Category Archives: Dylan Ratigan

MSNBC afternoon host Dylan Ratigan took to the ramparts of The Huffington Post on Thursday and urged home owners to stop paying their mortgages as a leftist protest against a government too cozy with the bankers. The title was "They Keep Stealing -- Why Keep Paying?"  

The crisis was all Wall Street's fault, and now they're back to paying themselves bonuses after a federal bailout. So stop paying them. (Notice Ratigan doesn't suggest you protest Washington and TARP by refusing to pay your taxes.) This piece sounds like a direct-mail letter:

You didn't cause this mess. They did.

Now you are struggling to make the same payments on this mortgage on your now overpriced home even in light of a crashing economy and massive deflation, all while the government does everything in its power to help Wall St. keep the bonuses coming.

Well, it is becoming time to take matters into your own hands... I suggest that you call your lender and tell them if they don't lower you mortgage by at least 20%, you are walking away. And if they don't agree, you need to consider walking away.

It probably doesn't feel right to you.

That is because you probably are a good person. But your mortgage is a business deal, and it is not immoral to walk away from a business deal unless you went in to the deal with the intention of defaulting.

But somehow, even though the corporations are pumped to exercise their new rights, former bankers like Henry Paulson, current ones like Jamie Dimon and -- get this -- now even Fannie Mae execs want to keep you from exercising your rights.

But before you let them (or anyone commenting below) force you into paying that $500k mortgage on a $300k house, ask them if they'll push Jerry Speyer into "honoring his obligation" by breaking into his $2 billion personal piggy-bank to keep paying for Stuyvesant Town?

Or how about asking Hank and Jamie to lecture fellow bailed-out CEO John Mack about how "you're supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them"? Maybe make him use some of his $50+ million for those buildings he bought in San Francisco?

And before shaming and punishing American homeowners, did they nag Steve Feinberg about helping "teach the American people...not to run away" by writing a check out of his billion-dollar pocket to cover all the stiffed landlords and vendors at Mervyn's? After all, at least you aren't single-handedly putting 1,100 employees out of work when you walk on your mortgage.

As part of the deal for your house, your mortgage holder gets interest payments from you and they also use the note to your house for their capital reserves. In return, they take the risk of a foreclosure. In many states, you paid extra to have a non-recourse loan where the lender just gets the house back if you stop paying -- your interest rate would've been much lower if you were held personally liable like a student loan. But if you still feel bad, then donate the money saved to charity instead of to their bonuses.

Even if you agreed that everyone on Wall Street is a knave and a thief, Ratigan is still preaching that two wrongs make a right. Or, to be more precise, the second wrong helps the populist agitators regain "our captured government" from the financial elite. (Did he clear that phrase with Chris Matthews, because it sounds "dangerously anti-government," doesn't it?)

Meanwhile, our captured government has made it clear that they want to further reward these banksters because there are clearly better ways to "save" the economy without rewarding those most responsible for the damage.

Instead of claw backs for the past theft and strong financial reform for the future, they choose to cover-up the gross misuse of our tax money, making our country worse by helping the criminals on the backs of the most honest.

But thankfully, in this country we still have the tools to fight back and regain our country. Our vote, our voice, our laws and what we choose to do with every penny we have that doesn't go to taxes are the benefits of our hard-fought freedom, and in this battle we must use them all to fight back. It's time for the citizens to once again own this place.

[HT: Jack Coleman]

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan on June 17 joined forces to lambaste "Morning Joe" co-host Joe Scarborough for continuing to defend President Barack Obama's handling of the BP oil spill.

Scarborough presented a litany of arguments in Obama's defense, but Giuliani and Ratigan countered with specific examples of the president's failed leadership. Regurgitating liberal talking points, Scarborough blamed the crisis on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

"We hear that we had the technology to stop this," Scarborough claimed. "In 2002, though, Dick Cheney and his energy task force said, 'No, we're not going to take an extra step.'"

Giuliani responded with an eviscerating counter punch: "It's important to know as part of the history of this but the reality is, he's been president now for 18 months. It's about time we stopped blaming Bush."

Scarborough thought that the former New York City Mayor would credit Obama for securing from BP a $20 billion victim compensation fund, but instead Giuliani criticized the president.

"I say it was a good deal for BP," retorted Giuliani. "If I can put even a tentative limit on the liabilities, I've helped save my company."

"Democrats only wanted $10 billion," claimed Scarborough. "You can't say something nice about the president?"

"The president has so mishandled this that it will be impossible for me to even describe how horribly handled this was," argued Giuliani. "BP would be more than willing to give $20 billion to get themselves somewhat off the hook."

When pressed by Scarborough, Giuliani gave a detailed explanation for how he would have handled the crisis differently:

First of all, the first thing I would have done is to bring in experts from the industry who are independent source of advice for me...If your father or mother were sick, you would go get a second opinion from an expert doctor. Not from an academician which is what he did. Go ask the question. Has anyone done remediation before? Has anyone done it better than BP? Bring them in. Make them your eyes and ears. Have them watching everything. Maybe they could have gotten the estimate right of the amount of oil that was coming out. It was horrendous. This is a horrible case of malpractice, negligence, gross negligence. They were off by 60 times. That had to infect every wrong judgment you make.

Instead of crediting Giuliani for articulating a coherent plan, Scarborough attempted to deflect and politicize the issue, wondering whether the "malpractice" was "shared by both political parties and the entire Washington establishment over 15 years that has allowed oil companies to drill in areas where they have no backup plan if something goes wrong?"

Ratigan rushed to Giuliani's defense, railing against Obama for failing to consult independent industry experts at the beginning of the crisis:

I actually completely agree with the mayor which is we can talk all day about the problems but until you actually address the matter of the fact that oil continues to go into the Gulf of Mexico, and there are other ways to deal with it that have not been brought in, or have been brought in too late–that is shameful.

When Giuliani took aim at Obama for addressing the oil spill as a political problem, Scarborough jumped to the president's defense.

"It is a political problem," exclaimed Scarborough. "It's a substantive problem, but it's a political problem!"

"He's just dealing with it as a political problem," countered Giuliani. "That's why he went down there only a couple of times at the very beginning. Didn't take charge. We had Gibbs saying for three weeks that BP was in charge. The speech last night, Obama said the federal government's been in charge from the beginning. Well, nobody ever told anybody that for the first four weeks. Maybe they were in charge in secret."

Scarborough then claimed that Obama took charge early on, making the oil spill the "top priority for this government," but Ratigan disagreed, proclaiming, "My biggest criticism of this administration which is why I agree with the mayor when it comes to the response is the incredibly incompetent appearance of the containment strategy."

The transcript of the segment can be found below:

MSNBC
Morning Joe
6/17/10

8:04 a.m.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: $20 billion.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That's pretty good.

RUDY GIULIANI, former New York City mayor: Even nowadays that's real money. That's real money.

SCARBOROUGH: Let's give the president–

DYLAN RATIGAN: Unless you get it from the Federal Reserve, in which case it's not real money.

SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Mayor, let's make headlines, let's give the president credit right now for being able to get $20 billion from BP without a single lawsuit being filed. What do you say?

BRZEZINSKI: Come on.

SCARBOROUGH: That's pretty good.

GIULIANI: I say it was a good deal for BP.

BRZEZINSKI: Why?

GIULIANI: Divide it by four or five years. What do they make per year? Jim would know this.

JIM CRAMER, CNBC anchor: They make $6 billion per quarter.

GIULIANI: If I can put even a tentative limit on the liabilities, I've helped save my company.

SCARBOROUGH: But they haven't done that yet. They did not waive liability.

GIULIANI: But that's a pretty good indication of it's going to be hard to get above that $20 billion. It gets them–

SCARBOROUGH: Democrats only wanted $10 billion. You can't say something nice about the president?

BRZEZINSKI: There's nothing nice here?

SCARBOROUGH: You can't say, "Mr. President, good job of getting $20 billion?"

GIULIANI: The president has so mishandled this that it will be impossible for me to even describe how horribly handled this was.

SCARBOROUGH: He got $20 billion from people in my backyard. That's pretty good, isn't it?

GIULIANI: He would have gotten with the same leverage in a second. BP would be more than willing to give $20 billion to get themselves somewhat off the hook. Unfortunately, they stepped all over it with a comment that the CEO made.

SCARBOROUGH: What would you have done differently as far as substance goes?

GIULIANI: Every single thing from day one. First of all, the first thing I would have done is to bring in experts from the industry who are independent source of advice for me. I met with some of the–

SCARBOROUGH: The president didn't do that?

GIULIANI: Two days ago I had dinner in Houston, with several people who were top people in the industry. Never reached out. Never, never asked, gee, has Shell done this before? Has Exxon done this before? If your father or mother were sick, you would go get a second opinion from an expert doctor. Not from an academician which is what he did. Go ask the question. Has anyone done remediation before? Has anyone done it better than BP? Bring them in. Make them your eyes and ears. Have them watching everything. Maybe they could have gotten the estimate right of the amount of oil that was coming out. It was horrendous. This is a horrible case of malpractice, negligence, gross negligence. They were off by 60 times. That had to infect every wrong judgment you make.

SCARBOROUGH: Isn't that malpractice, though, shared by both political parties and entire Washington establishment over 15 years that has allowed oil companies to drill in areas where they have no backup plan if something goes wrong?

DYLAN RATIGAN, MSNBC anchor: I'll do you one better. The American people consume four gallons of gasoline for every gallon of gasoline that exists on the Earth. We have the biggest subsidized cost of energy. We have a false price for energy in our country to this day. The cost of the wars is not in the cost of energy. The environmental liability is not in the cost of the energy. None of the liability associated with our lifestyle is actually priced in. For capitalism to work, you actually have to be paying the actual price that represents the actual cost. So if we were actually paying the real cost of energy, we would be incentivized, believe me, to come up with something else. But because of the government and the culture of political expedience subsidies of energy costs everybody's happy to take it so we hire BP to the tune of $6 billion a quarter to figure out–which is not easy, by the way–the technology to drop 18,000 feet beneath the ocean surface to suck oil out so we can continue to enjoy our lifestyle. If you ask me whether it's the obvious failure in the government–MMS is obviously conflicted. Whether it's the obvious fact that we built a sports car that could basically do anything. They had the technology to go to the bottom of the sea but they didn't have a braking system, no way to turn it off which is incredibly reckless. And you put it all together. You find yourself in a situation where everybody's pointing fingers but no one is containing the spill. So I actually completely agree with the mayor which is we can talk all day about the problems but until you actually address the matter of the fact that oil continues to go into the Gulf of Mexico, and there are other ways to deal with it that have not been brought in, or have been brought in too late–that is shameful.

SCARBOROUGH: Do you agree that there are because we have been are defending this White House saying on substance for the most part they've gotten it right, do you agree with the mayor that actually they haven't gotten it right?

CRAMER: I think the mayor is dead on when he says that if they had known that the spill could be 60,000 barrels, which was available if you talk to the former heads of Exxon or if you talk to Boone Pickens, which you asked me to do.

(Inaudible)

GIULIANI: And the people in the industry believe that he hasn't talked to the industry because they're bad guys.

(Inaudible)

GILUIANI: A bunch of bad guys.

CRAMER: They're all bad actors.

GIULIANI: And from the point of view of crisis management, this is an F. You couldn't have done it worse. Some day Harvard will do a study on if you have a crisis like this, these are the things that Obama did wrong. Here are the things to do right. I could go on and on; that was the first mistake that he made. The second mistake that he made was to kind of treat this as a political problem. Which he was doing right up until the speech the other night. Treat it as a political problem.

SCARBOROUGH: It is a political problem. It's a substantive problem, but it's a political problem!

GIULIANI: He's just dealing with it as a political problem. That's why he went down there only a couple of times at the very beginning. Didn't take charge. We had Gibbs saying for three weeks that BP was in charge. The speech last night, Obama said the federal government's been in charge from the beginning. Well, nobody ever told anybody that for the first four weeks. Maybe they were in charge in secret.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, the president said himself though on April 22nd.

BRZEZINSKI: Yes. I just pulled up that.

SCARBOROUGH: On April 22nd he called all the agency heads in and he said, "Okay, listen. This is going to be very bad." It's before–it's before the thing blew out of the water and said this is the top priority for this government. We have to focus on it. This is job number one.

RATIGAN: Where is the containment strategy?

GIULIANI: That's worse because if this was job number one look at the horrible–if this is job number one which I don't think it was because the president was off on vacation twice during all of this, if this were job number one–

SCARBOROUGH: Did you go on vacation Mr. Mayor?

GIULIANI: Did I go on vacation as mayor? No.

SCARBOROUGH: Isn't that a cheap shot? You never went on vacation?

GIULIANI: Not in the middle of a crisis.

SCARBOROUGH:  Ronald Reagan went on vacation. George W. Bush went on vacation.

GIULIANI: Not in the middle of a crisis. This is the second time the president has done that, and I resent it. On Christmas day when we had Christmas bombing, he was on vacation. Remained on vacation for 11 days.

SCARBOROUGH: It was Christmas!

GIULIANI: He is the President of the United States of America.

SCARBOROUGH: They got microphones in Chicago.

GIULIANI: On Christmas evening, the first year that I was the mayor, I left my house and went to the hospital and I spent five hours there because I was the mayor of New York City and I should be on the spot taking charge of something from the very beginning. This has been a gross failure in crisis management. Could not have done it worse.

SCARBOROUGH: Okay. I'm sorry. Didn't mean to–  

GIULIANI: : And you shouldn't be on vacation when a crisis is affecting the country.

RATIGAN: There are two problems here. One is the capping of the well which I think is BP's problem. BP obviously was negligent in the construction of dealing the well. There's a totally unrelated problem, which is the containment problem. And in order to deal with the containment problem, that is the government's problem and you have to know what the flow rate is accurately and early in order to have a containment strategy. So my biggest criticism of this administration which is why I agree with the mayor when comes to the response is incredibly incompetent appearance of the containment strategy.

SCARBOROUGH: That's not monday morning quarterbacking? I mean, who knew?

RATIGAN: The oil is still coming out, Joe. They could still bring–Matt Simmons knew. T. Boone Pickens knew. Booms, put booms around it. Drop a curtain. Put super tankers in the middle and start sucking the oil out.

(Inaudible)

RATIGAN: Booms, curtain, super tanker. Super suck technology. Next question.

GIULIANI: And actually, Joe, it is worse if you're right and they were in charge from the beginning because if they were in charge at the beginning they really didn't know what they were doing. I actually don't think they were in charge. I think their real failure was they trusted BP. And they shouldn't have trusted BP but they trusted BP.

SCARBOROUGH: And let's just say that has been our one critique on substance that perhaps they–two things. One, they trusted BP too much from the beginning. Two, they made a political calculation that if "we go down there, we own the story. It's not BP's story. It's our story." That is a critique I think we'll hear for some time. And can we go right now? Because this is a fascinating conversation. You're actually the first person that's come on this show and when I've challenged them give me substance. Actually you three guys, you're talking specifics about what the president should have done. Let's go to the barni-cam right now. Mike Barnicle. Is he wearing the white sox right now? Are you listening to this?

MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC contributor: Yeah I am.

SCARBOROUGH: We've got three guys here that are loaded for bear. And they've got some specifics. What do you think?
                        
BRZEZINSKI: Taking shots.

BARNICLE: Let's place all of our faith in BP because they've done such a great job. They're still using the same instruments on oil spills that they were using in California in 1969. If British Petroleum, which they used to call themselves, or any of these oil companies were in charge of technological advancements in our society we would still be using a rotary phone and looking at a 12-inch Bendix TV set.

(Inaudible)

SCARBOROUGH: Do we have the cameraman from "24" now? Mike Barnicle brings up a point but let me ask you again in the role of devil's advocate. We hear that we had the technology to stop this. In 2002, though, Dick Cheney and his energy task force said, "No, we're not going to take an extra step."

GIULIANI: I have no idea what Dick Cheney did, you know, five or six years ago.

SCARBOROUGH: Isn't that important to know? It's part of the story.

GIULIANI: It's important to know as part of the history of this but the reality is, he's been president now for 18 months. It's about time we stopped blaming Bush.

RATIGAN: Hang on, Mr. Mayor. I don't mean to interrupt you but the North Sea has a totally different set of safety standards–totally different governmental standards. These standards have to be taken into consideration.

--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan moonlighted on the leftist radio show The Young Turks on May 27 and the show's YouTube channel carries a series of those interviews, in which Ratigan helpfully promoted the left-wing causes with loving air time. Take his interview with Jon Soltz of the liberal group Votevets.org, and he promoted their new campaign commercial for a “climate change” bill. Apparently, you help veterans with a carbon tax:

You mention the new ad today, the million-five spend, at places like MSNBC. Thank you, I know that you help to sponsor my own program, and I appreciate your support of our message. As you know, it's very much in alignment with your own message. If you were to look at what anyone would do, if I went to votevets.org, what is it that my mother can do, that Jodie Evans over at Code Pink can do? J.R. [the radio producer] wants to help, what can he do?

After a two-minute sales job from Soltz, including their support of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and their support of Joe Sestak's Democratic campaign for Senate, Ratigan replied that he was a fervent supporter, and then added that our military works so hard, only to keep most people from being exposed to the truth:

RATIGAN: And you know you have my support every step of the way, John. Do you think people understand that we have had an army, an actively engaged combat military in the Middle East for a decade now that has been largely the same individuals – the same men, the same women -- being sent over and over and over again into what can only be characterized as the closest thing at its worst to Hell on Earth as a way effectively to protect the balance of the population from really being exposed to what's going on. Do any people know that?

SOLTZ: This is the issue that hurts me the most, because no, I don't really think America understands it, and I'll tell you why. The first reason they don't understand it is because they don't feel threatened every day, okay? So it's not like, uh oh, you know, we invaded Iraq as if it was actually justified and there was going to be, you know, an attack on the United States. So I don't think they feel that threat.

This weekend is going to be Memorial Day weekend, and for people in the military, it's not a day to protest any war, it's not a day to say you support any war. It's just a day that you remember those who died in war. And most Americans this weekend will talk about going to the beach. They're gonna go to Vegas. They're going to do their thing, they're going to party it up. Memorial Day in this country is a three-day weekend, and all everyone knows is they have Monday off. You know, you have a cultural shift in this country that's gotten away from honoring those who fought and died.

And I think what's most important for veterans and veterans that are listening is, veterans have to lead in those ceremonies. Veterans have to go and they have to do on Memorial Day what they should do, which is honor their friends who have died in wars and family members of those that have died in wars, because if we don't remember first, then the rest of society won't care. So I think, no, not only do they not know we've got guys overseas all the time, because they don't feel it, but I think we've gotten away from service in this country, and we have so few people serving that it's a real big problem.

Then Ratigan asked about skewed media coverage, which caused Soltz to turn around and praise MSNBC, and even plugged watching al-Jazeera for a more open-minded view:

RATIGAN: How much is the media responsible for that by virtue of the nature of its coverage of these wars?

SOLTZ: Well, you know, that depends on the network you're talking about, Dylan. I think MSNBC does a rather good job of talking about the war in itself, and I think that's true of some of your competitor networks also. But when you start looking at what we're promoting in regards to the other TV stations that people watch and those types of things, I think that when you want to sell, and you want ratings, it's hard to turn on the news every day and watch war, and I think after a while, the casualty rates and the death counts, it becomes more like the weather report.

So if people want to watch news stations, and they want to start watching you know, even stations like al-Jazeera, how the press and the war is covered in the international market is different from ours. And although our cable news stations for the most part like to cover the war, really mainstream, the more closer to the more of the mainstream media doesn't do the due diligence that the American, or the international press or some of our cable networks try to do. Most people choose not to watch cable news, and that's unfortunate.

Related: Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks lists MSNBC as "Straight News," Fox News as "Partisan Press"

On The Young Turks Show, Newsweek's Bush-hating Michael Hirsh says shoe toss at Bush is "one small measure of justice"

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) is "missing the target when it comes to whose interests he's really looking out for" but "then again, that's nothing new for us, is it," MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan complained in the "Busted" segment of today's program.

Ratigan lamented that McDonnell stripped out the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) as an alternative organization that Old Dominion educators could select for gun safety instruction for elementary school students. As it stands now, the National Rifle Association's "Eddie Eagle" program is the only option public school teachers have under state law.

Perhaps Ratigan is unaware that the Eddie Eagle program "neither offers nor asks for any value judgment concerning firearms," it merely instructs children in four simple steps about what to do should they come across a gun: "Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult."

By contrast, the NCPC has ideologically-colored aims in some of its gun safety materials for grade schoolers. Take this lesson plan for fourth and fifth graders, for example (emphasis mine), which uses the assassinations of Lincoln, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. as tokens to advance a loathing of guns themselves:

Objective

• To explore the impact on society when a person dies prematurely from gun violence
• To develop research and critical-thinking skills

Activity

• Discuss with students the dangers of guns. Review what they should do if they find a gun.

