Bill O'Reilly rips John Kerry!

Watch that Loofah Bill:

Video

O'Reilly goes off when Kerry criticizes Fox news, Sinclair Broadcasting and conservative talk radio. Bill says that 80% of the media was for John Kerry! Of course he doesn't have any facts to back it up, and only uses the Pew Research group when it suits his purposes.

He justifys FOX's "Fair and balanced" policy by saying that he gave Kerry the benfit of the doubt, but when he dodged all the tough media venues, I critized him." Meaning when Kerry wouldn't come on the factor.

"Sean Hannity favored Bush, Allan Colmes voted for Kerry and Greta Van Susteren certainly gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt as well. If that's not a balanced presentation, I'm Howard Dean." OK Bill Dean, what about the other twenty one hours of programming? He lies about his viewership ratings making it sound like he gets a five and six constantly. The nielson Top Ten cable ratings for the week of 11/15/04-11/21/04 Bill(Dean) O'Reilly didn't make the top ten. SpongeBob was ranked athe the bottom with a 2.8. On Zap2it Bill Dean's ratings for 01/08/04 - 11/14/04 was a 2.7.

Looking at Nightly news rating: from Top5 NBC's "Nightly News" won the evening news ratings race, averaging 10.8 million viewers (7.6, 14). ABC's "World News Tonight" had 9.7 million viewers (6.8, 13) and the "CBS Evening News" 7.5 million (5.4, 10).

According to a Pew research poll(that we sited yesterday in The Chis Matthews piece):

People who watched Fox News: 71% voted Bush 22% voted Kerry.

Listened to radio: 62% voted Bush 36% voted Kerry.

In fact the data supports Kerry's claims. Bush faired much better in the supposed liberal biased forums; while Kerry got slaughtered in the conservative platforms.

First the back story:

I've been told by two sources that [local businessman and political contributor Nasser] Kazeminy has in the past covered the bills for Coleman's lavish clothing purchases at Nieman Marcus in Minneapolis. The sources were not certain of the dates of the purchases; if they were made before Coleman joined the Senate in 2003, he obviously would not be required to report it under senate rules. But having a private businessman pay for your clothing is never a good idea if you're a public official (Coleman was mayor of St. Paul from 1994 to 2002).

When pressed by reporters Wednesday on whether or not Coleman, in fact, accepted these suits from Kazeminy, spokesman Cullen Sheehan repeats the phrase "the Senator has reported every gift he has ever received" no fewer than nine times.

HuffPo has the excruciating transcript.

Ouch. Isn't it really a simple "yes or no?" question? No wonder Coleman is running around blaming the evil bloggers and canceling press conferences.

Also remember that Coleman was busted earlier for getting a sweetheart rental deal on his pad down in DC. Does the guy pay for anything?

The best news, of course, is that this all helps Al Franken, who has drawn the Minnesota Senate race to a dead-heat. Go show him some love if you can spare it.

That's right. Chicken suits are officially banned from all polling places in Nevada after Sue Lowden's Chickens for Checkups debacle.

It begs the question: Did they let people in chicken suits vote in Nevada BEFORE that?

TBogg: "Real men vote for McCain?" You mean lying, jive-ass, sissy-ass chickenhawk cheerleaders who dress up in flight suits to play Air Force, but send other people's children out to die for their lies, and can't speak in complete sentences? Those kind of 'Real Men?'

Gristmill: A simple regulatory fix to the coming power crisis

Ken Silverstein: Russian and Serb interests paid for Congressman Curt Weldon's family vacation to Europe.

The Existentialist Cowboy: How "stealth ideology" helped Bush shred the Constitution.

Economist's View: Can young Americans compete in a global economy?

Instaputz: Really, Putz? Really?

Following up on an item from the weekend, I have good news — as far as a few unhinged conservative activists are concerned, you can now go back to enjoying Dunkin’ Donuts without inadvertently supporting a terrorist-sympathizing ad campaign.

For those of you who don’t read reactionary right-wing blogs, Dunkin’ Donuts recently unveiled an ad featuring television personality Rachael Ray, holding a latte, standing in front of blooming trees. Ray, however, is wearing a scarf, and for conservatives, a scarf is never just a scarf.

Michelle Malkin noted that the scarf is black and white, which she insisted meant that it looked too similar to an Arabic keffiyeh. From Malkin’s column: "It’s just a scarf, the clueless keffiyeh-wearers scoff. Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing?"

Malkin’s cohorts quickly embraced her concerns, and there was talk of launching a boycott against Dunkin’ Donuts over the ad.

This week, unwilling to take any chances against the coordinated efforts of unhinged Fox News commentators, Dunkin’ Donuts backed down and gave in.

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be easier just to yank the ad.

Said the suits in a statement: ”In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.”

I can certainly understand Dunkin’ Donuts’ reluctance to fight on this one, but by backing down, the company is only going to encourage this crowd to launch similar crusades in the future.

UPDATE: (Nicole) Uh oh. Malkin may need to start a boycott of herself. Sadly No! has found a picture of Michelle in possession of the dreaded "jihadi" chic. Can we get her readers to flood her inbox with messages accusing her of sympathizing with the terrorists?

Slate: Why did we get it wrong? Five years on, "liberal hawks" consider their support for the Iraq war.

The Reaction: McCain, public financing, and the law.

