Lawrence O'Donnell broke down the amount of times Bill O'Reilly interrupted the President during his Super Bowl Sunday interview. Forty three times in a fourteen minute interview. Wow. He and Fineman then analyze what O'Reilly was after - the interview of the century, only he never let Obama finish a sentence.
POSTED BY JHW22
When I want a smart, consistent, unbiased resource on the health reform law, I go to Kaiser Family Foundation's site. They did this study on what Americans know and don't know about the law. I am rather speechless and all I can muster is: "oh, brother."
Here's the rest of the interview aired on The O'Reilly Factor Monday night that we didn't see on Sunday.
Besides the continuing interruptions that I mentioned in an earlier post, I found something very intriguing. Toward the end of the second clip, O'Reilly asks what the media can do better, and gets lost in the Obama's "professorial" style. He doesn't want a real answer or a real solution apparently, you know, too much substance for Bill confuses him. But then O'Reilly specifically asks, "Do you think you're being treated fairly by Fox News now?" (4:10 mark). President Obama's answer was, "I would say, I think that the news guys try to do a good job...".
Is it my conspiratorial mind running away with me, or does the video show a very poor job of trying to edit out the "try to" part of the statement and make it sound like Obama said, "I think that the news guys do a good job."
The very first thing that came to mind was the same type of horrible editing during Michelle Obama's "really proud of my country" moment. Since this is a video uploaded to YouTube and not from the official Fox News website, I'll reserve judgement. But I can't help wondering if they just can't help themselves over at FNC to just tinker with video that is available for editing, unlike the live portion on Super Bowl Sunday.
(I'll replace the YouTube video with official FNC video when it becomes available and update my analysis.)
UPDATE: Conspiracy debunked! In the official video, now posted above, there is no glitch at the 4:10 mark of the second segment. So my apologies to the dweebs in the Fox News control room for accusing them of fudging with the video. You can see the YouTube glitch here. That is, if it is actually a glitch upon upload, bad initial video that was uploaded, or a purposeful attempt at changing the intent of the comment.
The rabid right is calling this another push towards socialism. But think about it for a minute. The President is appealing to the businessmen in this country, the so called job creators that the right espouses, to get their shit together and start creating those jobs they hold over us as their secret weapon. Yet, after record profits and sitting on billions in cash, employment is still stagnant when there should be more movement. We're not even close to a break even pace. Time for the job creators to put up or shut up."Now, right now businesses across this country are proving that America can compete. Caterpillar's opening a new plant to build excavators in Texas that used to be shipped from Japan. In Tennessee, Whirlpool is opening their first new U.S. factory in more than a decade. Dow is building a new plant in Michigan to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles. A company called Geomagic, a software maker, decided to close down its overseas centers in China and Europe and move their R&D here, to the United States.These companies are bringing jobs back to our shores. And that's good for everybody.So if I've got one message, my message is: Now is the time to invest in America. Now is the time to invest in America."
~ President Obama in a speech to the Chamber of Commerce.
POSTED BY JHW22
So, in the let's be civil and responsible atmosphere of the post-Tuscon shooting era, this Facebook ad is a major FAIL. By the way, if you click on the link, you'll see a weird page that offers not just a free copy of Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, but also a lot of great information about gold from First National Bullion and coin. WACKO!
POSTED BY JHW22
I just watched Joan Rivers on Lawrence O'Donnell (no link as of yet) and I will paraphrase it this way:
I think Obama needs to "get to work"; not go to Nantucket while telling Americans to go to the Gulf Coast; while in a recession not send your wife and her forty friends to Europe; I hate the "death tax."OK, although some of that is fair criticism (the Obamas COULD have vacationed in Louisiana but there are reasons pro and con for that debate), some of Joan's criticism is incorrect and catty (the forty friends in Europe for example). She said she voted for Obama but her rant sounded almost like Fox talking points to me.
POSTED BY JHW22
Unless you are an elected official running for another elected post, or unless you are appointed to another position by someone in an elected post, I think it's pure crap to QUIT a job you were elected to do. And no, I am not talking about the Half-the-Term/Double-the-Standards Governor.
For Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) to leave Congress to work for a think tank is unacceptable to me. I don't care what party she is in, how she leans or whether I agree with her on issues or not. I do not like that people donate to campaigns only to see the money wasted on a partial term. I do not like that a state has to now fund and coordinate a special election -- especially when the state is broke. The least she could do is wait until another election is taking place. Or hell, she could afford to pay for the special election SHE is causing. If I could write laws, I would say that anyone who chooses to leave an elected office to get a better paying job must pay for the special election and refund a prorated amount to all the donors who helped get them elected.
