(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...

(h/t David at VideoCafe)

I do think that the wingnut glee in the IOC deciding to award Rio with the 2016 Olympics has really been a perfect example to show how reactionary the republicans and conservatives have become. Actively cheering something that would have helped an American city (and American jobs and the economy) just because they perceive it as hurting the president? Serious derangement.

On Meet the Press, Rachel Maddow just can't believe the level of Obama Derangement Syndrome necessary to cheer against an American victory:

The unseemly cheering on the right for America losing the Olympic bid I think is going to be the taste that lingers a long time after this failure. Certainly, the President tried to get something and he didn’t get it, and people who hate the President feel like that’s a cause for celebration, but to see, for example, the Weekly Standard, post “Chicago loses! Chicago loses! Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard headquarters” I think says a lot more about the Weekly Standard, says a lot more about the right right now than it does about this loss.

I know that facts are pesky and frequent ignorable and non-essential things for conservatives, but all four final candidate countries were represented by their respective head of state. If Obama hadn't gone, the right would have excoriated him for losing the bid because he didn't show. And it's the same hubris and American exceptionalism that dismisses that King Carlos of Spain and Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama were also snubbed. So there was no scenario in which Obama could have not gotten slammed by these wingnuts.

And it is in that Catch-22 that the wingnuts lose even more supporters, because these idiots are happy for failure for this country just to score some cheap political points, as Republican strategist Mike Murphy so aptly proves.

These are the people to guide America? I don't think so. They don't care about America. They don't care about Americans. It's the same mentality that fights against real health care reform, and helping struggling homeowners over insurance companies and financial institutions. And try as they might, Americans saw that "party over everything" attitude in 2008 and voted accordingly. And if the right keeps letting the wingnuts control the dialog like this, I have no fears over 2012 either.

You think you've seen conflicts of interest with Disney owning ABC? You ain't seen nothing yet. Imagine the same people who brought you Comcast just sort of ... massaging the media message in favor of their own corporate strategy. Yes, the same people who charge you for service calls for their unreliable cable will be in charge of the news coverage. Oh boy, what could be better?

NBC Universal executives declined to deny a report Wednesday night that Comcast, the cable giant, is in talks to buy the television and movie company from General Electric.

Comcast also did not deny the report that bankers for the two sides discussed a possible deal Tuesday in New York.

Such talks often lead nowhere, but rumors have circulated for months that GE might be looking to unload the news and entertainment company. NBC is stuck in fourth place among broadcast networks, and Universal Studios is enduring a rough movie season.

"We have no comment," NBC Executive Vice President Allison Gollust said.

Comcast spokeswoman D'Arcy Rudnay also would not address the reported talks. "While we don't comment on M&A [mergers and acquisitions] rumors, the report that Comcast has a deal to purchase NBC Universal is inaccurate," Rudnay told Bloomberg News.

That, however, was not what was reported by TheWrap.com, a Hollywood-based Web site founded by former Washington Post and New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman. That account cited sources who have knowledge of the talks.

[...] TheWrap's report comes as merger talks on Wall Street have heated up in recent weeks, after nearly coming to a standstill amid the global financial crisis.

If the reported discussions lead to a sale, it will give Comcast an enormous amount of content for its distribution pipeline. The takeover also would mean a new owner for NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC, as well as the Spanish-language Telemundo network and USA and Bravo cable channels. In 2004, Comcast tried to buy the Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, but eventually withdrew its unsolicited, $56 billion bid.

(h/t Heather)

So Tweety, all worked up about next year's mid-term elections, asks his panelon this week's "Chris Matthews Show" how many House seats will the Dems lose in the upcoming election and quotes some of Charlie Cook's predictions.

He blames high unemployment and healthcare reform for impending losses, and then notes how many seats Reagan lost and how many Clinton lost. What it's going to be like "after next November when the Democrats have to pay the piper for high unemployment, for questions - in fact, anger that you've all expressed in the last section about the healthcare bill and all those kinds of problems?"

