MSNBC contributor Lawrence O'Donnell will take over at the 10 pm slot, the cable network announced Tuesday. O'Donnell, who guest-hosted "Countdown" while Keith Olbermann was on leave, is a self-described socialist, and will fit in nicely with the rest of MSNBC's prime-time lineup.
The 10 pm slot has up to this time been "Countdown" reruns, so MSNBC viewers will now be treated to a tad different far-left rant than Olbermann's 8 pm far-left rant.
That said, O'Donnell's segment will hardly be a breath of fresh air if his previous antics are any indication. He has a short, if colorful history of liberal outbursts. Let us review some of his greatest hits:
As mentioned above, O'Donnell made sure to correct Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe," telling him, "we're socialists, not Marxists."
O'Donnell then launched into a vicious tirade against author and former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen that forced Scarborough to cut to commercial early. When the program returned, Scarborough carefully mediated the discussion.
The new MSNBC anchor has challenged the basic mental fortitude of Sarah Palin. Though that is hardly groundbreaking for a liberal, I suppose, O'Donnell even hosted a comedian to bizarrely mock Palin in drag.
O'Donnell retains the dubious honor of conducting "possibly the worst interview in history." A member of Congress told him during an interview, "you're illustrating why MSNBC's viewership is in the tank."
To his credit, O'Donnell was one of the few liberal media figures to accurately report that ObamaCare would mean a de facto tax increase--the largest one ever, by his account. But that didn't stop him from offering his support.
It's called "Left, Right and Center," which claims to be a "civilized yet provocative antidote to the screaming talking heads that dominate political debate." But there's not a whole lot of truth in advertising for KCRW Santa Monica's radio program, which is also podcasted on the Internet.
The show normally features Robert Scheer, editor of the left-wing investigative Web site Truthdig.com and a former Los Angeles Times columnist, representing the left. Matt Miller, a former Clintonista and senior fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress represents the so-called center. And former Washington Times editorial page editor and visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation usually represents the right. And for whatever reason, HuffPo editor Arianna Huffington is included to represent what they call the "independent progressive blogosphere," as if that is somehow different from the "left."
For the June 11 edition of this show, both Blankley and Miller were away and replaced with David Frum, a recently terminated fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, representing the "right" and Lawrence O'Donnell, of MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" fill-in fame, representing the "center." And it was on the broadcast Frum used the platform to take a shot at the Club for Growth.
"The Club for Growth is nicknamed amongst some Republicans, ‘The Club for Electing Democrats' because what it does is it has all these primary challenges," Frum said. "And either it bleeds existing incumbents or else it opens the way to the election, to the nomination of a less electable Republican and the loss of the district to the Democrats."
If that were indeed the case, should Club for Growth President and Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey be trailing his Democratic opponent Rep. Joe Sestek? That's not the case according to three out of four polls posted on Real Clear Politics (the outlier poll being the Daily Kos' poll). But Frum goes on to make another point - that the unions, by playing more of a role in particular campaigns, are straight out the Club for Growth playbook.
"So it is fascinating to me for the unions to decide we're going to be ‘The Club for Electing Republicans' on the Democratic side," he continued. "It is always worth remembering there is not symmetry here. The Republican base is actually bigger than the Democratic base. But a third of the country identifies as conservative, that's not a majority."
And according to Frum, since the conservative base is larger, the $10 million big labor used in Arkansas in the Blanche Lincoln-Bill Halter race for the Democratic nomination was spent in vain.
"But only a fifth of the country identifies as liberal," Frum said. "That's even farther from a majority. I think a lot of Democrats in a lot of places, who come October are going to be hungry for that $10 million that is not going to be there for them."
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday defended a GEICO voice-over actor who referred to Tea Party members as mentally retarded killers.
Last week, Lance Baxter aka D.C. Douglas left the following voice-mail at the offices of FreedomWorks (audio available here):
Hi there. I`m doing a paper about FreedomWorks and I was wondering if somebody could give me a call back. I`m wrapping up and I just have one more piece of information I need to get from you guys -- just need to know what the percentage is of people that are mentally retarded who work for the organization, and are members of it. And oh -- and one final thing, wondering what your plans are, how to spin it when one of your members does actually kill somebody, wondering how, if you`ve got an actual P.R. spinning routine planned for that or are you just going to take it when it happens. Just curious. So, give me a call when you get a chance. Thanks so much.
Baxter has since been fired for this disgusting message, and O'Donnell filling in for Keith Olbermann on Wednesday's "Countdown" actually came to the actor's defense claiming he was only exercising his First Amendment rights (video follows with transcript and commentary):
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST: Members of the tea party say they`re upset about the unemployment rate, but it turns out they`ve just added to the problem.
In our number two story: the voice of GEICO insurance now finds himself out of a job over a voicemail he left for tea partiers.
Voice-over actor Lance Baxter, also known as "D.C. Douglas," says he`s been fired because of a voicemail he left for members of FreedomWorks, the tea party organization run by Dick Armey. For those keeping score at home, Mr. Baxter isn`t the voice of the gecko. He`s "the real service, real savings" guy.
Here`s his message to the tea partiers.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
LANCE BAXTER, VOICE-OVER ACTOR: Hi there. I`m doing a paper about FreedomWorks and I was wondering if somebody could give me a call back. I`m wrapping up and I just have one more piece of information I need to get from you guys -- just need to know what the percentage is of people that are mentally retarded who work for the organization, and are members of it. And oh -- and one final thing, wondering what your plans are, how to spin it when one of your members does actually kill somebody, wondering how, if you`ve got an actual P.R. spinning routine planned for that or are you just going to take it when it happens.
Just curious. So, give me a call when you get a chance. Thanks so much.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Hey, that is a really good voice.
Mr. Baxter writing about the message on his blog, "Yeah, I know -- stupid! And certainly not constructive. Unfortunately, in my haste, I used the phrase `mentally retarded,` which ultimately drags me down to their level."
Mr. Baxter also gave his phone number on the voicemail, which got posted on the conservative Web site BigGovernment.com. FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe elevating the rhetoric by writing an accompanying post: "Feel free to contact Lance. He was so kind to provide his number in the voicemail. Call his employer, too. Let them know that you, in fact, are not a mentally retarded killer."
In a press release, Mr. Baxter says he made the phone call because he was upset about tea partiers using gay and racial slurs against members of Congress. He also believes that his connection to GEICO is the primary reason he was targeted. GEICO pulled its ads from Glenn Beck`s show after Mr. Beck made racially-charged comments about President Obama.Mr. Baxter says he was calling as a private citizen but doesn`t blame GEICO for, quote, "protecting themselves, they have a business to run and can`t waste time getting caught up in the FreedomWorks circus."
Hey, GEICO, why are you guys firing this guy? He exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, then had the class to instantly apologize for the bad choice of words. What`s wrong with that?
Now, I understand why Marilyn Chambers could not continue being the face of Ivory Snow laundry detergent after she did a five-way behind the green door. But this guy isn`t the face of anything. He`s just a voice. Firing him is like firing a ghost. No one will know you changed the voice- over guy in your commercials.
Of the people who do know, surely some of them might prefer doing business with a company that respects the First Amendment.
Fascinating, isn't it?
MSNBC and O'Donnell have been berating, insulting, and denigrating Tea Partiers -- who are only exercising their First Amendment rights!!! -- for over a year.
Furthermore, the folks at MSNBC are constantly attacking Glenn Beck and others at Fox News for exercising THEIR First Amendment rights.
But when a man gets fired for leaving an astonishingly disgusting voice-mail message, O'Donnell is quick to come to his defense.
Color me astoundingly unsurprised.
Those interested in more on this story should visit the blog of FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe at Big Government.
When did Larry O'Donnell rip the "Question Authority" bumper sticker off his old Volkswagen van?
Liberals normally love to celebrate those who "speak truth to power." But Larry O'Donnell is bent out of shape that Fox News' Bret Baier had the chutzpah to challenge and, yes, interrupt, Pres. Obama when interviewing him today about ObamaCare. Larry displayed his sudden deference to high-office on this evening's Countdown, subbing for Keith Olbermann.
Amusingly, one of my liberal faves declined to subscribe to Larry's script . . .
