You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (568)

PLAYS: (1246)

John Gibson has a new book out hilariously titled How the Left Swiftboated America: The Liberal Media Conspiracy To Make You Think George Bush Was The Worst President In History, and he was touring his old haunts at Fox News yesterday -- first at Fox and Friends and then with Bill O'Reilly -- pitching it and showing off his Kewl New Look (like the goatee?).

His chief line: "They lied through their teeth!"

He meant the evil liberals who are tearing down poor George W. Bush's legacy, of course.

It should be entertaining to see how Gibson manages to translate "openly discussing Bush's actual record" -- from his manifest failures with Katrina to the destroyed economy -- into "lying through their teeth," but Gibson no doubt hired the best propagandists money could buy to ghost-write his book.

But the title is especially interesting in this context, because it's obvious now that Gibson equates "Swiftboating" with "lying through your teeth".

What's interesting about this is that, back in 2004, when the Swift Boat folks were appearing on Fox News en masse in real time and in fact lying through their teeth, John Gibson actually told his viewers they were telling the truth.

Not only that, Gibson attacked other media outlets for failing to run with the Swift Boat stories. He also carried "news" reports treating the Swift Boaters as credible sources.

So who was lying through their teeth back then, and who's doing it now? We suspect that John Gibson hasn't any idea how to distinguish them -- but he does know how to write a book that will sell red meat on the right-wing talk circuit.

Blue Texan has more.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (582)

PLAYS: (702)

The disgraced man once known as Bush's Brain actually has the nerve to say that the reason President Obama's poll numbers are slipping is because he's wasting time trying to fix our broken f*&king health care system and that's not one of the real "bread and butter" issues that Americans care about.

This from the man who led George W. Bush from an 80% approval rating to one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of America. And George Bush is considered one of the worst President in American history... Oh, yeah, and Karl couldn't help but drool all over himself when he said that Obama is focusing on climate change and never stops talking about his Nobel Peace Prize. When have you ever heard the president mention his prize outside of when he won it, and now that he's picking it up? What a liar.

Rove: ..and he's spent this year talking about health care and talking about greenhouse gas emissions and the environment and his Nobel Peace Prize and not talking about the thing that Americans are concerned about, which is jobs and the economy...

BillO: Bread and butter issues.

You may not agree with some of the measures President Obama has taken in dealing with the economy or health care for that matter, but he's certainly addressed it.

Forget George W. Bush for a minute. Well, you can never forget what he's done to our country so please don't. Ronald Reagan's popularity hit the skids early on in his presidency about the same time as Obama's has, when unemployment jumped under his leadership. Of course, Reagan didn't have a global financial catastrophe and two wars to deal with at the time, either.

Andrew Kohut writes:

The new president described above is, of course, Barack Obama — but, to a startling degree, it is also Ronald Reagan. A close look at Gallup’s polling of reactions to Reagan’s first few months in office provides striking parallels with what Pew Research Center polls now find about opinions of Mr. Obama. And a consideration of the Reagan experience may well give some clues as to what lies ahead for the 44th president.

The public’s bottom lines on Presidents Reagan and Obama early in their presidencies have so far been quite comparable: 60 percent and 59 percent of the public approved of the new presidents in mid-March, respectively. (Going into April, the lines diverge as a sympathetic public response to the March 31 attempt on Reagan’s life boosted his numbers, at least for short period.)---

But the public’s patience with Reagan was relatively short lived. By November, when the jobless rate had risen to 8.3 percent, from 7.5 percent in January, a plurality of the public believed that Reaganomics would hurt, not help, their family finances. So began Ronald Reagan’s approval ratings slide. By December, according to Gallup, 49 percent approved of his job performance while 41 percent disapproved. With the economy faltering, his approval rating fell to 42 percent by July 1982, with 46 percent disapproving. His rating hit a low of 35 percent early the next year.

So BillO's claim that Obama's polls are lower than anyone's in history at this point in his presidency is bogus: Obama's poll numbers, in fact, are closely tracking Reagan's.

