Showing posts with label Heather. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heather. Show all posts
Maher Warns of Dangers of New Gilded Age in 'New Rules' Segment

Click here to view this media



Cue the right-wing outrage over this Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher in 10...9...8... for the way he ended his New Rules segment while talking about the dangers of record income disparity in the United States:



MAHER: If you're rich, you should be begging the government to redistribute your wealth, because you know what happens in countries where there's a huge disparity between the rich and the poor? The rich get kidnapped. It happens seventy two times a day in Mexico.



He went onto talk about people resorting to using flame throwers on their cars in South Africa to stop it. He made a lot of really good points about what's happening to our society in the wake of the latest remake of The Great Gatsby being released, and our new Gilded Age which is worse than the last one. I'm sure all those on the right will hear is that he wants to raise your taxes and the clamor will be "Why doesn't he just volunteer to pay more himself?" -- because we all know how well just asking the wealthy to voluntarily pay more taxes, and only a tiny portion of them actually doing it, would work to solve our economic problems and the huge wealth gap we have now.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/maher-warns-dangers-new-gilded-age-new-rul
Matthews Downplays the Role of Gerrymandering in GOP Control of House

Click here to view this media



Here's your quote of the day from Chris Matthews after Bob Shrum told him that the only reason Republicans got control of the House is because of gerrymandering:



MATTHEWS: I think the problem is the way the votes get counted. Democrats are just doing too damn well in the big cities. They're wasting votes. [...] They need a lot more than 51 percent of the population for them to carry it because they wasted the votes in the big cities.



Here's the problem with that. Even Republicans were bragging that gerrymandering is why they won the House. It was a strategy and they're proud of it.


And what's that word for when you lump as many of the other party's voters into the same district so that their votes won't count? I know it will come to me sooner or later.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/matthews-downplays-role-gerrymandering-gop
President Obama at the 2014 White House Correspondents Dinner

Click here to view this media



I don't think we're ever going to top the Donald getting roasted a few years ago, or Stephen Colbert and his appearance back in 2006, but for anyone who missed it and wants to watch, here's President Obama at this year's White House Correspondents Dinner.


He managed to get in a few good zingers aimed at Fox, CNN, the conspiracy theorists, birthers and Maureen Dowd among others.


Here's part two.


President Obama at the 2014 White House Correspondents Dinner Part 2

Click here to view this media



And part three.


President Obama at the 2014 White House Correspondents Dinner Part 3

Click here to view this media








via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/president-obama-2014-white-house-correspon
Hayes Slams Congress for Protecting Air Travelers Alone Among Sequester Victims

Click here to view this media



While thousands of low-income Americans are suffering under sequestration, our Congress somehow managed to rush through a fix for the FAA cuts that were delaying their their flights. Imagine that! As Chris Hayes discussed in the opening of his show this Friday, it's so nice to see that those members of Congress have got their priorities in order.



HAYES: But we begin tonight with the big flashing headline breaking news of the day, from the least popular branch of government, the branch of government widely seen as the most dysfunctional branch of government, the one that contains the right-wing Republican House caucus committed to obstruction above all else. In that branch of government today, today we saw a remarkable display of urgency and pragmatic bipartisan problem solving come together in a matter of hours to fix the most pressing trouble facing America today.


And that very pressing problem is extended travel delays for frequent flyers and members of Congress. Yes, it was a long and tortured path to triumph on this issue. but today in a 361 to 41 vote, a resounding margin, House of Representatives overwhelmingly agreed to tackle the scourge of flight delays being caused by the furlough of federal aviation workers.



Sadly the first piece of legislation that members of Congress saw fit to pass will make those lines at the airports shorter, and as Hayes reminded his audience, here's who will not be getting relief from the bill passed this Friday.



HAYES: Thousands of cancer patients on Medicare who are being turned away by clinics where they were treated with expensive chemotherapy drugs. The roughly 70,000 kids expected to lose eligibility for Head Start programs. The 1,000 would-be scientific researchers who won't get National Science Foundation grants. The older Americans who stand to get millions fewer meals delivered from the Meals on Wheels program. The low income families who are getting bumped from Section 8 housing assistance. Everyone who eats anything in this country, as a sequester stands to cost us 2100 food inspections.



