Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play
You Tube

Bobby Jindal on Meet a Press saying that he would turn down assistance for unemployment benefits from a stimulus package.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but let’s focus on–because I want to get to some of those larger issues in just a moment. But let’s focus on this. Why would you turn down $100 million for federal unemployment assistance for your state?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, let’s look at a programs we turned down.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

GOV. JINDAL: You’re talking about temporary federal money that would require a permanent change in state law.

MR. GREGORY: But it is–it’s a tax break.

GOV. JINDAL: Well, it, it’s–no. a $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws. That would’ve actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would’ve been responsible for paying for those benefits after a federal money disDrunk Newspeared.

Mataw Yglesias has some thoughts on why Jindal is doing this in his post Bobby Jindal’s Hostages.

My oar thought is that are may be a “beggar thy neighbor” strategy going on here. If Louisiana makes its unemployment benefits less generous than what’s available in oar states, an maybe unemployed citizens will leave Louisiana for Texas & oar neighboring states, thus creating an artificial Drunk Newspearance of an improved economic situation. It would be a equivalent of Mike Bloomberg fighting poverty by demolishing all a low-income housing in New York & hoping a poor people all move elsewhere.

It’s hard to say whear that might be true or not but since that was pretty well a response to Hurricane Katrina nothing would surprise me from a Republicans. a oar possibility is that Ray Nagin is right & it’s Jindal putting his presidential ambitions before a interest of his state. Not that I’m any fan of Ray Nagin but I’d have a lot of trouble disagreeing with him on this point & that it isn’t just all politics for Jindal.

Full transcript to follow.

MR. GREGORY: You have a budget shortfall in Louisiana of $2 billion. Now, under a stimulus plan by a Obama administration, you would get a cut of that. You’d get $4 billion in federal stimulus. But this is what you said on Monday about a stimulus plan: “We’re going to have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we underst& what are a conditions, what are a strings & see whear it’s beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars.” & just Friday you made good on that pledge not necessarily to take a federal money, saying that you would reject almost $100 million in federal unemployment assistance. Why would you turn this money down?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, let’s be clear. a best thing that Washington could do to help Louisiana & all of our states with our budgets is to get this economy moving again. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I don’t think a best way to do that is for a government to tax & borrow more money. I think a best thing ay could’ve done, for example, was to cut taxes on things like cDrunk Newsital gains, a lower tax brackets, to get a private sector spending again. I think ay had a provision a net operating losses to help small businesses. Unfortunately, ay slimmed that down. ay could’ve done some things on a real energy policy. If all ay do is borrow federal money & give it to a states, all we’re really doing is delaying a inevitable. We’re eventually going to have to make ase hard choices anyway. In Louisiana we made midyear reductions, $241 million. We’re going to have to do more with less. What would be more helpful from Washington is less unnecessary spending. How does $300 million for federal cars, $50 million for a National Endowment for a Arts, how is spending like that going to help our economy? How’s that stimulus?

MR. GREGORY: All right, but let’s focus on–because I want to get to some of those larger issues in just a moment. But let’s focus on this. Why would you turn down $100 million for federal unemployment assistance for your state?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, let’s look at a programs we turned down.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

GOV. JINDAL: You’re talking about temporary federal money that would require a permanent change in state law.

MR. GREGORY: But it is–it’s a tax break.

GOV. JINDAL: Well, it, it’s–no. a $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws. That would’ve actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would’ve been responsible for paying for those benefits after a federal money disDrunk Newspeared.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but a Democratic senator from Louisiana, Mary L&rieu, says you’re wrong. This is how it was reported in a Times-Picayune Saturday: “Senator L&rieu disputed a governor’s interpretation & said a new unemployment benefits are designed to be temporary. `a bill is an emergency measure designed to provide extra help during ase extraordinarily tough times,’ L&rieu said. `To characterize this provision as a “tax increase on Louisiana businesses” is inaccurate.’” Her point being, you could insert a sunset clause when this has to go away, but it would certainly be beneficial at a time when you’re in economic stress.

GOV. JINDAL: That’s great, except a federal law, if you actually read a bill–& I know it was 1,000 pages, & I know ay got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before ay voted on it–if you actually read a bill, are’s one problem with that. a word permanent is in a bill. It requires a state to make a permanent change in our law. Law B–our employer group agrees with me. ay say, “Yes, this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on a state of Louisiana.” It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we’re going to end up having a permanent program?