Just sayin'.
EDIT: I meant to add:
"Hell, Gabby Giffords is still serving and she got shot in the head! THAT is loyalty and dedication and service."
Maybe it's because of my Bill O'Reilly bias, but when did it become acceptable to ask a question of the President of the United States, and then constantly interrupt him during his answer? To me, it just shows O'Reilly has a subconscious disrespect for the office and for Obama in particular.
O'Reilly also comes off as an unserious "journalist" when he uses phrases like, "Those are tough guys, the Muslim Brotherhood" and "Mubarak knows a lot of bad things about us, rendition and such... I'm worried that he might go off the reservation." Yes, heaven forbid the American people might find out the truth of the criminal activities the government has been involved in.
"Does it disturb you that so many people hate you?" Not at all a serious question considering the President's 50% approval rating at the moment. Yes, even higher than St.Ronnie's rating at the same point in his tenure. Maybe the people who watch BillO hate Obama, but 2 million people does not a country make. And flailing and missing with a question about whether the President knows football and what a blitz is, as if he were going to catch him floundering and show Joe Average Football that Obama is an elitist who'd rather play cricket or polo than know the rules of American Football, was just pathetic.
What Obama should have said: "Yes Bill, I know what a blitz is. I also know what causes the tides."
Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers winning Super Bowl XLV, defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-25 in an exciting game. While the Steelers made a valiant comeback after a couple of turnovers leading to 14 points, Pittsburgh's 18 point deficit was too much to overcome.
On the situation in Egypt -Sarah Palin: “Remember, President Reagan lived that mantra trust but verify. We want to be able to trust those who are screaming for democracy there in Egypt, that it is a true sincere desire for freedoms and the challenge that we have though, is how do we verify what it is that we are being told, what it is that the American public are being fed via media, via the protestors, via the government there in Egypt in order for us to really have some sound information to make wise decisions on what our position is. Trust but verify, and try to understand is what I would hope our leaders are engaged in right now. Who’s going to fill the void? Mubarak, he’s gone, one way or the other you know, he is not going to be the leader of Egypt, that that’s a given, so now the information needs to be gathered and understood as to who it will be that fills now the void in the government. Is it going to be the Muslim Brotherhood? We should not stand for that, or with that or by that. Any radical Islamists, no that is not who we should be supporting and standing by, so we need to find out who was behind all of the turmoil and the revolt and the protests so that good decisions can be made in terms of who we will stand by and support.”
On President Obama’s handling of the crisis in Egypt -Sarah Palin: “It’s a difficult situation, this is that 3am White House phone call and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House it it seems that that call went right to um the answering machine. And nobody yet has, no body yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and I'm not real enthused about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from DC in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt. And in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And we do not have all that information yet.”
Suzi Parker: Protecting the Palin Brand: Sarah and Bristol Go for Trademark Status
Gin and Tacos: Bobby Franklin: A Case Study in Good Gub'mint
Mahablog: Missouri Legislature to Puppies: Drop Dead
Tim Fernholz: GOP Proposed Cuts Get Smaller the Closer You Look
Nicholas Kristof: We Are All Egyptians
Ben Dimiero: Attention Fox Nation: There Is More Than One Version Of The Bible
Gail Collins: The Siege of Planned Parenthood
Will Bunch: Five Myths About Ronald Reagan's Legacy
Chez Pazienza: And Now A Word About Charlie Sheen, From Chez's Evil Twin, Garth
The King of Conservatives, the Overlord of Oxycontin, the Viscount of Illegal Viagra, Rush Limbaugh was caught off guard and completely stumped when a caller challenged him and asked why former President Ronald Reagan, who was pro-amnesty, raised taxes eleven times, "cut and ran" from Lebanon and negotiated with terrorists, is considered a Conservative hero.
Limbaugh was dumbfounded - he stuttered, he stammered, he froze - and the only thing he could come up with was to question the "silly notion" that Reagan raised taxes, the most obvious and provable of the caller's accusations.
Well, I suppose to keep one's ample ass in comfort, one has to keep pulling the wool over the rubes' eyes.
