Newt Gingrich, inexplicably, pulled his punches literally getting his swipes at Romney stuck in his craw. Georgie Boy launched into an obsessively annoying line grilling Romney, killing a lot of time, on the question of whether Romney was in favor of states outlawing contraception. Asked and answered, in Romney's weasely way; no, sort of, it's a non-issue. But Georgie, inexplicably, kept insisting until the audience hissed (which may be what his script called for), never asking Santorum, who had openly stated his preference for criminalizing birth control, the question. Inexcusable and inexplicable, absent a conspiracy of interests. Or maybe Georgie really is that stupid.
These were the two biggest stories of tonight's debate: Romney escaped unscathed, and Georgie et al behaved like confused pundits asking scattershot, unfocused questions and utterly betraying their responsibility to report, though they may be mere media personalities and news readers. There was little consequential follow-up, none in the foreign policy segment, especially on Romney's recklessly irresponsible saber-rattling against Iran, along with Perry and Santorum, all chomping at the bit to start a war with a nation of 70 million people that is a formidable regional military power.
Ron Paul, the "constitutionalist," was by far the most reasonable of the bunch, not a particularly high bar, but still, clearly appealing to Democrats and independents. He viciously attacked Gingrich for being a "chicken hawk" who wants to send young people off to war but took several deferments when his turn came up — Paul connected — and Santorum for being a "big government conservative" who voted for multiple spending bills then "did very well" as a lobbyist — connecting again. But Paul never attacked Romney. Clearly, Ron Paul served notice he was conceding Romney's first place finish in New Hampshire and going all-out for that strong second-place finish, ahead of Santorum and Gingrich. The others, by comparison, were timid and paralyzed in the face of the great Romney juggernaut, and more than a bit scared of Paul, too.
Newt Gingrich totally wimped out on directly attacking Romney, citing New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles critical of Romney instead; an utterly defeatist tactic — ridiculous considering he was talking to Republicans — akin to throwing in the towel. For their part, Georgie Boy and his media cabal seemed to deliberately act out a pre-planned establishment 'protect Romney' play, letting him off the hook on the most controversial issues. There were no questions of Mitt's carpet bombing SuperPac attacks on Newt in Iowa, nor a request for an answer to Newt having called Mitt "a liar", or any question about Romneycare funding of abortions, potentially the most damaging line of attack raised against him by Newt. Instead, Georgie Boy spent an inordinate amount of time on the faux diversionary issue of whether states should outlaw contraception — again, it was Santorum's issue, and he was never asked to explain it. But Georgie Boy gave the impression he was pressing Romney — which was his intent? What a despicable worm.
It seemed scripted, as if there was an agreement before the debate between Romney's people and ABC that certain questions would not be raised by the panel. If other candidates did, well, then so be it ... Interestingly, Newt was effectively muzzled; Perry was mum; Huntsman ineffective — the weird moment when he spoke Chinese made him sound like the Manchurian candidate of the Paul ad — and Romney landed the hardest counter-punch pointedly noting Huntsman served the President as Ambassador to China; Santorum was timid toward Romney and defensive against Ron Paul ... who seemed to be the only candidate onstage that was unscripted and not in on any prior non-aggression pact.
Ron Paul won. Romney won. Santorum, tied. Newt, Huntsman and Perry lost. Oh, and the voters lost as well.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Friday, January 06, 2012
JONATHAN CAPEHART, Accidental Beltway Media Savant
On Alex Wagner's NOW show, after she'd done interviewing the clown who won't go away, Herman Cain and his new Traveling Circus act. Jonathan Capehart, a man after my own heart, commented on Cain's cageyness regarding Cain's "adjective, unconventional" upcoming endorsement of a presidential candidate: "I wouldn't be surprised if Cain endorsed HIMSELF and jumped back in the race."
Jonathan, my thoughts exactly, given the man's boundless ego. It's too bad Alex didn't pick up on this vibe and ask Cain the question on Jonathan's mind and mine, point black. Alex, you should listen more to what your interviewees are saying, and be ready to improvise. And why throw nothing but softballs at this charlatan and snake oil salesman, who revived his thoroughly debunked 9-9-9 scheme without even a 'wait a minute' from Alex.
Memo To Alex Wagner: Letting the wingnuts play you in exchange for access is too steep a concession. Careful not to develop bad habits or allow the corporate culture to corrupt you. Just saying.
Jonathan, my thoughts exactly, given the man's boundless ego. It's too bad Alex didn't pick up on this vibe and ask Cain the question on Jonathan's mind and mine, point black. Alex, you should listen more to what your interviewees are saying, and be ready to improvise. And why throw nothing but softballs at this charlatan and snake oil salesman, who revived his thoroughly debunked 9-9-9 scheme without even a 'wait a minute' from Alex.
