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

4536 Plays

Wow. Look how much CNN wanted him out of there:

CNN was so sick of Lou Dobbs, it gave him an $8 million severance package to leave, The Post has learned.

"They wanted him out," according to a source.

Dobbs, who a source said had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract, shocked viewers last Wednesday by announcing he was quitting.

CNN boss Jonathan Klein and Dobbs, 64, had been publicly feuding over the kind of reporting Dobbs was doing on his show -- especially stories about illegal immigration and the anti-Obama "birther" movement, which contends the president was not born in Hawaii and is not an American citizen.

But it was not clear until now that CNN was willing to pay Dobbs so much money to leave.

"What they do is their business," Dobbs said yesterday. "I tried to accommodate them as best I could, but I've said for many years now that neutrality is not part of my being."

Klein long believed Dobbs was at odds with CNN's desire to position itself as an opinion-free, middle-of-the-road alternative to its cable news rivals -- conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC.

Via the Plumline. You know, this wouldn't be difficult to fix. A phone interview with a staffer noting all major current issues and asking about any financial connection, and a release you sign to that effect before going on the air. In fact, it's so easy to do that I'd guess they just don't want to know.

I mean, why is a known GOP hack treated as an "expert," anyway?

Of course, if they fixed this, they'd have no one left to interview but neutral academic types and bloggers, but it would make for much more educational TV! Greg Sargent:

CNN has acknowledged in a statement to me that a high-profile Republican commentator who frequently discusses health care on the air is also the media buyer for one of the ad campaigns bankrolled by America’s Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group currently waging war against the White House and Dem reform proposals.

CNN tells me his ties to the industry will be disclosed in the future.

The CNN contributor, well-known GOP consultant Alex Castellanos, is best known for producing the racially-charged “Hands” ad, has repeatedly appeared on the network attacking Dem health care plans and the public option, which is strongly opposed by AHIP.

Castellanos’s consulting firm, National Media, also recently placed over $1 million of TV advertising for AHIP, according to info obtained by Media Matters. AHIP’s most recent $1 million ad buy attacks the health care plan as a threat to Medicare.

And in other CNN-related news, some real progress:

Some good news today-- we're raised enough to move forward with our TV ad buy with our partners at Media Matters and DropDobbs.com as part of the effort to hold CNN accountable for airing 260 hours of anti-immigrant hate (aka Lou Dobbs Tonight) a year.

We just sent this email out to our advocates, below. We look forward to continuing to work with our partners to keep the pressure on CNN.

Any help with blog coverage or social networking outreach would be much appreciated! I just tweeted this:

Spread the Word! RT @americasvoice: Success: Dobbs Ad to Air on CNN http://bit.ly/33FoZl #ri4a #CNN #p2 #immigration

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

DOWNLOADS: (1335)

PLAYS: (2200)

Is there a more perfect example of why Republicans should never be at the table when discussing our next moves in Afghanistan? Watch how Sen. John "On Any Sunday" McCain glosses over the constant cheerleading he and his GOP cohorts did in Iraq, despite there never being a connection between Saddam and 9/11, despite there never being any real WMDs, despite the fact that we created a vacuum in the country that enabled the burgeoning of al Qaeda in Iraq.

KING: Many see a parallel to Iraq, in the sense that it’s been eight years in Afghanistan, now it’s been billions of dollars, we have shed American blood there and yet, a European commission report out just this past week says for all the efforts to train the Afghan National Army, there’s a 24% rate of attrition. And others have said that not only do they leave, but they take their weapons with them and some of them still get paid. What has gone wrong and what is the United States doing wrong when it comes to the fundamental challenge of getting the Afghans ready to do this themselves?

McCAIN: First of all, rightly or wrongly, we were focused on Iraq. I happened to believe we had to win there. Whether we should have gone in or not, weapons of mass destruction, you’ve covered on other days. But I think the important point here is that again, if the military of a country does not think they’re going to succeed, you have all kinds of problems. Look at the total collapse of the Iraqi Army at one point after we had…we had built them up.

Um, hello? Do you not get that what YOU think is important is highly questionable when you can't get the fundamentals right? Honestly, you think the problem of attrition in the Afghan army has to do with them worried that they won't succeed? Do you even know what success looks like in Afghanistan? Do you have the hubris to assume that it looks the same for the Afghanis?