Sniffed O'Donnell: "most news organizations as I've said tend to defer to the office of the president in matters of conversational decorum." You can view the entire Baier/Obama interview here. Judge for yourself. I'd say that while the Special Report host challenged Barack the man, he never showed disrespect for the office.
O'Donnell was presumably expecting Chris Hayes to share his umbrage at Baier's lèse majesté. But to his credit, The Nation editor demurred: "I actually think that's great. I think that people in power should be pesterd and hectored a little bit and asked to answer uncomfortable questions." Kudos, Chris.
Meanwhile, perhaps Pres. Obama should consider O'Donnell—he of the exquisite sensibilities—to fill Desiree Rogers' old slot as Social Secretary.
ObamaCare constitutes the largest tax increase in American history and shatters the previous record, admitted self-described socialist and MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell yesterday.
When MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough asked O’Donnell about the overhaul bill on his radio show, O’Donnell said ObamaCare raises taxes by almost $500 billion.
Obama’s historic tax increase nearly doubles the previous record-setting tax that O’Donnell helped craft as Democratic Chief of Staff to the Senate Finance Committee during the Clinton administration.
Even O’Donnell conceded that proposing the largest tax increase in American history during a painful recession and double-digit unemployment was a foolish misadventure.
“We liberal Keynesians do not raise taxes in recessions,” said O’Donnell. “We raise taxes when you’re making money. That’s when we raise taxes. And we love to do it.”
On the subject of groundbreaking admissions, remember when O’Donnell criticized the “unprecedented” use of reconciliation to pass ObamaCare.
A transcript of the exchange between Scarborough and O'Donnell, which aired yesterday and was replayed on today's "Morning Joe," can be found below:
[Clip from Joe Scarborough’s radio interview with Lawrence O’Donnell, which aired yesterday]
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence O’Donnell, you were part of the largest tax increase of all-time–
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: –The biggest.
SCARBOROUGH: –with Bill Clinton. 250 billion dollars. You say Barack Obama’s health care bill will double that–
O’DONNELL: –Almost
SCARBOROUGH: –and will raise almost 500 billion dollars.
O’DONNELL: And do so–and here’s the really important economic principle that’s shocking for anyone who’s take the introductory course: they’re going to do it in a recession. You know...
[Laughter]
O’DONNELL: We, we, we liberal, we liberal Keynesians do not raise taxes in recessions; we raise taxes when you’re making money. That’s when we raise taxes. And we love to do it.
[Back in the studio]
SCARBOROUGH: And Lawrence does love to do it.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, co-host of “Morning Joe”: Very good point.
SCARBOROUGH: But how fascinating, though, Lawrence, the liberal, has given Republicans a great talking point. Largest tax increase ever, in the middle of a recession, when real unemployment’s in double digits–that’s probably where the debate’s going to be and not on the slaughter rule this fall.
--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center.Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Michael Moore: crusader and "common-man" - with a net-worth in the range of $25-50 million, appeared on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" with fill-in Lawrence O'Donnell March 15, continuing to fight the good fight against capitalism and health insurance companies.
Moore predicted the Democrats' ObamaCare will pass, "But this bill, as good as many of the thing are in the bill, you know - young people can stay on their parent's insurance until 26, that's a great thing - it's a death sentence for literally tens of thousands of people who are going to get sick, or have been sick, and because of their preexisting conditions."
To Moore, the current health care reform proposal does not go nearly far enough. He favors a universal single-payer system that would effectively be a government take-over of one-sixth the economy.
"Their only crime - for dying - their only crime that they would have committed was they were a citizen in the United States of America," Moore said of the uninsured. "If they were a few hundred miles north of us here, they wouldn't die. Pure and simple, that's the only difference - they hold an American passport instead of a Canadian passport."
O'Donnell brought up a political figure who shares Moore's left-wing dissatisfaction with the bill. "The only eloquent voice that I have heard in opposition, in actual political voting opposition to this bill is from Dennis Kucinich - Dennis Kucinich criticism coming from the left point by point knocking down Democratic talking points. What would you say to Dennis Kucinich and the vote he faces at this point?"
"'Thank you,'" Moore replied. "One out of 435 is standing up for the 300 million. How truly sad is that?" Moore said he would advise Kucinich to eschew "practical," and take a principled stance.
"If I were a member of Congress I think what I would say is ‘I might vote for it if, President Obama, you'll stand in front of the cameras and tell the American people that this doesn't really cover preexisting conditions for the next four years and the insurance companies are still going to make outrageous profits and they are going to be able to deny people care once they have insurance,'" Moore lamented. "Tell the people the truth of these things and then we'll vote for the things that are great about the bill."
"I know we only have a few seconds left here but thank you for telling people to be sure ... to write a check to the National Association of Free Clinics. Well I heard that backstage, and I happened to have my checkbook on me. So I'd like to be the one to write the first check and encourage everyone else out there who's watching to please write your check," Moore made sure to tell (and show) all the world.
"You can go to my website, I'll have an address on there, and thank God for his mom and his dad - they've obviously done something right to have somebody like him out there fighting that battle," he said of Keith Olbermann.
O'Donnell played along: "Michael, this is really a moving moment - I feel like Jerry Lewis."
However much the check was for, the multi-millionaire socialist could afford it. After all, he personally negotiated to receive one of the most lucrative sweet-heart deals ever made in Hollywood (richer even than those the likes of Tom Cruise, director Peter Jackson, or Julia Roberts), and is entitled to all the "outrageous" profits he's raked in from DVD-sales of "Sicko," his agit-prop valentine to healthcare in places like communist Cuba.
New conservative spectator sport: watching MSM liberals lock horns over ObamaCare . . .
Today's Morning Joe offered a hugely-entertaining example. Larry O'Donnell, speaking from the Olympian heights of his omniscience of the legislative process, mercilessly condescended to Donny Deutsch. Ad-man Deutsch had earlier twice "guaranteed" that ObamaCare would pass. When O'Donnell appeared, he in so many words said Deutsch was so blissfully ignorant of the process that he didn't understand just what trouble the bill is in.
When O'Donnell later ostensibly "apologized" to Deutsch, he wound up pouring salt in the wound. Larry patronizingly portrayed himself as having "so much information" about the situation, so that he just doesn't see it "the same way that people with less information" do.
Ouch!
DONNY DEUTSCH: Done deal . . . done deal.
WILLIE GEIST: He's guaranteeing it!
DEUTSCH: I am guaranteeing it.
. . .
DEUTSCH: It will pass. I am guaranteeing it.
LARRY O'DONNELL: I heard the confident prediction from this table earlier today that it's absolutely going to pass, and I envy that view, because it reminds me of when --
DEUTSCH: It wasn't the entire table, it was just one.
O'DONNELL: I'll tell you something: there's a huge advantage to where you sit. Because you sit at a great distance from this whole thing, and you don't know who the Senate Parliamentarian is, and what he might do.
After a disquisition on how he, too, was blissfully ignorant back in his youth when he worked on the Dukakis campaign and was positive he was going to win, Larry continued . . .
O'DONNELL: I have never felt as wise about outcomes since then. Because I know too many reasons why this might happen or that might happen. But where we are right now legislatively is, there are runners on first and second, and you are absolutely, confidently predicting that on the next pitch they will get a triple play. Now, there have been triple plays in baseball --
DEUTSCH: That's not what I predicted.
O'DONNELL: You are. If you knew what the situation is, that's what you're predicting.
. . . .
DEUTSCH: Lawrence has already called me stupid today, all right?
O'DONNELL: I didn't.
DEUTSCH: Yes you did. You came on and basically said: "if only you had the knowledge base that I have." It was a really obnoxious thing, by the way
O'DONNELL: Knowledge is just hard-drive stuff. It's not intelligence. It has nothing to do with intelligence . . . I want to offer my formal apology to Donny. The point I was making was--and Dylan may have the same sensation about this about things he knows about--is that there's a way to be so close and have so much information about something that you just don't see it the same way people with less information see things.
Got it, Donny? Larry wasn't insulting you. It's just that as someone who has "so much information," he sees things differently than do ignorant dolts like you ;-)
If ObamaCare does go down, look forward to endless recrimination and back-biting among Dems and their MSM cheering section.
While conservatives like Mark Levin went to the radio barricades to protest the unconstitutionality of House Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter just passing over the need for a House vote on the Senate health care bill, the networks stayed quiet last week. It did come up on Thursday night's Countdown on MSNBC.
