democrat

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (45)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (129)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

December 10, 2009 C-SPAN

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich plans to force a House of Representatives vote early next year on whether to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Cleveland Democrat announced Wednesday that he has begun circulating a letter to colleagues that asks if they'd be willing to co-sponsor his two resolutions to "trigger a timeline for a timely withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan." Read more at Cleveland Dot Com



Nice to know I'm not the only person who feels this way. Because if Obama's serious about health care (or anything else), why continue to pour money down a rat hole? That said, what are the odds the congressional war lovers will vote for it? I'd love to make them explain why:

The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

Obey's opposition to funding a troop increase in Afghanistan without a new tax would pose a significant problem for Obama if he decides to send more troops (a decision the White House says the President could make as early as November 30).

As Appropriations Committee chairman, Obey was a key player in securing money for the war when the last war funding bill narrowly passed the House in June.

His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy.


Sunday Morning Bobblehead Thread

Don Henley- Heart of the Matter

These times are so uncertain
There's a yearning undefined
...People filled with rage
We all need a little tenderness
How can love survive in such a graceless age
The trust and self-assurance that can lead to happiness
They're the very things we kill, I guess
Pride and competition cannot fill these empty arms
And the work I put between us,
Doesn't keep me warm

Remember my little snark to the producers of This Week a few months ago, over yet another booking of John McCain? Well, I had to do it again this week. Not because of McCain, but the bookings are nearly as egregious:

I'm sure that in the effort to have the show ideologically balanced (for, clearly, every issue is reduced to Democrat vs. Republican on This Week), it has completely escaped the producers' notice that they have booked THREE politicos against health care reform (Coburn, Nelson, Blackburn) to ONE in favor (Wasserman-Schultz).

Curious that ABC's idea of "balance" on an issue with OVERWHELMING public support is to tip the scale against health care reform. Does [your Senior Producer] feel he is serving his viewership well with such skewed bookings?

Sadly, This Week's producer doesn't really want to engage in any further tete a tetes on their skewed sense of balance, but taking a look at this week's schedule, certainly, they're not the only ones guilty. Look, for example, at the hacktacular framing on The Chris Matthews Show. Or the inclusion of Joe "Sucking Media Hole" Lieberman on Meet the Press. Personally, I think I'm gonna focus on the CNN foreign policy shows, rather than pollute my brain with any more of the health care nonsense.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Reps. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent; and Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Joe Klein, Norah O'Donnell, Anne Kornblut, David Ignatius. Topics: Obama's Lost the Independents -- What Do They Want Him To Do Differently? Are There Signs of Carteresque Weakness in the Obama Presidency? Meter Questions: Will President Obama Sign a Health Care Reform Bill This Year? YES: 5 NO: 7; Will Delays Over Afghanistan and Health Care Hurt Obama's Image Longterm? YES: 5 No: 7.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Carly Fiorina, California Republican who's running for U.S. Senate.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - An exclusive interview with Maziar Bahari, the Newsweek reporter who spent 4 months in an Iranian prison. Plus, the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, gives Fareed his only television interview on his trip to Washington.

CNN's "Amanpour" - New Jewish Lobby: A new Jewish American lobbying group is angling itself as an alternative to the well-known pro-Israel AIPAC group. Could this change the way Washington approaches Israel? Afghan Exclusives: Former Afghan Pres. Cand. Ashraf Ghani calls the Afghan gov. a "looting machine," and calls Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar's Interior Ministry "among the most corrupt in the country".

"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Kit Bond, R-Mo., Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?


Three unreal videos

Last week over at StarkReports.com, I began asking Republican opponents of health care reform if they could tell me how many of their constituents are uninsured. I asked Joe Wilson, Steve King, Jim DeMint, Darryl Issa and Virginia Foxx. None of them could answer the question.

