YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA AT WORK

NORAH O'DONNELL

Via Crooks and Liars (who also has the video):

Norah [O'Donnell]: So Congresswoman, let me put you on record here because we see Bill Clinton talking about the politics of "Common Good" and the need for that to take place and you say the Democrats have a positive agenda—Can you promise then that when Democrats–if they retake the House of Representatives and Senate will not issue tens or hundreds of subpoenas to the White House when it comes to Katrina, Iraq and a number of other issues and essentially make the President's final two years in office a living hell if you will and mean that nothing gets done in Washington?

What the hell?! Are her paychecks signed by Rupert Murdoch or something? This question is preposturous. Where were dipshits like O'Donnell when the Clinton administration spent years dealing with congressional subpoenas? They were lapping it up like freakin' catnip is what they were doing. It must be great to have the liberal media looking out for you, Bushie. After all, we sure wouldn't want your last two years being a "living hell"; as if the last six years have been a picnic for just about everyone except you and your cronies.

If O'Donnell had asked me this question I would have jumped on her and asked why is she against accountability in the government? Why doe she support rubberstamping an out-of-control executive branch? Why does she hate the Constitution and America?

UM, OKAY

JOHN MCCAIN

Not wishing to advocate the death of a potential presidential candidate, I submit this without comment. From the Washington Post:

Arizona Sen. John McCain, a likely Republican presidential contender in 2008, joked on Wednesday he would "commit suicide" if Democrats win the Senate in November.

McCain, on a visit to Iowa to campaign for Republican congressional candidates, was asked his reaction to a potential Democratic takeover of the Senate in the November 7 elections.

"I think I'd just commit suicide," McCain told reporters, to accompanying laughter from Republicans standing with him. "I don't want to face that eventuality because I don't think it's going to happen."

Okay, one comment: If/when the Dems win control of the Senate, will there be a reporter willing to ask McCain if he should be under suicide watch?

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE

MICHAEL STEELE


Maryland GOP senatorial candidate Michael Steele is in the fight of his political life against Democrat Ben Cardin. Recent polls have him trailing by as many as nine points. On Monday, he picked up an endorsement from a sports figure that he probably didn't want and certainly could never use. That sports figure is the notorious Mike Tyson. Yes, that Mike Tyson. Convicted rapist Mike Tyson. Bit part of his opponent's ear off Mike Tyson. Countless instances of spousal abuse and battery Mike Tyson. Vowed to eat his opponent's non-existent children Mike Tyson. Severe rage issues and bipolar Mike Tyson. Oh, and here's the best one - ex brother-in-law to Michael Steele Mike Tyson. Yep, they're family! You cannot make this stuff up, folks!
Anyway, recently Tyson, during an effort to promote his circus/flagging boxing career, he wore a "Michael Steele U.S. Senate" t-shirt. From CBS Sportsline:

At the press conference, Tyson posed for photos with fans, signed autographs and campaigned for Maryland U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele.

Tyson, wearing a white and blue Steele for U.S. Senate T-shirt, said he used to believe black Republicans were "sellouts." But Tyson said he changed his mind after
researching the Maryland lieutenant governor.

"We have to open our eyes more," Tyson said, as he pointed to his T-shirt.

I'm not sure about voters in Maryland, but he sure as hell opened my eyes! Oh, and did I forget to mention that during this same presser, Tyson commented that he would very much like to box women, specifically professional boxer Ann Wolfe? Asked if he was joking, he replied that he was very serious.

So, in addition to the litany of charges I mentioned above, now he's looking to fight a woman (and I'm not discounting her chances by any means because I believe that it's possible she could beat the hell out of Tyson, who hasn't had a good fight since the late 1980s to the best of my recollection). And he says this while giving much love to his ex bro-in-law Michael Steele. I'll say this about Tyson - there's never a dull moment when you're around him!

Eh, who knows? Maybe Tyson will help Steele sew up the uncontrollabe-rage-convicted-rapist-semi-cannibal-male vote. And according to Steele himself, he would "welcome in a heartbeat" the help. Maybe the two are made for each other.

OH, SO WE DO HAVE A PLAN!

