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

DOWNLOADS: (1293)

PLAYS: (4489)

Watching Sarah Palin being interviewed is always a little like watching an incoherent art-student film or something from a William S. Burroughs fantasy. It obviously comes from a completely different planet in a different quadrant of the universe.

For example, among the things you learned by watching Palin on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night were the following nuggets:

-- Palin still is unhappy with the McCain campaign for not having smeared Barack Obama enough with phony association-game stuff about Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright -- you know, issues Americans really cared about.

-- She seems to have been watching a lot of Glenn Beck, though, because she practically repeats Beck's favorite talking points about Obama's supposedly nefarious associations.

-- Palin says "it wasn't negative campaigning and it wasn't off-base to call someone out on their associations." Hmmmm. Well, when Max Blumenthal and I did just that with Palin over her lengthy far-right associations, she completely freaked out.

-- Obama is "dithering" in Afghanistan. And evidently, if Palin were president, the only people she would listen to regarding the use of troops would be generals. Civilian advisers? Fuggedaboutit.

-- The reason she "blew" the question in the Katie Couric interview about what she read? She was irked by Couric's "arrogance." Apparently it's arrogant of media folk to ask national politicians softball questions that every other politico on the planet can readily answer.

-- What does she read? The first publication she cites is NewsMax. Yep, that NewsMax: The folks who, in the late 1990s, were peddling "Y2K apocalypse" theories and Clinton "New World Order" conspiracy theories. The same NewsMax that recently published a piece extolling the virtues of a military coup in order to remove Obama.

One thing that I think will become obvious in the coming weeks: Palin will not risk any more Katie Couric interviews. She will be completely ensconced only with friendly interviewers like Hannity. Oprah will have been her most risky interview.

When James Webb became a Democratic senator for Virginia in 2006 after beating George Allen, I thought it was a wonderful thing. Here was this former Reagan administration official and military veteran, recognizing that the Dem party had more potential for representing the great people of Virginia. I should have known that he was actually a conservative Democrat, at best, that it was too hard for him to hide his background. Talking Points Memorandum notes his view on the detainee trials in New York City:

"I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

"The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

"I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants."

Now I don't know where Sen. Webb gets his history lessons, but I don't remember any Japanese pilots being tried in a military court for their attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was, in fact, a specially appointed international court made up of (gasp!) civilians.

As for Webb's charge that a civilian court would be "disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive," exactly how is it beneficial that we hold these detainees for six to eight years as the military tries to figure out how it can impartially judge and convict these individuals without looking like a kangaroo court? It's not the military's job, Sen. Webb, to judge non-state actors such as these terrorists. They're base criminals - they need to be treated as such. Don't give them the benefit of being judged as "combatants" equal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They aren't worth it.

If Sen. Webb believes that these detainees do not belong in our country, courts, or prisons, then he ought to direct the US government to let them go free (although, ironically, the US government can't seem to get rid of those detainees that they want to release). But Gimto is still a US interest, a military court is still "our" court system, and it's our responsibility to use the rule of law - a foreign concept to many in Congress - to dispose of these cases.

The Repubs want us to be afraid of trying the Gitmo detainees in US courts, because not using special military tribunals might actually be the successful way to do this. Get behind your party, Sen. Webb. Either support the quick disposition of the Gitmo detainees or let them go free. This subversion of US and international law has gone on long enough.

You know, you have to appreciate that guys like Anthony Weiner and Joe Sestak will go on Bill O'Reilly's show to try to bravely counter his nonstop deluge of right-wing talking points. But as he demonstrated last night when he had them on to talk about the New York City terrorism trials, he just proved once again why it's never a winning proposition to go on his show, no matter how hard you try.

O'Reilly only invites liberals on to set them up for a shoutdown, really -- and that's what he did last night. Both Weiner and Sestak pointed out the absurdity of O'Reilly's fears about the civil court system setting the terrorists free -- and worse still, in O'Reilly's view, actually being permitted to stand up and voice their beliefs as part of their defense.