Today, after months of debate, the House vote is upon us. Steve King decided to rally the tea-baggers on the Capitol lawn one more time. About 15-25 other Republicans joined him on the stage at various times. I caught several of them as they made their way between their offices, the chamber and the rally. Once again, not a single republican I spoke with knew how many of their constituents are uninsured. The lonely guy in the middle of the video that did know? That's Dan Boren, a Blue Dog Democrat from Oklahoma...

Next up… Rep. Louie Gohmert (also in the first video) tells me my private insurance will be taken from me by this bill:

Finally, and I wish I could say the last video is shocking, but, alas, this is where we find ourselves today ... Representative Steven King, the leader of today’s anti-reform rally, tells a crowd that the Democratic bill requires the government to encourage suicide and/or assisted suicide. Not making it up; he’s explicit ... he uses those very words:


All day long MSNBC has had on one pundit after another using the election in NY-23 as their springboard to make the case that the Dems are weak. There hasn't been a Democrat elected in that seat for more years than I've been alive, but that doesn't seem to enter into the equation.

The real story, though, is the fighting going on within the GOP. Rudy Giuliani was on with Chuck Todd and saying that the GOP will never win national elections if they never win in NY and California and so there needs to be a more inclusive Republican party. NY-23 didn't pan out that way for Rudy and he had to figure a way to lighten the blow. He said that Scozzafava was really a liberal and implied that he told Newt not to back her. He said the GOP needs moderates in the party, but they have to be 80% with them on issues and 20% against.

Of course Chuck Todd either couldn't be bothered to check Scozzafava's voting record and history on issues or decided to give Rudy the floor with no opposition because Scozzafava is not 80% liberal and 20% conservative, as Giuliani claimed.

The reality is this: When people say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, you should take their advice. The “cover” on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman’s right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the “book” tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.

This race is interesting to watch just to see the Villagers scurry around and try to make it a national story, but at least they could take the time and get their facts straight.


Duncan writes:

Tip Of The Spear

I'm not sure if the teabaggers will have much success in purifying their party, but it'll be interesting to see how the Villagers will react. My guess is they'll portray them as just folks exercising their patriotic duties, unlike those dirty fucking hippie traitors who ran a primary against the greatest man in America, Joe Lieberman.

The cable shows are covering these races as if the outcome will determine if Obama should step down as the president.

And very predictably, as the results come in, Doug Hoffman is claiming that ACORN is stealing the election.

At a short press availability in his campaign office here, NY-23 Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman said that a GOTV volunteer’s tires had been slashed, and all but blamed Democrats for the dirty trick. “There are reports that they’re bringing in the troops and they’re bringing in ACORN,” said Hoffman. “I think the Democrats are doing anything they possibly can to steal this election away from the 23rd district.”
--
Update: Anton Troianovski of the Wall Street Journal followed up with the Plattsburgh police on this, and was told that the volunteer actually damaged his tire on a broken bottle. I asked Hoffman campaign manager Dan Tripp about this–he said he had no comment because the campaign had not heard this yet.

They will blame ACORN for everything. Digby sees this through the prism of her brilliance.

I just hope that all the major networks and newspapers assign a special reporter to look into these accusations by the teabaggers' darling. Certainly Fox will be running with them and everyone knows that the mainstream press has been remiss by failing to follow up on such important Fox investigations.

It's actually a smart move. Since Fox has intimidated the pants off of the other news organizations, they will bend over backwards to be "fair and balanced" thus lending credence to the ACORN meme.

I just hope they don't end up accidentally arresting Hoffman's African American staffer in their zeal to reveal the ACORNs in the woodpile.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1666)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1153)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Sen. Joe Lieberman says that health care reform is important but not so important that he would vote for a bill that includes the public option. The "independent Democrat" blames those that insist on having the public option for his threat to filibuster health care reform.

"I'd say to the people who are all of a sudden making the public option -- a government health insurance company -- the litmus test here, they're stopping us from getting something done," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer.