Memo To Alex Wagner: Letting the wingnuts play you in exchange for access is too steep a concession. Careful not to develop bad habits or allow the corporate culture to corrupt you. Just saying.
Michael Steeles’s Racist Party
“Kansas House Speaker Mike O'Neal (R-Hutchinson) apologized Thursday for forwarding an email referring to First Lady Michelle Obama as “Mrs. YoMama” and comparing her to the Grinch.”
Mrs. YoMama?
This is the 21st century. It’s GROTESQUELY OUTRAGEOUS that this paleo-racist’s “communications director” (?) should defend the Kansas Speaker’s e-mail saying that political cartoons are a “part of American culture.” RIGHT. That’s exactly correct. Ugly racism in political cartoons has long been an infamous “part of American culture,” from Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama:
This is JAW-DROPPING IGNORANCE. This is evidence of how deeply ingrained racism is part of American culture, of today’s Republican Party and its xenophobic, homophobic, racist constituencies. Every single day, we see despicable racist and homophobic eruptions on the campaign trail, from Romney to Santorum to Gingrich. I don’t understand. I DON’T UNDERSTAND how anyone with a conscience and a brain can belong to, or support a party such as this.
Mrs. YoMama?
Don’t you just love it, how these racist ratbastards don’t even have the decency to issue an honest apology? How many times have we seen Michael’s racist colleagues qualify their “apology” with a “sorry to THOSE … offended”? Amazing how these cro-magnum REPUBLICAN RACISTS just don’t GET IT, STILL. To them, the “apology” is a chore, a required burdensome bow to political correctness, rather than something they approach with the clear knowledge that what they did was wrong and compels them to issue an unambiguous apology.He said Thursday he was sorry to those he offended, adding that he missed the text in the body of the email. He said, however, that the picture "made me laugh." Earlier his communications director defended him, saying that political cartoons are a "part of American culture."
This is the 21st century. It’s GROTESQUELY OUTRAGEOUS that this paleo-racist’s “communications director” (?) should defend the Kansas Speaker’s e-mail saying that political cartoons are a “part of American culture.” RIGHT. That’s exactly correct. Ugly racism in political cartoons has long been an infamous “part of American culture,” from Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama:
Lincoln Pictured as a Monkey Holding The Emancipation Proclamation to Rupert Murdoch's Despicable NY Post Cartoon.
 |
Here’s your song, Michael Steele:
Quotable: Newt Gingrich Invokes SNL On Romney
"He's not a conservative. It's a joke for him to call himself a conservative. It's a Saturday Night Live skit."
~ Newt Gingrich, enlisting SNL to help his campaign with an "SNL skit" just in time for David Gregory's Sunday debate. He's counting on, lobbying NBC's Gregory to play the "skit" if SNL bites. Machiavellian Newt. SNL really, REALLY needs Newt to guest host before this campaign is over.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Rachel's Ron Paul Blind Spot
Rachel's fascination with Ron Paul and his cultish, steady-state fanatical support is obdurate and frankly reason-defying. This latest foray into Paulieland could be the most fantastical yet for the normally well-grounded Rachel. Perhaps it was Michael Steele's studio presence trailing his high octane partisan bullshit and misinformation vibe that fueled Rachel's baffling flight of fancy. Her Cliff Notes outline of Ron Paul’s purported policy differences with Rick Santorum, the right wing's latest anti-Romney alternative, is at best superficial if not conveniently misleading. The stubborn Ms Maddow keeps trying to fit a Ron Paul square peg into a round hole. Or banging her head against a wall. Maybe she'll stop when the headache begins.
Being against abortion is “the one and only thing that these two Mitt Romney alternatives agree on,” Rachel argues. “But on every other policy issue of substance Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are total opposites.” Really? Let’s take DADT. Rachel frantically clings to the Ron Paul fig leaf that he would not “work to overthrow” it. But as Paul explains it, “rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.”
For “Dr. Paul” as Rachel obsequiously refers to him in her best incantation of a star-struck Pauline who left her intellect in a jar by the door — sorry to break this to you, Rachel, but “Dr.” Paul has been a practicing politician for decades — this means something quite different from the Cliff Notes headline version served up to make Rachel’s “opposites” thesis work. Ron Paul 2012 is not the phantom obstetrician of Rachel’s dreams but the homophobic, racist politician who yelped “queer, queer” in his 2008 “Bruno” role and failed to provide a rational explanation for the virulent racism of his 1990s newsletters. While the other candidates sought the media spotlight in the last day’s campaign, Paul avoided it, hopping a small plane to his final Iowa campaign stops. What’s he got to hide?