O'Reilly just wound up shouting at them about the four-year trial of Zacarias Moussaoui -- who in fact was convicted. But to O'Reilly, what was intolerable was that Moussaoui was able to use the trial as "propaganda" for radical Islam.

O'Reilly just doesn't believe in the American way of justice, and is afraid to let the world see our justice. Fortunately, many more of us are not so cowardly.

Okay, maybe requiring minimum IQs as a standard to run for national office is a bit harsh, but can we at least insist that politicians prove that they are actually human and not some mindless automaton programmed with talking points?

(In the past,) Foxx has claimed Democratic reforms would mean seniors are “put to death by their government,” that health reform is a “distraction,” and that “there are no Americans who don’t have health care.” She was at it again today on the House floor, arguing that health reform is a greater threat to our country than “any terrorist right now in any country”:

Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.

Normally, this is where my head makes a very loud thunk against my desk at the stupidity, but instead I just find myself really angry at this illogical fear mongering and ugliness. But what can you expect from a politician ugly enough to call Matthew Shepard's murder "a hoax"?. Obviously her lip service towards valuing life doesn't really mean any living people.

Rep. Foxx, the lives of those 44,000 Americans who die needlessly every year because they do not have insurance is blood on your hands.

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

DOWNLOADS: (3769)

PLAYS: (23709)

After John Amato suggested it, Michael Moore wound up on Sean Hannity's Fox News program doing a one-on-one debate last night. It was classic cable talk TV, a serious go-round between two of the most capable verbal pugilists of the left and the right.

Judge for yourself, but it looked like it was no contest: Moore consistently threw Hannity out of his talking points and onto Moore's own political terrain, in part because he was able to claim the high ground -- both ethically and morally.

The key moments:

-- When Moore asks Hannity if he believes in "conspiracy theories" about WMD in Iraq.

-- When he tries to pin Hannity down on his own church attendance. It's precious.

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

DOWNLOADS: (2008)

PLAYS: (13474)

Well, you have to say that Michael Moore lived up to his promise to me in our exclusive interview when he said he would go on FOX Noise with Sean Hannity and give them a little "something-something."

Amato: Would you ever go back on FOX again?

Moore: Yes,I would go back on FOX again. I would not go on Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck because they use far too much hate speech and calls for violence and I cannot participate with anyone that goes down that road. I stayed off because somebody at the studio told me that whenever I go on their ratings go up and I'm not interested in helping them sell products and make money for themselves and having said that I'm ready to tee up (garbled audio, but I think he said Hannity) Hannity I think pretty soon.

Amato: That would get huge ratings and it's also really enjoyable to see you kick them around because you know the type of Democrat that go on most of the time that are just so weak and that's the way they like them so that they can serve them up and kick them around.

Moore: Then I will make a point during this tour to try and go on one of their shows and give them something-something...

Amato: Do it for the blogosphere! (laughs)

Moore: Do it for the blogosphere. This one's for you!

Bill O'Reilly and Beck have both remained pretty quiet over Moore's comments to me that he would never go on Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck because they are part of the hate speech that has promoted violence in our society. Moore did this for the blogosphere and you know BillO is fuming.

Last night two of the blogosphere's brightest lights posted on the difficulties Obama is facing when it comes to turning around U.S. Afghanistan policy. Digby, who recounted a 1964 conversation between McGeorge Bundy and President Lyndon Johnson about the futility of American policies in Vietnam, seemed aghast that "Democratic strategist" Donna Brazile was on CNN yesterday seemingly reading some leftover talking points from Karen Hughes about the need to stay in Afghanistan and "get the job done." Then last night Daily Kos' most prescient Afghanistan blogger, Meteor Blades, highlighted the controversy over Andrea Mitchell's report on the 500,000 troops needed to do the job in Afghanistan.

But as Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), our No Means No guest today, asked me this morning, "What is the job?"