You may recall the above town hall video of Kansas Republican Lynn Jenkins laughing at a young, uninsured mother and telling her to grow up and get health insurance. Jenkins may be best known for her stunning gaffe in which she talked of the GOP searching for their "great white hope."

Seeing a major opportunity for victory in 2010, Democratic State Senator Laura Kelly has decided to throw her hat in the ring and has announced she will take on Lynn Jenkins:

Kansas State Sen. Laura Kelly, a Topeka Democrat, said Friday she'll run to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins next year.

Democrats like their chances. It's a district that's gone both ways in the past few election cycles, and Jenkins, in her first-term, has had a gaffe or two. (Remember Jenkins' "great white hope" comment from two months ago?)

"Kansas families in the 2nd district deserve a representative who will energetically stand up for their most important concerns - their pocketbooks, their jobs, and their health care - not sit back and block progress in Washington," Kelly said in her campaign announcement.

"In the last few months people from all across the district have been urging me to run for Congress. They are tired of leaders tied to a do-or-die narrow partisan agenda that has failed our country for the last eight years. Saying NO is not enough in these challenging times. People deserve common sense answers and real solutions," she said. Read on...

Lynn Jenkins has been nothing short of an embarrassment to her state and our country and is extremely vulnerable. Click here to visit Laura Kelly's website, and if you like what you see and want to show her some love, donate if you can. Jenkins ranks near the top of the right wing nutjob heap -- let's send her packing.


All wars depress me, but this Afghanistan one in particular makes me want to scream. Why are we there? Theoretically, to hunt down Osama bin Laden and stop al Qaeda from using it as a base. But is al Qaeda still there? Is that likely to work? Is it even possible? And if it is possible, is it worth the cost?

Nice to see a high-ranking Democrat asking these questions, too:

The veteran chairman of the House Appropriations Committee posed a series of tough questions Thursday to his colleagues and the Obama administration about the wisdom of further U.S. engagement in that war-torn country.

Rep. David R. Obey , D-Wis., in a statement expressed significant skepticism about the prospects for success of any major effort to stabilize the country, either through additional U.S. troops or by a concerted effort to train more Afghan troops and improve the country’s governance and economy.

“The problem with increasing the number of troops is that we become the lightning rod, and our presence runs the risk of inciting more anti-American sentiment that can become a recruiting tool for the very forces we seek to curtail,” Obey said of one option President Obama is weighing.

“If any adjustment is made in U.S. troop levels, it would be much better if those troops were focused on the job of training Afghani troops and police to take on the job of securing the population and maintaining law and order,” he said. “But even there, we have to ask what is achievable. My understanding is that there have never been more than about 90,000 troops under the sway of the central government. Now we are told that the goal is to train up to 400,000 soldiers and police personnel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether that is a realistic and achievable goal.”

As for a policy bent on counter-insurgency and nation-building, Obey said, “We should be asking not what policy is theoretically the most intellectually coherent, but which policy is actually achievable given the only tools we have in the region; the Afghani and Pakistani governments. Is there sufficient leadership, popular support, and political will, not in the United States but in Afghanistan, necessary for effective governance to take hold? “

Equally important, he said, “Do we really have the tools to overcome language, culture, history and a 90 percent illiteracy rate to sufficiently transform such a country?”


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 973
WMV
PLAYS: 2067

michael-moore_00e4d.jpg

I interviewed Michael Moore for a few minutes in between his media stops about his new movie called Capitalism, A Love Story which I reviewed here. As we discussed his film, the topic of conservatism, hate speech and FOX News came up and I asked him if he would consider going back on FOX News again. His responses were interesting and I think FOX News will go scrambling to book him after they hear what Michael had to say. I also think Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck will not be happy campers.

Amato: Would you ever go back on FOX again?