Rachel can only square Paul with her benign counter-intuitive argument that the two fringe candidates of an increasingly right wing party are radically different by cherry-picking their records and policy positions. Rick Santorum's extremist and weird anti-gay views are well-known. How different are they from Paul's 2003 opposition to the SCOTUS decision striking down the Texas anti-sodomy laws in its Lawrence v. Texas ruling? Paul wrote:
Rachel may choose to dismiss Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance as a nod to “orthodoxy” and “a given” in the Republican Party as understandable or self-explanatory; some sort of litmus test to be a viable Republican candidate. But to call it “the one real exception to Ron Paul’s ideological purism” is inaccurate and flies in the face of the homophobic, racist man of principle in Rachel’s distortive proposition — like, he just had to embrace the party “orthodoxy” of so-called “social conservatives” and “evangelicals” in the right wing fringe of the Republican Party because, well, it’s an article of faith with them. That's the excuse Paul uses to explain away his extremist affiliations and it's just not credible. Funny, but I thought “orthodoxy” was the very definition of “ideological purism.”
Rachel, face the facts and get over your infatuation with Paul. If you want to understand the Paul appeal to a certain age group, consider the political history of the last 30 years, in their lifetimes, and that Paul supporters may not know or care to study any other. They are the product of the Orwellian dystopian fantasy created by the actual Big Government Republicans who waged two wars off the books, enriched beyond measure their crony capitalist pals, and crushed the middle class and unions. Ron Paul cast a vote against the Iraq war. So did Ted Kennedy. Barack Obama spoke out against it and brought our troops home from Iraq inside of three and a half years.
What do the Paul supporters want, a return to the gold standard? What do they want “freedom” from: Access to decent medical care; guns without regulation; the social safety net that kept their grandparents from falling into poverty; wars without a draft that compels them to fight; black and latino welfare recipients, but not white; affordable government-backed student loans; the GI Bill; repeal of the 14th Amendment; xenophobia, by limiting legal immigration and militarizing our borders; what?
There’s plenty of overlap in the extremist positions of Paul and Santorum. Ron Paul is a freedom-loving “small government” ideologue in the Pat Buchanan nativist mold — notice how Pat’s racist screeds picked up where Paul’s newsletters left off — a neo-fascist who promotes freedom for white people at the expense of everyone else. It’s the shrinking pie argument that assigns blame to the poor, the elderly, people of color, those least able to defend themselves from the marginalization of their social status. It’s a variation on an ugly theme and undercurrent of 19th and 20th century American and European history.
As for Michael Steele's political bloviations, they’re literally indistinguishable one from the other. One day after Ron Paul finished third instead of first or second in Iowa, Steele went from revising his forecast a day earlier with Chris Matthews of understated Paul numbers to telling Rachel he's not a serious factor in Republican electoral politics. Steele tailors his GOP establishment propaganda message as he goes along, and according to conditions on the ground. If one were to do a word map of Steele’s gaseous cloud, the biggest word would be “politics” and biggest phrase variant, “the Democrats do the same thing.” One is meant to dismiss the moral bankruptcy of his party, and the other to postulate, without facts or sourcing, the false equivalency lie.
My question remains: Why the fuck do we have to put up with such obnoxious political hackery, unadulterated spin, GOP talking points?! Michael Steele's most revelatory moment was justifying his embrace of the racist Republican Party with anecdotal bellyaching on the Reverend Al show about what terrible things LBJ’s “Great Society” did to his community. No facts, no evidence; NADA. This guy doesn’t work from facts, and of course, they just let him skate at MSNBC. Well, here’s a factoid for you Michael. Joe Califano, a distinguished Democrat who served under LBJ and Carter said: “From 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century." The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.
IT WORKED. The demise of the middle class coincides with the rise of the Republican Right and Ronald Reagan, rolling back the gains made in the 60s and 70s to end poverty and expand the middle class. Now Steele makes the MSNBC rounds to bemoan his party for not pushing some wingnut prescription of his about economic “empowerment” of the urban poor. As if his white racist pals have any interest in eliminating the underclass they created and run against. Michael and Rachel, denial’s not just a river in Egypt.
Reminder for Rachel: Gene Robinson is a journalist and a Pulitzer Prize winner. Michael Steele is neither. Trotting him out to trash a major presidential speech while not disclosing that outside his role as purported "political analyst" he's been advising Republicans on how best to defeat the President is like, well, trotting out a multi-millionaire lobbyist to offer "color commentary" on the party in opposition's plans to defeat his client's project. In a word, it's unethical. I thought you knew that.
