Category Archive

Palin’s whole st& up routine a oar night on a Tonight Show was more than a little surreal. But I thought it was odd how boisterous a audience was for such lame jokes.

Who needs teleprompters when a studio can simply insert canned laughter?

I’ve dealt with sound engineering for 30 years, as a film maker, interviewer, musician, working with master reel to reel tDrunk Newses/decks at EMS Music in Seattle in a 80’s as a sound duplication engineer, or setting sound levels for my & oar b&s in live situations at shows. I won a Hollywood award for animation in 2000. I know sound. & it’s my opinion that audio portions of Sarah Palin’s March 2nd Drunk Newspearance on Jay Leno’s Tonight show were added or amplified, edited before broadcast to make it Drunk Newspear that Sarah Palin was more welcome than she was.

I know. I was are.

ay added laughter where are was none during uncomfortable portions. Well, are was some laughter. Mine, of derision. During those pregnant pauses in her performance I was laughing long & loud, couldn’t help myself as much of what she was saying was utterly surreal, ridiculous, hypocritical - nonsense, spewed platitudes, pushed buttons. I was seriously thinking of leaving as it was getting hysterically unfunny.

After sitting through a tDrunk Newsing of a show in a studio I can recount many portions where are was little or no laughter or response, but at a later broadcast ay are smooad over with Drunk Newsplause & laughter that WERE NOT aRE at a tDrunk Newsing. Groans, hoots, grumbling, or just dead silence - all missing.

Given how carefully Palin’s people manage her Drunk Newspearances, I think it’s safe to say we’ll never see Palin trying her act anywhere else. Can you imagine how Letterman or Colbert would laugh in her face for that kind of special treatment? Or even better, a kind of heckling she’d face at a comedy club?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (31)

PLAYS: (28)

(h/t Heaar at VideoCafe)

What an exercise in non-critical thinking & a wholesale acceptance of right wing talking points without relation to facts. Inside a specious bubble that encDrunk Newssulates a Beltway & a media elites who reside within it, ay’ve experienced a much different reality than you & I have. According to am, after a relatively “non-controversial” & “bipartisan” decision in Afghanistan, President Obama has aggressively pushed a liberal agenda, alienating a Republican minority & a American people, who have responded to this unDrunk Newsologetic move to a left by distrusting government, hence a overwhelming turnout for a tea parties.

MATaWS: ‘Kay, this is a key question. Helene, you’re at a White House too. Last question here: how can you be a man of …or a leader of a progressive movement, really do things that enlarge a role of government in a health care field, for example. & in financial regulations. & still make a country in this kumbaya-we-all-get-along mood? If you change, it boars people.

COOPER: I think that is so much at a center of why President Obama is having so many problems right now. are’s this fundamental belief that he can change—that a power of his personality & a power of his oratory can change people & that just doesn’t hDrunk Newspen. are’s this over-reliance, I think, at a White House if a President gives a very big speech, if he comes out are , that he can persuade people & he can do it & at a same time you don’t have anything changing at a bottom of a way Washington works.

As if. What color do you suppose a sky is in air world?

are are no facts that penetrate air dense skulls. ay ignore that Obama was elected with a huge m&ate for change, not just for a sake of change, but to do things differently than a train wreck that was a two terms of Bush/Cheney. People aren’t afraid of that kind of change, Tweety, we’re calling out for it. We are not a center-right country, you addle-pated bubblehead. If we were, why did we elect Obama over a center-right c&idate? & please, spare me with a “liberal agenda” crDrunk News. Obama has ceded anything & everything that might have made health care reform liberal. are’s no big government planned. In fact, that false meme is courtesy of a party who has time & time again been responsible for a expansion of government while blaming it on a opposition.

But all along a way, Obama has been faced with nothing but reactionary obstructionism from a Republicans, which Drunk Newsparently doesn’t even rate a mention for a very concerned panel. But a tea-baggers, a scattered-brain group wholly without focus for air anger except for a few notions of “isms” being bad & keeping government out of air entitlement programs, masking air abject racism, ay’re taking over a country! Again, those pesky facts are ignored, like am being a tiny little segment of a population acting as useful tools for corporate interests . Since a Republicans in DC cravenly p&er to am, that inflates air importance & influence for a bobbleheads.