Moore: Yes,I would go back on FOX again. I would not go on Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck because they use far too much hate speech and calls for violence and I cannot participate with anyone that goes down that road.
I stayed off because somebody at the studio told me that whenever I go on their ratings go up and I'm not interested in helping them sell products and make money for themselves and having said that I'm ready to tee up (garbled audio, but I think he said Hannity) Hannity I think pretty soon.

Amato: That would get huge ratings and it's also really enjoyable to see you kick them around because you know the type of Democrat that go on most of the time that are just so weak and that's the way they like them so that they can serve them up and kick them around.

Moore: Then I will make a point during this tour to try and go on one of their shows and give them something-something...

Amato: Do it for the blogosphere! (laughs)

Moore: Do it for the blogosphere. This one's for you!

The attacks on President Obama by FOX News programs have been profoundly upsetting and as much as I object at times to lefties that go on FOX, I have to say that it would be very enjoyable to see Michael smack down Roger Ailes crew. Do you think Michael will go on Hannity since he won't do they Beck or O'Reilly? Sheppard Smith might be a good choice. And you can be sure that O'Reilly will whine about this. The reason I asked the question is because I've seen Moore duke it out with Bill O'Reilly before and they were very good segments to watch.

John Amato: This is John Amato from Crooks and Liars and I am joined by the great movie maker Michael Moore and he has a new movie out "Capitalism: A Love Story." Hey Michael, thanks for joining me.

Michael Moore: Thanks for having me here.

John Amato: I just want to say one thing here before we get going. How about those Lions?

Michael Moore: [laughing] It's been two years, and if they had to beat somebody it might as well have been the Washington Redskins. But I feel sorry for the Redskins as it’s going to be a trivia answer for the next few decades.

Continue reading »


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1218)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2402)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Sean Hannity still wants his scalp. So he went and got the world's most famous harpy to help out.

He continued his groundless bashing of Kevin Jennings by bringing on Ann Coulter on his show last night. The hapless Kirsten Powers was little help, being a good Faux Democrat by largely agreeing with the venomous duo -- when all she needed to do was point out that the incident involved a young man of legal age.

This largely left Hannity free to find great import in the fact that William Ayers -- another longtime Hannity freakazoid obsession -- actually wrote a blurb for a book for which Jennings wrote the forward. Oooooh. Impressive. Pretty soon he's going to be doing diagrams on chalkboards.

And it left Coulter free to declare Jennings "another Ayers." And natter on about how depraved a person Jennings is.

But of course, they stopped short when reminded that what they were saying sounded a lot like gay-bashing. Heaven forfend the notion.

These people are insane. They really are trying to construct their own alternative reality. Which is fine, I suppose. But do they have to bother us with it -- let alone inflict it upon us?


Mike's Blog Roundup

Pruning Shears: Steny Hoyer - Worst Democrat Alive, or Ever?

Beggars Cant Be Choosers: An American Progressive in Paris

MyDD: A Garlic Milkshake Recipe for John Boehner

Just An Earth-Bound Misfit: It may be too early yet

Home of the Urban Chameleon: How one black man defeated the Ku Klux Klan

Grits for Breakfast: World Prison Population List: All nations incarcerate at a lower rate than Texas


The Liberal Majority and How To Win With It

One constant theme which needs dealing with is the idea that the country is more conservative than liberal and that centrists are needed to hold off horrible conservative things from happening.

More than that, this is an argument for oligarchy. What I see is that the majority of people, in poll after poll, want single payer. A huge majority want the public option, yet odds are decent you won't even get that.

When people talk of left-center coalitions the center part include a large number of Senators (like Diane Feinstein) who won't do what the majority of their constituents want them to do. At this point centrist = captured by monied interests.

Odds are if Obama wanted single payer, the House could pass it. It'd be close, but they could get it done. The House is the more representative body of the two bodies, the Senate is deliberately retrograde.

