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

DOWNLOADS: (20)

PLAYS: (34)

A little blast from the past from Rep. Murtha. His interview on Meet the Press June 11th, 2006 where Rep. Murtha blasts chickenhawk Karl Rove for his "stay the course" rhetoric on Iraq. I've had my issues with Murtha but this appearance on Meet the Press and the day and a half he spent on the House floor taking on the Republicans over their Iraq "war" resolution was something to behold.

MR. RUSSERT: But first, Iraq. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman John Murtha.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-PA): Nice to be back, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: The president says, “stay the course,” that within the next six months, Iraq will be secure under the direction of the new prime minister, and to do anything less now would be irresponsible.

REP. MURTHA: Well, “stay the course” is “stay and pay.” This is the thing that has worried me right along. We’re spending $8 billion dollars a month, $300 million dollars a day. And to give you some perspective of what that means, Gates said, “I’m going to quit the corporation, or I’m going to—less time with the corporation.” Well, you weigh $30 billion dollars. That’s four months of the cost of this war. This port security, if you want to spend more money, it’d would take 47 years the way we’re spending it. Education, the No Child Left Behind, a couple months of the war would pay for that. Whose going to, whose going to pay for this down the road? Our children and grandchildren are paying for this war. And then you have the, the, the emotional strain, the, the, the people who are being hurt.

On the floor the other day, you may have heard this, one fellow says, “We’re fighting this war.” We’re not fighting this war. One percent of the American people, these young men and women are fighting this war, with heavy packs, with 70 pounds of equipment, with helmets on in 130 degrees. That’s who’s fighting this war. And they say “stay the course.” There’s no plan. You open up this plan for victory, there’s no plan there. It’s just “stay the course.” That doesn’t solve any problem.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (466)

PLAYS: (694)

Oh yes, who better to bring in than Hank Paulson and Alan Greenspan to ask how we get the economy and the job market turned around in the United States? I know I always want to hear from the people who helped take a wrecking ball to something for advice on how to put it back together. Paulson says we need more certainty with how the financial markets are regulated for job growth. I'd love for someone to explain to me how letting the bankers and Wall Street know that we don't want them to act like casinos with our money any more has anything to do with whether we have businesses hiring Americans or not. Both of these guys didn't think we needed any regulations when they were running the show. Now that our economy is in the ditch, David Gregory thinks we should be taking their advice on how to fix it.

DAVID GREGORY: We're back and joined now by Henry Paulson, the Former Treasury Secretary and Alan Greenspan, Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Welcome both of you back to-- Meet The Press. Dr. Greenspan, here was the headline in the New York Times yesterday, after that Friday jobs report. And it was this. Jobless rate falls to 9.7 percent giving hope that the worst is over. Does this jobs report signal a turn around?

ALAN GREENSPAN: It doesn't signal a turnaround, but what it does say that a turnaround, which has already occurred is moving, but not in any aggressive manner.

DAVID GREGORY: And-- and-- Secretary Paulson, if you look at the jobs lost since the recession began, 8.4-- million jobs over that time horizon. The question is-- what's gonna cause a turnaround. When do you see this-- this jobless rate actually stay in the single digits?

HENRY PAULSON: Well, the economy is clearly recovering. And I have-- great confidence that-- we have such a dynamic private sector in this-- in this country, that they're eventually gonna begin creating jobs. Now, one of the factors, not the only factor, but one of the factors that will help is more certainty-- with regard to-- to actions out of Washington. And for instance-- certainty with regard to-- financial regulatory reform will-- will help.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: 619

PLAYS: 139

(Commerce Secretary Luther H. Hodges - in 1961 High-Tech meant transistor radios)

How the economic times have changed. The only thing that stays the same are the people out of work - they will never stop. Also looming recessions - those will be with us forever. In 1961 former Governor Luther H. Hodges was appointed Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy Administration, and in this February 5th Meet The Press edition, Hodges is the first of the New Frontier Cabinet to be interviewed by a panel.

The concerns are the same - Foreign competition and the strength of the Dollar.

Luther H. Hodges (on the question of Foreign competition): “Basically, this country, when it’s running at its best efficiency can meet most any kind of competition even though it may be lower wages elsewhere. So I think that, overall we are not going to have any great trouble. Now there will be certain adjustments we may have to make for certain small segments.”

The biggest competition was coming from Japan, West Germany and the rest of Europe. All those countries who had to be rebuilt as a result of the devastation of World War 2. High Tech wasn't even considered a word in 1961. China wasn't considered a viable competitor or even anyone we were recognizing. India was a little over 10 years out of British rule and had not, for all intents and purposes, entered the world economic/labor force.