Welfare? *Sigh.*Paul defended his call to end to all foreign aid -- including the $3 billion the U.S. gives to Israel every year."I'm not singling out Israel. I support Israel. I want to be known as a friend of Israel," Paul said, "but not with money you don't have. We can't just borrow from our kids' future and give it to countries even if they are our friends."..."I think they're an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world," Paul said. "Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don't think so."
Well I guess that's good. But here's an interesting quote (emphasis mine):HuffPo: House Republicans announced Thursday that they are taking a step back from a particularly controversial passage of a piece of anti-abortion legislation that many had criticized as a dangerous redefinition of the acts that constituted "rape.""The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.
Two things: If they never intended to change the exemption, why did they use a questionable phrase? And if there's already "existing law regarding taxpayer funded abortion," which they didn't intend to change, please enlighten me on what this law actually does except reiterate what's already in the books and perhaps cons the rubes into thinking that Republicans actually achieved something with this redundant bill?The bill’s authors, including Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), say it’s not their intent to change the way the exemption is applied.“The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski told Talking Points Memo in a statement.
Ah, yes. They all love spreading democracy... until they realize they might not like the outcome.Raw Story: Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the ouster of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.... "I don't think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up."Bolton chided the protests in Egypt last week, saying that "the real alternative is not Jefferson democracy versus the Mubarak regime, but that it’s the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Mubarak regime, and that has enormous implications for the US, for Israel, and our other friends in the region."
For a year leading up to the 2010 elections, Republicans campaigning for public office raised holy hell against the Obama administration for spending so much time on health care reform while the country languished in a prolonged recession and unemployment hovered close to 10%. Their cry was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. It was all about doing the people's work once they regained control of the House.
So how has the first session of the 112th Congress, specifically the new Republican led House of Representatives, tackled the unemployment issue? So far, they haven't.
After one month of the new Congress, they've spent a little over their first week, reading the Constitution, while conveniently skipping the three-fifths clause, apparently to the detriment of Michele Bachmann, had a symbolic vote to repeal the "job killing" health care reform passed by the previous Congress, took a week off due to the tragic event in Tucson, and are now pushing a bill called the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." They are so clever with their bill titles, those Republicans, aren't they?
While there is already precedence for prohibition of federal funding of abortion with the Hyde Amendment, this is a dubious effort to constrict the legal right of abortion because the wording in the bill is attempting to redefine rape.
Since the 1976 Hyde Amendment, federal law has prohibited federal funds to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, but now...
This doesn't pass the smell test because there is no legal definition of "forcible rape." What about date rape? Or victims being drugged? And how can you pass a law with such vague definitions subject to malleable interpretation? How many bruises does a rape victim have to have before the sex is considered "forcible?""...Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion....Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense."
Some of the comments left by the MENSA members reading Fox Nation, which can be seen in Mediaite's screenshot, ramble on from the President being incompetent and calling his mental health into question, to suggesting he smoked marijuana and calling his presidency an affront to American exceptionalism. So exceptional was that commenter that he couldn't discern between truth and satire.Mediaite: "...Fox Nation editors were apparently so enamored with an Onion piece from today entitled “Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail” that they reposted the first two paragraphs in their culture section with nary a sign as to its fictional nature. The only clue that this wasn’t real (besides a quick peek at your inbox to confirm that Barack Obama hasn’t been emailing you) was a link at the bottom instructing readers to go to TheOnion.com for the real story. This tiny link was, unfortunately, not enough for the vast majority of FN readers. At least, that’s the way it seems from the comments section."
professorbrown: WOW! I can't believe how many readers think this is REAL! I can't believe FoxNews is touting this as REAL news! This link will be removed within an hour. That is if anyone with a brain is working at FoxNews today...Well, "professorbrown" nailed it. Here's what you get when you click the Fox Nation link now:
It's "The Onion" for God's sake!! We as a country are hurting when the right [can't] tell the difference...
Bill Carter & Brian Stelter: Olbermann Split Came After Years of Tension
Matt Osborne: SOTU Response Fiasco
Mark Frauenfelder: Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same
Dick Cavett: The Wrath of Grapes
Michael Winship: The Bush Legacy Strikes Out American Justice
Out-Innovating, Out-Educating & Out-Building Our Competitors
Sam Stein: In an interview set to air this Sunday, former President George W. Bush said he was done with politics and that he is uninterested in campaigning or raising money for political candidates.
Shorter Bill O'Reilly: But when we call someone a Nazi, we have a good reason.
