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

DOWNLOADS: (1428)

PLAYS: (2295)

(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

Rich Stockwell, senior producer at MSNBC's "Countdown", writes about his experiences at the free clinic funded by viewer contributions:

New Orleans, La. — - It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.

After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.

Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.

Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.

Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.

Countdown chose to highlight and raise money for the Association of Free Clinics because we knew the work they do is so vitally important and we wanted to show in real terms how great the need is. We invited several politicians to attend so they could see first hand how critical the situation is. All declined. Some explained that they talk with constituents all the time and know very well of the need for reform.

I have news for them, these people didn't need to speak. Their actions spoke far louder than any words. Having to get a check up and diagnosis at a free clinic because they have no other option tells you all you need to know. There are no words that can accurately describe the quiet desperation on the faces of the patients. Every single one I spoke to, and every one I heard talking with doctors, expressed their gratitude for the event and wished that they were held more often.

And they wonder why we don't take them seriously as journalists.

Damn! Joe Scarborough blocked me on Twitter! I guess he gets tired of people pointing out his mistakes and outright fabrications. Feel free to tweet with me and add C&L too!

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

DOWNLOADS: (1479)

PLAYS: (7796)

There really wasn't a lot of substance to Alan Grayson's appearance on Hardball yesterday, but it is always pretty delightful to watch Grayson in action anyway. He just says what he thinks and lets the chips fall where they may.

The end got a little over the top, in fact:

Matthews: Dick Cheney—and that‘s how you pronounce his name—was out last night in black tie, along with his—well, his felon former chief of staff, who I think took the bullet for him in that whole matter, perjury and obstruction of justice.

And he wasn‘t out robbing gas stations. His behavior was right there in the office under Cheney‘s leadership. Anyway, the prosecutor in that case said there was a cloud over Cheney‘s head. The—the prosecutor obviously brought the justice to that guy Scooter Libby. He got convicted of a number of counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

The president even held his nose and would not pardon these guys, wouldn‘t pardon Scooter Libby. Here‘s this guy, with all his inglorious background, out trashing the president of the United States for dithering.

Your response?

GRAYSON: Well, my response is—and, by the way, I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he‘s talking.

But—but my response is this. He's just angry because the president doesn't shoot old men in the face. Oh, by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?

MATTHEWS: Oh, God. We have got to keep a level here.

Even if this kind of talk horrifies you, the fact that it's coming from a Democrat is actually a relief for those of us who've watched the party perfect its Village-approved Harvey Milquetoast routine the past couple of decades.

It's one of the traits that has really harmed the Democratic brand over that time, because it's led people to believe that they don't really have the courage of their convictions, that they won't stand up and fight for anything, that they don't really believe in anything.

Alan Grayson leaves no such impression. Even if other Democrats go fleeing in horror, he's doing them -- and us -- a real service.

The wingnuts do get themselves all worked up, don't they?

The fringey-right are upset at the news that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow attended an off-the-record briefing at the White House:

A day after key White House officials declared the Fox News Channel wasn't a news organization, President Obama met with MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Talk about your delicious hypocrisy.

Fittingly, the news was broken by FNC's Bret Baier during Tuesday's "Special Report" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, relevant section at 1:45, h/t Hot Air via NBer Thomas Stewart):

BRET BAIER, HOST: And finally, during this morning's off-camera White House briefing with reporters, ABC's Jake Tapper asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the ongoing White House attacks on FOX News Channel.

After being asked about the charge that FOX isn't a real news organization, Gibbs answered, quote "We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."

Tapper: "That's a sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from say, ABC, MSNBC, Univision?"

Gibbs: "You and I should watch around 9:00 tonight or 5:00 this afternoon."

Tapper: "I'm not talking about the opinion programs or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?"

Gibbs: "That is our opinion."

Well, the White House's strong opinions about our opinion shows - - Glenn Beck runs at 5:00 p.m. and Sean Hannity at 9:00 p.m. -- apparently do not extend to similar shows on other networks.

