Rush Blames Liberal Media For His Racist Views

This is truly classic. Rush Limbaugh, syndicated right wing talk show host and all around asshole, has been dropped from the group of investors bidding for a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams. Doesn't that give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling?

Of course, Limbaugh, who has always insisted that liberal and progressive media doesn't have an audience is now blaming liberal and progressive media for his demise. And while yesterday he ranted that he would sue anyone that was maligning him for his past statements he deemed false, he hasn't said a word about it today. I suppose his lawyers made it known you can't deny something you said when there is audio and video evidence.

Imbeciles like Sarah Palin's lap dog, John Ziegler are moaning about Limbaugh's 1st Amendment rights. News flash, Ziegler: Rush can say any damned thing he wants, but that doesn't mean he can't be held accountable for it.

You know, things like,

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Or...

"Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There I said it."

And who can forget...

"What do you spend the money on to fight gang violence? Afterschool program -- don't we already have afterschool programs? Don't we already have -- what do you call it, extracurricular events? Midnight basketball -- I mean, we've done it all. We've taken the favorite sport of gangs, and we put it at midnight to get them on the basketball court."

And this is just pertaining to sports. This doesn't even begin to mention his screeds on President Obama. Such hits as "Barack, The Magic Negro," or "Halfrican-American," or "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering" or on the Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."

So now the free market capitalists that conservatives love to espouse so much have decided that their business is too important for them to have a scumbag like Limbaugh ruining their image. Suck on it, Rush.

*Artwork couresty of TheDailyPost-It.com

Dow Closes Above 10,000...

... for the first time in over a year.

Remember this?

March 2nd, 2009 - RightPundits.com: Let’s look at the key dates in Barack Obama’s Administration so far and see what the stock market did around those dates:

November 3, 2008: Obama is Elected

November 3, 2008: 9326.04 Open

November 4, 2008: 9139.28 Close

So far, not that bad, right? However, if investors believed in Obama’s message of hope they would buy, instead of sell, around that time.

January 20, 2009: Obama is Inaugurated

January 20, 2009: 8,279.63 Open

January 20, 2009: 7,920.66 Close

Obama’s inauguration didn’t exactly make investors celebrate. Also note, between Obama’s election and inauguration, the stock market dropped 1200 points. If they believed in Obama, the stock market probably would have inched upward, even in a down economy.

February 17, 2009: Obama signs stimulus package into law.

February 17, 2009: 7,845.63 Open

February 17, 2009: 7,502.59 Close

The stimulus package clearly did not stimulate any investors into buying. Note that as of February 17, there was a 1800 point drop since the election, and a 400 point drop since inauguration.

February 27, 2009: Obama announces budget

Febraury 27, 2009: 7,180.97 Open

March 2, 2009: 6763.29 Close

As of today’s close, Obama has overseen the worst stock market performance in the history of America for a new president. It’s an unprecedented 28% drop from Obama’s election to today. If you don’t believe my numbers, you can check the historical data here.

Today: *criket*...*cricket*... *cricket*

Attention RightPundits.com: As of today's close, the Dow Jones has increased 33% in the last six months (while President Obama was actually in office) since your ridiculous post. Care to credit Obama for that?

Rahm Meeting With Reid About Senate Health Care Bill

This is going to be a very telling meeting.

TPM: At 2:30 this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will host Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the first of several meetings presaging the merger of two major health care bills. The foursome is expected to discuss key issues at the heart of the reform process--affordability, Medicare, the public option, revenues--but no decisions are expected today.

The talk has been about Reid and how he'd better not exclude a public option in the bill they are proposing, but just a couple of hours ago I heard Ed Shultz on his radio show saying he trusted Reid and quoting him as saying this on the Senate Judiciary Committee floor:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) joined the push to eliminate the [insurance industry's anti-trust] exemption Wednesday morning, saying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “It’s something that should have been done a long time ago.”

As for insurance companies, “There isn’t anything we could do to satisfy them in this health care bill. Nothing,” Reid said. “They are so anti-competitive. Why? Because they make more money than any other business in America today. . . .What a sweet deal they have.”

So it would seem that Harry Reid, being in favor of revoking anti-trust exemption laws favoring the insurance companies, would have no trouble increasing competition and adding a public option to the bill. Unless Rahm helps him changed his mind.

Music Break! Jon Faddis

Here's That Rainy Day

How Did Fox Miss This Story?