TONY SNOW


I blogged about this a couple of days ago. At the time, I was flabbergasted that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow had no answer for a simple question posed to him:

QUESTION: Just a simple question: Are we winning?

SNOW: We’re making progress. I don’t know. How do you define winning?

Luckily, he clarified his position on Wednesday when he said that the strategy is to win. Yes, that's what he said. Let me repeat that in case you didn't catch the nuance of that detailed plan to win in Iraq; Bush's strategy is to win.

Do you think that anyone took Tony aside and told him that "to win" is not a strategy. "To win" is a goal and a strategy is implemented to achieve that goal. I hate to harp on this (okay, I don't hate it) but think about it:

Question: "Tony, what is Bush's strategy to win?"

Snow: "Our strategy is to win."

Question: "So, what you're saying is his strategy to win is to win? Is that what you're trying to sell us?"

Snow: "That would be correct."

And the hard-charging White House press corps lets these crooks get away with stuff like this.

I'VE GOT A SECRET

CONRAD BURNS

Man, that was a really long day as far as my work schedule went. As such, I feel completely out of the loop and it sounds like it was quite a day. I think one of my favorite stories so far is Conrad Burns revealing that there's a secret plan for winning in Iraq. From Americablog:

Sen. Conrad Burns says he believes President Bush has a plan to win the war in Iraq but is keeping it quiet, a statement Democrats pounced on Wednesday as reminiscent of comments made during another divisive war.

Burns, at a debate Monday with Democratic challenger Jon Tester, said he believes Bush has a plan to win - but added: "we're not going to tell you what our plan is."

As Joe Sudbay at Americablog notes, ten American troops were killed today. I bet their family would like to know what the "secret plan" is. I bet there a couple thousand families who would like to know what this secret plan is and why it hasn't been implemented already.
Or perhaps, and I'm just spitballing here, perhaps Burns is totally nucking futs and he demonstrated that fact by he'll say just about anything that pops into his head, including something as asinine as, "We've got a plan, but we're not going to tell you." Dear lord, how old is the twit? If I did something like award a "Quote of the Week," this one would probably win by a landslide.

ALL HAIL KING GEORGE

GEORGE W. BUSH


Pardon me while I swipe from SilentPatriot over at Crooks and Liars. I think he hit the nail on the head:

Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.

After sitting on this for close to three weeks, I wonder if Bush knew the significance of the date mentioned by SilentPatriot. The Republicans are ecstatic about this, but I cannot wait until the day when a Dem is in the White House again. Can you imagine the uproar from the right if Hillary one day sits in the Oval Office with this kind of power? If Sean Hannity thinks it's worth dying for to keep Nancy Pelosi from becoming House Speaker, imagine his brain exploding the day President/Queen Hillary takes the oath of office.

ATTACK OF THE CLONES

BRIT HUME & FRED BARNES


As I have blogged about in the past, certain rightwing bobbleheads have made it their mission to demonize current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in an effort to rile up the GOP base and make certain that Pelosi does not become House Speaker, assuming a Democratic takeover of the House this November. Bill O'Reilly fears for the future of the nation with a California liberal like Pelosi in charge of the House while Sean Hannity feels that keeping Pelosi from becoming House Speaker is something worth dying for.
On Sunday, another Fox bobblehead put forth his two cents in attacking Pelosi, this time pulling stuff directly from of his own posterior. Brit Hume had this to say about her (via http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005):

Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive.

First of all, the claim by Hume that Pelosi is not a popular figure doesn't hold water. A full forty percent of those polled, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll either have never heard of her or have no opinion of her (35% have a favorable opinion with 26% unfavorable). Yet, she is "not a popular or respected figure"? And as for her effect on a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run, how would he 'suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive'? Did he use some special glasses or perhaps jump into Doc Brown's DeLorean with Marty and zoom forward to 2008 to see what two years of life under Speaker Pelosi would be like?