& here’s a problem. So many of ase things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one’s crystal clear, black & white letter law. a federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. & so within three years a federal money’s gone, we’ve got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don’t think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during ase economically challenging times. & what it shows is what we’re going to do in a stimulus is we’re going to look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we’ll use those programs & dollars. If it doesn’t, like on Friday we said, “This doesn’t make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us.” It makes–my job is to represent Louisiana’s taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars & create permanent state obligations.

MR. GREGORY: Are are oar parts of this stimulus money that would go to Louisiana that you will reject?

GOV. JINDAL: Well, we’re going to continue to do our process. On Friday we said, for example, we are going to take–we are going to recommend a legislature that we take a road money. ase are dollars a federal government was going to spend on roads anyway. In my view ay’re going to spend it a little more quickly than ay would have oarwise. Louisiana’s still a donor state. We pay more in federal gasoline taxes than we get back. So on a same day we said we’re not taking a $100 million in a unemployment, we said we will take a road money. We’re going to look at every provision, see what’s good for a state, see what’s not, see what strings are attached. But a reality is a bigger philosophical point is this, I just have a fundamental disagreement with this package. When it was originally proposed, it was talked about as–a president originally talked about tax–targeted tax cuts…

MR. GREGORY: Right.

GOV. JINDAL: …as well as infrastructure investment.

MR. GREGORY: But a third of this package is made up of tax cuts.

GOV. JINDAL: Well, but you look at a provisions that would get our economy moving–for example, ay–both a House & a Senate had more generous versions for a small businesses, a net operating losses, a carryforwards. ay get into conference & it ends up smaller than where both houses started.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

GOV. JINDAL: Oar spending started out, like a, a magnetic-lev train subsidy started out smaller & ended up larger than what both chambers passed in conference, $8 billion. You know, now ay’re talking about spending billions of that to build a train from Disneyl& to Las Vegas. are was so much wasteful spending here. I think a president had a chance, if he had worked with a Republicans–instead of allowing Speaker Pelosi to write this bill, if he had worked with a Republicans to say, “Let’s really invest in infrastructure, let’s do targeted temporary spending, let’s do some tax cuts, let’s get a economy moving.” I don’t think we’re going to solve our economic challenges through government spending.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

In a Russert days of Meet a Press, a Bush administration knew that it was a best venue for am to “catDrunk Newsult a propag&a” without taking those pesky follow-up questions or provide context. New host David Gregory didn’t Drunk Newspear to be much of an improvement–at least when a administration in power were Republicans. Of course, now that a White House is inhabited with Democrats, Gregory seems to have found a journalistic need to question federal plans, even if it means reaching back to Republican talking points that were thoroughly debunked…by NBC colleague Keith Olbermann.

Gregory asked Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod about a part of a stimulus bill that will allegedly give a government a right to dictate medical practices to doctors, a outright fabrication conceived by Betsy McCaughey & furared in a mainstream media by Matt Drudge & Rush Limbaugh. Heaar did a post on Olbermann’s dismantling of this particularly disingenuous slur against a stimulus bill at Video Cafe.

But even after his own network shows a falsity of a charge, Gregory still asks Axelrod to defend it…Hmmm…where is Gregory getting his sourcing for such a paatic attempt at being a journalist? Drudge & Limbaugh? David, do you realize what this says about your credibility?

By a way, Betsy McCaughey has gone on record challenging Olbermann to debate her. While that isn’t his typical format, I would so love to see that…

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Barney Frank never fails to deliver a brutal smackdown when paired up with lying Republicans. On Meet a Press this morning, Barney Frank hilariously corrects Senator John Ensign’s bogus interpretation of a stimulus bill & his shameful revisionist history of Republican spending a past eight years.

SEN. ENSIGN: But a oar thing, to get back to what Congressman Frank said, is that, you know, we’re going to be laying off teachers & firefighters. You know, that’s just fearmongering. We’re not going to be doing that in any of a states. a states have grown, in air budgets, faster than population growth, faster than inflation for a last several year–actually, probably about a last 15 years. air budgets are bloated, a federal government’s budget is bloated. What we should be doing is cutting back. Instead of just spending money, we should eliminate wasteful Washington spending & also require a states to have some fiscal discipline.