It was all part of the Post-War World. The new scary one hadn't come about yet.

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

DOWNLOADS: (586)

PLAYS: (870)

Steve Benen made a really great point about this segment from Meet the Press yesterday.

The remarks should make it pretty clear that Republicans have no interest in working with Democrats on finding solutions to pressing policy challenges. But here's the thing that so often gets lost in the discourse: Republicans are the minority party, which means it's their job to oppose the majority's agenda.

[...]

But if Boehner's right about this -- and I believe he is -- then why in the world is it incumbent on the Democratic majority to work with Republicans to find "bipartisan" answers to every question? If Boehner has no intention of "coming together" with Dems in the middle -- a reasonable, albeit rigid, position -- why must the political establishment maintain the fiction that the governing majority is doing something awful unless they bring the discredited minority on board with every proposal? Read on...

Good question Steve. If Republicans can't even be honest with their arguments and have to continue with this "most liberal Senator" lie and calling compromised positions "leftist" and have made it crystal clear that they aren't going to work with Democrats, why are the Democrats constantly propping up the minority when they don't have to?

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (710)

PLAYS: (980)

Unbelievable. Everyone knows the Republicans think we need absolutely no regulation of anything what so ever but they generally don't say it out loud this bluntly. Of course we didn't get any follow up from David Gregory asking him how being smart has anything to do with making insurance companies behave.

Gregory: You don't want government in charge of health care, yet you're a supporter of portable health insurance; the ability to take health insurance across state lines, but I thought the Republicans were states' rights guys and didn't want -- because you'd have to have some kind of Federal regulatory agency to monitor that kind of portability, wouldn't you?

Boehner: No, you wouldn't have to. What we're saying is the American people ought to buy health insurance across state lines. They ought to buy health insurance where they get the policy that they need for themselves and their family at the best price.

Gregory: And there wouldn't have to be some sort of Federal regulatory agency...

Boehner: Well no! That's the whole point. The President said I'm for that but you know there has to be some bureaucrat in Washington that needs to make sure that this is done fairly. The American people are smart enough to do this on their own.

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

DOWNLOADS: (554)

PLAYS: (866)

The Congress shouldn't consider important civil rights issues while the country is facing a recession and two wars, according to the House Minority Leader. NBC's David Gregory asked John Boehner about President Barack Obama's call to end the military's controversial "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Boehner believes this is the wrong time.

"In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?" Boehner asked.

"While at a time when Americans are asking where are the jobs, why do we want to get in this debate?" he continued.

The House Minority Leader continued his argument, "While we're fighting over health care and trying to find some way to come to common ground, why do we want to get into a divisive debate that will do nothing more than distract the real debate about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work."

Obviously not all Americans agree with Boehner. People took to twitter to voice their dissent. "Boehner, there will NEVER b a perfect time 2 address #DADT. if not now, WHEN? what a load of crap!" Jenci Spradlin wrote.

Simon Byrd of Burnsville, Minnesota sees an economic benefit to ending the discriminatory military policy. "'Why are we debating DADT when we should be debating getting people back 2 work?' sez Boehner. Because it WOULD result in gays having JOBS??" he asked.

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

DOWNLOADS: (47)

PLAYS: (143)

I think I like the Bobblespeak translation of Peggy Noonan's hackery on Meet the Press better than the real thing. For a good laugh go read the whole post then compare it to the actual transcript.

Dionne: Obama needs to be like Reagan and speak in nonsensical parables

Gregory: he also needs have mindless optimism

Noonan: yes Reagan and Obama were both young Presidents

Gregory: um what?

Noonan: also Reagan had a clear plan - incite racial resentment, appear in front of a lot of flags and, build up the deficit and leave the problem for later

Gregory: people loved that

Actual hackery below the fold with Peggy Noonan still banging that we're a center-right country drum. Sorry Peggy, but we're not.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (642)

PLAYS: (3386)

Chuck Todd actually gets this right on Meet The Press. Gregory played a clip of Dick Armey trying to say that the teabaggers represent the "center" of American politics as bizarre as that may sound and it was Chuck Todd who corrected that lie. FOX News grabbed them, promoted them, sent their hosts to caress and nurture them and were the first network in the history of broadcasting to become true political activists that worked to undermine a newly elected president.

FOX News is the Ministry of Propaganda for the GOP.