• Share with them that when people die from being shot, they can no longer do good things for their families or for society.

• Assign students to groups of four or five, and have them select a historical figure who was killed by gun violence. Possiblilities include Martin Luther King, Jr.; John F. Kennedy; Abraham Lincoln; and Mahatma Gandhi. Have each group research the person they chose and list the positive contributions he or she made to society.

• Ask students to predict how these individuals might have continued their work if they hadn't been killed by gun violence.

• Have each group present a biography of the individual they researched and their ideas of what the individual could have done if he or she had not died from gun violence.

• Have each member of the group write a diary entry that takes place five years after the person died and shares what the person could have done if the person had lived. The students may choose to write the entry from the point of view of the individual or of a third party who had been influenced by the individual's work (e.g., someone who heard Martin Luther King, Jr. give a speech).

• Extend this into a service project by having students design a memorial for people killed by gun violence. They may choose to plant a tree or design a peace quilt to display in the school's lobby.

A question for frequent listeners of libtalker Ed Schultz's radio show -- ever notice how often he books the same guests?

Mark Graff, for example, founder of a company called Bio Green Clean, has come on the show 11 times -- in the last two months.

Or Ted Massinello, president of USA Coffee Company -- 10 appearances since March 23.

Radio host and legal analyst Norman Goldman dropped by six times in the last eight weeks. Lawson Nickol, co-founder of All American Clothing Company, made five appearances in the same period.

What do all have in common? They are advertisers on Schultz radio Web site, though you wouldn't know it if you went by the radio show alone and didn't go to the site.

That's because Schultz hardly ever tells his listeners that these guests are advertisers. Put another way, they are paying Schultz and appearing on his show. No wonder Schultz is shy about pointing that out.

In fact, 26 percent of Schultz's guests over the two months from March 23 to May 23 -- 41 out of 156 guest appearances -- have been advertisers on his radio site, according to my analysis. 

As described by me back in December, Schultz's advertising strategy appears to have emerged from a weekly segment he began in 2008, called "Recession-Busting Friday," in which Schultz reserved the final hour of his show at the end of the week for business owners to call in and pitch their products and services.

But the segment dropped by the wayside after Schultz's MSNBC show started in April 2009. Instead, Schultz radio site advertisers began appearing as guests with annoying frequency.

A rare example of Schultz telling his radio audience that a guest was an advertiser occurred on May 19, when gold salesman Craig Griffin of ITM Trading came on the show. 

The timing here was curious. Later that afternoon, MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan denigrated Glenn Beck as a "scumbag" for touting the company Goldline, as Beck does here. 

Did Schultz know Ratigan was going to do this, prompting Schultz to make his atypically candid disclosure?  At first glance, the timing is off -- Griffin was on Schultz's radio show around 2:30 that afternoon while Ratigan slammed Beck two hours later, according to my fellow NewsBuster Scott Whitlock.

That is, until one considers that Schultz usually broadcasts his radio show (and did that day, according to the announcer's lead-in) from the MSNBC complex at 30 Rockefeller Center in New York City -- where Ratigan also works.

Schultz and Ratigan both host cable shows at MSNBC. Is it a stretch to suggest that Schultz on any given day knows in advance who Ratigan (along with Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, etc.) will book as guests and what they will talk about?

In the "Busted" segment at the end of Friday's The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan went after the New York Times for "accusing" Connecticut Attorney General and Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal of distorting his military record: "We think the Times should investigate some of its investigative reporting."

Ratigan dismissed a quote the Times used of Blumenthal referring to "the days that I served in Vietnam," claiming it was "only part of the story." Ratigan argued: "A longer clip from the same speech shows Blumenthal much more accurately describing his record." That longer clip included Blumenthal vaguely stating: "I really want to add my words of thanks as someone who served in the military during the Vietnam era in the Marine Corps." Hardly a statement that would have corrected the record for the audience.

Even so, Ratigan proclaimed: "This seems to support Blumenthal's explanation that he simply misspoke during that part of the speech, and on a few other occasions cited by the Times." Ratigan went on to declare: "Also undercutting the Times, word that Blumenthal's Senate rival, Linda McMahon, yes, from pro wrestling, admits that her campaign helped with The New York Times story, including gathering that evidence."

On his April 1 broadcast, Ratigan declared that the Catholic Church was simply "killing the messenger" by criticizing New York Times reporting on the sex abuse scandal: "The Vatican blasting the New York Times for telling the truth about Church – the Church and its harboring of sex abusers. It's the paper's fault." Apparently Ratigan's view of the Times depends on who the paper goes after.

In concluding his Friday rant, Ratigan lamented: "Despite all this and despite criticism from NPR, Columbia Journalism Review, and others, I'll add myself to the list, The New York Times standing by the story."

As Jonah Golberg of National Review explained on Friday: "...everyone outside the realm of naked partisan politics agrees that Blumenthal is a liar and shameful one at that." Even Ratigan's MSNBC colleague Chris Matthews has denounced Blumenthal for lying about his record.

Here is a full transcript of the May 21 segment:

4:49PM EST

DYLAN RATIGAN: Alright, welcome back, a little 'Busted' for you. Some new information coming up about Connecticut Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal and that New York Times story accusing him of overstating his service record. This week the Times releasing a portion of a speech in which Blumenthal says he served in Vietnam, even though he never left U.S. soil while serving in the Marine Corps Reserve during the Vietnam War.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Fact Check; Questionable Reporting on NYT Blumenthal Story]

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: We have learned something very important since the days that I served in Vietnam and you exemplify it.

RATIGAN: But that video, only part of the story. A longer clip from the same speech shows Blumenthal much more accurately describing his record.

BLUMENTHAL: I really want to add my words of thanks as someone who served in the military during the Vietnam era in the Marine Corps.

RATIGAN: This seems to support Blumenthal's explanation that he simply mis-spoke during that part of the speech, and on a few other occasions cited by the Times. Also undercutting the Times, word that Blumenthal's Senate rival, Linda McMahon, yes, from pro wrestling, admits that her campaign helped with The New York Times story, including gathering that evidence.
                    
The New York Times also inaccurate on a smaller point, saying a local newspapers report Blumenthal was on the Harvard swim team, even though he never was. However, if you look at the yearbook as well as talk to former classmates, Blumenthal did, in fact, swim for Harvard, or at least somebody with his name who was there when he was there who looked like him.

Despite all this and despite criticism from NPR, Columbia Journalism Review, and others, I'll add myself to the list, The New York Times standing by the story. We think the Times should investigate some of its investigative reporting. We should probably investigate all of everybody's investigative reporting. Anyway. We'll start with the government.

On Wednesday, MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show briefly mislabeled Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser as the state's governor, Bobby Jindal:

 

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan on Wednesday became the latest host at that channel to lash out at Fox News. He frothed that Glenn Beck is a "scumbag" for touting the company Goldline. Ratigan also promoted an investigation by Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner of the business.

He hyperbolically attacked, "The only problem here is that Glenn Beck and Goldline are largely snake oil salesmen and scumbags, trying to create money for themselves at the expense of everybody in this country." [Audio available here.]

Ratigan's over-the-top language continued as he ranted, "That man there [Beck] is paid by that other company to be a snake oil salesman at your expense. He's no better than the very politicians that he claims to be against."

For someone with such a sense of moral outrage, Ratigan certainly does like to smear people. On October 5, 2009, he trashed conservatives as the equivalent of killers: "I mean, there are people that are actually trying to derail health care in order to take down Obama, even if it means half the country dies."

Would Ratigan be so quick to attack Beck and Goldline if Fox News wasn't connected? It doesn't seem too likely. 

During the health care debate, "scumbag" was one of the words that caused reporters to depict tea partiers as scary. On the March 24 edition of the Evening News, CBS opened with a protester screaming, "Baby-murdering scumbag."

Back in April of 1998, journalists were disturbed by Republican Congressman Dan Burton's use of the word:

On April 23 Today’s Ann Curry introduced a Gwen Ifill story on Burton’s comments: "On Capitol Hill the Congressman who heads the House committee investigating campaign financing is in trouble. This after some remarks he made about President Clinton." Ifill continued: "It’s not the most dignified why to describe a fellow lawmaker." ABC’s Asha Blake introduced a Good Morning America story on the comment the same morning: "...a controversy has erupted over some unusually caustic comments made by a top Republican about President Clinton....Ann, things appear to be getting personal." Ann Compton reported: "Such personal name calling is forbidden on the floor of the House, where the President’s defenders called Burton words outrageous and vile."

[Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video.]

A transcript of the May 19 segment, which aired at 4:27pm EDT, follows:

GLENN BECK: Here's the deal. Call Goldline. Study it out. Pray on it. If it's right thing for you, then do it. But please study it out. Find the people that you trust. The people that I trust are the people at Goldline.

DYLAN RATIGAN: See, actually here's the deal. That man there is paid by that other company to be a snake oil salesman at your expense. He's no better than the very politicians that he claims to be against. In fact, today, a crusade to expose Goldline International and Glenn Beck as snake oil salesman. New York Congressman Anthony Wiener accusing Goldline of using misleading sales techniques to overcharge consumers for gold coins. He says paid conservative endorsers like Glenn Beck add to the illusion. Wiener is now calling for a federal investigation of company's tactics. Glenn Beck responding to the accusations on his radio show. Take a listen.

GLENN BECK: This is, again, another arm of this administration coming out to try to shut me down. Any sponsor that stays with me now they're targeting through- you want to talk about the McCarthy era, look at what this country is becoming!

RATIGAN: Now listen to me, if you want to buy gold because you're concerned about paper currency, which is very reasonable, I suggest you buy gold. Just don't do it with the extra subsidy that Goldline is delivering to Glenn Beck for his fear mongering which is 90 percent more than you could buy the same exact gold if you just went to the financial markets, the ticker is G-L-D. Feel free. You can buy it and sell it all day long. It trade at one the lowest fee investments that you can make. The only problem here is that Glenn Beck and Goldline are largely snake oil salesman and scumbags trying to create money for themselves at the expense of everybody in this country. You want to buy gold, buy gold. You want to get scared out of your mind and then buy gold, do that, too. Just don't buy it those stupid gold coins for twice as much of the G-L-D if you're worried about future of paper currency. It's dumb. You're not dumb, he's dumb, I'm sorry I looked at the camera. They're dumb, you're fine.

On Wednesday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan didn't see any point to continuing the war in Afghanistan and slammed military air strikes against terrorist targets as: "kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly." [Audio available here]        

Ratigan began a panel discussion on Afghanistan with Democratic strategist David Goodfriend and Republican strategist Brent Littlefield by wondering: "Is there anybody in this administration on either side that can actually justify the American presence in Afghanistan at this point?" Littlefield attempted to explain: "we had the previous president, took the country in there because of the attacks on 9/11." Ratigan was dismissive: "That was almost ten years ago, right? I mean that was a long time ago."

Ratigan moved on to Goodfriend and referenced NBC correspondent Richard Engel's appearance on the show on Tuesday: "He is making the point that the Bush doctrine of fight them there and they won't get us here appears to be continuing to break down as we now default to just predator drone-them-to-death wherever they may be on remote control and an apparent, sort of, nonevent in Afghanistan. It's like a charade." Of course the reliance on predator drone attacks was significantly increased under the Obama administration.

Again, Ratigan saw no reason for the war and actually blamed it for creating terrorism: "I don't understand how this war in Afghanistan is protecting me from a car bomber in midtown. In fact, I'm concerned that the war in Afghanistan is creating more car bombers in Pakistan that want to come to midtown." He then asked Goodfriend: "Is there a rational defense that you have heard for America being in Afghanistan a decade after we went in to degrade the Taliban?" As Goodfriend began to answer, Ratigan interrupted and proclaimed: "And every soldier, every journalist, every person you talk to says, 'I don't know why we're in Afghanistan.'"

Goodfriend largely agreed with Ratigan's assessment and noted: "we actually supported the Taliban when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan." Ratigan interjected: "Of course, we armed them." Goodfriend added: "it's yet another example of you know, unfortunately, the United States feeling that we can sort of change the course of history in this part of the world that even Alexander the Great failed to change."

An exasperated Ratigan then whined: "why is anybody in this country safer because we're spending a lot of money and spending a bunch our soldiers and weapons to a land-locked mountainous nation in the Middle East for the past ten years, and appear to be doing – staying there for God knows how much longer?" Again, Goodfriend agreed: "I happen to believe that we spend too much money on the military as it is. $700 Billion a year is too much....I think this nation of ours would do better with half, 50%, the military budget we have today."

In concluding the segment, Ratigan again cited Engel's criticism of the war and ranted: "America's knickers are into a bunch to the point it's ready to throw everybody out because we're taking people to the Caribbean without giving them proper rights and putting them in prison but having kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly is a valid foreign policy, strikes me as if I've gone crazy....nobody's going to defend it, it's crazy."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

4:13PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: We begin, though, with the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He's visiting the White House today, as you likely know. Karzai and the President spoke to reporters after private meetings on the war effort. Each leader downplaying highly publicized tensions between the two administrations.

BARACK OBAMA: Obviously, they're going to be tensions in such a complicated difficult environment. A lot of them were simply overstated.

HAMID KARZAI: There are moments that we speak frankly to each other. And that frankness would only add to the strength of the relationship.

RATIGAN: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying Karzai's meetings this week will determine whether or not she helps to secure congressional approval for a $33 billion war-funding bill, that of course being your money. Here to 'Mix It Up,' our panel, former Clinton White House staffer David Goodfriend and Republican strategist Brent Littlefield. Pleasure to see you both. Brent, I'll begin with you. Is there anybody in this administration on either side that can actually justify the American presence in Afghanistan at this point?

BRENT LITTLEFIELD: Well, look, we had the previous president, took the country in there because of the attacks on 9/11. And that-

RATIGAN: That was almost ten years ago, right? I mean that was a long time ago.  

LITTLEFIELD: That's right. That's right. And we have a current president that campaigned on and has continued to say that he's going to increase our presence and increase our activity in Afghanistan. I think what happened today was fascinating. At the end of the last administration, Hamid Karzai, in his last press conference with President Bush thanked the American people. And then since that time, we've had the White House press secretary fighting with Karzai, saying that he was making statements against the West that were tirades, that he was railing on the West.

RATIGAN: Sure.

LITTLEFIELD: Clearly Karzai hasn't been happy and now they're back there claiming that they're holding hands and there just were minor differences. I guess you just played a clip, the President said there were minor differences, but it was his own press secretary that was attacking Karzai about a month ago. So it's fascinating to watch what's happening there today.

RATIGAN: David, Richard Engel was on the program yesterday. He's in New York, obviously having spend a tremendous portion of his career, still, in the Middle East covering these wars in Afghanistan, on the ground. He is making the point that the Bush doctrine of fight them there and they won't get us here appears to be continuing to break down as we now default to just predator drone-them-to-death wherever they may be on remote control and an apparent, sort of, nonevent in Afghanistan. It's like a charade. I don't understand how this war in Afghanistan is protecting me from a car bomber in midtown. In fact, I'm concerned that the war in Afghanistan is creating more car bombers in Pakistan that want to come to midtown. Is there a rational defense that you have heard for America being in Afghanistan a decade after we went in to degrade the Taliban?

DAVID GOODFRIEND: Well, is there a rational defense, yes. Whether or not I agree with it is probably immaterial.

RATIGAN: And what is it? I mean, yeah, sure.

GOODFRIEND: Fair enough.

RATIGAN: What is – what's the rational defense to spending $10 there for every $1 we spend here. And every soldier, every journalist, every person you talk to says, 'I don't know why we're in Afghanistan.' The only reason we're fighting is because we're in Afghanistan.

GOODFRIEND: Well, I think that may be oversimplifying it. Look, let me give you the rationale and then, if I may, I'd like to answer your broader question.

RATIGAN: Go for it.

GOODFRIEND: Which is why should we spend it? So the rationale really has to do with the leadership of the Taliban, its location both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the Taliban now emerging – not Al Qaeda mind you – but Taliban now emerging as a hotbed of terrorist activity. And look, one of the things I was thinking about before coming on the show, and this gets more to your broader question of 'why are we there,' we actually supported the Taliban when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

RATIGAN: Of course, we armed them.

GOODFRIEND: And so – and so it's yet another example of you know, unfortunately, the United States feeling that we can sort of change the course of history in this part of the world that even Alexander the Great failed to change. So you know, look we're-

RATIGAN: But the question is, why am I safer? Why are you safer? Why is Brent safer? Why are our viewer – why is anybody in this country safer because we're spending a lot of money and spending a bunch our soldiers and weapons to a land-locked mountainous nation in the Middle East for the past ten years, and appear to be doing – staying there for God knows how much longer. Do you – do you have any-

GOODFRIEND: I mean, look, Dylan – look, Dylan, maybe I'm not the right guy for this – for this particular segment. I happen to believe that we spend too much money on the military as it is. $700 Billion a year is too much. I don't think that with a hundred bases overseas, our national security is better. I think what we need are jobs and more of that money for folks here at home. You are talking to a guy who agrees with you on that. Now, that having been said, is the President rational when he says we ought to be doing more to attack the bases of the terrorists? Sure. But you know what, he's even said in 2011, that's next year, that the number of troops, the American troops, starts to come down and we have other forms of support, economic support. So look, I think this nation of ours would do better with half, 50%, the military budget we have today.

RATIGAN: Yeah.

GOODFRIEND: Okay?

RATIGAN: And that's for another day, but what strikes me, again, is the Richard Engel comment. America's knickers are into a bunch to the point it's ready to throw everybody out because we're taking people to the Caribbean without giving them proper rights and putting them in prison but having kids with joysticks in New Jersey and Las Vegas dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly is a valid foreign policy, strikes me as if I've gone crazy. We'll save it for another day.

GOODFRIEND: Look, you're not going to get me to defend it. I wish-

RATIGAN: No I'm not, I know. I get it. No listen, nobody's going to defend it, it's crazy.

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan on Wednesday gave "kudos" to the Phoenix Suns basketball team for protesting Arizona's tough new policy on illegal immigration. The host touted, "The team is set to wear Los Suns jerseys tonight on Cinco de Mayo in response to Arizona's controversial [law]."

Ratigan enthused that congratulations were in order and added, "Around here we call that a slam dunk." The cable anchor quoted the team's owner playing up the move as one to honor Hispanics.

Clearly, however, there is a political angle. The same Robert Sarver also derided the legislation as "a flawed state law." Suns point guard Steve Nash attacked the bill as "very misguided, and unfortunately, to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties."

MSNBC in recent days has repeatedly fretted about potential racists in America. On Tuesday, Ratigan highlighted the failed Times Square bombing and worried about violence: "How do you deal with these types of crimes without resulting in racism, effectively, towards people of Pakistani or Middle Eastern descent?...is there not a natural backlash to this?"

Also on Tuesday, fellow MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer appeared on the liberal Stephanie Miller Show and lamented, "There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country."

A transcript of the brief segment, which aired at 4:55pm EDT on May 5, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Finally, some kudos in order for the Phoenix Suns out of the National Basketball Association. The team is set to wear Los Suns jerseys tonight on Cinco de Mayo in response to Arizona's controversial new immigration law. Los Suns take on the San Antonio Spurs tonight in game two of the Western Conference semifinals. Team owner Robert Sarver says the Spanish jersey is meant to, quote, "honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona and our nation." Around here we call that a slam dunk.

Near the top of Tuesday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan fretted over American Muslims being harassed in the wake of the failed Times Square bombing: "how do you deal with these types of crimes without resulting in racism, effectively, towards people of Pakistani or Middle Eastern descent?...is there not a natural backlash to this?"

Ratigan asked that of Sofian Zakkout, the director of the American Muslim Association of North America, who replied: "We should calm down, it's – thank God nobody got hurt. We all know – and also I spoke today, this morning, with CAIR and other Islamic organizations....we denounce what was going to happen." Zakkout's organization has had links to questionable Islamic organizations on its website and has voiced support for the terrorist organization Hamas.

Ratigan seemed to be following the lead of his MSNBC colleague Contessa Brewer, who appeared on Tuesday's Stephanie Miller radio show and lamented the ethnicity of the would-be bomber: "I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country."   

Here is a transcript of Ratigan's exchange with Zakkout:

4:06PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: Sofian Zakkout is the director of the American Muslim Association of North America. Sofian, welcome to the conversation. How do you – how do you deal with these types of crimes without resulting in racism, effectively, towards people of Pakistani or Middle Eastern descent?

SOFIAN ZAKKOUT: You know, how I – how I deal with that?

RATIGAN: How do you suggest it be dealt with? In other words, is there not a natural backlash to this? That variable?

ZAKKOUT: Yes, yes, yes. We should calm down, it's – thank God nobody got hurt. We all know – and also I spoke today, this morning, with CAIR and other Islamic organizations of Florida. We all understand, we denounce what was going to happen. Thank God there is nobody got hurt. Thank God the authority was open-eyed and took the car away from the people – from the surrounding population.