TIME editor Richard Stengel praises Rahm Emanuel, saying how brilliant it was that Rahm put Democratic conservatives in conservative districts. (Buttering up the chief of staff for access, Richard?)

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker says House Democrats are concerned because they "walked the plank for Nancy Pelosi on cap-and-trade and now they've got to go with health care, the people are raising Cain about it at home, and so they're in a terrible bind and yes, they want to be team players so I think you're going to see a lot of fallout come this term."

Matthews says any House Democrat who puts their "yea" on health care reform "has got to be thinking 'I'm a target'".

CNBC's Trish Regan says that's because health care reform is an unpopular program (well, Trish, I'm guessing it is among your constituency, but there's a lot more of us than there are of them) and claims that voters are "more worried about spending and the deficit" and says there's a feeling their politicians are not doing what they want.

She says President Obama needs to make this health care program more popular, and Matthews agrees.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, the Wall Street beat reporter for the New York Times, says "People are voting with their wallets next time. That's what this is. This is all about 'am I richer, am I poorer' and you know, everybody remembers how rich they were - ah, I don't know how rich they were, but only a year or two ago and unless Obama can get Democrats and get us back to that place next summer, I think it's going to be a tough road."

Matthews says, So the Republicans are promising to get it back for you?

Sorkin: Absolutely.

Then Parker add this final dollop of smug Villager "wisdom."

"There was never a constituency for health care. Let's remember that. When you have eighty five percent of Americans who are pretty satisfied with their policies, their insurance coverage and their health care, where was this constituency that we have to overhaul the system? It never was there."

Whoa, Nellie! Are you kidding me? Hey Kath, did you happen to notice that health care was the main issue in last year's election? Have you been reading all those health-care sob stories on the front page of your own paper? Can't wait until your ass-kissing paper closes and you're out on the street, hustling freelance work to cover your bills. Imagine, life where you can't afford a pedicure!

Matthews agrees. "Right. And I see trouble for the Democrats."

I'm going to make a different prediction. If the Democrats pass healthcare reform with a real public option, Democratic popularity will grow and we'll do well in the next election, with minimal losses.

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?

(h/t Heather)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

(h/t Heather)

Clearly, the Beltway Bubble operates much like the looking glass does in Lewis Carroll's works: it inverts logic, turns issues inside out and makes the most trivial loom large and ignores the elephant in the room.

The moneyed, privileged bobbleheads are a perfect example of the "MFFY" generation of which Nonny spoke, because for them, it's all about the taxes. Notice how they talk about it as if it's across the board, rather than those making over $250,000 a year (approximately 2% of the population)

BROOKS: You know, they made some progress on the Hill, they got a House bill out, they got a Senate bill moving forward. They’re scaring the dickens out of the moderates in their own party, let alone the Republicans. They’re scaring the dickens out of them because the House bill calls for raising the top tax rate to 52 or in some cities, 57%. That’s higher than in France, Spain, Italy…

No, David, YOU'RE scaring the dickens out of these politicians. With your handy-dandy Luntz talking points, you have pounded into the heads of these craven politicians that they MUST fear the tax increase, that their entire career depends on it.

Never mind that the tax increase is for only the top 2% of Americans.

Never mind that 76% of Americans want to see some sort of nationalized health care in place.

Never mind that even your precious group of top 2% earners are ALREADY paying for the under- and uninsured now with increased insurances and medical costs.

Let me clue you in, Brooks, Parker, Page, O'Donnell and Matthews: HAVING YOU PAY A LITTLE HIGHER IN TAXES IS SWEET JUSTICE FOR ALL THE MISINFORMATION YOU'VE USED TO FRAME THIS DEBATE SINCE 1983. It's not about you guys. It's about the vast majority of Americans who are barely getting by and are one even minor catastrophe away from ruin. It's about acknowledging that health care is a right--not a privilege for the moneyed class. It's about acknowledging that this is what AMERICANS--not you bobble-headed bubble boobs--want.