Meet The Press:

MR. GREGORY: There's also the issue of the sort of opposition that the president faces. Where is the Republican Party? We talked a little bit about that. Again, part of the conversation we've had outside the hour today in some outside interviews includes one with Dick Armey, a former congressman who's now part of FreedomWorks, who is part of this tea party movement that was influential in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Here's what he said about the center of American politics.

(Videotape)FMR. REP. DICK ARMEY (R-TX): This is the broad center of American politics. Look at the polling data. Right now the tea party polls higher than the Republicans and the Democrats. And it is becoming increasingly clear to the electorate out there, and they're expressing their understanding, it is the Democrat majority in Congress and the president that's on the liberal fringe and we are on the center. There's no doubt about it.

TODD: I don't know they are in the center. I mean when we did our own polling on this it's clear that the tea party gets a big benefit because there is one news organization that gives them a huge bump all the time. I mean they are favorable among Fox viewers is through the roof and the rest of the country sort of doesn't know a lot about these folks. But the message of the tea party sort of saying the government doesn't work, these institutions and we've got to shrink the size of government, is tapping into what we were just discussing before which is this -- not disgust but sort of this distrust of all institutions that are out there. Government included.

But I think that, I want to go to something E.J. said about the Republican Party. I think the most striking thing about the minority party today is that a Republican can't go home and it's mostly because of this tea party crap cannot go home and sell a piece of pork that they got from Washington. It's now when you bring home something, saying hey, "I brought federal dollars to this," you're on the defensive now. And so that does make the president's challenge -- it's not as if he can trade, you know, go and have these trades with a Susan Collins or an Olympia Snowe or let's say a Lamar -- let's move over to more of the conservative center right -- Lamar Alexander or something like this because they're not getting a benefit at home of bringing something back because we have like destroyed this idea that somehow anything from government that comes through is bad.

The tea party crowd is a hyper-extension of the conservative movement. Sure, it's attracting some hard working Americans who are fed up with the state of the country that the Bush administration left us in, but the base of that movement are the militia, white supremacist, Gold standard, black helicopter, Gospel of Hate movements that FOX News has been trying to main stream into American politics.

When will the media elites (The Villagers) not be afraid to expose this very dangerous precedent that FOX News has set in the media?

(photo via David Weigel)

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

DOWNLOADS: 33

PLAYS: 9

(Menachem Begin in 1948 - Eventually lost the moustache. Eventually became Prime Minister)

When Menachem Begin arrived in the U.S. in 1948, he really wasn't doing it as a member of the newly-formed Israeli government, he was visiting as former head of the Irgun zvai Leumi para-military underground movement, gauging the climate in the U.S. towards future relations between Israel and the U.S.

He was met with a skeptical mainstream press who seemed more interested in knowing if Begin was a Communist or not.

Then as now, the history of the region hasn't been largely understood by a lot of people as was evidenced by this exchange between Begin and Lawrence Spivak on Meet The Press from December 12, 1948.

Menachem Begin: “You know, this partition of the country was just imposed on our people. As a matter of fact, when Mister Ben-Gurion, who is now Prime Minister in our country, was in the U.S. during the World War in America, and visited the famous Baltimore Hotel, came out with the so-called “Baltimore Program” which went now into oblivion. And according to that program the whole of Western Palestine, through the Jordan (river), should be turned into a Jewish State. So as a matter of fact, then I would like to remind you, that when the Balfour Declaration was issued by the British, and when the amendment was approved by the League of Nations, Palestine was considered to be the territory of both sides of the Jordan. I would like even to remind you that the English had an argument with the French when the French would like to take TransJordan for their amendment of Syria and Lebanon. The English told that TransJordan is an integral part of the Jewish national home. So as a matter of fact, this partitioning of our country is an illegal act! And we are not going to recognize it. If our government will acquiesce in the partition of her country, we are certainly not going to fight it by arms . . .we are not going to fight any government of our people by force. We will fight only on the political field.”

Yes, confusing. Which is probably why a pre-1914 map is needed to make sense out of the whole thing. But more than that, confusing in the sense of how things got carved up going back as far as the result of the end of World War One. And the passage of time hasn't made any of it any easier to understand.

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

DOWNLOADS: (532)

PLAYS: (1434)

George W. Bush's former campaign director appeared on NBC Sunday to defend his record on the economy. According to Karen Hughes, Bush rescued the economy from collapse.

