For Democrats to begin turning around their political fortunes there has to be a frank acknowledgement that the comprehensive health-care initiative is a failure, regardless of whether it passes. There are enough Republican and Democratic proposals -- such as purchasing insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, incrementally increasing coverage, initiatives to hold down costs, covering preexisting conditions and ensuring portability -- that can win bipartisan support. It is not a question of starting over but of taking the best of both parties and presenting that as representative of what we need to do to achieve meaningful reform. Such a proposal could even become a template for the central agenda items for the American people: jobs and economic development.

1. Don’t Go Blind — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. The Bipartisan Movement Against Pelosicare — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
3. Whatever You Say, Lady — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez

1. The Klavans — By: John J. Miller
2. Podcast Person — By: John J. Miller
3. Best Horror Films: The Debriefing — By: John J. Miller

1. The Klavans — By: John J. Miller
2. Podcast Person — By: John J. Miller
3. Best Horror Films: The Debriefing — By: John J. Miller

1. Re: Obama Fingers al-Qaeda, Finally — By: Andy McCarthy
2. Chistmas Airliner Attack — the al-Qaeda Connection — By: Andy McCarthy
3. Attorney General Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Filip Shredded OPR’s Misconduct Allegations Against Bush Lawyers — By: Andy McCarthy

MICHAEL MOORE, DIRECTOR, "CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY": Don`t look at me. I went to the seminary. Actually, that might indict me. How did I end up on this show?

BEHAR: Here to talk -- don`t say anything about the seminary.

MOORE: All right.

BEHAR: Ok, you know who he is, Oscar-winning director Michael Moore. All righty.

MOORE: To be honest, I just did come from taking a shower with Rahm Emanuel.

BEHAR: Did you really?

MOORE: Yes. And I want to say there was no finger poking or anything.

BEHAR: Nothing?

MOORE: He was a true gentleman. And he had the kind of soap that have the little speckles in it that gives you kind of the loofah effect while your sudsing so you don`t need a loofah. The guy is way ahead of his time.

BEHAR: Do you know what snorkeling is?

MOORE: I`ve never heard. I think it`s something you do in the Caribbean when you go on vacation.

BEHAR: I don`t think this particular type has anything to do with seeing the coral reef. I think it has some other meaning that people look -- have to look up in the urban dictionary and then we`ll find out what it is.

MOORE: Yes. Have you looked it up?

BEHAR: Someone did. Someone did in the staff.

MOORE: But not you?

BEHAR: No, I have virgin ears.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: So what do you make of this Massa mess? Let`s talk about it.

MOORE: Well, you know, I think we`ve all been bored; it`s the middle of winter. We need some entertainment.

You know, honestly, I`ll tell you how I really feel. I feel bad. I feel really bad that we still live in a society where someone who is gay still feels the need to hide as deep in the closet as possible. Even though when he himself is flinging the door wide open, he still feels this need to maintain this -- actually I saw a great documentary this year -- it didn`t get much distribution -- it`s called "Outrage".

BEHAR: I saw it.

MOORE: Did you see it?

BEHAR: It`s great.

MOORE: In this documentary, the film maker actually exposes the members of Congress who are gay but only exposes the ones who have voted against gay or HIV issues, in other words, the hypocrisy, not just purposely outing them to out them.

But it`s a compelling movie, and actually Massa is a Democrat. 99 percent of these closeted gay members of Congress are Republicans.

BEHAR: Yes. They`re the ones who vote against gay marriage.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: They vote against gays in the military, all that stuff.

MOORE: What`s odd about Massa is that he`s a Democrat. Democrats and liberals are generally accepted. That`s the definition of a liberal, you know, "I accept you for who you are and I have an open mind." So it`s sad that he has to put himself through this.

(CROSSTALK)

BEHAR: The Republicans sort of embraced Massa for about 24 hours this week.

MOORE: Yes.

BEHAR: But they dropped him like a hot rock right now.

MOORE: Right. Yes, well, yes. But I`m sure during the 24-hour embrace many of those Republicans enjoyed it.

BEHAR: I hope so. I hope they did.

So now do you think that -- just to finish this up -- do you think that Rahm Emanuel really did go into the shower naked and poked Massa and sort of intimidate him? Is Rahm Emanuel -- is that typical behavior?

MOORE: No.

BEHAR: You don`t believe it?

MOORE: I don`t believe it. I don`t know him that well. His brother is my agent --

BEHAR: Ari.

MOORE: -- the famous Ari.

BEHAR: He sounds like he`s notoriously evil also.

MOORE: Oh, no. No, no.

BEHAR: Ari?

MOORE: No. He`s the force of good against the evil.

BEHAR: Is that so?

MOORE: Oh absolutely. Let me tell you this right now, Fahrenheit 911 never would have seen the light of day. It would never have been distributed in theaters had Ari Emanuel not exposed Disney who was going to put it on the shelf -- because they own Miramax, that`s who did the film -- and they weren`t going to distribute the film.

And Ari went public with it on the front page of "The New York Times". They wouldn`t let him on the Disney lot for six months. So this was a -- if you need an agent in Hollywood, call Ari at --

BEHAR: But I was really referring to the massacre at the William Morris office that he took over. It was pretty ugly over there. So that`s an inside thing, I think we probably don`t talk about.

MOORE: People don`t care about any of that stuff.

BEHAR: They only care about celebrities getting their projects done.

MOORE: There was an agent massacred in Hollywood? Oh, the horror.

BEHAR: I was at the William Morris office and my agent got that scoop.

MOORE: Oh, I see. And I was at that endeavor so essentially my agency --

BEHAR: Ate my agency.

MOORE: -- ate your agency.

BEHAR: Yes, that`s it.

MOORE: Oh, capitalism.

BEHAR: You see how it goes.

You know what Michael? We`re going to take a break and get comfortable because we have a lot to discuss. We`ll be back in 60 seconds with more of Michael Moore. Don`t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: I`m back with Oscar-winning film maker Michael Moore. His most recent film "Capitalism: A Love Story" is out now on DVD -- and this is a fabulous film. People should all rent that movie or buy it at this point.

MOORE: Oh, no. You should have seen it in the movie theaters. I mean we make films --

BEHAR: Don`t, don`t, don`t.

MOORE: People should go to the theater to see a movie. Unless you`ve just had a baby in the last couple of years and you can`t get out of the house, I understand.

BEHAR: But Michael it`s not playing in the theaters right now.

MOORE: I know. So they missed it.

BEHAR: That ship has sailed.

MOORE: We should just worry about the next film now. Don`t shout any DVD`s.

BEHAR: What is your next film by the way?

MOORE: I don`t have one.

BEHAR: Let`s talk about the Democrats who really are on my last nerve. First of all --

MOORE: That`s generous. They`re on no nerve with me.

BEHAR: I mean they are dropping all over the place and we`re going to lose the whole Congress in November.

MOORE: That is correct, yes. As I`ve said on my Web site, they`re in for an ass-whooping of biblical proportions, absolutely. If they don`t turn this around right now, if they don`t change; they don`t do the job they were sent there to do, it`s all over for them.

BEHAR: So what do they have -- what does Obama have to do? You know this whole thing about, you know, reaching over the other side, that`s really -- who cares?

MOORE: Yes. No more kumbaya.

BEHAR: No. We`re done with that. I don`t know if he has it in his personal character, his personality to be strict like that.

MOORE: Right. Which is a good thing and bad thing because it actually -- because I think he is a decent person; because I think he has a good heart.

BEHAR: He`s a gentleman.

MOORE: Absolutely. And I think he really came in there with one -- he`s not going to give up his own personal political beliefs but I think he really did want to figure out how to work with them. When they come into town, when the Republicans win, they get in their Hummers and they barrel down Pennsylvania Avenue with all guns blazing, get out of the way, we`re in charge. And these are the laws we`re going to pass. And that`s that.

That`s not the Democratic way.

BEHAR: Why? Why can`t we do that?

MOORE: Because we don`t like to start wars -- we`re like a peaceful people.

BEHAR: Well, he`s in Afghanistan, he`s in the war. He`s doing it.

MOORE: He inherited a war that, again, he doesn`t have the wherewithal to say, "You know what? That is a mistake." It wasn`t a mistake to go after the killers of 9/11. But al Qaeda essentially is not in Afghanistan anymore.

BEHAR: I know. Where are they? We can`t catch up with them. They`re moving around.

MOORE: They`re everywhere.

BEHAR: And now -- did you see that thing about "Jihad Jane"?

MOORE: That`s why the war will never end.

BEHAR: Did you see that "Jihad Jane"? She`s a blond with blue eyes type now -- they can`t even stereotype them anymore.

MOORE: I know. Yes. I just think -- look -- it`s best to treat people who commit murder like this as criminals. That was our whole wrong approach as we treated it as a military operation, when it should have been a criminal operation.

You do what the Israelis do, you send in the Mossad, and you grab them and you bring them to justice. That`s the end of that. I mean after a trial, you know, a jury verdict.

BEHAR: Of course. There has to be a trial.

Now, Karl Rove has a book out.

MOORE: Yes.

BEHAR: And he said this, he said Americans are hard to mislead. Do you agree with that?

MOORE: No, actually we`re quite an easy people to mislead in part because this is another reason why people in other countries actually do like us as individuals. We`re a very trusting people. We`re a very kind of --

BEHAR: Is that dumb?