The Challenger Tragedy
I remember watching this in my living room with my girlfriend at the time. It was a sunny day, a day or two after a blizzard in New York City. We just sat and watched in silence.
Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday night that President Barack Obama’s call for “winning the future” during his State of the Union address is best framed by the acronym it shares with a much different phrase — “wtf.”“That was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach,” Palin said during an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren.
“His theme last night was wtf, winning the future,” she continued. “I thought, okay, that acronym - spot on. There were a lot of wtf moments throughout that speech.”You can watch the video here. I was only able to watch about four minutes of it before my eye started to twitch, but if you're feeling brave, knock yourself out.
When Chris Matthews knows he's right, he's like a pit bull with a bone in its mouth. The bone in this instance is Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo who plays dumber than the imbecile he's trying to cover for, Michele Bachmann and her ridiculous slavery comment. Instant classic.
We've been stuck on Yellow since 2006. New York City has perpetually been on Orange.Tomorrow Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano will announce that the much maligned color-code threat level, formally called the Homeland Security Advisory System, will be replaced with a more specific public alert system according to officials briefed on the issue....The system has not been raised or lowered since 2006 and officials say they have been better able to tailor security procedures without making changes to the color code system.
Tonight, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union Address to the nation standing in front of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices (we think). As a symbolic sign of decreased rhetoric and bipartisanship after the Tucson shooting tragedy, some members of opposing parties of Congress have decided to break tradition and sit together.
I have one word for this gesture: bullshit.
This isn't something that transpired organically. What a story it would be if when walking into the chamber today, unbeknownst to anyone, members of Congress truly searched for what they claim are "friends on the other side of the aisle" and decided then and there to sit together. But that's not what's happening. This was something that was petitioned and members signed on to.
One wonders whether their symbolism will continue during the address, when Democrats will undoubtedly stand and applaud during sections of the speech. Will the Republicans they're sitting next to do the same?"I believe that members of both parties can symbolize our common citizenship and common interests by sitting together to hear the president's remarks, rather than divided across the aisle by party," [Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer] said in a statement Thursday.
POSTED BY JHW22
Some people who are choosing to root against the Steelers because of Ben Roethlisberger who had two sexual assault claims made against him are supportive of Julian Assange who had two sexual assault claims made against him.
So a few thoughts/questions:
Why do we accept the word of some women when they make the claim but not others?
Will some women lie about assault?
Will some men be assholes but still not go THAT far?
Why will we believe famous men over unknown women?
Why can some men's actions be overlooked while other men's can't?
Why is a team of 53 somehow accountable for one player?
Why is there an assumption that the other teams don't have any secret offenders?
Why is it OK to bail a person out of jail because you agree with the stuff they weren't charged with but you don't agree with what they were charged with?
Digby: Another Isolated Incident
Dave Weigel: Nothing Is Repealed - Republicans fulfill a Tea Party promise, and get their first taste of irrelevance.
Angry Black Lady: Firedoglake: With All Due Civility, Go F**k Yourself
Gail Collins: Goodbye to a Guy Named Joe
Jonathan Chait: Charles Krauthammer Laughs At Arithmetic
JHW22 recommends...Josh Marshall: The Deal with Palin
With no pomp and circumstance, Keith Olbermann revealed that Friday's Countdown telecast would be the last.
And thus begins Comcast's demise of the liberal media.MSNBC announced that “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell would replace “Countdown” at 8 p.m., with “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz taking Mr. O’Donnell’s slot at 10 p.m. Mr. Olbermann did not discuss any future plans, but NBC executives said one term of his settlement will keep him from moving to another network for an extended period of time.
POSTED BY JHW22
So, this was Keith Olbermann's final Countdown. No warning. Wow. Speculation is all a Twitter.
POSTED BY JHW22
Jane Hamsher and Adam Green are NOT "The Base". Nor are they "The Far Left".
No, when Obama does something and some people in the Democratic party get mad, "THE Base" is not mad at him. No, when Obama does something and some people in the Democratic party get mad, "THE Far Left" is not mad at him.
As Desert Crone (a regular reader here at Broadway Carl's) and I have discussed many times, Jane Hamsher and Adam Green are NOT the base. Let me say it one more time because I really mean it: they are NOT the base.