As Frank Rich says, Two Wrongs Makes Another Fiasco:

Let’s be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 — when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq — bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess — even though the number of Qaeda insurgents there has dwindled to fewer than 100, according to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones.

But why let facts get in the way? Just as these hawks insisted that Iraq was “the central front in the war on terror” when the central front was Afghanistan, so they insist that Afghanistan is the central front now that it has migrated to Pakistan. When the day comes for them to anoint Pakistan as the central front, it will be proof positive that Al Qaeda has consolidated its hold on Somalia and Yemen.

To appreciate this crowd’s spotless record of failure, consider its noisiest standard-bearer, John McCain. He made every wrong judgment call that could be made after 9/11. It’s not just that he echoed the Bush administration’s constant innuendos that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda’s attack on America. Or that he hyped the faulty W.M.D. evidence to the hysterical extreme of fingering Iraq for the anthrax attacks in Washington. Or that he promised we would win the Iraq war “easily.” Or that he predicted that the Sunnis and the Shiites would “probably get along” in post-Saddam Iraq because there was “not a history of clashes” between them.What’s more mortifying still is that McCain was just as wrong about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He routinely minimized or dismissed the growing threats in both countries over the past six years, lest they draw American resources away from his pet crusade in Iraq.

All I can say is if John McCain is pushing for troop surges in Afghanistan, that's all the more reason for me to consider withdrawal.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1290)

PLAYS: (4428)

Argh, there's so much wrong with this clip that it's all I can do to keep typing and not smacking my head against the desktop. First of all, they ask on Krugman to discuss his NY Times column talking about how GOP obstructionism has reached cartoonish levels and they decide to frame the segment on whether Obama lost his "MOJO"? Seriously? A major news organization ignores the absurdity of the GOP overarching need to find things with which to smear Obama and instead frames the issue for the President of the United States as an Austin Powers plot? And no one but a hyper-partisan conservative "party before country" cheerleader thinks that the IOC selecting Rio for the 2016 games has something to do with a failing on any kind on the part of Obama. Cheers to Anderson Cooper for validating what Krugman so aptly described as "bratty 13 year old" behavior and using a Nobel Laureate to do it. Way to keep on top of the issues of the day, Anderson.

And there's that issue of media's bizarre notion of balance again. Sweet Jesus, why on earth would anyone need Mary Matalin's opinion on Obama's "mojo"? The woman has spent years advising Dick Cheney, fer cryin' out loud, what exactly is her expertise in mojo? As would be expected, Matalin never answers anything directly, resorting to the familiar GOP projection and mean-spritied insinuations, saying she's never drunk the kool-aid on the messiah-like qualities of Obama.

Watch as Krugman acknowledges that Obama hasn't done everything perfectly and that there's still far to go, but that the level of discourse from the right prevents any actual adult-level dialog. And Matalin proves him right by devolving into fingerpointing and bringing in one non sequitur after another. Of course, everything that Obama has been hit with has an equivalence in Matalin's mind to that poor, misunderestimated George W. Bush. If you believe Matalin, the Democrats did nothing but screamed "Liar!" and "Loser" to Bush. Constantly. Hmmm....funny that, I don't remember it that way, but maybe that's because I'm part of the reality-based community.

But hey, how much honest analysis can you get from someone who openly admits she reveres the Fat Bastard himself, Rush Limbaugh? For that alone, she should be laughed off camera.

(video courtesy of Think Progress)

CNN's Don Lemon interviewed two astroturf town hall protesters in Atlanta Monday, and when one of them claimed that no "real Americans" spoke at Obama's town hall meetings, Don shut him down instantly -- and didn't let up:

Lemon:...At least the president is trying to reform health care, so where did the outrage suddenly come from?

Hardage: Don, this is the second town hall he's done in the last week that I actually saw real Americans get up and ask questions, it wasn't a pre-selected group or a -

Lemon: Hang on, before you do that - Real Americans - that's another term that sets people off. We're ALL real Americans, everybody.

Hardage: Anybody can get in, anybody can ask questions, you've seen a completely different tenor in the town hall he held on Tuesday and today than townhalls we've been seeing so far in this debate. That's what I mean by real Americans.

Lemon: You know what, that whole real Americans thing, can we lose that real Americans? Because everybody in the country who is a citizen is a real American. We're all real Americans and that's part of the issue that really sets people off and divides people, so let's get rid of that "real American." I'm a real American, you're a real American, conservative, liberals, independents, we're all real Americans."