Speaking about President Barack Obama's successes, Mark Halperin praised the current president's handling of the economy. "I think an extraordinary job as John said under difficult circumstances. He managed the economic crisis, kept the world from going into depression," said Halperin.

But Hughes quickly took objection to Halperin's assessment. "I have to disagree with you, Mark, about rescuing the economy," she said. "I think that happened before President Bush left office when they took the action that they did on TARP."

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

DOWNLOADS: (556)

PLAYS: (2238)

President George W. Bush is warning Americans not to fall for scams trying to raise money off the disaster in Haiti.

"I need to put a pitch in for the clintonbushhaitifund.org," Bush told NBC's David Gregory. "One of my concerns is shysters show up and take advantage of people's good will and generosity. So people want to help, one avenue besides the established NGO's would be to tap on that website and we'll help make sure your money is spent in a transparent accountable way," he said.

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

DOWNLOADS: 46

PLAYS: 8

(Carl Albert - Speaker Of The House in 1971)

Some things just never change - it's a mantra, more than a cliche`. It just happens over and over again. The age old complaint that no respect is to be had where Washington is concerned.

Even in 1971 - or maybe especially in 1971. There was the ongoing war in Vietnam. There was mention of a "peace" economy as opposed to a "war" economy but in 1971 there was still very much a war going on. Carl Albert had just become Speaker of The House and it was this 1971 interview on Meet The Press where he is asked if anything is going to be different.

Well . . .no.

Carl Albert: “I think the most immediate legislative problem is not just one problem, it’s several problems dealing with the economy. I think there’s another problem, and you touched on it a while ago, and that is trying to give the House and the Senate and I’m primarily interested in the House, an image before the country that will cause the country to respect it, respect its judgments and its attitudes and its work. I think that’s very important. This is so basic, this institution is so basic to our country that the people need to understand it and to respect it and of course, members of Congress need to help give it that image . . ."

Lawrence Spivak: “Yeah but, why do you think Congress has lost the respect to the people? What has it done? Hasn’t it done something?”

Albert: “Well, I’m not sure if it’s lost the respect. I’m not sure that in all the history of democratic political institutions the people don’t generally question their elected officials. I think that’s probably been true most of the years of the country’s history. There probably was one or two times that, and Mister McNeil (Robert McNeil, NBC News) is a better authority on this than I am, when the Legislative branch was preeminent over the Executive branch. That’s difficult to do in this day and age because the President is the one chosen individual of the nation.”

Spivak: “Well Mister Speaker, I think the big criticism that is being made against Congress is that it isn’t responsive. Now I’d like to take up a very specific thing on the issue of responsiveness. According to recent Gallup Polls 77% of the American people are in favor of having the American government collect taxes and return a percentage to the states without strings. Now as I understand it you’re against that. Now why?”

Albert: “I’m not against that if they’re in proper limitations. But I’m not going to endorse that proposal until its spelled out because I am not in favor of the Federal Government becoming only a Tax Collecting agency for the States and Municipalities without any conditions, turning money over to incompetent administrations if there are some, and I’m sure there are some. I think we’re morally obligated if we send a tax collector to somebody to see that the money is properly spent.”

Says it all. Even in 1971.

Jay Rosen recently wrote a post about an issue we've all discussed over this last five years. How to fix the lies that are spewed on the Sunday Talk Shows.

John Cole follows up with:

So instead I propose this modest little fix, first floated on Twitter in a post I sent out to Betsy Fischer, Executive Producer of Meet the Press, who never replies to anything I say. “Sadly, you’re a one-way medium,” I said to Fischer, “but here’s an idea for ya: Fact check what your guests say on Sunday and run it online Wednesday.”

I would extend it to the hosts, as well, although that might spur initial resistance. As some of you have noted before, it is amazing that Pardon the Interruption on ESPN has a fact-check segment at the end of every single show, but the bobbleheads and their guests get to spew whatever nonsense they want, with little to no accountability.

And for us, it is a win/win. If people lie or make things up, there will be a publicized forum for correcting them. And once the guests start to realize they are going to be fact-checked, folks like President McCain might not be on every Sunday spewing bullshit.

During the Scooter Libby trial it was revealed that Dick Cheney manipulated Meet The Press for years which helped lead us into war with Iraq. The trial gave us tangible proof about the consequences this nation faces if distortions and manipulations are allowed to continue on our teevee's.

I'd love it if these shows brought on a bunch of interns and did hire a staff to fact check on the spot. They could do it very cheaply, but don't hold your breath. It's not only the Sunday shows that are the problem, though. I wrote about it in 2008 in my post below, and think it's relevant to have the discussion again.