Lawrence O'Donnell called it the "self-executing rule." I can practically hear Levin yelling "That's right! You liberals will be cutting your own throats with it!" Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein was warming up to the Slaughter solution, suggesting "consistent innovation" is what makes liberalism special:
O`DONNELL: Now, Ezra, let`s jump back to the self-executing rule in the House because you and I aren`t going to get a chance to talk about this kind of parliamentary stuff much longer, I don`t think.
KLEIN: You`re going to miss this, aren`t you?
O`DONNELL: I am. Now, let`s just leave the Senate parliamentarian aside, who can ruin this dream for everyone. But if they were to try to do this in the House, is there precedent for it? Have they ever before had a rule in the House that indicated the bill you`re voting on will become law only if this other piece of the bill you`re voting on at the same time becomes law? It`s hard to even describe and I can`t think of a single precedent for it.
KLEIN: I can`t think of one. So, you got me stumped, which is not to say it doesn`t mean, is it`s only to say I can`t think of it.
But, you know, the one thing that I would say about House and Senate and congressional processes that it is a process of consistent innovation. That it`s never been done until it`s been done. And all sorts of things are invented at the time.
Reconciliation had never been used to increase the deficit before Bush did it for the tax cuts. You can go on and on down the line where, you know, in response to differing circumstances and our politics changes, they figure out a way to do things and then it becomes a norm in the future from that. So, that they haven`t done, it doesn`t mean they won`t.
O`DONNELL: Ezra, my own conservative approach to this is: I win a lot money on bets, betting on things that have never happened before in the Congress. I lose once in a while. But you mostly win.
One of the left's knocks on conservatives has been claiming they're demagogues that play on emotion to push a certain point of view. It's been said about Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement.
However, HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" host Bill Maher doesn't seem to take issue with using trumped up emotions to push an agenda. The difference - he is approaching things from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Maher appeared on MSNBC's March 10 "Countdown" and defended his demand from his own March 5 program that President Barack Obama quit smoking. The reason - so he would get angry and use that emotion to promote his agenda.
"No, what I was - you know, the point of the rule was that when people quit smoking, they get angry," Maher explained. "And I like my president angry, because, you know, considering how much in this country people are poisoned, ripped off and lied to, we should all be angry, but especially that guy, who has to deal with Congress every day in trying to get this health care bill through and all that. And you know, I like him when he's out on the stump in a sort of a partisan mode. I think his biggest mistake, that he has made, in his first year, was to out put bipartisanship ahead of fixing the country. He spent all his political capital on getting three damned votes for that stimulus bill instead of coming in with all the energy from the election and saying, ‘You know what, we're in a crisis mode, I won this election by a sizable mandate, here's what we're going to do. If you don't like it, Republicans, you can suck on it.'"
"Countdown" fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell asked what else Obama could do to push this initiative - having given numerous speeches both in public and on TV. According to Maher, the legislation now has to stand for itself.
"Well, there's nothing more he can do, because he's sort of made his bed already with the plan that they have," Maher said. "You know, I mean, again, I think he made a big mistake, not from the get-go, not supporting a public option and standing up for that because I personally do not believe that this plan will save money the way that they say it will."
Maher lamented that in his view, the legislation was weak. However, he suggested the issue of health insurance should be viewed as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are occurring to given people the perspective the United States' medical system is "failing."
"I think they wussied out on standing up to the things that will actually be cost cutting," Maher said. "So, I don't believe that part of it. And so he's stuck with this plan, which I think is - it's not a great plan. I mean, yes, it accomplishes some things, and I guess I would call it a quarter loaf is better than none. But, you know, we asked this question on the show a couple of weeks ago. You know, 45,000 people die every year because they don't have health care. Can you imagine if that many people were dying in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why is the, that that's an impossibility in the country, that that many people can die, or in a terrorist attack, but it's OK that they die from a failing medical system?"
Maher also faulted Obama for framing the debate that if you preferred the status quo, then you would not be affected. However, had Obama taken a different tack and employed fear - making it seem that the public had no choice but to alter their health care coverage, it could have spurred more action.
"I don't know why they framed the debate the way they did, or rather, that they didn't," Maher said. "They should have framed it in a moral sense like that and they should have framed it for people who are more selfish thinking, that this is a -- that you are going to go broke. Democrats need to use fear the way the Republicans use fear. And it's true. I mean, health care costs keep going up."
And what would this fear entail? According to the "Real Time" host, Democrats should have manipulated people into thinking financial calamity was on the verge of occurring without so-called health care reform.
"They should have scared the American people into thinking, look, I know you think you like the plan you have now, but it's going to slowly drown you in debt," Maher said. "He started out all wrong by saying, ‘If you have - if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.' And everybody went, ‘Well, then what's the problem? Why are we spending all this money?'"
More and more it's becoming clear that when Keith Olbermann takes a night off from "Countdown," and Lawrence O'Donnell fills in for him, viewers are getting the same hyperpartisan, hate-filled Democrat talking points.
Consider the reaction that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) got from O'Donnell Tuesday evening after the Congressman called the folks at "Fox & Friends" liars earlier in the day.
"Congressman Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, thank you, thank you, thank you" (video embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary, h/t Right Scoop):
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST: Last week, New York Representative Anthony Weiner grew weary of the traditional protocols of Congressional debate, and savaged his Republican colleagues over their attempts to scuttle a bill that would strip health insurance companies of their antitrust exemption. Before the vote on HR-4626, Mr. Weiner took to the podium and repeatedly called his GOP colleagues "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the insurance industry."
This morning, Congressman Weiner`s truth-telling continued with Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy of "Fox and Friends." After discussing the difficult decision House democrats face on health care reform, the congressman held up a mirror to the Fox hosts, throwing their own slanted coverage in their faces.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: We should be honest about something here. Programs like this, there`s been an enormous amount of disinformation about what`s in the bill.
STEVE DOOCEY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: That`s according to you. That`s what you think.
WEINER: I think that there has been an orchestrated effort in a lot of quarters to lie about the bill.
BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: What have we lied about?
WEINER: Don`t get it all personal. I said programs like this -- I said programs like yours.
KILMEADE: Don`t be defensive. Like yours. I can get this guy in a head lock.
WEINER: Let me ask you: did anyone talk about death panels on this show throughout the last six months? Of course. That was a lie. That was a lie.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Stop the tape.
What was a lie? Was reporting the discussion concerning former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's claims about healthcare legislation leading to the creation of death panels a lie, or the claim itself?
After all, every news organization in America reported her concerns regarding this issue. Likely Fox covered it with less hostility and vitriol, but does that make them liars?
Beyond this, how does anyone really know what the truth is concerning death panels until the legislation goes into effect?
This is all mere speculation at this point, for if a current version of healthcare reform gets passed, and years from now medical decisions in hospitals and hospices around the country are indeed based on government finances and cost-benefit analyses, Palin's concerns would have been proven quite prescient.
As we know from experience in both Canada and Great Britain, medical decisions are indeed made based upon such analyses. And, right here in America, Medicare determines what procedures it will and won't cover.
As such, the idea that something akin to death panels -- doctors discussing financial matters with the ill and/or their relatives during end-of-life counseling sessions -- could result from government-mandated healthcare is not only not farfetched, but instead seems quite possible.
With this in mind, news agencies that discussed this matter with a more open-minded view of what happens around the world -- including right here -- when government is involved in healthcare could hardly be called liars.
But such logic wasn't on O'Donnell's mind Tuesday:
O`DONNELL: But the death panel fear-mongering was six months ago. How about fresh Fox lies like, say, 30 minutes before Congressman Weiner`s appearance, during a segment ironically branded "Prescription for Truth."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER JOHNSON, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: The house is going to adopt the senate bill after all of this wrangling. And everything that a lot of people find objectionable in that Senate bill is going to be adopted by the House, federal funding of abortion, not the Stupak approach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Of course, that claim is provably false. There is no federal funding for abortion in the Senate bill. The Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion still applies.
Stop the tape. Who's lying now?
In November, the Senate did indeed vote down an abortion restriction in its bill. As CNN.com reported at the time:
The Senate on Tuesday rejected an amendment to tighten restrictions on federal funding for abortion in the sweeping health care bill it is debating.