Jon Stewart is awesome.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Queer and Loathing in D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

This Is Perfect

Booman (Via Cesca): "Yesterday was probably the most embarrassing day yet for the progressive blogosphere during the short reign of the Obama administration. So, now is probably a good time to just let loose and register my disgust with the movement I've been a part of for the last five years.

If you supported Obama during the primaries, you know who you are and this does not necessarily apply to you. For the rest of you, you spent the primaries either shilling for Clinton and telling us our guy was all talk and no show, or you spent them bitching that David Plouffe wouldn't respond to and obey your emailed wisdom. As soon as he won the presidency, you started bitching about his appointments. As soon as he became president, you started bitching about his messaging, his framing, his agenda, and his lack of deference to your opinion. I want to know where the point was in this process when Obama was supposed to conclude that you were his allies and that you were responsible for his victory. When was he supposed to conclude that he owed you something, or that you had any respect for him, or that you credited his good intentions, or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

You call him a warmonger, but he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He ends torture and allows his Attorney General to investigate it, and you call him a torturer. He tries to enact health care reform with a robust public option and you accuse him of seeking every opportunity to sell-out to the insurance industry. He bails out the cratering financial services industry and prevents a second Great Depression, and you accuse him of selling his soul to corporate CEO's. I'm not saying that all of these criticisms lack validity. I'm not saying that people shouldn't advocate for the things they care about passionately. I just want to know where you get the fucking idea that an anonymous White House staffer who gets asked about all this criticism would feel obligated to show you deference and respect."

I've increasingly felt this way for the last few months now, very early on with DADT and DOMA, and now with the health care reform debate. It seems to me that everyone has their billy clubs out ready to pounce on any perceived slight by the White House, whether on the right (which is expected) or the left (which is surprising and depressing).

We're 9½ months into a new administration that started in the deepest of ditches on January 20th. Think about it: you really couldn't get handed something much worse. And despite some of the accomplishments that President Obama and his administration have succeeded on in just 9 months, there's been nothing but the feeling of "it's not good enough, or fast enough" when it comes to a specific issue that any one person can have.

Even now I look into health care debates online where some of the Progressive commenters who support single payer say, "Obama is worse than Bush." Really? Did you just say that George W. Bush could do a better job than President Obama when it comes to health care reform? The guy that cut S-CHIP? That George Bush? The guy who signed Medicare Part D into law without the means to pay for it? Is that the Bush you're talking about? And that's just on the health care front.

All the talk lately was about how Obama had too many balls in the air all at once, but if one of those balls wasn't Medicare for All or repealing DADT immediately, it wasn't good enough.

So yes, I am in agreement with Booman and Bob Cesca. You have every right to voice your opinion and feel passionate about the issues that mean something to you. But if it isn't 100% to your liking or it isn't fast enough for you, just take a deep breath and think about what the alternative might have been.

Meet the new boss, DEFINITELY not the same as the old boss.

Friedman Jacks Off On The Military

I really run hot and cold with Tom Friedman. Mostly cold. I'd like to dismiss him altogether but even a broken journalist is right twice a day, as in the case of his analysis on the current political climate of Obama hate coming from the far right.

But Friedman's latest column in which he suggests that President Obama embarrass the Nobel Committee by accepting the Peace Prize not on his behalf but instead on behalf of all the US military who have ever fought because they are the true peace keepers is a little over the top. Well, it would only be a little over the top if he'd just left it at that. What drives him over the Thelma and Louise egde is going on and on and writing an Obama speech in which the President stands before the US military, drops trou and proceeds to give them all a pearl necklace because of how fucking awesome they are. He then leaves a medal with Alfred Nobel's portrait on the side table and tells them he'll see them in Afghanistan.

Friedman seems to confuse empty Sarah Palin style military rhetoric with anything our President has ever said. That's where Friedman blew it, and his load, on this one.

Your 99th-Percentile Baby: "Too Fat" for Health Care

Posted by Fraulein

This is utterly reprehensible:

Because of his size, Baby Alex was turned down for health insurance. His height and weight put him in the 99th percentile according to CDC guidelines.

This child is four months old and breastfed. Meaning, as every parent knows, that his current size is completely arbitrary. There is no such concept as "obesity" when it comes to INFANTS. He's as big as he's supposed to be. You cannot put an infant on a diet. The "99th percentile" thing means that (going by averages that were probably set 30 or 40 years ago) if a baby's height and weight measure over a certain amount, in theory he or she is larger than 99 percent of the other babies the same age.

