The protesters have stripped Mubarak and his foreign backers of their authority. But the roots of
Continue reading …HBO's Bill Maher on Friday perfectly demonstrated liberal hypocrisy concerning how Democrat and Republican presidents should be treated by the media. In a lengthy segment on HBO's “Real Time” about how “disrespectful” Bill O'Reilly was during his Super Bowl interview with Barack Obama, Maher castigated the Fox News host for his “unpatriotic” behavior moments before debasing former President George W. Bush for not being “aware of s–t” (video follows with transcript and commentary): BILL MAHER, HOST: Let me ask about the President and Bill O’Reilly, because of all the things that got to me this week, that really bothered me. If you saw the interview he did at the Super Bowl, I thought it was very disrespectful, literally unpatriotic. Oh. Show our, show our little thing. We built this, we might as well show it every week. There you go. Reclaiming patriotism. Arianna was talking about it. You know, we talk about getting guns off, you know, everybody having a gun would be patriotic. Giving people healthcare. This is patriotic. And so would this be: not belittling your President. I mean, some of things he said to them… CORNEL WEST: I agree. HOOMAN MAJD: It was worse than that. It was actually bigoted. MAHER: Yes. MAJD: When he asked if he knows football. I mean… MAHER: Right. MAJD: …if I was the president, I'd say, “Get the f–k out of my house. MAHER: Right. MAJD: Do I know football? MAHER: Right. You're a basketball guy, wink, wink. MAJD: Inner city basketball guy. MAHER: Yeah, we know what that means. MAJD: Muslims don’t play football. MAHER: Right. And you also throw dice behind the Rose Garden, don't you? MAJD: And you smoke. WEST: You know what’s interesting about that? I was taken by Obama being so steady because he's such a nice brother. MAHER: Yes. MAJD: He showed anger there, though. If you look at… WEST: But he was containing it, but the interesting thing for me is if that had been a left-wing person raising questions, he probably would have expressed his anger. Obama really does get upset about progressives. That's why Rahm talks about f-ing – I could say it but my Mother’s watching – f-ing progressives and f-ing retards. They're talking about people like ourselves. I mean, ourselves in terms of progressives. MAHER: Yeah, but I cannot imagine George Bush giving a pre-Super Bowl interview to Keith Olbermann. Which would be, can you imagine if Keith Olbermann treated him like that? Interrupted him over and over, leaned over like it was a bar. I thought he was going to ask him to get some motherf—king iced tea. It was disrespectful, and listen to this. Here’s what a dick O’Reilly is. He says… [Audience laughter] He said to Obama at one point, “Mubarak knows a lot of bad things about the U.S. I’m sure you’re aware of that.” “Yeah, I get to see the CIA briefing at 7:30 every morning, and I get the director of Homeland Security in my office every, I think I am aware of that, Bill. Do you get that briefing? Oh, you don’t? I get that briefing. Yes, I am aware of that.” You know who wasn’t aware of s—t? Bush. If being patriotic means “not belittling your President,” exactly what was that? O'Reilly in Maher's view was “disrespectful” to Obama, but it was completely acceptable for the “Real Time” host to say Bush “wasn't aware of s–t.” And nobody on Maher's production crew caught the glaring hypocrisy. Boggles the mind, doesn't it? In reality, this whole outrage of Maher's concerning O'Reilly's treatment of Obama is the height of hypocrisy. Other than Keith Olbermann, likely no mainstream media member has shown more disrespect for George W. Bush than the “Real Time” host. For him to criticize anyone's treatment of an American President is the height of gall. On Friday evening, Maher perfectly demonstrated that only Democrat presidents are deserving of respect. A Republican? He isn't “aware of s–t!” Thanks for clearing that up, Bill
Continue reading …It’s sounds like a set up for a joke: The NYC hotel hosting the CPAC convention is over-run with complaints of an insidious and pervasive infestation of blood-sucking pests… and they have bed bugs too . The three-legged stool of conservatism is strong and united at CPAC! Yes, as intelligent and alive as a small piece of furniture. However, the stool may not last long, as the hotel they chose, the Marriott Wardham Park, seems to currently be infested with bedbugs. Yes, we knew that, but are there blood-sucking insects there too? Har har har. “I woke up seeing the bed bugs on the bed, on my shirt and even on the bed that I am not using. Unbelievable!!! The hotel staff wasn’t surprised with what happened at all. I will never stay here again,” one visitor wrote recently. Hey, don’t worry about that. That sounds more like Teabaggers than bedbugs. wake up in the morning and I had all my leg cover with red spot. the bed was full of tiny little blood spot Seems like English may not be this poster’s first language. Perhaps some conservatives visited in the night and stabbed him or her in the legs, just to be safe that the hotel wouldn’t be bombed? I attended the AWP Conference from February 2-6 and found a bed bug in my suitcase upon returning home. Had to throw out my suitcase and am now dealing with cleaning everything else I took with me. Don’t stay here. I’d say that catching whatever is plaguing Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney and Michele Bachmann is far worse than a few bed bugs.