And here's a kick in the pants for you, Brooks: What does it say about all the weakening of the Obama's health care plan and the public option by those frightened politicos if other countries like France and Spain can offer a fully socialized (*gasp*) and robust single payer program to their citizens for less taxes than are currently being proposed here?

If you were truly interested in being fiscally responsible and lowering taxes, then you would champion single payer, you blind ideologue.

(h/t David)
It's an ever-present meme on the Sunday shows: how will the Republican Party get back to their "rightful" place in charge of the government? Of all the problems facing the country right now, this probably ranks right up there with the federal response to Dutch Elm disease, yet it gets countless broadcast hours, over far more pressing issues.

Bush and neocon cheerleader David Brooks has a provocative solution that host David Gregory didn't notice had suspiciously leftist origins: Republicans should become populists!

GREGORY: David Brooks, how does this Republican Party of the future chart a new course. If you look back historically from Nixon to Reagan to George W. Bush. In each case, it was not only a kind of an indictment of the past, but also the charting of a new course for the future of the Republican Party.

BROOKS: Right, I take a maximalist view. I follow the British Conservative Party. They had to lose three national elections before they changed. I think this Republican Party is going to have to lose two or three national elections. So I take a long term, most pessimistic view possible. But what is the route back? It’s two things. The first thing , boring, sensible practicality. And that’s why of the potentials, Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana is the most sensible short term prob…answer to the Republican problems. The guy is just a good manager. You got a guy, Barack Obama, in the White House. Fantastic guy, happens to spend a lot of money. And so that would be my short term.

The long term is that they have to learn to talk to people in densely-populated parts of the country and to young people. And the answer to that is the same: They have to learn to talk the language of community and common endeavor. It’s been too much individual, profit, tax cuts. It has to be community, what we can do together, including in some cases, the government.

So the answer is to appeal to young people and urban centers by admitting that as a community, we have to take care of one another and stop focusing so much on individual profits?

David, that's called being a liberal.

It reminds me very much of something I experienced years ago. Back in the early 80s, I was invited to attend a Young Leaders of Tomorrow conference at Pepperdine University. Given its location and the names of the scheduled speakers, I should have realized that it should have been more accurately named Young Republican Leaders of Tomorrow. I was a little bit of an odd fit, and after not too subtly challenging Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf at a session (moi, a liberal agitator? Quelle suprise!) he attempted to shut me up with this little homily purported to be from Churchill:

If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart, if you are old and not conservative, you have no brain.

Harrumph! Didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now, almost 30 years later. Either you understand that we live in a society and there are responsibilities inherent in being part of that society beyond trying to prove who has the biggest phallus/weapons program, or you don't. And if you don't understand that, you have no business being a Leader of Tomorrow, young or otherwise.

And let's be honest: the Republican Party doesn't understand that. Never have and they never will. Their entire focus (and appeal) lies in that less evolved part of the brain that governs toddlers: the world revolves around you and you are entitled to whatever you want. Everyone else should be scorned and distrusted because they are trying to take what you want to have. That's been the GOP's modus operandi since the beginning.

The problem is we don't want a government run by self-centered children any longer. Not that the Democratic Party has been doing a bang-up job of governing like adults, but they are a step in the right direction.

(h/t David)

I think it's hilarious that Newt Gingrich perfectly encapsulates the overriding motivation for everything about the GOP: they are frightened little bunnies, petrified by the bogeyman coming to get them. And according to the Newt-ster, because that bogeyman is so vewwy scawwy, anything and everything you do in the name of making the bad man go away is fine, damn treaties, laws, and morals, much less effectiveness.

The thing that I think motivates Cheney, and I watched this firsthand after 9/11, is the shock of 9/11, the reality that his children and his grandchildren could die, that he has an obligation to America to take extra steps to keep us alive. And I think this was burned into him that day and the following day, and the realization we had been caught totally off-guard. Despite all the warnings of the '90s, we have been caught totally off-guard. And so they did everything for seven and a half years to--and they have a very simple principle: If you're in doubt, do what it takes to help America survive every time.