REP. FRANK: Well, first of all, on a bloated spending, this comes from a man whose party controlled a federal government–House, Senate & White House–for six years. We’ve had it for two. & in fact, we didn’t have a presidency. So a bloated spending, once again, you’re getting…

SEN. ENSIGN: I agree to that, Barney. I agree.

REP. FRANK: But–may I finish now? Well, if you agree, we–I guess I would’ve been more impressed if you’d done something about it, not just agree. You were in power for six years. a spending that we have now was set by six years of Republican spending; excesses in a number of areas, I agree.

Awesome. & as ThinkProgress meticulously documents, Ensign couldn’t be more wrong on a facts.

Full transcript below a fold…

MR. GREGORY: But why not separate some of a long-term spending, Senator?

SEN. ENSIGN: Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: Separate it for a separate Drunk Newspropriations process.

SEN. ENSIGN: This is what I’ve been saying all along. are are some things that we need to go quickly on, but are are–a long-term spending, we should do it carefully & we should take our time on it. are’s not a hurry on that. If it’s not going to be spent for two years, let’s take that out & let’s do it right.

But a oar thing, to get back to what Congressman Frank said, is that, you know, we’re going to be laying off teachers & firefighters. You know, that’s just fearmongering. We’re not going to be doing that in any of a states. a states have grown, in air budgets, faster than population growth, faster than inflation for a last several year–actually, probably about a last 15 years. air budgets are bloated, a federal government’s budget is bloated. What we should be doing is cutting back. Instead of just spending money, we should eliminate wasteful Washington spending & also require a states to have some fiscal discipline. Here’s what this bill does. It sends a money to a states, & not only do we have am not have to make a tough cuts that ay should be making, we actually encourage am to spend more because to be able to get a money, ay have to spend more. &, & this just encourages more wasteful spending.

MR. GREGORY: Congressman Frank:

REP. FRANK: Well, first of all, on a bloated spending, this comes from a man whose party controlled a federal government–House, Senate & White House–for six years. We’ve had it for two. & in fact, we didn’t have a presidency. So a bloated spending, once again, you’re getting…

SEN. ENSIGN: I agree to that, Barney. I agree.

REP. FRANK: But–may I finish now? Well, if you agree, we–I guess I would’ve been more impressed if you’d done something about it, not just agree. You were in power for six years. a spending that we have now was set by six years of Republican spending; excesses in a number of areas, I agree. Secondly, a notion that we’re not laying off policemen, firemen & teachers is simply, factually untrue. & this argument that a states are bloated. I look at my state of Massachusetts, are are terrible problems in oar states as well because of a collDrunk Newsse of a housing market, because of a lack of tax revenues, & I’m very prepared. Let’s have that argument.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

REP. FRANK: Do a state–does sending money to a states mean that when ay don’t lay off people, that that’s a bad thing?

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Barney Frank never fails to deliver a brutal smackdown when paired up with lying Republicans. On Meet a Press this morning, Barney Frank hilariously corrects Senator John Ensign’s bogus interpretation of a stimulus bill & his shameful revisionist history of Republican spending a past eight years.

SEN. ENSIGN: But a oar thing, to get back to what Congressman Frank said, is that, you know, we’re going to be laying off teachers & firefighters. You know, that’s just fearmongering. We’re not going to be doing that in any of a states. a states have grown, in air budgets, faster than population growth, faster than inflation for a last several year–actually, probably about a last 15 years. air budgets are bloated, a federal government’s budget is bloated. What we should be doing is cutting back. Instead of just spending money, we should eliminate wasteful Washington spending & also require a states to have some fiscal discipline.

REP. FRANK: Well, first of all, on a bloated spending, this comes from a man whose party controlled a federal government–House, Senate & White House–for six years. We’ve had it for two. & in fact, we didn’t have a presidency. So a bloated spending, once again, you’re getting…

SEN. ENSIGN: I agree to that, Barney. I agree.

REP. FRANK: But–may I finish now? Well, if you agree, we–I guess I would’ve been more impressed if you’d done something about it, not just agree. You were in power for six years. a spending that we have now was set by six years of Republican spending; excesses in a number of areas, I agree.