How refreshing to see on a corporate news channel.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1391)

PLAYS: (1848)

Oh, the Republicans have been having a field day with this mantra - that employers would shunt their employees into the public plan. But they're really upset for the same reason Sebelius mentioned as a positive: Job lock. Above all else, the Republican party stands for cheap, disposable labor with no rights or protections. God forbid you should have a public option - you could up and leave your job anytime you wanted!

In the meantime, a White House staffer sent this statement to health care activists late this afternoon:

Nothing has changed. POTUS has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.

From This Week, with Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: OK, I'll -- I'll take that as a "yes" and then we'll move on. The president often -- and he did last night in Colorado -- says to the American people that, if they like their doctor, they can keep their doctor. If they like their insurance plan, they can keep their insurance plan. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, if a public plan, if a public option is introduced, at least 2 million Americans will be switched by their employer from a private plan to the public plan.

Now, that doesn't get into the whole issue of employers dropping health care coverage in general and all the people that will be added to the rolls, and I understand that. But how can the administration make the promise that if you like your insurance plan you can keep it, when CBO and other analysts estimate that some people will be switched from private to public?

SEBELIUS: Well, I think, Jake, if you -- if you think about a marketplace option and new plans being created in Toledo, Ohio, or in California or in Florida, the network of doctors is likely to be pretty identical. A lot of plans exist in the same marketplace, and doctors are part of a variety of networks. So the idea that you would keep your own doctor is highly likely.

The other thing about the -- the new marketplace is, I think, the president is eager to stabilize the employer marketplace. Small- business owners right now are dropping coverage because they can't any longer afford it. They can't stay in the market.

With the new tax incentives that are part of health reform, small-business owners would be encouraged to actually stabilize their insurance plans, to offer coverage to their employees. They'd have tax credits. They'd have some help for the low-income employees to be able to afford the coverage.

So I think, if anything, it wouldn't dismantle the present market. It would actually help to provide a more stable private marketplace, which right now serves 180 million Americans very well. People like those plans. They want to make sure that if they have employer-based coverage that they like, they can keep it. And this would actually encourage and help employers to stay in the market.

On the other hand, if you lose your job, right now you lose your coverage. And -- and the new reform plan would make sure that you had an affordable option even if you lost your job, if you wanted to go out on your own and start your new business, which lots of people want to do, you wouldn't lose your health coverage.

So it would have some choices for consumers to make so they wouldn't have the kind of job lock that we see now across America.

But she backs off on the public option on CNN's State of the Union today:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's health secretary is suggesting the White House is ready to accept nonprofit insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run public option in a health overhaul plan. A Republican senator says that is worth looking at.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says Obama still believes there should be choice and competition" in the health insurance market - but that a public option is "not the essential element."

Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured. But he had not seen a not-for-profit co-op as sufficient to offer consumers choice and competition that would bring down the costs of private insurance.

Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union."

Although we didn't get rid of Lou Dobbs, it looks like the stink we raised is having an impact. From today's Mediabistro.com:

Exclusive: TVNewser has learned, and a CNN spokesperson confirms, that in his morning editorial meeting today, CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein asked his show producers to avoid booking talk radio hosts. "Complex issues require world class reporting," Klein is quoted as saying, adding that talk radio hosts too often add to the noise, and that what they say is "all too predictable."

One of CNN's longtime show hosts, Lou Dobbs, hosts a daily radio show. A few political contributors also host radio shows including Bill Bennett and Roland Martin. They are presumably not affected by this.

But this means other talk radio hosts who appear regularly on CNN, probably won't in the near future including names like Stephanie Miller, Michael Medved, and Ben Ferguson.

They don't even pretend, do they?

CNN, on the other hand, refuses an ad critical of the insurance industry because it's "too personal." (Of course, having Lou Dobbs pushing the idea that Obama's not a real citizen, well, that's not personal at all!)

Gee, do you ever get the idea that the deck is stacked in favor of corporations?

Lou Dobbs and CNN have decided that perpetuating the long-debunked, right wing Birther conspiracy was a good strategy to boost ratings. It turns out they were wrong, and now Lou and the network are taking a hit for their foolishness:

Sure enough, stirring up controversy and public outcry is a time-tested method in cable news of juicing your ratings (and, as we noted recently, Mr. Dobbs of late has been in dire need of something to stop his ratings slide).