Being against abortion is “the one and only thing that these two Mitt Romney alternatives agree on,” Rachel argues. “But on every other policy issue of substance Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are total opposites.” Really? Let’s take DADT. Rachel frantically clings to the Ron Paul fig leaf that he would not “work to overthrow” it. But as Paul explains it, “rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.”
For “Dr. Paul” as Rachel obsequiously refers to him in her best incantation of a star-struck Pauline who left her intellect in a jar by the door — sorry to break this to you, Rachel, but “Dr.” Paul has been a practicing politician for decades — this means something quite different from the Cliff Notes headline version served up to make Rachel’s “opposites” thesis work. Ron Paul 2012 is not the phantom obstetrician of Rachel’s dreams but the homophobic, racist politician who yelped “queer, queer” in his 2008 “Bruno” role and failed to provide a rational explanation for the virulent racism of his 1990s newsletters. While the other candidates sought the media spotlight in the last day’s campaign, Paul avoided it, hopping a small plane to his final Iowa campaign stops. What’s he got to hide?
Rachel can only square Paul with her benign counter-intuitive argument that the two fringe candidates of an increasingly right wing party are radically different by cherry-picking their records and policy positions. Rick Santorum's extremist and weird anti-gay views are well-known. How different are they from Paul's 2003 opposition to the SCOTUS decision striking down the Texas anti-sodomy laws in its Lawrence v. Texas ruling? Paul wrote:
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court struck down sodomy laws not just in Texas but in 13 other states, thereby decriminalizing same-sex conduct. While Paul scoffed at the the 14th amendment's “right to privacy,” it was in effect the right of a class of citizens to not have their constitutionally protected due process under the law violated by repressive state laws. We fought a civil war to resolve the parameters of states' rights under the 14th Amendment passed as one of three post-war Reconstruction amendments, in 1883, initially to protect the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves. Southerners like Mr. Paul pretend the Civil War never happened and 600,000 Americans didn't die. Further, while the man who yelled "queer!" may say sodomy laws are "ridiculous" he would never question the states' rights to legislate it. Or slavery. Or polygamy, for that matter.The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
Rachel may choose to dismiss Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance as a nod to “orthodoxy” and “a given” in the Republican Party as understandable or self-explanatory; some sort of litmus test to be a viable Republican candidate. But to call it “the one real exception to Ron Paul’s ideological purism” is inaccurate and flies in the face of the homophobic, racist man of principle in Rachel’s distortive proposition — like, he just had to embrace the party “orthodoxy” of so-called “social conservatives” and “evangelicals” in the right wing fringe of the Republican Party because, well, it’s an article of faith with them. That's the excuse Paul uses to explain away his extremist affiliations and it's just not credible. Funny, but I thought “orthodoxy” was the very definition of “ideological purism.”
Rachel, face the facts and get over your infatuation with Paul. If you want to understand the Paul appeal to a certain age group, consider the political history of the last 30 years, in their lifetimes, and that Paul supporters may not know or care to study any other. They are the product of the Orwellian dystopian fantasy created by the actual Big Government Republicans who waged two wars off the books, enriched beyond measure their crony capitalist pals, and crushed the middle class and unions. Ron Paul cast a vote against the Iraq war. So did Ted Kennedy. Barack Obama spoke out against it and brought our troops home from Iraq inside of three and a half years.
What do the Paul supporters want, a return to the gold standard? What do they want “freedom” from: Access to decent medical care; guns without regulation; the social safety net that kept their grandparents from falling into poverty; wars without a draft that compels them to fight; black and latino welfare recipients, but not white; affordable government-backed student loans; the GI Bill; repeal of the 14th Amendment; xenophobia, by limiting legal immigration and militarizing our borders; what?
There’s plenty of overlap in the extremist positions of Paul and Santorum. Ron Paul is a freedom-loving “small government” ideologue in the Pat Buchanan nativist mold — notice how Pat’s racist screeds picked up where Paul’s newsletters left off — a neo-fascist who promotes freedom for white people at the expense of everyone else. It’s the shrinking pie argument that assigns blame to the poor, the elderly, people of color, those least able to defend themselves from the marginalization of their social status. It’s a variation on an ugly theme and undercurrent of 19th and 20th century American and European history.
As for Michael Steele's political bloviations, they’re literally indistinguishable one from the other. One day after Ron Paul finished third instead of first or second in Iowa, Steele went from revising his forecast a day earlier with Chris Matthews of understated Paul numbers to telling Rachel he's not a serious factor in Republican electoral politics. Steele tailors his GOP establishment propaganda message as he goes along, and according to conditions on the ground. If one were to do a word map of Steele’s gaseous cloud, the biggest word would be “politics” and biggest phrase variant, “the Democrats do the same thing.” One is meant to dismiss the moral bankruptcy of his party, and the other to postulate, without facts or sourcing, the false equivalency lie.
