DOWNLOADS: (212)

PLAYS: (1054)

Embed

Jonah Goldberg went on Piers Morgan Monday night to promote his latest "nanny-boo-boo liberals!" book, and belched up a favorite right-wing canard.

MORGAN: I'm curious what you're thinking what (inaudible).

GOLDBERG: I would put it [the Bin Laden raid] at -- I don't know, $50 million, $40 million.

MORGAN: Wow. That's cheap in the Republican world?

GOLDBERG: That's cheap in comparison to what the cost of the war on terror is.

MORGAN: No wonder the country got into the mess it did.

GOLDBERG: I suppose that that's supposed to be a really telling point. I'm not quite sure how it is.

MORGAN: I'm just saying the Republican administration obviously led to a huge financial collapse. You wouldn't dispute that.

GOLDBERG: I would and I would also say Barack Obama has spent much, much, much, much more money than the Republicans.

MORGAN: Would you dispute that after eight years of Republican administration the country went into a huge economic collapse?

GOLDBERG: No, but that's a timeline question.

Don't you just love that last bit where Jonah shrugs off Bush/Cheney's presiding over the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression as "a timeline question"? The party of personal responsibility blaming everyone else strikes again!

But Jonah is, of course, totally, hilariously, absolutely wrong about this supposed spending binge under Obama.

First, as of 2011, Bush's policies had cost the country over $5T, compared to Obama's $1T.

You want to look at growth in government spending? Obama's lower than George W. Bush and Reagan.

What about government purchases of goods and services? Yep, they've collapsed under Obama.

Government employees? A record decline under Obama.

"Obama's record spending spree is bankrupting the nation" is yet another Big Lie right-wingers like Goldberg -- who incidentally was a cheerleader for Bush/Cheney while they were turning record surpluses into record deficits -- are telling about Obama. It's a lie Mitt Romney will tell during the campaign.

And it's a lie that the media will probably them get away with.

It was only a matter of time before people got wise to ALEC. It's just too bad it's taken as much time as it has. But after the Trayvon Martin case and subsequent linkage of ALEC to the Stand Your Ground laws, it's starting to get enough attention to cause the Coca-Cola company to withdraw their corporate sponsorship of the organization, thanks to a Color of Change campaign to draw their attention to ALEC's efforts to disenfranchise Black voters nationwide.

This victory has made Dana Loesch very, very angry. So angry that she lit into Van Jones on her radio show Thursday, despite the fact that Van Jones has not been at the helm of Color of Change for some time. According to Media Matters, Dana went on a rant against Van Jones over the ALEC action, calling him a "Marxist, 911 Truther, Cop Killer-Supporter".

It so happens that Van Jones' latest book, "Rebuild the Dream" came out this week, so Loesch's little rant on Jones just raises his profile and sells more books. I think that's awesome. Dana's little spew doesn't touch Van Jones, but it makes her look like an idiot, and by extension, CNN.

CNN's continued support of Loesch despite her unwarranted and irrational attacks on Soledad O'Brien, Michelle Obama, and now Van Jones makes them look like round fools. They were stupid to hire her, and dumber still to keep her. Based on what I've heard from her this week, she's auditioning to replace Rush Limbaugh when he loses all his sponsors. Or something.

Here's a reality check for Dana. Does she really think anyone but the True Believers of the Right Wing will believe her crap about a guy who just published a book that says this:

There is reason for hope. The United States remains a rich nation—the wealthiest and most inventive in the history of the world. Global competition and technological advances pose challenges for American workers, but we should always remember that the proverbial pie is bigger than ever today—and still growing. As a nation, we are getting richer; our GDP is still greater than it has ever been. The problem is not that the pie is shrinking; it is that working families are taking home smaller slices of it, as wealth and income are concentrated upward. It will take smart policy, better business practices, and community-driven innovation, but we still have the power to reclaim, reinvent, and renew the American Dream.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (296)

PLAYS: (1537)

Embed

Kirk Cameron, the man who believes the banana legitimizes creationism continues his assault on the Gay community during a Piers Morgan interview on CNN:

During a new interview with Piers Morgan the "Growing Pains" heartthrob who transitioned from a "teen-idol-atheist in Hollywood and became a devoted follower of Jesus Christ in the middle of [his] career" explained that he believes homosexuality is "unnatural... I think that it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."