But somewhat remarkably, to date, Mr. Dobbs' fascination with the president's "mysterious" birth origins has failed not only as a journalistic line of inquiry but also as a lure for ratings.

To wit: According to The Observer's analysis of Nielsen data, in recent weeks, as criticism of Mr. Dobbs has continued to go up, his ratings at CNN have continued to go down.

Mr. Dobbs' first began reporting on Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories on the night of Wednesday, July 15. In the roughly two weeks since then, from July 15 through July 28, Mr. Dobbs' 7 p.m. show on CNN has averaged 653,000 total viewers and 157,000 in the 25-54 demo.

By contrast, during the first two weeks of the month (July 1 to July 14) Mr. Dobbs averaged 771,000 total viewers and 218,000 in the 25-54 demo. In other words, Mr. Dobbs' audience has decreased 15 percent in total viewers and 27 percent in the demo since the start of the controversy. Read on...

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

DOWNLOADS: (1176)

PLAYS: (4344)

Can Dick Cheney take his daughter Liz back to his undisclosed location and keep her there? Why the hell is Liz Cheney so visible now? I can't recall seeing her hardly at all during the eight years of Bush/Cheney and now she is ubiquitous.

And sadly, her entire reason to be on the air is to be a divisive partisan pain in the ass. Her goal is to continually fuel the hatred and suspicions of all those wingnuts barely holding on to their sanity as it is.

When asked about the Birthers and their Obama Derangement Syndrome, rather than take the adult stance of saying that it's a shame that this fringe group isn't willing to accept the reality that the President was born in the US, Cheney gleefully pounces on the chance to slam Obama for being "anti-American" and refusing to stand up for what the US believes in.

CHENEY: I think the Democrats have got more crazies than the Republicans do, but setting that aside, I think that….You know, one of the reasons I think you see people so concerned about this, I think that this issue is …people are uncomfortable with having ---for the first time ever, I think--- a President who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas. A President who sits through a completely venomous screed by Daniel Ortega and then his only response—when the United States has been hostilely attacked—is to say “hey, you know, basically, I was only three at the time.” And you know, we’ve seen this….

CARVILLE: That’s so…

CHENEY: James, don’t interrupt me. We’ve seen this again and again and again, where this President seems to sort of want to create moral equivalence…

KING: Are you saying…it’s because he’s a Kenyan?

CHENEY: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that people are fundamentally uncomfortable and they’re fundamentally, I think, increasingly uncomfortable with an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America. Who seems to be afraid to stand up for what we believe in.

Head. Slams. Keyboard. Seriously, Liz, do you really think this is constructive at all immediately following a video of a woman so high strung and so out of touch with reality that she's just a step away from snapping altogether? Is it possible to step out of your friggin' partisan mindset for two seconds and just say that the Birther movement is a bunch of nutcases and they need to come to grips with reality? I'm no fan of Carville, but he nails Cheney for her disingenuous rationale:

CARVILLE: Let me hurl a fact around. These people….these poor, pathetic people believe stuff, just like Ms. Cheney tonight. She refuses to say it’s ludicrous because she actually wants to encourage these people who believe that. It’s just a simple thing: “This is a nutty thing. There’s nothing to this, I disagree with this president’s policy.” They can’t say that. They can’t say that because they’re scared they’ll lose the sort of nut wing of their party.

Well, exactly, James. And as someone who had to suffer through transcribing this mess, I note that Liz Cheney tends to fill time with a lot of "I think"s. Actually, Liz, if this clip shows anything, it's that you don't think.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1408)

PLAYS: (4263)

On Reliable Sources this morning, Howard Kurtz brings on Huffington Post's Nico Pitney to deal with two naysayers eager to scream "collusion!" over Nico's question to President Obama this week regarding the Iranian election: WaPo's Dana Milbank and TownHall's Amanda Carpenter. The fact that hyper-partisan Carpenter is even asked her opinion shows how little interest Kurtz had in an honest dialog. Seriously, Amanda, the video shows Nico in the back of the room behind other reporters--your complaining about Nico being "pushed to the front of the room" is discredited just like all your other "facts"--who you gonna believe? Amanda or your lyin' eyes?

But it's Dana Milbank who really gets his bitchy little knickers in a twist. He starts the segment incredibly defensive. It's hard to tell whether Dana is just miffed that he didn't get called on or that some upstart blogger who doesn't get the same Beltway cocktail party invitations asked a better question than he ever has.