And we have to wait to see exactly the motives of – of this kind of act, terrorist act that was going to happen on our soil. We have to know who's behind it. What's the reasons. Then, you know, we all should also listen to all Muslim leaders around the nation.

Because it's very important to send a message from the Muslim leaders, around the nation. From California, New York, Miami, Washington, Chicago, that we – to show that we all – we've been denouncing all acts of terrorism and to condemn it strongly to send a message to the Muslims and to the non-Muslims all around the world that we are working closely with our authorities in prevention. And to try to stop any future – may Allah forbid – any future terrorist acts or terrorist activities.

As a matter of fact, we just came from Haiti, we put our life in danger for non-Muslims. We went to Haiti. We went to Katrina, we've been working to save lives. And we are against any, any terrorist attacks from any places in our soil or any Americans here or abroad. As clear as it sounds. 

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan on Wednesday chuckled over the assertion by Rick Perry that he killed a coyote while jogging, misrepresenting what happened. After explaining that the Texas Governor shot the creature for menacing his dog, Ratigan intoned, "For the record, the Texas Wildlife Commission does not allow laser sited guns to be used in hunting as it is seen as cowardly, too easy, with a laser site, to shoot anything." [Audio available here.]

He then snidely added, "Though, this is said to be self-defense. Perry probably gets off. Although hunting coyotes with a laser sited gun is kind of like shooting a cow on the farm or maybe a moose in Alaska." First off, as Ratigan (sort of) explained, the Governor wasn't hunting.

Secondly, an AP story by Jim Vertuno clarified:

Texas state law allows people to shoot coyotes that are threatening livestock or domestic animals. The dog was unharmed, Perry said.

Perry's security detail was not required to file a report about the governor discharging a weapon, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange.

Perry's security detail was not required to file a report about the governor discharging a weapon, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange.

"People shoot coyotes all the time, snakes all the time," Mange said. "We don't write reports."

But, Ratigan probably knew that. Perhaps he just wanted to somehow work his Sarah Palin joke into the story.

A transcript of the brief segment, which aired at 4:23pm EDT, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Finally, however, the coyotes of Texas beware. Texas Governor Rick Perry telling the Associated Press that he shot and killed one of the animals while jogging in February. He says the coyote threatened his daughter's puppy, so he put that sucker down. I used the word, sucker. I don't know if he called it sucker. Perry sometimes jogs, by the way, this is kind of bad ass, with a 380 laser sided Rugar loaded with hollow point bullets. Who does that? For the record, the Texas Wildlife Commission does not allow laser sited guns to be used in hunting as it is seen as cowardly, too easy, with a laser site, to shoot anything. Though, this is said to be self-defense. Perry probably gets off. Although hunting coyotes with a laser sited gun is kind of like shooting a cow on the farm or maybe a moose in Alaska. 

On Thursday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan went after the Vatican for criticizing the slanted New York Times reporting on the priest sex abuse scandal: "Blame the messenger. The Vatican blasting the New York Times for telling the truth about Church – the Church and its harboring of sex abusers. It's the paper's fault."

Ratigan spoke with Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand, an openly gay ex-Catholic, who ranted: "the bottom line is, the Catholic Church for the last couple of decades, has preached hatred, bigotry, discrimination against gay people. But they don't take ownership of their own homosexual problems that exist and have existed for decades. And they need to stop blaming everybody else." An on-screen headline read: "Killing the Messenger; Cardinal Slams NY Times for Vatican Coverage."

Meanwhile, on Thursday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Mark Phillips declared: "The Church, though, has been more direct in its response to the stories being printed and broadcast of child abuse in its institutions. It's attacked the messenger." Phillips later concluded that "The Church is faced with making an argument that is very difficult, that it has changed from the bad old days, at the same time as evidence keeps coming out, showing just how bald those old days were."

In a March 27 New York Times op/ed, left-wing columnist Maureen Down attacked the Church: "Yup, we need a Nope. A nun who is pope. The Catholic Church can never recover as long as its Holy Shepherd is seen as a black sheep in the ever-darkening sex abuse scandal." She later added: "the completely paternalistic and autocratic culture of Il Papa led to an insular, exclusionary system that failed to police itself, and that became a corrosive shelter for secrets and shame." Not exactly a neutral "message."

TimesWatch Director Clay Waters detailed the Vatican's criticism of the New York Times: "Levada made a plea for fairness for Pope Benedict under the headline “The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI: how it looks to an American in the Vatican,” accusing Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein “of anachronistic conflation” and of “rushing to a guilty verdict” against the Pope."

Cardinal Levada specifically cited Dowd and Times reporters for their bias: "I do not have time to deal with the Times’s subsequent almost daily articles by Rachel Donadio and others, much less with Maureen Dowd’s silly parroting of Goodstein’s “disturbing report”....I ask the Times to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on."

Neither Ratigan nor Phillips featured a longer excerpt of Cardinal Levada's statement. In addition, neither the CBS nor the MSNBC report featured a representative of the Church to address the issue. 

Near the end of Wednesday's Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan led his 'Busted' segment by claiming that The Drudge Report did "not let facts get in the way of a good headline" on Tuesday, by featuring one which read: "CIA: Iran Moving Closer to Nuclear Weapon." Ratigan remarked: "That'll get the ratings up."

Despite the fact that most of the world has long operated under the assumption that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, including the Obama administration, Ratigan singled out Matt Drudge's website for scorn, arguing: "Sounds pretty scary, right? Until you find out what the CIA report actually said. The agency's intelligence actually shows that Iran is quote, 'keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons,' but that they quote 'do not know' whether Tehran will ultimately head down that road." The headline on screen read: "Misinformed; Wordplay On Iran's Nuke Plans."

Ratigan eventually revealed where he received his liberal taking points: "the truth, why would you let that get in the way of ratings? As our friend Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com points out on his blog, false reporting on Iran could be ultimately be far more dangerous than the perceived threat itself. Let's try to stick to the facts."

Actually, Ratigan sanitized the last line of Greenwald's blog, which proclaims: "As the invasion of Iraq demonstrated, the kind of fear-mongering, reckless, and outright false 'reporting' we're seeing already – and have been seeing for awhile – over Iran's nuclear program poses a far greater danger to the U.S. than anything Iran could do."

Here is a full transcript of Ratigan's rant:

4:50PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: A little 'Busted' for you. Up first, do not let facts get in the way of a good headline. It's better for the ratings, as we discussed with both Lynn Sweet and Chrystia Freeland. Yesterday, the Drudge Report happy to oblige, among other news outlets, claiming that a CIA report insists that Iran, and I will quote, 'is moving closer to a nuclear weapon.' That'll get the ratings up. Sounds pretty scary, right? Until you find out what the CIA report actually said. The agency's intelligence actually shows that Iran is quote, 'keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons,' but that they quote 'do not know' whether Tehran will ultimately head down that road. Is it me or is that different? Maybe not as good for ratings. And the truth, why would you let that get in the way of ratings? As our friend Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com points out on his blog, false reporting on Iran could be ultimately be far more dangerous than the perceived threat itself. Let's try to stick to the facts.

According to MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, Barack Obama is nothing more than a shill for the Republican Party. The liberal anchor on Wednesday railed against the President's plan to allow limited offshore oil drilling: "This is a fraud...Is a pattern emerging? Is President Obama nothing more than a Democrat in name only? Dare we say it? A DINO?" [Audio available here.]

According to Ratigan, Obama, the same man who created a massive new entitlement with his health care bill, who ushered in the stimulus bill, is actually an operative for the GOP. He complained, "Look at the subsidization of the banking industry that goes on to this day or reports of the impending deal with the Republicans to forego civilian trials for Gitmo terror suspects in favor of military trials. Wasn't Gitmo supposed to be closed by now, anyway?"

Ratigan's hyperbolic language continued. He fretted, "The President clearly defying expectations. The question, is it betrayal or a true bipartisanship?" As for the actual Republicans, he derided them for supporting offshore drilling: "Again, I could point to the opposition party's absurdity in dragging this country lower as opposed to calling the Democrats out for their nonsense solutions. We're accommodating another party and adding nonsense solutions."

Ratigan, who now worries that Obama might be a secret Republican, previously savaged the GOP. On October 5, 2009, he attacked, "I mean, there are people that are actually trying to derail health care in order to take down Obama, even if it means half the country dies."

A partial transcript of the March 31 Dylan Ratigan Show segment, which aired at 4:32pm EDT, follows:

[Clips from 2008 of people chanting, "Drill, baby, drill.]

DYLAN RATIGAN: God, it feels good to say, doesn't it? Drill, baby, drill. Welcome back. We're talking oil and politics. Remember those chants "Drill, baby, drill" from the Republican National Convention? Now it seems that our Democratic President has adopted the same chant. It is fun. This morning the President announced a plan to open up waters off the coast of the America, up and down the east coast, oil drilling declared the move part of a larger goal of energy independence.

BARACK OBAMA: We're going to lead by example and practice what we preach. Cutting waste, saving energy and reducing our reliance on foreign oil.

RATIGAN: Problem of course, as you likely know, is that this plan runs directly counter to what he said on the campaign trail, specifically even though the White House says the President has been consistent.

OBAMA (June 2008): Believe me, if I thought there was any evidence at all that drilling could save people money who are struggling to fill up their gas tanks by this summer or this year or even the next few years, I would consider it. But, it won't.

RATIGAN: An interesting about-face, seen as a nod to Republicans, one that may be closely tied to the fate of a climate bill in the Senate. Moderate Democrats admitting that legislation is unlikely to pass without an extension of drilling to gain Republican's support. GOP leaders today are already arguing the plan doesn't go far enough. House Minority Leader John Boehner says, quote, "keeping the pacific coast and Alaska as well as the most promising resources of the Gulf of Mexico under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking, where are the jobs?" This seems like a good place to mention that of the $10.7 million spent by the oil lobby so far in 2010, granted it's only been three months, more than two-thirds of that money has gone to Republicans and the special interest giving that money stand to make a small fortune if the drilling is opened up. And yet the amount of oil made available to us to reduce our dependence on foreign energy would not come online for at least five to ten years. And even if we had all of it, might give you a year's worth of oil. This is a fraud. So, why is Democrat Obama making- proposing a plan- sure the oil companies will grin- but is it yet another false solution? Is a pattern emerging? Is President Obama nothing more than a Democrat in name only? Dare we say it? A DINO? Look at the giveaway to special interest in the health care bill. Extraordinary, their willingness to accommodate every special interest at the expense of efficiency and Americans in order to expand health care. Look at the subsidization of the banking industry that goes on to this day or reports of the impending deal with the Republicans to forego civilian trials for Gitmo terror suspects in favor of military trials. Wasn't Gitmo supposed to be closed by now, anyway? I don't know. The President clearly defying expectations. The question, is it betrayal or a true bipartisanship? Or is he simply trying to gain the next election with false solutions that may be politically popular but, actually, once again, further do a disservice to this country?

...

RATIGAN: But, what appears to be going on here is that we're going to be looking at rising gas prices this summer. There's a midterm election this fall. The Republicans were going to take cracks at the President for his failure do this. Again, I could point to the opposition party's absurdity in dragging this country lower as opposed to calling the Democrats out for their nonsense solutions. We're accommodating another party and adding nonsense solutions. Is there anything that you see here, Jane, that is more than political gaming at the Democrats by the expense of America?

JANE HAMSHER (Firedoglake.com): Well, he seems to think that this will bring Republican votes. Health care is any example of how successful that will be, that doesn't look like it's going to be in the game plan. They're already out there as you say demagoging the issue and saying it doesn't go far enough. So, they're going to oppose it. But, maybe, as you note, they've spent- the oil industry's spent so much money on the Republicans that he's hoping that they stay bought.

MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan on Monday eagerly attempted to convict Sean Hannity for the supposed misuse of funds by a pro-troop organization he supports, a claim already investigated and debunked. The anchor highlighted complaints against the Freedom Alliance group by the George Soros-backed Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), but never identified their liberal tilt.

Ratigan promoted CREW's assertions that the Freedom Concerts, which the Fox News host promotes, aren't giving all the money they take in to scholarships for the families of fallen soldiers. He sneered, "Hey, what the heck? You come up with a good cause. Give ten or 15 percent away and keep the rest for yourself. What do I know?" Not much, apparently. The MSNBC anchor made almost no effort to offer Hannity's side of the story or that of the Freedom Alliance.

David Frum's website analyzed this controversy and found the charges to be bogus. But, Ratigan wasn't interested in this. Instead, he mocked, "Who knows what happens to the rest of [the money]? But, not going to the kids, apparently."

Politico also publicized the allegations on Monday. Writer Jen DiMascio failed to identify the liberal nature of CREW. She only referred to it as a "Washington watchdog group." However, she did feature this quote from Alliance President Tom Kilgannon:

There is absolutely no merit to the scurrilous charges launched against Freedom Alliance from two of the most left-wing organizations in the country," Kilgannon said in a statement. "The smear-mongers who have launched this politically motivated witch hunt against Freedom Alliance will be proven wrong as we aggressively defend ourselves in the days and weeks ahead."

For more on this subject, see MRC President Brent Bozell's statement.

A transcript of the March 29 Dylan Ratigan Show segment, which aired at 4:50pm EDT, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Up next, a series of charity concerts organized by Fox News' Sean Hannity hitting a little bit of a sour note. The shows are billed as helping the innocent victims of war, an admirable cause. The children of troops. Here's Mr. Hannity himself explaining the charity's mission.

SEAN HANNITY: These guys have kids. The purpose is all of the money that we make we put in a scholarship fund for the children of these slain heroes.

RATIGAN: A noble case, no doubt. But, it's simply not the case, according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They have now filed- that's a funny title for that town. Anyway, they filed complaints with both the Federal Trade commission and the IRS claiming we will never know if every penny goes to the kids. The complaint alleges, quote, "illegal and deceptive marketing practices by suggesting that all money generated by ticket sales for the freedom concerts that Hannity sponsors each summer goes to scholarships for children of killed and wounded service members." In fact, according to an '08 tax filing by the Freedom Alliance, which runs this charity mission for Hannity, the group actually only gave 12 percent of its revenue to the children of fallen soldiers, while spending more than $150 grand on travel expenses. The list goes on. The Freedom Alliance says their financial records not only meet but exceed charity standards. Hey, what the heck? You come up with a good cause. Give ten or 15 percent away and keep the rest for yourself. What do I know? Who knows what happens to the rest of it? But, not going to the kids apparently.

If you've tuned on the news, specifically MSNBC, you don't have to watch for very long to see the network views focusing on fringe elements of the right as a newsworthy endeavor.

However, as MSNBC "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski suggested, discretion should be exercised with the amount of attention given to these radical components of the opposition to President Barack Obama's health care reform endeavors.

"Yeah, call it out but also I think we have to be careful along the way," Brzezinski said on the March 26 broadcast. "I think this happened during the campaign. I think this happened during the final hours of the health care debate where certain fringe, really minute members of it were highlighted."

Brzezinski said more focus should be granted to the nuts and bolts of the policy that has already been put into place and signed into law by the president, as her co-host Joe Scarborough and guests Dylan Ratigan and Eugene Robinson did previously during the "Morning Joe" segment.

"And then it's injected into the conversation and then it becomes ridiculous," Brzezinski said. "I mean, the conversation and the debate that we're having, Dylan, you, me, Eugene, about you know, whether or not parts of this bill really make sense, whether they really come down hard on the insurance industry. That's what we should be talking about, not a bunch of crazies or one or two saying potentially something that wasn't caught on camera, if you know what I'm getting at."

Although Brzezinski doesn't name any particular outlet or individual, her colleagues have shown a keen interest in the "crazies" versus the policy. Since the legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on March 21, MSNBC has followed up with several stories about the so-called anger and outrage generated by the Tea Party protests, including reports from MSNBC's David Shuster, Chris Matthews, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Lawrence O'Donnell, Howard Fineman and Keith Olbermann.

From Mediaite:

Remember the last time Andrew Breitbart was on MSNBC? His fiery exchange with David Shuster ended up in a lot of shouting and not a lot of discussing.

Well he was back on today with Dylan Ratigan – and Breitbart tells us he introduced the world to a whole new Andrew.

Ratigan and Breitbart had a very reasoned, and very lengthy (nearly 20 minutes) discussion, in which they duo agreed on quite a bit. Ratigan certainly has a different style than Shuster, but Breitbart was different as well. The conversation related to the tea party movement – and reaction to it from the media and politicians.

Ratigan played the role of the “new guy,” making sure to separate himself from the rest of the network. “I don’t speak for MSNBC, I’m a new guy here, I’ve only been here for nine months, so I only speak for the hour between four and five,” he said.

So what did Breitbart think of the interview? He told Mediaite he was “very appreciative” of getting a chance to “get my point across,” – unlike the first time he was on, which he called “a set-up.”

Read the whole write-up here.

"Sponsors of those [sic] Stars on Ice figure skating tour apparently think that Olympian Johnny Weir is too flamboyant for their show.  Weir reportedly prohibited from participating because he is not, quote, 'family friendly,'" MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan complained shortly before 5 p.m. on his MSNBC program today, citing a report by a blog published by GLAAD [the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation].

Ratigan griped that despite Weir's athletic credentials and well-known support of his family -- he's financing his brother's college education and supporting his father, who is unable to work due to a disability -- that the sponsors of the show, including Smucker's, "apparently... don't view supporting your family as family-friendly."

Ratigan then noted an online petition circulating to include Weir in the tour, but failed to include any reply from Stars on Ice, although just a few minutes before Ratigan went on the air, at least one news source had noted that Stars on Ice denied GLAAD's allegation.

Gay/lesbian publication MetroWeekly.com's Chris Geidner published the following to the Web at 4:38 p.m. EST, about 13 minutes before Ratigan went on air to further GLAAD's complaint on air (emphases mine):

On Friday afternoon, a spokeswoman for the Smuckers Stars on Ice Tour denied allegations made by both U.S. Olympian Johnny Weir and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that he has been kept out of the tour because he is ''not family friendly.''

Jennifer Cosgrove, a spokeswoman for Stars on Ice, responded to GLAAD, writing in a statement released to Metro Weekly, ''We are disappointed that there is untrue and inaccurate information being disseminated. Please be assured that the 'gender identity and sexual orientation' of cast members has never been a consideration in the selection of tour performers.''

[...]

GLAAD confirmed on Friday to Metro Weekly that the organization's anonymous source alleges that the ''family friendly'' comment came directly from the sponsors of the Stars on Ice Tour.

Despite that, Cosgrove responded to GLAAD by noting ''the comments mentioned regarding the Stars on Ice tour are simply not accurate.'' Cosgrove also has asked GLAAD to ''update its blog posting to include this important and accurate information about Stars on Ice.''

Cosgrove's statement did not specifically disclaim the allegation from GLAAD that Weir was deemed by Stars on Ice to be ''not family friendly.'' Cosgrove did not respond to a request for clarification on that point.

As for the reason behind Weir's exclusion, Cosgrove noted that Olympic Gold medalist Evan Lysacek and the current U.S. National Champion, Jeremy Abbott, were slated to particpate and said, ''While Stars on Ice wishes it could accommodate many more talented skaters as part of our cast, the fact is we cannot sign every skater.''

GLAAD did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Cosgrove's denial.

On Monday's The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan dragged out his standard attack against the tea party movement as he also bashed Liz Cheney for criticizing Justice Department attorneys: "Liz Cheney goes so far off the right-wing deep end, that now even some right-wingers are saying she has gone too far. If only the tea party would do the same with its Nazis and racist members."

In the segment that followed, Ratigan attacked Cheney for an ad put out by her organization KeepAmericaSafe.com, referring to Justice Department lawyers who once defended accused terrorists as the "Al Qaeda Seven." While he condemned Cheney for going "off the right-wing deep end," one of his guests in the segment was Jane Hamsher, founder of the left-wing radical blog FireDogLake.com, which on Monday featured a post on Cheney entitled: "A Blowjob for Liz 'BabyDick' Cheney."

In reaction to the KeepAmericaSafe.com ad, Hamsher declared: "I mean, what she's doing is genuinely McCarthy-esque and un-American." She went so far as to call for Congress to "censure" Cheney. Those proclamations were prompted by Ratigan asking: "Jane, would...are you encouraged by the emergence of other Republican leaders to at least renounce Liz Cheney, which is more than you can say for the tea party when it comes to some of their Nazi and racist members, which they refuse to renounce?"

The segment did featured a Republican, strategist David Winston, who was also critical of Cheney: "In this particular case she went too far with this argument and sort of personally attacking them in terms of a value level. I think she'll find that her style, unfortunately, overshadowed her substance, which wasn't her intent."

Before moving on to the next topic of discussion, Ratigan got off one more shot at the GOP: "Listen, I compliment the GOP for renouncing, effectively, some of that behavior. It maintains at least some of the integrity in the dialog, or at least prevents it from slipping even further downhill."