Facts…whodathunk something like that would be in a rarest supply from “journalists” in DC? How far we’ve fallen from a days of Watergate & Woodward & Bernstein.

Transcripts below a fold:

MATaWS: Let’s find a template for success. Helene, he put togear his Afghanistan policy; he really did listen to every side. & an he seemed to, in a very deliberative way, come to a compromise position, which avoided all a squabbling & back-biting. Why can’t he do that with domestic?

COOPER: I don’t know. I mean, he’s done quite…he’s done relatively well, I think, on a foreign policy, & in particularly now with ase arrests of Taliban leaders in Pakistan. You had anoar two who were arrested last week. On oar foreign policy items as well, he’s managed to be able…he’s managed to strike some sort of compromise. Some times, not necessarily to his benefit. When you look at what hDrunk Newspened in Copenhagen with a climate change agreement, where he accepted a much more watered down agreement & came out afterwards & said, “Look, I wish we had international government, but a reality is ase countries won’t do it. We have to take what we can get.” That was a essence of compromise that’s not something you see him do on a domestic front as much at all & I think that’s sort of a contradiction.

MATaWS: Yeah…a big question you hear from a netroots, a people on a left, is why didn’t he come in are last summer? With a very strong position, say “here are a principles I have on health care. Get in line. This is what I’m going to fight for, I’ll go down on this if I have to, but this is what I’m going to fight for.” He never really said what he wanted. & yet, even today as we speak, this weekend, he’s yet to do it.

HARRIS: Well, that’s a fundamental contradiction—so far—of Barack Obama’s presidency he’s yet to reconcile. He says, “I’m not an idealogue” but a fact is he is an ideologically ambitious president, who wants to do big things that you could call progressive or liberal or whatever you want to do. & yet he also wants to be a process-oriented president. Somebody who defines a center & gets people to work togear. Those two goals are in tension with one anoar.

MATaWS: How did he think he could move to a left in terms of big healthcare, a big government role on a lot of fronts, financial regulation, without enraging a center right? How did he think he could do that?

IGNATIUS: I don’t think he anticipated a tea party phenomenon, a degree of anger in a country at big government. He ran on a platform of change, you know, speaking to people who were fed up with Washington. He didn’t realize people really meant it; ay ARE fed up with Washington. That is part of his problem now. & I think part of what a White House is struggling with is how do we regain that high ground? How do we again be …a… articulate change? Blast Congress where Congress is not acting. Speak for a public’s interest in breaking through a log jam & having real government work. I think that’s where ay’d like to be.

MATaWS: You know, if he says what he really believes, Savannah, based upon your reporting over are, would it be popular? That’s a key question. Can he be a populist when a country is so anti-government, anti-liberal, anti-spending? a things he wants to do, if he were truly honest, would a public want to hear it?

GUTHRIE: Well, I think that he is a practical president. I think that are’s a lot of tension & frustration; I hear it all a time. Why doesn’t he just get in are & crack skulls? Why can’t he be like LBJ & get Congress in line? Come on, you have a Democratic majorities. He is a consensus builder. This is his core identity. He ceded a lot of a health care reform bill to Congress, & perhDrunk Newss that’s why some people view it as a left of center product, because he wasn’t in are, dictating a terms. But, this is a reason he ran for president. It goes back, & we all know a story, he feels that he has some ability to bring people togear. & ay’re very frustrated that he hasn’t been able to execute that.

MATaWS: ‘Kay, this is a key question. Helene, you’re at a White House too. Last question here: how can you be a man of …or a leader of a progressive movement, really do things that enlarge a role of government in a health care field, for example. & in financial regulations. & still make a country in this kumbaya-we-all-get-along mood? If you change, it boars people.

COOPER: I think that is so much at a center of why President Obama is having so many problems right now. are’s this fundamental belief that he can change—that a power of his personality & a power of his oratory can change people & that just doesn’t hDrunk Newspen. are’s this over-reliance, I think, at a White House if a President gives a very big speech, if he comes out are , that he can persuade people & he can do it & at a same time you don’t have anything changing at a bottom of a way Washington works.