Blue America's friendship with Eric Massa goes back to the very beginning of our PAC and he was one of the first candidates we ever supported. Ultimately it was his character that moved us to endorse him, although his championing of issues impacting the real lives of working families (like "fair trade" over so-called "free trade"), his dogged support of single-payer health care, and his spot-on analysis of the war in Iraq based on experience as a Naval officer are what first drew us to him. He came close in 2006 and he triumphed in 2008-- in one of the only districts in New York that Obama didn't win! Obama tool 48% in NY-29 while Massa scooped up 51% against a multimillionaire incumbent and Bush tool.

In June, Eric was one of only 32 Democrats to vote against the supplemental war budget -- of the 90 who had pledged to vote no. It was an incredibly courageous political act, particularly in a district with a daunting R+5.48 PVI (one of the most Republican districts in the country represented by a progressive Democrat). This morning Eric told me in no uncertain terms that he would "continue to vote against any supplemental."

We're not going to fund any wars in a way that no one knows about. The Republicans gave the wealthiest Americans the largest tax cut in history and then launched two wars without any idea of how to pay for them. It was the most fiscally irresponsible action they could take-- and they took it.

Eric is fired up and full of fight, as always. He loves his job and told me he's absolutely committed to it. "I'm in the right place in my life doing the right job for the right congressional district. And I'm just getting started." Right now, you hear the lifelong military man in him when he says he's very supportive of what he calls "the president's strategic pause to formulate whatever strategy his administration will implement (in Afghanistan)."

For instance, is this about fighting the Taliban or fighting al-Qaeda -- two distinctly different groups -- or is it about creating a democracy, or is it about protecting the Afghan people? These are very different missions that require very different resources. And until we know what we're doing, we cannot begin to get it done. The first thing a military officer asks is 'What is the mission?' And as of right now, that is a very legitimate question."

As progressives and men and women of common sense, we should demand a strategy that turns the destiny of Afghanistan over to the Afghans so we can get out of there as soon as possible. If the condition of our departure is creating a Jeffersonian democracy, then we are on a fool's errand.

Eric is joining us now (in the comments section) as part of our ongoing series on Afghanistan policy at Crooks and Liars. As MoveOn mentioned in the mailing this morning, "U.S. policy in Afghanistan has reached a pivotal moment. President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. And there's a big debate happening right now about what to do. Pro-war advocates both inside and outside the administration -- including John McCain and Joe Lieberman -- are calling for a big escalation. The general in charge of Afghanistan is expected to request tens of thousands more troops, and that may just be the beginning. They're cranking up the pressure for an immediate surge."

Eric Massa is in a unique position to help us figure out a progressive strategy for dealing with this dilemma. He's adamant that if the President asks for more funds for the war, he do it through a normal budgetary process that includes a "clearly articulated strategy with an end game. The Republicans say they're all about fiscal responsibility? Then they should agree we should apply those concepts to wars."

Please take a look at Blue America's No Means No! page and consider donating to Eric and any or all of the 32 other Democrats who have already done the right thing by voting no on the supplemental budget 3 months ago and who we will be counting on to help end the occupation of Afghanistan in the coming months.

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

DOWNLOADS: (144)

PLAYS: (785)

Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman weigh in on Sarah Palin’s misguided talking points in her recent speech to financial executives in Hong Kong. Palin apparently thinks that the solution to our economic mess in the United States is less government regulation rather than more to rein the bankers and Wall Street in for their bad behavior.

As Krugman notes we need more regulation and consumer protections and if we can’t even fix the simple things that should be a no brainer like consumer protections, how are we going to fix the bigger problems?

From Think Progress-Delegates walk out of Palin’s first international speech:

Sarah Palin made her international debut today in a closed-door speech at the CLSA Investors’ Forum in Hong Kong. AFP reports that Palin’s speech, which touched on issues like international terrorism and the U.S. debt, “divided” the audience and even prompted a few delegates to leave in disgust:

Former US vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin divided an international audience of financial big-hitters at her first speech outside North America on Wednesday with some leaving in disgust. [...]

Some listeners praised her forthright views on government social and economic intervention but others walked out early citing boredom or disgust. [...]