My question remains: Why the fuck do we have to put up with such obnoxious political hackery, unadulterated spin, GOP talking points?! Michael Steele's most revelatory moment was justifying his embrace of the racist Republican Party with anecdotal bellyaching on the Reverend Al show about what terrible things LBJ’s “Great Society” did to his community. No facts, no evidence; NADA. This guy doesn’t work from facts, and of course, they just let him skate at MSNBC. Well, here’s a factoid for you Michael. Joe Califano, a distinguished Democrat who served under LBJ and Carter said: “From 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century." The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.
IT WORKED. The demise of the middle class coincides with the rise of the Republican Right and Ronald Reagan, rolling back the gains made in the 60s and 70s to end poverty and expand the middle class. Now Steele makes the MSNBC rounds to bemoan his party for not pushing some wingnut prescription of his about economic “empowerment” of the urban poor. As if his white racist pals have any interest in eliminating the underclass they created and run against. Michael and Rachel, denial’s not just a river in Egypt.
Reminder for Rachel: Gene Robinson is a journalist and a Pulitzer Prize winner. Michael Steele is neither. Trotting him out to trash a major presidential speech while not disclosing that outside his role as purported "political analyst" he's been advising Republicans on how best to defeat the President is like, well, trotting out a multi-millionaire lobbyist to offer "color commentary" on the party in opposition's plans to defeat his client's project. In a word, it's unethical. I thought you knew that.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Quotable: The Reverend AL
"Seventy-five percent of Republicans voted AGAINST Willard (Mitt Romney)."
 |
Speaking of News Coverage, MSNBC Remains The Last Network Standing
CNN which has always teetered with its lineup of jackasses and faux balance has finally gone over to the dark side, full bore, with this wingnut alert: Sightings of E.D. Hill, formerly of FOX 'News', the wingnut notorious for making the "terrorist fist pump" remark of President and Mrs. Obama and spreading the rumor President Obama was a Muslim. After FOX canceled her show and did not renew her contract, Hill popped back up at CNN to continue spreading misinformation anchoring CNN's political coverage. She was described as a "conservative analyst" perhaps to distinguish her from the conservative "political analysts" at rival MSNBC. Slippery slope.
Meanwhile, the place to be for politics was MSNBC, with Rachel doing a sterling job anchoring the Iowa caucuses "coverages" (come to think of it, not a slip of the tongue) making Steve Schmidt (a good guy, for a Republican and sharp political strategist) field uncomfortable verities about his party, and firing tough questions along with the panel at Republican guests like Romney's lawyer (weaseling on the SuperPac issue) and Iowa's Sec. of State (on the hypocrisy of eschewing his voting and registration restrictions for the GOP caucuses). Chris Matthews did the same with Michael Steele, keeping the partisan bullshit and talking points to a minimum. The tension came from a sense that Big Eddie might take a swing at Lawrence were Rachel not sitting between them. She smoothed things over by giving the big guy the well-deserved "game ball" for picking Santorum, who ended up finishing second by eight votes — was the fix in not to embarass Romney too much? — but in the primary political game of expectations it was a HUGE WIN for Santorum nonetheless.
Chris Matthews added to the mirth and merriment with his priceless commentary comparing Romney's SuperPac ad war campaign against Newt Gingrich to the bombing of Dresden in WWII, then saved by a fortuitous 'producer-screaming-in-Rachel's-ear' break from developing his meme that Gingrich was an "assassin" (metaphorically, of course) on Romney's trail — can't wait for the upcoming Saturday and Sunday debates, with Chris's commentary unleashed. Howard Fineman did a good job as Chris's wingman who seemed ready to conduct an intervention when Chris was saved by the break.
All in all, really good coverage, including late-night, with Sweet Melissa (who's a lot of fun in her non-analyst's mode), Rachel who had to be pried away from the desk (bad move, suits, you should've let her stay), and the effervescently bright Chris Hayes, anchoring a team of sharpies with unusually prescient political analysis; far and away superior to the ho-hum canned garbage of the other channels. Next time, suits, keep Rachel put; her interaction with Chris and Melissa was much too short-lived intellectual powerhouse fireworks.