Ratigan is certainly one to talk about people being on the fringe, considering his numerous rants against the tea parties. In addition to claiming the political movement was full of "Nazis and racists" on Monday, on March 2 he asserted some tea partiers wanted to "kill blacks and jews" and on February 11 he proclaimed "birthers, open racists, and outright Nazis" were part of their make-up.

Here is a full transcript of the Monday segment:

 4:13PM TEASE

DYLAN RATIGAN: Liz Cheney goes so far off the right-wing deep end, that now even some right-wingers are saying she has gone too far. If only the tea party would do the same with its Nazis and racist members.

4:17PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: We begin with conservative darling, though, Liz Cheney, and the attacks leveled against her by members of her own party. Cheney under fire for criticizing the values of the Justice Department attorneys that represented accused terrorists. Former independent council Ken Starr, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, joined a group of 19 conservative lawyers that condemned Cheney's comments, calling them quote, 'shameful and destructive.' Here to mix it up today, founder of FireDogLake.com Jane Hamsher and Republican pollster and strategist David Winston. David, your thoughts?

DAVID WINSTON: Well, I mean, look. Liz Cheney clearly is frustrated by the fact that she thinks that these folks should be treated as enemy combatants and not someone who should go through the U.S. trial system. And so she was trying to express herself. I think she went too far. I mean clearly, you know, the idea that you can disagree but not be disagreeable. In this particular case she went too far with this argument and sort of personally attacking them in terms of a value level. I think she'll find that her style, unfortunately, overshadowed her substance, which wasn't her intent.

RATIGAN: Yeah. Jane, would you – are you encouraged by the emergence of other Republican leaders to at least renounce Liz Cheney, which is more than you can say for the tea party when it comes to some of their Nazi and racist members, which they refuse to renounce?

JANE HAMSHER: I think it's a good thing, it's a sign of how off-base she is. That people like Ken Starr and David Rivkin have come forward and denounced her in what she did. I mean, what she's doing is genuinely McCarthy-esque and un-American. She's claiming that Repub- lawyers who the Bush administration, the Department of Defense, reached out to and said 'please help us on this,' should be shamed and intimidated by being rebuked. That they're somehow un-American. And so, you know, it's a ridiculous proposition and I would hope that Congress would treat it with the seriousness they did with – they treated MoveOn with, when decided to censure them.

WINSTON: But if I – but if I may add one more thing.

RATIGAN: Please.

WINSTON: I mean, the other dynamic here, too, is when there was some Bush folks who – the lawyers that the Obama team were thinking about potentially bringing up on charges in terms of some of the things they did during the Bush years, again, that also got politicized. I think to some degree, like, look, we have a Justice Department, they're trying to do a lot of very difficult things. We can disagree and have real serious policy discussions. But let's not make this personal. Unfortunately, I think that's what she did.

RATIGAN: Listen, I compliment the GOP for renouncing, effectively, some of that behavior. It maintains at least some of the integrity in the dialog, or at least prevents it from slipping even further downhill.

On Monday's The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan dragged out his standard attack against the tea party movement as he also bashed Liz Cheney for criticizing Justice Department attorneys: "Liz Cheney goes so far off the right-wing deep end, that now even some right-wingers are saying she has gone too far. If only the tea party would do the same with its Nazis and racist members."

In the segment that followed, Ratigan attacked Cheney for an ad put out by her organization KeepAmericaSafe.com, referring to Justice Department lawyers who once defended accused terrorists as the "Al Qaeda Seven." While he condemned Cheney for going "off the right-wing deep end," one of his guests in the segment was Jane Hamsher, founder of the left-wing radical blog FireDogLake.com, which on Monday featured a post on Cheney entitled: "A Blowjob for Liz 'BabyDick' Cheney."

In reaction to the KeepAmericaSafe.com ad, Hamsher declared: "I mean, what she's doing is genuinely McCarthy-esque and un-American." She went so far as to call for Congress to "censure" Cheney. Those proclamations were prompted by Ratigan asking: "Jane, would...are you encouraged by the emergence of other Republican leaders to at least renounce Liz Cheney, which is more than you can say for the tea party when it comes to some of their Nazi and racist members, which they refuse to renounce?"

The segment did featured a Republican, strategist David Winston, who was also critical of Cheney: "In this particular case she went too far with this argument and sort of personally attacking them in terms of a value level. I think she'll find that her style, unfortunately, overshadowed her substance, which wasn't her intent."

Before moving on to the next topic of discussion, Ratigan got off one more shot at the GOP: "Listen, I compliment the GOP for renouncing, effectively, some of that behavior. It maintains at least some of the integrity in the dialog, or at least prevents it from slipping even further downhill."

Ratigan is certainly one to talk about people being on the fringe, considering his numerous rants against the tea parties. In addition to claiming the political movement was full of "Nazis and racists" on Monday, on March 2 he asserted some tea partiers wanted to "kill blacks and jews" and on February 11 he proclaimed "birthers, open racists, and outright Nazis" were part of their make-up.

Here is a full transcript of the Monday segment:

 4:13PM TEASE

DYLAN RATIGAN: Liz Cheney goes so far off the right-wing deep end, that now even some right-wingers are saying she has gone too far. If only the tea party would do the same with its Nazis and racist members.

4:17PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: We begin with conservative darling, though, Liz Cheney, and the attacks leveled against her by members of her own party. Cheney under fire for criticizing the values of the Justice Department attorneys that represented accused terrorists. Former independent council Ken Starr, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, joined a group of 19 conservative lawyers that condemned Cheney's comments, calling them quote, 'shameful and destructive.' Here to mix it up today, founder of FireDogLake.com Jane Hamsher and Republican pollster and strategist David Winston. David, your thoughts?

DAVID WINSTON: Well, I mean, look. Liz Cheney clearly is frustrated by the fact that she thinks that these folks should be treated as enemy combatants and not someone who should go through the U.S. trial system. And so she was trying to express herself. I think she went too far. I mean clearly, you know, the idea that you can disagree but not be disagreeable. In this particular case she went too far with this argument and sort of personally attacking them in terms of a value level. I think she'll find that her style, unfortunately, overshadowed her substance, which wasn't her intent.

RATIGAN: Yeah. Jane, would you – are you encouraged by the emergence of other Republican leaders to at least renounce Liz Cheney, which is more than you can say for the tea party when it comes to some of their Nazi and racist members, which they refuse to renounce?

JANE HAMSHER: I think it's a good thing, it's a sign of how off-base she is. That people like Ken Starr and David Rivkin have come forward and denounced her in what she did. I mean, what she's doing is genuinely McCarthy-esque and un-American. She's claiming that Repub- lawyers who the Bush administration, the Department of Defense, reached out to and said 'please help us on this,' should be shamed and intimidated by being rebuked. That they're somehow un-American. And so, you know, it's a ridiculous proposition and I would hope that Congress would treat it with the seriousness they did with – they treated MoveOn with, when decided to censure them.

WINSTON: But if I – but if I may add one more thing.

RATIGAN: Please.

WINSTON: I mean, the other dynamic here, too, is when there was some Bush folks who – the lawyers that the Obama team were thinking about potentially bringing up on charges in terms of some of the things they did during the Bush years, again, that also got politicized. I think to some degree, like, look, we have a Justice Department, they're trying to do a lot of very difficult things. We can disagree and have real serious policy discussions. But let's not make this personal. Unfortunately, I think that's what she did.

RATIGAN: Listen, I compliment the GOP for renouncing, effectively, some of that behavior. It maintains at least some of the integrity in the dialog, or at least prevents it from slipping even further downhill.

Now, there’s always a scene in zombie movies, when one non-zombie character will turn to another, and say, “If I ever turn into that, I want you to kill me.” Then they make love, and reload.

Well, I want you, dear viewer, to make the same promise to me. Except instead of killing me if I become a zombie, I want you to kill me if I ever turn into Dylan Ratigan.

I am not joking. If you see symptoms of me frothing, twitching, or ranting until my eyeballs pop out and roll across the floor – I want you to hack me to pieces with a hatchet. Try to make it quick.

See, there is a reason why no one should ever be Ratigan. He has a hard time being himself. Check him out interviewing a Tea Party leader, Mark Williams, as if Williams himself ran a concentration camp in the 1940’s.

Does Williams get a chance to respond? Not really. Because when he tries, Ratigan accuses him of trying to hijack the interview!

Anyway, I guess the segment was meant to analyze the fringe elements in an otherwise earnest movement filled with decent people. But because the analyst is Dylan Ratigan and the couch is MSNBC, you know it was just a ruse used to paint all tea partiers as a bunch of Nazi-sympathizers who eat babies.

More delightful, though, is the segment banner, which reads “Anger in America.” Which makes sense – judging from his manufactured outrage, the angriest person in America is Dylan Ratigan.

It must suck doing Rachel Maddow’s laundry.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a homophobic racist tea-partying baby-eater.

Originally posted March 3 at Big Hollywood 

Now, there’s always a scene in zombie movies, when one non-zombie character will turn to another, and say, “If I ever turn into that, I want you to kill me.” Then they make love, and reload.

Well, I want you, dear viewer, to make the same promise to me. Except instead of killing me if I become a zombie, I want you to kill me if I ever turn into Dylan Ratigan.

I am not joking. If you see symptoms of me frothing, twitching, or ranting until my eyeballs pop out and roll across the floor – I want you to hack me to pieces with a hatchet. Try to make it quick.

See, there is a reason why no one should ever be Ratigan. He has a hard time being himself. Check him out interviewing a Tea Party leader, Mark Williams, as if Williams himself ran a concentration camp in the 1940’s.

Does Williams get a chance to respond? Not really. Because when he tries, Ratigan accuses him of trying to hijack the interview!

Anyway, I guess the segment was meant to analyze the fringe elements in an otherwise earnest movement filled with decent people. But because the analyst is Dylan Ratigan and the couch is MSNBC, you know it was just a ruse used to paint all tea partiers as a bunch of Nazi-sympathizers who eat babies.

More delightful, though, is the segment banner, which reads “Anger in America.” Which makes sense – judging from his manufactured outrage, the angriest person in America is Dylan Ratigan.

It must suck doing Rachel Maddow’s laundry.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a homophobic racist tea-partying baby-eater.

Originally posted March 3 at Big Hollywood 

Now, there’s always a scene in zombie movies, when one non-zombie character will turn to another, and say, “If I ever turn into that, I want you to kill me.” Then they make love, and reload.

Well, I want you, dear viewer, to make the same promise to me. Except instead of killing me if I become a zombie, I want you to kill me if I ever turn into Dylan Ratigan.

I am not joking. If you see symptoms of me frothing, twitching, or ranting until my eyeballs pop out and roll across the floor – I want you to hack me to pieces with a hatchet. Try to make it quick.

See, there is a reason why no one should ever be Ratigan. He has a hard time being himself. Check him out interviewing a Tea Party leader, Mark Williams, as if Williams himself ran a concentration camp in the 1940’s.

Does Williams get a chance to respond? Not really. Because when he tries, Ratigan accuses him of trying to hijack the interview!

Anyway, I guess the segment was meant to analyze the fringe elements in an otherwise earnest movement filled with decent people. But because the analyst is Dylan Ratigan and the couch is MSNBC, you know it was just a ruse used to paint all tea partiers as a bunch of Nazi-sympathizers who eat babies.

More delightful, though, is the segment banner, which reads “Anger in America.” Which makes sense – judging from his manufactured outrage, the angriest person in America is Dylan Ratigan.

It must suck doing Rachel Maddow’s laundry.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a homophobic racist tea-partying baby-eater.

Originally posted March 3 at Big Hollywood 

Now, there’s always a scene in zombie movies, when one non-zombie character will turn to another, and say, “If I ever turn into that, I want you to kill me.” Then they make love, and reload.

Well, I want you, dear viewer, to make the same promise to me. Except instead of killing me if I become a zombie, I want you to kill me if I ever turn into Dylan Ratigan.

I am not joking. If you see symptoms of me frothing, twitching, or ranting until my eyeballs pop out and roll across the floor – I want you to hack me to pieces with a hatchet. Try to make it quick.

See, there is a reason why no one should ever be Ratigan. He has a hard time being himself. Check him out interviewing a Tea Party leader, Mark Williams, as if Williams himself ran a concentration camp in the 1940’s.

Does Williams get a chance to respond? Not really. Because when he tries, Ratigan accuses him of trying to hijack the interview!

Anyway, I guess the segment was meant to analyze the fringe elements in an otherwise earnest movement filled with decent people. But because the analyst is Dylan Ratigan and the couch is MSNBC, you know it was just a ruse used to paint all tea partiers as a bunch of Nazi-sympathizers who eat babies.

More delightful, though, is the segment banner, which reads “Anger in America.” Which makes sense – judging from his manufactured outrage, the angriest person in America is Dylan Ratigan.

It must suck doing Rachel Maddow’s laundry.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a homophobic racist tea-partying baby-eater.

Originally posted March 3 at Big Hollywood 

Now, there’s always a scene in zombie movies, when one non-zombie character will turn to another, and say, “If I ever turn into that, I want you to kill me.” Then they make love,...

View Original Post

I’m not really sure who this Dylan Ratigan is and I suspect that maybe 3 people — tops — watch his show. However, his behavior, whilst interviewing Mark Williams about Tea Parties, is indicative of how desperate MSNBC and many on the far left have become. Just keep screeching “you want to kill black people. Racists! [...]

You almost need a flak jacket to go on an MSNBC show these days - at least judging by the rapid fire attacks displayed on the March 2 "The Dylan Ratigan Show."

Either host Dylan Ratigan was trying to play to MSNBC's  rabid liberal audience or he really has it in for the Tea Party movement based on some exaggerated notion it is nothing but hate and fear mongers. In an interview with Mark Williams, a conservative talk radio host and sometimes spokesman for the Tea Party Express, Ratigan asked Williams what he was doing to separate his legitimate effort from radical fringe elements in American political culture.

"Mark, how do you draw the bright line between the very admirable and understandable principles that are advocated by so many in the Tea Party as it pertains to a Constitutional definition of a democracy, separation of things like banking and investing, church and - I mean, you go to all these things, and those who would choose a more radicalized view or racist view and hide, if you will, inside of the Tea Party umbrella?" Ratigan said.

"Well, that's real simple," Williams replied. "There's wing-nuts and normal people."

But that wasn't good enough for Ratigan, who went on a tirade about how Williams should be more forceful in denouncing people who say they want to "kill blacks and Jews," as if they're an every day element of the national Tea Party movement.

"It's not that simple because when wing-nuts go to other political organizations and say, ‘I want to kill black people, I want to kill Jews,' whatever it may be, the organizer, for instance, if I was holding a Dylan Ratigan event and a bunch of people held up signs saying they wanted to kill blacks and Jews, I would say, ‘Would you kindly remove yourself, I don't accept people who follow me who are into killing blacks and Jews and women or whatever it may be,'" Ratigan said. "What confuses me about the Tea Party if the Tea Party's willingness to accept the wing-nuts without defining more crisply what the Tea Party's agenda is relative to those who just want to kill black people, for instance." 

A slightly befuddled Williams asked Ratigan if he was accountable for crazy people.

"So that's our fault they're nuts?" Williams replied.

That set Ratigan off again and he reiterated the notion that fringe elements are welcome in the tea party movement.

"You shame them, Mark," Ratigan said. "It is your fault that unlike the Democrats or the Republicans or any other political group - so you're saying you accept racists and Nazis, is that what you're saying? Do you accept them in the Tea Party?"

The stalemate ended with Williams walking off the set, but not without some angry parting shots from Ratigan - accusing him of trying to use his show as a vehicle for propaganda.

"Do you have any intention of answering any of my questions," Ratigan said. "Let me ask you a question, Mark because I don't want to continue with this. You're wasting valuable oxygen. Can we please cut off this man's microphone? He has no interest in answering any of my questions. Mark, a pleasure - actually not really a pleasure. It was offensive. You're offensive. Your treatment of my show as a vehicle to spread your propaganda, ignore my questions, offensive. And an indication of what is wrong with the dialogue in this country, period. Not to mention a group that would accept Nazis and racists."

On Tuesday, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan suggested Sarah Palin was hypocrite for criticizing a Sunday episode of the Fox show "Family Guy," that tangentially mocked her son with Down Syndrome, but not quitting her job as a Fox News contributor.

Featuring Palin in the "Busted" segment near the end of his 4:00PM ET show, Ratigan acknowledged her rightful anger over a girl with Down Syndrome on the animated series claiming her mother was the former governor of Alaska. However, Ratigan then observed: "If Palin really wanted to make a statement, she would reject her paycheck from Fox and remove herself from the network, wouldn't she?"

Of course, Fox News has no connection to the Fox broadcast channel or any of its entertainment programming.  

NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard eariler reported on Palin's Facebook message regarding "Family Guy" and Entertainment Weekly's Jennifer Armstrong defending the offensive episode.

Here is a full transcript of Ratigan's remarks:

4:52PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: Former Alaska governor and current Fox News contributor Sarah Palin busting the Fox network for an episode of the animated series 'The Family Guy.' The show aired an episode Sunday night during which the son, Chris, went on a date with a girl who had Down Syndrome. Take a look at the clip in question:

GIRL: You haven't asked me anything about myself.

CHRIS GRIFFIN: Oh, um. Sorry. Um, so what do your parents do?

GIRL: That's better. My dad's an accountant and my mom is the former governor of Alaska.

[END OF CLIP]

RATIGAN: Palin firing back at that last reference on Facebook, calling it a 'kick in the gut.' Her son has Down Syndrome and we understand why Palin would be angry at the network for a dig at her family. But then again, if Palin really wanted to make a statement, she would reject her paycheck from Fox and remove herself from the network, wouldn't she?

Back to back Washington, D.C. blizzards prompted conservatives to mock the global warming crowd last week.

Grandchildren of Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., built an igloo on the National Mall and christened it "Al Gore's New Home." Fox News anchor Glenn Beck employed his trademark sarcasm to make fun of the "disappearance" of warming priest Al Gore and devotee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. since the snowfall. Beck picked on Kennedy because of a 2008 op-ed lamenting that global warming had changed the D.C. climate leading to "anemic winters."

Left-wingers online at place like Huffington Post and Daily Kos, as well as members of the national news media were furious that the "wingnuts" were using the blizzard to make fun of them. They rushed to defend their theory of man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) by claiming that the snowpocalypse was, in fact, caused by global warming.

"Science Guy" Bill Nye was so upset by it he attacked "unpatriotic" climate skeptics on Feb. 10 during the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC.

"To deny what scientists or scientific evidence is showing, is inappropriate. And as I said earlier, to me, when I get wound up, it's unpatriotic," Nye declared. But there are more questions than ever regarding the science. Prof. Phil Jones, formerly of the Climate Research Unit, admitted this week to losing track of climate change data used to support warming theory and that there hasn't been "statistically significant" global warming since 1995.

Some of the critics lied about what most conservatives were arguing, accusing the right of saying the historic snowfall disproved global warming. That wasn't the case, conservatives were merely turning the tables on the left: using mockery to show the absurdity of assigning a cause and effect relationship from weather events to climate change.

The fact is that the weather is not climate. Before the "snomageddon" (as many in D.C. called it), AGW believers constantly connected every weather event from heat waves killing thousands in Europe to Hurricane Katrina with global warming. It wasn't until the weather started acting against them and conservatives suggested it might undermine their theories that they got touchy on the subject.

ABC's Bill Blakemore admitted that weather is not climate on Jan. 8 in a feeble attempt to prevent critics from saying that a "cold snap" across the northern hemisphere disproves global warming. Blakemore has a long history of advocating for global warming alarmism on ABC.

Of course weather isn't climate, but the global warming alarmists like Blakemore want it both ways. They want weather and natural disasters to be proof of warming, but never proof contradicting it.

But it's not just weather. The media and the left have even more ridiculous assertions about climate change. Like the Kevin Bacon game they seem willing to connect everything to AGW.

Actor Danny Glover blamed global warming for the Haitian earthquake in January 2010. Leaving no tragedy unturned, Joseph Romm, a former Clinton official, actually wondered if the Minnesota bridge collapse in 2007 was a result of global warming.

In a blog post, Romm wrote: "some may object to even asking the question, 'Did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?' My guess is those are the same people who deny that global warming is caused by humans or that it is a serious problem - the same people who inevitably say 'we can adapt to whatever climate change there is.'"

A media outlet called GMANews.TV based in the Philippines was concerned that global warming was forcing poor women into prostitution. The Nov. 19, 2009 story said, "The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade."

Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, has created a Web site linking to hundreds of media stories blaming AGW. In 2007, he had already posted more than 600 links with a number of unusual connections.