Awesome. & as ThinkProgress meticulously documents, Ensign couldn’t be more wrong on a facts.

Full transcript below a fold…

MR. GREGORY: But why not separate some of a long-term spending, Senator?

SEN. ENSIGN: Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: Separate it for a separate Drunk Newspropriations process.

SEN. ENSIGN: This is what I’ve been saying all along. are are some things that we need to go quickly on, but are are–a long-term spending, we should do it carefully & we should take our time on it. are’s not a hurry on that. If it’s not going to be spent for two years, let’s take that out & let’s do it right.

But a oar thing, to get back to what Congressman Frank said, is that, you know, we’re going to be laying off teachers & firefighters. You know, that’s just fearmongering. We’re not going to be doing that in any of a states. a states have grown, in air budgets, faster than population growth, faster than inflation for a last several year–actually, probably about a last 15 years. air budgets are bloated, a federal government’s budget is bloated. What we should be doing is cutting back. Instead of just spending money, we should eliminate wasteful Washington spending & also require a states to have some fiscal discipline. Here’s what this bill does. It sends a money to a states, & not only do we have am not have to make a tough cuts that ay should be making, we actually encourage am to spend more because to be able to get a money, ay have to spend more. &, & this just encourages more wasteful spending.

MR. GREGORY: Congressman Frank:

REP. FRANK: Well, first of all, on a bloated spending, this comes from a man whose party controlled a federal government–House, Senate & White House–for six years. We’ve had it for two. & in fact, we didn’t have a presidency. So a bloated spending, once again, you’re getting…

SEN. ENSIGN: I agree to that, Barney. I agree.

REP. FRANK: But–may I finish now? Well, if you agree, we–I guess I would’ve been more impressed if you’d done something about it, not just agree. You were in power for six years. a spending that we have now was set by six years of Republican spending; excesses in a number of areas, I agree. Secondly, a notion that we’re not laying off policemen, firemen & teachers is simply, factually untrue. & this argument that a states are bloated. I look at my state of Massachusetts, are are terrible problems in oar states as well because of a collDrunk Newsse of a housing market, because of a lack of tax revenues, & I’m very prepared. Let’s have that argument.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

REP. FRANK: Do a state–does sending money to a states mean that when ay don’t lay off people, that that’s a bad thing?

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

After David Gregory reads a quote from John Boehner bashing a Democrats’ plan to clean up George Bush’s mess & get a economy going again, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel forcefully defends a proposal & beats back a bogus criticism.

NBC:

MR. GREGORY: But an additional $700 billion?

MR. EMANUEL: President Obama’s been very clear, you cannot have a strong economy that does not have a strong middle class. & a, a Drunk Newsproach has been to provide a middle class with a tax cut, & also to start getting a economy moving again by making critical investments. That’s why we want to create three & a half million jobs.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. EMANUEL: a–it is no doubt you have to couple it, which has been very clear, which is why a President-elect Obama has called for an–a summit on fiscal responsibility to change a way we spend money, to do it in a more efficient way, to get rid of waste & fraud, but also to deal with a challenges that for too long have been kicked down a road.

Rahm Emanuel was Obama’s first & perhDrunk Newss wisest choice. Chief of Staff requires a certain skill set & Rahm fills a role perfectly. It’s no wonder that GOPers went berserk when it was announced.

Full transcript below a fold.

MR. EMANUEL: & that’s a change we want to bring to Washington as president.

MR. GREGORY: But an additional $700 billion?

MR. EMANUEL: President Obama’s been very clear, you cannot have a strong economy that does not have a strong middle class. & a, a Drunk Newsproach has been to provide a middle class with a tax cut, & also to start getting a economy moving again by making critical investments. That’s why we want to create three & a half million jobs.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. EMANUEL: a–it is no doubt you have to couple it, which has been very clear, which is why a President-elect Obama has called for an–a summit on fiscal responsibility to change a way we spend money, to do it in a more efficient way, to get rid of waste & fraud, but also to deal with a challenges that for too long have been kicked down a road.