This whole media-created "scandal" is ridiculously inane and smacks of a willful short memory which would be comical if it wasn't supplanting much more important discussions. Um, Howie, Dana, Amanda....does the name "Jeff Gannon" ring a bell? Jamison Foser:

Here's the thing: Nobody is actually claiming that Obama knew what question Pitney was going to ask. The allegations of "coordination" and "staging" are premised on the idea that the Obama folks knew what topic Pitney would ask about - Iran.

Well, it isn't all that unusual for a president to have a pretty good idea what topic a reporter is going to ask about. If you call on a reporter from Stars & Stripes or Army Times, you'll probably get a question relating to the military. Call on a Washington Post reporter, and you'll likely get a question about steroids in baseball or haircuts. Call on a New York Times reporter, and there's a pretty good chance he'll ask what enchants you about the White House. Call on a Huffington Post reporter, and they'll probably ask something a little more substantive.[..]

I'm pretty sure Dana Milbank knew what topic he was going to be asked about when he appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources opposite Pitney today. Ohmygod! Dana Milbank and Howard Kurtz coordinated! It was staged!

Oh, the stoopid hypocrisy. It hurts, doesn't it, Dana?

Just to put this into perspective, think about this. Nico Pitney has spent the last two weeks tirelessly developing sources from inside Iran, aggregating every relevant story available on the internet through every available form of the new communication technology and synthesizing one of the most most difficult and important foreign policy stories of the decade.

Dana Milbank has spent the same period bitching about the "low press" getting to ask questions at a press conference and filming snotty little gossip items for his little insider video embarrassment called "Mouthpiece Theatre."

And the newspapers wonder why they're dying. Let me remind all of you that WaPo decided to sack Froomkin, but kept Milbank. So goes the state of "journalism" at the Washington Post.

By the way, when I emailed Nico to congratulate him on a serious smackdown of the Very. Serious. Villager., he shared with me Milbank's comment to him as Kurtz was introducing the next segment: "You're such a dick." You stay classy, Dana.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1091)

PLAYS: (3049)

Oh poor, put-upon Bill O'Reilly. Those mean old "liberals" in the media are just itching to blame him for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Never mind that the only "liberal" cited is Olbermann, who flatly rejects the label and those who did actually call attention to the inciting rhetoric of O'Reilly in regards to Tiller were bloggers like C&L, who of course, were not invited by Howard Kurtz to give their point of view.

Kathleen Parker has the unenviable job of defending O'Reilly, though it's made easier by Kurtz's framing, which shows clearly where his sympathies lie:

KURTZ: Some liberal commentators couldn’t wait to accuse O’Reilly of inciting the violence that led to George Tiller’s murder. Fair or unfair?

PARKER: Irrelevant. I mean, yes, of course, it’s unfair. You can’t blame anyone for a crime except the person that commits the crime. Clearly, people on the far left are always looking for an excuse to attack Bill O’Reilly. And Keith Olbermann and O’Reilly tend to bounce off each other a good bit. So I’m not sure who this argument is really between.

Um, news flash to Parker, you absolutely CAN blame someone who incites violence, even if they don't actually commit the act. Ask Charlie Manson.

Parker's viewpoint is a little morally troubling, as she tries to play false equivalencies in the abortion debate and pooh-pooh the violent rhetoric as an "all's fair as each side tries to defend their stance":

KURTZ: What George Tiller was doing was legal, although many people did not like what he was doing, but I also want to mention he was shot in 1993 when there was no “O’Reilly Factor”, like there was no Fox News. Do you think, Kathleen, that the people pointing the fingers at O’Reilly with varying degrees of fervor are politicizing this tragedy?

PARKER: Well, of course they are. This is…this is the Topic du Jour anyway, because of Obama’s recent address to Notre Dame. It’s on everyone’s mind. And you know, any opportunity for the pro-choice people to make their case more strongly is going to be taken advantage of, and same…and vice versa. I mean, we’re always listening to the extremes on either side. They’re the squeakiest wheels, the loudest voices and they get the attention.

So denouncing organizations that foment violence like Operation Rescue is the equivalent of shooting women's health providers? Defending the rights of women to make a legal choice is an extreme position? Really? Ugh, the morality of the "Moral Majority" is enough to make you sick.

