Nixon debates were still two years off and cable was only an idea.

I don't think anyone could have imagined what it would all become.

From The Colbert Report:

If pundits want to save America, they have to do what's wrong to prove they're right.

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

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (162)

Fox News pundits said President Barack Obama was arrogant and unwilling to apologize for his handling of the arrest of Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. Sunday.

"The president could have said that was a stupid thing for me to say, but he can't say that for some reason. That would be too self-deprecating and he is an arrogant man and he is entitled to pass judgment on cambridge cops," said Bill Kristol.

Brit Hume seems to think that the Gates arrest will be an issue that will concern the next president. "I fear we will have to await the arrival of the next president who can apologize for Barack Obama on this as he so repeatedly does about previous presidents," said Hume.

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

DOWNLOADS: (742)

PLAYS: (1912)

I love navel-gazing on the part of the media, where they decide collectively that they were right to create a meme which takes over the media. On this weekend's The Chris Matthews Show, pundits Howard Fineman, Michael Duffy and Ceci Connolly agree that it was appropriate for them to ask President Obama about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., because "it's an important issue."

MATTHEWS: It’s all about identity politics again, and at the same time these people on the far, far right are talking about whether he’s a citizen or not, this comes up.

DUFFY: And when the White House Press Secretary calls it a ‘distraction’, you know it was a mistake. And his mistake was pretty simple, which was that he didn’t really have all the facts, and was not in a position to talk about it. He was right to take it up, because it is an issue that is important, and it’s one in which he is completely versed, and you can see from the rest of his statement, that he knows exactly what to say. But I also think it came at the end of that press conference, which was about a completely different subject, and I think he was a little punchy by then. He was talking about you know what would happen to him in the White House, and it was a joke and he kind of lost the seriousness of the moment and I think got off track…

MATTHEWS: Yeah, I agree with that, the moment was important. I think he was a little angry, a little fatigued. These guys get up at five in the morning and this was eight at night. Is this going to be around a while?

Get the meme? Obama the angry black man being asked to speak on behalf of the entire African American community--and you know he is versed in this. Howard Fineman sort of treads along the edges of why even asking Obama his opinion of Gates' arrest was racist (because, honestly, can you imagine the media doing this to President McCain, had he won? I don't think so), without fully realizing it:

FINEMAN: ...(T)he progress that he made—the Sotomayor nomination—she did convince people, by her bearing, by her knowledge, by her experience, that she was eminently qualified and in that sense, was beyond this. Both of her race, but beyond it. This is not what Barack Obama’s political advisors wanted him to be doing up there. Because it turns it into a racial conversation, per se, at a time when he’s being president of all the country. And trying to be president of all the country and this feeds into the narrative of what I call the RNC—the Rush Newt Cheney RNC—which is all about fear, accusation and division. Barack Obama as president has to be about national unity.

Apparently to Howard, Barack Obama has been doing a good job up until this point of not making white Americans realize that he's African American and making them feel comfortable with other people of color. But now, Howard's worried that Obama has lost his white constituency:

FINEMAN: He went to great lengths as a candidate, to say that he could be president of all America. He understood all the different cultures and wanted to learn about all the different cultures of America. This kind of thing sets him back with working class whites.

Sigh. Can I remind you bobbleheads that it was YOU collectively that raised this subject? This was a local issue, albeit with a semi-famous person involved. This is not a federal issue, nor did it need to be addressed by the President of the United States, especially since the only justification for it is that Obama and Gates outwardly share a skin color (although both are of mixed-race heritage). Isn't it reasonable to assume that the President of the United States has enough on his plate without being thrust the mantle of spokesman for the entire African American community and trying to make white people more comfortable with the age-old issue of racial profiling?

As far as Gates is concerned, there was no clear cut right or wrong on his arrest; both sides escalated the situation beyond where it should have gone. But in terms of pulling Barack Obama into the debate and letting it take over the news cycles for days and days when very real issues (um Afghanistan, any one? Health care reform? The economy? Any of those ring a bell?) are left undiscussed is simply giving red meat to the right wingers eager to derail any actual progress in this country. And the responsibility for that falls on bobbleheads like these clowns, not Obama.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

From The Onion:

In The Know's new live internet poll feature revolutionizes how pundits shamelessly cater to what viewers want to hear.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1640)

PLAYS: (10995)

Al Franken doesn't have to crack another joke for the rest of his life, and he'll still be providing us with a bottomless parade of high comedy -- inadvertently, as it were, in the form of right-wing pundits pitching themselves into a downright frenzy over his election to the Senate.

