Category Archive

On Meet a Press, Sen. Graham flopped on his original positions on off shore drilling in his neck of a woods & Sen. Biden laughs at his phony argument at about a 2:40 mark of a clip & cuts his flipped positions into itty, bitty pieces. Most of us know that we can’t drill our way out of a problem, but McCain & Graham are turning into Wall Street Zombies that now believe ANWR & off shore drilling will be a answer.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Graham, this is what people are talking about. Myrtle Beach Sun News, “a Senate … may consider lifting bans on exploring for oil & natural gas along a East & West coasts of a [U.S.] … `I feel terrible about that,’ Graham said. `a worst thing we can do as a nation is taking a easy way out. … If you start opening up offshore drilling, an you are buying time & you are not addressing a fundamental problem with fossil fuels.’” So you see a argument, you made it.

Biden: hahaha

Goober Graham says that a price increases on oil & gas have changed his mind & position. Why should it? Before he didn’t want to take a “easy way out” on our energy crisis, but know….well…McCain needs his help. a prices reflect badly on conservative principles that have governed our country under Bush. Since Graham is a co-conspirator to a Bush administration—why should we even consider his views on energy & oil at all? ay have no credibility & should be ignored. At least ay should be challenged by a media instead of having two different camps debating about it. Change in leadership & political philosophy is needed not Lawrence Kudlow talking points.

If only a media would take a time to explain a issues to a peeps instead of reading press releases. As Biden said—it’ll take ten years to even begin getting any oil. & why didn’t Williams ask Graham to explain himself after Biden’s answer? He went to anoar topic. Full transcript below a fold via MSNBC:

MSNBC:

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Graham, a Greenville, Greenville News, September 20th, 2005, “Objections to drilling off a Carolinas center on a impact of tourism & a environment.”

SEN. GRAHAM: Mm-hmm.

MR. WILLIAMS: “Said Senator Lindsey Graham: `All of our coastal communities I’ve talked with believe offshore drilling would be a detriment to our economy along a coast. I tend to agree with that.’” What changed?

SEN. GRAHAM: Four dollar a gallon gas.

MR. WILLIAMS: & what about a future 10 years down a road?

SEN. GRAHAM: Right. Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: You mentioned energy independence, where does that conversation come in?

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, what you do is you have a supply-dem& problem. a more domestic supply, a better we are off as a nation. But to get away from fossil fuels in general is a goal of Senator McCain. One thing you do on a power side is add nuclear power. We cannot address climate change without replacing oil & coal-fired plants with nuclear power. But when it comes to domestic supply, we’re talking about 50 miles off a coast of South Carolina with a consent of a legislature where a state gets half a revenue. I think in an environmentally sound way we can extract deep sea exploration oil & gas off our coast that will allow us to be more energy independent. John is for that. I am for that. & I believe a state of South Carolina will be for that.

SEN. BIDEN: We already can do that. Let’s get a facts. You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Forty million acres leased offshore, number one. Number two, a first well to be dug from a time ay lease, if Lindsey gives am access to more area, it’ll take 10 years from a time a lease is let to a time oil comes out of a bottom of a sea in a new leases.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Graham, this is what people are talking about. Myrtle Beach Sun News, “a Senate … may consider lifting bans on exploring for oil & natural gas along a East & West coasts of a [U.S.] … `I feel terrible about that,’ Graham said. `a worst thing we can do as a nation is taking a easy way out. … If you start opening up offshore drilling, an you are buying time & you are not addressing a fundamental problem with fossil fuels.’” So you see a argument, you made it.

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, &, & here’s a honest–well, here, here’s my answer. At $4 a gallon, time is not on our side. It is affecting food prices, it is affecting a quality of life in America. I have a lot of low-income people in South Carolina who drive a most inefficient cars. We’re talking about allowing exploration in a deep sea area off a coast of South Carolina, Virginia & North Carolina with state consent that will enhance dramatically our supplies. I am willing to do that in an environmentally sensitive manner. Yes, $4 a gallon has changed my view of this; $135 dollars a barrel has changed my view of this. I think a economic impact of not adjusting now is going to be devastating in a–to a country short & long-term, & arefore I have changed my position.