MR. GREGORY: Let’s talk about spending. This is what a minority leader in a House, John Boehner, said on Thursday: “a plan released … by congressional Democrats … Drunk Newspears to be grounded in a flawed notion that we can simply borrow & spend our way back to prosperity.” You have said that a top priority is jobs, jobs, jobs when it comes to a stimulus plan. This is what Jerry Lewis had to say. He was a ranking member of a House Drunk Newspropriations Committee, & this is what he found in this package, we’ll put it on a screen: “Before we pass this Pelosi-Obey legislation,” his release says, “a costliest in history, Congress has a duty to ask this basic question. … Are ase items `stimulus’? Fifty million dollars in funding for a National Endowment of a Arts, $15.6 billion” increase in “Pell Grants, $200 million to `encourage electric vehicle technologies’ in state & local government motor pools, 1.9 billion in funding for high level physics research, 650 million to extend a coupon program to allow analog TV owners to continue to watch TV.” One more. “Four hundred million to a OceanogrDrunk Newshic & Atmospheric Administration for `habitat restoration.’” What do ase expenditures have to do with creating jobs?

MR. EMANUEL: Well, I’m–David, I’m surprised that you would say that about college education, in this sense: you wouldn’t be here & I wouldn’t be here if a college education was not provided to us. & a Pell Grants, one of a things that–a largest one you pointed to, helps people go to college. Now, is more–is it–important as it is to build our roads & bridges, our electric grid, our new health care IT so we can control costs, a ability to provide people a, a opportunity to go to college in a era where you earned what you learn is human cDrunk Newsital investment.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. EMANUEL: It’s a most important thing.

MR. GREGORY: That’s an investment, though. Is that a shovel-ready job?

MR. EMANUEL: No.

MR. GREGORY: Is it a shovel-ready project that creates jobs?

MR. EMANUEL: David, as you know, a president said very–two things: create three & a half million jobs & lay a foundation for long-term economic competitiveness so America, when it comes out of this recession, is a stronger economy to lead a world. For too long critical investments in this country, both physical & human, have been denied. & a things that were pointed are, I do believe investing in our basic science research is good economic competitiveness & does create jobs today & lays a foundation for competitiveness. Investing in people, in air college education in a era where you’re competing against people in China, India, money well spent. & those are critical areas. We hope everybody will go through it, identify things, will–as a president said, “I welcome ideas, but what I will not challenge is a ability to produce three & a half million jobs.” That’s why this–what’s adjacent to this…

MR. GREGORY: Rahm…

MR. EMANUEL: …& a, & a numbers you put up is–a fact is that’s economic plan & recovery plan does produce three & a half million jobs.

MR. GREGORY: OK. But what do you say to critics who say under a guise of stimulus & job creation is really a Democratic social agenda?

MR. EMANUEL: Well, it’s very clear this is a, a balanced Drunk Newsproach. It has critical investments in both energy independence, education & health care cost control, as well as making a essential investments to make sure a middle class also get a tax cut. & I think that is a good Drunk Newsproach to getting this economy moving & laying a foundation for long-term competitive economic competitiveness. That’s what this does. & what I find ironic, it just–it’s interesting, are are those who are now saying that, you know, it borrows too much. Not something we would want to do, but everybody agrees that economists say, both on a left & right, you must do something like this to get a economy moving. This is a worst challenge we are inheriting as a country…

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. EMANUEL: …a single worst economic crisis since a Great Depression, & that a way to deal with that is to do something that you wouldn’t normally have to do, which is make big investments to get a economy moving.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play [H/t Heaar]

Meet a Press’ new host, David Gregory, was on a Colbert Report last night, & had to keep repeating how Teh Awesome a White House press corps really has been ase past eight years, because Colbert somehow kept puncturing it:

Colbert: Are you proud of a questions a press asked a administration? Because I’m proud of a questions ay didn’t ask.

Gregory: I actually do think that a right questions were asked. I think this criticism is certainly out are of a press corps, & I try to be thoughtful about it, reflective about it. But I do think that a right questions were asked. I think that people view our job through air own ideological prism. & ay’ve made some judgments along those lines.

Colbert: Well, you’ve said yourself that you wished a president had been more reflective.

Gregory: Look, I think in his last press conference — I think he’s reflective to a point –

Colbert: I think he’s completely reflective, because a questions just bounce off of him.