And Reagan didn't have a black helicopter-teabagger movement created by a liberal version of FOX News or psycho talk radio that actively sought to overthrow him to deal with either.

Only FOX News would give Karl Rove a job as a lead analyst because they so desperately want the Democratic Party out of power and want to make their audience forget all about George W. Bush. Nice try, you political hacks.

It's been over a year since Americans elected Barack Obama, but we're still living in George Bush's world – two wars, a recession, a deficit, and so much more.

President Obama has his hands full cleaning up these messes and establishing a legacy on healthcare and climate change. I get that. But there's one blind spot that he can't afford to ignore any longer.

We're living under the rule of George Bush's judges. He picked over 40% of all current federal judges. We're talking about lifetime appointees, and so few cases ever make it to the Supreme Court that they usually get the last word.

Bush's judicial legacy didn't happen by accident, or overnight. He made it a priority. The numbers are telling: as Obama approaches the end of his first year, he’s picked roughly 30 nominees, 11 of whom have been confirmed. By the end of his first year, Bush had nominated 65, and nearly 30 had been confirmed.

To be sure, Republicans have been obstructing Obama's nominees at every turn – that's why so few have been confirmed. But Obama has played into their hands by not nominating more people, which would throw their obstruction into sharp relief and amp up pressure on the GOP.

I know it might not seem this way – in the midst of the healthcare fight – but Obama's legacy, the future of progressive legislation, and the well-being of our nation depend on the character, and quantity, of the judges he nominates. This issue deserves equal billing with the others at the very top of the administration's agenda.

The good news is that, unlike with many problems we face, Obama can ramp up nominations without sacrificing progress on his other priorities. There is no shortage of highly qualified – and progressive – nominees, and Senate Democrats can crush judicial filibusters when they set their mind to it.

The bottom line is that Obama may never have another opportunity like the present, with 60 Democrats in the Senate, to push through his nominees and return some balance to the judicial branch. And he has only four or so months before the 2010 election season causes the Senate to grind to a halt.

President Obama, your legacy clock is ticking. We need you to act now.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (827)

PLAYS: (3556)

Dennis Kucinich gives Ed Schultz some straight talk on what anyone should think of Dick Cheney having the nerve to criticize the Obama administration's foreign policy decisions and on whether we should be escalating our presence in Afghanistan.

Schultz: Is there a chance that Bush and Cheney got it so wrong that maybe the Obama plan moving forward could turn this around and we could get a successful conclusion? What do you think?

Kucinich: Well I think that many of us know that President Bush and Dick Cheney took this country into a war in Iraq that we did not have to fight, kept this country into Afghanistan and prolonged a war that we did not have to continue and frankly with the Vice President speaking out, he should be held accountable. Both he and the president should have been impeached, President Bush that is should have been impeached and Mr. Cheney should still be held accountable for the lies that he told that took us into war in Iraq. Now with respect to Afghanistan, we should not be escalating. It’s an unfortunate thing that President Obama has made a decision to escalate. You can’t be in and out at the same time. He may talk about an exit strategy but the truth of the matter is, you first have to escalate and then you find out how long you’re going to be there and I think it’s regrettable—we don’t have the money to do this. We are weakening our ability to defend this country by doing it. And I think it’s going to undermine the United States’ role in the region and create even further instability.

As Rep. Kucinich also noted, it is also up to the Congress to decide whether to fund our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who are opposed to increasing troop levels have an obligation to take a stand.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (53)

PLAYS: (166)

December 01, 2009 NBC Today Show

Media Matters has more--Rove falsely claimed Obama didn't "speak out" about troops in Afghanistan:

In an interview on NBC's Today, Fox News contributor Karl Rove falsely claimed that in 2007, Barack Obama "didn't speak out" against the Bush administration's war strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Obama advocated prioritizing the conflict in Afghanistan and repeatedly criticized Bush's Iraq war policy.