MOORE: No, it`s not dumb. It`s actually -- wouldn`t you rather be a trusting person than not?

BEHAR: Well, there`s a difference between being trusting and being naive.

MOORE: Well, that`s -- I`m just saying that`s the good side of the coin.

The bad side of the coin is we have created a society of ignorant and illiterate people. Our schools have done this; our media has helped to contribute to this. We have 40 million adults in this country right now who are functional illiterates. That means they can`t read and write above a fourth grade-level.

When you have a society that dumb, so to speak, that ignorant --

BEHAR: Well, ignorant, yes.

MOORE: -- that -- well, dumb, I mean, dumb in the sense of --

BEHAR: Uneducated.

MOORE: -- well, they`ve been kept that way.

BEHAR: Illiterate.

MOORE: I mean, it`s an enforced dumbness by a system that doesn`t value education that puts it low on the list of priorities. And I was just watching CNN here earlier today and they had this guy on talking about this in terms of how the college tuition has gone up and kids -- kids who come from the poor and working class, they were told to work hard in school all of these years and the ones who did, now they can`t afford to go to college.

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: So what`s the message here?

BEHAR: The message is go to a state school. I went to Queens College and Stony Brooke and I had paid nothing for my education practically. And --

MOORE: Well, but that -- but that was you know --

BEHAR: A long time ago.

MOORE: And in California and in New York a long time ago.

BEHAR: Yes.

MOORE: I remember those times.

BEHAR: Yes.

MOORE: I remember thinking people I knew that lived in these two states that got to go to college for free. I mean, you guys were like friends.

BEHAR: That`s true.

MOORE: You know.

BEHAR: And I had it all, $24 a term.

MOORE: Yes.

BEHAR: All right, stick around, more with filmmaker Michael Moore on the way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: I`m back with Oscar-winning filmmaker and every Republican`s worst nightmare Michael Moore.

MOORE: No, no, I love Republicans. I, in fact, admire --

BEHAR: Ok.

MOORE: I admire Republicans.

BEHAR: All right, let`s do it again.

MOORE: Yes.

BEHAR: Ok, we`re back with the most charming man in show business, Michael Moore. Everyone loves him, Republicans, Democrats.

MOORE: I love Republicans.

BEHAR: Pinkos, commies.

MOORE: Oh, no those are the --

BEHAR: Right wing -- Glenn Beck, they all love him.

MOORE: Yes, I don`t know about that guy.

BEHAR: Ok.

MOORE: I thought you were just going to refer to those from the planet earth.

BEHAR: Ok, Arianna Huffington was on Bill Maher last week, as were you.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: And she said -- I believe it was there, she said your anger reminds her of a TEA partier. Do you see any similarities between you and the TEA party?

MOORE: Well, I think the -- yes, I think the average citizens who are drawn to it, I think are justifiably upset at the fact that they`ve lost their homes and the banks have gotten billions.

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: That the number one cause of bankruptcy right now in America is medical bills and people are hurting.

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: And this is not unusual, but they way that -- but those who have really started the TEA bag movement --

BEHAR: I don`t think it`s TEA bagging --

MOORE: The TEA party --

BEHAR: But that`s another --

MOORE: Yes, the TEA Party Movement.

BEHAR: Check that in the urban dictionary.

MOORE: Yes, you started this.

BEHAR: Go ahead.

MOORE: You took my mind into the --

BEHAR: Oh, I`m sorry, it`s my fault.

MOORE: The TEA Party --

BEHAR: I`m Satan`s spawn.

MOORE: Yes, the -- TEA Party Movement is -- look, historically it`s not unusual for those on the right, especially those in power, who hold power and money, to manipulate the working people and the have-nots, the people who have been hurt by the system and take them rightward.

BEHAR: How do they do that? They do it.

MOORE: Fear.

BEHAR: They have people --

MOORE: It`s fear.

BEHAR: -- vote against their own interests.

MOORE: Because they`re more afraid of -- of what could possibly happen and they are convinced that the boogie man is going to get them.

BEHAR: Yes.

MOORE: It`s how they sold they the war --

BEHAR: Fear.

MOORE: -- it`s how they sold all of this stuff.

And the fear seems legitimate because obviously so many people are living from paycheck to paycheck right now.

BEHAR: Yes.

MOORE: They don`t know if they`re going to be able to pay the mortgage next year. They don`t know if their kids are going to go to college.

BEHAR: But you know, Michael, with the bank bailouts and the Republicans started that TARP thing --

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: -- and then Obama continued it.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: And so the wrath is targeted to the Democrats and targeted to Obama.

MOORE: Yes, because they owned it, they owned it, that`s right. He took it over and he owned it. And instead of bringing in a new idea, a new fresh idea, he brings in their ideas and brings back the guys, Summers --

BEHAR: Geithner.

MOORE: -- and Geithner and Rubin who were, in large part, responsible for the best to begin with.

BEHAR: I know, that was -- I don`t understand why he did that. And I`m not happy with that. Are you?

MOORE: No, I wasn`t happy the day he did it.

BEHAR: No.

MOORE: And I tried to rationalize it at the time and thinking well, you know, he`s doing what my dad did, you know, when you make a mess in your room, you have to go in and clean it up. So he`s brought the people in who`ve made the mess in Wall Street --

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: -- and he`s going to force them to clean it up.

BEHAR: Yes, but they haven`t.

MOORE: No, they haven`t --

BEHAR: They haven`t.

MOORE: -- in fact, not one single -- not one single regulation has been put back in place on Wall Street or the banks and so they`re back to doing their derivatives and your credit default swaps --

BEHAR: Now, why can`t they put the regulations in -- what is holding that up?

MOORE: Because the lobbyists for Wall Street are lining the pockets of the Members of Congress and the White House and they`re not going to allow this thing happen. And so get ready for crash number two. And that crash could be worse than the last crash.

BEHAR: Well, you can see why people are furious.

MOORE: Of course and fearful.

BEHAR: And on both sides. On both sides.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: All right, let`s do a Twitter question.

MOORE: Ok, you got you --

BEHAR: I have a couple of Twitters.

MOORE: That people sent in to you?

BEHAR: Yes, about you. What`s up with the baseball hats? Hats, it`s plural.

MOORE: Yes, that`s a very -- I don`t know -- you know, I come from Michigan, I come from the Midwest. We all wear all these things, we have worn it all our lives. But I agree with you, I have a full head of hair.

BEHAR: Yes.

MOORE: This is what guys wear when they don`t have any hair. I got my hair. And I think starting right now on your show I`m going to retire - -

BEHAR: The hat?

MOORE: The ball caps. No I`m --

BEHAR: Seriously? No, no, no.

MOORE: Don`t do that --

BEHAR: It`s part of your thing. It`s part of your head --

MOORE: My thing?

BEHAR: The fabulous (INAUDIBLE) --

MOORE: And what would be the comparable (INAUDIBLE) for you?

BEHAR: For me?

MOORE: Yes.

BEHAR: I don`t have a (INAUDIBLE), so I only have earrings. Did you lose weight? You looked smaller on your last -- you look smaller on your - - this is a tweet --

MOORE: Yes, yes.

BEHAR: -- on you`re last TV appearance. Did you lose weight?

MOORE: I have -- I`ve lost about 60 pounds here in the last 12 months. That`s correct.

BEHAR: Wow. How did you do it?

MOORE: Well, I read this book somebody gave me, it`s called Pritikin --

BEHAR: Well, the Pritikin diet, yes.

MOORE: Yes, it`s been around I guess forever. And so I just tried it and it`s basically eat your fruits and vegetables and go for a walk every day. Move around and you know, just eat enough for the fruits and vegetables that your grandma told you to eat and you`ll be ok, and that`s what I`ve done, it`s very simple, a pound a week --

BEHAR: A pound a week.

MOORE: -- is all I`m trying to lose. Yes very slow.

BEHAR: So like in 100 weeks you`ll lose 100 pounds?

MOORE: Well, that`s well, I`m --

BEHAR: That`s two years.

MOORE: I`m -- I`m -- yes and so I`m ---

BEHAR: Not that you need to lose that much but a person could?

MOORE: No, but I didn`t -- I`ve been doing that for about 60 weeks now I`ve lost 60 pounds --

BEHAR: That`s good.

MOORE: And I want to lose another 60 pounds. I mean, so --

BEHAR: No, no, no.

MOORE: Yes, yes, yes. It`s -- yes.

BEHAR: You know, the obesity crisis in the country is the new crisis, now. We did smoking, now we`re going the obesity crisis.

MOORE: Well, the sad part of it is that the fact that so many of our kids are obese now and getting diabetes --

BEHAR: I know.

MOORE: -- that we would do this and talk about child abuse. I mean, and I would say again to my Republican friends, you should see this as a national security issue, because we`re raising a generation of overweight, diabetic kids and they`re not going to be able to defend you.

Hey -- I got -- I asked my Twitter people.

BEHAR: We have one tweet -- we have to extend this segment.

MOORE: I told them that you were tweeting about me, so I tweeted about you and they want me to ask you a question.

BEHAR: What?

MOORE: The first question is, how was it to be acting in Manhattan Murder Mystery with Woody Allen?

BEHAR: It was great, I loved it.

MOORE: And Alan Alda, great man.

BEHAR: I love Alan Alda and Woody Allen did not come on to me because I was over 15. Thank you, Michael, so much.