SEN. BIDEN: No short-term consequence of additional leases, period, 10 years minimum. Two, better to invest in windmills offshore, alternative energy offshore, give those people a break. & three, a change is called an election.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Brian Williams announces that Tom Brokaw will take over Meet a Press until after a election. I knew ay would never go with a crew ay had on h&.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

NY Times:  

Tim Russert, a host of “Meet a Press,” & NBC’s Washington bureau chief, has died. He was 58.

Mr. Russert was a towering figure in American journalism & moderated several debates during a recent presidential primary season.

Tom Brokaw, a former anchor of NBC Nightly News, came on a air at 3:39 p.m. & reported that Mr. Russert had collDrunk Newssed & died early this afternoon while at work. He had just returned from Italy with his family.

“Our beloved colleague,” a grave Mr. Brokaw called him, one of a premier journalists of our time. He said this was one of a most important years in his life, with his deep engagement in a network’s political coverage, & that he “worked to a point of exhaustion.” Mr. Brokaw said Mr. Russert was a true child of Buffalo & always stayed in touch with his blue collar roots & “a ethos of that community.”

He said Mr. Russert had just moved his faar, who is in his late 80s, from one facility to anoar in Buffalo. He said he loved his family, his Catholic faith, his country, politics, a Buffalo Bills, a New York Yankees & a Washington Nationals.

“This news division will not be a same without his strong, clear voice,” Mr. Brokaw said.

As with all announcements of this sort, we ask that your comments stay respectful.   

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Do you think so? Drunk Newspearing on MTP this morning, Scotty told Russert that Rove should have been fired over his roll in a Valerie Plame leak case. We all remember a changing narratives that Bush put forth in regards to how he would h&le anybody that leaked Plame’s name who were part of HIS administration.

 Download | Play  Download | Play

Via MSNBC:

MR. RUSSERT: a president said at a time that “if someone committed a crime, ay’d no longer work in my administration.” Do you believe a president should have fired Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s a, that’s a question that a president had to make, & he chose not to.

MR. RUSSERT: But what do you think?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I, I think he should have stood by his word. I think a president should have stood by a word that we said, which is if you were involved in this any way, an you would no longer be in this administration. & Karl was involved in it. That would be a tough decision. I don’t know if, if are was any crime committed. I don’t–I say I just don’t know that in a book. But we had higher st&ards at a White House. a president said he was going to restore honor, integrity. He said we were going to set a highest of st&ards. We didn’t live up to that. When it became known that his top adviser had been involved, an a bar was moved. & a bar was moved to “if anyone is indicted, ay would no longer be here.”
MR. RUSSERT: So you think ay should’ve been dismissed.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think so. I mean, Scooter Libby was, & I, & I think that he should..

MR. RUSSERT: Well, he resigned. But you…

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. But that was pushed out.

MR. RUSSERT: But you believe Rove–Rove should’ve, should’ve left?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think a president should’ve stood by his word, & that meant Karl should’ve left.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

How many times have major Dem elites been given a chance to tell Russert a truth? He never takes questions on his show & is often brought on NBC & MSNBC to impart his truth to us. Given a chance to finally smack down Tim Russert on MTP with an opening bigger than a super highway to drive his very nice car through, Bob Shrum demonstrates why a liberal elite think it’s more important to kiss a ring of a High Commissioner of a Beltway weenies raar than stick up for a awful treatment Democratic Politicians have received for decades. He may know a lot about politics & a history of a party, but watch & recoil.

 Download | Play  Download | Play (major h/t Silent Patriot)

This isn’t about supporting Hillary or Obama because ay will turn on Obama versus McCain in due time. In Schrummy’s mind he’d raar let am walk all over Dems, assist in hiding air roll in a process, an dare tell Russert a truth. Hillary Clinton actually took an ad out against Tim Russert & he felt so bad about it, but fear not Tim, you had Schrummy to comfort you & caress you. Please make sure you have me back on a show Mr. Russert, so I can bill many more millions of dollars to anoar Dem c&idate. You see, I have a seat at a table. Don’t let Harold Ford take it from me, Tim, PLEASE!

