SHORTER Marc Thiessen: "We need Obama to use the CheneyBush national security toolchest to put a hit out on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. It's the only responsible thing to do."

Marc Thiessen is furious, simply furious that the Obama adminstration hasn't put Julian Assange on the top of the "Most Wanted" list. In his WaPo op-ed, he calls for the full force of the federal government to stop Assange - a "clear and present danger to the national security of the United States" - before he kills again.

Assange claims to be in possession of 15,000 even more sensitive documents, which he is reportedly preparing to release. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC News that Assange had a "moral culpability" for the harm he has caused. Well, the Obama administration has a moral responsibility to stop him from wreaking even more damage.

Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business.
---------
Arresting Assange would be a major blow to his organization. But taking him off the streets is not enough; we must also recover the documents he unlawfully possesses and disable the system he has built to illegally disseminate classified information.

Chalk this up as another screeching editoral by the community of people who still believe that there was nothing wrong with how the CheneyBush administration ran the country's security infrastructure. Despite losing elections in 2006 and 2008, they still think that the only way to run the federal government is by unilaterally strong-arming other nations, evesdropping on US citizens, and rewriting the Constitution.

But as much as Thiessen reveals himself to be a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic, you have to wonder if there are any limits in place at the Washington Post for conservative pundits. Obviously there are not.

DOWNLOADS: (801)

PLAYS: (1067)

Embed

Newt Gingrich got to continue his Fox News Book Promotion Tour last night on Sean Hannity's show, pitching his new book, To Save America: Why Liberals Want to Eat Your Children, picking up where he left off on Sunday's gig with Chris Wallace.

Let's just say that Gingrich without the restraints of Wallace's, ah, probing questions is kind of like root-canal work without the benefit of anesthetics.

Unlike Wallace, Hannity was openly promoting Gingrich's story line, to wit, that President Obama and the evil liberals are going to destroy America by instituting a "secular socialist" state. Hannity could scarcely contain himself as they contemplated Obama's supposed deep-seated radicalism.

Hannity, you see, believes with Gingrich that "we are in a battle for the heart and soul of America -- in fact, the greatest battle since the Civil War."

Just in case there was anyone out there wondering when right-wingers were going to get around to declaring civil war on liberals.

There were lots of prime bon mots, but perhaps my favorite was this one:

Gingrich: By the early 1990s, I thought, you know, we've proven all the major tenets of modern American conservatism. And it never occurred to me that the hard left would just dig in, bury themselves -- in the academic world, in the news media, in the labor unions -- and now have come back more left-wing, more radical, more determined than ever.

See, this is what we call "projection". Because as we all know, and are still experiencing, the "major tenets of modern conservatism" have just been exposed as a complete sham, a mockery of modern governance, by the eight years of the Bush administration -- eight years in which conservatives destroyed the economy, destroyed America's standing in the world, and horribly impacted the global environment.

And yes, you'd think after that experience, conservatives would stand back in shock at the recognition of what they've done to the economy and mend their ways. Probably no one (except those of us who know them too well) would imagine that they would just bury themselves in the work of denying heatedly that they just brought the nation to its knees and become more determined than ever to seize the reins of power by any means necessary. Including trying to invoke a civil war.

But then, some of us know them better than that.

You probably never heard of this jerk except if you're a sports fan and watch ESPN occasionally. C&Lers know I keep an eye on the sports media as well as the MSM. Sports talk radio in Boston had a big impact on the Scott Brown election, so I'm making it a higher priority for upcoming elections.

I was watching ESPN's First Take on Friday with my morning coffee to get going on Friday. Eric Kuselias was subbing for Skip Bayless, who is their prime-time debater of sports topics. What First Take does is this: after discussing some current sports news, they go into a series of debates between two people on what they believe are the "hot topics" of the day.

Big Ben's sex case came up in their debate segment first, and Eric Kuselias was defending Ben and saying his reputation got tarnished after they read an out-of-context line from the new report about the case. Eric made it sound like the woman wanted it, but if you read the new report you would have come to a much different conclusion, since the young woman claims to have said said "no" twice to Ben. I was stunned by his remarks and it jolted me awake much more than a cup of smokey Joe. Is Kuselias kidding me? I could understand if he said we need more information to make a better determination, but to stick up for Ben as if he was smeared was utterly ridiculous.

I write this because the sports world has their own Village and Eric was doing his part as an apologist. I'm sorry I don't have the video to show you. Why is ESPN even using this man? Steven Bardo sat there like another half wit and didn't defend the young woman either. It's a boy's club just like Augusta it would appear. Read some of the comments from 4/16/2010 on their website and at least you'll see get some impressions of him on the show.

I just can't stand when a man of Big Ben's size and fame take advantage of a young woman. I'd gladly challenge Kuselias to a debate about this issue on ESPN. Why is it important to me? Because people like Eric belittle a woman's right to decide how and when they should have sexual relations.