A White House official confirms to us that the audience for Monday's off the record briefing with President Obama included MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Hmmm. So the White House thinks Fox isn't a news organization because it has a perspective, and specifically points fingers at Beck and Hannity.

What does the Adminstration think Olbermann and Maddow have?

I guess it's not a problem for a new organization and its members to have a perspective so long as it's one the White House shares.

They seem to miss the big difference between people like Olbermann and Maddow: They attempt to gather and present facts on their shows. Sometimes they slip up, but it's not usually intentional. Get it?

And they're suffering from memory loss again:

The guest list included Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, and Mike Gallagher. (Rush Limbaugh was unable to attend.) Friday’s off-the-record talk, set for 30 minutes, ended up lasting 90 minutes, where Bush told his guests that the war on terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.” He also showed them the pistol Saddam Hussein had when he was captured.

(h/t Think Progress for the video)

Tuesday morning on Morning Joe, CNBC host Donny Deutsch had a few choice words to describe Rush Limbaugh, including "megalomaniac" and a "scary, distasteful human being." He didn't stop there, though. He had another word in mind and let's just say, it wasn't pretty:

Then, a few minutes later, Scarborough and Deutsch discussed Limbaugh's potential part-ownership an NFL team and the comments that led to his departure from ESPN. During the conversation, the audio cut out while Deutsch was talking and Scarborough said, semi-laughing, "...bleeped that out again. Why did you have to do that? Why?" Donny later explained, "I called Rush Limbaugh a feminine hygiene product that starts with a D and sounds like my last name. It was bleeped you can't say that on TV." At the end of the program Mika Brzezinski claimed, "I learned that you can't do a show with Donny without him saying something perverted." Read on...

John Amato has forbidden me from using the "D word" to describe the likes of Limbaugh and Beck for years -- all for the better, no doubt. Should Deutsch have used the word on air? Probably not. Was he right? We report, you decide...

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

DOWNLOADS: (1011)

PLAYS: (1635)

Richard Wolffe returned to Countdown this week, absent from MSNBC airwaves for only a month after Glenn Greenwald pointed out that his full time employer was no longer Newsweek, but a lobbying firm:

Having Richard Wolffe host an MSNBC program -- or serving as an almost daily "political analyst" -- is exactly tantamount to MSNBC's just turning over an hour every night to a corporate lobbyist. Wolffe's role in life is to advance the P.R. interests of the corporations that pay him, including corporations with substantial interests in virtually every political issue that MSNBC and Countdown cover. Yet MSNBC is putting him on as a guest-host and "political analyst" on one of its prime-time political shows. What makes that even more appalling is that, as Ana Marie Cox first noted, neither MSNBC nor Wolffe even disclose any of this.

This is a conflict so severe that it's incurable by disclosure: who wouldn't realize that you can't present paid corporate hacks as objective political commentators? But the fact that they don't even bother to disclose that just serves to illustrate how non-existent is the line between corporate interests and "news reporting" in the United States. Then again, Wolffe himself -- when it was previously revealed that he was exploiting his position as a Newsweek reporter covering the Obama campaign to leverage access to Obama in order to write a glowing book about him -- said this:

And [Wolffe] suggested he’s not that different from other reporters in an era in which the business and the profession of journalism have gotten closer and closer.

"The idea that journalists are somehow not engaged in corporate activities is not really in touch with what's going on. Every conversation with journalists is about business models and advertisers," he said, recalling that, on the day after the 2008 election, Newsweek sent him to Detroit to deliver a speech to advertisers.

"You tell me where the line is between business and journalism," he said.

And yet, he's back...with nary a word about his absence, still as an MSNBC political analyst.