Contradictions like growth or shrinking of coral reefs, destruction or growth of bananas, and heavy or reduced snowfall were all on his list. A number of health ailments including allergies, asthma, cardiac arrest, cancer deaths in England, West Nile fever, cholera, malaria and yellow fever have also been linked.

Snowpocalypse Can't Stop Faith in Warming

According to AGW believers in and out of the news media, weather can only ever support global warming theory. Not even back-to-back East Coast blizzards that dumped more than two feet of snow in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area can freeze their faith.

The "snowpocalypse" that shut down the federal government, schools and many businesses for several days became one more "extreme" weather phenomenon in a long list attributed to global warming. It joined heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes, tropical storms, cyclones, tornadoes, ice shelf and glacial melt, dying polar bears and even lack of snowfall.

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan told viewers on Feb. 9, "Here's the problem - these ‘snowpocalypses' that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming."

Ratigan and others have been upset by conservative mockery about global warming, given the record snowfall of the 2009-2010 winter. The MSNBC host criticized an ad by the Va. GOP designed to ridicule proposed climate change policies that could hurt the state's job situation.

Talk about polar opposites. In 2010, Ratigan blamed blizzards on global warming. But just one year ago, NBC's (MSNBC's parent company) presidential historian Michael Beschloss claimed global warming could be responsible for the lack of Inauguration Day snow.

As the camera turned to President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and their two children walking to the reviewing box, Beschloss described the scene: "And this wooden path that they're walking down actually dates to many previous inaugurations because a lot of them had snow. It may just be that because of global warming the last few have not."

That was a frigid January day - 28 degrees at noon plus a severe wind chill - and the coldest inauguration since 1985. Still, according to the news media it was a sign of the destruction caused by fossil fuels, SUVs and other human activity. 

But that's just it. Logic doesn't matter, according to alarmists the planet is warming, its mankind's fault and so everything is a result of global warming.

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Business & Media Institute that "global warming alarmism isn't really a scientific theory as much as it's a political program." That becomes most obvious, Ebell said, when they "explain away the facts" such as more snowfall in the mid-Atlantic despite the IPCC prediction of less snow in the region due to global warming.

Even a tragic Air France plane crash was connected with global warming in Russia Today (RT) on June 4, 2009. Alexei Kokorin, a climatologist for the left-wing World Wildlife Fund's Russia Climate Program, told RT ""A consequence of global warming is that the frequency and severity of such events (severe weather conditions) is higher. Unfortunately, the risk for airplanes, especially in tropical areas above water, will be higher. This could be difficult for pilots to understand."

Another horrible disaster, Hurricane Katrina was also linked to manmade climate change. On May 23, 2006, "Good Morning America" featured two previews: one of the hurricane season and one of Al Gore's global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore has been criticized by some for his "very heavy-handed" use of Katrina footage in the film.

Diane Sawyer linked the two saying, "And of course, there are a lot of people who believe that global warming is in fact to blame, in part, for this surge in hurricanes. One of them, former Vice President Al Gore, who has re-emerged, leading a kind of call to action." She wasn't alone, CBS's Hannah Storm and NBC's Robert Bazell all tied hurricanes to global warming that year.

But there are scientific problems with that assertion that even television meteorologists have criticized. And in May 2008, National Geographic reported that a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study found global warming could actually decrease hurricane activity by about 18 percent.

Newsweek, a newsmagazine that had repeatedly attacked climate skeptics as "deniers," has stated that there is "unequivocal" evidence of global warming and "90 percent certainty" that humans are responsible. In July 2007, the magazine called the 2003 European heat wave that killed thousands "a human fingerprint" of global warming. They didn't consider any other factors such as the lack of air conditioning in much of Europe.

Citing a scorching U.S. heat wave in 2006, CBS's Bob Orr declared: "Gulledge says there's no longer any serious debate" on climate change. When it comes to the media there certainly isn't "serious debate," there isn't a debate at all since skeptics are outnumbered 13-to-1 on the broadcast networks and often excluded or buried in other reports.

According to the media, everything is proof of warming, even if scientists - including CNN meteorologists - contradict them. Ebell offered one reason that for the media's constant defense of AGW.

"I think part of it is that the media which from time to time portray itself as anti-establishment is actually an integral part of the establishment (the liberal establishment). So you can be a bomb-thrower if you're going after Richard Nixon," Ebell said. "but if they went after someone on their side" they would lose support. So whenever challenged on an issue like global warming, the media "circle the wagons and defend their own."

Want to know what else the media have blamed on global warming? Find the rest of the article at Business & Media Institute. 

After taking time out of his last few broadcasts to try to clarify his Feb. 8 remarks that the "snowpocalypse" was because of global warming, one would hope MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan would have learned his lesson.

Ratigan spent a portion of his Feb. 10 and now a portion of his Feb. 11 shows trying to clarify his statement - that "these ‘snowpocalypses' that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming," as he said - but that he didn't necessarily believe that premise.

"Now, in addition to that being completely wrong on so many levels, it's also a total misrepresentation over the climate change theory that I was attempting to explain," Ratigan said. "Let me be very clear - I do not believe that this storm is proof of climate change. And I do not believe that this storm is not proof of climate change. But I do believe that you, Mr. Beck, did a tremendous disservice to your viewers by bastardizing the most basic science behind the theory, period. That's not very good."

Ratigan then revealed his own Glenn Beck-style chalkboard to play amateur climatologist and make the case that this winter precipitation "could" be the result of global warming. He also showed the temperature has increased based on U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models.

"But thankfully, guess who else has a chalkboard," Ratigan said. "Mr. Beck, let me try to explain this to you once again. There is a data set from the U.N. that claims that there has been a global temperature rise over the past 100 years or so of about 1.3 degrees. Come on in here, you can take a look at it. The theory basically states that the warmer climate would cause higher ocean temperatures, which means more ocean water evaporating. Think of this yellow line as the temperature curve. Sometimes it's hot, sometimes it's cold.  A hundred years ago, think of this line as the new temperature curve. Sometimes it's hot, sometimes it's cold and the average change between hot and cold running at 1.3 degrees."

What Ratigan didn't explain was why the previous snowfall record occurred back in 1899, more than 100 years ago or question the plausibility IPCC models after the ClimateGate scandal. Instead, he went with carrying the global warming alarmist argument that these storms could have been caused by global warming.

"The idea basically that warmer air, yeah, warm, you can do this, yes, warm air, my handwriting's not so great, but you get the point. As warmer air goes up, it takes H20, water, into the air. More water in the air results in more precipitation on earth. You know what the saying is, after all. What goes up must come down. Now, it might come back as more snow. It also might come back as more rain, depending on the temperature, hot or cold, on the specific place on the earth at the time."

To his credit, for the first time Ratigan not only attacked conservative opponents of the anthropogenic climate change theory, but also those who have used it politically, like former Vice President Al Gore, to promote enacting policy to combat the threat with fear.

"Let's be phenomenally clear, Mr. Beck - I do not believe this storm is proof of climate change, nor have I ever said as much," Ratigan said. "My point very simply was that strong winter storms like the one so many in this country have lived through over the past couple of days do not by any stretch of the imagination rule out climate change as conservatives like Mitch McConnell, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and yourself have suggested. At the same time, it is equally dumb for anyone to say that these storms do somehow prove that climate change is actually happening. One thing we can probably agree on Glenn is that I think the fear-mongering among the many climate change proponents, like Al Gore for example, is completely out of whack with the current body of scientific evidence."

Ratigan patted himself on the back for "extensively and personally" covering ClimateGate, even though he still gave credence to the IPCC models. And he also challenged Beck to take him on one-on-one and brandished his own version of Beck's famous red phone.

"To that end, I also covered the reports of climate data manipulation extensively and personally felt like it was a disgusting breach of scientific ethics," Ratigan said. "But I also know that you can cover the climate change debate without reducing yourself to this level of stupidity, just to have fodder for your lefty-righty games. So, Glenn, the next time you'd like me to explain something that was said on this show, or otherwise, we have red phones, too. You can call me, invite me on your show if you'd like. You can come on mine unless that sort of in-context direct engagement scares you a little too much."

On Monday’s ‘The Dylan Ratigan Show’ on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan began the program by ranting: “The tea party has a bit of an integrity problem, as everybody from birthers, to open racists, to outright Nazis are actually on the team. And no one involved, including its leadership, seems to mind that fact.”     

To justify his outrageous smear of the political movement, Ratigan cited one woman who attended the weekend tea party convention in Nashville, Tennessee: “I just couldn’t sit down anymore and not do anything. Because it reminded me of what happened during the rein of Hitler.” Ratigan then went on to describe Sarah Palin writing notes on her hand during her convention appearance as futher evidence of the movement’s “integrity problem”: “Even Palin being caught a little less than honest...saying she wouldn’t use a teleprompter at the event, but she didn’t rule out scribbling notes on her hand during a scripted Q & A.”

The supposed point of Ratigan’s rambling at the beginning of the show was to condemn both Republicans and Democrats for playing “political football” instead of dealing with issues. However, he decided to just bash conservatives and the GOP: “After eight years of dropping the ball, voters decided they didn’t want the elephants picking it up again for a while.... After a crushing defeat of the elephants last November in a huge game, America thought true change was on the way and that points were going to be scored for this country, finally.”

Ratigan then lamented how: “President Obama and Congress, well, they fumbled the ball right off the kickoff. The banks, a walk. Health care, a debacle. Jobs, nothing. And they haven’t been able to get possession of the ball back since.” Ratigan concluded: “The tea partiers have the right idea about the need for change. They see the problems on some level. But where are they taking it? And is there a better place? As far as I can tell, we need to harness the vigilant voters that are the history of this country, not irrational and angry.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

4:00PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: As America recovers from last night’s big Super Bowl game, we here at The Dylan Ratigan Show are talking about another type of football. But in this game, the ball, as we all know, has been fumbled and the American people are looking for someone to pick it up and run with it. The question is, who will that be? Let’s take a look at the match ups. Historically, we’ve had the donkeys versus the elephants. What’s become a tedious game of political football with each team desperately trying to keep its players on the field at basically any cost. Trying to advance their own agenda instead of trying to score any points for the American people. We know the story. Which is likely why there are some new players. The tea partiers coming together in Nashville this past weekend for their first-ever national convention. The problem they have is, they have neither a coach, a game plan, really a leader. As former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says, that’s how they want it.

SARAH PALIN: This is about the people. This is about the people and it’s bigger than any king or queen of a tea party. And it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.

RATIGAN: Hmm. Except Palin has, in fact, become their de facto leader. And while she says she doesn’t want to be, she thinks the Republicans would be wise to start calling the plays for them.

PALIN: The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the tea party movement as possible.

RATIGAN: Which will be a challenge. The tea partiers have harnessed the anger – [holds up football with the word ‘Anger’ on it] yes see, that’s fun, right? – in America, but they have not been able to harness this anger. As you can see when we asked convention goers why they were there.

TEA PARTY CONVENTION GOER: The Constitution is a restrictive document. If you don’t treat it as a restrictive document, you go from mandates on seat belts to mandates on health care, to them deciding on euthanasia.

RATIGAN: So, no coach, no game plan, and did we mention, the tea party has a bit of an integrity problem, as everybody from birthers, to open racists, to outright Nazis are actually on the team. And no one involved, including its leadership, seems to mind that fact.

TEA PARTY CONVENTION GOER: I just couldn’t sit down anymore and not do anything. Because it reminded me of what happened during the rein of Hitler.

RATIGAN: Hmm. Even Palin – fear mongering anyone – even Palin being caught a little less than honest, shall we say, saying she wouldn’t use a teleprompter at the event, but she didn’t rule out scribbling notes on her hand during a scripted Q & A. Anyway, after their huddle this weekend, partiers say they indeed will have a game plan. They’re forming a political action committee that will meet in July and come up with a platform for this anger. A true play, a true list, a true platform for tea partiers. But how will the game end? That’s one we’re going to have to watch to find out. But meanwhile, the elephants, Republicans, trying to pick the ball up themselves as President Obama fumbled it so long ago now. The problem is the elephants have their own problems. After eight years of dropping the ball, voters decided they didn’t want the elephants picking it up again for a while. Even our so-called bipartisan president calling for the elephants, or calling out the elephants, I should say, for playing the same old games.

JEB HENSARLING: Your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next ten years.

BARACK OBAMA: I’ve just got to take this last question as an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do.

RATIGAN: The deficit, you probably know, came before the President. He has perpetuated and expanded it, politically expedient, but didn’t create it. Anyway, on to the donkeys, believe me they’ve got their own problems. After a crushing defeat of the elephants last November in a huge game, America thought true change was on the way and that points were going to be scored for this country, finally. But President Obama and Congress, well, they fumbled the ball right off the kickoff. The banks, a walk. Health care, a debacle. Jobs, nothing. And they haven’t been able to get possession of the ball back since. Now the President trying to recruit some of the top elephants to his side. Perhaps he’s thinking, if you can’t beat them, join them. Or get them to join you. This weekend, even saying he’s willing to talk bipartisan health care.

OBAMA: I want to come back and have a large meeting with Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.

RATIGAN: And whether Republicans come to his side or not, we still have the problem that it’s the same game. A game run by special interests against America and Americans, at least if you pay taxes. Who can forget the record lobbying money spent in ‘09? The year of the lobbyist. What – it was an amazing year for them, total control of the government. High five, high five. And then of course, the banks gambling with some $24 trillion, or at least the use of it, in free money. Not only coming out of your pocket, but coming out of all the future pockets of all the children whose names you don’t know.

But I forget the politicians aren’t much for people whose names they don’t know. How do we change this game, though? How do we do it? The tea partiers have the right idea about the need for change. They see the problems on some level. But where are they taking it? And is there a better place? As far as I can tell, we need to harness the vigilant voters that are the history of this country, not irrational and angry. Vigilant and honest. And together, put players on the field who will seek to score not for themselves or even their little team to take down the other guy, but actually for the American people and America and the American ideal of democracy and fairness.

It’s possible. It’s happened before. And while the tea partiers may or may not be the team to do it, Americans at this point just want a team to join that will. And in just a few minutes we’re going to talk about who should be that team. Lefties, Righties, progressives, libertarians, it’s there. It just doesn’t really have a form yet. But I suspect it’s coming.

On Monday’s ‘The Dylan Ratigan Show’ on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan began the program by ranting: “The tea party has a bit of an integrity problem, as everybody from birthers, to open racists, to outright Nazis are actually on the team. And no one involved, including its leadership, seems to mind that fact.”     

To justify his outrageous smear of the political movement, Ratigan cited one woman who attended the weekend tea party convention in Nashville, Tennessee: “I just couldn’t sit down anymore and not do anything. Because it reminded me of what happened during the rein of Hitler.” Ratigan then went on to describe Sarah Palin writing notes on her hand during her convention appearance as futher evidence of the movement’s “integrity problem”: “Even Palin being caught a little less than honest...saying she wouldn’t use a teleprompter at the event, but she didn’t rule out scribbling notes on her hand during a scripted Q & A.”

The supposed point of Ratigan’s rambling at the beginning of the show was to condemn both Republicans and Democrats for playing “political football” instead of dealing with issues. However, he decided to just bash conservatives and the GOP: “After eight years of dropping the ball, voters decided they didn’t want the elephants picking it up again for a while.... After a crushing defeat of the elephants last November in a huge game, America thought true change was on the way and that points were going to be scored for this country, finally.”

Ratigan then lamented how: “President Obama and Congress, well, they fumbled the ball right off the kickoff. The banks, a walk. Health care, a debacle. Jobs, nothing. And they haven’t been able to get possession of the ball back since.” Ratigan concluded: “The tea partiers have the right idea about the need for change. They see the problems on some level. But where are they taking it? And is there a better place? As far as I can tell, we need to harness the vigilant voters that are the history of this country, not irrational and angry.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

4:00PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: As America recovers from last night’s big Super Bowl game, we here at The Dylan Ratigan Show are talking about another type of football. But in this game, the ball, as we all know, has been fumbled and the American people are looking for someone to pick it up and run with it. The question is, who will that be? Let’s take a look at the match ups. Historically, we’ve had the donkeys versus the elephants. What’s become a tedious game of political football with each team desperately trying to keep its players on the field at basically any cost. Trying to advance their own agenda instead of trying to score any points for the American people. We know the story. Which is likely why there are some new players. The tea partiers coming together in Nashville this past weekend for their first-ever national convention. The problem they have is, they have neither a coach, a game plan, really a leader. As former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says, that’s how they want it.

SARAH PALIN: This is about the people. This is about the people and it’s bigger than any king or queen of a tea party. And it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.

RATIGAN: Hmm. Except Palin has, in fact, become their de facto leader. And while she says she doesn’t want to be, she thinks the Republicans would be wise to start calling the plays for them.

PALIN: The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the tea party movement as possible.

RATIGAN: Which will be a challenge. The tea partiers have harnessed the anger – [holds up football with the word ‘Anger’ on it] yes see, that’s fun, right? – in America, but they have not been able to harness this anger. As you can see when we asked convention goers why they were there.

TEA PARTY CONVENTION GOER: The Constitution is a restrictive document. If you don’t treat it as a restrictive document, you go from mandates on seat belts to mandates on health care, to them deciding on euthanasia.

RATIGAN: So, no coach, no game plan, and did we mention, the tea party has a bit of an integrity problem, as everybody from birthers, to open racists, to outright Nazis are actually on the team. And no one involved, including its leadership, seems to mind that fact.

TEA PARTY CONVENTION GOER: I just couldn’t sit down anymore and not do anything. Because it reminded me of what happened during the rein of Hitler.

RATIGAN: Hmm. Even Palin – fear mongering anyone – even Palin being caught a little less than honest, shall we say, saying she wouldn’t use a teleprompter at the event, but she didn’t rule out scribbling notes on her hand during a scripted Q & A. Anyway, after their huddle this weekend, partiers say they indeed will have a game plan. They’re forming a political action committee that will meet in July and come up with a platform for this anger. A true play, a true list, a true platform for tea partiers. But how will the game end? That’s one we’re going to have to watch to find out. But meanwhile, the elephants, Republicans, trying to pick the ball up themselves as President Obama fumbled it so long ago now. The problem is the elephants have their own problems. After eight years of dropping the ball, voters decided they didn’t want the elephants picking it up again for a while. Even our so-called bipartisan president calling for the elephants, or calling out the elephants, I should say, for playing the same old games.

JEB HENSARLING: Your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next ten years.

BARACK OBAMA: I’ve just got to take this last question as an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do.

RATIGAN: The deficit, you probably know, came before the President. He has perpetuated and expanded it, politically expedient, but didn’t create it. Anyway, on to the donkeys, believe me they’ve got their own problems. After a crushing defeat of the elephants last November in a huge game, America thought true change was on the way and that points were going to be scored for this country, finally. But President Obama and Congress, well, they fumbled the ball right off the kickoff. The banks, a walk. Health care, a debacle. Jobs, nothing. And they haven’t been able to get possession of the ball back since. Now the President trying to recruit some of the top elephants to his side. Perhaps he’s thinking, if you can’t beat them, join them. Or get them to join you. This weekend, even saying he’s willing to talk bipartisan health care.

OBAMA: I want to come back and have a large meeting with Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.

RATIGAN: And whether Republicans come to his side or not, we still have the problem that it’s the same game. A game run by special interests against America and Americans, at least if you pay taxes. Who can forget the record lobbying money spent in ‘09? The year of the lobbyist. What – it was an amazing year for them, total control of the government. High five, high five. And then of course, the banks gambling with some $24 trillion, or at least the use of it, in free money. Not only coming out of your pocket, but coming out of all the future pockets of all the children whose names you don’t know.

But I forget the politicians aren’t much for people whose names they don’t know. How do we change this game, though? How do we do it? The tea partiers have the right idea about the need for change. They see the problems on some level. But where are they taking it? And is there a better place? As far as I can tell, we need to harness the vigilant voters that are the history of this country, not irrational and angry. Vigilant and honest. And together, put players on the field who will seek to score not for themselves or even their little team to take down the other guy, but actually for the American people and America and the American ideal of democracy and fairness.

It’s possible. It’s happened before. And while the tea partiers may or may not be the team to do it, Americans at this point just want a team to join that will. And in just a few minutes we’re going to talk about who should be that team. Lefties, Righties, progressives, libertarians, it’s there. It just doesn’t really have a form yet. But I suspect it’s coming.

Immediately after taking shots from some conservative voices for his Feb. 8 remarks that heavy snowfall in the Mid-Atlantic is "reportedly" a result of global warming, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan fired back at his detractors on his Feb. 10 program. 

The once seemingly rational host of CNBC's "Fast Money" voiced his frustration with the entire global warming debate as it stood in the wake of this record-setting winter weather event. Ratigan suggested neither side should use the crippling snowfall as evidence to further their respective arguments. However he did direct the lion's share of his criticism at conservatives.