How do I know they are not the base? Because they fall in the 15 to 20% of Democrats that consistently find something to be mad about. That is not a base. If it were, we'd be an inverted pyramid and we'd topple over in a hiccup. A base is a large number of supporters who consistently see the policies and leadership as progressive -- meaning forward-moving -- and accept that sometimes a seemingly weak play is necessary in order to get a larger accomplishment secured. A real base pays more attention to the overall and long-term needs rather than the microcosm of creating anger and fear. In fact, the numbers in the Jane Hamsher/Adam Green faction of the Democratic party are even smaller than the number of people who think Sarah Palin didn't go FUBAR in her Tucson video. Also, they are in the same 15% of Democrats who are NOT enthusiastic about voting in 2012 (h/t Desert Crone) -- so tell me how THEY are "THE Base"...
I feel the need to state this bluntly because Lawrence O'Donnell seems to think that these two characters somehow represent "The Base" [note: I am not going to provide any links to back this up for two reasons. One is there are too many. Two, I think my head would explode if I had to listen to or even look at either JH or AG. But you can find any damn episode of The Last Word and probably see one or both of them presented as "The Base"] although I think Lawrence knows better. Lawrence also knows a great deal about creating great television.
I also feel the need to declare this fact about them NOT being "The Far Left" because Chris Matthews referred to the 15% of Democrats who think Obama is "too quick to give in" as "the FAR left". No, Chris. I am the far left. There isn't a political ideology test I could take that wouldn't consider me far left and I am not in that 15% that thinks he is too quick to give in.
So to Lawrence I say, you DO know how to make good television and you also know how to present the truth in a better way than by having those two on your show as much as you do. They represent the 15-percenters yet you give them 50 or 75% of the space in their segments. That's a gross misrepresentation of their role, affect and relevance in the Democratic party. Sure, you need opposition, but dole it out in proportion, will ya? And PLEASE don't associate the word "base" with them when they are on your show.
And Chris, for someone who takes umbrage with people saying the "Democrat party" and pronouncing Cheney incorrectly (yes, we all know you say it the right way but because you keep telling us that, I stubbornly refuse to do it) then you should understand that a label, an identifier, matters. Get it straight: 15% is NOT the far left. They are the "angry left". They are the "whiny left". They are the "never-get-an-orgasm-and-by-god-they're-gonna-take-out-their-blue-balls-out-on-the-world left".
Hell, I'd even add Arianna Huffington to the list of "not the base".
I am far left. I am the base. I am not Jane Hamsher or Adam Green.
POSTED BY JHW22
I do not need to be reminded how smart President Obama is. I am one of those bots who thinks he can do no wrong (well, sometimes I have serious doubts until I hear his rationale and there are a few things he and I will never agree on like belief in God and the death penalty) but essentially I am always 100% aware of how smart he is. But even then I realize he's even smarter than I give him credit for.
Remember that it was Hillary Clinton who wanted the mandatory purchase of insurance for ALL Americans (something the firebagging PUMAs forget when they call Obama a corporate sell-out on this point) during the campaign. Obama just wanted the mandatory for kids. As I watched him compromise during the health reform debates, I always wondered if there was something more to the individual mandate aside from the cost savings that made Obama decide to change his position from just kids to all. Something about it never seemed fully fleshed out.
Well today I read this article and it proves that the Founding Fathers would support a mandate for insurance -- because they did in 1798.
Now, I am not saying Obama was made aware of this law and changed his mind. But something tells me that he made his switch on something more than just the cost issue. The fact that he understands the history of our country better than many who ACT as if they do, I truly suspect he knew this law existed and chose to move forward knowing that precedence was on his side. And, in fairness to Hillary, she is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to have been aware of this historic law as well.The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services.
No, really. Some idiot is trying to link an uptick in pedestrian deaths to Michelle Obama's "Get Moving" program.
The article goes on to mention that other factors include distracted pedestrians, distracted drivers, "aggressive pedestrians," and alcohol. But hey, why take a look at real causes like walking/driving while texting when you can just blame the uppity black woman in the White House?Governors Highway Safety Administration spokesman Jonathan Adkins told 630 WMAL that Michelle Obama is "trying to get us to walk to work and exercise a little bit more. While that's good, it also increases our exposure to risk."After four straight years of steady declines, pedestrian deaths were up during the first six months of 2010, the latest figures available to be studied.
Here's Rush Limbaugh doing his best stereotypical Chinese language in reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao.
Very serious Republican leader, that Rush Limbaugh.
