Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1693)
Rep. Anthony Weiner rips Megyn Kelly over her defense of Clarence Thomas

Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]

Continue reading …
Rep. Anthony Weiner rips Megyn Kelly over her defense of Clarence Thomas

Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]

Continue reading …
Rep. Anthony Weiner rips Megyn Kelly over her defense of Clarence Thomas

Click here to view this media This was quite the wild exchange on Fox News yesterday morning. Anthony Weiner makes the argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all court decisions that are related to the new health-care law since his wife made over $700K from groups that oppose it, and Thomas himself has stated that he agrees with those groups, basically indicating that he’s already ruled before the evidence has been presented. Weiner’s argument is that when money is involved it taints that Justice. That’s a very good point — one that Fox talkers would be shouting from the rooftops if the subject were a “liberal” justice. Megyn Kelly, however, argues that since Ginny’s a lobbyist, that’s not grounds for Clarence to have to withdraw from cases. Weiner doesn’t let her off the hook, so she resorts to the BillO Interruption technique to cut him off when he told her that Justice Kagan has recused herself on almost half of her cases on the Supreme Court to teach her how that could work. Kelly wasn’t happy. KELLY: just, just, let, let… WEINER: First, let me respond to your points. KELLY: No, I’m responding to you, sir. You mentioned Justice Kagan and I’m pointing out that she was the Solicitor general. WEINER: No, you made a mistake. You made a mistake KELLY: Let me tell you sir, let me tell you…You know you’re throwing everything at me so I can’t offer any … WEINER: No, I get an opportunity so let me respond to your question. KELLY: What don’t you just do a soliloquy? OK, you just take it away. WEINER: OK, this is the way interviews work. You ask the question and I get to answer. KELLY: Oh, thank you. WEINER: When you put your commentaries at the end they better be factually correct and in this case they aren’t — KELLY: Was she or was she not the Solicitor General of the US? WEINER: That’s not the part I’m taking exception to. KELLY: I covered that. WEINER: No, you said she had to — yeah, I’m not sure what really goes on at Fox that’s actually coverage, but we’ll get to — that’s another conversation. KELLY: OK, OK. It continued on from there. I almost felt bad for her in a way because Megyn had to turn to the “Clarence and Ginny believe in liberty defense. Nah, not at all. Way to go Anthony! [H/t emailer Ron]

Continue reading …

It seems kind of crazy to me that we can’t require background checks on everyone who buys a gun. We can require people to jump through hoops to own, insure and operate a vehicle, but we can’t do it with gun owners? That’s nuts. Aren’t we all tired of seeing people gunned down in the streets by someone who shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place? Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson shooter, and Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui-Cho both passed gun background checks because their records were not in the system — even though Loughner had been rejected by the Army for drug use and Cho had been judged mentally ill through the courts. Millions of records of criminals, drug abusers, mentally ill, and domestic violence offenders are missing from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In fact, 28 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to NICS. About 40% of all gun sales are private. How convenient, since private, unlicensed sellers, who often sell at gun shows, aren’t required to do background checks. That’s how the Columbine High shooters got around the system: They bought guns at a gun show from an unlicensed seller: no paperwork, no questions asked. The tide of public opinion, especially since the Tucson massacre, is turning in the direction of restrictions on gun sales. According to a bi-partisan poll conducted in January 2011 and just released by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group with more than 550 members: 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in the government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abuser and others from buying guns. 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from . Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has introduced the “Fix Gun Background Checks Act”, which would help fix a lot of the problems. It gets the names of prohibited gun buyers into the system by toughening the financial penalties for states that don’t provide the data on felons, drug abusers, the mentally ill and other high-risk categories to NICS. It also clarifies the definitions of “mentally ill” and “drug abuse.” One much-needed feature is that it establish mental health plans for colleges and universities: Federally funded colleges and universities will be required to report to a state mental health agency when a student is expelled or suspended due to mental health concerns. The state agency will then determine whether the person needs to be reported to NICS. The bill allows some transfers of guns without background checks, including gifts of guns from one family member to another, loans of guns among people at a hunting or shooting range, and inheritance of guns. These are all eminently sane and reasonable restrictions. Maybe it’s just time. Call your senator and ask him/her to support the bill.

Continue reading …
Brokaw’s Bad Memory or Historical Revisionism? Claims GOP Was Thrown Out of House After ’95 Shutdown

NBC's Tom Brokaw was invited on Thursday's Today show to discuss a wide range of topics ranging from the Supreme Court ruling on the Westboro church to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling results and in discussing the poll Brokaw warned Republicans risked political peril if there was another government shutdown. The former Nightly News anchor actually claimed that after the 1995 shutdown the GOP was “turned out” of the House “not too long after that.” However that historic budget fight wasn't as politically lethal as Brokaw made it

Continue reading …
Huckabee just digs that hole in Kenya deeper. Why not just admit he got his misinformation from Fox?

Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly had on Mike Huckabee last night to explain his bizarre gaffe in which he described President Obama as having grown up in Kenya. As he has been ever since the gaffe, Huckabee explained that this was a simple slip of the tongue — that he simply meant to reference the president’s four childhood years spent in Indonesia. And of course, O’Reilly gave him plenty of slack with which to make this claim: HUCKABEE: Well, honestly, it was about the 40th media interview of the day — you’ve done these things. Uh, if I’d read from my own text, page 183 of my book, I clearly said he grew up in Indonesia. It was a verbal gaffe. I immediately apologized. But that’s not enough for the left-wing media — The reason it’s not enough for any sentient being is that it doesn’t jibe with what Huckabee originally said, to wit: HUCKABEE: I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the bust back to the Brits — MALZBERG: Of Winston Churchill. HUCKABEE: The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather. How could Huckabee have been referencing Obama’s Indonesian childhood while nattering at length about his grandfather and father and the Mau Maus, who lived half a world away in Kenya? And the bust of Winston Churchill? How does that have anything to do with Indonesia? Ah, but Bill O’Reilly can explain all: O’REILLY: You actually made a point about his outlook on the world because his father and grandfather are from Kenya and they have a very different view of the British and Kenya because of the Mau Mau uprising against the British colonists there who were running the government. And so, I mean, that’s legitimate. It’s just that he wasn’t in Kenya. HUCKABEE: And my point, really, about talking about him being raised in a different country — actually, Indonesia, not Kenya — as I do understand, again, it’s right there in the book for me to read and everybody else, if they care to — but, but the point that I do want to make is that creates a different worldview. This is not a kid who grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and playing Little League Baseball in a small town. O’REILLY: He’s not a traditional — he is not a traditional guy, he is a guy who’s had a lot of life experience that is different from the, you know, Mom and apple pie offering. Yeah, he’s like a freak alien from another planet, ya know? He’s FOREIGN!!! Except, of course, that Obama in fact did belong to a Scout troop (in Indonesia) and played basketball and soccer in Hawaii. And moreover, he in fact wrote an entire book dedicated to the fact that he barely knew his father or grandfather, was little influenced by either of them, and hardly knew anything about them — because he didn’t even visit Kenya until the late 1980s. Best of all, it turns out he’s lying about the “Page 183″ citation — it simply doesn’t exist! On page 183 of his book, Huckabee references the Churchill bust and the Mau Mau rebellion, but does not say that Obama grew up in Indonesia. In fact, neither that page (nor the rest of the chapter) references Obama’s childhood in Indonesia. And based on a search of the Kindle version of his book, Huckabee makes no mention of Indonesia (or Indonesian, Jakarta, and Menteng). Perhaps the most comical part of all this is that Huckabee’s source of misinformation is clearly none other than Fox News itself. Their employer is the chief purveyor of the very same false “facts” that Huckabee so faithfully (if convolutedly) regurgitated on the radio. Most recently, it was peddled by Stuart Varney on Megyn Kelly’s show : Varney’s source, meanwhile, was almost certainly none other than Glenn Beck, who first concocted this theory back in June 2010: Click here to view this media As Matt Gertz at Media Matters observed at the time: First of all, Obama never met his paternal grandfather, and met his father only once, when the president was ten. The idea that Obama’s grandfather’s torture 60 years ago would have triggered a deep-seated hatred of the British just doesn’t make a lot of sense. Second, Beck’s evidence that Obama hates Britain is mind-numbingly weak — all he points to is that Obama supposedly returned the Churchill bust after he became president. If Obama really hated Great Britain, shouldn’t he be, I don’t know, declaring war on them or something? What’s more, Obama reportedly keeps on his desk a wooden penholder given to him by former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown; the penholder is “crafted from wood taken from the HMS Gannet, the sister ship to the Resolute, a British naval vessel whose wood was used to make the presidential desk.” Third, Beck’s sole piece of evidence that Obama hates Britain doesn’t add up: Both the British Embassy and the White House have said that the Churchill bust had not been a gift, but rather a loan that expired with Bush’s presidency. It’s a classic example of how pull-it-out-of-your-butt theories cooked up by yobs like Glenn Beck, even when laughed out of the room, manage to have a long half-life, bobbing up whenever right-wingers open their mouths and start gushing out the things Fox fills their brains with.