"The weather we know is frightful, but my goodness me, so is the political back-and-forth over climate change in the context of these storms that are hitting D.C. especially," Ratigan said. "Both sides trying to use hometown ‘snowpocalypse' as free advertising for their chosen position on climate change, baby. Conservatives today, using the blizzard to pull a snow job on Al Gore and his liberal brethren. From South Carolina, Sen. Jim DeMint says quote, ‘It's going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries uncle.' That was a good one. Meanwhile, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asks ‘Where is Al Gore now?'"

Of course Ratigan took the obligatory contemptuous shot at MSNBC punching bag Sarah Palin.

"And not to be outdone, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin - I like to call her Professor Palin - calling the idea that the snow can be tied to global warming, ‘a bunch of snake oil science,' as long as we have her professional opinion. And, we're even taking hits here at the D.R. show for a story we ran the other day busting the GOP for an ad along the exact same lines of the rhetoric I just shared with you."

Ratigan appeared be very concerned about being called out by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"Rush Limbaugh - taking me on by name today, even though I actually don't subscribe to either of the theories - liberals or conservatives," Ratigan said, was wrong because Ratigan contended that he was just the messenger.

"Now, Rush, what you failed to point out or maybe you missed it, I don't know, was that at no time did I ever agree with either side of the debate," Ratigan said. "I was simply reporting a scientific fact that some scientists say that higher air temperatures, when the air mass is warmer it can retain more moisture and as a result these scientists believe that the warmer air mass, which retains more moisture, may subsequently offer more precipitant. That a word? I believe it is - precipitation, something that would fall from the sky. There will be more of it as a result of the retained moisture."

And although he claimed not to have a dog in the fight, his choice of words argued otherwise.

"These exact types of storms may reflect that," Ratigan suggested. "I honestly have no idea. I was simply reporting that that is part of the science. So to the argue the snow is evidence there is not global warming borders on moronic. And yes, it is scientifically possible that overall warmer temperatures can cause more snow in some areas for that reason. I honestly don't know." [emphasis added]

So what does the host of "The Dylan Ratigan Show" actually believe? He's not sure.

"In fact here is my take - I don't necessarily agree with that being the case," Ratigan said. "That's just the theory on that side of the aisle. I believe along with most scientists that while there is strong data suggesting higher temperatures overall, it is far too complex to make any ironclad assumptions about how high they will get and what will happen because of them, good or bad."

And although Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has forced cap-and-trade legislation that would come at an estimated cost of up to $200 billion, or $1,761 per household, according to the Treasury Department through the U.S. House of Representatives that is now pending in the U.S. Senate, Ratigan urged everyone "cool off" and take a harder look when more data is available. He failed to criticize the alarmists the Left who are insisting immediate and urgent action on the climate change issue.

"Look at the weather guy," Ratigan said. "They have a hard time forecasting ten days in front of us because of all the complex variables that go into what happens on this earth. So, how can we make trustworthy predictions about what could happen 20 years from now? Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at the issue closely. One thing that is clear is that this political debate about climate change needs to cool off a little bit until perhaps we have a touch more data and a little more rational thought, especially when both sides are claiming victory off of one or two random snowstorms."

And the MSNBC host had a parting shot and challenge for Limbaugh.

"As for Mr. Limbaugh, I would be delighted to come on your show and explain this to you directly," Ratigan said. "Or if you prefer, you're more than welcome to come on here anytime you want, phone in or whatever you're into - unless of course you have an issue with direct engagement on these types of issues where you actually deal in fact. Something to think about."

With Washington, D.C. buried beneath at least 20 inches of snow, and with more in the forecast, common sense would suggest global warming alarmists look elsewhere to make the argument to raise awareness for their concerns.

But no, Dylan Ratigan thinks it's ridiculous to suggest all the snowfall totals could cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming. On MSNBC's Feb. 8 "The Dylan Ratigan Show," Ratigan criticized those who would dare express misgivings about climate change based on the so-called "snowpocalypse."

"Here's the problem - these ‘snowpocalypses' that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming," Ratigan said.

In fact, Ratigan told viewers during the "Busted" segment of his program, that the heavy snowfall totals were evidence of global warming.

"Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature," Ratigan said. "And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming - thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year." [Emphasis added]

Ratigan criticized a TV spot by Virginia Republicans designed to ridicule proposed climate change policies that could hurt the state's job situation. He suggested there was some sort of schism in that state's GOP because the Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell has said global warming is potentially an issue.

"On a side note, Virginia's newly elected Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell says he accepts the science that is out there and warned that planet warming is quote, ‘a real concern.' So I don't know where the Virginia GOP is at, maybe they don't know the science, or maybe they want to win at any cost. I don't know, maybe they just wanted to make a commercial."

It ain't easy being a laid-off hack leftist cartoonist with a penchant for slandering 9/11 widows and equating U.S. soldiers with suicide bombers. But Ted Rall got a big break on Friday when he got a chance to do a fundraising pitch for his planned trip to Afghanistan as an "unembedded" journalist.

On his January 29 program, MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan introduced Rall as "an award-winning cartoonist who caught our eye with cartoons like this one showing some Wall Street types chatting about President Obama's bank tax."

But Ratigan must be ignorant of or apathetic regarding Rall's penchant for soldier-smearing left-wing screeds. After all, he all but personally endorsed Rall's fundraising pitch (audio available here):

RATIGAN: You're also a writer and a journalist who's reported from places like Afghanistan. Newspapers and magazines no longer put much money up for this type of work, so you're now using public donations to finance your journalism? How does that work?

RALL: Well, there's a Web site called kickstarter.com that I've been using to ask for donations, pledges, to help send me back to Afghanistan this summer, to do some independent, unembedded journalism of the kind that I think is sorely missing, especially since so many magazines, as you said, just don't have the money anymore. 

RATIGAN: Alright, kickstarter.com.  Ted, a pleasure, thank you so much.

At the top of Friday’s Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, the show announcer teased a story on President Obama speaking a meeting of House Republicans in Baltimore: “What will Republicans do with President Obama’s olive branch? He’s reaching out to the GOP yet again, despite a year of push backs and criticisms. Is he being naive or crazy like a fox?”  

Moments later, host Dylan Ratigan made a biblical reference to explain Obama’s supposedly gracious gesture: “We begin today with a biblical story of Noah and the floods....he sent a dove....To look for dry land after a great flood had wiped out the Earth. The dove returned with an olive branch.” Ratigan then observed: “the President tried the same approach. Especially...with the Republicans.”

After playing a clip of the President calling for bipartisanship in the State of the Union speech, Ratigan argued: “So if the President thought that meant Republicans would start jumping onboard his boat? He thought wrong. They’ve taken his olive branch and are now using it to hit back against his agenda.”

Ratigan went to complain that the congressional GOP “Yesterday alone...voted no on two Obama proposals.” For not rubber stamping proposals such as raising the debt ceiling to accommodate out-of-control spending, Ratigan concluded that Republicans: “often vote no for no reason other than voting no.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

4:00PM TEASE:

BARACK OBAMA: You know what they say, keep your friends close, but visit the Republican caucus every few months.

ANNOUNCER: In America today, what will Republicans do with President Obama’s olive branch? He’s reaching out to the GOP yet again, despite a year of push backs and criticisms. Is he being naive or crazy like a fox? And what will it do for the gridlock in Washington?

4:00PM SEGMENT:

DYLAN RATIGAN: We begin today with a biblical story of Noah and the floods. Yes, I’m not kidding. How it relates to what is happening in America today. As the Noah story goes, he sent a dove, you see the dove there? To look for dry land after a great flood had wiped out the Earth. The dove returned with an olive branch, like the one I have in my hand, or the lovely one you see depicted on the screen. A sign of reconciliation, a gesture of goodwill, a symbol for a second chance. During the President’s State of the Union speech the other night, the President tried the same approach. Especially, not only with the Congress, but with the Republicans.

BARACK OBAMA: We face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope, what they deserve, is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences.

RATIGAN: So if the President thought that meant Republicans would start jumping onboard his boat? He thought wrong. They’ve taken his olive branch and are now using it to hit back against his agenda. Yesterday alone Republicans voted no on two Obama proposals. The Senate passing a bill to extend the federal debt ceiling, because effectively at this point they’ve boxed themselves into a corner and have no choice. All the nos coming from the Republicans. On the bill requiring Congress not to pass any legislation that we can’t pay for, so-called PayGo, that, 40 nos. All from the GOP. And Republican leaders already saying no to using billions in bailout money to create tax credits for small businesses. I am not passing judgment on whether they were right or wrong to vote no. But I am making a point that they often vote no for no reason other than voting no. Today the President met with House Republicans at their conference in their house in Baltimore, and delivered a firm and compelling message. Our future, he says, should not be shaped by what is best for your party’s politics, whether you are a lefty or a righty. Our politics should be shaped by what is the best policy for America.

OBAMA: And I don’t believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. They didn’t send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel cage match to see who comes out alive.

RATIGAN: Back to Noah and the great flood. The goal was to wipe sin and wickedness off the Earth. Or so God proclaimed with the flood. Well, in 2010, it won’t be God. A similar movement is taking shape in this country. Either politicians will change their ways and start working for the people and show us a process that proves that fact, transparent, back-room deals gone, earmarks disclosed, voice votes see you later, or the American people will go to the polls and wipe all of these politicians out of Washington and replace them with people that will take our country into the 21st century.

As NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard reported on Saturday, on Friday’s Morning Meeting program on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan got into a shouting match with Democratic Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz over health care legislation. On Monday, he apologized for the outburst: “...the way I went about that on Friday was a disservice to our viewers....I have some work to do.”

Ratigan’s heated exchange with Schultz stemmed from his anger over the Senate health care bill not being liberal enough. On Friday, he declared: “It basically allows the taxpayer to take the hit to pay for the uninsured, but it does not deal with the underlying symptom as to why there are so many uninsured...[P]art of the problem in this country is that our politicians do not understand that they make laws that create total imbalances.”

Schultz attempted to address the issue, but Ratigan repeatedly cut her off. On Monday he described one viewer’s reaction: “The way I conducted the interview has been called many things, but I’ll sum it up with a tweet from a woman known only as DianeG12, and I quote, ‘Dylan was very rude!’” He then admitted: “yes, DianeG12, I was and I want to apologize to the Congresswoman and to our viewers for that.”

Ratigan concluded his statement by promising: “...as we go into the new year and our new 4pm time slot, we will continue to hold our nation’s leaders accountable and I will do everything I can do to do that in an informative, factual, understandable, and enlightening way.” As he handed news coverage over to host Contessa Brewer for the next hour, Brewer remarked: “Sounds like a New Year’s resolution to me, Dylan.” Ratigan replied: “And that it is.”

Here is a full transcript of Ratigan’s apology:

9:53AM

DYLAN RATIGAN: Alright, welcome back. By now many of you either have seen or heard our interview on Friday with Congressman Deborah Wasserman Schultz. Both of us, of course, myself and the Congresswoman, lament that currently it appears that any bill that gets to the President’s desk on health care will not have real choice or real reform for the American people.

But what came out in the interview is my incredible frustration over what Democrat Howard Dean calls a bigger bailout for insurance companies than the one given to AIG. A bill that forces 44 million people to buy health insurance under penalty of law but does nothing to break up the insurance monopoly that would create choice and consumers and introduce real reform in America.

The way I conducted the interview has been called many things, but I’ll sum it up with a tweet from a woman known only as DianeG12, and I quote, ‘Dylan was very rude!’ and, yes, DianeG12, I was and I want to apologize to the Congresswoman and to our viewers for that. Our mission and my mission on this show is to shine the light on what is really happening, whether it’s health care, the banks, or a war in the Middle East. And the way I went about that on Friday was a disservice to our viewers because it got in the way of doing just that.

I have some work to do, and as we go into the new year and our new 4pm time slot, we will continue to hold our nation’s leaders accountable and I will do everything I can do to do that in an informative, factual, understandable, and enlightening way. That is it for us for today. Contessa Brewer is up next. Contessa, what do you have cooking?

CONTESSA BREWER: Sounds like a New Year’s resolution to me, Dylan.
                
RATIGAN: And that it is.

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan on Friday got into a very heated discussion about healthcare reform with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) that resulted in the "Morning Meeting" host abruptly ending his interview with her and moving on to another guest.

After Schultz spouted the usual Democrat talking points about the benefits of healthcare reform legislation currently before Congress, Ratigan pointed out that forcing people to buy health insurance without actually increasing the amount of competition in the marketplace is not a sound financial idea:

It basically allows the taxpayer to take the hit to pay for the uninsured, but it does not deal with the underlying symptom as to why there are so many uninsured...[P]art of the problem in this country is that our politicians do not understand that they make laws that create total imbalances.

Despite Ratigan's left-leaning views, the points he made during this segment have been largely ignored by Obama-loving media that have been doing their darnedest to get healthcare reform legislation passed with total disregard for what any of the bills being discussed actually do (video embedded below the fold with rough transcript, h/t Allahpundit):

DYLAN RATIGAN, HOST: Are the Democrats at this point terrified to not get something? In other words, is there a pressure before you go home for recess to know that you're going to be able to go home and talk about passing some form of healthcare?

After Schultz gave an astonishingly disingenuous, stock answer filled with the usual Democrat talking points, Ratigan countered:

RATIGAN: So, here's a couple of the issues that come up I would love to get your response to, and I want to show you this, and you can explain it to me. As you know, in addition to everything you just described, this does very little to bring real competition and choice into the insurance marketplace. It does very little to reform the insurance monopolies. It does very little to create more choices for everybody in America for their healthcare. But at the same time, it mandates that everybody in America face penalties if they don't buy healthcare.

So the result of that has been the following: you know the monopoly scenario. I want you to take a look at the insurance stocks in this country on news that a bill may be passed that mandates the creation of millions of new customers but does not reform the monopoly structure. Take a look at the insurance stocks since November 17th. WellPoint up thirteen percent, that's over a course of a few weeks, United Health up ten percent, Aetna up twelve percent, Humana up six percent. Those health insurance companies are up because being an unreformed oligopoly, monopoly, and having now the benefit of a government that is assigning the expense of covering the uninsured without reforming the monopoly. It basically allows the taxpayer to take the hit to pay for the uninsured, but it does not deal with the underlying symptom as to why there are so many uninsured, which is we have an unreformed private insurance monopoly in this country that is now being guaranteed more customers by the government. Why is that a good thing for America?

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, (D-FLA.): Dylan, when this bill passes and becomes law, life in America for insurance companies is going to be, you know, very different than it is today.

RATIGAN: Apparently so. Apparently it's worth again another ten percent in their stock --

SCHULTZ: Come on, Dylan. Come on, Dylan.

RATIGAN: What do you mean -- what do you mean, "Come on, Dylan?" Are you telling me Wall Street is so stupid that they bid up the insurance stocks ten to fifteen percent because they're morons? Why are the stocks up?

SCHULTZ: I'd love an opportunity to answer your question.

RATIGAN: Go nuts.

SCHULTZ: Because we are going to shift the insurance company focused healthcare reform system to a consumer-focused system. Yes, I would have loved to see...

RATIGAN: Hold on. How is it a consumer-focused system --

SCHULTZ: Okay.

RATIGAN: -- for you to mandate by law that people buy health insurance --

SCHULTZ: Dylan, you're not letting me answer.

RATIGAN: -- without giving them more choices? How is that --

SCHULTZ: Dylan, if you'll let me answer the question.

RATIGAN: That is business driven, If I can pass a law to force everybody to watch my TV show and not let them -- have the government make it so you can't change the channel? How's that, that's what we're doing with health insurance.

SCHULTZ: There's not much point in having me on if you're not going to let me respond. I would actually like to tell you if you would let me speak.

RATIGAN: I'm all ears, if you actually answer my question.

SCHULTZ: Thank you. I'd be glad too.

RATIGAN: Why are the insurance company stocks all up? That's my question.

SCHULTZ: I am not a stock analyst.

RATIGAN: I am. I am a stock analyst. Let me give you a brief education. Stock prices go up...

SCHULTZ: Dylan, let me answer your question.

RATIGAN: No, why are those stocks up? I'll tell you why those stocks are up. Because stocks go up when companies are perceived to make more money in the future.

SCHULTZ: You could be your own guest. Okay, Dylan. This is the most significant reform of the health care system in history. We are shifting the insurance companies -- the focus on insurance companies --

RATIGAN: You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question. I don't have the time for it. I don't have the time for you to come do talking points because it makes you feel good.

SCHULTZ: And you should bring a stock analyst on your show.

RATIGAN: If you want to answer my questions, I'd love to have you on. If you want to do Democrat or Republican talking points, you should go on a show where you do Democrat or Republican talking points.

SCHULTZ: Well --

RATIGAN: Thank you so much. That's it.

SCHULTZ: If you want to have someone analyze stocks, bring someone from Wall Street on your show.

RATIGAN: No, I don't want anyone to analyze stocks, but I hate to tell you the stock market reflects reality, and when health insurance companies explode higher by 10 percent on a piece of legislative news, it's because you and the politicians in this country have created legislation that is guaranteeing they make more money. And part of the problem in this country is that our politicians do not understand that they make laws that create total imbalances. This is a waste of time. Wendell Potter on the phone, senior - Debbie, thank you so much - senior fellow for healthcare reform...

Outstanding. Absolutely outstanding.

Of course, I don't agree with Ratigan's stance on healthcare reform. However, the point he made was spot on: those pushing the current legislation don't have any idea how it's going to impact the marketplace, and they don't care.

This is all about getting a victory for Obama and the Democrats moving into next year's crucial elections, and the merits of the bills before Congress are irrelevant.

In the end, if more television hosts and anchors grilled Democrat politicians the way Ratigan grilled Schultz, we'd have a far more informed electorate, and maybe far more knowledgeable political officials.

After all, we're quite used to Republicans being questioned this way by liberal "journalists." Wasn't it nice to see a Democrat get treated like this on a network not beginning with the letter "F"?

In fact, if this happened more often, it would be less easy to accuse media members of bias when they treated Republicans so mercilessly.

Bravo, Dylan! Bravo! 

Some of the clearest examples of MSNBC’s liberal bias can be found in the onscreen graphics selected for the network’s programming. In the span of 20 minutes on Tuesday, three such Morning Meeting images stated a pretty clear opinion about Joe Lieberman’s opposition to parts of the health care bill. At 9:20am, one whined, "Joe Blowing Health Reform?"

At 9:01, another graphic actually used an exclamation point, not often seen in supposedly objective reporting: "Say It Ain’t So, Joe! Lieberman: No on Buy-In." At 9:14, a picture of the senator appeared onscreen with the words "THE SPOILER."

At 9:20, host Dylan Ratigan interviewed Ned Lamont, the Democratic candidate that liberals supported in the 2006 primary against the Connecticut Senator. Fellow guest Jonathan Capehart, the liberal editorial writer for the Washington Post, mused about less honorable reasons as to why Lieberman might oppose lowering the age of Medicare.

He speculated, "Mr. Lamont, can you put to rest one thing I've seen in the press? and that is maybe one of the reasons why Senator Lieberman is flip-flopping all over the place on this is because of the insurance interests in Connecticut. Do you think that that is a valid point or a valid criticism?"

In an earlier tease for the segment, Ratigan wondered if this was "revenge" on the part of Lieberman. Clearly, MSNBC is not happy with the possibility that Lieberman could derail or water down the possibility of government-run health care.

A transcript of the December 15 segment, which aired at 9:20am EST, follows:

9:01 graphic: Say It Ain’t So, Joe! Lieberman: No on Buy-In

9:14 graphic [Over picture of Lieberman]: The Spoiler

9:20 graphic: Joe Blowing Health Reform?

9:20

[Clips of Lieberman earlier saying he would reserve judgment on the expansion of Medicare.]

DYLAN RATIGAN: So you can see why many Democrats this morning are boiling with rage, pondering Lieberman's sudden about-face. Some are even asking the question, could it have anything to do with this man? Joining the Morning Meeting is Ned Lamont, who challenged Lieberman in 2006 for the U.S. Senate, and won, prompting Lieberman to leave the Democratic party. Lamont now exploring a run for governor. Also with us, Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post editorial writer. And Mr. Lamont, why do you think Senator Lieberman is making the decisions he's making right now?

NED LAMONT: Well, good morning, Dylan. Great to be with you. Look, I thought enator Lieberman made sense about the Medicare buy-in in 2004. During our campaign in 2006, he thought it was a good idea. You know, this is a state that is dead last in job creation and has some of the highest health care costs in the country. And the two are related. If you believe in job creation and growth, you've got to work on the health care costs. And as you pointed out just a few months ago, he reiterated his interest in this.

RATIGAN: But, why, why do you think the decision now, because again, Senator Klobuchar was just here, made a valid point. Listen, one of the issues of expanding Medicare without reforming some aspect of the pricing mechanism, where the pricing that you get as a doctor in Florida is very different than the pricing you get in Minnesota. And I’m not even sure that that’s Senator Lieberman's issue, but my point is there could be valid reason to talk about how you want to do this. I'm curious whether you feel like you have any insight as to whether Senator Lieberman's motives are those or are they more political, more gamesmanship?

