Watch the breaking news banner in this video as MSNBC breaks the "news" that "GOP & Dems in WI Agree to Deal Ending Debate on Labor Battle." The initial report was breathlessly shared by Norah O'Donnell this way:

SCARBOROUGH: I understand the Associated Press is uh -- has breaking news that there may be a deal in Wisconsin. Whaddya got?

ODONNELL: That's right. We're learning now from the Associated Press -- this passed the urgent wires -- that Democrats and Republicans in Wisconsin have agreed to a deal that will limit further debate on this bill taking away the collective bargaining rights. So, this deal was just announced this morning after 6AM. They are going to have a vote on this measure today, later today this Thursday, so they've agreed on that.

The Democrats have agreed to limit further amendments, this is after some 40 hours on this and so there is going to be a vote later today, this Thursday, Joe. That's just passing the wires.

SCARBOROUGH: Any information-- Any more specific information, I mean, are the -- from the initial report, it sounds like the Democrats are just going to come back and vote on an up or down. Is that what it sounds like?

ODONNELL: Well, what they've agreed to is to limit further amendments to just 38 with a 10-minute time limit on each one. And if they take the maximum time that's going to put the vote around noon so I think we're going to have a debate today, essentially it's going to be debated on, we're going to watch that debate and there's going to be a vote on it.

See how O'Donnell never really mentions that it's the Wisconsin ASSEMBLY that's voting on it? The Assembly Democrats have been working to filibuster in that chamber as hard as they can. They've thrown 100 amendments at it and have done everything they can to stop it from going forward. They're tired. And so they've agreed to close their filibuster down. That's the ONLY thing that's been agreed to.

But O'Donnell never makes that distinction and indeed, it's only made about 30 minutes later in the broadcast, despite the banner clearly stating it's the Assembly that's voting, not the Senate.

In my opinion, this kind of "error" is intended to demoralize those fighting passage of this bill, the same way the Fox News "error" yesterday flipping poll results was meant to do.

So let's clarify exactly what that "breaking news" was and what Senate Democrats are and are not doing.

LA Times:

Even as demonstrators continued to chant and sing their protests against Gov. Scott Walker's plan to end collective bargaining for state workers, lawmakers prepared to move the bill along. Though the measure is expected to easily pass the Republican-controlled Assembly, it also needs Senate approval.

In television interviews from Illinois, Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach said all 14 senators who have fled Wisconsin would not return until some form of compromise is negotiated with Walker. The Republican governor has repeatedly ruled out any talks.

Just a reminder about how biased that "liberal media" can be.

On MSNBC today, Norah O'Donnell got into a heated debate with Liz Cheney over the torture memos and what role her father had in pushing torture through. The two started shouting down one another, but Norah wouldn't back down from the bullying tactics Republicans for the most part successfully use on cable shows. Norah brings up the timeline and points out that it was her father who signed on to it earlier than most and wonders if he pushed the OLC to approve these measure. Liz Cheney tries to use the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape as a justification that "enhanced methods" aren't really torture because our troops were trained in this manner and it's denigrating to them to say otherwise. Huh? Now, we're against the troops again? She also uses the yet-to-be-substantiated Republican Talking Point that we got a lot of useful intel from torturing. E-mailer Margaret writes in:

In the first place, how does Liz Cheney know we got valuable information? Did she have the same clearance as the Pres and the VP? Beyond that, her rationale for torture, not being torture, because what we do to our own service people isn't torture, is making my head

L. CHENEY: (W)hat you're doing is reading headlines and talking about direction of lawyers, which is a very different thing. And there's no assertion that that's what went on. The lawyers' opinions were sought in order to make sure that the program that the CIA ran stayed within the law. And the lawyers did a very responsible and professional job of laying out exactly what were the limits of how far we could go. And that is precisely what makes it so damaging that these memos have now been released. O'DONNELL: Listen to yourself – listen to yourself, Liz, "how far we could go." L. CHENEY: That's right. O'DONNELL: How far could we go with detainees? I mean, how far could we... Torture them in order to get information? L. CHENEY: How far – no. For how many minutes you could ask them certain kind of questions. How many... (CROSSTALK) L. CHENEY: I'm sorry, it's very, very important point. O'DONNELL: It's a very important point. L. CHENEY: It is a very important point. O'DONNELL: The Geneva Convention were established... L. CHENEY: Norah, there is nothing... O'DONNELL: ... to protect our men and women in the military. So that America would be a beacon in the world so when our men and women are captured overseas that they would not be tortured. We would never want our people to... L. CHENEY: Norah, are you going to give me a chance to answer your question? O'DONNELL: Let me finish my point. L. CHENEY: I get your point, Norah, but the point is – no, Norah, wait a second... (CROSSTALK) O'DONNELL: ... America no longer cares about torture? L. CHENEY: That's not what the world is hearing, Norah. First of all... (CROSSTALK) O'DONNELL: .. and if gets valuable information, then OK, we're for it. Is that the message they send? L. CHENEY: Norah, that may be what you're saying, but that's not what I'm saying. O'DONNELL: OK. L. CHENEY: What I'm saying that is there were a series of tactics, a series of techniques that had all been done to our own people. We did not torture our own people, these techniques are not torture. The memos laid out... O'DONNELL: Did we torture other people? L. CHENEY: No. O'DONNELL: You just said, we did not torture our own people. L. CHENEY: Therefore, the tactics are not torture. We did not torture. The memos laid out the extent of exactly how far we could go before it would become torture, because it was important we not cross that line into torture.