On a 54-45 vote, the chamber agreed to table the amendment, which effectively killed it from further consideration. Rejection of the amendment means the Senate health bill, if approved with the current abortion language, would differ from more restrictive language in the House version of the bill passed last month.
The amendment filed Monday by Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, mirrored language in the House bill that prevents any health plan receiving federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion.
Anti-abortion legislators said the amendment would maintain the current level of restriction by preventing any federal funding for abortion except in the case of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother.
Even O'Donnell's colleagues Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell are aware of the differences between the Senate and House bills concerning abortion, as they discussed it on air last Thursday:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, they've gotten a bill passed in the House. They've gotten a bill passed in the Senate. And they were on the road to a conference agreement. They were going to get one. They would have to tilt to the left in the House to get around Stupak...
ANDREA MITCHELL: On the abortion issue.
MATTHEWS: On the substantive issue, they'll need at least thirteen votes or so from the more liberal side to make up for the pro-choice, pro-Life people they're going to lose.
Why will they lose pro-Life people in the House? Because the Senate bill has loopholes in it which will allow for federal funding of abortions, and it seems everyone in America EXCEPT Lawrence O'Donnell is aware of it:
O'DONNELL: In a moment, Congressman Weiner, who somehow escaped that studio, will join us.
First, a little more right wing nuttiness. On Sunday, Speaker Pelosi told ABC News that House Democrats would need to find the courage to pass an imperfect health care reform bill. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you say to your members when it does come to the House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing their seats in November if they support you now?
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, first of all, our members, every one of them, wants health care. I think everybody wants affordable health care for all Americans.
They know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. And many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.
But the American people need it. Why are we here? We`re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress. We`re here to do the job for the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: The one and only Rush Limbaugh took that notion, that a member of Congress should do the right thing, and turned it into Jihad. Listen to him compare the Speaker of the House to a terrorist mastermind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yeah, there she is again. There`s Pelosi. You know what? She`s -- I`m going to tell you what -- here`s a way we have to start looking at Nancy Pelosi: Mullah Nancy bin Pelosi. She`s no different than these mullahs and these imams who convince all these people to put bombs on their kids and send them out there to blow up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Joining me now is the five-term representative from New York`s Ninth Congressional District, Brooklyn`s own Congressman Anthony Weiner. Congressman Weiner, I have exactly two words for you: thank you. What did you --
WEINER: Well, usually when you get two -- when someone says they have two words for you in Brooklyn, it doesn`t come out to be thank you. But I appreciate it.
O`DONNELL: What did you think you were getting into when you went over to "Fox & Friends" this morning?
WEINER: Well, you know, Fox and I are like two star crossed lovers. They keep asking me out on dates, and they never seem to work out that well. But the fact of the matter is that if you look at this debate, when you have these polls that say people are against health care, it`s largely because there has been an effort -- and it`s been single-minded. You have to give Fox credit. They are disciplined. A single-minded effort to undermine this.
They repeatedly refer to this as the government takeover of health care. You know, many people like myself, who support a single-payer system, we lament the idea that we`re taking -- we`re investing hundreds of billions of dollars in private insurance companies. It`s actually the opposite of a government takeover.
But Fox does that kind of thing every day. I`ve taken a different strategy than some of my colleagues. I don`t mind going over there and kind of mixing it up with them a little bit, because I think that, frankly, their viewers have a right to hear the truth about health care also.
O`DONNELL: Now, Congressman Weiner, did the Democrats not see this propaganda machine coming a year ago when you were cranking up for the health care reform crusade? There`s been so much criticism of President Obama now among Democrats, saying he didn`t make it clear to the American people what this bill was. But how was he supposed to do that in the face of lies about death panels and this giant fog machine of lies that was coming all over the debate and drowning out the truth of what was in this thing?
WEINER: Well, from the moment -- I`m on one of the committees that helped draw this bill together. From the moment go, we knew we were going to have some issues that traditionally come up: how to deal with the undocumented, how you deal with issues of choice. Those issues, to some degree, we knew were coming and, frankly, we knew that the battle was going to go on within our party over things like an increasing government role, expanding Medicare, like I wanted to do.
Some of this, though, was remarkable, in that it was drawn from broad cloth. The death panel, which turned out was a provision to provide people with reimbursement to have conversation with their doctor about end of life care, that was the hospitals and the insurance industry that asked for that provision to be put in. It was originally drafted by a Republican.
So some of things came out of nowhere. But the one thing that I think we should have learned and internalized much earlier is that when you`re trying to stop something, it`s much easier. You know, it`s the old expression, it takes a great woman to build a barn, but any jackass can kick it down. We learned in health care that that`s certainly the case.
O`DONNELL: As you watch the Senate develop daily more and more support for the public option, is that giving any hope in the House of Representatives that you could get a public option in the bill that presumably would be designed in a reconciliation vehicle, after you vote for the Senate bill? Even Senator Conrad tonight, on this air, saying he`s open to the idea of a public option depending on the details, by which I would think he would means exactly what the reimbursement rates are and things like that.
WEINER: I don`t see any reason why not. I can`t find anyone in this town who says it`s dead, but everyone seems to agree that it is. The president of the United States says he supports it. Tom Harkin was on your program saying that there are 55 senators that support it. The House has already passed it. As many as 70 percent of Americans, when you describe it like what it is, which is a government-run system like Medicare -- 70 percent support it. It`s hard to figure out why it`s not included, now that we`re back on a 51 vote path, rather than the absurd 60 vote dynamic.
O`DONNELL: Congressman Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, thank you, thank you, thank you.
WEINER: Thank you.
For those interested, here is the entire "Fox & Friends " segment:
Exit question: who was lying - "Fox & Friends" or O'Donnell?
Keith Olbermann Friday blamed 9/11 on former President George W. Bush.
"3,000 people died on September 11th, 2001 because George Bush did not prioritize," the "Countdown" host disgracefully told his small number of viewers.
"Perhaps no one says it because it is such a painful, awful truth to confront, 3,000 people dead because Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and others simply had other agendas than fighting terrorism."
Olbermann then brought on the equally disgraceful Lawrence O'Donnell - who earlier in the day was cut off by Joe Scarborough due to his atrocious behavior on "Morning Joe" - to assist him in making his disgusting point (video embedded below the fold with transcript):
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: It is unclear why at a time when even a former White House aide feels free to say that the current U.S. president is inviting a terror attack. It is still considered taboo to say the following: 3,000 people died on September 11th, 2001 because George Bush did not prioritize. Perhaps no one says it because it is such a painful, awful truth to confront, 3,000 people dead because Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and others simply had other agendas than fighting terrorism.
So much so that when a CIA agent specifically told Mr. Bush on August 6th that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was working to attack the U.S. inside our borders, possibly using airlines, Mr. Bush replied, "All right, you`ve covered your ass now," and did nothing about it the 37 days following until it was too late."
On MSNBC today, a former Bush and Rumsfeld`s speechwriter did a rewrite, saying L.A. would have had its own 9/11 if not for torture, and that on 9/11, the Bush White House did not know who had done it because it had not been torturing terrorists beforehand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THIESSEN: You`ve got to think back to the period after 9/11. We didn`t even know who hit us. This program is why we did not have another 9/11 after the attack and it`s just vital.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: Lawrence O`Donnell --
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL: Well, you`re lying about the west coast thing. That`s been covered very clearly. But you actually -- you as a former speechwriter in the White House, you took an oath of office when you took that job, that you might or might not remember. You actually publish a book that says that the president of the United States, on its title, the president is inviting the next attack.
Isn`t it true that the president you worked for --
THIESSEN: Lawrence, Lawrence, it`s the morning.
O`DONNELL: -- invited the first attack --
THIESSEN: Lawrence, that`s ridiculous.
O`DONNELL: -- by having no idea what was going on with al-Qaeda? You just admitted --
THIESSEN: All right. Please.
O`DONNELL: -- that when you were hit on 9/11, you just said, we didn`t know who hit us.
THIESSEN: Here`s the record, Lawrence.
O`DONNELL: You said we didn`t know who hit us.
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: You were told who was going to hit you before we were hit on 9/11. And your administration invited the first attack for which you should live in shame.
THIESSEN: Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: As remarkable as it is that Mr. Thiessen considers it a defense that Mr. Bush did not know who hit us in the period after 9/11, he is lying. Thanks to traditional intelligence gathering, which Mr. Bush ignored -- Mr. Bush knew who hit us very early after 9/11, in fact, he knew on 9/11.
