DOWNLOAD (174)

PLAY (400)

DOWNLOAD (145)

PLAY (193)

Seriously, is there anyone more annoying than Tucker Carlson? The least self-aware pundit on TV, still nursing his own bruised ego from the thorough spanking he received at the hands of a comedian that took down his show, cried that Jon Stewart is nothing more than a partisan hack in "attacking" Jim Cramer. Mr. "I'm an ideologue, not a partisan" repeats the favorite GOP meme that Cramer was only attacked because he dared to criticize Obama's budget. Hmm ... repeating GOP talking points ... but Carlson's not speaking on behalf of his party, no sirree.

Leave it to Carlson to completely miss the point. Despite Stephanie Miller's and Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik's multiple attempts to reason with the petulant, whiny man-child Carlson devolves into, Tucker can never grasp that the whole event was precipitated by Rick Santelli's rant on the trading floor and that Stewart's focus was not Cramer so much as the responsibility CNBC holds in informing the public rather than giving corporations carte blanche to propagandize on their channel. He's more concerned that Stewart, in his attempt to speak on behalf of the Democratic Party (huh?) is losing 'teh funny,' and will go the way of Lenny Bruce. Double huh?

The best part of the whole segment is after Carlson's plaintive wails (who needs a nap?), Howard Kurtz airs the Crossfire segment where Stewart calls Carlson a "partisan hack", a nice little STFU in not so many words. Perrspectives has more:

Prior to making his case this morning on CNN's Reliable Sources that Stewart is a "sanctimonious, partisan hack" and an operative for the Democratic Party, Carlson on Friday denounced him to the Politico:

Carlson, reached Friday, described Stewart as "a partisan demagogue."

"Jim Cramer may be sweaty and pathetic--he certainly was last night--but he's not responsible for the current recession," Carlson told POLITICO. "His real sin was attacking Obama's economic policies. If he hadn't done that, Stewart never would have gone after him. Stewart's doing Obama's bidding. It's that simple."

Of course, Jon Stewart's weeklong diatribe against CNBC was initially triggered by the network's Rick Santelli slandering troubled home mortgage owners as "losers." And as it turns out, it is Tucker Carlson who has made a career out of doing someone else's bidding. That someone else is the Republican Party - and his father Richard.

The scandal surrounding the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and the subsequent conviction of Cheney chief-of-staff Scooter Libby provides case in point. Few voices on television were more strident in Libby's defense than Tucker Carlson. But throughout, he remained silent on his father's leadership of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund.

From the beginning, Tucker Carlson aimed both barrels at Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In November 2005, he insisted Fitzgerald was "accusing Libby - falsely and in public - of undermining this country's security," adding, "Fitzgerald should apologize, though of course he never will." Reversing his past position in support of independent counsels, Carlson in February 2007 blasted "this lunatic Fitzgerald, running around destroying people's lives for no good reason."

Hey, Tucker "Pot" Carlson, guess what sanctimonious color you are!

John Amato:

At the end of the segment, Howard Kurtz give us his take and informs America that since Stewart is a comedian, he doesn't have to follow journalistic ethics for his humor and thinks Jon unfairly blamed CNBC for the entire economic meltdown. Using a wide brush to paint The Daily Show tries to diminish the impact Stewart had on CNBC because he didn't unfairly criticize them. Cramer's performance justified Stewart's concerns. That wasn't what Stewart was doing at all, but then Kurtz praises Stewart and says talking heads can learn a lot from him in their efforts to get at the truth from our politicians.

Kurtz: He has a way of cutting through the clutter and using clips to show when people were wrong. I think we need more of that.

Ya think?

DOWNLOAD (51)

PLAY (83)

Part of the panel discussion on Larry King Live March 3, 2009. I was really hoping I'd seen the last of former Koch Energy lobbyist and McCain campaign spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer when he lost the election, but sadly not. The discussion starts out with the topic du jour of whether it is effective or not for the Democrats to be tagging Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party and Arianna Huffington says the important thing to remember is how we got to where we are rather than focusing on Rush Limbaugh.

Pfotenhauer and Larson have their GOP talking points down as usual but this particular statement hit me as one our side needs to be challenging whenever they say it and that didn't happen here.

Pfotenhauer: Clearly we can debate and I would love to how we got to where we are and actually let me answer one of Arianna's earlier points and say that the thing that George Bush did wrong and that Republicans as well as Democrats did wrong is they spent the taxpayers' money carelessly. They were, they were, it was a taxpayer funded party for eight years.

Now my problem is that President Obama is George Bush on steroids when it comes to spending. He has met him and raised him and he's added like I said tax increases into the mix. If he were advocating economic policies that were good for this country I would support him. I supported him when he's talked about things like entitlement reform. But when he advocates things that are bad for Americans it's people's duty to challenge him. That's patriotic.

When any of these talking heads says something like this they need to immediately be called out and asked what Social Security would look like right now if the GOP had had their way and privatized it. How's that stock market looking to you right now Nancy? And they need to be told that NO, the GOP does not want to support anything that the Democrats are trying to do right now whether they think it is good for the country or not. They want Democrats to adopt Republican ideas or they're going to obstruct. And the only new ideas they have are the same ones they've had for thirty years or more.

Stephanie Miller reminds Pfotenhauer just who the tax cuts under Obama's plan will be going to.

Miller: Nancy, Barack Obama's doing the exact same thing he said during the campaign. 95% of Americans are getting a tax cut under this plan. It is the top 1% that's finally paying their fair share. You Larry.

Pfotenhauer: How can they pay more than the 70% they already pay?

It sure sounds like she's trying to leave the impression that there is someone out there in a 70% tax bracket while leaving herself some wiggle room if she's challenged on it later.

DOWNLOAD (30)

PLAY (108)

Stephanie Miller came on C-SPAN's Q&A and was asked what the term liberalism means to her.

Lamb: Are you worried about whether or not things are going to get tougher for liberal talk show hosts? And by the way would you rather be called a liberal or a progressive?

Miller: I don't care. I'm not afraid of...

Lamb: What's the difference...

Miller: I'm not afraid of that liberal word.

Lamb: What's the difference between them?

Miller: I don't know. I think, I know. I feel like Republicans succeeded in making liberal a dirty word so everyone went oh, we're progressives but I'm like ahh I'm a liberal. So what? I think I briefly stunned Sean Hannity into submission once when he said "Oh you're a liberal" and I'm like "Yes! And I'm proud of it." And then he was sort of shocked for a minute. He wasn't sure ah, you know if you reclaim like you know the, John F. Kennedy wrote a great thing about what it means to be a liberal and you know, there's a lot of great ideas that came from, not all of them, but a lot of great ideas that came from liberal thought.

Continue reading »

January 18, 2009 C-SPAN

January 18, 2009 C-SPAN

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4