Cheney just wanted to be like Pol Pot, I guess:

Even George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding. The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.

And as Digby writes:

It shouldn't have taken any warnings. You don't have to be an expert to know that there is a huge difference between having your own people train you to withstand these techniques and using them on prisoners. And you don't have to be a historian to figure out that malevolent torture techniques have been considered poisonous and evil by civilized people for quite some time now. (That nobody even bothered to find out where these techniques came from is just another example of the "Brownification" of the US Government under the idiot Republicans.) It was bloodlust, plain and simple. They gave themselves permission to become barbarians. That we now have even more proof they consciously sent these SERE techniques to Iraq to "Gitmoize" it --- a country which we invaded under false pretenses and which had not attacked us first --- takes these crimes to yet another level. If nothing else, allowing a bunch of low level grunts to pay the price while the men and women who gave the orders publicly pretended they were appalled at the behavior they themselves had sanctioned, makes all arguments that these leaders shouldn't be held accountable completely untenable.

Marcy gives the shorter Liz Cheney: "I'm proud my daddy is the prime mover of torture." Full transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

Norah O'Donnell exposes Republican hack John Feehery's talking points in about a second and leaves him scratching his head like a dimwit when he had no response after he was asked to name one "pork barrel" project contained in the stimulus bill. (rough transcript)

Feehery:.... They go first with this huge pork bill.

O'Donnell: Name one piece of pork.

Feehery: Ahhh, bhah,,,You can't do that to me right now, I can't think of it right now, but it was a huge bunch of stuff that we don't even know what's in there.

O'Donnell: Well the reason I ask and it's not to put you on the spot and everything, but it's not pork. A lot of people say what it is, it's infrastructure spending, it is spending that is stimulative. That's what the White House says.

{snip}

O'Donnell: Let me get this straight: Republicans want to come out and be against helping people who are unemployed?

Feehery: No, they don't want to do that, but they...

O'Donnell: But that's what it sounds like...

Feehery: What they don't want to is go bankrupt in the off years and that's why Republican governors are having a hard time with this legislation ... the relief is temporary, but the changes are costly forever.

O'Donnell: Well it doesn't sound clear that the republican party knows exactly what to do quite frankly since there's this disagreement between the government on what to do. I want to read from the Politico, which has an interesting story today which says: Republicans are hatching a political comeback by dusting off a strategic playbook written nearly two decades ago.

Its themes: Unite against Democrats’ economic policy, block and counter health-care reform and tar them from spending scandals.The key point, a playbook from two decades ago. This is really I guess the grand old party.

Is that really the best Republicans have?

Feehery: Well, hopefully not ...

O"Donnell: Is anybody a thinker in that party?

I'm really shocked that Norah actually put him and Republicans on the spot for a change. It's not her usual MO, and it suggests just how bad Republicans are starting to look. Wow, Feehery probably expected the usual on-air time to freely slam anything Obama. She painted him in the corner over Republican governors refusing to accept unemployment aid and then hit him over the head by pointing out that the only new ideas they have are out of Newt Gingrich's 20-year-old playbook.

Republicans are hatching a political comeback by dusting off a strategic playbook written nearly two decades ago. Its themes: Unite against Democrats’ economic policy, block and counter health care reform and tar them with spending scandals.

Those represent the political trifecta that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich bet on in 1994 to produce a historic Republican takeover of Congress.

This normally would work, as our librul media usually gets sucked in by the Gingrich playbook. But I have a hope that maybe, just maybe, more TV hosts will call this out for what it is: Pure lunacy in a time when this country cannot afford these political games.