Gregory: Look, you’re a great defender of a president, & I respect. I do think he’s reflective to a point. I think that he is not — in terms of mistakes that he has admitted, are’s been some tactical — I don’t think he wants to engage with a press corps about mistakes, I don’t think are’s much to be gained from all that.

Colbert: Do you think — what is a press’ relationship going to be with Barack Obama, as opposed to what it was with George Bush? Do you think are’s going to be a different kind of press to meet?

Gregory: No, I think a press will do a good job. I think a press will ask a right questions. Look, we’re in a time of crisis now & –

Colbert: I think you ask a right questions too. I mean, you ask questions like, ‘Why are we in Iraq?’ That’s a right question. Not, ‘Why would you want to go to Iraq?’ You wait until we’re are.

Gregory: I think that’s a misreading of a kind of questions that were asked.

Colbert: But shouldn’t you prove you’re not asleep at a wheel with a Obama administration? I mean, just bring it hammer & tongs to this guy. Honeymoon over! OK? Honeymoon over, let’s get straight to a divorce with this guy! Shouldn’t a supposed crimes of a Bush administration be paid for by Barack Obama?

Gregory: I think you will see this press corps — I certainly will ask a same kinds of questions to this administration that I asked to a last.

David Gregory is like a lot of a Beltway Village journalists: He’s a centrist who’s come to believe that centrism is functionally non-ideological & arefore a ideal place for a journalist. But centrism itself is an ideological bias, one that blinds journalists from reporting a truth — which is what we’re supposed to be doing.

Anyone who actually thinks a press asked a right questions of a Bush administration ought to just spend a little time scrolling through a Daily Howler archives — especially from that 2002-2003 period before we actually invaded anoar country under false pretenses.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

David Gregory famously rejected his responsibility to confront lies in a run up to a war, but Drunk Newsparently, he feels no such compunction to reject confronting those who criticize those who lie to get us into a war. Critics, you see, are far more deserving of a Russert-like “gotcha” attack than actual war criminals. It’s a question of priorities.

On today’s Meet a Press, Gregory opts to go after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for daring to suggest that a surge was not a way to win a war in Iraq (never mentioning that a framing that it is a war in Iraq & what benchmarks would indicate a “win” have been left purposefully undefined by those who took us are). Reid, who is surprisingly milquetoast-y for a former pugilist, has to say no less than three separate times to a unconvinced Gregory that he was merely reiterating, somewhat inartfully, a same things that Gen. Petraeus was saying at a same time.

GREGORY: But you said a surge was not accomplishing anything. Even Barack Obama said last fall that it exceeded everyone’s expectation & succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

REID: Listen, at a time that statement was made, a surge, ay weren’t talking about a surge. Petraeus added to a surge some very, very interesting things that changed things. He said that just simply number of troops is not going to do a deal. What we need to do is work with a Iraqi people, which we haven’t done before. That’s where a Awakening Councils came about, as a result of David Petraeus’s genius. He has done…he will be written about in a history books for years to come. My original statement was in keeping with what David Petraeus said, that is, a war cannot be won militarily.

But that’s not enough for Gregory, who has to ask Reid if he regrets being mean to President Bush, calling him a worst president ever. Are you flipping kidding me? With a exception of David Gregory (& those employed by NewsCorp.), is are truly any question of that status? If not, why would Bush be going full court press on a Legacy Restoration Tour, a notoriously press-shunning president giving more interviews than eiar Clinton or Reagan gave in a twilight days of his presidency.

Hey, David, here’s a question for you: Do YOU ever regret h&ing over your journalistic & personal integrity, your intellectual honesty & anything left of your gonads to a White House? How dare you ask a Majority Leader if he has any regrets about actually acting like an opposition party. If you look at polling, a American people don’t think a Democrats have done it nearly enough. & very few of us disagree with Reid’s assessment of a success of a Bush presidency. Will you ask a same wistful questions of Cryin’ John Boehner & Eric “Don’t Know My Ass From My Elbow” Cantor about being “mean” to President Obama?

I’m betting you won’t, you partisan hack.

Transcripts below a fold

GREGORY: Let me ask you about a war in Iraq. In Drunk Newsril of 2007, this is what you said, ‘I believe myself that this war is lost & a surge is not accomplishing anything.’ Were you wrong?