"Capitalism: A Love Story" is out now.

MOORE: He`s one of our great directors, Woody Allen.

BEHAR: He is but he`s still a bit of a perv.

MOORE: Well --

BEHAR: Oh, come one.

MOORE: Well, we can check in to you too, you know. I mean --

BEHAR: No, no, no, no, no.

MOORE: We`re all -- we are all flawed people.

BEHAR: Who marries their daughter, come on? Get over it.

MOORE: Stepdaughter, sort of, kind of.

BEHAR: Now on DVD and Blu-Ray.

MOORE: Ok, you`re right.

1. Michael Moore: 250,000 Killed in Haiti Because It’s an Unregulated ‘Republican’s Paradise’
2. Michael Moore: Presidential Speechwriter — By: Marc Thiessen
3. ‘What’s Michael Moore Talking About?’ — By: Veronique de Rugy

Host Behar started the interview by asking Moore his views on former Democratic Congressman Eric Massa, who recently resigned amid charges that he sexually harassed male aides. Moore used the opportunity to bash gay Republicans as he praised the film Outrage which seeks to expose Republicans rumored to be gay. Moore:

I saw a great documentary this year – it didn`t get much distribution – it was called Outrage. ... the filmmaker actually exposes the members of Congress who are gay but only exposes the ones who have voted against gay or HIV issues – in other words, the hypocrisy. ... it`s a compelling movie, and actually Massa is a Democrat – 99 percent of these closeted gay members of Congress are Republicans.

Behar agreed that the film was a "great" documentary, and, after she recounted that some conservatives "embraced" Massa at first because he was attacking the Obama administration, Moore quipped, "I`m sure during the 24-hour embrace many of those Republicans enjoyed it."

As the discussion turned to President Obama’s continuation of the war in Afghanistan, Moore gave his view that the murder of almost 3,000 people in the 9/11 attacks should have been treated like a criminal act and handled by the justice system instead of through war, to Behar’s agreement:

MICHAEL MOORE: I just think, look, it`s best to treat people who commit murder like this as criminals.

JOY BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: That was our whole wrong approach to this. We treated it as a military operation when it should have been a criminal operation. You do what the Israelis do, you send in the Mossad, and you grab them and you bring them to justice. And that`s the end of that. And that's, you know, well, I mean, after a trial and, you know, a jury verdict.

BEHAR: Of course. There has to be a trial.

The HLN host soon brought up former Bush advisor Karl Rove’s recent contention that American voters are "not easily misled," prompting Moore to suggest that President Bush and Rove fooled Americans because America is a "society of ignorant and illiterate people."

MOORE: The bad side of the coin is we have created a society of ignorant and illiterate people. Our schools have done this, our media has helped to contribute to this. We have 40 million adults in this country right now who are functional illiterates. That means they can`t read and write above a fourth grade-level. When you have a society that dumb, so to speak, that ignorant-

BEHAR: Well, ignorant, yeah.

MOORE: -that, well, dumb, I mean, dumb in the sense of-

BEHAR: Uneducated.

MOORE: -well, they`ve been kept that way.

BEHAR: Illiterate.

MOORE: I mean, it`s an enforced dumbness by a system that doesn`t value education that puts it low on the list of priorities.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Thursday, March 11, Joy Behar Show on CNN Headline News:

JOY BEHAR: Just when you thought "Ticklegate" couldn`t get any worse, former Congressman Eric Massa is facing new allegations that years ago he climbed into a Navy shipmate`s bunk bed and tried to snorkel him. Creepy, right? I don`t even really know what it means. Here to talk about Massa-

MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: Don`t look at me. I went to the seminary. Oh, actually, that might indict me. How did I end up on this show?

BEHAR: Don`t say anything about the seminary.

MOORE: All right.

BEHAR: Okay, you know who he is, Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. All righty.

MOORE: Well, to be honest, I just did come from taking a shower with Rahm Emanuel.

BEHAR: Did you really?

MOORE: Yeah, and I want to say there was no finger poking or anything.

BEHAR: Nothing?

MOORE: He was a true gentleman. And, actually, he had the kind of soap that has the little speckles in it that gives you kind of the loofah effect while you’re sudsing so you don`t need a loofah. The guy is way ahead of his time.

BEHAR: Do you know what snorkeling is?

MOORE: I`ve never heard. I think it`s something you do in the Caribbean when you go on vacation.

BEHAR: I don`t think this particular type has anything to do with seeing a coral reef. I think it has some other meaning that people look, have to look up in the urban dictionary and then they`ll find out what it is.

MOORE: Yeah. Have you looked it up?

BEHAR: Someone did. Someone did on the staff.

MOORE: But not you?

BEHAR: No, I have virgin ears.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: So what do you make of this Massa mess? Let`s talk about it.

MOORE: Well, you know, I think we`ve all been bored, it`s the middle of winter.

BEHAR: I know.

MOORE: We need some entertainment. You know, I guess, honestly, I`ll tell you how I really feel. I feel bad. I feel really bad that we still live in a society where someone who is gay still feels the need to hide as deep in the closet as possible, even though when he himself is flinging the door wide open, he still feels this need to maintain this – actually I saw a great documentary this year – it didn`t get much distribution – it was called Outrage.

BEHAR: I saw it.

MOORE: Did you see it?

BEHAR: It`s great.

MOORE: Now, in this documentary, the filmmaker actually exposes the members of Congress who are gay but only exposes the ones who have voted against gay or HIV issues – in other words, the hypocrisy.

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: He’s not just purposely outing them to out them. But it`s a compelling movie, and actually Massa is a Democrat – 99 percent of these closeted gay members of Congress are Republicans.

BEHAR: Yes. They`re the ones who vote against gay marriage.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: They vote against gays in the military, all that stuff.

MOORE: What`s odd about Massa is that he`s a Democrat. I mean, Democrats and liberals are generally accept – that`s the definition of a liberal, you know, "I accept you for who you are and I have an open mind." So it`s sad that he has to put himself through this.

BEHAR: The Republicans sort of embraced Massa for about 24 hours this week.

MOORE: Yeah, yeah.

BEHAR: But they dropped him like a hot rock right now.

MOORE: Right, yeah, well, yeah, yeah, but I`m sure during the 24-hour embrace many of those Republicans enjoyed it.

BEHAR: I hope so. I hope they did. So now do you think that – just to finish this up – do you think that Rahm Emanuel really did go into the shower naked and poke Massa and sort of intimidate him? Is Rahm Emanuel – is that typical behavior?

MOORE: No.

BEHAR: You don`t believe it?

MOORE: No, I don`t believe it. I don`t know him that well. His brother is my agent-

BEHAR: Ari.

MOORE: -the famous Ari.

BEHAR: He sounds like he`s notoriously evil also.

MOORE: Oh, no. No, no.

BEHAR: Ari?

MOORE: No, he is the force of good against the evil.

BEHAR: Is that so?

MOORE: Oh, absolutely.

BEHAR: Oh, really.

MOORE: Let me tell you this right now, Fahrenheit 9/11 never would have seen the light of day, it would never have been distributed in theaters had Ari Emanuel not exposed Disney who was going to put it on the shelf – because they own Miramax, that`s who did the film – and they weren`t going to distribute the film. And Ari went public with it on the front page of the New York Times. And they wouldn`t let him on the Disney lot for six months. So this was a, if you need an agent in Hollywood, call Ari at-

BEHAR: But I was really referring to the massacre at the William Morris office that he took over. It was pretty ugly over there. So that`s an inside thing, I think we probably don`t talk about.

MOORE: People don`t care about any of that stuff.

BEHAR: They only care about celebrities getting their projects done.

MOORE: There was an agent massacred in Hollywood? Oh, the horror.

BEHAR: I was at the William Morris office, and my agent got that scoop.

MOORE: Oh, I see. And I was at Endeavor, so essentially my agency-

BEHAR: Ate my agency.

MOORE: -ate your agency.

BEHAR: Yeah, that`s it.

MOORE: Ah, capitalism.

BEHAR: You see how it goes. Okay, you know what, Michael, we`re going to take a break and get comfortable because we have a lot to discuss. And we`ll be back in 60 seconds with more of Michael Moore, so don`t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: I`m back with Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. His most recent film Capitalism: A Love Story is out now on DVD, and this is a fabulous film. People should all rent that movie or buy it, at this point.

MOORE: Oh, no.

BEHAR: It’s really a good movie.

MOORE: You should have seen it in the movie theaters. I mean, we make films-

BEHAR: Oh, don`t, don`t, don`t, don’t-

MOORE: No, people should go to the theater to see a movie. I mean, unless you`ve just had a baby in the last couple of years, you can`t get out of the house, I understand.

BEHAR: But, Michael, it`s not playing in the theaters right now, so let’s move on.

MOORE: No, I know, so they missed it.

BEHAR: That ship has sailed.

MOORE: We should just worry about the next film now. Don`t sell any DVD`s.

BEHAR: What is your next film, by the way?

MOORE: I don`t have one.

BEHAR: Okay, let`s talk about the Democrats who really are on my last nerve.

MOORE: Yeah.

BEHAR: First of all-

MOORE: That`s generous. They`re on no nerve with me.

BEHAR: I mean, they are dropping all over the place, and we`re going to lose the whole Congress in November.