With Congress undoing the one and only thing you could say was good about the sequester, which is that it bound together the poor, middle class and the wealthy with the across the board cuts, sadly, this should not be that surprising, given their voting records.


Hayes pointed to a study from Larry M. Bartels of Princeton which noted that:



In almost every instance, senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call votes.



Hayes showed a chart of what that looks like in real life, with the FAA deal this Friday being the perfect example of that and took another slap at the Congress for their vote on this deal and called it "one step away from voting themselves a pay raise in the midst of the sequester." After showing clips of Senators Bob Corker and John McCain talking about not wanting to "inconvenience people in this really unacceptable way" at the airports, Hayes followed up with this.



HAYES: Inconvenience people in an unacceptable way. Here's what I wish could happen today. I wish every single cancer patient and every kid who is getting kicked out of Head Start and every person losing a job at a government facility because of cut backs or furloughs, every family losing Section 8 housing assistance -- I wish every single one of them could have gotten together and been bussed by the thousands from all parts of the country, to Reagan National Airport and then rolled out on to the runway and strung out in a line that stretches across the entire field so that those planes carrying members of Congress who just cast this vote couldn't take off. How's that for inconvenience, Senator?



Amen to that.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/hayes-slams-congress-protecting-air-travel
Hayes on the Bush Presidency: 'It Was Just as Bad as You Thought'

Click here to view this media



Following today's niceties by his fellow former presidents and President Obama, who of course felt compelled to try to come up with something polite to say about George W. Bush at the opening of his library, Chris Hayes reminded his audience that, luckily, he and his staff are under "no obligation to be nice for the sake of being nice" to Bush.


Hayes proceeded to lay waste to the Bush apologists who have been doing their best to rewrite his legacy, such as Fox "News", Jennifer Rubin and a host of his former advisers who have been making the rounds on the talk shows these days.


And then there's the bizarre "choose your own adventure" video game being featured at the library and the fact that they're trying to paint Bush as a great president because he had to make "tough decisions," regardless of how horrible those decisions were.



HAYES: This does not sound like the kind of thing that's going to make everyone realize what a great president George W. Bush was. In fact, it sounds to me like the world's easiest video game. Invade a country for no reason, or don't invade a country for no reason? Don't invade a country for no reason.


Celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans or don't celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans? Don't celebrate John McCain's birthday while a deadly storm hits New Orleans. I could do this all day.


Torture people or don't torture people? Don't torture people. Deregulate and tax cut the country into financial ruin, or don't deregulate and tax cut the country into financial ruin? There is no reason people, to over-think the Bush presidency.


It was just as bad as you thought.








via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/hayes-bush-presidency-it-was-just-bad-you
Stewart Slams 'Broken Bad' Senate for Failure to Pass Gun Regulation

Click here to view this media



Jon Stewart took our "broken bad" Senate and their failure to pass even some watered down gun regulation to task during the opening segment of The Daily Show this Thursday night. Stewart also took a page out of Chris Hayes' book, going after them for being willing to move heaven and earth to combat terrorism, while pretending there's no point in even passing any laws if criminals are just going to break them when it comes to guns.


After showing a portion of Hayes show comparing the number of terror vs gun fatalities in the United States, here's how Stewart wrapped things up.



STEWART: Well, thank God for Chris Hayes, because I'm not good at math. I'm so stupid. I still think 54 votes is more than 46, because I'm a f**king idiot. But I'm pretty sure that a million is more than 3400, and yet, to battle the evil of terror, we started two wars, tortured people, reorganized almost the entire federal government, disallowed the air trafficking of shampoo and conditioner and okay'd the robot sky killing of American citizens, if warranted by... someone.


Because one American life lost to terror is one too many, which I agree with. But it seems to me we'll move heaven and earth to do whatever it takes to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of foreigners who might kill our citizens, because apparently we think killing our citizens, is our job.