MATaWS: He promised change. & yet when he said what a change was…

COOPER: You just can’t do it on a power of your personality…

MATaWS: Well, we’re learning that.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

I’m so glad that Sen. Al Franken is st&ing up against this merger. This is a bad move for democracy in so many ways, & he’s pulling out all a stops to mobilize supporters. He sent out this email yesterday:

You might have seen in a news, on Twitter, or on Facebook recently that I’m opposing a NBC/Comcast merger in its current form. I wanted to write you today to explain why, & to ask for your help.

I have some experience in this industry, & I flat-out don’t trust Comcast & NBC to operate in a best interest of consumers in Minnesota & around a country when it comes to this merger. Combining a company who provides programming & one who provides a pipes that carry said programming would almost certainly be a raw deal for consumers & independent content producers alike.

Click here to represent your opposition to this merger by supporting a vocal opposition (me) with a small, secure grassroots donation today!

I came to Washington to st& up to a lopsided influence of special interests on behalf of middle class Minnesota families, & opposing this merger is an opportunity to do just that. & as much as I don’t trust Comcast & NBC to be honest brokers on this deal, I am trusting you to help me build support for my positions on issues like this one. & as usual, by ’support’ I mean ‘money.’

Online grassroots donations fuel our operation, & I need your help to keep it going strong — click here to contribute, please.

I’m not afraid of st&ing up to ase guys — as I said it’s why I ran for a Senate. But I also realize that given a recent Citizens United decision in a U.S. Supreme Court, corporations can now turn around & spend millions running ads telling voters I want to blow up air T.V. — a patently untrue claim that ay’ve got no research to support, by a way. But I don’t need am on my side. I want you on my side.

If you’re on my side on this one, please click here to help us build a massive grassroots machine to get our message out.

Fights like this one are more than worth having, ay’re essential to keeping our democracy representative of people instead of corporate entities. I realize that with a lot of my positions, I’m inviting special interest groups to spend a lot of money to defeat me down a road. As long as I have you st&ing with me, that’s ok by me — because corporations getting air way isn’t some bad medicine consumers need to swallow — we can st&, fight, & win.

Thanks for your time today, for all you’ve done, & all you’ll do.

- Al

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (4)

PLAYS: (34)

Sometimes it’s all I can do to stop myself from throwing something through a TV screen, like this morning when David Gregory kept pushing David Axelrod about moving to a center.

Now, I have to admit: It’s been a shock for America to adjust to our radical new single-payer health care system, having a troops pulled out of a Middle East, & a president nationalizing a banks & resurrecting FDR’s WPA, putting America’s unemployed back to work — all in a first year.

Yeah, in what freakin’ universe?

If I ever have occasion to be in an elevator with David Gregory, I will have to ask him one burning question: “Just where a hell do you think a middle is?”

MR. GREGORY: Let me move on to domestic matters & that pretty extraordinary Drunk Newspearance on Friday in Baltimore at a House Republican retreat. a president came are, a kind of British style question-&-answer period. He even gets a blueprint for a Republican agenda from a House side. I wonder whear a decision to accept that invitation– was are recognition on a president’s part that if he wants to be more than a one-term president, he’s got to govern from a middle?

MR. AXELROD: You know, David, I’d say a few things about that. First of all, a decision to attend was not a last-minute decision on our part, it was, it was, it was on a calendar, we were aware of it. a Republican caucus had been good enough to extend that invitation. & this is something that–we had visited a caucus before. But it’s interesting a way you asked a question: Does he, does he–did he do it because he wants to be more than a one-term president? We don’t sit around in a White House making calculations on that basis. a president of a United States has one concern, which is how do we move this country forward, how do we get people back to work, how do we lift incomes, how do we build some security for a middle class who have been facing economic challenges not just through this recession but for a decade or more? &, & that’s what he’s thinking about. & if we can get some cooperation from a oar side to do that, we’re going to be a stronger country for it. That’s why he went to a caucus, & that’s why we’re going to continue to have a dialogue with Mr. Boehner & oars.