On the issue of marriage equality Cameron remarked, "Marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve -- one man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't."

When asked what he would do if one of his six kids told him, "Dad, bad news, I'm gay," Cameron responded, "I'd sit down and I'd have a heart to heart with them, just like you'd do with your kids."

Morgan shot back, "I'd say, 'That's great, son! As long as you're happy.' What would you say?"

Cameron offered, "I wouldn't say 'That's great, son, as long as you're happy.' There are all sorts of issues we need to wrestle through in our life... Just because you feel one way doesn't mean we should act on everything we feel."

What great advice by Kirk. Hey there, son. For all things in life just act on what I tell you and what I believe in, OK? Thank the stars that recent polling shows fighting against gay marriage is a big time loser. Kirk really plays nasty with a smile on his face.

This came out a couple of days ago, but since Super Tuesday is upon us I was wondering if any cracker jack reporter has asked Mitt Romney lately if he supported the amounts of his own money the Mormon Church spent in California alone, trying to defeat gay marriage? I think it's pretty relevant considering he gives so much money to the Mormon Church and he's always attacking what the government spends. I won't even get into their polygamist marriage history and how that ties into this debate.

(h/t Heather at Video Cafe for the video. Don't forget to check VC all day long for all their awesome videos.)

DOWNLOADS: (354)

PLAYS: (2585)

Embed

Here's a test for you. I'm going to post two quotes from Howard Kurtz, and you tell me which one refers to Rush Limbaugh:

"A lot of broadcasters might have lost their jobs by saying something so stupid, offensive, and misogynistic."

or

"I mean, this is part of what he does. He likes to stoke outrage and draw attention by saying things that are a bit over the line."

Ok, you get five seconds. I'll give you the answer below the fold.

Continue reading »

This campaign season can be summed up by one interview on conservative talk radio last August. It was with Iowa Straw Poll-sweeper Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, in which she proclaimed: “What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward.”

Yes, Bachmann warned us of a foreign boogieman rising … one that’s been dead for over 20 years.

Boo!

But warning of a zombie nation feasting on the metaphorical brains of the U.S. is consistent with a party now completely untethered from basic American history, science or any other evidence-based practice: The GOP is now a party standing proudly on a pro-fiction platform.

Yes, in their party, as an aide to Senator Jon Kyl put it last year, whatever they say is “not intended to be a factual statement” but to illustrate a point.

For example, this week Mitt Romney brought a Michigan tea party audience to tears recalling the 50th anniversary of the American automobile event he attended as a child … even though it took place months before he was born.

Former Senator Rick Santorum asserts public schools are an “anachronism” of the industrialized era as the reason they should be privatized. He said at the CNN debate last week: “Not only do I believe the federal government should get out of the education business, I think the state government should start to get out of the education business and put it back to the local and into the community.” Just when millions of Americans have lost their homes comes a candidate in favor of home schooling.

Public schools are arguably what made us a country. The colonies had one of the highest literacy rates in the world at the time. In James D. Hart’s “The Popular Book: A History of America’s Literary Taste” published in 1950, he notes that in 1650 New England there were laws requiring “reading and writing schools.” Education was thought to thwart Satan at that time (note to Santorum there). Hart goes on to include a popular ditty of the era: “From public schools shall general knowledge flow, For ‘tis the people’s sacred right to know.”

Also, the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was (gasp) publically educated.

Santorum, as a pro-fiction candidate, also dismisses colleges as “indoctrination mills.” One man’s indoctrination is another man’s accreditation to work in the sciences.

The four candidates still vying for the nomination are pro-fiction to the core: Somehow the President who okayed the assassination of Osama bin Laden, sent drone attacks into Libya and kept Gitmo open is an apologetic pansy – soft on our enemies. Obama has deported more illegal immigrants and spent more money protecting the border than any of his predecessors – but he’s ignoring the issue of illegal immigration. Romney keeps on promising if elected he’ll make the military so powerful no other country would dare attack us even though we have the biggest military in the world. Gingrich who says if given any power he’ll send U.S. Marshalls to compel radical judges to explain their rulings, deems “the pill” to be the epitome of radical government overreach. Taxes? Too high even though they’re historically low (especially during war time). Tax cuts? A pay-for-themselves panacea even though the Bush Tax Cuts didn’t pan out.