Meanwhile, the place to be for politics was MSNBC, with Rachel doing a sterling job anchoring the Iowa caucuses "coverages" (come to think of it, not a slip of the tongue) making Steve Schmidt (a good guy, for a Republican and sharp political strategist) field uncomfortable verities about his party, and firing tough questions along with the panel at Republican guests like Romney's lawyer (weaseling on the SuperPac issue) and Iowa's Sec. of State (on the hypocrisy of eschewing his voting and registration restrictions for the GOP caucuses). Chris Matthews did the same with Michael Steele, keeping the partisan bullshit and talking points to a minimum. The tension came from a sense that Big Eddie might take a swing at Lawrence were Rachel not sitting between them. She smoothed things over by giving the big guy the well-deserved "game ball" for picking Santorum, who ended up finishing second by eight votes — was the fix in not to embarass Romney too much? — but in the primary political game of expectations it was a HUGE WIN for Santorum nonetheless.
Chris Matthews added to the mirth and merriment with his priceless commentary comparing Romney's SuperPac ad war campaign against Newt Gingrich to the bombing of Dresden in WWII, then saved by a fortuitous 'producer-screaming-in-Rachel's-ear' break from developing his meme that Gingrich was an "assassin" (metaphorically, of course) on Romney's trail — can't wait for the upcoming Saturday and Sunday debates, with Chris's commentary unleashed. Howard Fineman did a good job as Chris's wingman who seemed ready to conduct an intervention when Chris was saved by the break.
All in all, really good coverage, including late-night, with Sweet Melissa (who's a lot of fun in her non-analyst's mode), Rachel who had to be pried away from the desk (bad move, suits, you should've let her stay), and the effervescently bright Chris Hayes, anchoring a team of sharpies with unusually prescient political analysis; far and away superior to the ho-hum canned garbage of the other channels. Next time, suits, keep Rachel put; her interaction with Chris and Melissa was much too short-lived intellectual powerhouse fireworks.
Quotable: Sweet Melissa On Sex And Reproduction
"There's only one kind of sexual contact that almost never leads to reproduction, and that is same-sex contact." ~ Melissa Harris Perry's strange sex musings inspired by Rick Santorum's radical stand against birth control. (She and Rachel, and Chris Hayes too, seemed to be having altogether too much fun!) WHOA ... Methinks poli-sci college professor Sweet Melissa SERIOUSLY needs to take those make-up biology/sex ed courses she skipped in high school ...?
Geez ... I love watching political coverage ... the things you learn!
Geez ... I love watching political coverage ... the things you learn!
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Quotable: Andrea Mitchell on Iowa
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell caused a furor among wingnuts when she said: "The rap on Iowa: Too HICK."* Andrea, Andrea ... Please. What you really meant to say is, "The rap on REPUBLICAN Iowa ..." I mean c'mon, Andrea, the state's gone blue five of the last six presidential elections; you're really insulting those normal folks — Democrats — who hang out at places like Java Joe's and are going to caucus for President Obama. No wonder Iowans are upset at being lumped together with the fringe crazies of their state. Those that the media politely, euphemistically call "evangelicals" and "libertarians" and "conservatives."
Some polling group really ought to determine what subset of these are Klan or militia members. Or white supremacists. And who are these "evangelicals" — where's the overlap? How do they diverge in fundamentalist beliefs with traditional Christian denominations? Are they home schoolers; do they reject the state's right to tax or govern them? They're fringe, yes. But they exert a national political influence from their state Republican caucus that belies their small numbers and is unrepresentative of their state and the nation. And no one reports this accurately — well, Andrea tried but was slapped down by the wingnuts — consequently this skewed perspective worms its way into Beltway Mediaspeak.
*Andrea was being polite when she said Iowa doesn't represent the rest of the country because it's "too white, too evangelical, too rural" ... too HICK. Iowa Republican caucusgoers, Andrea. Please. You shouldn't lump Democrats and non-Paul independents in with the CRAZIES. Their numbers, less than 30 percent I'm guessing, are the same in most advanced, sophisticated (blue or "swing") states. Wingnuts want us to believe their numbers are actually larger than they are. It fits with their Big Lie and makes it easier for them to shift the national political conversation to the far right of where the electorate is. Can't you see?
Some polling group really ought to determine what subset of these are Klan or militia members. Or white supremacists. And who are these "evangelicals" — where's the overlap? How do they diverge in fundamentalist beliefs with traditional Christian denominations? Are they home schoolers; do they reject the state's right to tax or govern them? They're fringe, yes. But they exert a national political influence from their state Republican caucus that belies their small numbers and is unrepresentative of their state and the nation. And no one reports this accurately — well, Andrea tried but was slapped down by the wingnuts — consequently this skewed perspective worms its way into Beltway Mediaspeak.