A US delegate leaving early with a colleague said: “it was awful, we couldn’t stand it any longer.”

As Krugman noted during this interview unfortunately Sarah Palin is not that far out of the mainstream of the Republican Party with her views on regulation.

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

DOWNLOADS: (112)

PLAYS: (228)

Rachel Maddow talks to David Sirota about why including a "trigger" in the health care bill is a poison pill that assures we won't have any real reform. David reiterates what he wrote in his op-ed The Trigger Mechanism:

Recall that over the last decade, a maverick group of progressive and conservative lawmakers pushed bills to let Americans purchase cheaper, FDA-approved prescription drugs from other industrialized nations. It was (and is) a commonsense idea - other countries allow importation, and the practice helps lower health costs by permitting consumers to buy medicines at the lowest world market price, not just at an artificially inflated domestic premium.

As with today's public option surveys, polls on importation showed strong national support for the concept. So rather than murder the drug legislation outright, congressional leaders joined the Clinton and Bush administrations in backing a "compromise": Importation bills were passed, but only those that gave the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to trigger - or not trigger - final implementation.

Specifically, the secretary would have to first certify that imported medicines were "safe" (drug companies promote the lie that Canadian medicine is mortally dangerous - prompting Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, an importation proponent, to ask, "Where are the dead Canadians"?).

This trigger provision, of course, was lobbyists' poison pill - and it worked as they planned. Importation has never been implemented, as no HHS secretary has pulled the trigger. Hence, Americans are still barred from wholesale importation of lower-priced medicine - and pharmaceutical industry profiteering continues.

The moral of the story is that triggers are just another version of the old Blue Ribbon Commission trick. They are designed not as good public policy, but as devious political tactics to help dishonest lawmakers look like they support popular measures - all while guaranteeing those measures never become reality.

On importation, triggers gave corporatist politicians a way to seem like they were remaining true to their pro-consumer platitudes and "free trade" dogma at the same time they were strengthening an extreme form of anti-consumer protectionism for pharmaceutical companies.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1016)

PLAYS: (1433)

The David Gregory and Andrea Mitchells of the world have decided to declare the public option dead and of course all of those silly liberals who think that the bill would be a giveaway to the insurance industries without it need to just shut up and get in line. Mitchell says "I just don't get the lack of discipline here". Hey Andrea, there are three co-equal branches of government, or have you forgotten that? And it is not going to destroy Obama's Presidency if he actually listens to the majority that elected him and does what they would like.

As my C&L cohort Nicole pointed out, this article does a good job of explaining just what we're watching right now. From Mike Lux at Open Left- The News Big Media Won't Report:

Every morning I still read my old fashioned paper copy of the morning Washington Post on the subway on my way to the office, and then I sit down to review all the information I am getting from field events and town halls around the country, lobbyists' reports from those meeting with Senate and House members and staff, updates from organizations working in the field. I have to say that the two sets of information could not be further apart, and it makes me wonder again what the disconnect is.

[....]

As I've written before, between some combination of their own pre-conceived conventional wisdom talking points and their love of covering a train wreck, traditional media does not want to report the good news about health care reform. I can't remember ever seeing in any traditional media story, for example, the fact that (as Chris Bowers reported) there is now a majority in both the House and the Senate that are on the public record in support of a public option.

The future of health care reform hangs in the balance. We are in the fight of our lives- but if you listen to the traditional media, you would think it is all over.

Lots more there so be sure to check out the whole article, but he's right. The media has decided to tell everyone that the fight is over and so go sit down and shut up if you don't like it. I would hope that is the last thing anyone that wants to see some real reform is doing.

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

DOWNLOADS: (120)

PLAYS: (160)

It looks like Mary Matalin, Chris Wallace and Bill Kristol all got their talking points from the same place for the Sunday shows this week. Matalin, like Wallace claims that we haven't been attacked since 9-11 and then names anthrax attacks as something that was prevented by the CIA after they tortured prisoners.