Challenge their narrative and brace for the ad hominem attacks. You only believe this because you’re at least one of the following: liberal, socialist, unemployed, commie sympathizer, elite, dupe, European, journalist, gun hater, Muslim, Obama-bot, or (my favorite from my inbox) silly little girl.

Because in fiction you must create an enemy or there’s no story.

The pro-fiction party will tell you their ideas will lower gas prices, cut the deficit, end poverty, cut the size of government and make everybody super free by allowing the states to decide which rights to take away.

No matter how completely impossible – no matter how divorced from evidence or precedence – the GOP will continue to make claims not to be factual – but just to illustrate a point. Possibly that you should vote for them.

The Soviet Union must be watching this race right now and just laughing their heads off.

DOWNLOADS: (286)

PLAYS: (3444)

Embed

In his eight decades on this planet, Zbigniew Brzezinski has seen his share of would-be and actual world leaders. His father was a diplomat posted to Germany in the '30s, so he actually watched first hand the rise of the Nazis as a boy. As Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, he dealt with such delicate political situations as Solidarity in Poland, the ouster of the Shah of Iran, the Cold War, the Soviet-Afghanistan war and all other matters of social/political upheaval. So this is not a man easily flustered or inexperienced with dealing with grandiose political personalities.

So what does the man who has consulted with almost every American president since Eisenhower think of our current crop of GOP presidential candidates? In a word: Embarrassing.

Look at those Republican debates. I must say, I’m literally, literally feeling embarrassed as an American when I see those people all right. One of them sounds like a medieval Savanarola, another one is trying to explain why he has some of his wealth hidden in the Cayman Islands, and someone else would go back to 1780 and then there is someone who is using his credentials as a repudiated Speaker of the Congress to be president. I mean, this is just…embarrassing.

I had to look up the Savonarola reference, but it's an apt one for Rick Santorum. And Brzezinski is absolutely right, they are embarrassing.

DOWNLOADS: (309)

PLAYS: (3485)

Embed

This is not a post about rising gas prices, despite the title of the video. No, this post is about something else entirely. Rising gas prices just happens to be the convenient topic.

I've just finished reading "The Fox Effect" by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt. For those of us who have lived every painful minute of the past three years, reading this book is no less painful, nor will it offer many revelations. What it does offer, however, is a strong, well-argued case for the anti-American techniques they use to indoctrinate and hypnotize their audience into believing the lies they spew. Beginning with the history of Fox News and Roger Ailes' vision for "conservative television," the book takes the reader through how Fox News is structured, what their goals are, and how they've changed since Barack Obama was elected President.

For those people smart enough to keep Fox News out of their living room, it is an instructive and safe walk through their process. For those of us who have actually watched it over the past three years, it feels like having a root canal six times over.

Still, the book really should be shared with as many people as possible, if for no other reason than to save them from the consequence of too much Fox viewing; namely, being a misinformed citizen, which harms our democracy. On page 168, the authors describe "The Fox Effect," as it relates to fake controversies like Shirley Sherrod and ACORN. But it's far more than that. They also use the same techniques and distorted facts to create fear and discontent for fun and profit. The gas price rise is a shining example.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (360)

PLAYS: (1148)

Embed

As Heather already noted, Willard made a big show out of making these outrageous and specious claims about Iran:

We must not allow Iran to have nuclear weapon. If they do, the world changes. America will be at risk. And some day nuclear weaponry will be used. If I'm President, that will not happen. If we re-elect Barack Obama, it will happen," he said at the CNN Republican debate on Wednesday night.

That he made such a claim comes as no surprise. After all, Newt Gingrich made this insane claim in the same exchange:

This is an administration which, as long as you're America's enemy, you're safe.

And let's not leave out Rick Santorum:

In the meantime, when the radicals in Egypt and the radicals in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood, when they rise against either a feckless leader or a friend of ours in Egypt, the president is more than happy to help them out.

When they're going up against a dangerous theocratic regime that wants to wipe out the state of Israel, that wants to dominate the radical Islamic world and take on the great Satan, the United States, we do nothing. That is a president that must go. And you want a leader who will take them on? I'll do that.