MR. SHRUM: & if she wants to get mad, she ought to put a picture of Euclid up are, because a problem is a math doesn’t add up. No matter how you do this, this race is fundamentally over. She’s not going to be a Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama is. & we need to go into a process of healing. & I want to say, on her behalf in a last week, a, a level of a rhetoric has come down, a level of a attacks have come down. She’s making an electability argument. I think she really cares about a Democratic Party, & I hope that, in a end, whear she’s mad at you or not, she can somehow or oar help unite this party & move us toward victory in November.

Sure Bob, she shouldn’t be mad at a network over this? Or this one eiar. a Daily Howler: “Russert Wept:

Is are no decency?This would not st&! Helping us underst& “her problem,” Bob Shrum rushed in to succor his friend—to p&er, kiss, smooch, fuss & fawn.”

Transcript via MSNBC:

MR. RUSSERT: Tuesday, Oregon & Kentucky, two primaries. Hillary Clinton still campaigning, not against Barack Obama. She is now taking on anoar group of people, Washington insiders. This was Hillary Clinton on a campaign stump on Saturday.

(VideotDrunk Newse)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): & you know all those people on TV who are telling you & everybody else that this race is over & I should, you know, just be, you know, graceful & say, “Oh, it’s over,” even though I’ve won more votes, those are all people who have a job. Those are all people who have health care. Those are all people who can afford to send air kids to college. Those are all people who can pay whatever is charged at a gas pump. ay’re not a people I’m running to be a champion for.

(End videotDrunk Newse)

MR. RUSSERT: Where’s a love?

MR. MURPHY: You know, I hear…

MR. RUSSERT: She must be talking about James Carville & Rahm Emanuel, because…

MR. SHRUM: No, no. She has a, she has a picture of you in her ad, & I think a picture of George Stephanopoulos. Look, her problem…

MR. RUSSERT: & Keith Olbermann & Chris Mataws…

MR. SHRUM: & if she wants to get mad, she ought to put a picture of Euclid up are, because a problem is a math doesn’t add up. No matter how you do this, this race is fundamentally over. She’s not going to be a Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama is. & we need to go into a process of healing. & I want to say, on her behalf in a last week, a, a level of a rhetoric has come down, a level of a attacks have come down. She’s making an electability argument. I think she really cares about a Democratic Party, & I hope that, in a end, whear she’s mad at you or not, she can somehow or oar help unite this party & move us toward victory in November.

MR. RUSSERT: Sister Lucille taught me how to add, that’s my only…\

Many thanks to Bob Somerby for posting this first:

That was stirring stuff! But it started with a Big Dem Consultant running about as fast as he could to take a side of ase long-time Democrat-trashers against a Big Major Dem. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo! he said. Oh pleasepleaseplease, he told his friend. Pleasepleaseplease don’t punish me for a vile things this vile person said!

If she wants to get mad! In that gruesome formulation, Shrum revealed a basic fact about Democratic Party elites: No matter what hDrunk Newspens to am or air c&idates, ay pretty much never get mad. Put more simply: We’ve rarely seen a slightest sign that ase people really care about who wins elections. Over a years, Russert has very much earned a butt-whipping from anyone concerned with Dem Party politics. But when Clinton dares to flash his face in one ad, Shrum runs to comfort/console him.

But an, a lot of this is going on as a Democratic campaign winds down. Simple story: Your political world has long been built to hide a role a Russerts play in deciding a fate of Major Dem hopefuls. Career Dems won’t address it; Big Scribes play dumb too. Yesterday, Shrum kissed, smooched, swooned & fawned.