Then Newt deftly moves into the non-sequitur of claiming that Cheney is right that Obama (in his four months in office, mind you) has made us less safe (hear that? Be afraid! Booga booga booga!) because the CIA has low morale since Obama has said we don't torture and Nancy Pelosi said they lied. There's a big WTF for you. So according to one of the great minds of the GOP, the CIA is so bummed by the fact they can't torture and that the Speaker of the House said they lied in a report (again, ignoring that Newt himself said they lied about the Iran NIE), they are unwilling to do their job to look out for terrorist threats. So should we be comforted by being protected by such dilletantes?

Newt then provides a ridiculous strawman dichotomy that Obama is looking towards the effete ACLU method of "not offending" the terrorists instead of the He-Man/Jack Bauer GOP method of the ends justifying the means. I guess that works when you want to leave your second wife, but in a nation of laws, it's a little more frightening to me than the possibility of another terrorist attack.

Maybe someone ought to mention to Cheney and Gingrich that their fear for the safety of their children and grandchildren is misplaced. They are far more likely to die of heart disease (something with which I think both men have some experience) than of a terrorist attack. Maybe living in mortal fear of Big Macs and french fries is a slightly more logical neurosis.

REP. GINGRICH: Let me just say, I think people should be afraid. I think the lesson of 1993, the first time they bombed the World Trade Center, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of Khobar Towers, where American servicemen were killed in Saudi Arabia, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the two embassy bombings in east Africa was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the Cole being bombed in Yemen was fear is probably appropriate. I'll tell you, if you aren't a little bit afraid after 9/11 and 3,100 Americans killed inside the United States by an effort, if you weren't worried about the second-wave attack that was designed to take out the biggest building in Los Angeles, I think that, that you are out of touch with reality.

Shorter Newt: Be afraid. Be very afraid. (after all, that's how we get your votes)

Continue reading »

(h/t Heather)

Centuries from now, when historians want to know how it all went so terribly wrong for the United States, all they need to do is look at this clip. They'll listen how these talking heads--people allegedly employed for the purpose of informing the public--these supposed erudite and informed members of the pundit class just yawned and shrugged at the notion of the torture of human beings, preferring to look at it from a political point of view.

Think about that for a second. The issue is not horror that these events happened--and happened often. It's not outrage that it was done ostensibly to gin up a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of the country. It's not shock that we have moved so far afield from our own laws and signed treaties, much less morals. No, instead, these "journalists"--save for Andrew Sullivan--express some mild curiosity over whether Dick Cheney's recent verbosity is trying to "guide" Barack Obama's national security policy.

FINEMAN: With Dick Cheney, it’s hard to separate the apocalyptic from the political, and he really believes that Obama was out, from the first day in office, to dismantle what Bush and Chemey had done, on tribunals, on Guantanamo, on enhanced interrogations techniques. He took it as a personal affront as well as a danger to the country. So he’s fighting back on it on a personal level and has been practically from Day One.

MATTHEWS: Well, you say on a personal level, but is this to help Obama or to hurt him?

FINEMAN: Well, he thinks it’s to hurt Obama, and thereby, make the country safer. I don’t think anybody questions his belief in the efficacy of the policies that he, Cheney, put in. It’s just everybody else in the world who has questions about whether those policies in fact did make us safer.

Like how Fineman frames this? Nobody should question Cheney's motives, the only question is whether the end justifies the means. It's a variation on the Jack Bauer justification--if Cheney could somehow quantify that we have been made safer, then it's all good to Howard.

Continue reading »

(h/t Heather)

RNC Chairman Michael Steele predictably monopolizes all of David Gregory's questioning of the issue of torture, successfully distracting and obfuscating with his insinuations of how Republicans welcome investigations on torture now that the "REAL" issue of when and whether Nancy Pelosi knew about the techniques.