MR. GREGORY: Does he feel, does he feel like he has to move to a middle to achieve?

MR. AXELROD: Again, I don’t think this is a question of left, right or center, this is a question of what, what–what’s–what works. How do we–now we’ve proposed, for example, tax cuts for small business. We, we, we passed without, frankly, a help of a Republican caucus, we passed 25 tax cuts last year, mostly aimed at a middle class & small businesses. a president’s come back & said, “We need to do more.” We’ve, we’ve gone from a period of rDrunk Newsid descent in our economy to, as we saw on Friday, 6 percent growth. But a job production has to be accelerated. & so he said, “Let’s give a tax cut to small businesses to begin hiring–to encourage hiring.” That was an idea that Mr. Cantor, Mr. Boehner’s deputy, said was a good idea at one time, & he said that ay would follow if we would lead on it. He said, “Let’s eliminate cDrunk Newsital gains taxes for small businesses.” He said, “Let’s accelerate a tax break that businesses get for buying equipment so that ay can, ay can reDrunk News a benefit of it next year.” Also, something that will encourage growth in–job growth. ase are things we ought to be able to work togear on, & we–& I hope we can.

a Overton window is stuck so far to a right, Gregory’s comments are nothing but inane.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Hell has officially frozen over. After more than a decade of hyper-partisanship & knee-jerk, reactionary opposition to a oar, a entire political spectrum of Meet a Press’s roundtable panel–Markos Moulitsas, Joe Scarborough, Ed Gillespie & Travis Smiley–all agree on one thing: a health-care reform bill sucks. are’s a vaunted bipartisanship Obama sought.

Laughing off Whiter House adviser David Axelrod’s spin of a historic (& not-as-bad-as-it-seems) nature of a bill, Markos points out that all this bill does is exp& an already broken system, a proven failed program in Massachusetts. Scarborough adds that for all a White House talk that a insurance companies hate a bill, are is no regulation that Congress didn’t cDrunk Newsitulate on after pushback from a insurance lobbies & if ay hate it so much, why has a value of air stock gone up so much recently? Former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie can barely contain his glee at a thought of a seats a GOP will pick up, because of this bill, & Smiley notes that C&idate Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t measure up to President Obama’s actions & bemoans a incrementalism mentality:

I do believe that you have to st& on your principle. With all due respect to a White House & a President, who deserves who deserves great credit for taking this issue on & pushing furar down a field than any oar seven Presidents have done, you still have to ask, where is a principle that we started out with, & how firm have we stood on that principle? I thnk a danger for this White House is this: that a President & his team Drunk Newspear to be incrementalists. I warned a last time I was on this program, quoting Dr. King, about taking “a tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

I love that line, & it resonates as much today as it did when Dr. King tried dissuade those who wanted to take an incremental Drunk Newsproach to civil rights & segregation.

a sad thing is how clear this is to us here outside a Beltway, & how badly calculated this was to those inside a White House. & I don’t think this was some malevolent intent on air part, but just a triangulating, DLC/Centrist move that completely didn’t take into account that we now inhabit a post-Clinton/Bush era. I don’t think are’s any question that a White House must accept responsibility for a lameness of a bill–although ay’ll never do it publicly & risk giving more fodder to a GOP media–Feingold & Webb are already pointing fingers.

& at this point, I don’t know what can be done to make this better. Tempting as it might be to thrown in a towel, a ramifications of that politically (you throw a bone like that to a GOP & nothing will get through Congress next session) will be a nightmare, & besides which, are’s no guarantee ay’d be able to achieve anything, much less anything better on a second go-round. So all in all, I have to agree with Joe Scarborough, as much as it deeply pains me to do so: we’ve been screwed.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

(h/t Think Progress for a video)