MOORE: That is correct, yeah. As I`ve said on my Web site, they`re in for an ass-whooping of biblical proportions, absolutely. If they don`t turn this around right now, if they don`t change, they don`t do the job they were sent there to do, it`s all over for them.

BEHAR: So what do they have – what does Obama have to do? You know, this whole thing about, you know, reaching over to the other side, that`s really – who cares?

MOORE: Yeah, no more kumbaya.

BEHAR: No, we`re done with that. And I don`t know if he has it in his personal character, his personality to be strict like Bush was.

MOORE: Right, which is a good thing and a bad thing because it actually – because I think he is a decent person; because I think he has a good heart.

BEHAR: He`s a gentleman.

MOORE: Absolutely. And I think he really came in there with wanting – he`s not going to give up his own personal political beliefs, but I think he really did want to, you know, figure out how to work with them. When they come into town, when the Republicans win, they get in their Hummers and they barrel down Pennsylvania Avenue with all guns blazing, get out of the way, we`re in charge. And these are the laws we`re going to pass. And that`s that. That`s not the Democratic way.

BEHAR: Why? Why? Why can`t we do that?

MOORE: Because we don`t like to start wars. We`re like a peaceful people.

BEHAR: Well, he`s in Afghanistan, he`s in the war. He`s doing it.

MOORE: Well, he inherited a war that, again, he doesn`t have the wherewithal to say, "You know what? That is a mistake." It wasn`t a mistake to go after the killers of 9/11. But al-Qaeda essentially is not in Afghanistan anymore.

BEHAR: I know. ... We can`t catch up with them. They`re moving around.

MOORE: They`re everywhere.

BEHAR: Did you see that thing about Jihad Jane?

MOORE: That`s why the war will never end.

BEHAR: Did you see the Jihad Jane? She`s a blond with blue eyes type now – they can`t even like stereotype them anymore.

MOORE: I know. Yeah, well, I just think, look, it`s best to treat people who commit murder like this as criminals.

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: That was our whole wrong approach to this. We treated it as a military operation when it should have been a criminal operation. You do what the Israelis do, you send in the Mossad, and you grab them and you bring them to justice. And that`s the end of that. And that’s, you know, well, I mean, after a trial and, you know, a jury verdict.

BEHAR: Of course. There has to be a trial. Now, Karl Rove has a book out.

MOORE: Yes.

BEHAR: And he said this, he said Americans are hard to mislead. Do you agree with that?

MOORE: No, actually, we`re quite an easy people to mislead in part because – and this is another reason why people in other countries actually do like us as individuals. We`re a very trusting people. We`re a very kind of-

BEHAR: Is that dumb?

MOORE: Well, no, it`s not dumb. It`s actually, wouldn`t you rather be a trusting person than not?

BEHAR: Well, there`s a difference between being trusting and being naive.

MOORE: Well, that`s, I`m just saying that`s the good side of the coin. The bad side of the coin is we have created a society of ignorant and illiterate people. Our schools have done this, our media has helped to contribute to this. We have 40 million adults in this country right now who are functional illiterates. That means they can`t read and write above a fourth grade-level. When you have a society that dumb, so to speak, that ignorant-

BEHAR: Well, ignorant, yeah.

MOORE: -that, well, dumb, I mean, dumb in the sense of-

BEHAR: Uneducated.

MOORE: -well, they`ve been kept that way.

BEHAR: Illiterate.

MOORE: I mean, it`s an enforced dumbness by a system that doesn`t value education that puts it low on the list of priorities. And I was just watching CNN here earlier today, and they had this guy on talking about this in terms of how the college tuition has gone up and kids, kids who come from the poor and working class, they were told to work hard in school all of these years and the ones who did, now they can`t afford to go to college.

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: So what`s the message here?

BEHAR: The message is go to a state school. I went to Queens College and Stony Brooke, and I had paid nothing for my education practically. And-

MOORE: Well, but that, but that was, you know-

BEHAR: A long time ago.

MOORE: And in California and in New York a long time ago.

BEHAR: Yeah.

MOORE: I remember those times.

BEHAR: Yeah.

MOORE: I remember thinking people I knew that lived in these two states that got to go to college for free, I mean, you guys were like France.

BEHAR: That`s true.

MOORE: You know.

BEHAR: I had it all, $24 a term.

MOORE: Yeah.

BEHAR: All right, stick around, more with filmmaker Michael Moore on the way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEHAR: I`m back with Oscar-winning filmmaker and every Republican`s worst nightmare Michael Moore.

MOORE: No, no, I love Republicans. I, in fact, admire, I admire Republicans for-

BEHAR: All right, let`s do it again.

MOORE: Yes.

BEHAR: Okay, we`re back with the most charming man in show business, Michael Moore. Everyone loves him, Republicans, Democrats.

MOORE: I love Republicans.

BEHAR: Pinkos, commies.

MOORE: Oh, no those are the-

BEHAR: Right-wing zealots, Glenn Beck, they all love him.

MOORE: I don`t know about that guy. I thought you were just going to refer to those from the planet Earth.

BEHAR: Okay, Arianna Huffington was on Bill Maher last week, as were you.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: And she said, I believe it was there, she said your anger reminds her of a Tea partier. Do you see any similarities between you and the Tea party?

MOORE: Well, I think the, yes, I think the average citizens who are drawn to it, I think are justifiably upset at the fact that they`ve lost their homes and the banks have gotten billions.

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: That the number one cause of bankruptcy right now in America is medical bills and people are hurting. And this is not unusual ... but those who have really started the Tea bag movement-

BEHAR: I don`t think it`s Tea bagging. That’s another.

MOORE: The Tea party. Yeah, the Tea Party movement.

BEHAR: Check that in the urban dictionary.

MOORE: Yeah, you started this.

BEHAR: Go ahead.

MOORE: You took my mind into the-

BEHAR: Oh, sorry, it`s my fault.

MOORE: The Tea Party-

BEHAR: I`m Satan`s spawn.

MOORE: Yeah, the Tea Party movement is – look, historically, it`s not unusual for those on the right, especially those in power, who hold power and money, to manipulate the working people and the have-nots, the people who have been hurt by the system, and take them rightward.

BEHAR: How do they do that? They do it.

MOORE: Fear.

BEHAR: They have people-

MOORE: It`s fear.

BEHAR: -vote against their own interests.

MOORE: Because they`re more afraid of, of what could possibly happen, and they are convinced that the boogie man is going to get them.

BEHAR: Yeah.

MOORE: And it`s how they sold the war-

BEHAR: Fear.

MOORE: -it`s how they sold all of this stuff. And the fear seems legitimate because obviously so many people are living from paycheck to paycheck right now.

BEHAR: Yes.

MOORE: They don`t know if they`re going to be able to pay the mortgage next year. They don`t know if their kids are going to go to college.

BEHAR: But, you know, Michael, with the bank bailouts and the Republicans started that TARP thing-

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: -and then Obama continued it.

MOORE: Right.

BEHAR: And so the wrath is targeted to the Democrats and targeted to Obama.

MOORE: Yeah, because they owned it, they owned it, that`s right. He took it over and he owned it. And instead of bringing in a new idea, a new fresh idea, he brings in their ideas and brings back the guys, Sumner-

BEHAR: Geithner.

MOORE: -and Geithner and Rubin who were, in large part, responsible for the mess, to begin with.

BEHAR: I know, that was, I don`t understand why he did that. And I`m not happy with that. Are you?

MOORE: No, I wasn`t happy with it the day he did it.

BEHAR: No.

MOORE: And I tried to rationalize it at the time and thinking well, you know, he`s doing what my dad did, you know, when you make a mess in your room, you have to go in and clean it up. So he`s brought the people in who`ve made the mess in Wall Street-

BEHAR: Right.

MOORE: -and he`s going to force them to clean it up.

BEHAR: Yeah, but they haven`t.

MOORE: No, they haven`t-

BEHAR: They haven`t.

MOORE: -in fact, not one single, not one single regulation has been put back in place on Wall Street or the banks, and so they`re back to doing their derivatives and their credit default swaps-

BEHAR: Now, why can`t they put the regulations in? What is holding that up?

MOORE: Because the lobbyists for Wall Street are lining the pockets of the members of Congress and the White House, and they`re not going to allow this thing [to] happen. And so get ready for crash number two. And that crash could be worse than the last crash.

BEHAR: Well, you can see why people are furious.

MOORE: Of course, and fearful.

BEHAR: And both sides. On both sides.

MOORE: Right.

[Behar asks Moore Twitter questions about why he wears a cap and about his recent weight loss.]

BEHAR: You know, the obesity crisis in the country is the new crisis now. We did smoking, now we`re doing the obesity crisis.

MOORE: Well, the sad part of it is that the fact that so many of our kids are obese now and getting diabetes-

BEHAR: I know.

MOORE: -that we would do this to – talk about child abuse. I mean, and I would say again to my Republican friends, you should see this as a national security issue because we`re raising a generation of overweight, diabetic kids, and they`re not going to be able to defend you. Hey, I got, I asked my Twitter people.

BEHAR: We have one tweet, we have to extend this segment.

MOORE: I told them that you were tweeting about me, so I tweeted about you and they want me to ask you a question.

BEHAR: What?

 

MOORE: The first question is, how was it to be acting in Manhattan Murder Mystery with Woody Allen?

BEHAR: Oh, that was, it was great, I loved it.