Republicans who adopt this philosophy should remember that Gingrich got his butt kicked over this plan. And they are terrified that we may get universal health care in the future and will do anything to undermine that. Even if it means digging up Newt's bones to do it.

If you ever need an example of how the media swallows whole every right wing talking point, here it is. Norah O'Donnell uses John Boehner talking points about "contraception" to attack President Obama's stimulus plan as if it's the absolute truth. And of course everything else that republicans don't want in the bill is just plain old pork.

Norah: With all due respect isn't that a bunch of pork in here and how is that exactly stimulus?

I take your point Congressman. but go ahead and answer what Congressman Boehner said. How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives. How does that stimulate the economy?

Well, let me ask you that then, do you think 200 million dollars essentially contraceptives is wasteful spending?

You get my point, (scowl on her face) there is going to be since this is over 800 billion dollars there's going to be a lot in there that people are going to raise questions about in the long run about wasteful spending, whether it's democrats efforts just to HUGE massive, unprecedented spending bill to put stuff and get stuff paid for that they haven't been successful or paid for in the past.

She even used the now discredited talking point about the CBO. Now we have a real CBO report that says: CBO Report Confirms Economic Recovery Act Provides Immediate Stimulus to Help Create Jobs.

It didn't matter what answer Chris Van Hollen gave Norah, she wasn't buying it. Suddenly John Boehner is a source of incredibly non partisan information. Oh, I forgot, he's a republican. I thought when the nation voted in the Democratic Party to take over, they would write bills and govern on their beliefs. That's why they were elected. OK, to debunk the "contraceptives" talking point which is an attack on Nancy Pelosi, Elanor Shor writes:

The Drudge Report and Politico are breathlessly repeating Republican talking points that accuse House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of hijacking the stimulus bill to promote contraceptive use...

First of all, the family-planning program that Pelosi supports expanding in the stimulus bill was created in 1972 under the leadership of Republican president Richard Nixon. What's being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies...read on.

Digby writes:

The media are going to be the death of this country. It was bad enough when they were too dumb to know (or care) that the Bush administration was marching us off to war for no good reason. But at least that made a certain evil, emotional sense. People have often gone to war because they got all excited over snappy uniforms and killing people.

Watching them deal with something complicated like our economic crisis is enough to make your head explode.

Boehner's cute soundbite about contraceptives is, of course, nonsense. The money he's talking about is for medicaid, which is desperately needed at a time when people are losing their jobs --- and, by the way, will help stimulate the economy by paying the doctors, pharmacies and hospitals for the (much increased) care they give, something that is a big problem at a time when states are going broke.

Norah O'Donnell later ripped Democrat Chris Van Hollen a new one on that issue because he wasn't prepared and he ended up pretty much endorsing the idea that spending should all be on infrastructure after she perfectly parroted all the conservative talking points and successfully framed all expenditures that aren't tax cuts and bridges as pork.

Oh Lord, please help me. Then I watched Chris Matthews actually quote Limbaugh by name saying that the stimulus plan is just party politics for poor people and thought the use of contraception was just like China counting babies. The media has no shame. No shame I tell you.

Media Matters is covering the media and their insanity very well also.

Norah O'Donnell reported on Hardball tonight that Congressman Jane Harman, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, says there is a second NIE that deals entirely with Iraq and its impact on the global war on terror. Harman demands that this alternate report -- which is being stamped "Draft" for purposes of not having to release it -- be made public immediately. Very, very sneaky...

TPM has more: There's a second damning Iraq report floating around the intelligence community. At least, that's according to Rep. Jane Harman (CA), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. At an event this morning, Harman disclosed the existence of a classified intelligence community report that gives a grim assessment of the situation in Iraq, and called for it to be shared with the American public -- before the November elections. The report has not been shared with Congress, although sources say a draft version may have circulated earlier this summer. It is a separate report from the one revealed by major news outlets Sunday, which is said to conclude that the war in Iraq has made the U.S. less secure from terrorist threats.

(guest blogged by Mike L)

(Revised clip has John King attached with Noron's report now.)

ReddHedd:

"Norah O'Donnell reports on MSNBC that Rove will be testifying today before the G/J for a fifth time in the CIA leak case. I have to say that in my experience, this is really unprecedented - I can't ever remember any witness who was also potentially a subject in an investigation giving a prosecutor this many under oath opportunities to skewer them.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT (6 minutes )

"O'Donnell reports that there are serious questions about how forthcoming/honest Rove has been-and that there are potential questions of more legal jeopardy."

Norah does say that there will be a statement issued by Rove later today for what that is worth. John Roberts gives us the "Team Rove" spin in his reporting.