LAMONT: I think he loves being in the cat bird seat , he loves being the 60th vote, loves having President Obama and others come to him. Look, there's no question that Medicare needs reform. And, you know, Senator Klobuchar's point that it's much more expensive in Miami than it is in Minnesota bears looking at. But, we do have folks, 55 to 65, that desperately need health insurance. It brings down costs for small businesses if they can buy in. We ought to support it. And something else Senator Klobuchar said, we're getting closer to the goal line. It's tough when Senator Lieberman keeps moving the goal line.

RATIGAN: Jonathan Capehart?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yeah. Mr. Lamont, can you put to rest one thing I've seen in the press? and that is maybe one of the reasons why Senator Lieberman is flip-flopping all over the place on this is because of the insurance interests in Connecticut. Do you think that that is a valid point or a valid criticism?

LAMONT: Look, I sure hope not. I would like to think that Senator Lieberman is doing it for principled reasons. But there's no question that he's been all over the map on this and we have a strong health care insurance industry here in the state. But, I think he's got to listen to all the people of the state of Connecticut, because most of us feel strongly that the Medicare buy-in is a reasonable compromise that will bring down health care costs for all of us.

RATIGAN: All right. Ned, a pleasure. Thanks for giving us a moment of your morning. Ned Lamont talking health care out of Connecticut.

Dylan Ratigan (file photo at right), whose bias and occasional forays into balanced journalism have both been documented at NewsBusters, is set to gain an afternoon slot in 2010, according to Chris Ariens of TVNewser:

MSNBC's "Morning Meeting" is about to get an afternoon edition.

TVNewser has learned that starting Monday, host Dylan Ratigan will be on for one hour, 9am ET only, so he and the team can prepare for a move to the afternoon after the first of the year.

Back on November 11, Ariens reported:

"Morning Meeting," the two hour show hosted by Dylan Ratigan, may be split, with one hour in the morning and another in the afternoon. It's not determined which hour Ratigan might take over, but one scenario puts him at 4pmET, leading in to "Hardball." He could also land at 3pmET, which is one of the hours he anchored at CNBC until earlier this year.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Friday aggressively took on the subject of ClimateGate, informing a global warming scientist that the "perceived integrity of what you are saying is diminished by scientists who appear to be hiding something." If MSNBC can debate this serious subject, why have the three major networks ignored it for 14 days? [Audio available here.]

The Morning Meeting host brought on Yale scientist Dan Esty and Michael Shermer, executive director of the Skeptic Society, to debate the revelation that hacked E-mails to a climate change institute show a willingness to fake data. An appalled Ratigan continued, "Because, then, the veil of suspicion or the eye of suspicion is cast upon the entire data set when a certain number of scientists- who are trying to retain their particular political power or role as meaningful advocate and feel threatened by the truth- that hurts the integrity of everything."

During the segment, Esty repeatedly asserted that, despite the revelations, the overall science is sound. He did allow that those who fake data should be "condemned." That wasn’t enough for Ratigan. He quickly retorted, "Not only condemned, but punished and eliminated from the conversation. If you want to have a clean data set, you don't keep bad data as a scientist inside your Petri dishes. You just don't."

The cable host concluded, "Otherwise it’s not science." At other points, he made his opinion clear. Ratigan cited a poll that shows the number of people who think global warming is a serious threat has dropped from 71 percent to 57. As an aside, he dismissed, "Although, I’m not sure that a poll- it's not science. But then again, maybe the science isn't science."

If someone such as Mr. Ratigan, who generally reports stories from the left, can muster outrage and disgust at climate change fakery, then why can’t the anchors and journalists at NBC, CBS and ABC?

A transcript of the December 4 segment, which aired at 10:30am EST, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: So-called climate gate. Allegations that scientists have been fudging climate change data in order to support their specific case. It's now threatening to overshadow Monday's start of a U.N. summit on the very subject. NBC News the first to break the news that president Obama will be there along with Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Chrystia Freeland here speculating that the reason they gave Obama that Nobel Prize was to try and box him into going to this summit. One interpretation. Others, obviously, a bit less conspiratorial. But the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. All of the attendees will have to grapple with serious new questions, however you cut it, that suggests research about the dire straits of our Earth is all science fiction. The U.N. says it's looking into dozens of hacked e-mails from renowned scientists. One message encourages those scientists to dodge any freedom of information requests about their research. In light of the science scandal, two members of the Academy, want Al Gore to give his Oscar back. They say his winning film was, An Inconvenient Truth, was in fact, based on scientific lies. But wait, there's more. More evidence of an increasingly skeptical public. A Pew Research poll finds just 57 percent of Americans now think global warming is a serious threat. That is down from 71 percent last spring. Although, I’m not sure that a poll- it's not science. But then again, maybe the science isn't science. Talk about an inconvenient truth for climate change activists. Joining the meeting to talk about now is Dan Esty, Yale University researcher and climate change expert. He served as an environmental expert to President Obama. And from our Burbank bureau, certified skeptic Michael Shermer. He’s the executive director of the Skeptics Society. Dan, what is your perspective on the criticism of the data that's being presented knowing that we're, obviously, dealing with imperfect information? We don't know everything there is to know but we have new, sort of, criticism. How do you respond to it?

DAN ESTY (Yale University): Well, it's true we don't know everything there is no to know about science and the science of climate change but that’s not news to people who have been in this policy debate for some time. And I think it's been clear that good scientific background is quite clear on what we know with certainty and what we know with less certainty.

RATIGAN: Right. I guess the concern here is- Is there evidence- And I look at the Australian parliament and their decision to get rid of their carbon vote, the way it was structured, because of they felt there was corruption in the quality of science. In other words, is the-

ESTY: Let's not overstate that.

RATIGAN: Please, put it in context. I don’t want to misrepresent it.

ESTY: Yeah- No. There has been debate in Australia and New Zealand and other places whether to go forward with action now or wait for the United States in a global treaty. So, I think that is the context for this. But it is fair to say that this is not a good way to do science. A good science requires people to put their data out in the public, to allow others to review a it and take on critique. And that’s the kind of work that I have always done at Yale. And I think that is the way good science is done. And that you accept there will be uncertainties, that you're clear about what is anomalous, what doesn't fit your theory and lay it out there and then work with it. And life is messy. So is climate science. But, that is, in fact, the right way to go forward and I think what you have to understand here, the basic story hasn't changed. We know that the greenhouse effect is real. We know that the level of greenhouse gas emissions has risen from pre-industrial times. And we're less certainly, frankly, about the speed in which climate change might occur and magnitude it might occur and the regional distribution of harm would be.

RATIGAN: Last question and then, Michael, I’m getting you in here. But, what about those who wonder whether there’s a self correcting aspect?

ESTY: What do you mean by a self correcting aspect?

RATIGAN: Meaning that the atmosphere itself and that the Earth itself will correct for this?

ESTY: No. I think there is, in fact, a lot of work being done on issues like that and try to study some of the magnifiers or blunters of potential climate change, things like the ocean and like clouds. So, there is work being done. A lot of effort being put into that but, again, the basic story here is quite clear there is an issue of concern, how quickly it might hit us, who might get hit hardest is uncertain. But you don't wait for the house to burn down to buy insurance. And that is really what this climate negotiation next week is about, getting a global action plan in place that helps ensure that we take this problem seriously.

RATIGAN: Understood. Michael Shermer, when you look at this whole debate, what makes you the most skeptical?

MICHAEL SHERMER (The Skeptic Society): Well, I used to be a global warming skeptic and largely come around to the science. I think we could tease it apart in five different questions. Is the Earth getting warmer? The data is pretty strong on that, yes. Is the warming due primarily to human causes? Again, the data is pretty strong on that, that that is, in fact, the case although there may be some natural causes as well. Three, how much warmer is it going to get? Well, what is the time horizon? 50 Years, a hundred years, 500 years? And the further out on the time horizon we go, the greater the error bars on our estimates gets. So, it's harder and harder to say. So, here, it's okay to be a little more skeptical. And then, four, what should we do about it? I mean, what are the consequences going to be and so on. There, the error bars are pretty wide and there is room for debate, I think, on how much money we should spend depending on how much warmer we think it's going to get and what its consequences will be.

RATIGAN: Thank you both.

SHERMER: On the e-mails-

RATIGAN: Go ahead. Real quick on E-mails and also on resistance to revealing the data set to everybody as a good scientist theoretically would, if they are going to assert a conclusion that alters global policy.

ESTY: Well, let me just say you really do want to have your debate out in the public. You want to lay out your theory and present the evidence in favor and identify the weaknesses in your case and let that debate go forward.

RATIGAN: I get that. But a refusal to do that in those E-mails, Michael, that suggest a resistance to FOIA requests and the like to that data set suggest there could be another motive for the science, Michael.

SHERMER: Yep. I worry about that. The E-mails didn't have the smoking guns that I thought they would but show that scientists are politically motivated, just like everybody else. And I do- I am concerned about the strong left leaning nature of many scientists and we need to be more open with the data and get politics out of the debate, if possible. It's not possible completely, but I think- I agree we should publish all of the data and let everybody have a look at it. Too many cover-ups imply conspiracy and that leads- makes people very paranoid about the whole issue of climate change.

ESTY: But, lets be fair. There have been hundreds of scientists involved in this debate and the fact that a few of them have confused that role of advocate with scientific researcher doesn't in any way diminish the underlying science which you laid out very clearly.

SHERMER: Well, that’s right.

ESTY: And I think it was a fair demonstration and it does highlight the real debate shouldn't be about the science there is some uncertainty but enough clarity to take action. The debate should be around what policy response and real questions there that should be debated.

RATIGAN: To the extent which that all has integrity, the perceived integrity of what you are saying is diminished by scientists who appear to be hiding something. Because, then, the veil of suspicion or the eye of suspicion is cast upon the entire data set when a certain number of scientists- who are trying to retain their particular political power or role as meaningful advocate and feel threatened by the truth- that hurts the integrity of everything.

ESTY: That's true. I think we should be very clear this is an area where we need to be open, we need to be transparent and we need to lay out the story. People can argue their case, but I think that the fundamentals here don't change and the basic consensus remains very strong across hundreds of scientists and there will, of course, some that don't follow good procedure and we should condemn that.

RATIGAN: Not only condemned, but punished and eliminated from the conversation. If you want to have a clean data set, you don't keep bad data as a scientist inside your Petri dishes. You just don't.

ESTY: You reveal where things don’t fit.

SHERMER: That’s true.

RATIGAN: Otherwise it’s not science.

Citing a Democratic congressman who recently proposed a no whining day, on Friday’s Morning Meeting on MSNBC, host Dylan Ratigan asked: “...unemployment, health care, a couple of wars, Americans got plenty to be frustrated about these days...But some people say stop the whining....Is ‘shut up and deal’ the new American mantra?”

Ratigan made that question the topic of discussion for the ‘Trend or Talker’ segment near the end of 9:00AM ET hour of the show with correspondent Contessa Brewer and Financial Times U.S. managing editor Chrystia Freeland. Ratigan explained: “...the congressman, by the name of Emmanuel Cleaver, wants to declare the day before Thanksgiving complaint-free Wednesday.” He wondered: “Worthy proposition?”

Brewer replied: “Yeah, absolutely. Here you get a two-fer. No complaints on Wednesday and Thursday gives you something to be grateful for.” Freeland enthusiastically agreed with the idea: “I think the no whining day is a fabulous idea....What they say in preschools, you get what you get and don’t get upset.”

At the end of the segment, Ratigan asked Brewer and Freeland if the no whining push was a trend or a ‘talker.’ Brewer replied: “The griping continues, it’s a talker.” Freeland disagreed: “It is a trend and it’s related to your favorite subject, Dylan, the economy. Just as the depression generation was a lot tougher than kids of affluence like us who are whiners, maybe the recession will make us tougher.”

In response, Brewer remarked: “Who are you calling a whiner?” Freeland explained: “Generation X, we are, we grew up with everything.” Ratigan admitted: “She’s calling me a whiner....guilty. I’m just whining about the massive generational theft, mind you, but otherwise, you know, I’m going to shut up and deal.” Freeland absolved Ratigan of his daily whining: “That’s not whining, that’s reasoned politics.”

While MSNBC was more than willing to label Americans as “whiners” in the midst of various challenges confronting the Obama administration, when John McCain’s economic advisor Phil Gramm referred to America as a “nation of whiners” during the 2008 presidential campaign, the cable network bashed him for it. Hardball host Chris Matthews opened his July 10, 2008 show by declaring: “McCain’s ‘brain’ calls recession a mental problem, that we’re all just a nation of whiners. But is it smart politics to blame the voter?”

Here is a full transcript of the Friday Morning Meeting segment:

9:53AM

DYLAN RATIGAN: Alright. Time now for a little ‘Trend or Talker.’ Chrystia Freeland joining the conversation, nice to see you, how are you? You’re looking very holiday, actually, today.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Yeah, I guess because we’re moving into Thanksgiving.

RATIGAN: Yeah. No, it’s appropriate, it’s very nice.

CONTESSA BREWER: Yeah, well it is the holidays.

RATIGAN: Alright, well, today’s ‘Trend or Talker,’ unemployment, health care, a couple of wars, Americans got plenty to be frustrated about these days. Unemployment, mortgages, da, da, da. But some people say stop the whining. Time for today’s ‘Trend or Talker.’ Is ‘shut up and deal’ the new American mantra? Joining the meeting with some answers, Chrystia Freeland, Contessa Brewer. They are answer-laden, shall we say. First up, a Missouri lawmaker wants Americans to stop complaining, in fact, he’s actually presented a proposal to the House of Representatives. In it, the congressman, by the name of Emmanuel Cleaver, wants to declare the day before Thanksgiving complaint-free Wednesday. Chrystia’s already nodding. So what about the economy, foreclosures, banks, profits, stealing, taxpayers. Well, on Wednesday, Cleaver says ‘ah, put a sock in it!’ I’ll take him up on that. Worthy proposition?

BREWER: Yeah, absolutely. Here you get a two-fer. No complaints on Wednesday and Thursday gives you something to be grateful for. You’re grateful for a day where you can complain about everything.

RATIGAN: Two good days. Alright, next, the ad wars getting ugly as AT&T loses a legal battle with Verizon. AT&T wanted Verizon’s ‘there’s a map for that’ ads yanked off the air.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN [COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER]: And if you want to know why some people have spotty 3G coverage, there’s a map for that, too.

RATIGAN: Well, at issue, the map showing Verizon has much wider coverage than AT&T. AT&T says they’re blatantly false. Verizon’s response don’t shoot the messenger. The map is true. Truth in advertising? Is this valid?

FREELAND: Well, I think it’s a matter of fact, right?

RATIGAN: Yeah, it is.

FREELAND: So-

RATIGAN: Shut up and deal.

BREWER: Yeah.

FREELAND: Shut up and deal. And I think the no whining day is a fabulous idea. Every mother in the country will agree with it.

RATIGAN: Will sign on.

BREWER: Good luck with that.

FREELAND: What they say in preschools, you get what you get and don’t get upset.

RATIGAN: Shut up and deal.

FREELAND: Good cultural moment.

RATIGAN: I like it, you get what you get, don’t get upset.

BREWER: You can’t say that to preschoolers though.

FREELAND: That’s what they say. No, it’s what they say It’s the mantra for preschool.

BREWER: No, but Dylan’s trying to say ‘shut up and deal,’ I don’t think-

RATIGAN: Would they bring me in if I just said ‘shut up and deal’? That wouldn’t work?

FREELAND: No, that’s not good.  

RATIGAN: No, alright. Finally, this week, a former Republican tells his former colleagues to quit complaining about the Guantanamo detainees coming to the U.S. for trial. Bob Barr, 2008 libertarian candidate for president, supports the decision to transfer the terror suspects to federal prisons. He says the GOP needs to stop scare-mongering. Barr, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and Grover Norqist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, say prominent Republicans should stop whining and fretting over the notion that dangerous terrorists could end up on American soil. So is indeed ‘shut up and deal’ the new mantra, Contessa?

BREWER: The griping continues, it’s a talker.

RATIGAN: Can we get this into the lexicon, ‘shut up and deal’?

FREELAND: Yes we can. It is a trend and it’s related to your favorite subject, Dylan, the economy. Just as the depression generation was a lot tougher than kids of affluence like us who are whiners, maybe the recession will make us tougher.

BREWER: Who are you calling a whiner?

RATIGAN: Yeah. She’s calling me a whiner.

FREELAND: Generation X, we are, we grew up with everything.

RATIGAN: Absolutely. Guilty, guilty. I’m just whining about the massive generational theft, mind you, but otherwise, you know, I’m going to shut up and deal.

FREELAND: That’s not whining, that’s reasoned politics.

RATIGAN: That’s reasoning politics. I'm going to spend some time with Chrystia so I can figure out-

BREWER: What is okay and what’s not.

RATIGAN: Yeah, she’s good with this.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan apologized on Monday for using photoshopped images of Sarah Palin firing a gun while wearing a bikini. The pictures, which were first brought to light on NewsBusters, appeared during a November 13 segment on the former governor and also included a doctored photo of the Republican in a black mini-skirt.

The Morning Meeting host explained, "I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin's upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment."

Calling the use of such faked images "unacceptable," Ratigan continued: "We should have never used those photos in the first place and you can rest assured we spent the weekend and Friday afternoon taking measures to make sure it will never happen again. I apologize."

It’s encouraging that Ratigan promptly apologized, especially given that many on his own network criticized Fox News’ Sean Hannity for taking video images from the 9/12 health care protest and then portraying the footage as from a more recent tea party event. (Hannity quickly noted the error on-air.)

[Thanks to MRC intern Mike Sargent for the video.]

A transcript of the November 16 apology, which aired at 9:18am EST, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Before we begin this one, I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin’s upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment. And on behalf of the show, I would like to say that this was completely unacceptable. We should have never used those photos in the first place and you can rest assured we spent the weekend and Friday afternoon taking measures to make sure it will never happen again. I apologize.

On Friday's edition of Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan featured fake photos of Sarah Palin during a mocking segment on why Americans are fascinated with the former vice presidential candidate. While listing the show’s top ten reasons, Ratigan showed a doctored photo of Palin’s head on the bikini-clad body of a woman holding a weapon.

The host never admitted or addressed the fact that his network was passing off counterfeit pictures to his viewers. Earlier in the segment, Ratigan displayed an image of Palin in a short, black mini-skirt. This photo is also not real. MSNBC should immediately apologize for presenting such false information.

It's important to remember, several hosts on the network, including Chris Matthews, have mocked Fox News host Sean Hannity for taking video images from the 9/12 rally and then portraying the footage as from a more recent tea party event. After it was brought to his attention, Hannity apologized on Wednesday. How long will it take MSNBC?  

During the segment, Ratigan repeatedly and dismissively referred to Palin’s looks. One reason he mentioned for the Republican’s popularity: "She’s also very hot." Talking to a fellow MSNBC host, he wondered, "Hey, listen. That's big, wouldn't you say, Contessa [Brewer]?"

Ratigan began the piece by acknowledging, "I could not feel more stupid doing what I'm about to do, which is make fun of Sarah Palin." He also touted the, supposed, main reason for Palin’s draw: "Number one...she has family drama that makes you feel better about your own."

Time magazine Jay Newton Small sneered, "Well, certainly her headlines are more suited to People magazine than, say, Time magazine these days."

Although there were some positive comments about Palin during the segment, there is no excuse for MSNBC to use false and doctored information on air. How will the network remedy this situation?

For more information on the fake photos, see Snopes.com and Patterico.com.

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 10:36am EST, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: [Pivoting off of a serious story by Contessa Brewer]: And having digested everything you just said, I could not feel more stupid doing what I'm about to do, which is make fun of Sarah Palin. So I feel peculiar right now is the truth, because I feel like that is terrible and this is silly. I don't know what to do with that, quite honestly. So, I’m going to attempt to make the transition. But you can call our next segment Palin Palooza. Next week, in fact, you can expect to see the former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin everywhere. Her new book Going Rogue hits store shelves next week. And to drum up publicity, she is appearing on Oprah and launching on a 13 city book tour. Not that the book needs a big PR push, mind you. It’s already number one on Amazon’s book list of best sellers, which leads us to this question: What is it about Palin that drives America wild? We at the Morning Meeting have some ideas on why America is infatuated with Palin. And to have some fun, we have Time magazine writer Jay Small Newton. She covered Sarah Palin on the campaign trail and our own Contessa Brewer is with us as well. And, so, let us commence the conversation. [Reading off the Morning Meeting top ten list.] The tenth reason why she's people are so obsessed with her, Jay, we say is because we say she is the strongest man in the. Republican party. You agree with that?

JAY NEWTON SMALL: She is definitely the only superstar in the Republican Party has right now. She is the one drawing the crowds and the money.