Don't get me wrong, I like Richard Wolffe in general, and appreciated his appearances on Countdown in the past, but to name him as a "Senior Strategist at Public Strategies" is truly the sparest way to describe him as a lobbyist and really blurs the lines between journalism and promotion/propaganda beyond what should be acceptable. How can we ever know if Wolffe's analysis is truly what he believes or if it's what he's been paid to promote by a client?

And frankly, I'm tired of the insular nature of these broadcasts, when the same predictable people show up day after day after day. To be fair to Keith, Olbermann is not the only news anchor with a retinue of guests they stick with over and over. They all do it. Even Rachel Maddow brings on "Uncle Pat" Buchanan, whose views are generally factually wrong or so far outside the mainstream, you can't but wonder why he's still on television. Wolffe isn't like that. But as I've documented before on media balance and biases, so much critical information is withheld from we viewers already that we generally don't get a fair view of the issues of the day, I really do have to ask if there are no other voices that Olbermann can turn to that he has to bring back a DC lobbyist?

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

DOWNLOADS: (1002)

PLAYS: (4166)

Big thanks to Shoq for tipping me off to this segment.

It's hard to cogitate when you're immersed in the cesspool that passes for political debate nowadays that this country has actually seen worse days than this. Our economy has been worse, unemployment was higher and journalism was just as yellow.

But as documentarian Ken Burns points out, we also had a president who was willing to invest in our country, to invest in American "shovel-ready" jobs and put them to work developing our beautiful national park system. And as a result, we all share in the beauty of Yosemite and the Grand Canyon as well as the historical significance of sites Monroe Elementary and Manzanar, which do not necessarily reflect a time where America is at its best.

Burns does a great job of smacking down the GOP's completely nonsensical cries of "Socialism!" and reminds us of how tragic it would be if those in Washington had been so similarly cowed during Roosevelt's day, instead of understanding that the creation of the National Parks system brought Americans together, made these areas accessible and available to every American, thereby democratizing our very best idea.

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

DOWNLOADS: (515)

PLAYS: (781)

(h/t Heather for video)

On Tuesday's Hardball, during Chris Matthews' "Big Number" segment he made this claim:

The AARP's going out on a bit of a limb by backing efforts for health care reform, so here's proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

How many seniors have canceled their membership in AARP this summer, specifically citing AARP's push for some sort of health care overhaul? 60,000. 60,000 seniors have walked out on AARP this summer over reform. Tonight's big number.

Technically, this number may be accurate and there are those who are dropping their memberships over AARP's support of health care reform, but the story is incomplete. As Media Matters points out, other MSNBC shows have been spinning this story negatively, and, in fact, AARP actually gained 400,000 members and 1.5 million people renewed their memberships during the same time period:

The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.

He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership. Read on...

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that AARP has seen a net gain of 340,000 members during the health care debate this summer -- which should have been Chris Matthews' Big Number, but that's not sexy enough for him. MSNBC isn't the only source spreading the misleading numbers either -- and CBS got the ball rolling.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1072)

PLAYS: (3696)

It's hard to argue with rock solid logic that GOP strategist Karen Hanretty offers up on The Ed Show. In a discussion of whether providing health care to all citizens is a moral imperative, Hanretty informs us that Jesus would probably not like health care reform because he would avoid the 1000 pages of bill Congress has drafted, just as he avoided the Pharisees.

SCHULTZ: Karen, where is the Christian leaders (sic) in this country, the four that I named at the top of this show tonight. They’ve been very silent on the moral obligation to cover every American. This is a big play, what do you think?

HANRETTY: Well, I think it’s interesting. You know, you were saying earlier if Christ came back, if this was the Second Coming, what would He do? And you know, we know when Christ walked the Earth he was very careful not to let the Pharisees entrap him in legalistic disputes. And I think that would be the case with this 1,000 page health care bill. I think that, you know, the Christian community, we have an obligation to care for the poor, and for children, orphans and widows, and that is our commandment. I think a lot of churches do that. I’m not sure there’s something in the Bible that talks about should you have a single health care payer program, you know, what are the details…

So the commandment to take care of others, that goes out the window if you have to trudge through several hundred pages of writing? I'm not sure I like the "Jesus as a slacker" motif, but I have one way to simplify it: "Medicare for all". I think even your slacker Jesus could manage to read three words, Karen.