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly belongs to a union and is proud of it, but it’s HIS union so it doesn’t count

Click here to view this media Ted Cox at AlterNet did some reporting and found out that Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly Are AFL-CIO Union-Affiliated Members as well as Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin. When it comes to the Wisconsin union fights, right-wing pundits Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have a couple of things in common. For starters, have all voiced their opposition to the plight of public employee unions in the state. On Feb. 18, Limbaugh said on his radio program , “We are either on the side of the Wisconsin protesters or we are on the side of our country.” Hannity has featured several guests critical of the union and its supporters, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, on his Fox News television and radio shows.On the Feb. 18 edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” O’Reilly stated, “Governments can’t afford to operate” because of “union wages and benefits.” But it turns out that opposing workers’ rights isn’t the only thing these blowhards have in common. As it turns out, all three of them belong to the American Federation Television and Radio Artists union (AFTRA), which is the AFL-CIO affiliate for television and broadcast workers.Yes, you read that right. While Hannity, O’Reilly and Limbaugh have been railing against union workers in Wisconsin, all three of them belong to an AFL-CIO affiliate union. — AFTRA also said in a separate statement that some staff at local Fox affiliate stations are represented by the union. According to its Web site, AFTRA “is a national labor union representing over 70,000 performers, journalists and other artists working in the entertainment and news media.”It “negotiates and enforces over 300 collective bargaining agreements that guarantee minimum (but never maximum) salaries, safe working conditions and health and retirement benefits.” Republicans in Wisconsin voted early Friday to strip public union workers of their collective bargaining rights.In the same segment where O’Reilly blamed government financial woes on union benefits, he not only said he was an AFTRA member, but that his membership had benefited him in the past. … In the same segment where O’Reilly blamed government financial woes on union benefits, he not only said he was an AFTRA member, but that his membership had benefited him in the past. “On a personal note, I’m a member of a union, AFTRA, and when I was working at ‘Inside Edition’ some years ago, the King World company tried to renege on pension benefits,” said O’Reilly. “AFTRA took them to court and the case was settled. If the shop had been non-union, we might have been stiffed.” ,,, Multiple attempts to reach representatives for Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly for comment were not returned. Unions are not all created equal for these wealthy wingnuts.

Continue reading …

Philip Elliott at the Obama White House's state-compliant wire service reports, and distorts (bolds are mine): Barbour says Obama cheers for higher gas prices Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a potential presidential contender, accused the Obama administration Wednesday of favoring a run-up in gas prices to prod consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars. Barbour cited 2008 comments from Steven Chu, now President Barack Obama's energy secretary, that a gradual increase in gasoline taxes could coax consumers into dumping their gas-guzzlers and finding homes closer to where they work. In 2008, while the head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, Chu told The Wall Street Journal that energy prices were the lynchpin to an energy overhaul. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in September 2008. Obama has distanced himself from those comments … Barbour could have gone directly to Obama to support his contention at this video : Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. Without doubt, that means he's okay with the idea of high gas prices. I don't recall that Barack Obama has ever “distanced himself” from this assertion, which, if I recall correctly, was also made at least a couple of times in campaign appearances. Plenty of folks at Philip Elliott's state-compliant wire service know darned well that Barack Obama said what he said in 2008, but want to make readers believe that it's Haley Barbour who's making it all up. It's the AP which is making things up about the Obama and his administration's position, as Conn Carroll at Heritage detailed this morning (bolds and paragraph breaks are mine): … Back in February, when the protests in Egypt were first unfolding, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was asked what the Administration could do to combat rising world oil prices. Chu responded: “The best way America can protect itself against these incidents is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, in fact to diversify our supply.” It is now one month later and the Administration has not updated its talking points. Pressed on gas prices yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said: “We are also, as you have seen over the past two-plus years, very focused on the need precisely to develop other energy sources so that we are not as dependent on foreign oil as we have been in the past.” So what are these “other energy sources” the White House has been developing? How does the White House plan to “diversify supply” to reduce gas prices? The answers are corn, wind, sun, and electric cars. And they won’t help a bit. Phil Elliott, please note: There is no record of which I'm aware of Barack Obama “distancing himself” from Chu's or Carney's comments — and Carney supposedly speaks for him. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Continue reading …

How is this for layers of irony? Rep. Trent Franks appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy Show complaining about the executive branch not following laws. G. Gordon Liddy. My head is about to explode. I’ve said before that Trent Franks will never be confused as one of the great thinkers in Congress, but this doesn’t smack of stupidity so much as opportunism . (I)n the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached. After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support” Franks is just falling behind Presidential wannabe Newt Gingrich and Rep. Steve King (who is calling for Holder’s resignation). Remember when the left decided to play nice when they got the majority in Congress and take impeachment off the table ? Did anyone seriously think the Republican Party would be as mature? See what happens when we have to deal with children?

Continue reading …

How is this for layers of irony? Rep. Trent Franks appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy Show complaining about the executive branch not following laws. G. Gordon Liddy. My head is about to explode. I’ve said before that Trent Franks will never be confused as one of the great thinkers in Congress, but this doesn’t smack of stupidity so much as opportunism . (I)n the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached. After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support” Franks is just falling behind Presidential wannabe Newt Gingrich and Rep. Steve King (who is calling for Holder’s resignation). Remember when the left decided to play nice when they got the majority in Congress and take impeachment off the table ? Did anyone seriously think the Republican Party would be as mature? See what happens when we have to deal with children?

Continue reading …