When my Peanut was a couple of months old, she measured in the upper percentiles for weight and height. She just ate a ton. She did not appear, visually, to be of a freakish size. She was pretty much the same size as most of the other babies we knew at the time who were a similar age.

This sad situation is just one more reason why health care reform is so desparately necessary. The insurance companies will grab onto any excuse, no matter how pathetic, to deny coverage. This time it's these unfortunate people. Next time it could be you.

Oh, Marge...

Who's idea was this?

Maddow Named Best Talk Show Host in America by UK

No, it's not an official title. But it is interesting that a foreign newspaper would notice.

"...what really endears her to American liberals is the way she takes her job and the authority it gives her seriously. Maddow is less interested in the shouting fests that dominate most cable news and instead favours in-depth interviews with experts who are permitted to show their expertise on air without being interrupted. Hers may be the only show on cable news were feminists come on air to speak their minds without being paired off with belligerent sexists who dominate the conversation by yelling over their points.

But Maddow isn't opposed to fair-mindedness. She often brings on conservatives for the same kind of in-depth interviews, and even when she strongly disagrees, she always gives them a chance to air their views (and generally hang themselves with those views). Her show is the exact opposite of Bill O'Reilly's show. Where he cuts people off for saying things he doesn't like, Maddow digs in deeper."

Suck it, Bill-O.

Alan Grayson Rocks!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

You can contribute to Grayson here.

Must Reads

Bob Cesca: Know Hope

The Rude Pundit: The Necessity of Michael Moore, Part 3

Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: In Washington, Revolving Doors are Bad for Your Health

Paul Krugman: The Uneducated American

Nicholas Kristof: Let Congress Go Without Insurance

**Note: My apologies for the lack of posting this week. My work schedule was such that I didn't have time to read a paper or watch the news, let alone compose a blog post.

Quote of the Day

"The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?"

-THORBJOERN JAGLAND, chairman of the Nobel Committee

President Obama's Weekly Address - October 10, 2009

New Momentum for Health Reform

Obama Wins Nobel Prize, Wingnuts Crap Cages

Anti-Obama all the time. America loses 2016 Olympics and "WOOHOO!" Obama sucks! He couldn't seal the deal! This only proves that the world really hates him. Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize and "WHAAAA?!?!!" Political fallout! What will the right say? What will Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and *gasp!* Rush Limbaugh say about it?

And I say, "Who gives a shit what the nutballs have to say?" They are preaching to their ever shrinking choir. They will tell their audience of 30 percenters what they want to hear. So why is this any different than any other day, other than the fact that the rest of the reasonable, sane population should feel a sense of pride that their country's leader, only the third sitting President in the history of the nation, should receive such an honor?

When Limbaugh gets himself into such a lather to the point of agreeing with the Taliban, and lumps his audience in with that assertion while calling President Barack "Nobel Peace Prize" Obama a "worldwide joke," and saying it's "a greater embarrassment that losing the Olympics bid," then you know you're on the right track. Really? Winning the Nobel Peace Prize is an embarrassment? How does he rate getting busted with illegal Viagra prescriptions at the airport?

So let them fling their feces. They do it every day. It only proves their simian intellect. What difference does another reason make when every day we sit in a front row seat at the viewing of Glenn Beck dirtying his underpants? Just another a day in the life of the disinformers and the misinformed.

ADDING... Rachel Maddow dissects this situation perfectly.

Obama Derangement Syndrome

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sotomayor Has Surpassed Thomas Already

When I read the Huffington Post title, "Sotomayor Asks More Questions In An Hour Than Thomas Has In Years," I surely thought it was an exaggeration. Wouldn't you? HA! WRONG!

Does Clarence Thomas really ask so few questions that Sotomayor could beat his total in an hour, you may wonder. Indeed, he does. As the AP reported in February 2008, Thomas had gone 2 years and 144 cases without speaking up during oral arguments. "It is a period of unbroken silence that contrasts with the rest of the court's unceasing inquiries," the AP wrote at the time.

What a wise latina!

Cartoon of the Day

Other People's Sex Lives

Posted by Fraulein

Ever since then-President Clinton was practically burned at the stake by our highly-principled news media for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, I've been fascinated by the pull that this type of adultery story seems to exhibit. I totally understand the concern that a person in a position of power could abuse that position to demand sexual favors from staff members. If that had been the case with Clinton, then yes, my journalistic instincts tell me that would have been a story. But with a willing, adult-age partner, where is the story? A guy cheated on his wife? These things do happen. Dog bites man. Not a story.