John Oliver continued the theme in the following segment, where he made a complete mockery of the Virginia Citizens Defense League's President, Philip Van Cleave, who was attempting to make many of the same arguments as those Senators, despite the fact that, as Oliver pointed out to him, Australia has proven that gun regulation can prevent mass shootings and gun deaths.


The Daily Show Destroys VCDL President Philip Van Cleave

Click here to view this media








via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/stewart-slams-broken-bad-senate-failure-pa
First Question at Deval Patrick Presser From Alex Jones Conspiracy Theorist

Click here to view this media



It seems we just can't escape the wingnuts. From this afternoon's presser in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, the first question out of the box was from an InfoWars "reporter" who asked "Is this another false flag attack staged attack to take our civil liberties?"


Gov. Patrick's response: "No. Next question."


Honestly, what the hell did they think he was going to say in response?







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/first-question-deval-patrick-presser-alex
Melissa Harris-Perry: African Americans Don’t Need a History Lesson From Rand Paul

Click here to view this media



Jon Stewart wasn't the only one this week that let Sen. Rand Paul have it for his failed attempt at minority outreach at Howard University, where he assumed the students there didn't know anything about their own history and were treated to him attempting to gloss over that whole era where Southern whites joined the Republican party because they were opposed to civil rights legislation passed by the Democrats.


As Harris-Perry explained: African Americans don’t need a history lesson from Rand Paul:



I read a lot of letters this week, but don’t worry–I also found time to write one. This one inspired by an especially awkward lecture at Howard University. And since my dad and two of my sisters attended Howard, I feel a little possessive of it and paid careful attention to Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s address.



Dear Sen. Paul,


It’s me, Melissa.


Apparently, you had a bit of trepidation about your visit to the land of the Bison this week. You said that some thought you were “either brave or crazy” to speak on campus.


Really?


Because it strikes me as precisely the mission of a university to give students an opportunity to hear dissenting viewpoints, to interact with political leaders, and to address the major issues of our day. I wouldn’t characterize it as brave or crazy, just part of Howard’s mission. But maybe you were nervous because as a libertarian you know your ideology stands opposed to the impulse that gave birth to Howard in the first place.


Howard University was established by the federal government. Following the Civil War, Congress recognized our nation’s collective responsibility to offer educational opportunities to the Freedmen and the subsequent generations of children that would be born into freedom. So Congress, in an act of collective responsibility toward young people, established Howard and later authorized an annual federal appropriations for its construction, development, improvement and maintenance.


But you left out that story of big-government Republicanism in your fascinating revisionist history. This moment was a gem, though: “I think what happened during the Great Depression was that African Americans understood that Republicans did champion citizenship and voting rights but they became impatient because they wanted economic emancipation… The Democrats promised equalizing outcome. Everybody will get something. through unlimited federal assistance.”


Um, OK: so your theory is African American voters left the Republican Party because they didn’t get enough free stuff.


Let me offer a different take.


After Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act–which were passed by the Democrats in Congress–and after those acts established the framework for black citizens to exercise the franchise and enjoy equal protection. After those Democratic actions, it was white Dixiecrats who left the party and found refuge among Republicans. Those who refused to support civil rights gains were clear that the best party for them in the modern era was the Republican Party.


So folks like Strom Thurmond and large majorities of white voters in Southern states became reliable Republican voters. Because they opposed civil rights. And Sen. Paul, you know a little about opposition to the Civil Rights Act, don’t you?


Even though you told a [Howard] questioner, “I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer correctly reminded us that in 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal , you said that even though you “abhor racism”, you do not support bans on discrimination by privately-owned businesses. And that, Sen. Paul, would mean those students from another historically black college, North Carolina A&T, would have just had to live with the private decision to deny them a place to sit at that Woolworth’s lunch counter. Maybe Republicans like you don’t count that as opposition to the Civil Rights Act, but I bet many Howard students do.


And as you said: “Yes. Alright. Alright. You know more than I know… And I don’t mean that to be insulting. I don’t know what you know… you know, I mean I’m trying to find out what the connection is.”


Sen. Paul, I hope you enjoyed your time at Howard and the applause for your positions on foreign policy and ending the drug war and the respectful and engaged audience you encountered. But I also hope you learned something during your visit. If you want to do better with black voters, we don’t need you to explain our history–we need you to make an argument for why your policies are better for our futures.