When I look at the US what I see is a banana republic, because it doesn't act like a democracy. I see people who think that the Senate, or even the House, actually does what the American people want. Again and again, Congress does things that the majority disagree with. In 2006 the Dems were elected to end the war in Iraq, for example, and refused to do so (though again, the House at least went through the motion, the Senate didn't even make an effort). Oh, Congress will sometimes do what the majority want—when that's what it was going to do anyway.

The plan to fix this is simple enough and always has been.

Continue reading »


Teabaggers decry the Public Option

During the danse macabre of Saturday (otherwise known as the "Taxpayer March on D.C.") at least one voice of sanity was present, a Democrat with some very large cojones.

The villagers were not happy.

12-09-2009 7-07-46 PM_4d2a8.jpg
Edward Kimmel, 58, of Takoma Park, Md., is confronted by opponents of a government run health-care insurance option.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1359)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4095)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told CNN's John King that President Barack Obama doesn't believe people are protesting him because he is a black man. "I don't think the president believes that people are upset because of the color of his skin," said Gibbs.

In her Sunday column, Maureen Dowd said that race is playing a part in the vocal opposition to Obama.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

John Amato:

While Dowd writes some of the most insane stuff I've seen, she does mix in some truths as well and I'm surprised she makes this observation. It's apparent to anybody that has eyes in their skulls what's been going on. There is a large amount of people in this country that do not like President Obama because he's black. Just watch the news once in a while or do some reading. Don't ever expect Gibbs or anyone in the White House to say this publicly because the media would go crazy over this, but we know it's true. And the conservative movement has been hijacked by the crazies even before Clinton took office. It's not a new phenomenon. What is shocking is to see the hatred on display so out in the open and being encouraged by the media. Glenn Greenwald takes up the case in his post: Is the Right's attack on Obama's legitimacy new or unprecedented?

This is why I have very mixed feelings about the protests of conservatives such as David Frum or Andrew Sullivan that the conservative movement has been supposedly "hijacked" by extremists and crazies. On the one hand, this is true. But when was it different? Rush Limbaugh didn't just magically appear in the last twelve months. He -- along with people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Bill Kristol and Jesse Helms -- have been leaders of that party for decades. Republicans spent the 1990s wallowing in Ken Starr's sex report, "Angry White Male" militias, black U.N. helicopters, Vince Foster's murder, Clinton's Mena drug runway, Monica's semen-stained dress, Hillary's lesbianism, "wag the dog" theories, and all sorts of efforts to personally humiliate Clinton and destroy the legitimacy of his presidency using the most paranoid, reality-detached, and scurrilous attacks. And the crazed conspiracy-mongers in that movement became even more prominent during the Bush years. Frum himself -- now parading around as the Serious Adult conservative -- wrote, along with uber-extremist Richard Perle, one of the most deranged and reality-detached books of the last two decades, and before that, celebrated George W. Bush, his former boss, as "The Right Man."

Bob Somerby continues on and writes:

By the summer of Clinton’s second year in office, two active attempts were made on his life. One guy even flew a small plane into the White House, apparently trying to kill him. Colbert King doesn’t seem to remember. Might we suggest why that is?

You see, King is part of a media “elite” which enabled—or encouraged—the lunatic claims against Clinton, then Gore. Perhaps for that reason, people like King have airbrushed that decade—and they express their vast surprise when the same thing is done to Obama. Meanwhile, King name-calls two minor crackpot pastors—and forgets to name the powerful players who are vastly more responsible for the lunatic claims against Obama.

King is brave when it comes to naming no-names. Where are the names of the powerful players who have really been driving this lunacy?

Somehow, when it comes to such names, people like King seem to get light-headed. They may feel their knees start to buckle.

There have always been local lunatics like Anderson and Drake in our politics. But the movement went national in the 1980s, when Rush Limbaugh moved to New York. King has criticized Limbaugh a few times—in the last year, that is. But Limbaugh drove the lunatic hatred against the last Democratic president (Hillary Clinton helped kill Vince Foster!)—and King never mentioned his name, not once, during that whole brainless era. (Nexis archives.)

