DOWNLOADS: (173)

PLAYS: (896)

Embed

(h/t Video Cafe for the vid) The corporatist elites have been relentless in their attacks on earned benefits for Americans and are trying to seize upon Disaster Capitalism tactics to try and swindle the 98% out of needed entitlements using the mask of bipartisanship. The loathsome Ed Rendell was back on MSNBC and continued his assault on working-class Americans. He even went as far as to throw support for the election of more Republicans like Steve Latourette, who wanted to cut government spending tremendously.

RENDELL: The people want us to get together and do something. That's why I was sad to see Steve not run for re-election because we need Republicans, we need more Republicans who are going to stand in there and say, spending is the issue, but we gotta have reasonable revenue to come in into the mix and we got to look at everything when it comes to spending. Defense cannot be a sacred cow, we've got to look at everything and we've got to have legitimate entitlement reform. .

And on our side Mike, we've gotta do this. I was on The Cycle, one of MSNBC's shows and I suggested that raising the age in Medicare, given the fact that we're living longer, isn't a necessarily bad idea. The three progressive hosts, you would have thought that I'd proposed treason to the American government.

It is evil for a political hack to demand retirement ages go up and fewer benefits be paid to the many, many millions of people who need them to survive while he collects a fat check to sit on TV and spew bought-and-paid-for propaganda. In my last post, I labeled him a traitor -- so he obviously took it to heart.

RENDELL: And he has to also deliver a message to Democrats that we're going to have to compromise. Now give the President credit, he said he would consider chained CPI, he said back in 2011 that he would raise the age limit on Medicare with carve-outs. Those are things he's going to have to deliver if we're going to get Republicans to go along with more increased revenue and doing something finally on the debt. But only one person can take this on his shoulders and cross the finish line and that's the President of the United States. He has to lead.

No ifs ands or buts about it. He has to lead. And boy, I’d love the whole Congress, this new Congress and the President, they should all go see a screening of Lincoln together, because Abraham Lincoln led on the 13th Amendment when everybody on both sides told him he was crazy.

My God, he even used a slavery fight analogy from the movie Lincoln to justify his wickedness.
MSNBC's Steve Kornacki was so shocked by what he heard by this supposed lefty that he forced him to clarify his remarks.

KORNACKI: Well, Governor is... I heard you right there, are you saying you would be okay with raising the Medicare eligibility age?

RENDELL: With proper carve-outs for people who are, you know, have health challenges, absolutely

WTF does he mean by carve-outs and health challenges? Geeze, I couldn't transcribe any more from this Benedict Arnold traitor in a suit.

Latourette's ego is so big that he says Rendell and himself would solve all our problems in a week and a half if he was allowed to. Rendell goes on to support the idea that it's fine if more reasonable and conservative Republicans are elected to Congress. Did it ever cross his mind to maybe mention that electing many more progressive Democratic politicians would be the best solution to the crisis?

Rendell: Look, even if it means there are a few more Republicans in the Senate and the Congress, if they're reasonable Republicans who are moderate-conservative then that's a good prescription for America.

Republicans holding the House hostage isn't enough for Rendell, he wants a few more, just in case their majority isn't strong enough -- and wants to add a couple more in the Senate, which would give R's one-party rule. Ed Rendell, a major league embarrassment!

DOWNLOADS: (4228)

PLAYS: (11156)

On Reliable Sources Sunday morning, right wing talking head Michael Smerconish revealed the mind of a Fox News producer when he was approached to go on the air with Neil Cavuto.

Fox News obviously is the worst, but this is something endemic to the entire industry. News is supposed to be news. Having two different points of views, no matter how myopic and slanted one of those sides might be, is the networks' idea of presenting "balance". All it really does is set up antagonistic debate as entertainment, which they then try to justify by claiming that it is news. Well, folks, that hurts the country.

KURTZ: Well, we'll try not to make this interview torture, even though you're tolerant of it. Let's talk about cable news and the way the booking process works. This was just fascinating to me. You have e-mails in this book from a producer who works for Neil Cavuto and his Fox News program. And let me put it up on the screen and share this with our viewers.

The first e-mail, this was last April, just about a year ago.

"Wanted to see if you're available today at 4:05 for Neil's show today. The topic is on Obama and his cockiness. We're looking for someone who will say, yes, he's cocky and his cockiness will hurt him."

And I love your rather brief response. You wrote back, "Thanks for the clarity. I am not your man." OK. Then you get a second e-mail from this same Fox producer. And it says, "What about a debate off the top on the show on whether or not Hillary is trustworthy? We have someone who says she is and we're looking for someone who says she isn't." Now, how common is that in cable news, that you only get to appear if you're willing to take a predetermined, precooked, prepackaged position?

SMERCONISH: Well, I think it's very common. It's exactly what I was just describing. I mean, it's this mentality that says that only good television is television which pits one individual against another and there's a fight that ensues. I just don't believe that.

I mean, what's wrong with a host taking a contrarian point of view in a respectful way? I think the viewers get all that they need. But you're right, in that circumstance -- and I raised it just as one clear example -- my invitation was predicated on my willingness to say that Barack Obama was cocky or that Hillary was untrustworthy. And I was unwilling in that circumstance to say either.