Hey, we are willing to listen.


Sincerely,


Melissa









via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/melissa-harris-perry-african-americans-don
O'Reilly Pines for the 'Wholesome' 1950's That Only Exists in His Mind

Click here to view this media



Fox's Bill O'Reilly opened up his show this Tuesday evening by using the death of former Mouseketeer Annette Funicello to opine over whether America was somehow "a better country" back in those days when, as Media Matters noted, white America was "kind of unified" and if that "made it easier for society to function."


I'm fairly sure that it did make it "easier for society to function" if you were a white male, like Bill-O. If you were a woman, or a minority... well... maybe not so much.


O'Reilly was also opining during the segment for the days back when America was "more wholesome." Pardon me if I have a little bit of trouble hearing from someone who is apparently in the middle of a divorce right now and can't control his temper because of it on that topic.


I don't want to hear about the "need to be more wholesome" from someone who had to settle a sexual harrassment suit with one of their former employees.


I don't want to hear about the "need to be more wholesome" from someone who was accused of harassing his ex-wife's boyfriend.


I don't want to hear about the "need to be more wholesome" from someone who is capable of visiting Sylvia's restaurant with the Rev. Al and making the ridiculous statement he did about the patrons and their so-called m-f**king iced tea.


Sadly, we're not likely to see O'Reilly off the air any time soon, along with his fellow Nixon-loving cheerleader here, Monica Crowley who was ready to take up his cause and argue with Alan Colmes. It's sad that the two of them here just literally proved what many of us have known all along about Fox and that is, they'd be more than happy to take most of the country back to the '50's socially and rolling back civil rights. Just don't bring back those tax rates. That would be treasonous!


h/t Media Matters







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/oreilly-opines-wholesome-1950s-only-exists
Melissa Harris-Perry Takes on Tenn. Lawmakers for Tying Welfare Benefits to Grades

Click here to view this media



Melissa Harris-Perry let the lawmakers in Tennessee know what she thought of the bill they introduced, which is advancing this week, that would tie welfare benefits to children's grades:



Two Tennessee lawmakers introduced legislation that would tie welfare assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to the educational performance of students who benefit from it, and the legislation was approved by committees in both the state House and Senate last week.


Under the legislation brought by two Republicans, a student who doesn’t not make “satisfactory progress” in school would cost his or her family up to 30 percent of its welfare assistance, the Knoxville News and Sentinel reported: [...]


When Campfield introduced the legislation in January, he said parents have “gotten away with doing absolutely nothing to help their children” in school. “That’s child abuse to me,” he added. Tennessee already ties welfare to education by mandating a 20 percent cut in benefits if students do not meet attendance standards, but this change would place the burden of maintaining benefits squarely on children, who would face costing their family much-needed assistance if they don’t keep up in school.



Here's more from Harris-Perry's blog: Tying welfare benefits to school grades teaches the wrong lesson:



One of the lawmakers behind the bill told us his aim is to help children use education to break the cycle of poverty.


Sounds nice in theory. But that’s not what this law does in practice. In my letter this week, I’d like to let the sponsors of this bill know what it’s really about.



Dear Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield and state Rep. Vance Dennis,


It’s me, Melissa.


You’ve said your bill isn’t really placing a family burden on the shoulders of children, but instead is an incentive to hold parents accountable.


You’ve added amendments to the bill that would exempt parents who either attend parent teacher conferences, an 8-hour parenting class, arrange tutoring, or enroll their child in summer school. Certainly, every child deserves to have a parent who is an involved participant in his or her education.


But your bill is only concerned with struggling kids whose parents are poor. In fact, Sen. Campfield, you went so far as to tell us that parents who allow their kids to fail in school are guilty of child abuse. Strong words, senator.


And yet, I can’t help but wonder. If your passion for parental involvement is as profound as your choice of words, why wouldn’t you pursue legislation that would penalize all parents of children with a poor academic record?