RATIGAN: "She’s also very hot." [Fake photo of Sarah Palin in a bikini appears onscreen.]

NEWTON-SMALL: She's very pretty.

RATIGAN: Hey, listen. That's big, wouldn't you say, Contessa?

CONTESSA BREWER: You know what? Being attractive does not hurt.

RATIGAN: Yes. "She’s also the only member of the GOP that knows how to use Twitter and Facebook." That’s actually huge.

BREWER: I actually think that is one of her best features because she is authentic. American people see her as accessible and she is using the best tools at her disposable to reach out and communicate with the people who are her best audience.

RATIGAN: I'm going to burn through a couple more of these. Hang on, for a second. [Reads from Morning Meeting Top Ten list.] "Drill, baby, drill." I don't know what you have to say about that. "Ultimate capitalist. She’ll sell anything for anybody for any reason." "She does looks like Tina Fey which makes her more attractive." This one, I like, though, Jay. "No one else can wink and smile and rip an opponent all in one breath." Pretty good skill.

NEWTON-SMALL: Absolutely. She can- she has what they call the velvet stiletto. She can rip your heart out with a big smile and looking great about it.

RATIGAN: She also, of course, sticks to her guns.

BREWER: She tends to be pretty dynamic when she is on a particular topic.

RATIGAN: Number two, she is not Bush.

BREWER: Well, there is that. That helps anybody at this point! [A fake picture of Palin holding a rifle and wearing a bikini appears onscreen. Next to it is a real picture of Cheney with a gun.]

RATIGAN: Number one, Jay, she has family drama that makes you feel better about your own.

NEWTON-SMALL: Well, certainly her headlines are more suited to People magazine than, say, Time magazine these days. But, you know, she’s- it's fascinating to watch. Levi drama, the baby, is he going to reconcile with Bristol, are they going to get married or not?

BREWER: And how do you invite him to dinner after he poses for Playgirl?

RATIGAN: He's a hockey stud.

BREWER: I don’t really see it that way. And I’m not really sure that Sarah Palin would either.

RATIGAN: Everywhere that Sarah Palin goes, she’s going to have this hockey stud somewhere nearby posing.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan anchored a segment on Tuesday’s Morning Meeting that worried about the "far right" and wondered whether "super conservatives" are alienating "GOP centrists." The host hyperbolically spun, "But are the super conservatives of our country careening the GOP toward the edge of irrelevance, leaving centrists Republicans fighting for control of their own party?" Later, his colleague Contessa Brewer inadvertently referred to Florida conservative Marco Rubio as the "great white hope." (Mr. Rubio is Hispanic.) [Audio available here.]

Ignoring the fact that the Republican Party actually won impressive victories in last week’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, Brewer then cited liberal columnist Paul Krugman as an expert on the faltering Republican Party. Not identifying Krugman as a leftist, she touted his comparison of the California GOP as an obstructionist "rump" and quoted, "If this happens to the country as a whole, the country could become effectively ungovernable."

As Brewer discussed the Club for Growth and their endorsement of failed Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman in a New York congressional race, MSNBC graphics underlined the liberal alarm. One read, "Are Super Conservatives Alienating GOP Centrists?" Another declared, "Far Right Fights Health Bill." (MSNBC doesn’t often worry about the "far left.") Brewer, who on October 21 confused Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, made another verbal miscue on Tuesday.

Discussing Florida's Rubio and his Senate primary challenge to the liberal governor of that state, she described Rubio as "the great white hope."

The following exchange then occurred:

DYLAN RATIGAN [Off screen]: Is that the great white hope or the great right hope?

BREWER: Right. Did I say white?

RATIGAN: I- I- I- Maybe I misheard.

BREWER: The great right hope. Right. As in conservative.

RATIGAN: He is white. Okay.

After her blooper over Sharpton/Jackson, Brewer blamed the "script." Perhaps the teleprompter could be the problem this time?

A transcript of the November 10 segment, which aired at 10:30am EST, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Well, if anything, the Grand Old Party has proven its ability to make a point. You've seen the not-so-pleasant signs, but also the impressive turnout. But are the super conservatives of our country careening the GOP toward the edge of irrelevance, leaving centrists Republicans fighting for control of their own party? Contessa has the details. Hi, Contessa.

MSNBC GRAPHIC: Are Super Conservatives Alienating GOP Centrists?

CONTESSA BREWER: Hi, there, Dylan. An op-ed by Paul Krugman of the New York Times addressed this issue. In the article he uses California as an analogy. He says, "In California, the GOP has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing. But that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to the country as a whole, the country could become effectively ungovernable." [Pictures appear onscreen.] As for the signs you mentioned, like this one for the National Socialist Health Care. We can see piles of dead Holocaust victims here. Krugman called them grotesque and ominous. You remember this when images were used like it when the GOP stormed the Capitol, protesting the Democrat’s health care bill. Representative Michelle Bachmann inside of that blitz. But none of the party’s leaders seem to share her sentiment about the signs. Well, despite the outrage, the Democrat-led house bill still passed. It’s not the first time we've seen a Republican outburst play out this way. Remember the Club for Growth and endorsement of Doug Hoffman?

MSNBC GRAPHIC: Far Right Fights Health Bill

CLUB FOR GROWTH AD: What does Washington need more? Another big spending liberal lawyer? Or a fiscally conservative business person? Doug Hoffman, the common sense choice.

BREWER: [Sarcastically]: Yeah. Didn't really work out there. Sorry, Doug. The club has already, though, moved on this time anointing Former Florida State House representative- or Speaker, rather Marco Rubio. The great white hope. The club is endorsing Rubio as the alternative to-

DYLAN RATIGAN [Off screen]: Is that the great white hope or the great right hope?

BREWER: Right. Did I say white?

RATIGAN: I- I- I- Maybe I misheard.

BREWER: The great right hope. Right. As in conservative.

RATIGAN: He is white. Okay.

BREWER: Anyway, the club is endorsing him as the alternative to Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Two battle for a vacant Senate seat in 2010.

MARCO RUBIO: I want to serve in the United States Senate because I believe that our country is at the proverbial crossroads and that crossroads and our future will depend on which path we choose.

BREWER: Will Rubio’s path fall in line with some of the more outspoken members of his party? Or can a more calculated approach still prove effective? Maybe the Republicans need to figure this out.

Morning Meeting host Dylan Ratigan on Friday appeared uncomfortable discussing the faith of the Muslim shooter who killed 12 people in Texas. In a tease for a segment on the subject, he noted that Major Nidal Hasan is being "described as a devout Muslim, mortified at being deployed to Iraq. Did that drive him to allegedly commit murder?" Ratigan quickly added, "And who cares what his religion was?"

Talking to Corey Saylor of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ratigan offered a tortured, run-on question about the importance of Hasan’s Muslim faith: "Corey, it's very easy, considering, sort of, the history of the relations between our country and some nations- and some individual, really, of a Muslim faith. There's a very quick response or higher levels of anxiety for no reason other than because of the lesser familiarity."

Meandering his way to the end of this politically correct query, Ratigan concluded, "Is it appropriate to be looking at the- any sort of religious signals in a situation like this when you're clearly dealing with an American soldier, born in America, who enlisted again right out of high school?"

Speaking to FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt, Ratigan wondered what pressures Hasan may have been under:

RATIGAN: Yep. Clint Van Zandt, it's very easy to people to play pop psychiatrist or pop psychologist in a situation like this. Again, fear of war, abstractly, fear of going into combat abstractly would make anybody anxious, let alone working for as long as this man did as an Army psychiatrist, counseling men who lived and continued to live through war. Can you give us any indications, any commonalities of what happens when you're expose to do trauma like that repeatedly?

A transcript of the two exchanges, which occurred at 10:07am EST on November 6, follow:

9:59am

DYLAN RATIGAN: Still ahead here on the Morning Meeting, inside the mind of the alleged Fort Hood shooter, described as a devout Muslim, mortified at being deployed to Iraq. Did that drive him to allegedly commit murder? And who cares what his religion was?

10:07am

RATIGAN: Corey, it's very easy, considering, sort of, the history of the relations between our country and some nations- and some individual, really, of a Muslim faith. There's a very quick response or higher levels of anxiety for no reason other than because of the lesser familiarity. Is it appropriate to be looking at the- any sort of religious signals in a situation like this when you're clearly dealing with an American soldier, born in America, who enlisted again right out of high school?

COREY SAYLOR (Council on American-Islamic Relations): I think that it's really important that we, first of all, express our condolences to the victims of this tragedy and, which, those who are injured that they get better quickly. Right now, investigators need to do their jobs and look at everything. And the importance is we sew patience and sobriety in waiting for that investigation and let's hear what their conclusions are.

RATIGAN: Yep. Clint Van Zandt, it's very easy to people to play pop psychiatrist or pop psychologist in a situation like this. Again, fear of war, abstractly, fear of going into combat abstractly would make anybody anxious, let alone working for as long as this man did as an Army psychiatrist, counseling men who lived and continued to live through war. Can you give us any indications, any commonalities of what happens when you're expose to do trauma like that repeatedly?

CLINT VAN ZANDT (Former FBI profiler):Well, number one, there's going to be hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of men and women who have gone through this all the time. Dr. Hasan was not being sent in as a ground troop. He was being sent in to help care for those psychologically injured during the course of war, just like he had treated them in the states. Dylan, this was a contract that he had with the U.S. government. You and I and all of the taxpayers agree to pay his way through medical school with the understanding that he would stay in the military and that he would perform his duty, whatever the military said that was. So here, it appears we have a man who may have been in conflict between his duty to his country and his duty to his religion. And he, apparently, sided with one as opposed to the other and made the decision he was not going to go to Iraq. He was not going to be part of any action that saw the lives of Muslims taken in a combat situation and he was going to violate the terms of the agreement he had with this government.

Is there nothing MSNBC can’t spin? A graphic on Tuesday’s Morning Meeting hopefully announced, "NY-23: Win-Win For Dems?" Apparently, even if Democrats lose the special congressional election in New York to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, it will just show how extreme the Republican Party has become.

In a not-exactly-balanced segment, host Dylan Ratigan talked to Representative and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen, liberal blogger Arianna Huffington and Professor Tom Schaller, who has written a book on how Democrats can win without the south.

The interview seemed very similar to one that appeared on Friday’s Situation Room on CNN. That program featured a graphic that read: "If The Dems Lose Next Week: How it might help them in the long run." And that followed an October 6 blog by ABC reporter Claire Shipman in which she speculated that President Obama losing Chicago’s Olympic bid was also a good thing:

The Chicago loss is actually a win? I know. It’s hard to wrap your head around it. I got a sense of this as I test-drove my counter-intuitive (yet brilliant) theory by my baffled and distracted husband over the weekend. I figured he’d surely see the logic. After all, he’s now a spin doctor himself–Communications Director for VP Biden.

...

It’s an especially good thing because it punctures his detractors ballooning and poisonous envy. Opponents, gleeful about their rivals’ embarrasement [sic], become a bit less hazardous. In the meantime, everyone else can empathize, which sometimes makes the heart grow–more sympathetic.

On Tuesday’s program, the liberal hosts and guests eagerly agreed with each other. Van Hollen suggested that the surging candidacy of Hoffman means that "there is no room for moderates in the Republican party. What was once an endangered species is now virtually extinct within the party. " Schaller made sure to point out that the Republicans had run a "hard-core conservative" gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey.

[Special thanks to MRC intern Mike Sargent for transcribing the segment.]

A transcript of the November 3 segment, which aired at 9:37am EST, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Joining us, Maryland Democratic congressman Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also rejoining the meeting, Arianna Huffington. Tom Schaller here, political science professor at the University of Maryland, author of the book "Whistling Past Dixie," and Jonathan Capehart. Representative Van Hollen, I will begin with you. How do you view, how are you interpreting first the upstate race and then the balance of the off-season election?

MSNBC Graphic: NY-23: Win-Win For Dems?

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD):  Well, the upstate race, the news – the big news has already happened which is what you were talking about, was the message that was sent loud and clear that there is no room for moderates in the Republican party. What was once an endangered species is now virtually extinct within the party. That was the message the Republicans sent to Dede Scozzafava when they essentially threw her under the bus in support of the conservative party candidate. And as a result, her support collapsed. So I think that sends signal around the country in all these Republican primaries that, moderates beware because the party has essentially been taken over by the far right.

RATIGAN: Tom Schaller, do you agree with that?

TOM SCHALLER (University of MD, Political science professor): : Well, I certainly forecast this in my book. The problem that we have seen over the last 30 or 40 years for the Republicans is this re-sorting where they gained in the south, and of course many conservative Democrats lost there over the last few decades, but in the northeast and the midwest, we've seen a decline of the old Bob Dole, Bob Michael, Gerald Ford wing of the party, as Congressman Van Hollen said. And so, indeed, in the greater northeast, to include New York, you only have three Republicans out of 51 seats. That's a huge advantage for the Democrats in trying to keep a majority in Congress. So, it is a problem. I think the larger message of this cycle with just the three races, or three main races, is that it's really about the Republicans right now. You have three different kind of Republican candidates. In Virginia, you have a candidate who has run to northern Virginia, he has touted his northern Virginia roots. He realized he had to move to the center, he's disowned his sort of cultural conservatives, culture war politics, and he is doing pretty well. You have a hard-core conservative in New Jersey, we'll see if he wins. I think Chuck Todd is right, that will be the biggest scare for Democrats, if Jon Corzine loses. And then in New York you have a third-party candidate moving in, and Sarah Palin and others. And so what is really happening here is less about the Democrats and Obama and even Chris Van Hollen and the Democrats in Congress. I think it's an internal party struggle with different variations on those themes in Virginia and New Jersey and New York-23.

RATIGAN: Arianna, as you watch some of the splintering start to manifest, whether it's New Democrats that have come in relative to some of the old-guard Democratic party, or what we are seeing today with, again, splintering inside the Republican party, politically and socially, how do you think either the Democrats or the Republicans or anybody, anybody else in the political universe takes advantage of that splintering to improve the system as opposed to allows the splintering to start to really destroy the system?

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Well, first of all, everybody in both parties has to recognize, Dylan, that these are all manifestations of a broken system. And people are trying to reposition themselves. I would love to ask the Congressman, how worried are you as an incumbent Congressman, about the growing disaffection out there, about the concern with the bailouts, the concern with the fact that we don't have a level playing field, that different rules that apply to the elite than to ordinary Americans losing their jobs and losing their homes, how concerned are you about that wave and how it's going to affect your majority in 2010?

VAN HOLLEN: Well I think you put your finger on a very good point, which is that we need to respond to the genuine frustration and anger in many parts of the country about exactly that kind of sentiment, that those who helped cause the financial crisis are the ones who have been able to turn their situation around the fastest, and the people who are not responsible for it on main street are still struggling. And I think as we put together a package in terms of revising the oversight procedures of the financial sector, which is what we are working on in the House of Representatives right now, we need to send a clear message that the old business as usual is not going to happen anymore. That's one of the big battles, as you know, we have shaping up in the House.

In the 9AM ET hour of Morning Meeting on MSNBC Thursday, host Dylan Ratigan teased his colleague Contessa Brewer over her confusing Jesse Jackson with Al Sharpton on Wednesday: “And did you call Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton the other day?....Can we talk about that later?.... I think there’s some humor to be had in all this.” An embarrassed Brewer sarcastically remarked: “I would love to talk about this.”

While anchoring 2PM ET coverage on Wednesday, Brewer mistakenly introduced Reverend Jesse Jackson as Reverend Al Sharpton. After Jackson clarified his identity, she apologized: “I’m so sorry, the – the script in front of me said Reverend Al Sharpton...I know who you are, Reverend Jackson.”

As promised, the blooper was again brought up later in Thursday’s 9AM hour as MSNBC contributor Toure joked: “Contessa?....I’m not Al Sharpton....Just want to be clear on that.” Ratigan joined in: “This is not Al Sharpton....You understand that?” Toure went on to add: “I know you have that all black people look alike thing going on.” An upset Brewer shot back: “It wasn’t that. It’s – you know what, Toure?....Listen, thank you for clearing it up. I really appreciate that. Kind of you.” Ratigan declared: “Yeah. I'm not Al Sharpton either, Contessa, just for the record. I know I kind of have a slight resemblance.”

Here are full transcripts of the exchanges:

9:28AM TEASE:

DYLAN RATIGAN: And did you call Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton the other day?

CONTESSA BREWER: Not the other day, just yesterday.

RATIGAN: Just yesterday. Can we talk about that later?

BREWER: Yeah, of course, let’s-

RATIGAN: Because that’s – I feel kind of bad – he’s just sitting there and-

BREWER: I would love to talk about this.

RATIGAN: But I think there’s some humor to be had in all this.

BREWER: Well, let’s try-

RATIGAN: And it was an honest mistake on your part, which I think is worth explaining.

BREWER: Right. Let’s try to find the humor.

RATIGAN: And I think we should find the humor.

BREWER: Alright.

RATIGAN: And maybe we’ll take some more of those dental drugs, we’ll feel, you know – I’m kidding.

BREWER: First calling him by the wrong name, then oral surgery. How’s that for a day?

RATIGAN: Exactly.

9:56AM SEGMENT:

TOURE: One last thing. Contessa?

CONTESSA BREWER: Yes?

RATIGAN: Oh yeah.

TOURE: I’m not Al Sharpton.

RATIGAN: This is not Al Sharpton.

TOURE: Just want to be clear on that.

RATIGAN: You understand that?

TOURE: I know you have that all black people look alike thing going on.

BREWER: It wasn’t that. It’s – you know what, Toure?

TOURE (in female voice): It was the prompter.

BREWER: Listen, thank you for clearing it up. I really appreciate that. Kind of you.

RATIGAN: Yeah. I'm not Al Sharpton either, Contessa, just for the record. I know I kind of have a-

TOURE: Not Giethner-

RATIGAN: -slight resemblance.

TOURE: Not Summers.

RATIGAN: I’m not Tim Giethner.

BREWER: It actually says Toure in the prompter.

TOURE: Not Volker.

RATIGAN: Yeah. I am not Paul Volker.

MSNBC contributor Touré on Wednesday continued the network's vitriolic, slanderous attacks on Rush Limbaugh. Discussing the radio host’s bid to buy the St. Louis Rams, the cable commentator smeared, "Several NFL players have already said they would not play for Rush because they know he would love to say he owns a plantation full of black men." [Audio available here.]

When Morning Meeting host Dylan Ratigan mock protested, "No, they don't know that," the one-named Touré reiterated, "They feel it." Ratigan gave in and played along, "Okay, they feel that." Despite calls from the Media Research Center, MSNBC has repeatedly refused to retract false quotes that have the conservative star endorsing slavery.

Earlier in the piece, Touré commented on the possibility Rush would not get an NFL team and gleefully cooed, "Schadenfreude is the word of the day. It's time for some Schadenfreude because it makes me happy when people I don't like suffer losses."

On Tuesday’s News Live, MSNBC featured Pulitzer Prize winner Karen Hunter to froth, "I can just see the visions of plantation grandeur dancing in [Limbaugh's] head as we speak."

[Updated: 2009-10-14-11:44] National Review Online reports that Touré is a 9/11 Truther. In a Twitter post he speculated, “This fascinating video raises questions about the Pentagon attack: 757 or missle [sic]?”

A transcript of the October 14 segment, which aired at 9:53am EDT, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Football and Rush Limbaugh on the agenda. What’s the word, my man?

TOURÉ: Schadenfreude is the word of the day. It's time for some Schadenfreude because it makes me happy when people I don't like suffer losses.

RATIGAN: Oh, goodness! You're better than that.

TOURÉ: To wit, Rush Limbaugh is part of an ownership group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams. But the NFL community is sacking him where the ball has been truly snapped.

RATIGAN: On what basis?

TOURÉ: Commissioner Goodell says Rush's divisiveness is unwelcome in a leadership position in the NFL. And because the commission, the owners get to vote on who gets to join the ranks of the ownership, that signals fourth and 20 for Rush's bid. Only nine owners need say no to scuttle the bid.

RATIGAN: So, it’s like a fraternity. So, having the money is one thing. If they don't like you, you're not in. And the owners are saying?

TOURÉ: It's a private club. It’s a co-op.

RATIGAN: Alright.

TOURÉ: The owners can say we don't want you in here.

RATIGAN: It’s not very American, but, you know.

TOURÉ: Well, co-ops are American. Private clubs are still American.

RATIGAN: That’s true. That’s true. That’s true.

TOURÉ: Several NFL players have already said they would not play for Rush because they know he would love to say he owns a plantation full of black men.

RATIGAN: No, they don't know that. They don't know that.

TOURÉ: They feel it.

RATIGAN: Okay, they feel that.

TOURÉ: I mean, this is a guy who said an NFL game is like a Crips and Bloods match-up without the weapons. What is that?

RATIGAN: I can't defend that.