King openly criticized Jerry Falwell—after the 9/11 attacks, that is. But Falwell’s name never appeared in his column during the 1990s, when he pimped those murder claims all around. Somehow, King failed to notice that ugliness. Or perhaps he was too scared to speak.

Like the bulk of his weak, weak-minded cohort, King failed to act in the 1990s. This morning, he seems to have forgotten that the decade happened at all.

Might we make a long story short? King and his cohort bought all the crap against the last Democratic president. Some of them actively encouraged the hatred; some of them simply enabled it. But by October 2000, King could barely bring himself to say a word in favor of Candidate Gore. To recall the pained column in which King made himself say that Gore would probably be somewhat better than Bush, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/26/09. In that column, you see how thoroughly these weak-minded people failed you in the last decade.

King and there rest of his cohort drank the Kool-Aid during that decade—gulped it lovingly down. Now, they pretend that the era never occurred—and they express their vast surprise when the same lunacy is aimed at Obama. They are amazed to see what’s being said about this new Democratic president. And they diddle their cowardly brains: It must be his race, they proclaim.

In this way, people like King refuse to tell the real story. Here it is:

Your discourse has been this way for decades. A powerful movement generates ludicrous claims against all major Democrats. They did it to Clinton, then to Gore—with King’s blessing. Now, it’s being done to Obama.

So far, no one has flown a small plane into the White House. But in the past, it was tried.

King ran off and hid in the woods while this was being done the last time. (He was still bad-mouthing Hillary Clinton in the familiar old ways as late as summer 2008.) Now he pretends it just didn’t happen. And he makes it hard for liberals to argue the truth—to help the public see the big picture about our devolving culture.

This isn’t about unfortunate nuts like Pastor Anderson. It isn’t about an unfortunate nut like Drake, who at least is an equal opportunity kook. (He also wished divine retribution on Pastor Rick Warren this year.)

This is really about the names—and the movement—which don’t appear in King’s column. It’s about multimillionaire stooges like Limbaugh and Hannity—and so many others like them. It’s about Charles Grassley—and Sarah Palin. It’s about the astonishing Betsy McCaughey, the “misleader-in-chief” from 1994 who still can’t seem to get herself profiled in Colbert King’s weak-kneed newspaper.

When it comes to the establishment Washington Post, the fake McCoys can’t get arrested.

Uh-oh! Charles Grassley is an accepted figure in Establishment Washington. Voters deserve to hear what he’s done. But Colbert King won’t say his name. To this day, he never has.

It's been going on for years and the media elites are terrified to ever say a word about it and this blatant deep seeded hatred will continue for many more decades unless the media doesn't act the cowards they have been for all these years and expose the nuts and stop promoting their insanity for ratings. Someone is going to get hurt and very soon.
I think Dr. Tiller and his family have already paid the ultimate price, don't you?


Politico:

A Democrat, amused at the shots of Eric Cantor working his Blackberry as the president talked about the cost of health care a few minutes ago, passes on this item from last week headed, "Cantor: GOP will be 'attentive' during Obama speech":

Cantor and I talked about how Republicans would behave, and I asked if it would be like a State of the Union when they sit on their hands or hiss for parts they don't agree with.

I also asked Cantor if there were going to be any "no Tweeting" rules for Republicans, since some of them had busy thumbs during Obama's winter quasi-State of the Union address.

"I don’t think we’re going to be guiding the caucus to boo or applaud or whatever. We’re all going to be very attentive," he said.

He was not, for what it's worth, Twittering. But his office did get a statement out immediately after the speech, which he says he found "overhyped" and of "strangely unclear" purpose.

Hate to break this to you, Cantor, but the only thing truly "overhyped" and "strangely unclear" is Obama's need to reach across the aisle to you pathetic bunch of un-American obstructionists. As the DNC's new ad states: "Republicans Just Say No"