Here I’ll help–how about a $1,500 tax penalty for middle and upper income people who shirk their parental responsibilities? The fact is this bill is just the latest in a well-worn policy practice of subjecting the choices of poor parents–and in particular, poor single mothers–to scrutiny and shame.


As you well know, TANF eligibility already requires children to attend school, and parental participation in school conferences.


At the same time, those parents receiving cash assistance also must work or participate in work-related activities. All of this while stretching the $2,000 in maximum assets required to qualify for TANF.


So prodding poor parents to get even more involved is really just a callous disregard for the fact that parental involvement–while ideal–is a luxury that not all families can afford.


Poor parents are more likely than their wealthier counterparts to work multiple jobs, lack paid leave, and be unable to afford child care and transportation. And far from breaking the cycle of poverty, your legislation would only sink families even further below the line.


A single mother with two children receives $185 dollars a month in TANF cash payments. That’s roughly $46 dollars a week, less than $7 a day. Your 30% reduction would cut that payment to just under $130 a month.


Your legislation also ignores the very real educational impediments for students coming from impoverished households–like food and housing insecurity or financial and health care instability. And the truth is that poor people don’t hold the monopoly on bad parenting. Nor is a poor child who struggles in school an indicator that he or she has a parent who simply doesn’t care. For impoverished children, even the most exceptional of parents may not be enough to push them through the significant structural barriers imposed by a life in poverty. Bad parenting is not a barrier to success for the rich. Neither should it be an impediment for children of the poor.


And gentlemen–it’s your job as elected officials to encourage their achievement with policy that supports instead of shames.


Sincerely,


Melissa









via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/melissa-harris-perry-takes-tenn-lawmakers
Malkin Rails Against Republicans for Supporting 'Shamnesty' Immigration Bill

Click here to view this media



It looks like the Anchor Baby isn't too happy with Republicans like Lindsey Graham for working with Senate Democrats on the immigration bill he was touting over the weekend. Michelle Malkin and her ilk seem determined to make sure that the GOP ends up as popular with Hispanic voters as they are with African Americans right now.


From the Fox News Insider site: Michelle Malkin Calls Out Republicans for Supporting “Shamnesty” Immigration Bill:



On Your World this afternoon, Michelle Malkin called out “deluded” Republicans for joining with Democrats to craft legislation that she equates to amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country.


“There are many self-deluded Republicans who feel that this kind of ‘shamnesty’ is a salvation for a party that is in shambles. [...] At the same time that they are talking out of one side of their mouth to grassroots conservatives and people of all political persuasions who believe that it is the government’s constitutionally-mandated role to secure the borders,” said Malkin, referring to a TownHall.com report indicating that border crossings are rapidly increasing since talks on an immigration deal began recently.



Good luck with that "minority outreach" program of yours, Republicans!







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/malkin-rails-against-republicans-supportin

So how's that rebranding effort working out for you Reince? Maybe instead of hoping this guy will resign from the RNC, someone could fire him instead.


Michigan Republican Refuses To Resign, Stands By Anti-Gay Facebook Post:



The Republican official in Michigan embroiled in controversy over an anti-gay Facebook post said Friday that he won't be heeding the calls to step down and he stands by the content of the inflammatory article.


Dave Agema, a Republican National Committeeman and former Michigan state representative, told Newschannel 3 that he has no intention of resigning, despite calls from members of his own party to do so. On Wednesday, Agema posted an article on his Facebook page in which homosexuals were described as "filthy." The article contained "some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle," such as: "50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)" and "Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5)." A screen grab from the Facebook post can be viewed here.


While Agema distanced himself from the "filthy" characterization, he was quick to highlight the statistics on the gay "lifestyle and what it causes."


"They quoted as what somebody else said and attributed it to me; I didn't say that," Agema told the news station. "So, do I agreewith everything that that guy and the way he said it in the article, no. But he gives a lot of statistics on the results of the health and mental and physical health of the lifestyle and what it causes."



Cenk Uygur did a really nice job of pointing out in the clip above that if Agema didn't want what was in the article attributed to him, then maybe he should have thought twice about posting it and endorsing what was in it, and that he still agreed with the better part of the article, which is frankly, just bullshit made up statistics.