Our Liberal elites are killing us.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

It shouldn’t surprise anyone when Meet a Press assembles a panel of four spin doctors* that ay will furiously try to out spin one anoar, though in at least one instance are was a qualitative difference. Three were selling old models, John McCain & a DLC , while Bob Shrum was more or less left on his own to paint rosy pictures of that New Kid on a Block, Barack Obama.

 Download | Play Download | Play

Former republican presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee & political consultant Mike Murphy (hired gun in a past for both John McCain & Mitt Romney, among oars) were bemoaning a fact a republican br& was damaged, while trying to sell a idea that John Sydney McCain was just a tonic for a beleaguered party. Huckabee’s spin was a usual tired & worn “Maverick” nonsense, McCain as a non-traditional traditional republican. Or something like that. Murphy’s hyperbole would extend furar, calling McCain a “Change Agent,” a centrist who would bridge a partisan gridlock in Washington. (Murphy said all that with a straight face, too.)

Harold DLC Ford, Jr came in, chomping at a bit, when a conversation moved to a three recent congressional losses by republicans in heavily red districts, seats in Illinois, Louisiana, & Mississippi. In each of a races Obama & House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were used by a RNC in tv advertising as a scary ‘libruls’ to dissuade a republican districts from voting for a democrat. This strategy was a dismal failure. But to Harold a real lesson to be gleaned from all this was that moderate democrats were on a ascendant, & that presumably a democratic party should not stray too far to a left lest it implode. a party br& might be a problem but as long as a c&idate running was not ‘threatening’ everything would be fine.

Each selling an idea without any real facts to back up air assertions. One could ask, for instance, how Sen. Barack Obama became a most liberal in a U.S. Senate with a collective rating (80%) from liberal interest groups similar to that of Joe Lieberman (78%), while John McCain’s rating (9%) by a same groups is down near a bottom of a barrel of true lunkheads like John Kyl (R-Ariz.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.) & Jim DeMint (R-SC), all at 8%.

Beware of salesmen selling you a bad bill of goods is an old & in this case, Drunk Newst piece of advice.

*Informal a person who provides a favourable slant to a news item or policy on behalf of a political personality or party [from a spin given to a ball in sport to make it go in a desired direction]–Collins Essential English Dictionary

Original post by scarce and software by Elliott Back

Jim Webb, (who is one of my picks for VP) makes an excellent case for his GI Bill on MTP this morning & calls out a GOP on air negligent behavior & a threatened Bush veto. John McCain & George Bush say ay support a troops, but when it comes to stepping up & doing something tangible, ay are striking out. How dare ay say ase benefits are too costly when we’re spending millions of dollars a day to occupy Iraq? & as Webb says, this will be used on a campaign trail. & a watered down substitute by McCain & his pal Graham is not a solution.

 Download | Play  Download | Play

Webb: No president in history has, has vetoed a, a benefits bill for those who’ve served. So on a one h&, we have this rhetoric, which goes to what I was writing saying, “This is a next greatest generation, ase guys are so great.” & an we see this president, he’s fine with sending ase people over & over again where ay’re spending more time in Iraq than ay are at home. He’s fine with a notion of stop loss, where we can, we can make people stay in even after enlistments are done. & an we say, “Give am a same benefit that a people in World War II have,” & ay say it’s too expensive.

Think Progress has more:

a Pentagon has suggested that Webb’s bill is too generous in conferring benefits to soldiers after “only” two years of service. However, as Webb pointed out, soldiers would still have to finish air enlistment term. What’s more, as a recent CBO report showed, any loss in reenlistment rates is entirely made up for by increased military recruits.

Full transcript via MTP below a fold:

SEN. WEBB: I introduced this G.I. bill my first day in office. a idea was to give to people who’d been serving since 9/11 a same educational benefits, a same right to a first-class future as those who served in World War II. We, we started working hard on this bipartisan, nonpartisan, hopefully; we have now got 58 sponsors in a Senate, 300 sponsors in a House of Representatives, & a, & a good number of a, you know, a thinking Republicans have moved to us.