But here's where it gets funny. After denouncing the media for going after Bill O'Reilly, Parker actually agrees with all those liberal talking heads (seriously, someone point out to me where these multitudes of liberals are, I need to do some DVR programming) that this tragic event should illustrate how important it is not to broadcast such violent rhetoric:

PARKER: I would love for the outcome of this to be that O’Reilly—and all of these talking heads who become so completely over the top so many times—just to say look, this is a teaching moment. We’re not gonna do this anymore. We’re not …we’re gonna make our cases as strongly, we’re going to be passionate, but we’re going to tone down the rhetoric. I mean, wouldn’t that be a great result?

Well, yes, it would, Kathleen...and that's why we're saying that Bill O'Reilly should take responsibility for that kind of violent rhetoric. Is that so hard to understand?

PARKER: The media followed the fire, clearly. You know, wherever the heat is, that’s where—and I’m part of the media, I know how this works, I’ve done this for a long time—where the action is. But there is, I think, the media are always going to defend the pro-choice position. They’re less likely to portray sympathetically the pro-life position, that’s just a fact.

Damn, and just when I thought you were getting it, Kathleen. The media (which is neither monolithic nor particularly liberal-leaning) is not defending the pro-choice position, you nimrod. That's the law of the land, whether you like it or not. Violating laws--like murder and terrorist acts--and trying to disrespect civil rights of others is not a sympathetic position for anyone to advocate.

On CNN's State of the Union show Sundays, they have their "Best Political Team on Television" segment, which pits different pundits who we see all week on CNN in roundtable discussions on several topics. In a discussion about the budget, the panel said that some budget cuts were needed and President Obama is going to seriously look at the military. Barbara Starr then said a bad word on TV:

KING: And Barbara, he's asking the Pentagon to come in with a smaller bottom line, even as he sends more troops to Afghanistan, says he wants to grow the army and grow the Marine Corps. So something's got to give, and most people think if you are going to get that money, you've got to get a big weapons program.

BARBARA STARR: Well, that's what Secretary Gates is saying, that he's going to make real deep cuts in all of this. But you know with the president taking off this week for the big trip to Europe, half of it is the economic agenda with the G-20, half of it is with NATO. He's got to take something to Europe and say to the Europeans, a lot of people think, here's what I want to have happen. He can't go and just listen. And so he's going with both the economic agenda and the security agenda and a lot of folks are watching to see what he actually comes back with.

KING: And in terms of the Pentagon finding something to cut, whether it's the F-22, whether it's something else down the road, when are we going to know?

STARR: That's being worked on in those 17.5 miles of Pentagon hallways right now. Nobody's talking about it, but you can sure bet that the lobbyists are scurrying all over Capitol Hill already.

YELLIN: Lobbyists?

KING: Lobbyists?

YELLIN: Bad word.

STARR: The defense contractors, they're trying to preserve everything they can.

We spend billions of dollars on weapons programs that we do not need, but the "lobbyists" will try to protect their precious contracts. Starr quickly pivoted to "defense contractors" instead of using their proper name: Lobbyists. Is there an attempt by TV talking heads to cover up for lobbyists? Will we now hear them referred to as "contractors?"

DOWNLOAD (164)

PLAY (382)

DOWNLOAD (138)

PLAY (181)

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?

It's funny, isn't it? The members of the corporate media are so very brave these days - as long as they're talking about Democrats. But whenever they're talking about Republicans, they're conveniently stricken with amnesia! I wonder why (*cough* corporate media *cough*)?

During a report on health-care legislation interest groups on the March 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, national political correspondent Jessica Yellin identified Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) chairman Richard Scott as someone who "runs urgent-care clinics" and as the leader of "a media campaign to limit government's role in the health-care system," but did not note his prior position as CEO of a scandal-plagued hospital firm.

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, a July 26, 1997, Los Angeles Times article reported that Scott resigned "as chairman of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. amid a massive federal investigation into the Medicare billing, physician recruiting and home-care practices of the nation's largest for-profit health care company." According to a December 18, 2002, Justice Department press release describing a tentative settlement with HCA to resolve civil litigation, "When added to the prior civil and criminal settlements reached in 2000, this settlement would bring the government's total recoveries from HCA to approximately $1.7 billion."

Media Matters has previously noted that The Washington Post and Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg have reported on Scott's role with CPR without noting his prior role with HCA, while Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer interviewed Scott without doing so.