Pam's House Blend has more on why it's important to be paying attention to the lies being pushed by the religious right and then parroted by anti-gay bigots like Agema here: Gay community wasting good opportunity in Dave Agema controversy:



For those who wonder why bloggers like me “pay attention” to the religious right and spotlight their lies, the following post is you:


Michigan Republican Committeeman: Homosexuality ‘Usually Leads To Early Death ’ – During the Supreme Court hearings this week on Prop 8 and DOMA, Michigan Republican Committeeman Dave Agema posted on his Facebook page something called Statistics on Homosexuality , a vicious anti-gay list of lies, including:



Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting.


Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus .


25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics .


Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands).


Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.


78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs. 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75. The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.


Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.



It wasn’t that long ago that “high-profile” religious right groups such as the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, and Concerned Women for America peddled this information free and unashamed. They still do peddle these lies, but only covertly.


You see, this is why it is so important for us to focus on religious right groups and spokespeople. Not only because of the lies they peddle, but because how these lies can influence people already with an animus towards the lgbt community, such as Agema. These false statistics provide those folks with the push they need to attack the lgbt community with violence or anti-lgbt legislation.


Indeed, the vast majority of anti-gay legislation (whether it be Prop 8, DOMA, or fiendish legislation targeting our transgender brothers and sisters and people with HIV or AIDS) is rooted in these lies masquerading as good research.


It’s why I work as hard as I do to call these folks out.


Unfortunately as the media focuses on Agema’s nonsense, very few – if any at all – are making the point to refute his lies. The following links are posts I have done in the past which does look at claims made by Agema.



Go read the rest for the links to her past posts debunking these lies.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rncs-dave-agema-refuses-resign-after-bigot

From Thom Hartmann's radio show this week, he's asked by a caller if he's read Tim Dickinson's article at Rolling Stone titled How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich and as Hartmann pointed out in his response to the caller, you've actually got to go back a whole lot further than Dickinson did in his article, like around the late 1870's and early 1880's when they were corrupted by the railroad barons as to when that shift began.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/thom-hartmann-explains-when-gop-became-par

From Democracy Now: Phil Donahue on His 2003 Firing from MSNBC, When Liberal Network Couldn’t Tolerate Antiwar Voices:



In 2003, the legendary television host Phil Donahue was fired from his prime-time MSNBC talk show during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The problem was not Donahue’s ratings, but rather his views: An internal MSNBC memo warned Donahue was a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war," providing "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." Donahue joins us to look back on his firing 10 years later. "They were terrified of the antiwar voice," Donahue says.



Transcript below the fold.



JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Phil, I’d like to bring in another subject in terms of this whole issue, the—what happened to you, directly, as a host on MSNBC in the midst of the run-up to the war, and the responsibilities of the press in America and its—the mea culpas that have rarely been uttered by the pundits and by the journalists over what the American press did in the run-up to war.


PHIL DONAHUE: Well, I think what happened to me, the biggest lesson, I think, is the—how corporate media shapes our opinions and our coverage. This was a decision—my decision—the decision to release me came from far above. This was not an assistant program director who decided to separate me from MSNBC. They were terrified of the antiwar voice. And that is not an overstatement. Antiwar voices were not popular. And if you’re General Electric, you certainly don’t want an antiwar voice on a cable channel that you own; Donald Rumsfeld is your biggest customer. So, by the way, I had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I could have Richard Perle on alone, but I couldn’t have Dennis Kucinich on alone. I was considered two liberals. It really is funny almost, when you look back on how—how the management was just frozen by the antiwar voice. We were scolds. We weren’t patriotic. American people disagreed with us. And we weren’t good for business.


AMY GOODMAN: You know, I had this unusual experience, Phil, in July of 2006. It was the 10th anniversary of MSNBC, and I was invited on Hardball by Chris Matthews to celebrate the 10th anniversary. I think first Brian Williams was on the show, and then the Israeli ambassador, and then I was on the show. And we were standing outside 30 Rock. It was a big deal. All the execs were on the top floor of 30 Rock, and they were all about to have a big party. And we were just coming out of a commercial.