But honestly, it was the next exchange that made me cringe at what laughingstocks we must be to the rest of the world: the discussion of health care reform during End Times.

HANRETTY: I think it’s very…I think it’s very…quite frankly, I think you really pushed the limits, Ed, when you say that if Christ came to Earth, he would encourage us to support this health care bill.

SCHULTZ: We’re out of time with this, but I want to say that I’m not pushing the limits on this, because if Jesus were to come back and have the Second Coming, while we’re on the face of the Earth, I don’t think he’d be denying care to anybody.

HANRETTY: You think in the middle of the Rapture, in the middle of the Rapture, he’d be taking a health care survey? You’re insane! I love that. That’s crazy.

Yeah, thinking that Jesus would care for the least of us on this planet, that's crazy, but believing in a Rapture overseen by a slacker Jesus, that's totally normal.

Oy.

Tweety really let "Americans for Prosperity" President Tim Phillips have it on Hardball last night. Boy, he's really got a bug up his butt about health-care reform and he just won't let go:

MATTHEWS: "How do we get around the problem that there's so many people out there, and this is why we're having this debate, sir ... the question that's bothered the American people since, what? since Teddy Roosevelt's time, is some people have health insurance and some don't. How do we reconcile that with our sense in this country of looking out for each other, to some extent, to some extent."

"Here's my problem with you guys. The conservatives talk reasonably when the Democrats get in power and say 'well, we've got an alternative that's more free-market, it's less onerous, it's less big-shot, big-government stuff...' but when you guys are in power, you don't do anything on health care. And that's what happens, and that's why for, god, almost a century of foot-dragging on this, the Democrats get in power, whether it's Truman or it's Bill Clinton, or it's Hillary Clinton, or it's Barack Obama, they try something and it fails, because you guys are good at playing negative politics. You're really good at destroying Democrats plans, chances for reform..."

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

DOWNLOADS: (1542)

PLAYS: (7425)

Keith Olbermann calls out the dangerous rhetoric and lies of Sarah Palin and her other GOP cohorts--such as Glenn Beck and Sen. John Cornyn--scaring the populace with their outrageous fear mongering over health care reform.

You shouted "fire" in a crowded theater -- a hot one -- and then today tried to roll it back with "no, no, sorry, not fire, I meant flashlights."

Too little, too late, too obvious.

Madam, you are a clear and present danger to the safety and security of this nation.

Whether the 'death panel' is something you dreamed, or something you dreamed-up, whether it is the product of a low intellect and a fevered imagination, or the product of a high intelligence and a sober ability to exploit people, you should be ashamed of yourself for having introduced it into the public discourse, and it should debar you, for all time, from any position of responsibility or trust in the governance of this nation or any of its states or municipalities.

It is exactly this kind of lowest demoninator scare tactics of Palin's and her other GOP buddies that has brought about the aptly albeit bluntly named PleaseCutTheCrap.com.

And while it's semi-nice to see Palin back-pedaling slightly, the fever pitch is such that a concerted joint effort by the White House and the Democrats in Congress is required to push back on this inciting and ugly rhetoric, before it goes too far.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

From the New York Times:

It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.

For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.

It was perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade and by this year, their bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to bring it to an end.

Come to think of it, Keith did announce he was dropping his signature "BillO" voice -- but it's not clear that he's going to play ball:

Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal,” adding that he would not have been included in any conversations between G.E. and the News Corporation. Fox News said it would not comment. Read on...