At 3:00 in the afternoon, CIA Director George Tenet told Mr. Bush it was virtually certain that Osama bin Laden were responsible. Bin Laden`s location at that time believed to have been near Kandahar, and could also have been determined by Mr. Bush on 9/11 if he had read the "Boston Globe" that day.
Any lingering doubts about how partisanship skews Mr. Thiessen`s view of national security, here`s an article he wrote this week for "Foreign Policy," "Barack Obama is killing too many terrorists by his use of drone missions." Imagine the reaction of a Democratic White House veteran had asked whether Mr. Bush was quote, "killing too many bad guys"?
In the hopes that he can finish the thought this time without being cut-off, we`ll be joined by Lawrence O`Donnell, whom among other things former chief of staff to the Senate Finance Committee and was here earlier in the program, if I remember correctly.
The last part first, since it has nothing to do with your earlier appearance. George Bush`s speechwriter wants the president to stop killing terrorists or so many terrorists?
O`DONNELL: It takes your breath away, that his theory is, if we could somehow capture them, we haven`t invented the drone yet that captures them, we invented the drone that kills them very effectively.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
O`DONNELL: If some will capture them and torture them and talk to them, we`d be much better off than just actually killing them. And, by the way, the ones that we are not killing, we are putting on the run with those drones, they are -- that puts them out of the zone where they can be doing planning. They have to spend a great deal of their day thinking about how they`re going to survive.
And this guy thinks, no, we should take the pressure off them and somehow have them walking to our arms so we can interrogate them.
OLBERMANN: Mr. Thiessen also claimed that torture, which, of course, he will not recognize by that word, saved Los Angeles from its own 9/11. Is this that Liberty Tower, Library Tower, Liberia Tower crap again? Is that what he`s talking about? Is this something else they`ve made up?
O`DONNELL: It`s a very wearisome story that they refused to put away. It has been debunked time and time again. Timothy Noah on Slate, every time it comes up, he very patiently lays it out again as he did today, that the arrest of the ring leader of this so-called plot occurred the year before the waterboarding occurred of Sheikh Mohammed, and which they now claimed we got the information to stop the plot that had already been stopped.
And the FBI has said this is ludicrous, that it did not happen. The FBI doesn`t believe the so-called plot even could have been carried out. Remember, the plot was, they were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings after 9/11. Which by the time al-Qaeda got to its fourth plane in this country, the passengers were not going to allow them to do on 9/11.
The FBI has always thought that this was not a serious threat and whatever it was, was stopped a year before the torture that produced the evidence according to this guy.
OLBERMANN: Big picture here. We did not know who hit us and he says they would have known that if they used torture, but didn`t care enough about al-Qaeda to prioritize it. There wasn`t going to be anybody in custody. There wasn`t. There was no interrogations, no torture, even if we made that legal.
And my assumption is -- is that if they had Osama bin Laden, sometime early in 2001, all they would have asked him about was Iraq.
O`DONNELL: And the most important thing about that point, we knew exactly who hit us. He`s a speechwriter. I spoke to a member of the National Security Council staff today who was in the Situation Room on 9/11 while the planes were still in the air, while some of those planes were still in the air, they knew. The National Security Council staff knew this is al Qaeda. He was very dismissive of speechwriters as most serious people with jobs in government are, and said, this guy was never allowed in the Situation Room, wouldn`t have been allowed in the Situation Room that day.
So, of course, he didn`t know, but they knew and, as you pointed, the president was indeed warned specifically of this kind of plot before it happened.
OLBERMANN: Last thing, the first point that I started this segment with. Why is it OK in polite company to say Mr. Obama is inviting attack, but you still can`t say that Mr. Bush not only invited attack but he sent the night watchman home?
O`DONNELL: Keith, it`s unconscionable to me. You know, I mentioned his oath of office to him because I took an oath of office to work in the Senate. It changes your relationship to the institution and to the government. And there are things after that, the places you don`t go. You don`t go to the spot that says this sitting president of the United States is trying to get this country attacked. You don`t go where Dick Cheney went --
OLBERMANN: Yes.
O`DONNELL: -- in the 2004 campaign, saying John Kerry would allow an attack. You don`t go to those places. And it is just unconscionable to see someone do it after taking an oath of office to serve this country.
OLBERMANN: Lawrence O`Donnell, thank you for pointing that out to the gentleman. We appreciate your doing so.
O`DONNELL: Thanks, Keith.
I hope the folks at General Electric and NBC are proud of their employees.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell went into an unhinged attack on a former Bush administration official Friday, and was eventually shut out of the discussion by Joe Scarborough.
Appearing on "Morning Joe" with former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen who was brought on to discuss terrorist interrogation procedures, O'Donnell began by first calling him a liar, and then accused the Bush White House of inviting 9/11 "by having no idea what was going on with al Qaeda."
As O'Donnell continued with his attack, others on the set were heard asking him to calm down and stop.
When Thiessen tried to respond, O'Donnell violently interrupted him forcing Scarborough to cut in, go to a commercial, and say that he would be interviewing Thiessen alone (video embedded below the fold with commentary, h/t Hot Air):
For some reason, after Scarborough interviewed Thiessen, he decided to give O'Donnell one last chance to comport himself (h/t Story Balloon):
How disgraceful.
Of course, this isn't the first time O'Donnell has gone totally unhinged on camera.
Readers should recall him going nuts with Swiftboat veteran John O'Neill in 2004 as well as his disgusting attack on Mitt Romney and Mormonism in 2007. Lest we forget one of the worst interviews in history last year.
In the end, O'Donnell has become a sad joke who really shouldn't be allowed on a news station any longer...which makes him fit in perfectly at MSNBC.
It was a metaphysical certitude the most biased television news network on the planet would be giddy with Politifact's announcement that Sarah Palin's "death panel" remark won the website's dubious honor of "Lie of the Year."
And MSNBC sure didn't disappoint.
On Monday's "Countdown," fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell took on the issue by immediately labeling the object of his disaffection "Palinocchio" complete with a picture of the former Alaska governor sporting a large nose.
Even less surprising was how O'Donnell, despite claiming the runner-up list was bipartisan, didn't mention that President Obama was on it (video embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary):
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST: Two words turned the health care debate on its head this summer. Now those words have earned their rightful place in history. Our number two story on the COUNTDOWN, and the lie of the year goes to Sarah Palin`s unforgettable phrase: "death panel."
"Politi-Fact, the truth squadding website of the "St. Petersburg Times" naming Sarah Palin`s death panel whopper the lie of the year. Palin posted the myth about government-run end of life care on Facebook back in August. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with down`s syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama`s death panel, so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgement of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care."
One problem; none of the reform bills included the kind of rationed care Palin warned of.
Stop the tape!
If this was such a lie, why did the Senate almost immediately drop end-of-life provisions in its bill on August 13 as reported by the Boston Globe:
A plan to provide hospice counseling and other end-of-life advice to patients and their families is being dropped by US Senate health care negotiators after critics charged that it would lead to the formation of federal "death panels,'' a key GOP senator said yesterday.
Taking this further, if heathcare reform is unfortunately passed, and care does indeed end up getting rationed in much the same way Palin predicted, wouldn't her statement be true?
Sadly, the Palin haters in the media refuse to consider this possibility:
O'DONNELL: The death panel lie beat a slew of other tall tales. Runners up included birther queen Orly Taitz claiming she found a birth certificate proving President Obama was born in Kenya, Congressman Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" in response to the president`s assertion that health care reform would not insure illegal immigrants, and Glenn Beck claiming Obama`s top science advisor has proposed forcing abortions, and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.
But it was Palin`s death panel lie that really stuck. Politi-Fact reporting that the term was mentioned in news reports 6,000 times in August and September. Playing his part, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa -- he took the death panel meme and turned it up to 11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: We should not have a government program that determines if you`re going to pull the plug on grandma.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Time now to call in Margaret Carlson, political columnist with "Bloomberg News" and the Washington editor of "The Week" magazine. Good evening, Margaret.
MARGARET CARLSON, "BLOOMBERG NEWS": Hello, Lawrence.