MR. GREGORY: Should there be a wider--should there be a truth commission? Should there be an investigation?
MR. STEELE: I think, I think you've heard a lot of Republicans call for that. And if this is, if this is a door that the Democrats and, and their leadership, since they have the House and the Senate and the presidency and they want to expose all of this...
GOV. KAINE: Mm-hmm.
MR. STEELE: ...then let's put it all on the table and let's take a closer look at it.
[..]The point is that you have the Speaker of the House who said that she, she wasn't told, she didn't have a clue. And, in, in fact, the evidence contradicts that.

Of course, when Gregory asks whether Steele himself thinks that torture was committed, Steele turns suddenly coy and tongue-tied. And surprise, surprise, Gregory lets him get away with it.

MR. GREGORY: Do you, do you think it was torture?
MR. STEELE: Well, my, my opinion on it doesn't matter. My personal opinion is look, I want the information.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. STEELE: We'll get it however we can get it.
MR. GREGORY: But you do, you have an opinion?
MR. STEELE: I have a personal opinion, yes.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think it was torture?
MR. STEELE: That's my--I'm not, that's not appropriate here.

What crap. So he can spew verbal diarrhea in the form of opinions on the ethics of whether Nancy Pelosi was fully informed (and lie about the evidence) and there his opinion is not only appropriate but given freely, but as to the central question of whether torture has been committed (truly, not even a question, ask the Red Cross and the OLC), then he's shy?

And curses to any and all of the Democratic Party insiders who thought that the best way for Tim Kaine to serve his party was as the Chairman of the DNC. What a pathetically milquetoast weasel. Here we sit, with perfect potential for moral high ground, the likes of which hasn't been seen since WWII, and what we get is this weak tea, sitting-on-his-hands shadow of a Democrat simpering that isn't a good thing we all agree that we don't do torture? Dagnabit, Democrats. How hard is it to even getting half-way decent talking head? Way to represent, Kaine.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

(h/t Heather)

The use of "meter questions" on The Chris Matthews Show has always seemed like a waste of time, because the questions are generally framed in such a way as to divide the responses down partisan lines. And the responses to today's meter question "With Arlen Specter joining the Dems, will health care pass?" did have a curious partisan divide...though not the one you might expect.

Overall, Matthews' panel of pundits narrowly agreed 7 to 5 that Universal Healthcare would be done this year, something with which Matthews agrees. The lone dissenter on the panel this week was putative "liberal" Joe Klein, who, like the scorned girlfriend, has been down this road before with other presidents and just cannot believe that it's possible to get Universal Healthcare passed.

And as much as it kills me to agree with Kathleen Parker--and it really, really does--she's right that Universal Healthcare is a foregone conclusion. It's politically untenable for the Republicans to put up too much of a fight (sell-out Democrats notwithstanding)and the Obama administration has done a good job of tying healthcare to our collective economic recovery.

However, it's interesting to note that all of the pundits completely ignored the framing of the question, which was to weigh heavier Specter's defection to the Democratic Party to the success of passing health care reform. Obviously, despite all the bloviating in the punditocracy over Specter changing sides of the aisle, ultimately, he's not seen as Obama's ace in the pocket. Given his statements this morning, they're probably right.

(h/t Heather)

While I think it is premature to write an obituary for the Republican Party, it's hard not to watch this clip and not come to the conclusion that the party is in critical condition.

What is a consensus amongst the talking heads is that the GOP is lost today: no leader, no clear idea of what values to champion, no clear idea if it should be centrist or move even further to the right. Of all the things that the Bush administration destroyed in their term of office, their own party is probably the most surprising.

And who is it poised to rise again like Lazarus to prove the divine right of the GOP, according to those Beltway insiders? Newt "Love means never having to say I'm sorry to my other wives" Gingrich. Even Chris Matthews cannot hold back his patented guffaw at the thought.

Ultimately, the group agrees that it remains to be seen whose idea will resonate with the general public, but it appears that no one currently vying for the top role has been able to offer an idea that we haven't seen for the last 30 years. So have I got this straight? No obvious leader, rudderless and no new ideas?