Continue reading …Oh, this is awesome. Anthony Weiner challenged HR 358 (The Protect Life Act) on a point of order because the authors failed to cite the appropriate constitutional authority to permit its introduction. Then Frank Pallone chimes in with the answer: Republicans can’t cite Constitutional reason for the bill because there IS no constitutional authority. The statement produced which Republicans claim is in compliance with the rule reads this way: Mr. Weiner then read from the statement submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts, the sponsor of the legislation, which stated in full: “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The Protect Life Act would overturn an unconstitutional mandate regarding abortion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” As Weiner points out, the challenge isn’t whether it’s constitutional or not, but that the rules require that all bills introduced must cite Constitutional authority for its introduction. Democrats have sent a formal request (PDF) for the bill to be withdrawn until such authority is added: Chairman Pitts’ bill is an assault on a woman’s access to abortion services. Its apparent objective is to make it impossible for women to choose an abortion by effectively eliminating coverage for the necessary medical services. It also calls into question the obligation of health care providers to provide the emergency services needed to save the l i fe of a pregnant woman. Because the bill represents a federal intrusion into the most intimate personal decisions of women and fanlilies, it is exactly the type of legislation that most needs a clear statement of Congress’s constitutional authority. While we do not dispute that you have the right to bring H.R. 358 before the full Committee, we respectfully suggest that you use your discretion not to do so. You should ask Mr. Pitts to introduce a new bill with a valid statement of constitutional authority and use the new bill, not H.R. 358, as the vehicle for any further consideration of this matter in the Committee. That would send a strong signal that the Committee is serious about the requirement that the constitutional basis of legislation be clearly stated before legislation can be considered in Committee. The end is particularly delicious, where Joe Barton cites the section of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to pass legislation. I’m certain that’s what the Tea Party had in mind when they pushed for that constitutional authority rule, aren’t you? Of course, they’ll find an excuse to introduce the bill without the required constitutional authority, but this whole argument just highlights how ridiculous the entire notion of limiting legislation to that which has cited constitutional authority. I’m glad Anthony Weiner is on our side of the House. He is a formidable opponent.
Continue reading …It has been a remarkable two-and-a-half weeks for Egypt – with developments coming thick and fast. Al Jazeera’s Tarek Bazley takes a look back at the 18 days that shook the world.
Continue reading …From the WSJ’s MarketWatch, information about exactly how close the administration came to proposing Social Security cuts. Please note, it wasn’t ruled out for good — but only put on the back burner. As Digby points out again and again, the Republicans will have no problem cooperating with the Democrats on cutting Social Security — and then turning around and slamming us in the teeth with it in the 2012 elections, just like they did in the mid-terms: The White House last month considered offering specific benefit cuts and tax increases to shore up Social Security’s finances, but ultimately decided to back off. Officials weighed suggesting that Congress raise the ceiling on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax and allow benefits to rise more slowly than under current law, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. The hope was to engage Republicans in talks. But aides decided against putting forward the ideas, sure to be unpopular, without a clear signal from Republicans that they were ready to talk. As a result, the budget President Barack Obama will release Monday won’t include any specific proposals to alter Social Security. “It doesn’t make sense for us to come out and say, ‘We’re going to do it this way,’ and get pilloried,” said one person familiar with the conversations. “We have to do it together.” The decision is a fresh illustration of difficulties both parties face as they consider ways to follow through on their promises to slow the growth of spending on federal retirement and health benefits to address projected budget deficits. Some Republicans have endorsed recommendations made in December by a bipartisan fiscal commission, which includes the ideas the White House favored. Others have endorsed partial privatization of the system, which Democrats oppose. But the GOP has not coalesced around a proposal and there have been no bipartisan talks. House Republicans are having a similar internal debate about whether to propose changes to Medicare. Some are urging cuts to the health insurance program for the elderly; others are warning of political risks. The White House discussions were prompted, in part, by suggestions made by the fiscal commission the president appointed. An official said the president has embraced some other commission recommendations, including a corporate tax overhaul, a federal pay freeze and a medical malpractice overhaul. The decision to hold off was made as the White House came under pressure from Democrats and liberal interest groups who oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits. They suspected the president might make a Social Security bid in his State of the Union address. White House officials were declining to answer their questions, raising anxiety. In early January, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka met with Mr. Obama and argued that Social Security did not need immediate action. On Jan. 20, the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote Mr. Obama to urge him to resist efforts to cut benefits. And a large coalition of unions, women’s organizations and other liberal groups called Strengthen Social Security lobbied White House economic aides and organized supporters to send a half million emails and letters to the White House. At the same time, Democratic Party officials told the White House that a Social Security debate could be uncomfortable for Senate Democrats who face tough re-election races in 2012. The White House wasn’t contemplating a fully formed plan to fix Social Security, but rather an Obama offer that, it was thought, could lead to a bipartisan conversation . “To start a serious conversation, he would have to do something to show credibility,” said one person familiar with the deliberations. “You can’t just say, ‘Let’s go talk about Social Security.’ ” Obama advisers say they are open to talks on Social Security should Republicans show interest. “The president believes that we should strengthen the program without putting at risk current retirees or slashing benefits for future generations, and he believes we can only achieve this goal by working together—Democrats and Republicans—to find a bipartisan solution,” said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage . “Bipartisan solution” — to what, exactly? To the fact that Social Security is in pretty good shape and doesn’t contribute one dime to the deficit — or to the goal of getting Obama reelected?
Continue reading …