Continue reading...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1438)

PLAYS: (12359)

November 30, 2009 NBC Jay Leno Show

During this interview Bill Maher takes on the mainstream media, Obama's choice to raise troop levels in Afghanistan, our wonderful banking system and of course religion. Then when he gets to the "Green Car Challenge" Maher go directly after George W Bush!

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (823)

PLAYS: (2505)

Just doing my best here to help Digby achieve her life's work.

I plan to make it my life's work to remind Chris Matthews of these little exchanges. It was the day that Matthews revealed that he and the other media whores were not just shilling for the GOP for professional reasons, but that they actually had a barely contained (and inexplicable) sexual attraction to George W. Bush.

Chris Matthews finds another excuse to praise W for his flight suit appearance on the USS Lincoln.

Matthews: Before we break, President Obama’s taken flack for his war time decision making—a little too much hand wringing some critics say—not enough snap to it. But no such knocks on the way the Commander in Chief gives his salute. The editor of Smithsonian Magazine, a former Marine himself recently decreed that Obama’s salute at Dover Air Force Base was impeccable in every way. He said it’s spot on as a mastery of standards as set by the armed services themselves.

Presidents have long taken salutes from the troops that attend them but Ronald Reagan, the movie star who made training films during his service in WWII was the first to actually return those salutes and boy did he get it right. Check out the sweep of his arm there. And then there was George H. W. Bush, the WWII fighter pilot, who kept up Reagan’s tradition. Bush’s salute as you can see was less dramatic than Reagan’s but did have a snap to it.

Bill Clinton who was as a candidate was best known for his youthful opposition to a war caused some flack for his solute which was, well, it was a bit uncertain when he first took office but after a while, he got it down pat.

As for George W. Bush, who could forget this moment on the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln? That beats even Reagan when it comes to Commander in Chief performance art. But getting back to our current president, it does seem that the president’s salute isn’t the only one he’s mastered.

Remember Mr. Spock’s Vulcan salute in Star Trek? Obama showed that off at a black tie dinner earlier this year. Live long and prosper.

Matthews does these sort of segments week after week on his Sunday bobblehead show and I assume he thinks he's being either cute or funny. Generally they're neither with this week's addition being no exception.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (90)

PLAYS: (337)

November 23, 2009 BBC World

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (90)

PLAYS: (452)

October 22, 2009 CBC The Hour
Bill Maher blast Bush and Obama on the economy and lots more

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (33)

PLAYS: (86)

CNN Oct. 18, 2009. Don Lemon's softball interview with Alberto Gonzales painting him as a "legal trailblazer". After what Gonzo did to the Department of Justice during his term there, the words "legal" and "trailblazer" are hardly what come to mind for me.

Although Lemon does ask Gonzales about the accusations against him, he allows him to claim that "a lot of what happened towards the end, I would say 98 percent was political" and that he's been cleared of any wrong doing.

Having the DOJ give you cover by not going after the higher ups on torture or some right wing extemist Cheney fixer judge dismissing a civil suit is not the same thing as investigations confirming someone's innocence. Everyone from the Congress to the current AG's office has dropped the ball on following through on investigating Gonzales and now the man is on the television claiming they did and cleared him and Don Lemon allows it. Astounding.

LEMON: So right here on this program we're profiling Latinos who overcame obstacles and shattered stereotypes to make history. It's part of our series "Pioneros: Latino Firsts." Tonight, the first Latino to become a U.S. attorney general. Alberto Gonzales. I met up with him in his new role on the campus of Texas Tech University.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (voice-over): When last we saw Alberto Gonzales, he was wielding the power and influence that come with the title U.S. attorney general. Today he is in a new role on campus at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. A recruiter for minority and underrepresented students, and a visiting professor, teaching a course called Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch.

Gonzales knows all about issues. He was pressured to resign after 2 1/2 years as George W. Bush's attorney general. Dogged by accusations he misused the Patriot Act to uncover private information on U.S. citizens, denied rights to prisoners held in U.S.-run detention camps and then lied to Congress about all of it.

(on camera): Is there something that you want people to know about that experience or what happened? Why you resigned?