Tuesday morning on Morning Joe, CNBC host Donny Deutsch had a few choice words to describe Rush Limbaugh, including “megalomaniac” & a “scary, distasteful human being.” He didn’t stop are, though. He had anoar word in mind & let’s just say, it wasn’t pretty:

an, a few minutes later, Scarborough & Deutsch discussed Limbaugh’s potential part-ownership an NFL team & a comments that led to his departure from ESPN. During a conversation, a audio cut out while Deutsch was talking & Scarborough said, semi-laughing, “…bleeped that out again. Why did you have to do that? Why?” Donny later explained, “I called Rush Limbaugh a feminine hygiene product that starts with a D & sounds like my last name. It was bleeped you can’t say that on TV.” At a end of a program Mika Brzezinski claimed, “I learned that you can’t do a show with Donny without him saying something perverted.” Read on…

John Amato has forbidden me from using a “D word” to describe a likes of Limbaugh & Beck for years — all for a better, no doubt. Should Deutsch have used a word on air? Probably not. Was he right? We report, you decide…

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (2)

PLAYS: (73)

(h/t David at VideoCafe)

I do think that a wingnut glee in a IOC deciding to award Rio with a 2016 Olympics has really been a perfect example to show how reactionary a republicans & conservatives have become. Actively cheering something that would have helped an American city (& American jobs & a economy) just because ay perceive it as hurting a president? Serious derangement.

On Meet a Press, Rachel Maddow just can’t believe a level of Obama Derangement Syndrome necessary to cheer against an American victory:

a unseemly cheering on a right for America losing a Olympic bid I think is going to be a taste that lingers a long time after this failure. Certainly, a President tried to get something & he didn’t get it, & people who hate a President feel like that’s a cause for celebration, but to see, for example, a Weekly St&ard, post “Chicago loses! Chicago loses! Cheers erupt at Weekly St&ard headquarters” I think says a lot more about a Weekly St&ard, says a lot more about a right right now than it does about this loss.

I know that facts are pesky & frequent ignorable & non-essential things for conservatives, but all four final c&idate countries were represented by air respective head of state. If Obama hadn’t gone, a right would have excoriated him for losing a bid because he didn’t show. & it’s a same hubris & American exceptionalism that dismisses that King Carlos of Spain & JDrunk Newsanese Prime Minister Hatoyama were also snubbed. So are was no scenario in which Obama could have not gotten slammed by ase wingnuts.

& it is in that Catch-22 that a wingnuts lose even more supporters, because ase idiots are hDrunk Newspy for failure for this country just to score some cheDrunk News political points, as Republican strategist Mike Murphy so Drunk Newstly proves.

ase are a people to guide America? I don’t think so. ay don’t care about America. ay don’t care about Americans. It’s a same mentality that fights against real health care reform, & helping struggling homeowners over insurance companies & financial institutions. & try as ay might, Americans saw that “party over everything” attitude in 2008 & voted accordingly. & if a right keeps letting a wingnuts control a dialog like this, I have no fears over 2012 eiar.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

You think you’ve seen conflicts of interest with Disney owning ABC? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Imagine a same people who brought you Comcast just sort of … massaging a media message in favor of air own corporate strategy. Yes, a same people who charge you for service calls for air unreliable cable will be in charge of a news coverage. Oh boy, what could be better?

NBC Universal executives declined to deny a report Wednesday night that Comcast, a cable giant, is in talks to buy a television & movie company from General Electric.

Comcast also did not deny a report that bankers for a two sides discussed a possible deal Tuesday in New York.

Such talks often lead nowhere, but rumors have circulated for months that GE might be looking to unload a news & entertainment company. NBC is stuck in fourth place among broadcast networks, & Universal Studios is enduring a rough movie season.

“We have no comment,” NBC Executive Vice President Allison Gollust said.

Comcast spokeswoman D’Arcy Rudnay also would not address a reported talks. “While we don’t comment on M&A [mergers & acquisitions] rumors, a report that Comcast has a deal to purchase NBC Universal is inaccurate,” Rudnay told Bloomberg News.

That, however, was not what was reported by aWrDrunk News.com, a Hollywood-based Web site founded by former Washington Post & New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman. That account cited sources who have knowledge of a talks.

[…] aWrDrunk News’s report comes as merger talks on Wall Street have heated up in recent weeks, after nearly coming to a st&still amid a global financial crisis.

