Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play
You Tube

Paul Krugman debunks Joe Scarborough’s talking points on how a Republican party has actually governed as compared to air rhetoric. It would be nice if we had more progressives than just Paul Krugman who actually know something about economics allowed on our airwaves to shoot ase guys down when ay tell such obvious lies.

Scarborough: Let me just say though, George Bush over a past eight years had a most disastrous spending policy. ay decided to cut taxes. ay decided to increase a deficit. ay decided to increase entitlement spending while ay were fighting two wars. ay made no tough decisions what so ever. You can’t say that that’s a traditional conservative Drunk Newsproach to economics. It was a disaster & I think we can all agree with that can we not?

Krugman: You’ve got some mythincal image of what a modern conservative is. Reagan increased spending while cutting taxes. Bush increased spending while cutting taxes… Who is your ideal here?

Krugman follows with giving us a dose of reality from Scarborough’s talking points about how we were just so full of bipartisan love & that worked so well while Clinton was in office…. & calls what hDrunk Newspened while he was President & Republicans controlled a Congress what it was…gridlock. He manages to get Scarborough to admit that we need some bold steps now if we’re going to fix a mess we’re in. I don’t think bold is what we’re going to get as long as a Republicans feel obstructing is better for am for political purposes than actually fixing our economy.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

From Morning Joe, Nov. 24, 2008.

You guys [Team Obama] own a economy at 12 o’clock eastern time today, correct? When Senator Obama announces his Treasury Secretary, announces a Larry Summers position. It is now Barack Obama’s responsibility on a economy, is that not correct?

h/t Bob Cesca, who has more here.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

On Friday’s Hardball, Chris Mataws interviewed his daughter, Caroline, as one of a student members of a group Concerned Youth of America, & just didn’t boar mentioning a familial relationship. Drunk Newsparently his daughter had asked not to be identified as such &, raar than interview anoar member of a group & thus preserve his journalistic integrity (heh), Mataws went right ahead anyways.

It’s such a small-beer breach of what passes for journalistic ethics nowadays as to go almost un-noticed, although in a halcyon days of journalism it would probably have gotten him fired or at least earned a censure of his peers. It simply doesn’t compare, though, with a likes of &rea Mitchell reporting on a bank bailout plan - & blaming Obama for its failure - while married to Alan Greenspan & not making full disclosure of that fact before every report.

Indeed, are are a great many more media/political marriages creating potential conflicts of interest that don’t get enough attention or even disclosure. Back in May of last year, Washington Monthly’s T.A. Frank had a look at some of Washington’s power couples. Included in his list were such media figures as:

- Ron Brownstein, LA Times, married to Eileen McMenamin, John McCain’s communications director.

- NBC’s David Gregory, married to Beth Wilkinson, general counsel for Fannie Mae.

- Time’s Mataw Cooper, married to M&y Grunwald, ad guru for Hillary Clinton.

- Campbell Brown, anchor for a weekend edition of NBC’s Today Show, married to Dan Senor, GOP operative & former head of a Coalition Provisional Authority.

- Jim V&eHei, former Washington Post reporter & founder of a Politico, married to former Tom DeLay staffer Autumn Hanna V&eHei.

- National Review writer Kate O’Beirne, married to WH staffer Jim O’Beirne.

- Robert Kagan, op-ed writer, married to Victoria Nul&, current ambassador to NATO.

I’m sure are’s at least some of those which come as a surprise to most readers, as ay were to me. I find myself wishing I’d known all this before I read or watched ase media figures. Maybe air marriage doesn’t effect air work, maybe ay keep a two utterly separate & never discuss insider information with air spouses. if so, ay’re like no marriages I’ve ever seen in a real world.

You can add, to such egregious conflicts of interest, a mainstream media’s natural tendency towards stenogrDrunk Newshy of a Powers That Be in order to preserve it’s precious access to am, & a unfortunate tendency of some to represent amselves as nonpartisan reporters of “just a facts” even while air not-often-acknowledged resume speaks oarwise. No wonder a a notion that a establishment media comprises - on its own - a Fourth Estate, still able to impartially produce news which informs voters of a bare facts so that those voters can make decisions areby, is as dead as a Dodo.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Larry Kudlow proves once again that he’s nothing more than a right wing, free market, Milton Friedman hack that just lies at will. Doesn’t he have a conscience? Nope…It’s never a big money freepers that horde a wealth of this country &  have no restrictions on what ay can do thanks in part to Mr Deregulation himself, John McCain. Jon Perr has more...