O`DONNELL: Margaret, how does Sarah Palin manage to spin her way out of this one? Being associated with the lie of the year is normally a problem for any politician`s resume, isn`t it?
CARLSON: Well, there were so many lies this year, and so little time on the show to do them all justice. But here`s how she tried: she tried when her book was coming out -- which by the way had its own series of falsehoods -- to say that she was like Ronald Reagan in using death panels, because he used the term "evil empire" and it was nowhere on the map. Therefore, her use of death panels was not a real lie, and she used it in the same context as her beloved Ronald Reagan.
I don`t know that anyone really believed it, but that`s what she tried to do. You know, the other lies you mentioned didn`t quite get the grip on a political discussion that this one did, with like 40 percent of Republicans at one time thinking there were death panels.
O`DONNELL: Now, what about Palin`s fans? I mean, don`t they believe this death panel thing? And how -- or does this -- will this suddenly convince them that Sarah Palin was lying about death panels?
CARLSON: No. Her fans believe whatever she says. And they never give up on it. It`s like that saying where a lie gets around the world before the truth catches up. That little asterisk that she put beside death panels, I don`t believe caught up with anybody, nor was it a full blown apology for it.
We live in a time when, you know, politicians are not just entitled to their own opinions. They`re entitled to their own facts. And we live in this world. It`s one reason why there was so much confusion about the health care bill, which, granted, was a huge pile of amendments.
O`DONNELL: Careful, Margaret, careful.
CARLSON: -- and earmarks. I know. Thank you, Lawrence. In the Christmas spirit, you helped me out there. But we were all confused. And so the idea that you want to add confusion, as a public figure, it`s unconscionable in the end. Bob Dole never did that. You know, even Everett Dirksen, who was very partisan, didn`t do that. Republicans of old didn`t do it.
O`DONNELL: We mentioned some of the runners up on the list. It`s a bipartisan list. It includes Joe Biden for saying when one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft. Joe Biden is always very quick to correct these kinds of stretches in his comments. But with Sarah Palin, it seems that loving her means she never has to say she`s sorry.
Hmmm. Notice O'Donnell didn't mention that Obama was also on this list? Nor did he or Carlson discuss the numerous whoppers Biden and Obama made this year that could have been:
CARLSON: Yeah. You know, Joe Biden did a public service in that we all started doing the Count Dracula cough, with our capes drawn up around our faces. He also said, don`t get on Amtrak. But he took -- you know, he sort of amended that, so that we did get on Amtrak.
Sarah Palin is Teflon when it comes to her base, which you can see by the sales of her book, which I think are over five million now. They are ardent. They will put down their 25 dollars. There is nothing she can do, and no amount of catching up with what she says on the part of media or her political opponents that`s going to change that.
O`DONNELL: Margaret Carlson of "Bloomberg News" and "The Week" magazine, thanks for your time tonight.
CARLSON: Thanks, Lawrence.
In the end, it was just another Palin bash in a series of Palin bashes from this despicable network.
General Electric should be so proud.
On the other hand, maybe that's why the corporation is trying to sell 51% of its stake in NBC to Comcast.
Remember how the vocal elements among the left-wing media were all too eager to exploit disagreements between prominent conservatives?
There were comments Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele made about Rush Limbaugh earlier this year and the back-and-forth between former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former GOP vice-presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. These and other overblown instances were offered as anecdotal evidence there was a divide in the Republican Party and/or conservative movement by MSNBC personalities and sometimes by even more mainstream media types like George Stephanopoulos.
However, when the divide is on the other side, especially with the rift developing between gung-ho public option proponents like Howard Dean and the health care compromisers in Congress and in the Obama administration, it's treated differently. On MSNBC's Dec. 21 "Countdown," Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the liberal blog, the Daily Kos, admitted a split among the progressive movement as far as the blogosphere, which has driven the news cycle, on this issue (emphasis added).
"I think it means improve, improve the bill," Moulitsas said. "We're not done fighting. I have to say there is a fairly big split in the progressive online community between those who just want to take a deal, anything, and move on to the next big issue and those of us who haven't quit fighting. I have to say the reason that Obama is now talking about drug re-importation, cheaper drugs from overseas, is because we are continuing to fight."
Moulitsas laid out his reasoning and explained there's still ball to be played to get a bill that makes the fringe elements of the so-called progressive movement satisfied and said the left would continue to keep pushing.
"If you laid down arms, you know what - the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans - they keep extracting concessions," Moulitsas continued. "We cannot at any point lay down our guns and stop fighting. Once we have a final bill, and things are set in stone, then we can re-examine that bill. But right now things can still change and to stop fighting for that change is really patently ridiculous. Any positive change from here on out is going to be because we keep pushing from the left not because we say, ‘Good enough, let's pass it.'"
The Senate version of health care reform made it through one of the biggest hurdles late on a Sunday night and is expected to go down to the wire with a final passage vote expected on Christmas Eve in the Senate. If that version of the bill is passed, as is expected, it will still have to be synchronized with House version of health care reform passed in November in conference before a final version is sent to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.
Nobel Laureate Al Gore should debate former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and all those who don't believe man is responsible for global warming.
So said MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe Friday in an appearance on "Countdown."
This was in response to substitute anchor Lawrence O'Donnell bringing up Palin's answer to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham's question concerning the former Governor debating Gore about climate change.
What followed was rather comical if you understand how many people from around the world have challenged the Global Warmingist-in-Chief to a head-to-head without him once accepting (video embedded below the fold courtesy our friend Story Balloon, relevant section at 3:50):
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST : Now, there is something she might be right about when she was talking to Laura Ingraham on the radio show about the -- in her war of words with Al Gore. Is she right? Would Al Gore not want to, as she put it in her words, "lower himself" to debate her? And if he did, is she also right that he would -- that she would, in her words, "get clobbered" if they had a debate?
RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, now, here`s the skill of Sarah Palin -- setting expectations so low that it`s easy to say, "I`ll buy them." Even where there to be this crazy hypothetical debate between the two of them, let`s face it, Sarah Palin didn`t get clobbered in her debate against Joe Biden. She doesn`t answer the questions. She doesn`t even refer to the question.
In fact, whoever the commentators or the hosts are or whatever debate she has in mind, it`s irrelevant, because she will talk about precisely what she wants.
Would Al Gore do it? I would love to see Al Gore debate the whole array of deniers of climate change. Put them all up. Let`s have a whole sort of Oxford Union style debate and let them have at it. It would be great TV.
What a fabulous idea, Richard. Make it happen!
After all, since Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" came out in 2006, he has regularly been asked to debate by climate realists from across the globe.
Christopher Monckton, former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge in March 2007:
In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."
Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide." [...]
Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge."
The arena of the glittering "Second Great Debate" will be the elegant, Victorian-Gothic Library of the Oxford Museum of Natural History, which was the setting for the "Great Debate" between the natural scientist T. H. Huxley and Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce on the theory of evolution, following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Lord Monckton says he chose this historic venue "not only because the magnificent, Gothic architecture will be a visually-stunning setting for the debate but also because I hope that in this lofty atmosphere the caution and scepticism of true science will once again prevail, this time over the shibboleths and nostrums of the false, new religion of climate alarmism."
Gore didn't accept.
Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, challenged Gore the following month:
April 16, 2007
Honorable Albert Gore 2100 West End Avenue, Suite 620 Nashville, TN 37203
Dear Mr. Gore:
You and I each have books on global warming at the top of the New York Times non-fiction best-seller list.
Your book, An Inconvenient Truth, claims that the earth's recent warming is humanity's fault, and that society must give up most of its current energy supply in order to prevent climate catastrophe.
The book I co-authored, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, assembles historic writings and physical evidence of the planet's past warming/cooling cycles, and experimental evidence showing how variations on the sun can affect the earth's always-varying temperatures. My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable-and not very dangerous anyway.
These books represent the two leading explanations for the earth's recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.
Please contact my office at 540-337-6354 or contact me by email cgfi@hughes.net so we can begin discussing details as to the time and location of the debate.
Sincerely,
Dennis T. Avery, Senior Fellow Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C.
Gore didn't accept.
Months later, a Wharton marketing professor offered Gore a $10,000 bet about who could best predict what would happen to global temperatures in the next ten years.
Best-selling author Dennis Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is promoting in his global warming crusade. Mr. Avery is co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. [...]
The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) among others. [...]
Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than $500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times promoting a debate.
Not surprisingly, Gore has ignored all of these challenges as well as one from Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus in May 2008.
Just how adament is the Nobel Laureate against appearing with folks who don't agree with his views concerning this issue?
Well, in April, Monckton was supposed to appear with Gore at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on climate change. At the last minute, Monckton's invitation was rescinded by House Democrats because Gore refused to attend if Monckton was allowed to speak.
More recently, Gore turned down an invitation to discuss global warming on the premiere episode of John Stossel's new FBN program.
With this in mind, Mr. Wolffe, if you and your friends at MSNBC can actually get Gore to debate this issue, please do, for the list of folks happy to attend is long and distinguished.
Of course, readers are advised not to hold their breath.
On today's Morning Joe, Larry O'Donnell called the Roman Catholic bishop who barred Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) from taking communion a "political hack."
Interestingly, Mika Brzezinski had a totally different take, arguing the controversy was not about the Church but about Kennedy publicizing the matter in a play to his base. Though Bishop Thomas Tobin sent his letter to Kennedy more than two years ago, its contents didn't come to light until Kennedy recently revealed them to a Rhode Island newspaper.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I think this is about Patrick Kennedy . . . All of a sudden this comes out . . . This is about Patrick Kennedy publicizing his rift with the Church so that he can appeal to members of his base.
. . .
LARRY O'DONNELL: This is a political act by a political bishop . . . Political bishops do the church absolutely no good. This guy's—this bishop is a political hack.
Joe Scarborough was quick to disassociate himself from the latest from the man he's dubbed Crazy Larry . . .
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Sister Margaret, I had nothing to do with this conversation, Sister. Nothing at all! I love the Catholic church.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Friday called Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin idiots.
In his disturbed view, the former Alaska Governor wrote a simpleton's book that would still be difficult reading for the conservative talk radio host.
While subbing for Keith Olbermann on "Countdown," O'Donnell belittled Palin's "Going Rogue" as an "index and footnote free, score settling campaign memoir" possessing "[no] mind numbing charts or graphs, no big words, no scholarly Latin phrases, like caveat emptor."
"And I bet the pictures are, like, amazing," said O'Donnell after claiming Limbaugh would "[struggle] to get through" it (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon, file photo):
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: Breaking news; in our third story in the COUNTDOWN, Levi Johnston has seen Sarah Palin`s Oprah prompted invitation to Thanksgiving dinner, and says, quote, "you can tell by her laugh that she was full of it."
Meantime, Rush Limbaugh calls Palin`s book, quote, "truly one of the most substantive policy books I've read," end quote. Rush, I believe you. I cannot imagine you, in full recline on your Gulfstream, Cuban cigar in hand, struggling to get through a more substantive policy book than Sarah`s index and footnote free, score settling campaign memoir. No mind numbing charts or graphs, no big words, no scholarly Latin phrases, like caveat emptor. And I bet the pictures are, like, amazing.
Amazing. For those that can stand it, here's the rest of this segment:
O'DONNELL: The previously-released clips from Palin`s interview with Oprah Winfrey getting new life now that would-be-son-in-law Mr. Johnston has had a chance to see it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OPRAH WINFREY, "OPRAH": One final question about Levi. Will he be invited to Thanksgiving dinner?
SARAH PALIN, FMR. GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: You know, that is a great question. It`s lovely to think that he would ever even consider such a thing, because, of course, he is a part of the family. You want to bring him in the fold and under your wing.
He needs that too, Oprah. I think he needs to know that he is loved. He has the most beautiful child. This can all work out for good. It really can. We don`t have to keep going down this road of controversy and drama.
We are not really into the drama. We don`t really like that. We are more productive. We have other things to concentrate on.
WINFREY: Does that mean yes, he is coming, or no, he is not?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Mr. Johnston, through a "Playgirl" spokesman, has now responded. Quote, "you could tell by her laugh that she was full of it," and that her invitation was a, quote, "nice gesture, but she didn`t mean it." If he went, it would be "awkward." Do you think?
By the way, on the day Palin was taping that Oprah Interview, Mr. Johnston was at the 2009 Flesh-Bot Awards. And he was given his very own award for sexy achievements.
As for the crowd formerly known as the presidential campaign of senator John McCain, we are told that McCain instructed them not to respond to allegations in Palin`s book. But some of them have done more than just respond. McCain himself today saying he has the Palin book, but has not had a chance yet to read it.
Back to Mr. Limbaugh. He says he told Ms. Palin, quote, "people who get hold of this, like the AP or any of the state-controlled media, they are going to focus on the soap opera aspects of your book, and they are going to ignore what is truly one of the most substantive policy books I`ve read."
Let`s bring in MSNBC political analyst and author of "Renegade," Richard Wolffe, also senior strategist at Public Strategies.
Good evening, Richard.
RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Truly, Lawrence, good evening.
O`DONNELL: Richard, I want to listen again to part of Sarah Palin`s answer to Oprah`s Thanksgiving dinner question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: Of course you want -- he is a part of the family. You want to bring him in the fold and under your wing. He needs that, too, Oprah. He needs to know that he is loved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Richard, you want to bring him into the fold. You want to take him under your wing. She can`t say I want to do that. Was she trying to get Oprah to invite Levi to Thanksgiving dinner?
WOLFFE: It`s a nice suggestion. But I suspect Oprah is kind of busy. Actually, I am, too, in case you were suggesting me.
I think there is a bigger picture here, which is that if you talk to people involved in the McCain campaign, she -- Sarah Palin had this weird disembodied reaction to everything going on around her. In public, we saw this fabulous TV performer, someone who could give a great speech at the convention. But in private, she was frozen in the head lamps. It was very difficult to connect reality to her, and get her to wake up to her situation.
I think, in her own mind, there may be a Sarah Palin, the real person, and Sarah Palin, the performer. And maybe the you, we, I think reflects that.
O`DONNELL: McCain has gotten word out to the campaign staff that he doesn`t want them talking. He doesn`t want them prolonging this story. But today an unnamed senior campaign official did dispute Palin`s claim that she was asked to pay legal fees for her own vetting. McCain`s former chief of staff, Mark Salter, defended the campaign`s version of how the Palin interviews with Katie Couric came about. But how long can the rest of the McCain campaign staff control themselves as they turn the pages of this book and find things in the book that they think are untrue?
WOLFFE: Well, it`s hard for them. I`ve been speaking to some of them. They find it very difficult when there are just plain factual errors, inaccuracies, fabrications. They don`t want to get into a public fist fight with Sarah Palin, because that`s unedifying. They recognize it, even if someone who may run for president again doesn`t recognize it.
Look, I was speaking to Nicole Wallace, who was accused of coming up with some weird story for why Sarah Palin would go speak to Katie Couric. According to Palin, Wallace had said that Katie Couric had low self-esteem, and that`s why, I guess out of some sympathy, she should do the interview.
Anybody who knows Nicole Wallace, who was a formidable figure in the 2004 Bush campaign -- anybody who knows Katie Couric would recognize that story just doesn`t pass the smell test.
O`DONNELL: There`s someone right there, Nicole Wallace. Doesn`t there come a point where she has an incentive to clarify as much what she thinks about Katie Couric as what she thinks about Sarah Palin in a situation like this?
WOLFFE: I think there is a desire to clarify things. And they are putting out statements through other people. Again, Sarah Palin has more ink than anybody else. She has more media attention. There comes a point where people have to make a judgment about credibility. Palin, for instance, has gone out and said that the AP reports -- according to her Facebook posting, AP reports about her book were erroneous. Well, she better be right, because in four days we`ll be able to see if the AP was true or not in its reporting about the book. And if she is lying, then, yet again, her credibility is going to be called into question.
O`DONNELL: Now, Levi Johnston has also said I don`t really pay attention to politics now that Sarah is gone. But I think -- Obama that is -- is doing a lot better than Sarah would have done. So I give him props. Do we expect former members of the Palin inner circle to go rogue and give props to Barack Obama?
WOLFFE: I`m not sure the White House is in that desperate a situation that they are going to need this kind of thing, especially from someone who is having trouble keeping his clothes on. We`ll see. It`s a fascinating spectacle.