Of course, the lies didn't stop there, as The Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes (a frequent guest on the "fair and balanced" news network) attempted to spin the same schlock about Pelosi's unpopularity, claiming, "[...] Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America." Is he out of his ever-loving mind?! I mean really, how did he actually write that last sentence without cracking up laughing? The intellectual dishonesty of the spinmeisters on the Right is enough to make a reality-based individual want to barf.
Excuse me for a moment while I borrow judiciously from Media Matters again:

Bush:
According to an October 10-11 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 54 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Bush, compared with 43 percent who had a "favorable" opinion. The October 6-8 USA Today/Gallup poll put Bush's "unfavorable" rating at 55 percent.

Cheney:
An October 5-8 CBS News/New York Times poll put Cheney's "unfavorable" rating at 48 percent, compared with the 20 percent of respondents who had a "favorable" opinion of him.

Rumsfeld:
According to a September 22-24 CNN poll, 50 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Rumsfeld, compared with 35 percent who viewed him favorably. Moreover, the October 6-8 CNN poll found that a majority of respondents (52 percent) thought Rumsfeld should be fired as defense secretary, and 48 percent thought he should resign (compared to 41 percent who thought he should not).

Hastert:
The October 6-8 CNN poll found that 36 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Hastert, compared with 28 percent who viewed him favorably, 24 percent who had never heard of him, and 12 percent who were "unsure." The October 6-8 USA Today/Gallup poll also put Hastert's unfavorability rating at 36 percent, compared with 27 percent who viewed him favorably, 23 percent who had "no opinion," and 13 percent who had never heard of him.

Frist:
The October 6-8 CNN poll found that 36 percent of respondents had an "unfavorable" opinion of Frist, compared with 28 percent who viewed him favorably, 22 percent who had never heard of him, and 14 percent who were "unsure."

Sadly, this is all just a lame attempt to paint Pelosi as a scary ogre in an effort to drum up Republicans supporters to get out to the polls in three weeks. I think it speaks quite poorly about the right if their main message is, "Gee, I know we in the GOP have done a crappy job, what with a huge deficit and the Iraq debacle and some other stuff too, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if that Pelosi-monster were in charge of the House?"

START SPREADING THE NEWS

PETER KING


Let me preface this by saying that I have never lived in New York City. I have visited a number of times over the last few years, both for business and pleasure. I love the city. I've actually wanted to live there since I was five years old; I recall riding in a car with my family and passing by a some nameless statue somewhere in New Orleans. I made a comment about it being the Statue of Liberty and my mom corrected me saying that the Statue of Liberty was in New York and not New Orleans. Right then I knew that I had to live in a place where they had cool stuff like the Statue of Liberty.
All that being said, I may have to rethink my position given NY Rep. Peter King's comments that Baghdad is like being in Manhattan. (Think Progress has the video.)

Now, in my handful of visits to the city, I've been to Times Square, visited Central Park, walked along Fifth Avenue, seen Grand Central Station (or is it Terminal), hung around Washington Square Park, been down to the Financial District and saw Ground Zero. And not a single time during the entire time of those visits did I ever see or hear a car bomb going off. Not once did I come across a mass grave of tortured and murdered bodies. Never did I feel like I was taking my own life in my hands as I walked the streets in broad daylight. So, I'm really not sure what the hell King is talking about when he says that going through Baghdad is like being in Manhattan.

However, I'm tentatively scheduled to fly up there on business sometime in November so if I happen to see anything like what Baghdad looks like, I'll be sure the give Mr. King a call and let him know that he might be onto something and should probably not consider a job as a member of the NYC tourism board when his time in Congress is at an end.

THOSE WHO CANNOT REMEMBER THE PAST...

BILL O'REILLY


What a lucky break for Bill-O. He got himself invited to the White House to have a sit-down with Bush. Nice "get" there, buddy. It's about time that someone put Bush in your patented no-spin zone. You go give him hell, O'Reilly!

Or not...