Here's the conundrum for Keith Olbermann -- Does he obey the corporate bigwigs and ignore O'Reilly, or does he continue to expose and publicly humiliate a lunatic, right wing bully who picks on kidnapped and sick children, and played a very public role in the murder of Dr. George Tiller? Keith...what say you?

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

DOWNLOADS: (836)

PLAYS: (1213)

This incident is a perfect illustration of how the right's noise machine is fooling the American people all over again, using easily debunked lies and misinformation, and how this very kind of irresponsible broadcasting—which they so often pretend is "journalism"—is empowering them to do it.

We came thisclose from having an honest discussion of health care reform this morning on Morning Joe. Not surprisingly, the "journalists" at the table dropped the ball, instead allowing two Republican congresspeople free airtime to lie to the American people once again. Hey GOP, where's your alternative plan again?

Republican Representatives Tom Price (MD--he's a doctor, you should listen to him!) and Dave Camp--having no constructive things to do to address Americans' health care concerns--appear on the Morning Joe show to field concern trolling, er...questions from no less than four "journalists" on health care. And Mike Barnicle gets the closest to actually digging for the truth when Rep. Price drops the name of The Lewin Group and Barnicle asks who funds The Lewin Group. Price deflects it with a mealy-mouthed answer about their foundation, but since he's a Republican and he's moving his lips, you gotta know he's a big fat liar:

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.

More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care.[..]

Lewin's clients include the government and private groups with a variety of perspectives, including the Commonwealth Fund and the Heritage Foundation. A February report contained information that could be used to argue for a single-payer system, the approach most threatening to private insurers, Sheils noted.

But not all of the firm's reports see the light of day. For example, a study for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association was never released, Sheils said.

"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.

Well, they might not be partisan, but they sure as hell ARE biased--they are paid by the LARGEST health insurer in the nation (remember when Elizabeth Edwards said that $1 out of every $700 spent in healthcare went in the pocket of United Health's CEO?) and bury reports that are unfavorable? Where's that report on single payer? Why aren't the Republicans quoting that one?

Price also spews out another patented Luntz-crafted lie about the House bill, claiming that the bill states that in five years, all insurance will have to look the same, claiming this is proof of government intervention into your well-being. Price isn't the only one to give this zombie lie:

(G)reat message discipline! That's always been their forte. But it makes a tiresome chore to smack down all the odd lies they come up with, again and again, just like in the old zombie movies. You give it both barrels of a 10-gauge, but it shambles forward mindlessly. "Braaaiinssss..."

The one I have seem pop up most recently is the odd lie that the House Tri-Com bill (HR 3200) will "outlaw individual private coverage."

Huh? I thought that's what the National Insurance Exchange was for?! Where did that come from?

I remembered that I had seen some crazy rant from Rep Michelle Bachmann (R-Loon) along these lines:

It’s over 1,000 pages long. On the 16th page, it says whatever health care you have now, it’s going to be gone within five years. So your current health care plan, you’re not going to have in five years. What you’re going to have is a government plan and a federal bureau is going to decide what you get or if you get anything at all.

And some commenters on Kevin's blog linked to this unsigned opinion piece from Investors.com:

It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

How odd that they both cite "page 16" in their rants, both of which were published on the same day. It's almost as if this were somehow coordinated... Nah. I must be getting paranoid.

The provision they are referring to, by the way, is this [..]

So what does this mean in the real world?

1. Individual health insurance policies already in effect may continue but may not be altered.
2. Employer-sponsored plans have five years to get in compliance with the new regulations.
3. New individual health insurance policies will only be available through the National Insurance Exchange (NIE).

Remember, the NIE is where the private insurers will be competing against one another as well as against a possible public plan, if it survives. It is not synonymous with a "government plan," though I hope that consumers will have the choice of a government-sponsored insurance policy. The new regulations referred to are simply those I've outlined many times before -- community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum benefits floor.

Ezra Klein has more on the disingenuousness of the Republican talking points.