I've been reminded of all this in reading the tons of ink spilled on the David Letterman adultery story. Unless I’ve missed something, it doesn’t seem that any of the women Letterman apparently slept with have accused him of demanding sex in return for job perks or promotions or continued employment. Nobody is saying he preyed on underage staffers. So why the hell does anyone care? Did the guy break any laws? If not, why does the media feel inclined to beat this story to death? I guess in this case the answer is the same as it usually is: this story is being over-covered because it’s an easy story to cover. (Our media is nothing if not lazy.) There’s ready-made video with Dave’s noteworthy on-air discussion of the events, in an effort to take control of the narrative from the guy trying to blackmail him. And as much as we love our celebrities in America, we love seeing them beaten down even more. A humiliated celebrity is far better news fodder than a famous person on top of the world.

That said, I find the Associated Press’ hand-wringing in the above-linked story quite interesting. What must Dave do to keep women viewers, the AP wonders? Speaking as a (sigh) middle-aged married woman, I have to say that nothing about this whole thing bothers me, aside from the media’s over-reaction to it. Letterman’s sex life concerns me precisely as much as Bill Clinton’s sex life concerned me back in the 1990s: not one goddamn bit. Why shouldn’t I keep watching Letterman’s show? Don’t I have more pressing things to worry about? How immature am I supposed to be, exactly?

The last thing I want to waste time worrying about is other people’s legal, consensual sexual activities. Period. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone. But the media will never admit that most people simply don’t care about this stuff.

Cross-posted at Purple Ink

A Huge SNL Disappointment - UPDATED

I was so looking forward to SNL when I got home from work and it was probably the worst show I'd seen in years. Hell, Ryan Reynolds is hysterical in his movies and he was hosting. And Lady GaGa performing is always going to intrigue me.

So imagine my surprise when I sat there in complete silence with the opening Obama skit. There is Fred Armisen going through a list of non accomplishments.



Yeah, just watched it again. Still not funny. At first I thought maybe I've become so partisan and jaded that it's gotten to the point of laughing hysterically at skits slamming Republicans (the Joe Wilson "You Lie" skit made me chuckle) and being completely unable to laugh at myself when Democrats are attacked. The difference I'm realizing is that they really have to stretch the truth when trying to razz Democrats, but can almost take the GOP verbatim. "It's funny because it's true" isn't just an empty phrase.

The whole point of satire is in the truth behind it. Last week's skit on Thursday's Weekend Update with Obama appearing on every network including MTV and The Food Network was humorous after he'd done the Full Ginsburg for obvious reasons. This one was just completely off base. When you can complete every sentence with an obvious qualifier to discredit the point, it becomes unfunny. For example, "Close Gitmo... in one year." "Get out of Iraq... in 18 months." It just went on and on.

Unfortunately, the "we can attack Democrats too and we will so as not to be called in the bag for Obama" meme was shining right through with that most recent sketch. And as impressions go, Fred Armisen wasn't even trying this time. Maybe his heart wasn't in it because he knew it was bullshit and a crap ass skit.

When the funniest sketch of the evening comes at the end of the show with Lady GaGa and Adam Samberg in identical "bubble dresses" trying to kiss, it's time for the writers to take stock and get back at it.

Adding... Here is a list of accomplishments in President Obama's first eight months provided by Bob Cesca.

UPDATE (7:20pm): Here's PolitiFact's review of the SNL skit.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

With all the talk of Iran and its newly found nuclear facility, President Obama's announcement at the G-20 in Pittsburgh and Iran's agreement to allow inspectors in the country in two weeks, Jon Perr at Crook and Liars takes a stroll down memory lane as a reminder of the last fiasco in Iran and the leadership provided by the greatest of all GOP administrations (as averred by Republicans), the Reagan Administration.

The Iran-Contra scandal, as you'll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as the New York Times recalled, Reagan's fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself:

A retired Central Intelligence Agency official has confirmed to the Senate Intelligence Committee that on the secret mission to Teheran last May, Robert C. McFarlane and his party carried a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders.

According to a person who has read the committee's draft report, the retired C.I.A. official, George W. Cave, an Iran expert who was part of the mission, said the group had 10 falsified passports, believed to be Irish, and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ''opening'' to Iran.

The rest, as they say, is history. After the revelations regarding his trip to Tehran and the Iran-Contra scheme, a disgraced McFarlane attempted suicide. After his initial denials, President Reagan was forced to address the nation on March 4, 1987 and acknowledge he indeed swapped arms for hostages:

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

Of course, the sad saga didn't end there.

Read the whole, fascinating post.