See, Bill-O neutered himself as he prefaced how things were going to go during the interview.
He started off by saying, "You cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States. You can be direct, but you can't be disrespectful." The question that popped into my head (well several did, but I'll focus on this one first) was how do you define confrontational? Was Matt Lauer confrontational during his stroll around the Oval Office with Bush? Is confrontational defined by any question that gets Bush out of his comfort zone of talking points? If an interviewer causes Bush to stammer and lose his composure, is that being confrontational? Was this caveat about being non-confrontational an excuse for Bill to softball Bush for an interview to be stretched over three nights? After all, we wouldn't want to be confrontational with poor, delicate Georgie.
I would like to ask Bill-O if he thought Chris Wallace was confrontational with President Clinton during their infamous interview a few weeks back? I thought that was as "in-your-face" as one could get, but I would tend to think that Bill-O would think that Wallace was just being direct.

O'Reilly also defined the parameters of his sitdown with Bush by claiming that due to time constraints, he could only focus on the present and the future and that there would be no looking back when Bush entered the no-spin zone. From a transcript provided by Think Progress:

Over the next three nights, President Bush will have his say. You will know exactly where he stands on the most vital issues facing america and the world. Because every presidential interview is finite — time is always a concern — I decided to concentrate on the conflicts — Iraq, Iran, North Korea and terror — rather than on domestic issues. Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?

Um, yes, Bill. I think that looking back might actually do some good. Did you not consider for a moment that perhaps by looking to the past, you might be able to discern Bush's motives and decisions as they pertain to the looming threats of Iran and North Korea? Foreign policy does not happen in a vacuum, Bill. Decisions made in the past have a great bearing on decisions to be made in the future. So, you don't choose to broach the subject of WMDs? How about in the context of faulty intelligence and how we can avoid falling into a similar pitfall as the rhetoric of war with Iran is currently being ratcheted up? You didn't think that a look back at the past might have made for a more effective interview?

Of course, that's the whole point now, isn't it? It is never the intention of any bobble-head at Fox News to openly question Bush and his policies; their's is the role of cheerleader, a role they have honed these ten years on the air. It's not Fox News' job to actually do, you know, journalism; it is paint Bush in the best possible light during his hour of most desperate need, namely when Bush's party is set to lose the majority in one or both houses of Congress and his presidency officially enters into its lame duck phase.

SO, WHO'S RIGHT?

JOE LIEBERMAN


On Monday, a debate as held in Connecticut featuring the three candidates for Senate, GOP candidate Alan Schlesinger, Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and sore loser and all-around prick Joe Lieberman. Matt Stoller over at MyDD reports:

There is just no question that Alan Schlesinger won this debate, Lamont pretty much held his own, and Lieberman lost. Alan Schlesinger was funny, interesting, and passionate. He made compelling conservative arguments, and punctured the myth that Lieberman was a principled independent. Lamont held his own as a credible candidate, standing up to Joe's attacks. Lieberman was somewhat funny, but he couldn't defend his middle of the road mantra when Alan Schlesinger and Ned Lamont were pointing out that his record doesn't match his rhetoric.

Jane Hamsher at FDL concurs:

Lieberman thought he was going to look "bipartisan" standing in between Ned Lamont and Alan Schlessinger during the debate today but he just looked like a man without a country, crying because everyone was trying to steal his candy. While Joe was praising every Republican in sight (Jodi Rell, John McCain, Susan Collins — funny, no Democrats) Alan Schlessinger reminded him of all the boasting about what a "great liberal" the Lieberman4Lieberman candidate had done during the primary when his job security depended on trying to woo Democrats. When Lieberman tried to nail down the critical senior vote by lying about the fact that he had supported social security privatization, Lamont set the record straight. All Joe could do was whine that Ned was being mean to him, and when he thought he was scoring a master stroke by keeping score of how many times his thin skin got bruised, the audience openly booed him.

After reading these two knowledgable people's analyses I could not wait to head over to Bullmoose because I just knew Marshall Wittman wouldn't let me down. He didn't. The Moose is an unapologetic Lieberman fluffer and I just knew they he would paint a picture of a mighty Joe standing tall over his vanguished foes. And like I said, he didn't disappoint:

This afternoon, Joe Lieberman effectively and persuasively presented the case of the vital center. In contrast,his opponents dutifully delivered their predictable partisan talking points. They both appealed for the partisans on either side of the political spectrum to vote the party line.
But, only Joe showed by detailing specific accomplishments that he has the capacity to get things done for the state. It is striking how shrill the partisans of the left and the right can appear when they are attacking the vital center. Ironically, Negative Ned was clearly relying on the Republican candidate to drive down Joe's vote. He's that desperate.
The central message that Joe delivered was that country should come before party. That is a rather unique and refreshing theme in this most toxic political environment. And the Moose senses that, beyond all the noise and clutter of this election season, voters want to hear constructive cooperation before vituperative confrontation.
In short, Joe came across as the adult. And, when he returns to Washington, he will continue to be a leader of the Coalition of the Adults.