(h/t David Edwards for putting both clips together)

As I continue to thank Countdown, I'll try to do some late night open threads on Keith. Tonight-he interviewed the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who spoke at length about the faux reaction to his sermon at Coretta King's funeral yesterday.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT low res

Countdown played the usual idiocy from Rush Limbaugh and posted a snippet of Malkin to highlight their ignorance. The best way we can show our support for Countdown is to tune in and leave the show on for the full hour.

(As a side note, in FDL's name Norah O'Donnell contest- go over and check out the winning selection. I got it right by the way.)

Also-we were named site of the day by "Politics1" Thank you.

(Plame-aholics)

More was revealed on Hardball today than any of us would have thought possible about Vivac, Luskin, Hadley and Rove if true. Special guest stars Jim VandeHei and Nora O'Donnell, shared some new information in this saga. Jane at Firedoglake called and wanted to know if she heard this accurately.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT (hat tip themissingamendment for QT)

Bittorrent-WMP

VandeHei : "We still don't know exactly where Karl Rove originally learned about Valerie Plame, that's still one of the mysteries. We know one of them he had heard it from was Hadley as sort of just chatter inside the office, but he had learned it earlier from some other place and we still don't know where that is."

(Did Jim just let a cat out of the bag?)

Hamsher writes:

"I really had to pick myself up off the floor. Nobody batted an eyelash. Were Chris Matthews and Norah O'Donnell just so completely uninformed that they did not recognize what a bombshell this was? They just sat there nodding and blinking like this was no surprise that people inside the White House were casually gossiping about Valerie Plame's identity over the water cooler. Did they not realize that up until now any knowledge of the mad gabbing and plotting had been limited to the Vice President's office? That other than the memo from Karl Rove following his conversation with Matt Cooper nobody had ever tied Hadley to the leak?...read on

Tom Coburn is a doctor. An OB/GYN. And he thinks the Affordable Care Act has "Sovietized" American medicine by providing for some cost controls and choosing a minimum benefit package by committee.

Once again, definitions are useful. The term "Sovietized" is intended to put the Red Scare into everyone, of course. It's just a higher form of the scare word "socialism" intended to invoke memories of diving under desks in elementary school so the Russkies wouldn't nuke us without the benefit of a desk over our heads.

If one were actually astute enough to have a discussion over Coburn's red-baiting, they might begin with the general welfare clause of the Constitution, and ask Mr. Coburn how it was that our founding fathers were hard at work "sovietizing" this nation well before he was even a zygote.

Here's a refresher course, via Winning Words Project:

John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776:“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”

James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President; Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788:

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

Here's something for Dr./Senator Tom Coburn to think about: Those two founding fathers and framers of our Constitution, along with others, use the term "Common Good." That's right. Common good, not for the purpose of making one group of people rich, or giving OB/GYNs the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, or making them wealthy and part of the investor class.

No. Common good is exactly that. What is good for all of the people who are governed by said government.

What is Coburn really saying here? He is mourning the end of a two-tiered system. Don't let the specious claims that we're heading for a two-tiered system fool you. We have one right now. This two-tiered system is easily defined by those who have, and those who do not. In Coburn's world, health care would not be available, affordable or accessible to anyone other than those who have the wealth to be able to afford it. Just as Mitt Romney believes everyone should get the education they can afford, so too does Tom Coburn believe health care should be limited to what one can afford, regardless of what that means in human terms.

The rest of his argument is just sound and fury. He knows this argument is done, that they've lost it, and that access to health care is a reality. The best he can hope for now is to convince the ignorant and the fearful that if they dared to reach for that access, they would be "Sovietized."

By the way, the reason it's taken 100 years to come anywhere close to achieving universal coverage (and I freely admit the ACA does not achieve that) is because the foundational belief in this two tiered system as gospel has driven the fear campaigns and political proselytizing into frenzied fearmongering that defies reality.

Whether Tom Coburn likes it or not, every citizen in this country will have access to health care, and it will be a matter of individual choice as to whether they choose that access or choose to make a contribution to the Personal Responsibility fund.

Whether Tom Coburn likes it or not, the standardbearer for his party -- Mitt Romney -- is the owner and rightfully deserves credit for the Affordable Care Act coming into existence today. So I wonder whether he would look his nominee in the eye and accuse him of "Sovietizing" health care.

Conservatives should remember that every thing they say slamming the Affordable Care Act will make a lovely ad reminding their base as to who first ran with the idea and endorsed it as the right way to bring access to health care to all. I personally will put up lots of my own money to back candidates who are willing to call Coburn and his ilk out for the frauds they are.