MOORE: And Alan Alda, great man.

BEHAR: I love Alan Alda, and Woody Allen did not come on to me because I was over 15. Thank you, Michael, so much. Capitalism: A Love Story is out now.

MOORE: He`s one of our great directors, Woody Allen.

BEHAR: Well, he is, but, you know, he`s still a bit of a perv.

MOORE: Well-

BEHAR: Oh, come on.

 

MOORE: Well, we could, well, we could check into you, too, you know. I mean-

BEHAR: No, no, no, no, no.

MOORE: We`re all, we are all flawed people.

BEHAR: Who marries their daughter? Come on, get over it.

MOORE: Stepdaughter, sort of, kind of.

BEHAR: Now on DVD and Blue Ray. Up next-

MOORE: Okay, you`re right!

BEHAR: -an Apple employee claims Law and Order star Richard Belzer choked her. My pal Richard will give you his side of the story, so stick around.

1. Does Michael Moore Hate Working People?
2. Michael Moore Slams Gay Republican ‘Hypocrisy,’ Jokes ‘Enjoyed’ Embracing Massa
3. Michael Moore: Presidential Speechwriter — By: Marc Thiessen

The "study" apparently was done by the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, based in Oakland, California, with an assist from another Oakland outfit, the Closing the Gap Initiative. So blame them, not me, for slandering African-American women:

In a groundbreaking report released Monday by a leading economic research group, social scientists turned a spotlight on the grave financial challenges facing an often overlooked group of women, many of whom could not take an unpaid sick day or repair a major appliance without going into debt.

Or, if you believe them, buy a cheeseburger.

Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600, ... the median wealth for single black women is only $5.

That's startling, all right. I don't think it's right, but to the extent that there is some kernel of truth there, what could the cause be? The Post-Gazette's last paragraphs--the most appalling of the piece--suggest an answer:

Ms. Lui [director of the Closing the Gap Initiative] said the Insight report would be used to encourage the government to close the wealth gap and improve the outlook for women of color, just as it did for Americans who received land through the Homestead Act, and education through the GI bill.

"If wealth was based on hard work, African-Americans would be the wealthiest people in our nation," she said. "It's not about behavior. It's about government policies. Who does the government help and who is it not helping?

"Our government knows how to build wealth for people. They've done it for others and they can do it for all of us. They need to focus some attention on women of color. Look at the situation and see what we need."

How about this for a revised headline: "Those who believe that government handouts are the only path to prosperity have median wealth of $5."

Via Repubclic.

1. Arrogance, corruption, stupidity
2. Video: The epic fail of 2009
3. Video: The epic fail of 2009

Here's another:

From the sublime to the ridiculous, some would say, but hey: I like Las Vegas:

Here's one more, of New York, taken by one of my nephews who is about to embark on a career as a photojournalist. He didn't have a helicopter, so he climbed high on a New York bridge to take this photo, which I think is pretty darned good:

1. A Cool 12 Trillion
2. More Photos From Western CPAC
3. Cool Heads — By: Jay Nordlinger

Since Kondracke has no opponent, it doesn't matter much whether we vote for him. However, I think it is important that alums who share my general views about issues relating to Dartmouth have a sense of what they can expect from Kondracke. This post offers my sense of this.

We know how Kondracke and those in the Dartmouth power structure who caused him to be nominated want us to think about him. They want us to think of him as a fair and open-minded moderate who, in his words, "will perform as I have as a journalist--work hard to understand the issues, listen to all sides, determine what's best. . . ." This sensible centrism will, again in Kondracke's words, help bring an "end the rancor surrounding trustee elections that has damaged Dartmouth's reputation."

Prior to the onset of the campaign, this narrative had some plausibility. Kondracke is well-respected in his field and oozes political moderation on television. Despite my mixed view of the mainsteam media, I found refreshing the prospect of having a journalist on the Board, as opposed to yet another corporate CEO.

The real issue, though, was always whether Kondracke has a clue about what's actually going on at Dartmouth or the intellectual curiosity to find out. If not, then there is no hope that he can add value to the Board.

It is now clear to me that Kondracke falls short in these key respects.

Consider his position on the key issue of parity on the Board of Trustees:

I certainly favor expanded elected alumni representation on the board and will work to achieve it. I am even open to working for parity if it can be achieved while providing Dartmouth with the qualified trustees we need.

But does Kondracke believe that parity can be achieved while providing Dartmouth with qualified trustees? Either he won't tell us or he doesn't know.

If he won't tell us, he's being disingenuous. If he doesn't know, he hasn't paid enough attention to merit being a Trustee.

Rather than assuming bad faith, I assume Kondracke doesn't know. But then, it's fair to ask, how will he decide? In other words, what must Dartmouth's alums do to prove to Mort Kondracke that, with our Dartmouth education in hand, we are capable of determining what kind of trustees Dartmouth needs? And how long will our probationary period last?

Absent an answer (and I don't expect Kondracke to provide one -- why should he; he's unopposed?), let me try one. Our only hope of eventually causing Kondracke to conclude that Dartmouth alumni are capable of electing half the trustees is consistently to elect the candidates served up by the Dartmouth power structure -- candidates like Kondracke and his running mate Replogle -- rather than those pesky petition candidates. It was, after all, the election of petition candidates that caused the power structure to violate its contract with the Association of Alumni and revoke our right to elect half of the Board.

This leads me to Kondracke's advocacy on behalf of Replogle. I have no problem with the fact that Kondracke supports his fellow hand-picked candidate. Many smart, well-meaning alums do. But the nature of Kondracke's attacks on Joe Asch undermine his claim, in this context, to be the fair and open-minded inquisitive journalist.

For example, Kondracke told the student newspaper that at a recent alumni event in Minneapolis, he complained that Asch "has been a non-stop critic of the College, and he is also inclined to be a micromanager." These, as I've noted, are Replogle's standard talking points against Asch.

But do they withstand scrutiny of the kind one would expect from an ace journalist? The second point -- that Asch is a micro-manager -- is intellectually lazy and only a little short of dishonest. The only evidence for it is that Asch has provided lots of in-depth, fact-specific criticism of the way Dartmouth is managed. But it doesn't follow that Asch would attempt as a trustee to "micro-manage" Dartmouth. Kondracke states that "it's not a trustee's role to micro-manage policy or try to act as an administrator, but I will. . .question expenditures. . . " That's the kind of thing we can expect Asch to do, only he'll ask better questions because he knows more.

As I have said:

There is no evidence that [Asch] intends to tell Jim Kim how to manage time sheets [Replogle's derisvie suggestion]. But the fact that Joe understands the inner workings of the college should, other things being equal, make him a better trustee than his more detached and vastly less knowledgeable opponent.

Kondracke admits that "some poor fiscal decisions were made in the past." That's the conventional wisdom now, but it wasn't always so. I submit that no one did more to expose these poor decisions than Joe Asch. He deserves better than to be derided as a micro-manager.

But Asch is a "non-stop" critic, says Kondracke. Again, he betrays his intellectual laziness. The issue isn't the pace of Asch's criticism, but its validity. Can Kondracke point to instances in which Asçh's criticism has been inaccurate or unfair? I doubt it. It's not that such instances don't exist; they may, but Kondracke hasn't paid enough attention or done enough digging to know.

All he seems to know is the party line.

I fear that, as a Trustee, this may be about all he ever knows.

1. Good news and bad news from Dartmouth
2. Two related developments at Dartmouth
3. A word to our Dartmouth readers

I've just started the book today, but it's a fascinating and substantial work. It is well written and copiously annotated; not a casually tossed-off memoir, but a book intended as a serious historical document. The chapters on Rove's youth are touching, and his discussions of campaign strategy are candid and illuminating. I'm looking forward to asking Rove some questions I've wondered about for a long time, like: whose idea was it to retract the "16 words," a decision that began the downfall of the Bush administration? Tune in on Saturday to learn the answer. In the meantime, anyone who wants to understand politics in our time should read Rove's book.

1. Courage and Consequence
2. On my desk: Courage and Consequence
3. Stopping ObamaCare: Who Has The Courage?

 Big tip of the hat to NBers Gregory J. and Patrick G.

1. Meredith Jessup: What’s Wrong With This Picture? Everything.
2. Michael Steele’s paid speeches — wrong idea, wrong man
3. Hillary Clinton — wrong time, wrong place

During a January 21 screed regarding the controversial Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -- in which the Supreme Court granted all companies the same rights as MSNBC's parent company GE -- Olbermann called the Media Institute's Floyd Abrams, a Jew, "the Quisling of freedom of speech in this country."

Vidkun Quisling, for those who don't know, was a Norwegian Nazi collaborator who aided in the Third Reich's conquest of his country by disclosing vital defense information to the Nazis. If Benedict Arnold had been complicit in genocide, we might consider Quisling his Norwegian equivalent.

The Media Institute wrote Olbermann an open letter yesterday calling on him to issue a public apology:

As members of The Media Institute’s First Amendment Advisory Council, we are writing to take strong issue with your “special comment” of January 21, 2010, in which you personally attacked one our members, the preeminent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, for his role in the case Citizens United  v. Federal Election Commission.

Just to be clear at the outset, we are not concerned about the fact that you expressed a strong opinion about a Supreme Court case that has generated a great deal of public comment and controversy.  Quite to the contrary, we celebrate the fact that you are free to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal.  Many of us admire the fact that you emerged as a prominent critic of federal policies at a time when many others were still trying to find their voices.