O`DONNELL: Richard Wolffe of MSNBC, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
On the day after the Republican Party showed gains in a few statewide elections and with key health care and cap-and-trade legislation pending, MSNBC went back to the well to do what it does best - attack the character of one of the network's favorite targets, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
On the Nov. 4 broadcast of MSNBC's "Countdown," with fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell substituting for Keith Olbermann (still MIA since New Jersey gubernatorial race went Republican), Michael Musto, gay columnist for The Village Voice and author of "La Dolce Musto" dressed up as Palin and reenacted two phony speeches. The occasion: A few media outlets had obtained "leaked" portions of two possible speeches Palin would have given on Election Night 2008 in the event of a McCain/Palin victory and a defeat.
"I wish Barack Obama well as the 44th president of the United States," Musto said. "If he governs America with the skill and grace we have often seen in him and the greatness of which he is capable, we're going to be just fine. It would be a happier night if elections were a test of valor and merit alone, but that is not for us to question now. I told my husband Todd to look at the upside. Now, at least, he can clear his schedule and get ready for championship title number five in the Iron Dog Snow Machine Race."
The version of the victory speech "Countdown" viewers were treated to involved Musto mocking the former governor's marriage to Todd Palin.
"It's been just 68 days since that afternoon in Dayton, Ohio, when Sen. McCain introduced me as his running mate," Musto said. "He is truly the maverick. He took a chance on me. Along the way in this campaign, it was Todd, as always, who helped with the children, gave me advice and kept me strong. There are a lot of men in this world who could learn a few things from Todd Palin."
"And I am so lucky that he is still my guy," Musto continued. "And I said to my husband, Todd, that it's not a step down when he's no longer Alaska's first dude. He will now be the first guy ever to become the second dude. Had it gone the other way tonight, we would not have returned in sorrow to the great state of Alaska. We would have carried with us memories that are forever and joyful, experiences that do not depend on victory."
Musto is the show's go-to guy when it comes to tacky attempts to belittle Palin. Back in September 2009, Musto took a shot at Palin's special needs child to criticize the former Alaska governor.
When Uncle Sam fought WWII, Hollywood backed him with patriotic movies and war bond drives and moral boosting celebrity appearances. When Uncle Sam fought Communists, Hollywood was a mixed bag. His...
The willingness of MSNBC on-air commentators to engage in political hackery for the Democratic Party knows no boundaries - as indicated by the latest charged hurled at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's "Countdown," who once called conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, "big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick," almost on a nightly basis attacks Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and has also regularly drubbed Palin, is now charging her with sexism.
On his Nov. 2 broadcast, Olbermann accused Palin of forcing former GOP congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava out of the race for New York's 23rd Congressional District and said Palin should be charged with sexism for doing so.
"Her campaign last year began, I mean within hours of her selection by Sen. McCain, began to be enveloped by their perpetual charges of sexism," Olbermann said. "Every criticism of her was sexism. Everything was because she was a woman, because she was a conservative woman. Why did she just put and push another Republican off the cliff and where are the charges of sexism about that?"
Olbermann's guest, MSNBC regular and occasional "Countdown" fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell, agreed.
"Of course we remember that gender defense-ism of hers came after her criticizing Hillary Clinton for making sounds like that, of course," O'Donnell said. "And well look, this is a terrible situation for them because this is a party that is in the wrong end of the gender gap. And what did they do for it this week? They kicked out this woman who had the Republican nomination to run for the House of Representatives."
And predictably, O'Donnell saw this as evidence for the claim he has made almost nightly - that the Republican Party is crumbling.
"They just beat her out of the place. This couldn't hurt them with women any more. I mean it's astounding," O'Donnell said. "They don't even quite qualify for party status anymore when they're down in the low-20, like 19 percent of Americans saying, ‘I'm a Republican.' This makes things much worse."
O'Donnell would do his viewers a service by taking a look at a recent Gallup poll. According to the poll's findings, conservatives are shown as the top ideological group.
"Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June," Lydia Saad wrote for the Gallup Web site on Oct. 26. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group."
After a pattern of attacking Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, on a nightly basis, one of the strategies is becoming apparent - MSNBC is in need of a boogeyman to give a face to the opposition of these radical steps being undertaken to fundamentally change health care in the United States.
So rather than attack where the opposition is wrong on a policy level, MSNBC "Countdown" fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell is going to apply one of the tactics from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to promote a dramatic shift in the U.S. health care system - "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
"In our number five story on the countdown tonight, the Congressional Budget Office finds that it would leave 18 million people uninsured and the government-run health insurance plan will probably charge consumers premiums that are quote, ‘Somewhat higher, higher than average premiums for the private plans,' end quote," O'Donnell said on the Oct. 30 broadcast of "Countdown." "This is a devastating conclusion for a plan being sold not just as a low-cost option for consumers, especially poor consumers, but as somehow driving private insurance premiums lower."
The target: The usual MSNBC obsession, Bachmann - and they went out of their way with this one, proving they'll go to any length to villainize her.
"First the politics - Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann responded to the House bill today," O'Donnell said. "The full-screen graphic you will see with the question about Joe Lieberman and the word surprise, "surprised" misspelled is courtesy of the interviewers, not the ‘Countdown' staff," O'Donnell said. "The Michael Jackson reference is all Bachmann."
Bachmann explained that this is the path to "socialization" and encouraged people to call their member of Congress to slow down the Democratic leadership's efforts to force this so-called health care reform into law.
"This is socialization of America if this bill goes through," Bachmann said. "And after next Friday, it'll be too late to talk to your member of Congress, so now is the time."
The interviewer asked Bachmann about two Democratic senators that have hinted at siding with the Republican opposition to some of the radical things this health care reform would do to the system. Bachmannd said this was the time to slow its momentum, by making a pop culture reference, which for whatever reason O'Donnell thought he should draw attention to.
"You know I'm not because Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are hearing from people back home - real people," Bachmann said. "And that's what we're going to show the rest of these members of Congress next week when people, normal American people who love this country, get in their cars and actually come here next week because the American people realize this is it, just like that brand-new Michael Jackson movie that came out, ‘This is It.' This is it for freedom."
O'Donnell showed he disapproved of the term "socialization" to describe this, with an attempt to be "snarky."
"Regarding Bachmann's objection to quote, ‘The socialization of America,'" O'Donnell said. "Note to Bachmann's staff - Dictionary.com."
Acting on behalf of Bachmann's staff, a look at the Dictionary.com reveals one of the definitions of "socialization" Bachmann wasn't that far off:
Dictionary.com shows "the act or process of making socialistic: the socialization of industry." And by definition, the action the Democratic leadership in Congress is wanting the government to take - to increase its presence and interrupt the market forces - is "the act of process of making socialistic."
And if O'Donnell and his ilk at MSNBC want to continue to dismiss the notion that this isn't part of a long term strategy put in place to develop a single-payer health care system in the United States, just take a look at President Barack Obama in his own words from 2003.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan - and that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
The purpose of this site is to have a quick snapshot of news coming from the conservative blogosphere. We are hoping to save you the time it takes to find where the pulse of conservatism is at.
Most users scan this front page and the headlines until they find something of interest. Each post also has related article links to help you find out more about each topic.
If there is a site you want added or you want to add your site, please use the contact us page. Our goal is to plug in to the top 100+ viewed conservative websites and keep the latest 100 headlines on this homepage.
We encourage you to visit all of the sites that this news comes from but when you need a quick summary of the latest conservative headlines head on back to www.conservativeblogwatch.com.
MSNBC contributor Lawrence O'Donnell will take over at the 10 pm slot, the cable network announced Tuesday. O'Donnell, who guest-hosted "Countdown" while Keith Olbermann was on leave, is a self-described socialist, and will fit in nicely with the rest of MSNBC's prime-time lineup.
just passing over the need for a House vote on the Senate health care bill, the networks stayed quiet last week. It did come up on Thursday night's Countdown on MSNBC. 
More and more it's becoming clear that when Keith Olbermann takes a night off from "Countdown," and Lawrence O'Donnell fills in for him, viewers are getting the same hyperpartisan, hate-filled Democrat talking points.
Keith Olbermann Friday blamed 9/11 on former President George W. Bush.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell went into an unhinged attack on a former Bush administration official Friday, and was eventually shut out of the discussion by Joe Scarborough.
Nobel Laureate Al Gore should debate former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and all those who don't believe man is responsible for global warming.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Friday called Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin idiots.