That's very courageous of you to say, anonymous Hollywood Foreign Press Agent member. Good going in sabotaging your award by your pettiness in pre-emptively judging future Gervais projects that don't exist. If you're such an amazing judge of talent, what the hell were you expecting from Gervais? You had him host last year as well and HE WARNED YOU that this year he would go over the top, even harsher than last time. Did you not believe him?"Ricky will not be invited back to host the show next year, for sure," the HFPA member said. "For sure any movie he makes he can forget about getting nominated. He humiliated the organization last night and went too far with several celebrities whose representatives have already called to complain."
Sarah Palin's in trouble. And when she gets into trouble there's always an "exclusive" interview with Sean Hannity to lob the softballs (or just outright make excuses for her) and bail her out. But this latest interview showed that Sarah still didn't get it. She's still talking about being attacked in the "lamestream media" while using said media to try and wriggle off a hook of her own making, and still misconstruing the First Amendment while she's at it.
First she tries to backtrack on her use of the phrase "blood libel" even though she admits she knew what it meant historically.
No, Sarah, maybe the criticism was that either A) you really didn't know what the term implied historically or B) if you did know, it was just an insensitive statement that you should have apologized for, which still hasn't happened yet. Because Sarah's never wrong so why should she apologize for anything? And what does any of the criticism leveled at your idiocy have to do with Congress going back to work? Maybe you'd like to think that the people's business has something to do with you, but it doesn't. I think Congress will get along fine even with criticisms being leveled against you."Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused, or having blood on your hands. And in this case that's exactly what was going on. And yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel, it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children. And you know, the criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion, because I believe that there are many on the left, many critics, who don't want, for instance, Congress, to buckle down, get back to work."
Who said anything about shutting her up? As has been explained over and over again, Sarah Palin is free to spout whatever ridiculously stupid thing she wants. That doesn't mean she's immune to criticism. Just as she's free to speak her mind, everyone else is free to respond to her moronic diatribes. And if we're at the point that our "republic would be destroyed" if we didn't hear the o, so glorious words of Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin, then we're already to late to save it.“I will continue to speak out,” she said. “They are not going to shut me up, they are not going to shut you up, or Rush or Mark Levin or the Tea Party Patriots or those who respectfully and patriotically petition their government for change. They can’t make us sit down and shut up, and if thy were ever to succeed in doing that, then our republic would be destroyed.”
Being a lifelong Jets fan but only three years old when they last made a Super Bowl appearance, this was one of the sweetest victories I can remember.In a game few expected them to win, in the same stadium where the Patriots humiliated them by 42 points last month, the Jets bullied New England, battered Tom Brady and advanced to the A.F.C. championship game with a 28-21 triumph....With a second-year coach in Ryan and a second-year quarterback in Mark Sanchez, the Jets advanced to their second straight conference title game. They travel to Pittsburgh to face the Steelers next Sunday, on the same field where they narrowly beat the Steelers last month.
Alex Pareene: Watering the Tree of Liberty
Steve Benen: False Equivalency Watch
Paul Krugman: Climate of Hate
David Frum: What Palin Needed to Say After Giffords’ Shooting
Marty Kaplan: The "Lock and Load" Rhetoric of American Politics Isn't Just a Metaphor
John Dickerson: Palin Fails the Test - Sarah Palin's response to the Tucson shooting is defensive, illogical, distracting—and late.
William Saletan: Sarah Palin, Blood-Libel Hypocrite
Nicholas D. Kristof: Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?
E.J. Dionne: Violent Talk Blocks Sane Gun Laws
The Rude Pundit: Palin, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly Are Angry; Pie Still Yummy
JHW22 recommends...David Badash: The End Of A Sarah Palin Presidency
In all seriousness, I am glad that someone in a leadership position* in the Republican party actually came out to praise President Obama's address in Tucson. After hearing some positive response from the right regarding memorial service speech, most of them immediately went into their usual tones, completely missing the message.Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain issued high praise for President Obama's Wednesday address that honored victims of the Arizona shootings...."Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so," McCain writes. "It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities."
Before We are Democrats or Republicans, We are Americans
According to former Republican House Leader and current convicted money launderer Tom Delay, it's in Texas. TEXAS! I know! It was a shock to me too!
Yes, it's witch hunt!"I was tried in the most liberal county in the state of Texas; indeed, in the United States," DeLay said on NBC's "Today" Show. "This is a political campaign."
In case you missed it.
“Together We Thrive: Tucson and America.”
Click on portrait for a complete list of President Obama's Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda and Proclamations
ShareThis