But our admiration stops when confronted with the type of personal invective that you heaped upon Mr. Abrams for the fact that he represented a client whose position you dislike in Citizens United…

Floyd Abrams is the foremost First Amendment advocate of our time.  He also is Jewish.  For any Jew to be compared to a Nazi collaborator is vile, but in the case of Floyd is simply beyond comprehension.  But your offhanded inclusion of this ugly epithet points to a deeper problem that has degraded public discourse – the breakdown of civility…

Many of the freedoms you enjoy as a journalist exist because of the work of Floyd Abrams throughout his exemplary career.  Yet even if Mr. Abrams had not blazed important paths for the rights of the press, he does not deserve  to be personally insulted, which for you may have seemed like nothing more than a clever turn of phrase.

Of course, you have the right to say what you did in your “special comment.”  None of us questions that, and each of us would be willing to defend against any attempt to suppress your speech.  We do not doubt your rights – just your judgment.  It does not endanger free expression to counsel self-control and civility.
Reasonable minds can differ on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and we fully expect it will be just the beginning of a continuing contentious debate on campaign speech and regulation.  We look forward to your contributions to that debate.  But we also look forward to your public apology to Floyd Abrams for your unwarranted personal attack.

If Olbermann does apologize, don't be surprised if it sounds somewhat like his apology to Sen. Scott Brown.

Olbermann has left us no reason to believe he has any interest in contributing to the ongoing debate over free speech in this context. Godwin's law has become his modus operandi.

1. Leftwing Jewish Lobby Group Dumps Pro-Israel Slogan
2. Video: Ken Starr knocks Liz Cheney’s group for “Al Qaeda 7″ ad — on Olbermann’s show
3. Olbermann Unhinged: ‘Supreme Court-Sanctioned Murder’ of Democracy

Although there are not a lot of reported prosecutions, this statutory requirement has been upheld by the courts as constitutional.  There is even a 1970 court decision from Delaware holding that there is a separate violation for each question you don’t answer. So, on this year’s ten-question Census form, you could be fined as much $1,000 -- $5,000 if you refuse to answer or deliberately give false answers. If there was a mass refusal by millions of Americans to answer parts of the form -- like the race question -- the U.S. Justice Department would not have the resources to prosecute everyone who violated the law. But you could be prosecuted and fined, and there is a court decision from New York (which the Supreme Court refused to review) holding that a conviction for violating this law is valid even if there were other persons who also refused to fill out the form but were not prosecuted. (One curious exception to that: The liberal Ninth Circuit reversed a conviction when it was shown that the defendant might have been targeted due to his publicly held “dissident” view that the Census is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.)

Everyone should realize that if you don’t complete a Census form, you are violating federal law. The chances of actual prosecution may be remote, but it could happen. The only real answer to this problem is for Congress to prohibit the Census Bureau from collecting such information and to make all government programs (and the reapportionment process) explicitly race-neutral.

1. Citizenship and the Census — By: Hans A. von Spakovsky
2. Interference! — By: Hans A. von Spakovsky
3. Re: One Person, One Vote — By: Hans A. von Spakovsky

The ex-Bush aide appeared to promote his new book Courting Disaster, which defends and advocates for the administration's CIA's interrogation program. After Thiessen argued that the tactics stopped another terror attack in the U.S. after 9/11, Stewart lectured, "The bombings in Britain, the bombings in Afghanistan, the bombings in a Iraq. It's a selective world that you live in and you must be lovely to live there. Things are not so clear cut."

At the end of the segment, Stewart started to go to break and added, "We'll go to commercial and then we'll keep talking." An incredulous Thiessen retorted, "So, you talk and we go to commercial?" He challenged, "I can't get my points on the air?" A sarcastic Stewart quipped, "Geez, I'm trying to think of a way can I remove what I said and just have you speak." He then offered Thiessen a chance for rebuttal on the internet.

This did happen, but very few people are actually going to go to Comedy Central's website and listen to the extended segments.

(Thanks to Ben Graham for transcribing the segment.)

A partial transcript of the March 9 segment follows:

JON STEWART: Let me get to the larger point here which I think is maybe the issue. The thing that I object to is the idea of safety. And I'll explain that. The idea that that can be a concrete certainty. This makes us safe. This doesn't. These are subjective realities. The idea of something that makes us safe, you can make the argument that Guantanamo keeps us safe because there are bad people in it. They can make the argument that by having Guantanamo open it allows easier recruitment for terrorists, which ultimately-

MARC THIESSEN: I disagree with that entirely.

STEWART: I know you disagree with it, but I'm saying that is a valid argument.

THIESSEN: Well, I don't think it is. There was no Guantanamo Bay when they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

STEWART: It's not the only reason but it all goes into- What I'm saying is-

THIESSEN: Let me make my point-

STEWART: Let me just very quickly go. [Thiessen laughs in frustration.] It's a- As conservatives would like to say it's a complex adaptive system very similar to climate change.

THIESSEN: Except it's real. [Laughs.]

STEWART: And Republicans and conservatives are suggesting without any of the science that backs climate change that they know the equation, that they can solve the unsolvable, that Liz Cheney knows more about this than say Matthew Alexander who was doing the interrogating.

THIESSEN: Matthew Alexander interrogated people for three months. The people that --

STEWART: How long did Liz Cheney do it for?

THIESSEN: The interrogators that I talked about in this book, where you meet the interrogators who--

STEWART: Not all of them, the ones that you chose.

THIESSEN: The ones that-

STEWART: Not all of them.

THIESSEN: The ones that ran the program.

STEWART: Ali Soufan is not in this book.

THIESSEN: Actually he is in the book.

STEWART: Well, he wouldn't talk to you in the book.

THIESSEN: He wouldn't talk to me, but I talked about him.

STEWART: Oh, I know.

THIESSEN: Ali Soufan, the sainted hero of left who says we can get all this information.

STEWART: [interrupting] Sorry, sorry.

THIESSEN: I appreciate the enthusiasm. Ali Soufan the sainted hero of left who says we can get all this information with the FBI's techniques. He was put in charge of the interrogation of Muhammad Al Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in Guantanamo Bay and got nothing from him. Ali Soufan then threw him into the navy brig for two months. Told them that he could have no human contact, people had to wear masks. This is in the department of Justice report and got nothing still. It was only when the military took over his interrogation that they got interrogation reports out of him. Ali Soufan failed with his techniques to break. And on top of that Muhammad Al Qahtani said the worst thing that happened to him in Guantanamo Bay was Ali Soufan putting him in two months in isolation. This is not so clean.

STEWART: Absolutely. I think the point is that it's not clean. You can't know for certain.

THIESSEN: No you can't.

STEWART: And when these things.

THIESSEN: Jon--

STEWART: Yeah, sorry.

THIESSEN: Jon, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was brought into CIA custody he had information about terrorist attacks planned on the united states. We were not attacked for seven years after the 9/11 attacks. So there's a reason for it.

STEWART: We were not attacked for seven years after the first World Trade Center- on our homeland.

THIESSEN: Not on our home land. They blew up the World Trade Center, the bombings in east Africa, the USS Cole, then finally 9/11.

STEWART: The bombings in Britain, the bombings in Afghanistan, the bombings in a Iraq. It's a selective world that you live in and you must be lovely to live there. Things are not so clear cut. And the idea that you can state equivocally that these lawyers- Let me say this quickly. We'll go to commercial and then we'll keep talking.

THIESSEN: [Laughes wryly] So you talk and we go to commercial?

STEWART: That's right. Honestly when I come on your show I'd be delighted you to let you do that. But, the idea that you can castigate people as though they are purposefully making America less safe and in league with the terrorists that we're fighting because they disagree with your ideas about safety, I think what is offensive about that. We can talk about. It won't be on the show. It will be on the internet unedited.

THIESSEN: I can't get my points out on the air?

STEWART: I thought-

THIESSEN: You did most of the talking.

STEWART: I apologize then. I will let you- Geez, I'm trying to think of a way can I remove what I said and just have you speak. Honestly you feel like you I've not let you make any points.

THIESSEN: I think you talked right through me.

STEWART: I sincerely apologize. We will. We will come back. You can correct it on the web and people will judge how poorly you've been treated. I do apologize. It's techniques I learned.

1. Errant Son Morphs into Bush Speechwriter
2. Brian Williams Loves the Lefty Humor of ‘Indispensable’ Jon Stewart: How Did We Live Without Him?
3. MSNBC’s Maddow Tells Wild Lefty Mike Malloy: ‘We All Love You for Your Dark Thoughts’

1. The Politics of the House Republican Plan — By: Ramesh Ponnuru
2. The Future of NY-23 — By: Ramesh Ponnuru
3. Loaded Terms at NPR — By: Ramesh Ponnuru

Ryan says that, come Monday, Democrats “will bring a shell piece of reconciliation legislation” to the budget committee. “The reconciliation process has to begin there,” he says. “Here’s what they’ll do: They will take the House health-care bill and mark it up so that it can become a reconciliation vehicle. Republicans will make runs at this via motions to instruct, but since we’re outnumbered, their package will get through the committee. Then they’ll send that shell of a bill to the House Rules Committee. The rules committee will then gut the budget committee’s reconciliation bill and drop in all of the deals that Speaker Pelosi arranges with members who vote for the Senate health-care bill in the House.” Those deals, he adds, “will be hard to scrutinize, and we may never know their full extent, since many of them will be orchestrated outside of health-care legislation.”