Three outrageous claims in the span of six minutes, and a moderator who followed up with each of them asking what exactly they might do to stop Iran, a sovereign country, from arming themselves with nuclear weapons.

Oh, wait. No, John King said nothing. Nothing. No followup with Willard on his claim that he, and he alone would prevent that nation from arming. No followup with Newtie about whether he consulted with Gaddafi and Bin Laden before making such an inane statement. And no followup with Santorum about how he could refer to the United States as the Great Satan while claiming Satan was attacking the United States.

Crickets.

So let's be serious for a minute. Three out of the four candidates were calling for war against Iran even though we have no proof they are even trying to build nuclear weapons or want to. Only one candidate on that stage had a lick of sense, and his words were carefully parsed. Ron Paul said this:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (257)

PLAYS: (1356)

Embed

As if Franklin Graham's comments on MSNBC Tuesday weren't bad enough, CNN decided to bring him on to "explain" and give him a second bite at the Obama-hating apple. This time he was careful to wrap his statement that the President wasn't really a Christian in the mantle of the anti-abortion wedge.

Here is what he said on MSNBC, among other things:

"Islam sees him as a son of Islam... I can't say categorically that [Obama is not Muslim] because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama."

Wednesday, Kyra Phillips gave him a chance to clarify his answer. First he said he could not vote for Obama because he supported abortion. Okay. Whatever. But then he went on with it.

PHILLIPS: OK, so Franklin, let me ask you this, Franklin then. As long as the president supports a woman's right to have an abortion, will you continue to believe that he is not a Christian?

GRAHAM: No, I've never said, Kyra, I never one time said I don't believe that he is a Christian. Only God knows a man's heart. Only God knows your heart or my heart.

And all of these other candidates, their claim to faith you have to accept what they say. And you have to also look at how a person lives their life. But as it comes to the president, this issue is a big stumbling block for me.

It's going to be a big stumbling block for many Evangelical Christians. That is the way it is. He's the one who made the issue by supporting abortion and so he has to live with that.

Later, he expanded:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (280)

PLAYS: (2097)

Embed

Fareed Zakaria has had a lot of advice for Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. He's already exhorted him to become more aware of the rest of the world and not be so myopic in his foreign policy. Zakaria has also tried to soften up the image of venture capitalists. And now, after his infamous declaration that he is not concerned about the poor, Fareed Zakaria implores Mitt Romney .to think again:

We rank 31st of the 34 countries that make up the OECD in terms of the percentage of our population that qualifies as poor. Of the 34 member states, only Mexico, Chile and Israel are worse off than we are. The UK (at 11 percent), Germany (8.9 percent) and France (7.2 percent) are all much lower. The OECD average is 11 percent.

In case you're wondering how the OECD defines poverty, it calculates the number as the percentage of people who earn less than half of the country's median wage. It's an easy way to compare data across countries.

In the video above, look at the chart that shows the percentage of children in poverty. At 20.6 percent, we again come off far worse than other rich countries.

Japan, Australia, the UK, Germany and France all have much better numbers.

Romney spoke about how he would fix the safety net for poor people "if it needs repair.”

Let me suggest one place to fix things: end child poverty.

Whatever the causes of poverty, when children grow up in desperate circumstances - circumstances that they had no role in creating - studies show that they will be more likely to drop out of high school, be unemployed, use drugs, have children out of wedlock and get ill.

In other words, they will be unproductive members of society and cost taxpayers huge amounts of money over the course of their lives.

As with any time we see someone in the media deviate from the corporate lines and speak to populism, it's hard to argue with the cold, hard facts. Let me put another one out there: The economy does better when the income disparity is lessened. All of us are lifted up when we lift up the poor.

But the question must be asked: why limit this only to Mitt Romney? Why not make a blanket accusation of Congress? They're the ones locked in gridlock, arguing austerity, cutting benefits left and right for the poorest and refusing to extend unemployment benefits, chintzing on SCHIP benefits and touting vouchers for schools. Not one of those "solutions" will help the situation of the poor, and yet that's all we hear.

Please, let us all voice a concern for the poor. For a country supposedly founded on Christian principles (as conservatives love to tell us), there is precious little Christian charity in our rhetoric.