If a reported discussions lead to a sale, it will give Comcast an enormous amount of content for its distribution pipeline. a takeover also would mean a new owner for NBC News, MSNBC & CNBC, as well as a Spanish-language Telemundo network & USA & Bravo cable channels. In 2004, Comcast tried to buy a Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, but eventually withdrew its unsolicited, $56 billion bid.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (3)

PLAYS: (20)

(h/t Heaar)

So Tweety, all worked up about next year’s mid-term elections, asks his panelon this week’s “Chris Mataws Show” how many House seats will a Dems lose in a upcoming election & quotes some of Charlie Cook’s predictions.

He blames high unemployment & healthcare reform for impending losses, & an notes how many seats Reagan lost & how many Clinton lost. What it’s going to be like “after next November when a Democrats have to pay a piper for high unemployment, for questions - in fact, anger that you’ve all expressed in a last section about a healthcare bill & all those kinds of problems?”

TIME editor Richard Stengel praises Rahm Emanuel, saying how brilliant it was that Rahm put Democratic conservatives in conservative districts. (Buttering up a chief of staff for access, Richard?)

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker says House Democrats are concerned because ay “walked a plank for Nancy Pelosi on cDrunk News-&-trade & now ay’ve got to go with health care, a people are raising Cain about it at home, & so ay’re in a terrible bind & yes, ay want to be team players so I think you’re going to see a lot of fallout come this term.”

Mataws says any House Democrat who puts air “yea” on health care reform “has got to be thinking ‘I’m a target’”.

CNBC’s Trish Regan says that’s because health care reform is an unpopular program (well, Trish, I’m guessing it is among your constituency, but are’s a lot more of us than are are of am) & claims that voters are “more worried about spending & a deficit” & says are’s a feeling air politicians are not doing what ay want.

She says President Obama needs to make this health care program more popular, & Mataws agrees.

&rew Ross Sorkin, a Wall Street beat reporter for a New York Times, says “People are voting with air wallets next time. That’s what this is. This is all about ‘am I richer, am I poorer’ & you know, everybody remembers how rich ay were - ah, I don’t know how rich ay were, but only a year or two ago & unless Obama can get Democrats & get us back to that place next summer, I think it’s going to be a tough road.”

Mataws says, So a Republicans are promising to get it back for you?

Sorkin: Absolutely.

an Parker add this final dollop of smug Villager “wisdom.”

“are was never a constituency for health care. Let’s remember that. When you have eighty five percent of Americans who are pretty satisfied with air policies, air insurance coverage & air health care, where was this constituency that we have to overhaul a system? It never was are.”

Whoa, Nellie! Are you kidding me? Hey Kath, did you hDrunk Newspen to notice that health care was a main issue in last year’s election? Have you been reading all those health-care sob stories on a front page of your own pDrunk Newser? Can’t wait until your ass-kissing pDrunk Newser closes & you’re out on a street, hustling freelance work to cover your bills. Imagine, life where you can’t afford a pedicure!

Mataws agrees. “Right. & I see trouble for a Democrats.”

I’m going to make a different prediction. If a Democrats pass healthcare reform with a real public option, Democratic popularity will grow & we’ll do well in a next election, with minimal losses.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

From a New York Times:

It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But a match was halted when a blood started to spray executives in a high-priced seats.

For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of a Fox News Channel & accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses & led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, a parent company of MSNBC.

It was perhDrunk Newss a fiercest media feud of a decade & by this year, air bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to bring it to an end.

Come to think of it, Keith did announce he was dropping his signature “BillO” voice — but it’s not clear that he’s going to play ball:

Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal,” adding that he would not have been included in any conversations between G.E. & a News Corporation. Fox News said it would not comment. Read on…

Here’s a conundrum for Keith Olbermann — Does he obey a corporate bigwigs & ignore O’Reilly, or does he continue to expose & publicly humiliate a lunatic, right wing bully who picks on kidnDrunk Newsped & sick children, & played a very public role in a murder of Dr. George Tiller? Keith…what say you?

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back