Especially Bill O'Reilly.

He was on vacation last week when the news came down, so last night he had the chance to finally weigh in, and he did:

O'Reilly: Check one: In a sad day for America, Al Franken is now a U.S. senator. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled he won the election by about 300 votes. Franken is a blatantly dishonest individual, a far-left zealot who is not qualified to hold any office, a man who trafficked in hate on his failed Air America radio program. If you want proof, check out Page 96 in my book Culture Warrior. With people like Franken on the Hill, this country is in deep trouble.

Stephen Colbert needn't parodize this one. It's already self-parody.

Of course, all this stirs up fond memories. Like the 2003 BookWorld Expo in Los Angeles:

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

DOWNLOADS: (1728)

PLAYS: (22762)

And who can forget Fox v. Franken? Ah, good times, good times.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1115)

PLAYS: (3927)

Fox News is airing a new commercial on their station that frankly had me almost throwing up in my mouth a little when I saw it. Fox has decided to roll out their full list of regular pundits to espouse the network's journalistic integrity and "core principles". No...I'm not joking.

Here are some of the "principles" they claim Fox News promotes: civility, mutual respect, strengthening our diverse society by striving for unity, tolerance, open debate and civil discourse.

Yeah, that's exactly what I think of when I see the likes of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly screaming over one of their guests. Or Glenn Beck riding that crazy train off into the horizon. Or Laura Ingraham on one of her hate filled screeds that's akin to listening to finger nails on a chalk board.

And for a real hoot, check out the ticker that's running below the ad. Breaking News!!... Fox News realizes that Helen Thomas exists and actually cares about what she has to say now that it's criticism of the Obama administration.

I love Helen to death, but her whining about Nico Pitney getting a question from the White House sounds like sour grapes to me from a typical Villager. There's plenty to complain about besides a blogger getting to ask one lousy question that's wrong with that White House press corps if she wants to go on a rant about what's wrong with our media.

I think this Fox Nation ad could use a better description than the one I came up with for the video and the post. I'd love to hear suggestions from the readers here who by and large are always more creative than I am when it comes to these things. We've done some "write your own caption posts". I'll gladly have this be a "write your own video description" instead. Submissions welcomed if you'd care to give all of us a laugh.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1018)

PLAYS: (2311)

Mark Levin is happy now that he's got a bestseller decrying the tyranny certain to descend upon America under liberal rule, which Sean Hannity touted on his Fox News show last night. The appearance produced some plum bon mots fresh from Planet Wingnuttia:

Levin: What's going on in this country is really anti-liberty. The president is -- you know, they just put Bernie Madoff away for life. The president's policies are Bernie Madoff times a thousand. He is taking a wrecking ball to this society.

Levin evidently seems to have conveniently forgotten that Bernie Madoff was an exemplar of the laissez-faire capitalism practiced by Republicans generally and George W. Bush particularly. This is essentially accusing the person in charge of cleaning up after a demolition with having wielded the wrecking ball in the first place.

Levin also keeps referring throughout to Obama and his policies as "something foreign" and claims that he's undermining the Constitution.

Levin also claims that Obama "wants to destroy the health-care system that most of us like."

Oh really? That must be so, if your definition of "most of us" is "less than 15 percent of the population".

I suspect "us" for Levin and Hannity is their little claque of right-wing pundits and wealthy Republicans, as well as Levin's perfervid readers who've been just as eagerly drinking the Limbaugh/Beck Kool Aid.

He wraps up with this classic bit of wingnuttery:

Levin: This president has some very bizarre and alien viewpoints, ah, that were -- that, that were, you know, he was indoctrinated with, and now that I believe that he really believes in, and advances. He is a -- he is about as left wing and about as radical as anybody ever to be in the Oval Office.

Hoo boy. Talk about bizarre and alien. It must be quite the interesting view, out there on Planet Wingnuttia.