*Andrea was being polite when she said Iowa doesn't represent the rest of the country because it's "too white, too evangelical, too rural" ... too HICK. Iowa Republican caucusgoers, Andrea. Please. You shouldn't lump Democrats and non-Paul independents in with the CRAZIES. Their numbers, less than 30 percent I'm guessing, are the same in most advanced, sophisticated (blue or "swing") states. Wingnuts want us to believe their numbers are actually larger than they are. It fits with their Big Lie and makes it easier for them to shift the national political conversation to the far right of where the electorate is. Can't you see?
Monday, January 02, 2012
Quotable: Chris Matthews Puts Michael Steele Down
Chris Matthews hosting Hardball on the road at Java Joe's in Des Moines, Iowa, today with tag-along pundits Michael Steele ("I'm just the suit"), Howard Fineman (detector of malevolent political patterns), and ('nuff said, Pulitzer Prize winner) Gene Robinson, referred to Steele as the "ersatz Republican leader." Ouch. Merriam-Webster defines ersatz as "being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation", and Wikipedia, "being an imitation or a substitute, usually an inferior one; artificial." Is Chris trying to drum up audience sympathy for Steele? It may be working. Michael must read this blog, which agrees with his assessment that Ron Paul's poll numbers understate his support pretty substantially. An interesting observation; we'll see if it pans out.
Howard Fineman stole the show with his nimble political analyst's brain, detecting the pattern that all of Romney's candidate comparison takedowns have been notorious women: Lucy the clown in the chocolate factory, for Gingrich; Marie Antoinette the naïve spoiled elitist, for President Obama; and again President Obama compared to Kim Kardashian: "I think the gap between his promises and his performance is the largest I've seen, well, since the Kardashian wedding and the promise of til death do we part," referring to her 72-day marriage. Nice line, but not only is it untrue, Gene observed that Mittens couldn't tell the three Kardashian sisters apart if they lined up in front of him. It's a really, transparently, lame attempt to come across as a hip pop culture maven. As phony as the candidate who recites "America The Beautiful" while savaging Newt Gingrich with his SuperPac ads which he refused to acknowledge, as if, broken clock Newt observed, "people aren't that stupid."
Mitt Romney was projecting Marie Antoinette, to be sure. As Howard noted, he has a problem with women, and is pursuing a line of attack in which he seems to think marginalizing women and feminizing his opponents is the surest path to electoral victory. Mittens is an arrogant elitist neanderthal, accustomed to getting his way by throwing his wealth around to subvert the people's exercise of democracy, their vote, their choice. Newt the Ironic might end up being right, after all the votes are cast: The voters aren't that stupid. We shall see.
 |
| American Götterdämmerung |
Mitt Romney was projecting Marie Antoinette, to be sure. As Howard noted, he has a problem with women, and is pursuing a line of attack in which he seems to think marginalizing women and feminizing his opponents is the surest path to electoral victory. Mittens is an arrogant elitist neanderthal, accustomed to getting his way by throwing his wealth around to subvert the people's exercise of democracy, their vote, their choice. Newt the Ironic might end up being right, after all the votes are cast: The voters aren't that stupid. We shall see.
Primer For Clueless MSNBCers To Rebut GOP Lies About Keystone Pipeline Jobs Claims
Especially for Grover Norquist cheerleaders like Richard Lui. From today's New York Times editorial urging President Obama to "push back hard" on Republican lies, accusations that he would be depriving the nation of jobs by rejecting approval of the Keystone pipeline:
Hmm. Let's see now: 6,500 temporary construction jobs for two years versus the utter devastation of our fragile ecosystem, north to south, and the despoiling of our endangered fresh water aquifers, forever. Close call. Incidentally, Richard Lui and MSNBC, you must really be proud of yourselves."The payroll tax cut bill, which Mr. Obama signed last month, gave him 60 days to decide on the Keystone XL pipeline. That is not enough time to complete the required environmental review of a project that, in its present design, crosses ecologically sensitive territory and risks polluting an aquifer critical to Midwestern water supplies.
The Republicans’ claim that the pipeline will create tens of thousands of new jobs — 20,000 according to House Speaker John Boehner and 100,000 according to Jon Huntsman — are wildly inflated. A more accurate forecast from the federal government, one with which TransCanada, the pipeline company, agrees, says the project would create 6,000 to 6,500 temporary construction jobs at best, for two years."
EE-VIL MOGUL WATCH: Rupie Joins Twitter!
THIS IS RICH! Rupert Murdoch has joined Twitter. And the foreign-born Birther pusher has already proved to be highly informative and entertaining; much more so than his propaganda empire — they dare not cross the old man — and his robotic cast of crazies and air-head blondes. So far, Rupie has:
- Enthusiastically boosted New York mayor Mike Bloomberg — "Great to see Mike Bloomberg getting some rewards for being New York's best mayor in memory!" — though it's unclear what those "rewards" are; this certainly paves the way for FOX support of a Bloomberg third-party run for president.