Regardless of how bad a reconciliation package looks, Ryan says it is the passage of the Senate bill in the House that troubles him the most. “The Senate parliamentarian made it clear today,” he says. “The Senate bill has to become law before reconciliation can be taken up in the Senate. Knowing this, the Democrats are doing whatever they can to convince House members to walk the plank. But let’s be very clear: If the Senate bill passes in the House, it’s not just some setup for reconciliation -- it’s a huge, new federal entitlement that’ll be signed into law.”

“To get that, they need to make promises to members about what’ll come next, so look for them to thread the needle on policy changes and abortion in the budget and rules committees,” Ryan says. “Reconciliation is a distraction for the Democratic leadership -- something to talk about with members while keeping their eye on the main prize, which is passing the Senate bill.”

1. Paul Ryan on Reconciliation — By: Robert Costa
2. Paul Ryan on Reconciliation — By: Robert Costa
3. Dems to Ryan: ‘Get Ready, We’re Reconciling’ — By: Robert Costa

Ruth Marcus writes that Roberts is a "big crybaby" -- either for preferring not to be criticized in a forum where he cannot respond, or for responding later. She concludes that for the conservative justices to stay away from future State of the Union addresses would be "a mistake" -- although she identifies no reason for thinking that the justices have any duty to be there, nor even any good that their presence serves. She concludes, "If conservative justices boycott a Democratic president's State of the Union address, who, then, will be politicizing the court?" If by "politicizing the court" she means making the Court the subject of political controversy, then the answer is that both the president and the justices will have done so -- but by Marcus's own (correct) argument, that's alright, since "the court is and should be part of the conversation." If, on the other hand, by "politicizing the court" she means joining that conversation in some improper way, then the answer is that nobody will have done so; and she doesn't even try to explain why she holds otherwise.

1. ‘The Responsibility to Govern’ — By: Ramesh Ponnuru
2. Chief Justice Roberts: SotU ‘Very Troubling’ — By: Daniel Foster
3. Vox Pop — By: Ramesh Ponnuru

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.  In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

It seems that voting on a rule that deems a bill to be passed differs importantly from actually passing a bill. The difference is not just formalistic but deeply functional. A core purpose of the constitutional legislative process is to ensure that lawmakers are held accountable to the public. Their legislative voting record has to be clear, so that the electorate can make an informed decision on whether to reelect them. The Slaughter Solution is a piece of subterfuge designed specifically to short-circuit this purpose of electoral accountability, so that congressmen can "say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself." The very attractiveness of the maneuver shows that it plays some role in insulating lawmakers from popular disapproval of their vote, and for that reason it is constitutionally noxious.

1. CBS Political Hotsheet Reporter Suggests ‘Slaughter Solution’ Term Unfair
2. If Pelosi Has the Votes, Then Why Does the House Need the Slaughter Solution to Pass ObamaCare
3. The Slaughter solution?

1. Faceless Union Chooses Fake Leadership — By: Andrew Stuttaford
2. Don’t Be Rude About Van Rompuy — By: Andrew Stuttaford
3. The Euro: One Size Still Not Fitting All — By: Andrew Stuttaford

To discuss the issue, she interviewed New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D) on his proposed legislation calling for a ban of salt use in Empire State restaurant kitchens. Each violation would carry a $1,000 fine.

Hall failed to balance out Ortiz by giving equal time for an opponent of the proposed legislation, although she did ask Ortiz, "What about the businesses that would suffer under this rule of no salt?"

In answer to Hall's question, Ortiz erroneously insisted that his legislation would further consumer choice, when in fact his bill is an outright ban that doesn't countenance customer preference, declaring in no uncertain terms that:

NO OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARATION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT, INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAURANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.

Yet Hall failed to call Ortiz on his dishonest answer, pronouncing his idea as "an interesting proposal" before asking viewers to weigh in via Twitter.

Aside from the ideological and political questions in play about consumer freedom and the regulatory state, it turns out that any chef worth his salt (pun intended) would laugh Ortiz out of his kitchen, as restaurant columnist Steve Barnes of the Albany Times-Union noted in a March 10 entry at his Table Hopping blog (h/t DrewM. of Ace of Spades):

Regardless of the intent, and accepting its sponsor’s claim that it is part of his campaign to improve the public’s health, the bill exhibits profound ignorance not only of matters of taste — literally — but also of the chemistry of cooking.

“It’s a preposterous notion,” says baker extraordinaire Michael London, whose Mrs. London’s Bakery has been a Saratoga Springs institution for more than three decades. “Not using salt would make breads insipid and anemic,” London says. Besides lacking flavor, saltless bread would also have different texture, density and other characteristics as a result of its altered chemistry, London tells me.

In food scientist Shirley O. Corriher’s “CookWise: The Hows and Whys of Successful Cooking,” she writes that even the minimal salt used in baking — as little as one-third of a teaspoon per cup of flour — plays four crucial roles in the development of dough: It enhances flavor, controls bacteria, slows yeast activity and strengthens dough by tightening gluten.

“The small amounts we are dealing with … are not enough to add significantly to dietary salt intake,” Corriher writes.

Photo of Ortiz via his official New York Assemblyman Web page.

1. NY’s Nanny State Nazis: No Salt For You!
2. MSNBC’s Tamron Hall: Is Birtherism the Definition of Conservatism?
3. Video: Moron wants to fine chefs for cooking with … salt

Smith alluded to Damon's role as Jason Bourne in the action movie series and the Oscar-winning film 'Hurt Locker,' which chronicles bomb defusing teams in Iraq. Smith introduced the pre-recorded interview by touting Damon's latest film as a "new Iraq war thriller."

Lending credibility to the 'Green Zone' screenplay, Smith noted the movie was: "loosely based on a book that was written by a correspondent for the Washington Post, but the characters in it are fictional." Damon explained the premise of the film: "The guy I play is based on a real guy, he's leading a mobile exploitation team. We had these teams follow the Army....exploiting these sites where we thought the WMD were....they start realizing that there aren't any weapons there." Smith added: "Yeah, and he's a true believer." Damon replied: "Oh, absolutely."

While Smith and Damon worked to promote the "based on a true story" line, a trailer for the film shows Damon's character, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, being targeted for assassination by his U.S. military colleagues and corrupt government officials after not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In the interview, Damon explained: "what we're trying to do is make a big action thriller like the 'Bourne' movies but set it in the real world."

Smith was impressed with Damon being part of a movie with a message: "Some of your last several movies, it seems like the movies have to make a point....are you at a point where 'well, if I'm going to do x or y or z, then a, b and c have got to be movies that make a point? Is there part of that in the decision making process?" The last time Smith talked to Damon was to promote the actor's involvement in a left-wing revisionist documentary on American history based on the late Howard Zinn's liberal tome 'A People's History of the United States.'

Here is a portion of Smith's interview with Damon:

SMITH: Let's talk about 'Green Zone' because it's based – loosely based on a book that was written by a correspondent for the Washington Post, but the characters in it are fictional.

DAMON: Yes. Yeah.

[CLIP FROM 'GREEN ZONE']

DAMON: Jerry, why the f**k do we keep coming up empty on all these sites? There has got to be a reason.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Chief, we're here to do a job and get home safe, that's all. The reasons don't matter.

DAMON: They matter to me.

[END OF CLIP]

DAMON: The guy I play is based on a real guy, he's leading a mobile exploitation team. We had these teams follow the Army and right – you know, right on their heels and – and start exploiting these sites where we thought the WMD were. And so – so I play a guy who, you know, is hitting these sites, you know, as fast as he can and they start realizing that there aren't any weapons there.

SMITH: Yeah, and he's a true believer.

DAMON: Oh, absolutely.

SMITH: What was it like to make a movie like this? Because it's a little – it's – I'm not sure if this is an apt analogy, but it's a little 'Bourne' meets 'Hurt Locker.'

DAMON: Okay. I like those movies.

[LAUGHTER]

SMITH: Okay.

DAMON: Great. Yeah, because what we're trying to do is make a big action thriller like the 'Bourne' movies but set it in the real world.

SMITH: Some of your last several movies, it seems like the movies have to make a point. Is – do you – is there – are you at a point where 'well, if I'm going to do x or y or z, then a, b and c have got to be movies that make a point? Is there part of that in the decision making process?

DAMON: No. I really go kind of movie to movie. There's not a big strategy. I think that's what's helped me the most. I think if I planned it out, it wouldn't work very well.

1. Kyle Smith: “Green Zone” Is The Most Vile Anti-American Propaganda Ever Released By A Major Studio
2. Kyle Smith: Matt Damon’s ‘Green Zone’ Slanders America
3. Why No One Saw The Hurt Locker — By: Jonah Goldberg

1. Obama and the Missing Nobel Prize Money
2. Stimulus Money Costs Money — By: Daniel Foster
3. Meredith Jessup: Obama Announces Recipients of Nobel Award Donations

   "What are you doing?  No, no... get off.  Get off.  See... you gotta make my bunk.  See, we're in Italy.  The guy on the top bunk, he's gotta make the guy on the bottom's bunk... he's gotta make his bed, all the time.  See, it's in the regulations.  See, if we were in Germany, I'd have to make yours.  But we're in Italy, so you gotta make mine.  [Shrugs] Regulations."