AMY GOODMAN: I want to congratulate you, Chris, on 10 years of MSNBC, but I wish standing with you was Phil Donahue. He shouldn’t have been fired for expressing an antiwar point of view on the eve of the election. His point of view and the people brought on were also important.




CHRIS MATTHEWS: I don’t know what the reasons were, but I doubt it was that.




AMY GOODMAN: Well, we have the MS—the NBC memo, that was a secret memo—




CHRIS MATTHEWS: Oh, OK, good.




AMY GOODMAN: —that came out, that said they didn’t want him to be the face of this network, an antiwar face, at a time when the other networks were waving the flag.




MICHAEL SMERCONISH: Could I answer the question? I’d love to answer that question.




AMY GOODMAN: Phil Donahue is a great patriot.



AMY GOODMAN: I said there, Phil, you were a great patriot. We did have the NBC memo, the secret memo that said they didn’t want their flagship show to be you, when the other networks were waving the American flag.


PHIL DONAHUE: That’s what it said. And, by the way, that memo was written by a Republican focus group, a Republican counseling group that took the focus group and that revealed that most of the people in the focus group didn’t like me. But I saw that, Amy.


AMY GOODMAN: And yet, you were the most popular show.


PHIL DONAHUE: Well, often we led the night for the—nobody burned the town down on MSNBC, including me. Fox just ran away with the ratings and continues to enjoy that success.


AMY GOODMAN: Were you watching MSNBC that night?


PHIL DONAHUE: I did. I saw it. And I called the kids. I said, "Hey!" I’m not sure I did it soon enough. But I certainly was grateful for—I mean, I needed the pat on the back at the time.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Phil, the irony that MSNBC now is supposedly this liberal—


PHIL DONAHUE: It’s amazing, really.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —the liberal network now?


PHIL DONAHUE: Yeah.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You wonder, though, if another—if another move to war came, how liberal it would remain.


PHIL DONAHUE: Well, you know, the coin of the realm is the size of the audience. It’s important to see this. When a broadcasting executive gets out of bed in the morning, before his foot hits the floor, his thoughts are ratings. "What are my ratings?" Not unlike Wall Street people, who get their—and CEOs, their first thought is the price of their stock. So, you know, what—and I was replaced by Michael Savage. So there was a desperate need to get numbers.


AMY GOODMAN: Who is one of the most conservative, and that’s giving conservatives a bad name.


PHIL DONAHUE: This was the decision of—


AMY GOODMAN: Michael Savage lived up to his last name.


PHIL DONAHUE: And this was a decision by higher-ups at General Electric and NBC.








via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/phil-donahue-his-2003-firing-msnbc-when-li
Coulter Attacks Bill Clinton and Sandra Fluke at CPAC

Click here to view this media



The invitation of Ann Coulter to CPAC this year along with the rest of their guest list, continues to prove that they learned absolutely nothing from the last election. After making a weight joke about Gov. Chris Christie, who was shunned from the event, Coultergeist went on to explain that the reason Republicans lost the Senate is that some of their candidates, like Todd Akin, just failed to keep their mouths shut, and Democrats are supposedly the ones waging a war on women.


Ann Coulter CPAC: Pundit Tells Chris Christie Weight Joke, Calls Bill Clinton 'Forcible Rapist' :



Ann Coulter spoke at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, firing off an insult about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's snub from the annual conference.


"Even CPAC had to cut back on its speakers this year about 300 pounds," Coulter said.


Christie wasn't he only target of Coulter's insults. She also criticized President Barack Obama and made eyebrow-raising remarks about Sandra Fluke's haircut while addressing birth control and the war on women.


"That haircut is birth control enough," Coulter said of Fluke.


Perhaps her most extreme criticism was directed at President Bill Clinton.


"The keynote speaker at the Democrat National Convention this year was forcible rapist, Bill Clinton," Coulter said.