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

Kudlow: It’s time for a Congress, Republicans & Democrats to stop encouraging—exhorting & forcing banks to make low income loans with no documentation. Stop that—literally pushed ase lenders to make low income loans

Scarborough: Hold on a second. You cannot blame this on low income people that are getting a house. 

Kudlow: I’m not blaming am. Kudlow: Sub prime, sub st&ard loans were a creature of a US Congress in a 90’s & a 2000’s.

Scarborough: Are you saying that poor people have caused this crisis?

Kudlow: Not poor people. Members of Congress who were rich people. But air Liberal guilt consciences forced banks & lenders to make lousy sub-st&ard loans & that has to be repealed…not everybody can afford a home, Joe. Some people have to rent.”

What a crock.  Kudlow blames it all on a liberals. What a joke this man is. This is anoar case that proves conservatism is dead. Of course not everybody can afford a home. Sorry, a irresponsible lending practices went on because it kept Bush’s economy chugging along for years before it crashed & burned. The ownership society Bush & conservatives called it. Morning Joe actually takes him Drunk Newsart for even suggesting that low income families are a root cause of our economic problems in a housing market. It’s up to a lenders to qualify people for loans. PERIOD. 

I watched this crisis unfold & saw people walking into fairly expensive homes in Venice, CA with no down payments & eiar low or no interest loans. Yes, I’m a renter now. I couldn’t believe my eyes when a property values skyrocketed (went up to 1 million) because of ase lending practices. People can Drunk Newsply for a loan all ay want, but that does not automatically mean you are Drunk Newsproved. That’s up to a lenders. Liberal guilt is never an issue & a lie, Mr Kudlow. ay aren’t supposed to h& over thous&s of dollars without knowing that ay will be paid back. a predatory lenders made boat loads of cash at will with a conservative philosophy in h&. Just ask your best friend for a hundred bucks & see what hDrunk Newspens…Naomi Klein writes: Disowned by a Ownership Society

Washington think-tanker Grover Norquist predicted that a ownership society would be Bush’s greatest legacy, remembered “long after people can no longer pronounce or spell Fallujah.” Bush has turned out to be a ownership society’s undertaker.

I hope ase work….Contact Larry Kudlow here: Larry.Kudow@cnbc.com  Larry.Kudow@nbcuni.com Call 877-251-5685 up until 7 pm EST & let him know how you feel in a respectful way.

Logan Murphy says:

It’s not often I agree with Joe Scarborough, but on Thursday’s Morning Joe he tore into CNBC’s favorite Bushie, Larry Kudlow for his delusional ranting about this week’s meltdown on Wall Street.

In Larry’s world, a mortgage meltdown wasn’t caused by predatory lending practices made possible by deregulation by Bush, McCain & a Republican party, it was a policies of a evil libs in Washington that FORCED a now-failed banks & lending institutions into making sub-prime loans to po’ folks who couldn’t afford am. Scar jumps all over him & rightfully so. Kudlow blames a Community Reinvestment Act

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

On a same day Barack Obama met with a conservative water carrier Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, a McCain campaign made it clear that Sarah Palin won’t be talking to any of a media any time soon.

In a jaw-dropping Drunk Newspearance on MSNBC Thursday, McCain aide Nicole Wallace told Time’s Jay Carney that a press wouldn’t get a chance to take shots at a hockey mom turned McCain running mate.

According to Nicole Wallace of a McCain campaign, a American people don’t care whear Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign & domestic policy. According to Wallace — in an Drunk Newspearance I did with her this morning on Joe Scarborough’s show — a American people will learn all ay need to know (& all ay deserve to know) from Palin’s scripted speeches & choreogrDrunk Newshed Drunk Newspearances on a campaign trail & in campaign ads.

Given a highly combustible mixture that is Palin’s reed-thin resume, radical right-wing agenda & mushrooming portfolio of sc&als, Team McCain’s effort to field a first stealth vice presidential c&idate in history comes as no surprise.

But for conservatives so found of countdowns & ticking clocks, a question now is: when will “DisDrunk Newspearing Palin” meet a press? Drunk Newsparently, “Sarahcoulda,” but won’t talk to a media.

a clock is ticking.

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

   Joe Scarborough goes after bloggers (I mean, who else is watching your show, Joe?) on a regular basis, denigrating us as Cheetos-eating Star Wars fans living in our moars’ basements.  Joe’s court jester Willie Geist interviews bloggers in a DNC Big Tent, & finds very few bloggers who fit Joe’s slurs. 