But I actually think that's too logical. I think the Democrats are going for what might be called the Fizzbin maneuver. It's all crystal clear:

"What are you doing?  No, no... get off.  Get off.  See... you gotta make my bunk.  See, we're in Italy.  The guy on the top bunk, he's gotta make the guy on the bottom's bunk... he's gotta make his bed, all the time.  See, it's in the regulations.  See, if we were in Germany, I'd have to make yours.  But we're in Italy, so you gotta make mine.  [Shrugs] Regulations."

But I actually think that's too logical. I think the Democrats are going for what might be called the Fizzbin maneuver. It's all crystal clear:

1. The Sidecar Reconcilliation of the Slaughter Rule — By: Jonah Goldberg
2. More on the Blatantly Unconstitutionally, Recklessly Illegal Slaughter “Rule:” Citizens Would Have Standing to Challenge
3. Full Court Press on the Slaughter Rule — By: Daniel Foster

1. Paying for Obamacare — By: Stephen Spruiell
2. Of Cadillacs and Cadillac Plans — By: Stephen Spruiell
3. So Much For Bipartisanship — By: Stephen Spruiell

The article included two photos accompanied by a caption (including the one above, by Jack Plunkett of Associated Press): "Diana Gomez, center, and Garrett Mize, right, and other University of Texas students rallied against conservatives at a State Board of Education meeting Wednesday in Austin, Tex. The board's chairman, Gail Lowe, left, is one of the conservatives."

Though McKinley was sufficiently attuned to get the names of Gomez and Mize, he didn't bother to identify the group they were involved with, even thought a close look at the sign Gomez was holding makes it obvious. In the bottom right corner was the phrase "MEChA." As in the "Chicano" nationalist movement MEChA, the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, translates as the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan.

"Atzlan" is the name given to a swath of Western states annexed from Mexico during the Mexican-American war that MEChA and other radical groups feel they have a legal claim on, a position that's even too far for another left-wing Latino advocacy group, The National Council of La Raza ("the race").

McKinley worked at least one "conservative" label into a majority of the article's 18 paragraphs. There were 13 "conservative" labels in all, not counting one in quoted material, two in the photo caption and the one in the headline. That's a lot of repetition for a story only 732 words long. A sample:

The board is expected to take a preliminary vote this week on a raft of changes to the state's social studies curriculum proposed by the seven conservative Republicans on the board. A final vote will come in May.

Conservatives argue that the proposed curriculum, written by a panel of teachers, emphasizes the accomplishments of liberal politicians -- like the New Deal and the Great Society -- and gives less importance to efforts by conservatives like President Ronald Reagan to limit the size of government.

"There is a bias," said Don McLeroy, a dentist from College Station who heads up the board's conservative faction. "I think the left has a real problem seeing their own bias."

The three-day meeting is the first time the board has met since voters in last week's Republican primaries voted to oust Dr. McLeroy and another conservative and threw the future makeup of the board up in the air. Two other members -- a conservative Republican and a moderate Democrat -- are not seeking re-election, and it is unclear what the balance of power will be after the general election. At present, the seven hard-core conservatives are often joined by one or more moderate members in votes on curriculum questions.

Dr. McLeroy still has 10 months to serve and he, along with rest of the religious conservatives on the board, have vowed to put their mark on the guidelines for social studies texts.

For instance, one guideline requires publishers to include a section on "the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association."

The Texas-based McKinley has a habit of loading his stories with labels identifying conservative Texas Republicans as "far right" "archconservatives."

1. NY Times: Boy, Those ‘Far Right’ Texas Candidates Sure Are ‘Hard-Line’ and ‘Divisive’
2. Gig’em Aggies!… HUNDREDS Protest Barack Obama at Texas A&M (Video)
3. San Francisco Bay Schools Phase Out Anti-Homosexual Bullying Curriculum

First they went after Ryan's proposed entitlement reforms (I've written about these attacks here and here). Liberals have every right to criticize Ryan's ideas, involving as they do a complete re-imagining of the Democrats' New Deal and Great Society defined-benefit social insurance programs. But only the most tendentious left-wing commentators would deny that these programs are going broke, and most of Ryan's critics had to admit that he had offered a real plan to fix the entitlement crisis. By contrast, the Obama administration's plan to balance the budget involves punting to a bipartisan commission.

Then Ryan embarrassed the president on national television, and now liberals have adopted a more aggressive strategy which involves denying that Ryan's plan would balance the budget after all. Two left-leaning think tanks have issued reports on Ryan's plan, each claiming that Ryan essentially fudged the revenue side of his Roadmap. Ryan has offered responses here and here, which I encourage you to read. I'll sum up the key points below:

1. Ryan did not "fudge" the revenue side of his Roadmap, unless you consider all long-term estimates of economic growth to be inherently fudged due to the uncertainties involved (which they kind of are). For reasons that had nothing to do with fudging the numbers, Ryan relied on revenue estimates from Treasury Department experts instead of the CBO or the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO didn't want to step on the latter's toes, and the latter informed Ryan's office that it was not able to perform an estimate given the time frame of Ryan's proposal. Treasury's estimates do not get the same level of respect that CBO's and JCT's get, but there's no reason to think Ryan fudged the numbers when it's more likely that his estimates simply made different assumptions about future GDP growth than the two left-leaning think tanks.

2. With his Roadmap, Ryan has offered a starting point for debate, not a finished product. "Congressman Ryan stands by his numbers," his office states, "and of course would be open to adjustments in the specified rates under his tax reforms if in fact [the Tax Policy Center’s] estimates are closer to reality than Ryan’s estimates." But the point, his office states, is that "We clearly cannot chase our unsustainable growth in spending with ever-higher levels of taxes -- and the purpose of the Roadmap is to get spending in line with revenue -- not the other way around."

3. Certain of Ryan's liberal critics have stated that, compared to Obama's tax plan, Ryan's tax plan would involve tax increases for 90 percent of Americans while -- again, compared to Obama's plan -- the rich would pay less. First of all, according to the very same Tax Policy Center whose work these critics are citing, Obama's tax plan leaves gaping holes in the budget that, again, he has proposed no way to fill, save for his blue-ribbon panel (and we all know how effective that's going to be). To pretend that we can close these gaps simply by increasing taxes on the rich is not realistic. Second, the policy change that has the biggest effect on the distribution of the tax burden under Ryan's plan vs. Obama's is that Ryan would replace the corporate income tax with a value-added tax. This is hardly as controversial as Ryan's critics have made it sound, and there is a near-consensus among economists that VATs cause fewer economic distortions than corporate income taxes. Also, the changes to the tax burden are not as straightforward as Ryan's critics allege. The share of the corporate income tax that is borne by lower-income Americans is obscured by the fact that corporations act as tax collectors, not taxpayers, and often pass the costs of the tax onto their employees and customers.   

I don't agree with every single thing in Ryan's Roadmap. Few would look at it and find nothing they would change, and the revenue provisions are probably where conservatives would disagree the most. But it is far more substantial than anything the other side has offered. Yet, rather than taking it as a starting point for debate, which is the spirit in which it is offered, Democrats are attacking it to distract from their political problems and to distract from the fact that they don't have a plan. That's a roadmap to bankruptcy.

1. Saving Privatizer Ryan — By: Stephen Spruiell
2. Obama Argues that Ramping Up Spending Can Shrink the Deficit — By: Stephen Spruiell
3. Is Obamacare Turning Democrats Into Supply-Siders? — By: Stephen Spruiell

The Republican Party already has plenty of evocative phrases with which to hammer the health care reform effort: "Government takeover," "ram down our throats," "job-killing monstrosity."

Now House Republican Leader John Boehner's office has come up with perhaps the most striking entry yet: "Slaughter Solution."

Yes, isn't it such a "dirty tactic" to actually name a solution after its author? Montopoli continues with what he sees as a sign of deviousness by naming the "Slaughter Solution" after its author, Slaughter:

In a blog post on Boehner's site, Dave Schnittger writes the following: "The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama's massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution."

The "Slaughter" here is House Rules Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who CongressDaily reported Wednesday is "prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill." She is reportedly considering putting forth a rule that would dictate that the Senate version of the bill is automatically passed through the chamber once the House passes a corrections bill making changes to it.

That's all a little complicated, of course: "Slaughter Solution," by contrast, is not. It also manages to correlate passage of the health care bill with, as Merriam-Webster defines the word slaughter, "killing of great numbers of human being."

Naming something after its author. Oh the horror. The absolute horror! 

The slam dunk analysis on Montopoli's reporting was provided by a commenter on the story:

The woman's name happens to be "Slaughter", but somehow, that's the fault of the GOP? Or did you not intend for this article to be taken seriously?

And oh, yes, you just happen to neglect to mention the fact that what the Slaughter rule proposes to do is to "deem" the Senate health care bill passed by the House WITHOUT AN ACTUAL VOTE. But apparently you consider that fact "a little complicated" for your readers to understand, so you childishly zone in on the Congresswoman's name as if there's some issue there.

1. The Slaughter solution?
2. Re: The Slaughter Solution — By: Anthony Dick
3. If Pelosi Has the Votes, Then Why Does the House Need the Slaughter Solution to Pass ObamaCare