- Had kind words for Rick Santorum — "Good to see santorum surging in Iowa. Regardless of policies, all debates showed principles, consistency and humility like no other."
- And plug for WSJ Op-Ed on Ron Paul — "Great oped inWSJ today on Ron Paul. Huge appeal of libertarian message." Um, Rupert ... not so huge, 38 percent; is this FOX appeal to "racist rednecks" explained, as libertarians' boardroom strategy?
- But thundering silence on Mitt Romney. Does this signal Rupie's distaste for current Republican front-runner Mitten's "inevitability" and desire to see a prolonged nomination fight?
- Possibly doomed Hollywood Democratic activist George Clooney's Oscar chances with this — "Saw Fox film Descendants. Thank God, one to be proud of. Star Geo Clooney deserves Oscar, maybe film too."
- Jack Dorsey, Executive Chairman of Twitter, CEO of Square, a founder of both; when Rupie joins your team, he intends to keep tabs on the head honcho, subtle intimidation. (See Lord Sugar daddy, below.)
- Lord Sugar, Chairman of Amshold Group which is owner of Viglen, Amscreen and Amsprop, old Rupie pal: "I wonder is my old pal @rupertmurdoch is eying up Twitter to buy or invest in it. He missed out on Facebook and My Space... not a great deal."
- Google founder Larry Page; intimations of future business deals and/or clashes? And
- Mark Pincus, Zynga founder and CEO, a man after Rupie's own heart! An unnamed former employee in "a brutal profile at SF Weekly" said "Zynga is one of the most evil places I've run into" where Pincus told his idealistic employees at a meeting: 'I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers.'"
Like, D'OH! ... MSNBC, Romney Ties Revealed ... OH.MY.GAWD.
You read it here first, folks. You'll read this refrain a lot. It means we're doing our job. That's what makes this one of the best political blogs around. We tell the truth, however irreverently delivered it may be at times. We like to have fun, and don't take ourselves too seriously, lest we lose perspective. But we take our facts and reality checks very seriously. Sometimes we don't get it right, but don't count on it; getting our facts right is the single most time-consuming element of posting political news and commentary on this blog. You read it here first, folks:
Ah, the tangled webs we weave in the high-stakes, high-finance corporate world of connected politicos, bought government (Republican), and the corporate Beltway Media that jump when their masters call to complain about a story. Keep tuned to this blog for the ugly, inconvenient truth.
Here's the context, from the bandwagon:[You read it here, first.] Repeatedly. Especially after NBC News President Steve Capus's tongue lashing of MSNBC news reporters and anchors for accurately reporting Mitt Romney's use in a speech and campaign ad of a KKK slogan in the state with the nation's highest per capita number of KKK groups.
Will Romney's heavy late spending in Iowa propel him to the top? Not likely. Even with his nod to racist KKK voters (Iowa is first in the nation per capita in KKK groups) recanted, sort of, when he was caught working an old KKK slogan into his campaign speeches. Once MSNBC caved disgracefully from its report, it only showed that Romney can pull strings with the Beltway Media, not that he really means what he says.
Hmm. Have I mentioned yet how multi-millionaire Keystone pipeline lobbyist Grover Norquist got exclusive dibs on the MSNBC "mic" to do "color commentary" of competing House Republican-Democratic pressers on the impasse over extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, a key stumbling block of which was the pipeline's approval? And how Grover's conflict of interest was never disclosed by MSNBC anchor Richard Lui — was it just an oversight?"MSNBC anchors like Ed Schultz and Andrea Mitchell have started to disclose parent company NBC Universal's ties to Bain Capital, the private investment firm co-founded by GOP candidate Mitt Romney.
Bain Capital and NBC Universal are both part owners of The Weather Channel. Along with Blackstone Group, the two companies purchased the network in 2008.
Romney left Bain in 1999, but the New York Times reported last week that the candidate candidate forged a retirement deal with the investment firm when he left. According to the Times, Romney continues to receive a share of Bain profits, and takes in millions of dollars each year."
Ah, the tangled webs we weave in the high-stakes, high-finance corporate world of connected politicos, bought government (Republican), and the corporate Beltway Media that jump when their masters call to complain about a story. Keep tuned to this blog for the ugly, inconvenient truth.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Funnin' Rachel Maddow: Could It Be ...?!
What better way to start off the New Year than to post a photo of our Muse, Rachel, joining "Occupy The Iowa Caucus" protests at Michele Bachmann headquarters; well, maybe not, as long as "Rachel Maddow" has an ironclad alibi.
 |
| "RACHEL" STORMS THE BARRICADES! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!