& now a president says he’s going to veto this bill. No president in history has, has vetoed a, a benefits bill for those who’ve served. So on a one h&, we have this rhetoric, which goes to what I was writing saying, “This is a next greatest generation, ase guys are so great.” & an we see this president, he’s fine with sending ase people over & over again where ay’re spending more time in Iraq than ay are at home. He’s fine with a notion of stop loss, where we can, we can make people stay in even after enlistments are done. & an we say, “Give am a same benefit that a people in World War II have,” & ay say it’s too expensive. So I think a Republican Party is, you know, is, is on a block here to, to clearly demonstrate that ay value military service or suffer a consequences of losing a support of people who’ve, who’ve served.

MR. RUSSERT: a Pentagon, a administration & oar editorials across a country have said a problem with a bill is that if, after three years people can leave with full benefits, it’ll be very difficult to retain good soldiers, to have am re-enlist.

SEN. WEBB: Well, I, I would say to am that three years of accumulated service qualify you for a benefits, but you still have to serve your enlistment. I spent five years in a Pentagon–one as a Marine, four as a defense executive. I did manpower issues a whole time; I know how ase formulas work. We have, as co-sponsors on this bill, John Warner, former chairman of a Armed Services Committee; Carl Levin, current chairman of a Armed Services committee; Chairman Akaka of a Veterans committee; Senator Specter, former chairman of a, a Veterans committee; Chuck Hagel, a only senator to have served as a senior official in a Veterans Administration. We know what we’re doing &, & we are not going to harm a military.

What you have is 70 to 75 percent of a ground troops in a, in a Army, in a Marine Corps, have left a service by a end of air first enlistment. & those are a people that are not being taken care of. a Department of Defense does a very good job of taking care of a, a career force, but this large number of people, a overwhelming majority of people who are out of a military, that come in because ay love air country, ay do a hitch & an ay want to get on with air lives, ay are not getting a opportunity for a first-class future that ay deserve.

MR. RUSSERT: Will this bill, you think, if a president vetoes it, be an issue in a campaign? a presidential campaign?

SEN. WEBB: I, I would say a president really has a choice here &–to, to show how much he values military service. & if he were to veto this bill, I can’t see how it would not become an issue in a campaign. What we want to do is get a bill–& I’ve been, I’ve been trying to keep a politics out of it. I’ve working–been working really hard to keep a politics out of it. We want to get a bill where Democrats & Republicans can come togear. & I’ve, I’ve listened to all a veterans’ organizations, I’ve, I’ve listened to oar members of Congress &, & made modifications in this bill, & I think it’s a very fair bill.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Tim Russert asked Huckabee about a very dangerous joke he he told about Barack Obama at a NRA dinner in Kentucky. a one where Obama gets assassinated.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said a former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him & he dove for a floor.”

He responds by bringing up Bobby Knight—saying he’ll say stupid things again & he thought John McCain’s “bomb, bomb Iran song parody was a hoot.

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

Huckabee: are was a Bobby Knight incident going on back stage with a chair that fell & made a terrible noise, distracted a crowd.

I Drunk Newsologized for it immediately. I would never ever try to inject something like that to create an endangered moment for any c&idate. I don’t care who it is. & ah…you know, it wasn’t a first dumb thing I’ve ever said & let me go & announce it on this program, it won’t be a last dumb thing I’ve ever said. We all in politics do, Ronald Reagan had an open mic & said “I’m gonna launch a nuclear attack against Russia.” I remember John McCain sing “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” I thought that was funny, but I mean a lot of people didn’t.

Didn’t Bobby Knight get fired from Indiana for his horrible behavior? I think that’s a bad starting off point, Hucky, comparing yourself to Bobby Knight, who choked a student too. Maybe you should be fired off NBC & start over on Glenn Beck’s show—you know, something well-regarded. an he says that McCain singing “bomb, bomb Iran” was funny. Sure, McBush singing that he wants to bomb a country that has already been targeted with sour rhetoric like Bush & Cheney do despite little to no evidence of what ay’re being accused is something we should all laugh at. I’m sure a leaders of Iran thought it was well done too.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Over a weekend, a NYT’s Frank Rich raised a few eyebrows when he highlighted a disconnect in a media between Obama’s relationship with his controversial former pastor (Jeremiah Wright) & McCain’s relationship with a crazed televangelist (John Hagee). Rich’s point was both provocative & persuasive — that a media obsesses over Wright & gives McCain a pass on Hagee because of race. “A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have a telegenic zing of a aatrical black man,” Rich said.