In short, this is my problem with Whitman (aside from the fact that, as evidenced by his first paragraph, Lieberman could be eating a plate of horseshit and Whitman would make it sound as if he were dining on a fine filet); he keeps speaking of Joe as if he is some sort of shining beacon of hope from the center of American politics who is going to lead the partisan heathens to a better place. What I see as the falacy about his constant carping of the "vital center" is that I'm not certain that a center even exists, much less whether it is even remotely vital in this day and age. In my mind, it seems that Whitman views politics like an Oreo cookie, with his "vital center" being the creamy white goodness. These days I view the politics-as-cookie metaphor more like a chocolate chip cookie - either you're the cookie or you're the chip. Everything else is just crumbs. You either support Bush's policies in Iraq or you do not. You either support rubberstamping Bush or you do not. You either support accountability and transparency in government or you do not.

It seems to me that Joe and, by extention Whitman, see themselves as the lone champions of crumbs and I suppose that they're welcome to them; I'm just not certain the crumbs are all that vital during this time in our nation's history.

SHUT UP AND SING

DIXIE CHICKS


There's a new documentary coming out chronicling the saga of the Dixie Chicks as they dealt with the repercussions of publicly expressing their disdain for George W. Bush. In twelve simple words, their lives were turned upside down, and it's amazing and heartbreaking to see all that they have had to go through since that fateful day in 2003 during the height of Bush's popularity. Here's the trailer:



To refresh everyone's memory, this is what they said: "... [W]e're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." That is all that it took for people to go apeshit nuts on someone expressing an opinion. It's easy these days to be anti-Bush; after all, his approval ratings are in the toilet and it seems like everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. But the Dixie Chicks' said something when it was politcally incorrect to do so and they have suffered greatly for it.

The movie is set for limited release on October 27 and in expanded release on November 10. Be on the lookout for it.

WHAT, DON'T YOU KNOW?

TONY SNOW

I know it seems like today is Tony Snow day, but when someone says something as painful as what Snow said today during his daily press conference, I just have to stand up and yell foul. The offense (via Think Progress):

During today’s White House press conference, Tony Snow was asked a simple question about Iraq: “Are we winning?” Here was Snow’s response:

QUESTION: Just a simple question: Are we winning?

SNOW: We’re making progress. I don’t know. How do you define winning?
The fact is, in taking on the war on terror — no, let me put it this way: The president’s made it obvious we’re going to win. And that means ultimately providing an Iraq that is safe, secure and an ally in the war on terror. And at any given time, as you’ve seen in previous wars, there are going to be spikes in violence.

'How do you defining winning?' What the hell kind of question is that? I mean, aren't you the ones who are supposed to have the answers to that all-important question. Of course, it's been quite obvious over the last 40+ months that this administration really has no idea what it's doing as the only plan they seem comfortable with its disastrous "Stay the Course" policy.

Further, how exactly has Bush "made it obvious we're going to win"? What exactly has he done that should fill the American public with warm feelings in regards to the stupendous disaster that is Iraq? Let me share with you something that is obvious - at around 5pm I am going to sit down and have dinner with my wife and daughter. Why is this obvious? Because steps have already been put in place to have dinner ready at that time. What steps have this administration taken to make it obvious that we are going to win in Iraq and in the larger "War on Terrah"?

All this nonsense is indicative of much of what is wrong with Bush and his gang; they'll talk a good game but when it comes to a substantive understanding of the challenges facing this nation, they're completely clueless. This nation deserves better than this collection of stuffed shirts who spin the most dire of issues into cute little soundbytes.