ALBERTO GONZALES, FIRST LATINO U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think unfortunately because Washington can be political, a lot of what happened towards the end, I would say 98 percent was political. Quite frankly.

LEMON: Explain that. What do you mean?

GONZALES: Listen, you had members of Congress making allegations that I engage in perjury, criminal wrongdoing. And we now have these investigations that has been confirmed that none of that is true. But I think that for some people, it was an opportunity to perhaps embarrass the president by going after someone they perceived as close to the president.

Even to the end, President Bush fully supported you. How much did that help at all?

Continue reading »

The Freedom Toast presents a parody of the GOP. Theme--the "Addams Family".

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (199)

PLAYS: (735)

From Real Time Oct. 16, 2009. Bill reminds us that just because George Bush is gone, comedians still have plenty to work with thanks to the crazy that is the Republican Party.

Maher: It turns out there were plenty of ridiculous Republicans behind him that we just couldn't see.

Well, well, well....:

President Barack Obama made history again Friday, winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples

The Norwegian Nobel Committee recognized Obama's efforts to solve complex global problems, including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

President Obama is the first sitting President since Woodrow Wilson to be awarded this honor. (Videos from CSpanJunkie)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (913)

PLAYS: (1762)

Of course, the right wing is saying it's because he's not George Bush, without acknowledging the shame our country still wears from Bush being the "Anti-Peace and No Prize" President:

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (366)

PLAYS: (4297)

Listening to the golden boy, Paul Ryan present his argument about how to reform health care is the disease that needs to be given immediate health care attention to. Turning to the free market has failed America and he knows it and admits that too, but can't break from his party to tell the truth on how we should fix it. However, Barney Frank corners him into admitting that Republicans/conservatives, (whatever you call the party of George Bush) failed to reform health care for the eight years that they ran the country.

FRANK: I just want to ask Paul one question. … When did you figure that out? Because apparently for the 12 years that the Republicans were in control — eight of which had a Republican president — that hadn’t occurred to you. So I’m glad you now understand that. Can you tell me at what moment the revelation occurred?

RYAN: First of all, I introduced on this subject about six years ago.

FRANK: You had control of the Congress. Why didn’t the Republican Congress fix it?

RYAN: I will have a moment of bipartisan agreement. We should have fixed this under our watch and I’m frustrated we didn’t.

I doubt he's frustrated because Republicans never, ever wanted to fix health care for America. Michael Moore's movie called "Sicko" really was instrumental in shining a light on our health care nightmares to the country and made it a problem that no longer could be ignored. He deserves a lot of praise for that. And Frank gets major props for getting Ryan to admit that at least they failed under Bush. The next question is to ask the media: why then should we give a good damn about what conservatives have to say about health care if all they do is make outrageous claims about death panels and obstruct in an effort to discredit the president?

I had a very interesting tête-à-tête last week that I thought I'd share. As you may have guessed, I'm on the email distro lists for all the major Sunday shows and cable news networks, and I get email notifications for who the scheduled guests will be as well as transcripts, p.r. pieces and the like. Last week, when ABC sent me an email that John McCain was going to be their guest again, I sent back a snarky reply asking if they ever had John Kerry on after he lost the election to George Bush as often as they've had McCain, and why, when there are so many actual issues about which the public needs to be informed, they gave so much air time to GOP obstructionism. Normally, I shoot off those emails just as a private protest, but this time, I got a reply back from the executive producer:

Thanks very much for your email. I’d have to take issue with your suggestion that “so much time is given to GOP obstructionism.” Week to week we maintain a balance between Democratic and Republican guests. It’s not always a perfect balance – airtime often tips toward the party in power because the mission of our program is to ask questions of those who are in decision making and policy making roles. Our guest selection is also determined by the news stories we cover. As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator McCain is clearly the appropriate Republican guest to follow the Secretary of Defense in a discussion of US Afghanistan policy.

Well, if you've ever seen me in the comments, you have to know I'm not going to let a steaming pile of Village B.S. like that go unchallenged:

Thanks for your response.