ESPN has live chats, so I guess C&Lers can leave some comments there asking for me to debate him or anyone on their staff. You can also twitter them about it here. If he's too afraid then I'll take on any of their debaters including Skip. He was off for a couple of days, so he had no part in the discussion, but whatever rocks their boat.

Dan Coats on The Young Turks from the 2008 Republican National Convention

I'm not sure if it's possible to get a more Republican candidate for Indiana than Evan Bayh, but the GOP isn't going to go down without trying. Former Senator Dan Coats has announced this morning that he will challenge Bayh for the Senate seat in the 2010 Election.

But for all of his high profile--and Dan Coats certainly does have that within the Republican Party--I'm not sure the GOP is really learning the lessons of the tea baggers distrusting the incumbents and politicians when opting to promote Coats for the Senate seat.

To wit, Coats is a member of the C-Street Family, responsible for the failed ushering of Harriet Miers through the Supreme Court confirmation process. I think his quote on Miers, who failed to capture even Republican support shows his contempt for Americans:

She certainly has the capability to be an excellent Supreme Court justice. If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole.

Continue reading »

The Turkey/Palin video might be the video of the year in 2009. Is she pals of the Cohen Brothers?

It finally happened. The wedding that has been long awaited. Sarah Palin, the former of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

The network confirmed that Ms. Palin will appear on the network’s programming on a regular basis as part of a multi-year deal. Financial terms were not disclosed. Ms. Palin will not have her own regular program, one person familiar with the deal said, though she will host an occasional series that will run on the network from time to time.

This person would not elaborate, but the network does have a precedent for such a series. Oliver L. North is the host of an occasionally running documentary series on the military called “War Stories.”

She's in good company, with many other Fox Newsers having similarly checkered pasts. All is forgiven if you're a conservative. Oliver North sold weapons to Iran, Dick Morris has an affinity towards hookers and toe-sucking and other bizarre notions. Mark Furhman destroyed the first O.J. case and was hired on. Karl Rove, with subpoenas and investigations into his role in the U.S. Attorneys scandal lingering, gets a fat contract. The list goes on and on.

Palin, who quit her job as Governor of Alaska, fits right in to the right wing stable of wingnuts Roger Ailes has assembled. I wonder why it took so long.

Every time someone (okay, my oldest childhood friend who, despite years of my positive influence, only watches Fox News with her libertarian hubby) tells me how her insurance is fine and she doesn't want Obama's "socialist" healthcare reform, I respond, "You don't have health insurance. You have the illusion of health insurance, and for your sake, I hope you never find out." Oy.

(CBS) President Obama will be promoting health care reform this week in Virginia and North Carolina, and plans to keep the pressure on Congress during next month's recess. One argument for health care reform is that 47 million Americans are uninsured.

But not everyone knows that another 25 million are underinsured as CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports.

John Stewardson is up at dawn, working for the local 602 union in Washington, D.C. But by 11:30 a.m., he's home fixing lunch for his ailing wife Linda, a cancer survivor.

"I'm just going to have to take medicine for the rest of my life," she said.

Diagnosed with a brain tumor last summer, she's in remission. Now it's her family's financial health at stake. In March, their healthcare insurance capped-out at $150,000 of treatment, minimum coverage by industry standards.

The cost of treating cancer and its side effects demolished their life savings.

"It's like she fell out a cancer tree and hit every branch on the way down," John Stewardson said.

They owe more than $100,000 in medical bills.

Dr. Deepa Subramaniam is counseling more and more patients like Linda - forced to decide which treatments are worth the cost.

"I am trying to balance cost and effectiveness in her case," Subramaniam said. "You worry that somehow by choosing a treatment that is less expensive, that we are compromising the quality of the care."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is leading the effort to push the affordable health choices act through the Senate. He supports a government insurance plan that eliminates lifetime and annual caps on all healthcare plans.

"The underinsured are a critical group," Dodd told Miller. "In some cases 53 percent don't know they're underinsured. So they either have a huge co-pay if the problem happens or the deductibles being so high they might as well not have insurance."

DOWNLOADS: (1752)

PLAYS: (3333)

Embed

President Obama gave a great speech yesterday that was well received by the Notre Dame campus. The movement against a woman's right to live her life was the focal point for the pro-birthers, but Obama handled it with his charm and wit. I do not like the way the pro-choice movement has been portrayed, nor do I like the way the Democratic Party treats the pro-life movement, but Obama handled the speech at the Notre Dame commencement well. I suppose it's the best we could hope for.

I do not agree with a lot of what's been coming out of the Beltway on this issue and many others, but the whining over this speech was ridiculous. The leader of the nation suddenly is not supposed to give a speech at Notre Dame because ... ?

Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

Continue reading »