(The above graphic is by Michael O'Hanlon, who is a perfect example of a warhawk who has been wrong most of the time.)

Punditocracy: A group of pundits who wield great political influence.

Here's a review of Eric Alterman's book called: Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy

Jake Tapper makes this observation on CNN's Reliable Sources in response to Jon Stewart pointing out how many pundits got their primary predictions wrong. This is something we've all been talking about on the liberal blogs for years now:

TAPPER: It's too bad there is no accountability for pundits the way that there is for doctors and brokers.

C&L and many other blogs have become the magnifying glass that scrutinizes the pundits who inhabit our airwaves and call them out when they are culpable for the many wrongs we see on a daily basis. Tapper hints at the fact that there should be some sort of culpability factor, but when we do it, they usually recoil in outrage.

Glenn Greenwald's email chain to John King is a perfect example of this reaction to valid criticism. Forget about the predictions game on an election cycle, because voters end up deciding the outcome, but how about when an issue like a possible WAR is being debated and the public only has the Pundit Class as their information messengers, so to speak ?

Here are a few things the networks can do to clean up their act. (h/t Nicole for some suggestions)

1) Set up an Ombudsman with a staff for each network that isn't an employee of their corporation and have a weekly segment devoted to policing the media. They will also be available to take complaints reported by individual citizens and investigate them thoroughly.

2) Replay clips of each pundit when they've been proven wrong and let them explain their positions and why they thought they were right and ask them how they will correct their mistakes in the future.

3) Keep track of their infractions and set up a benchmark, like a 3 strikes your out rule for pundits. When they hit the benchmark, suspend them for a period of time so they can reflect on their mistakes.

4) When they return to work, ask them why they should be believed in the future.

5) It would be nice if they stopped using pundits that we know have been wrong over and over again.

Please add to the list...

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

DOWNLOADS: 83

PLAYS: 6

(Zbigniew Brzezinski - exploring the concept of Felt Interests)

I realize I haven't been doing enough of these of late - our Foreign Policy going back to Woodrow Wilson. I promise this year to catch up and make this a regular thing. Today it's Zbigniew Brzezinski on the sidelines in 1969, having left the State Department but still very much a presence in on-going East-West relations in 1969. This interview, via Meet The Press on April 6, 1969 comes at a time when the Paris talks with North Vietnam were at a standstill, Russia had invaded Czechoslovakia the previous August and the Middle East was on simmer. Europe was still under the influence of Charles DeGaulle and, with a few changes in players and circumstances, the same as it is today.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: “It seems to me that all major powers reach agreements on the basis of their felt interests at a given time. When that felt interest declines they move away from the agreement. All powers act that way. So do we, incidentally. And I think the point of an agreement is to find an area of common interest which the agreement then crystallizes and expresses. And I think it behooves us to search for these areas of agreement with the Soviet Union, but without exaggerated hopes. Without exaggerated expectations.”

Yes, exaggerated expectations. Something we're all a little too familiar with lately.

Why is it if The Politico's Mike Allen decides to play stenographer for Dick Cheney, the rest of the media feels they must follow suit and ask others to respond to Cheney's remarks? David Gregory takes his turn on Meet the Press and Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan hits back.

MR. GREGORY: Republicans have been very critical of this president and accuse him of returning to a pre-9/11 mentality, of becoming lax in the face of terror, of essentially letting America's guard down. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said this to Politico this past week. Let me put his comment up on the screen. "As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war. ... He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of September 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al-Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, `war on terror,' we won't be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." How do you respond to that?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm very disappointed in the vice president's comments. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I've worked for the past five administrations. And either the vice president is willfully mischaracterizing this president's position, both in terms of the language he uses and the actions he taken--he's taken, or he's ignorant of the facts. And in either case, it doesn't speak well of what the vice president's doing. The clear evidence is that this president has been very, very strong. In his inaugural address, he said, "We're at war with this international network of terrorists." We continue to say that we're at war with al-Qaeda. We're trying to give it some clarity. And we have taken the fight to them. We've continued, in fact, many of the, of the activities of the previous administration. I would not have come back into this government if I felt that this president was not committed to prosecuting this war against al-Qaeda. And every day I see it in the president's face, I see it in the actions he's taken, and so I'm confident that this country is, in fact, protected by this president's position on al-Qaeda and against terrorist activities. We're going to continue to do this, we're going to do it hard, we're going to do it constantly.