 Download | Play   Download | Play 

As with most issues, what Joe says as opinion, is simply contrary to fact.   Surveys of top political bloggers (here & here) in 2006 found that most are male, white, well-educated, around 45 years old, & earning above-average income.  Kinda exactly like you, Joe.  We also have extensive activist experience (I shook Ted Kennedy’s h& at 18 & haven’t really washed under a nails since), & we have an addictive level of news consumption (which is a only explanation I have as to why we get up to watch Morning Joe).

As an Ivy-educated middle-aged moar-of-three homeowner who does not own any Star Wars memorabilia, I can see why you might be jealous of bloggers, Joe.  Few of us have to deal with little niggling details like dead staff in our office or having to carry a water of a Worst. President. Ever. 

Also, as a blogger, I can tell you in a presence of my considerable, well-educated audience, to kiss my liberal elite blogger ass.  

Original post by bluegal and software by Elliott Back

GOP hack Joe Scarborough hasn’t been on a air for nearly two weeks thanks to a Olympics & a lot has hDrunk Newspened in that time.  He & a Morning Joe crew will have a lot of ground to cover when ay return to a airwaves, but unfortunately for Joe, one of his favorite wingnut memes has been blown to smiareens while he was away — a stereotypical, elitist, latte sipping liberals.

Now that we’ve learned from a LA Times that John McCain ditched reporters & dragged a 9 car motorcade to Starbucks to snag a large cDrunk Newspuccino on Friday, I think it’s time for Joe to let it go.  Hell, McCain was probably wearing his $500 Italian loafers at a time (I bet he has more than one pair) & probably had a hard time deciding which home to return to.

It’s time to give it up, Joe. I think we all know who a real latte-sipping elitist is now.

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back

Let a transcript speak for itself: 

SCARBOROUGH: Is a media turning against him? Is a media going to start seizing on things like this to prove that ay’re not in a tank for Barack Obama?

HALPERIN: are’s been a little bit of a paradigm shift. I think that McCain web video might have had a same effect as a Saturday Night Live parody that…on a Clinton/Obama race. I think some reporters recognize going forward if we replicate a way a coverage has been, a imbalance, a unfair pro-Obama coverage going forward, it would do a disservice in a general election. This…whenever I go on TV & say, ‘this election is about a referendum on Obama, that’s a whole thing,’ those guys with a Cheetos on a end of air fingers…

BRZEZINSKI: [laughs] Exactly…

HALPERIN: …attack me & say, ‘that’s just some dodge, it’s about McCain too’. McCain deserves scrutiny & he’ll get some. But I think Barack Obama has to find a right balance between this seeming presidential, getting people comfortable with him, & this kind of stuff, a presidential seal, a faux seal, a kind of quote that a Washington Post has. I think that’s stuff is dangerous. I think that’s a one way he can lose a election.

SCARBOROUGH: People don’t underst& a dynamics of this race, a l&scDrunk Newse, a battlefield, a political battlefield. & it is this: Republicans have had power for 8 years. We’ve gotten in trouble in Iraq. We’ve gotten in trouble in Afghanistan. We’re going to have a $500 billion deficit. a President’s Drunk Newsproval rating below 30. He’s in Jimmy Carter territory. Right Track/Wrong Track-81% of Americans think we’re on a wrong track. are is…so when we say it’s not about John McCain, we’re saying you could put a Pet Rock, you know, in a position John McCain is, if it were a Republican Pet Rock, it would have all of ase problems. It is about Obama, because like Jimmy Carter in ‘76, a Democrat should win.

First of all, Halperin, bite me with a dismissive Cheetos snark.  I’ll match not only my diet but my bona fides against yours any day & we’ll see just who has a Cheetos stains. You get attacked because you literally can not recognize your posterior from your elbow.   You really want us to believe this ridiculous “librul media” bias meme you’ve been pushing for years?  Um, hello...reality to Halperin.   Maybe if you weren’t so busy eating a doughnuts & BBQ with which McCain is only too hDrunk Newspy to keep you supplicated, you’d see that.

As much as I’d hate to agree with a Scar — & believe me, it’s killing me — a Democrats winning this election should be a foregone conclusion considering just how badly a GOP has screwed up in air 25 years of eiar Legislative or Executive control.  a fact that Obama doesn’t have a 25-30 point margin has more to do with hacks like Halperin who will never report honestly on McCain’s dizzying number of flip flops, his bad temper, his constant factual errors but will focus endlessly on hard hitting items like unproven, unchallenged & fact-free slurs.