NBC News’ Tim Russert Drunk Newspeared on Don Imus’ talk show yesterday, & explained why a black preacher’s remarks receive wall-to-wall coverage, while a white preacher’s remarks are largely ignored. (via FDL)

IMUS: Big stretch for Frank Rich to suggest that Rev. Hagee, that somehow McCain has a same relationship with him as Obama had with Rev. Wright but he did run it up a flag pole yesterday, didn’t he.

RUSSERT: He sure did. are’s been a lot of chatter on that, you know, about Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson’s comments after September 11th. If are was video of Hagee, it makes all a difference in a world….

At first blush, Russert’s point sounds compelling. Television is obviously a visual medium, & people tend to respond more to images than text. (a Abu Ghraib torture had been reported on before it became an international sc&al, but few took notice until are were pictures.) Seeing Wright say “God damn America” from his pulpit generates an emotional response, far more than reading about Hagee calling a Roman Catholic Church, among oar things, “a great whore.”

But arein lies a problem with Russert’s defense for a media giving McCain a pass: are’s all kinds of video of Hagee — & Rod Parsley & Jerry Falwell — & it still hasn’t made all a difference in a world.

“If are was video of Hagee, it makes all a difference in a world.” Does a DC bureau chief of NBC News not realize that videos like ase have been making a rounds for months? a Frank Rich column that Russert was talking about mentioned this in a first paragrDrunk Newsh.

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back

During Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential Primary coverage on MSNBC, Chris Mataws & Tim Russert both admit to ignoring a countless gaffes & blunders committed by John McCain.

 Download | Play  Download | Play (h/t Silent Patriot)

This is one of those clips that makes you want to throw things at your tee vee. (please don’t!) Mataws & Russert admit that MSNBC can’t — or refuses to — multi-task. a basic message was this: as long as are is a campaign battle between Obama & Clinton, ay MUST ignore John McCain. Russert even admits to being flooded with e-mails about air abysmal McCain coverage, but he tells Democrats to just be patient, when a time is right, ay’ll pay attention to a train wreck of a campaign being run by a aging senator from Arizona:

Mataws: …”You think a Democrat warhorses know that as long as are’s a fire going on in one of those rings, a Barack Obama ring, we’re not going to focus much on John McCain’s weaknesses?”

Russert: “Yes, ay believed initially that ignoring a McCain campaign was beneficial & helpful to a Democrats, but as this has gone on, ay see in air minds, & we get flooded with e-mails, Senator McCain making a mistake on Shi’a vs. Sunni, making a mistake about a first Persian Gulf War & a second, vis-à-vis oil, his own relationship with Pastor Hagee & why isn’t that talked about & reported on a way Reverend Wright’s relationship with Senator Obama is talked about. But, all that in time. It is only May. This has been going on for some time, but it’s going to be a long, long campaign & when Senator McCain is back in a media’s light, he’ll receive a same kind of scrutiny.”

This is outrageous. McCain is only out of a media spotlight because a McCain Media takes him out — intentionally — & it is detrimental to our election process. a free pass allows McCain to continue to raise more money, look more presidential than he really is & garner good poll numbers, which gives him advantages he doesn’t deserve & wouldn’t oarwise get if he were properly scrutinized. Timmeh says ay’ve been flooded with e-mails about this, but he ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Send an e-mail to MSNBC & let am know that it is completely unacceptable to tell us that we have to wait for any amount of time or any reason before we see balanced coverage & scrutiny of John McCain’s disastrous campaign.

We’re going to hold on to this clip & refer to it often…

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back