The Debatable Land: DMX on BHO and GWB

Scholars and Rogues: Blackwater fades into the men in the Greystone suits

The Satirical Political Report: New leaks on the 'passport' scandals

HOLY CRAP: Blog Against Theocracy this weekend. Some in the Senate want to make it Ten Commandments Weekend...Problem Pastor...Which "men of God" represent political machines?...Divine Wright...Hillary's religious affiliation...It's time to kick Jesus out of politics...Using God as a frontman or doing what Jesus would do?...EXPELLED! A Faith-Based Crossfire...Prescription for disaster...Some evangelical voters beginning to see the light

MSNBC's morning host Alex Witt brought on Col. Jack Jacobs on Friday to discuss the FISA debate and served up White House talking points very nicely. (h/t Bob F)

JACOBS: There are something like 30 or 40 pending lawsuits already against the telecommunications industry, internet service providers and so on for cooperating with the government and um, violating their privacy. They’re not going to participate any more—the telecommunications industry with the government if they can’t be protected and so Mukasey’s saying there are conversations we could have listened to, information we could have received, but we didn’t get it because nobody’s cooperating.

WITT: So does this mean the terrorists, who were certainly aware of this situation right now, that they got this open window and they’re able to communicate?

JACOBS: They do indeed. They do, indeed. And there are other ways they can take advantage of this situation too, not just this law. But this is a big stumbling block in getting information, which we can use to protect ourselves. It’s a big fight and it will continue and this is an election year, don’t forget, so it’s got partisan overtones you’ll continue to hear about.

Are you flipping kidding me? The amount of fearmongering and misinformation is sickening. Let's be clear: the telecoms want to be immunized from prosecution from violating the privacy of AMERICANS. Not terrorists. Do you really think that al Qaeda will instruct one of their minions walk into court and file suit against AT&T? How stupid do they think the American people are? Wait, don't answer that.

The ACLU has issued a press release scolding the White House for playing politics with the domestic surveillance bill.

Wired:

The Supreme Court turned down Tuesday a request to take up a challenge to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program, adding to the Administration's string of legal victories in challenges to the controversial, five-year-long program.

The ACLU, representing lawyers, journalists and Muslim groups, challenged the program in 2006, arguing that the warrantless spying on international communications violated the Fourth Amendment and put a chill on the free speech of journalists.

The suit started in a Detroit federal court room, where in 2006 Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued an injunction against the spying, which she found to be unconstitutional.

In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision simply on the issue of standing -- in layman's terms, having the right to sue. The court found that the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were spied on, so therefore could not sue.

In October, the ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review that 2-1 decision, which it called a Catch-22.

However, the Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case, effectively blessing the appeals court decision.

It's a little difficult to prove you're an injured party (in this case, that you've been spied upon) if the government won't release the information, isn't it? Here's the appeal filed by the ACLU (.pdf) Christy @ FireDogLake:

Ultimately, it looks as though SCOTUS found the standing argument compelling enough here not to delve more deeply into the issues involved which, sadly, is not at all a surprise considering this particular court's record on national security cases.

This decision does not, however, negate the pending case(s) in San Francisco in which the EFF and ACLU, among others, represent the interests of plaintiffs who discovered their phones had been monitored through whistleblower information that the government inadvertently produced in discovery -- those cases are ongoing.

[..] John Dean had a fantastic discussion of "state secrets" and why it shouldn't be used to cloak potential wrongdoing in this case.

And Glenn Greenwald doesn't spare anyone:

That's exactly how our country operates now. When high political officials here are accused of breaking the law, they need not defend themselves. Congress acts to protect and immunize them. The courts refuse even to hear the lawsuits. And executive branch officials are completely shielded from the most basic mechanics of the rule of law.

Download | play Download | play

Heather mashed up this clip from DemocracyNow!'s Amy Goodman interviewing Mohamed Bashmilah, a Yemeni citizen who found himself renditioned to one of the CIA's black sites, tortured for days and forced to sign a false confession. It should be noted for all the torture apologists who buy into the ridiculous notion that it is better to torture a terrorist than to potentially allow Americans to die in some attack, that Mr. Bashmilah was released and NEVER charged with anything. These were violent, criminal acts committed upon an innocent man by our government.

DemocracyNow!:

Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, a victim of the CIA rendition
program—kidnapped, held in secret jails, and tortured—speaks out in his
first broadcast interview. In the fall of 2003, Bashmilah was detained
in Jordan and turned over to the CIA. He was eventually flown to a
secret prison he later found out was in Kabul, Afghanistan. In CIA
custody, Mohamed says he was held in a freezing-cold cell, interrogated,
shackled, force-fed and subjected to sleep deprivation and loud music
for days. He attempted suicide at least three times. He talks about his
interrogators and the American psychiatrists or psychologists who also
played a role. Bashmilah has brought a lawsuit against Jeppesen
Dataplan, a Boeing subsidiary, accused of abetting his kidnapping.

An ex-Boeing employee acknowledges his and his company's role in these renditions.

(h/t miss kitty)

The full interview is available at DemocracyNow!'s site. Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

...as the FCC puts a big bow on consolidated media ownership. In spite of widespread public opposition. In opposition to basic human decency and common sense.

Free Press: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is ignoring the public will and defying the U.S. Senate. His decision to gut longstanding ownership rules shows once again how the largest media companies — with their campaign contributions and high-powered lobbyists — are corrupting the policymaking process at the expense of local news coverage and independent voices.

“Martin’s FCC relied on slanted research and a rigged process to reach today’s preordained outcome — local media wrapped in a bow for Tribune, News Corp., Gannett and all the rest. Read more...

One has to wonder how much outrage Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto will be allowed to express over this obvious capitulation to their boss big media ownership. After all, we all know what happens when any "little guy" stands up to the suits upstairs...