The notion of a "balance" between Democratic and Republican guests is a false equivalence too often used in lieu of actual journalism. If you put brought on a creationist to discuss the fossil record with Stephen Jay Gould, are you serving your viewership well for balance?

With all due respect to Sen. McCain---and knowing full well how much he cultivates a good relationship with the media (I'm sure Mr. Stephanopoulos enjoyed his weekend in Arizona with the McCains when health care was the prime topic in the country)--his purpose as a follow up to Gates is to simply toe the GOP line of disagreeing reflexively with any agenda the President sets. My site, Crooksandliars.com, has been documenting this for the last five years.

How about instead of reducing every issue to a simplistic binary equation of Republican vs. Democrat, you seek to actually inform your viewership with people who have real background in Afghanistan or could bring a different (and not partisan) perspective? For example, Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA could discuss it from a soldier's POV. As a blogger involved in many journalism listservs, I personally could put you in touch with people far more versed in the history and the actualities in Afghanistan which would provide far more cogent and *informative* information than you will see from the man who tried to tell Americans that Baghdad was as safe as Main Street with his contingent of soldiers and helicopters guarding him.

Further, your insistence that this is the best person to follow up on Gates is disingenuous at best, when looked at the history of who THIS WEEK has booked. I've been a media analyst and political advocate for several years and my memory is not that short. John Kerry was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during Bush's presidency. How often did you ask Sen. Kerry on to discuss foreign policy as a response to Bush? Rarely.

And why is McCain on as *a response*? Why isn't he on first and then give Gates--as the person who can actually make policy, as opposed to the minority party--the opportunity to address the issues afterwards? Because air time tips to the party in power? Last time I checked, Americans have pretty decisively said that they weren't happy with the GOP being the party in power, not that we can tell from your bookings. It's bad enough that you give air time to George Will every week to spread disinformation (and if you'd like, I'm only too happy to provide you with at least 10 examples in the last year of things George Will has been factually wrong about), but to actually tell me that air time tips to the party in power when you have notoriously been favoring Republicans makes me question how forthright you're being about your booking choices. Let's see you book a Democratic blogger even once to "balance" your egregious booking of the completely factually-challenged Michelle Malkin. Or maybe it's just that *informing* your viewership is secondary.

Funnily enough, the producer didn't really have much response to that, simply thanking me for the input. Honestly, I wasn't really happy with the dismissive little pat on the head from the Villager who thought that little blogger me couldn't understand why McCain was a reasonable booking. So I thought I'd give him a suggestion as to real balance:

Here is a segment I would LOVE to see you do with Sen. McCain: why don't you invite my colleague, David Neiwert, author of The Eliminationists, on to discuss how the violent rhetoric that used to be relegated to the fringes of the Republican Party which has been mainstreamed since Obama's election and let Sen McCain respond to that? After all, he is the one who brought Sarah Palin to the national stage (and as I recall, actually said on your program that Palin was his "soul mate" after having only had one phone conversation and a short meeting with her before asking her on the ticket) and there is no other politician who has tapped so proficiently into that zeitgeist. I think it would be beneficial for Americans to hear someone of Sen. McCain's gravitas and stature disavow the kind of violent and racist rhetoric we've all seen. I'm more than happy to provide you with contact information for Mr. Neiwert if you are so inclined.

But if you're not interested in putting Sen. McCain on the spot, perhaps next time you do a show on the problems we're facing in Afghanistan, the "balance" you seek would be better achieved by putting on a politician who favors withdrawal, like Rep. Alan Grayson, instead of two hawks who will both say that the most important thing is "winning" in Afghanistan without actually explaining what "winning" means or how we can achieve it militarily. Where's the balance in that for your viewers?

Are you surprised that he had no response to that? Nah, me neither. I don't know if it impacted him at all, but I'm hoping that from now on he has a small voice inside his head reminding him that some of his viewers actually think critically and realize how badly he's--and all the rest of the bobblehead media--doing his job.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald looks at the sources that our liberal media uses to discuss the issues of the day.