And then there's the pettiness of David Gregory:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (152)

PLAY (274)

Above all else, Chris Matthews loves the game of politics. As show after show prove, he makes no value judgments, applies no moral compass. Playing the game well is admirable, even if your character is not. But every once in a while, reality creeps into the discussion and Matthews reacts to the net result of treating life as a game of partisan one-upsmanship. Such as it was on Monday, as Matthews spoke to conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish -- who rather surprisingly endorsed Obama last week -- about Rush Limbaugh's racist reaction to Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama.

I don't know how you get into this tribalist talk. We could make all kinds of assumptions, but we have no knowledge of a person's inner beliefs. ... You know what drives me crazy? When somebody says 'well, I know you're Catholic, so you must believe this.' Or 'I know you're Jewish, you must believe this.' Or 'I know you're black, you must believe this.' Give us all a break, Rush. Let us think. Let us think. Let us decide.

I'd like to think that he is waking up to the nastiness of the right but sadly, as my buddies at MM's Country Fair point out, Chris Matthews has a history of "tribalist talk" himself.

Is this the face you want to wake up to every morning?

Well, according to Drudge (I know, I know, consider the source), MSNBC is strongly considering Michael Smerconish as the replacement for Don Imus.

What is it with these suits? Do they think we need another conservative talking head on TV? Do we need another fact-challenged pundit that goes out of his way to smear liberals? Have they not internalized the results of the last election? Why are they ignoring the fact that the show on MSNBC with the rising ratings in the money demographic is Countdown, a show thankfully devoid of conservative punditry in lieu of news? Why on earth would they want to go after FOX's audience, especially since their ratings breakdowns show that their viewers are far from the coveted 21-54 bracket?

So here's an idea, Mr. Bill Wolff, VP of MSNBC and Dan Abrams, General Manager: how about trying out media people who will bring in that sought after demographic? People like Sam Seder, The Young Turks, my buddy Cliff Schecter (who has appeared on MSNBC numerous times), or even better, how about MSNBC counter-programming to the egregious FNC's "It's Out There" and create "Crooks and Liars TV" where we connect the dots on cable news the way it hasn't before?

Please, unless you really want another apologist for the Republican party on the air, let the management of MSNBC know who you'd rather see get Imus's slot. Remember, nasty-grams are easy to dismiss and ignore. Being polite and reminding them of the advertising potential of the demographic they shouldn't be ignoring will get you much further.

Words of Power: Eleven retired Admirals and Generals concur--Global Warming is a national security issue. Then, there's The American Enterprise Institute view...

The Brad Blog: Diebold whistleblower on why whistleblowing matters

Think Moderate: More examples of the Bush Administration’s gross incompetence

Boing Boing: Are cellphones killing bee colonies?

Roger Ailes: Get off the cross we need the wood!  Michael Smerconish likens himself to a Holocaust/lynching victim

darrel plant: Other victims of lmus

Philly:

Don't expect to see Sen. Rick Santorum's name on the 2008 presidential ballot.

"Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not," Santorum said yesterday on The Michael Smerconish Show on WPHT-AM (1210). "My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08."

I'll have to talk with my good buddy Mark Levin and hope he cheers me up.

Shorter Michael Smerconish:

I used to think rock stars had all the answers. Now I know it's local talk radio hosts like me.

(And you gotta love the reference to the "Pink" in "Pink Floyd." It's so retro. Don't these guys realize red is their color now?)

Today on the Imus show, Don prodded Tim to tell his audience why Scooter Libby called him in the first place to complain about something he saw on MSNBC. Part of Scooter's defense to Fitzgerald has been that Tim Russert told him Valerie Plame's name during a phone call. Russert has denied that categorically and by using Libby's own notes we know Tim is correct. Isn't "little Russ," being a self important hypocrite by refusing to tell us exactly what Scooter had to say to him while he analyses everyone else in the Plame case including Booby?

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

(rough transcript)

Russert: Libby called me to complain about something he had seen on MSNBC...

Imus: What did he complain about on MSNBC, do you remember?

Russert: I haven't gone into it,--you know-publicly-cause I just didn't want to get involved with all that viewer complaints, but I do remember it because of his language that he chose and that's why- I actually called Ben Shapiro, the president of NBC news and said I just gave your direct line to this guy named Lewis Scooter Libby, who is upset about something he watched on TV and you may hear from him.

Imus: Was it Chris Matthews?

Russert: It could be you...

This call is at the heart of the case and Russert is keeping his usually loose lips sealed. Why was Libby calling him instead of MSNBC directly anyway? Obviously-Libby cursed Chris Matthews out to Tim, so the "lack of memory" defense will be useless. There are so many reporters that are connected to Plame-Gate that it's nauseating. I believe they had nothing to do with the leak of Valerie's name, but the White House is kicking them around like overstuffed pinatas. They used them in the run up to the war and now are having a second helping here. You can see why people do not trust the old school journalists in the beltway anymore. They let you know something only when it's advantageous for them to do so.

Russert must know that it will come out at trial, but he refuses to speak about it now. I can understand wanting to protect your friend, but now it's time to let go. Isn't he holding back as much information as Woodward did to the public because we know he already gave it to Fitzmas? Michael Smerconish, says that Libby was mad at Chris Matthews for attacking the neocons on TV, but it also maybe a little deeper than that depiction. Michael called Chris and got an interesting response that you can read here. Come on Tim and spill the beans already. Each time you refuse to tell what you know, you give your profession another black eye. I guess that comes out to about fifty so far. You're going to need laser surgery just to read your cue cards soon.