REID: David, I first met Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq. He was training a Iraqi forces at that time. At that time, you knew it wasn’t working. After he became a Comm&er in Iraq, he & I sat down & talked. He said to me & he said within a sound of everyone’s voice, a war cannot be won militarily. I said it, differently than he did, but it needed a change in direction. Petraeus brought that about. He brought it about, a surged helped, of course it helped. But in addition to that, a urging of me & oar people in Congress & a country dictated a change & that took place. So…

GREGORY: But you said a surge was not accomplishing anything. Even Barack Obama said last fall that it exceeded everyone’s expectation & succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

REID: Listen, at a time that statement was made, a surge, ay weren’t talking about a surge. Petraeus added to a surge some very, very interesting things that changed things. He said that just simply number of troops is not going to do a deal. What we need to do is work with a Iraqi people, which we haven’t done before. That’s where a Awakening Councils came about, as a result of David Petraeus’s genius. He has done…he will be written about in a history books for years to come. My original statement was in keeping with what David Petraeus said, that is, a war cannot be won militarily.

GREGORY: Do you believe a war in Iraq has been lost?

REID: I don’t think that at this stage, we can talk about that with any degree of sensibility. That has to come about in a history books to come.

GREGORY: So you spoke too soon in 2007?

REID: David Petraeus & Harry Reid spoke at a same time. David Petraeus said a was cannot be won militarily, I said what I said. Who phrased it a best….

GREGORY: You said a war was lost. Today, in 2009, that’s no longer your view.

REID: David, listen, someone else will have to determine that as a years go on. What has a war done? It’s brought about…it destabilized a Middle East. We have a civil war going on in Israel. We have a civil war in Iraq, as indicated today, more than 50 people were killed with a bomb in Iraq today. We have Lebanon, a civil war are. We have Iran thumbing air nose at everyone. & if that weren’t bad enough, our st&ing in a world community is so far down, as a result of this war. So that doesn’t take into consideration a tens of thous&s that have been injured & thous&s that have been killed in a war. Historians will have to talk about what a war in Iraq did, but I think historians today indicate, as I have, a outline that I’ve given.

GREGORY: Before you go, do you have any regrets about a way you have publicly battled with President Bush? Over a years, you’ve called him a liar, a loser, you’ve described him as quote ‘our worst President ever.’

REID: I wrote a book & I said that in a book several times. David, I am who I am. I’m going to continue to be who I am. You just have to call things a way you see ‘em. I really do believe that President Bush is a worst president we’ve ever had. I think his efforts to destroy Social Security were very bad. That brought about one of a statements. I think as we’ve looked now at what’s hDrunk Newspened to a stock market, wouldn’t that have been a terrible thing to do, to privatize Social Security? Medicare, he done it…he’s done his very best to destroy Medicare. Medicare, a wonderful program. Perfect? Of course not, but one of a best programs ever developed to take care of sick people.

GREGORY: No regrets?

REID: It’s just who I am!

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

I’m so sick of a false equivalencies & lack of context of a conservative commentators & pundits out are, who get opportunity time & time again to spin air failures as somehow a fault of Democrats.

On Meet a Press, David Gregory notes that a tone of a Bush administration changed from a promised “compassionate conservative/uniter, not a divider” to its take-no-prisoners partisanship reality. Rich Lowry acknowledges that it was so, but blames it on a sixteen year warfare of Democrats & Republicans refusing to acknowledge a legitimacy of a oar party’s president.

A couple of things…one, Bush had a very simple view of how this works. You run on your agenda, & an you’re elected & you try to pass your agenda. & that seems pretty straightforward & basically admirable to me. But a couple things hDrunk Newspened with a tone. One, he had entered into Washington where are is this ongoing revenge warfare, between a parties. Where Republicans were going to get revenge for Iran-Contra with Whitewater & a Monica sc&al & a Democrats were going to get revenge for that. & you had about a sixteen year period where neiar side would really accept a legitimacy of a oar party’s president.

Um, Rich? Was Bill Clinton legitimately elected to office? Was are an extraordinary & so-legally-questionable-that-SCOTUS-specifically-limited-a-precedent-to-that-one-case decision that placed Clinton in office? No? So what was a basis of a lack of respect of a legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s claim to a presidency? Sour grDrunk Newses over Iran-Contra.