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

DOWNLOADS: (974)

PLAYS: (5350)

I have to say this Birther movement is starting to get on my last nerve. Seriously, what more has to be done to get through their thick, dense skulls that Obama was born in the U.S.? And now, to add "credibility", they trot out G. (apparently for Geezer) Gordon Liddy--a convicted criminal, mind you--to express all the same ridiculous doubts ("That's not a birth certificate--it's a certificate of live birth!") and to assert that the "preponderance" of evidence (which is limited to his grandmother saying he was born in Kenya and the screaming mimis of some very unhinged people) suggests that he is, in fact, an illegal alien, and all the other evidence (the certificate of live birth, the birth announcement in the Honolulu papers, etc., the verification by state officials, the fact that courts have already thrown this ridiculous charge out, the fact that he was certified as a legitimate candidate for POTUS, etc.) entirely dismissable.

Chris Matthews ever-so-gently (perhaps in deference to the feeble appearance of Liddy?) smacks down the insane hate and logic spiraling out of control.

Media Matters looks at the nutwing conspiracists who should be relegated to the outer fringes of the national dialogue being instead mainstreamed by the likes of Lou Dobbs.

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

DOWNLOADS: (2009)

PLAYS: (9947)

If you didn't watch Rachel Maddow's debate with Pat Buchanan Thursday night, you missed an outstanding display of corporate media-financed white supremacy.

Pat Buchanan repeated the same exhausting argument that Judge Sotomayor is unqualified for the Supreme Court and therefore doesn't deserve the nomination -- in fact, she's been elevated, in Pat's estimation, based solely on race and not intellect. He said to Rachel:

I don't think Judge Sotomayor is qualified for the United States Supreme Court. She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of the Constitution. She's never written anything that I've read in terms of a law review article or a major book or something like that on the law.

Oh.

So qualifications are suddenly important to Pat.

While pissing all over Judge Sotomayor's qualifications, judicial record, accomplishments and achievements, Pat Buchanan thinks Sarah Palin! is qualified to be President of the United States.

Sarah Palin -- who couldn't accurately describe the duties of the vice president during a nationally televised vice presidential debate. Remember this?

I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

Sarah Palin -- a politician who's less intellectually curious than George W. Bush, has less experience and fewer credentials than the worst president in American history. And Pat Buchanan thinks she's the best Republican ever. Presidential material.

But Judge Sotomayor is intellectually unqualified for the Supreme Court, right? And Sarah Palin is qualified for the highest office in the land.

What conclusion can we draw from this inconsistency? Easy. Pat Buchanan hates brown people. Read his latest awful editorial and tell me this isn't true. If he doesn't hate brown people, he simply, then, believes white males are far superior in almost every way (to be fair, he admits to Maddow that blacks can run fast).

He continues by complaining that white people are being discriminated against and this is a terrible crime. What Pat Buchanan will never admit is that for every one Frank Ricci, there are literally thousands of Americans with dark skin or "exotic" names who are being held back or punished or imprisoned for no other reason than their race or ethnicity. It's been that way for hundreds of years here.

This naturally doesn't make discrimination against white people "okay." In an imperfect system, though, correcting our massive racial imbalance means that, unfortunately, a few Frank Ricci types fall through the cracks. But if people like Pat Buchanan would embrace the spirit of correcting the imbalance, we'd be able to fix these cracks.

Ultimately, however, Pat Buchanan is an old white man who is clinging desperately -- and desperately is the appropriate adverb -- to the past, as Rachel pointed out. He fears the inevitable browning of America and so he's lashing out more and more often with this venomous, divisive, hate-mongering language.

The serious question here is whether MSNBC will continue to finance his clearly white supremacist views. If there's anyone in America who doesn't deserve more air time, it's people like Pat Buchanan. They had their time and they failed. Their reign was destructive and a blight on American history. They have no place in the discourse anymore.

Time to step aside, Pat. For the good of the country.

(Cross posted at BobCesca.com)