Awwww....couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

(h/t Dave)

Unlike David Gregory, I have never held a job that benefited from union representation. And in some of those jobs (real estate development comes to mind), I've felt that lack of collective bargaining, when it became patently obvious that my employers had little regard for equal pay, fair work hours (one job I had felt it was okay to make me work seven days a week, as long as my total weekly hours totaled 40) and even job safety.

But David Gregory has presumably been a member of at least one union as a television "journalist" for the last ten+ years. Apparently, it's a "great for me, but not for thee" kind of thing for Gregory, because as he speaks to new GM CEO Fritz Henderson. Gregory wants desperately for Henderson to buy into the Media Establishment™ meme that the failure of the auto industry is all about those pesky unions. According to Stretch, the problem with the auto industy does not have to do with their reluctance to adapt to the changing marketplace and get more fuel-efficient cars to the market or being a forerunner (instead of following behind Honda and Toyota) in alternative fuel cars, but because of those stinkin', leechy unions demanding they live up to their contracts and provide pensions for retirees.

Luckily, Henderson ain't gonna play that. When Gregory tries to get Henderson to concede that there are union-mandated jobs in auto factories that have nothing to do with actually making cars, Henderson has to remind Gregory that safety officers are kinda important to industrial manufacturers.

GREGORY: Well, let's talk about how you can do more. How many union jobs are there in a typical factory for General Motors that have nothing to do with producing automobiles?

HENDERSON: Well, actually every job we have in the factory has something to do with producing an automobile. Whether it's obviously putting the actual car together or supplying materials to the line or maintaining the equipment that’s in the plant. So we have worked very hard and if you look at external surveys, for example, like a Harbor Report, we have closed the gap in terms of competiveness, in terms of the manpower. We have within our operation. We need to do more. Every person in the plant has something to do with putting together a car or truck.

GREGORY: But in some factories, you have a shop steward who's responsible for appointing--whether it's a civil rights chief or an education person, these are all union jobs that don’t have anything to do with producing the cars.

HENDERSON: Well, we have -- the union has key jobs, as you identified, but let's take an example. Let’s take health and safety-- we work together with the union health and safety in our plants. We have the safest plants in the United States, in fact, around the globe. And I think providing, for example, a safe work place is very much in the best interests of the company as well as the union.

Oops...don't you hate it when facts get in the way of a nice little union-busting rant, David? And of course, you miss the forest for the trees on the healthcare costs of pensioners. If the US actually had single-payer health care coverage for its citizens--like every other western country--then the auto industry could actually be relieved of those expenses.

But David, it would make FAR too much sense to propagandize FOR something that benefits the country instead of propagandizing AGAINST unions, wouldn't it?

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Keith Olbermann just announced on Countdown that Ed Schultz has a new show on MSNBC. It starts Monday at 6PM EST and it's called "The Ed Show"

UPDATE: Here's some of the press release.

Veteran talk radio host Ed Schultz joins MSNBC as host of "The Ed Show," premiering on Monday, April 6. "The Ed Show" will air weekdays, 6-7 p.m. ET. The announcement was made today by Phil Griffin, President, MSNBC.

"I am thrilled to have Ed kicking-off our primetime lineup," said Griffin. "Ed's proven that he can connect with Americans and will be a perfect compliment to Chris, Keith, and Rachel. He's already made his mark on radio and I'm excited to see what he'll do with the 6 p.m. hour."

"I'm excited to have this opportunity with MSNBC," said Schultz. "I look forward to having a day to day discussion with fellow Americans on issues that really matter to all of us."

David Shuster, currently hosting "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" at 6 p.m. ET on MSNBC, will join Tamron Hall as host of a new 3-5 p.m. ET program on MSNBC. Shuster will also continue to anchor breaking news coverage during the day and serve as a regular substitute anchor for "Countdown with Keith Olbermann." Norah O'Donnell's hour will move to the morning. The exact hour will be announced at a later date.

It's good to see that David Shuster will still be part of their lineup.