Keep keeing it klassy Annie. Here's more of some of her "greatest hits" from her speech this Saturday.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/coulter-attacks-bill-clinton-and-sandra-fl
O'Reilly Defends His Lie-Filled Attack on Colmes With Claim He 'Elevated' Political Debate

Click here to view this media



It looks like Bill O'Reilly still isn't finished spreading the same lies he was telling when he had his meltdown on air with Alan Colmes last week, because he decided to devote his Talking Points Memo and the opening segment of his show this Monday to defending and repeating those same lies -- and as Media Matters noted, despite getting his facts wrong again, O'Reilly claimed his "righteous anger" elevated the conversation about the debt.


The only thing we see Bill-O "elevating" in this segment is his ego. We've already been through the litany of B.S. O'Reilly was shoveling in the previous post here, so I'm not going to rehash that, but my fellow contributor here at C&L, Ellen at NewsHounds took the time to break down the segment above and I'll share just a bit of that here: O’Reilly Justifes His Meltdown With Alan Colmes: I’m Looking Out For You:



You don’t need to be a psychologist or a body expert to figure out that Bill O’Reilly’s justifications tonight for his bullying attack on Alan Colmes last week are a lot of hooey. In fact, there was so much hooey, I’m not sure I can catch it all in one post. But for starters, there was the hooey that O’Reilly likened Colmes’ “lie” about federal spending cuts to the danger posed by Al Qaeda (which included the hooey that Colmes had his facts wrong in the first place), plus the hooey that O’Reilly attacked Colmes out of a public-spirited desire to draw attention to this big danger, plus O’Reilly’s "admission" that he shouldn’t have called Colmes a liar – even though he immediately afterward described Colmes as lying. And my favorite hooey: O’Reilly said he’s not in his job for money or fame, but to look out for us.



Sure he is. How could anyone ever get the idea that O'Reilly was just all about the money or fame? Go read the rest for more of Bill-O's hackery and the back and forth during the panel segment, and as she noted, Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams did nothing but suck up to O'Reilly and reassure his poor bruised ego that he's really just a nice guy, no matter how badly he treated Colmes the previous week. I don't know about anyone else, but watching those two during this segment reminded me of a couple of battered wives telling their abusive husband that they still love him.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/oreilly-defends-his-lie-filled-attack
Fox' McDowell on Wal-Mart Shutting Down Small Businesses: 'Ma And Pa Need To Get Over It'

Click here to view this media



So much for all of that rhetoric about small businesses being the engine of our economy and job growth. After the news this week that Wal-Mart has decided to pull back its efforts to open a store in Brooklyn, New York amidst protests and political pressure, the talking heads on Fox' "business block" decided this was a perfect opportunity for another round of union bashing -- which is pretty much their favorite thing to do on Saturday mornings. However, panel member Dagen McDowell may have let one slip when she decided to attack "mom and pa" stores as well.


When it was pointed out by her fellow guest, Adam Lashinsky on Fox' Cavuto on Business this Saturday, that how many small businesses are going to end up being shut down if Wal-Mart is allowed in ought to be part of the debate, McDowell wound up the segment by saying that "mom and pa need to get over it."


And of course even though all of them had plenty of time to complain about how terrible those evil union thugs were for keeping that wonderful "job creator" Wal-Mart out of Brooklyn and for stomping on the hopes of all of those poor people out there just dying to get one of those minimum wage jobs, the true cost of the way Wal-Mart does business with shoving their costs onto the taxpayers never came up.







via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/fox-mcdowell-wal-mart-shutting-down-small
Stephen Colbert Takes Apart Breitbart for 'Friends of Hamas' Debacle

Click here to view this media



Stephen Colbert took apart Breitbrat Ben Shapiro, the right wing echo-chamber that fell for his hit piece on Chuck Hagel and the Republicans who are now asking President Obama to withdraw Hagel's nomination, who he should obviously give into after it appears all but inevitable that he's going to be confirmed.


After wondering what other groups Hagel might belong to that the crack team over there at Breitbart's site might not have discovered yet that Hagel doesn't belong to, Colbert wrapped things up with this slap at the Republicans and their ridiculous request.



COLBERT: President Obama, you must withdraw Hagel's nomination, or you will lose the support of every moderate Republican, another group, that doesn't exist.








via Crooks and Liars http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/stephen-colbert-takes-apart-breitbart