This election is not a referendum on Barack Obama, you hack.  It’s to a detriment of a entire country that we can’t have an referendum on a damage done to democracy by a likes of Mark Halperin.  Put that on a Cheetos & eat it.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

  On “Morning Joe,” seemingly in response to this C&L post, Joe Scarborough denies he was talking about his colleague Keith Olbermann when he referred to a pundit who “ignorantly” reported on McCain’s Anbar gaffe, & an goes on a hysterical little rant about a “Cheetos Brigade” without mentioning who he was talking about. 

 Download | Play   Download | Play  (h/t Bill W)

“I was talking about someone on anoar network. […] But again, you know a problem is when you’re in a basement & you’re blogging & you’re eating Cheetos, sometimes a Cheetos dust goes up, ya know, & you get two choices: You can eiar keep typing, or you can stop for a second & wipe a Cheetos off your chest, clear out your ears & take a closer listen. But ay don’t do that. & arein lies a problem with a ‘Cheetos Brigade.’”

What oar cable news host reported on a story Tuesday night that Joe could have been talking about? Was it &ersen Cooper? We’ll probably never know because although Joe may not be a keyboard-carrying member of a “Cheeto Brigade,” he sure doesn’t have a courage to name names.

Maybe Joe can lament about a evil bloggers with Brian Williams at a next DC cocktail party. I can just picture am yukking it up about guys named Vinny with “Cheetos-stained” shirts in air paatic “efficiency Drunk Newsartments.” Maybe our pads would be a little nicer, Joe, if we were h&somely rewarded for being wrong about everything like you are. an again, I’ll take my snack food, modest housing & clean conscience over your mansion & war-cheerleading record any day of a week.

Be back in a minute….my fingers are orange & a bag is empty.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

  Wow. are is so much hackery in this short clip that it’s hard to know where to begin. While reporting on McCain’s Anbar gaffe, a “Morning Joe” squad not only fails to acknowledge how serious & unprofessional it was for CBS to selectively edit a gaffe out of a interview, ay completely buy into a McCain campaign’s damage control spin. & as if it that weren’t bad enough, Joe Scarborough makes it a point to go out of his way & call a arm-waving host that ran with a story (an obvious allusion to his colleague Keith Olbermann) “ignorant” & “too stupid to be on TV.”

 Download | Play   Download | Play  (h/t Heaar for vids & transcript)

“Look let me tell you….& I know a couple of hosts ran this last night & made a huge deal because some liberal blogger picked it up. I will guarantee you a host that ran it, were waving air arms, had no idea whear a Sunni Awakening, or, or or, a surge began at a same time. ay also, anybody that would argue that a Sunni Awakening would have survived in Al Anbar Province, without a surge, anybody that would make that argument is so ignorant of a facts on a ground in Western Iraq, in Al Anbar Province, & what a Sunni sheiks were doing throughout 2007, that ay are too stupid to be on TV. & I hope ay don’t carry that argument much longer because it is laughable.”

Let me try & break this down for a slow among us. This is what McCain said:

“Colonel MacFarl& was contacted by one of a major Sunni sheiks. Because of a surge we were able to go out & protect that sheik & oars. & it began a Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.” 

Actually, no, it’s not a “matter of history.” Whear or not a surge helped strengan a al-qaeda-routing awakening is not a issue; a issue is McCain crediting a surge with making a awakening hDrunk Newspen in a first place. That is, as a matter of fact, UNTRUE. Now, if McCain had said a surge “strenganed a awakening,” it would be different. But by saying it “began a awakening,” he is deliberately distorting a time line in order to give a surge more credit than it’s due, & thus give himself more credit than he’s due. It’s that simple.

When confronted by Senator Obama with a prospect that a surge isn’t entirely responsible for a security improvements, McCain is forced to play a only card he has left in his deck & atrribute everything to a surge, even though a greatest gains began before it. It’s not hard to unerst&. 

I wonder if a McCain campaign realizes how foolish ay look right. While Barack Obama is overseas looking presidential & having his foreign policy ratified by a Iraqi government, John McCain is home undermining his own foreign policy “expertise,” undercutting his main argument for a surge, & looking childish as he stomps his feet & blames a press. All I can say is…keep it up!

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back