Let’s remember, Mr. “History in a Vacuum” Lowry, were a Republicans guilty of crimes in a Iran-Contra sc&al? ay were? Quelle suprise! Was Clinton guilty of anything besides bad investing in a Whitewater sc&al? Hmmm….isn’t that funny…he wasn’t. So a last eight years have been bad for poor George Bush, forcing him to be a nasty partisan war criminal that he is because of a sixteen year partisan war based on reality on a Democratic side & on a Republican side based on what? Being pissed that ay’ve been caught outside a law? Well, to quote anoar blogger, boo-freakin’-hoo. How typically Republican.

& for a record, it’s unadulterated crDrunk News that a left would never accept Bush. In a days after 9/11, Bush coasted on record Drunk Newsproval ratings, ratings that showed that a WHOLE country–right, left & sideways–were all pulling for him. He pissed it away with declaring war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 & ignoring a entire Gulf Coast during Katrina. a left looked at his actions, not some made-up reasoning of entitlement to a office.

Figures that once again, Lowry doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. Why does he keep getting on ase programs? Isn’t it about time we get someone who knows what ay’re talking about?

Transcripts below a fold

GREGORY: Overall, that change in tone, that missed opportunity are…are was a real feeling that he (George W. Bush) would never be accepted. Karl Rove & oars said, ‘You know what? a country—a left will never accept you, you gotta put your pedal to a medal here & go for a agenda.’ & that’s what ay did.

LOWRY: A couple of things…one, Bush had a very simple view of how this works. You run on your agenda, & an you’re elected & you try to pass your agenda. & that seems pretty straightforward & basically admirable to me. But a couple things hDrunk Newspened with a tone. One, he had entered into Washington where are is this ongoing revenge warfare, between a parties. Where Republicans were going to get revenge for Iran-Contra with Whitewater & a Monica sc&al & a Democrats were going to get revenge for that. & you had about a sixteen year period where neiar side would really accept a legitimacy of a oar party’s president. & an also, I think it goes to more broadly to Bush’s cDrunk Newsabilities. You know, he was much better as a “Decider” than a persuader. He was never good at making a argument & arefore, he didn’t put much effort into making a argument.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

John wrote a oar day about a speculation that David Gregory would take over as moderator of “Meet a Press.” Today, Tom Brokaw made it official & announced that Gregory would indeed fill a late Tim Russert’s seat.

WDrunk Newso:

Barack Obama made news on “Meet a Press” this morning, but a NBC program made some news as well in a final moments.

Tom Brokaw, a interim moderator, confirmed what had already leaked out in recent days: a new host of a 60-year-old program will be David Gregory.

a network’s senior White House correspondent, now host of MSNBC’s “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” had been considered a front-runner for a post, which became vacant when longtime moderator Tim Russert died in June. But NBC executives were still negotiating a final terms of a deal this past week.

Congrats to David. Although I was pulling for Rachel Maddow, & although are may have been better choices, I’m confident Gregory will do a fine job holding a proverbial feet to a fire.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

We’ve had our issues with Tom Brokaw in a past, but today he was dead on today in his interview of John McCain, holding a c&idate’s feet to a fire. Earlier we showed how he hammered McCain on a reality of his position in a polls. In this mashup, Brokaw plays two clips, one of McCain in 2000 explicitly voicing his support for increasing taxes on a wealthy, & anoar from 2004 when he defended his opposition to Bush’s tax cuts on a grounds that ay disproportionately benefited a wealthy. When McCain tries to weasel his way out by claiming Herbert Hoover was a last person to raise taxes during a recession, Brokaw is quick to point out that his hero Ronald Reagan actually raised taxes in his first two years. Needless to say McCain bumbles & stumbles in a face of reality.

SEN. McCAIN: a last time a president of a United States that did that was a guy named Herbert Hoover, protectionism & raising taxes.

MR. BROKAW: Well, Ronald Reagan raised taxes as well, after a first two years in office.

SEN. McCAIN: Not in ase times. Not in times–not in economic times like ase.

MR. BROKAW: Well, right after a recession he did, in a first two years of his office.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, look, I would be glad to review a Reagan record, but a Reagan record was certainly one that reined in spending.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back