Uuummmm.... Mary, I hate to break this to you, but we were attacked by anthrax. But then you're fully aware of that already, aren't you? I doubt there's a single person in the Bush administration that has forgotten the event that was enough to scare some Democrats into voting for the invasion of Iraq.

I'm also wondering how many of the "attacks" she rattled off are on the list from Keith Olbermann's The Nexus of Politics and Terror? My guess is more than a few if she was forced to give specifics and maybe had someone besides her DINO husband and that hack John King sitting across the table from her.

As our own Jon Perr pointed out to me, Matalin is doing a good job of carrying water for Dick Cheney and his strategy to assure that torture is never investigated.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1487)

PLAYS: (6675)

August 24, 2009 News Corp

(Heather): Wow. Bill-O actually put someone on his show who does a good job of shooting down his talking points. O'Reilly thinks that no one wants torture investigated and that it's just a witch hunt, and that our torture program was "an absolute success". Jami Floyd hits back at him with some logic, like the Department of Justice is not supposed to be politicized, and that "we have federal laws on torture for a reason".

I guess after all of those years of the Bush administration using the D.O.J. as a political arm of the White House, Bill-O is having a little bit of trouble understanding that how the Bush administration did things is not exactly how they are supposed to work.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Via my friend Julia, a New York politics junkie if ever there was one, this interesting background on Betsey McCaughey, who got smacked down on Jon Stewart the other night:

Most of you probably know that we, as a nation, were gifted Ms. McCaughey by Martin Peretz of the New Republic when they published a piece she wrote on the Clinton healthcare reform package which was mined for talking points by the press and the Republicans (the New Republic has since both debunked and apologized for the shoddiness and dishonesty of her work). She was then asked to join George Pataki as his Lieutenant Governor in his successful campaign against Mario Cuomo.

What you may not know about Ms. McCaughey: when she was replaced on the ballot in the next election by another candidate for Lite Gov,* she left the Republican party to run for Governor on the Democratic and Liberal lines. That wasn't the reason she gave, though. The reason she gave was much more interesting (emphasis mine)She complained that she was forced to turn to Democrats in the Legislature when Republicans rebuffed her efforts to expand pre-kindergarten programs in the state and to restrict the ability of health maintenance organizations to refuse to pay for experimental cancer treatments.'''It showed me which party puts patients ahead of politics and campaign contributions,'' she said. ''It's the Democratic Party.''so it wasn't really that the Republicans kicked her to the curb. She just couldn't live with their unprincipled opposition to government healthcare mandates.

As a not-Republican in the Democratic primaries, the then-Betsy Ross (yeah, I know, I always enjoyed that myself) had a number of positions which might surprise you. She was a crusader for unrestricted late-term abortion, a fan of gay rights and increased welfare spending, and someone who said she'd grown up and changed her mind about her opposition to the Clinton plan.

Continue reading »

The health insurance cartel has shown that it is willing to shell out tens of millions of dollars and fight to the death to stop meaningful health care reform. One giant of the industry, United Health Group, is going so far as to actually encourage their own employees to educate themselves in anti-reform talking points, and attend tea parties held by a religious extremist. From TPM:

Last week, UnitedHealth Group--the second largest health insurance company in the country--sent out a letter to its employees urging them to call UHG's United for Health Reform Advocacy Hotline to speak with an advocacy specialist about health care reform. The advocacy specialist, according to the letter, is there to help UHG employees write personalized messages to elected officials, and to arm them with talking points to use at local events in order to better oppose the public health insurance option.

However, a source who's insured by UHG--and who also obtained the letter--called the hotline on Tuesday and says the company directed him to an events list hosted by the right wing America's Independent Party, and suggested he attend an anti-health care reform tea party sponsored by religious fundamentalist Dave Daubenmire, scheduled for today outside the office of Blue Dog Rep. Zack Space (D-OH). Read on...

United claims to be a partner in health care reform, but as d-day puts it they're in it to win it:

Giant insurers like United Health Group see value in enabling right-wing shriek-fests. They’ll either derail reform, and keep a status quo that earned the CEO $124.8 million in 2005, or get a workable, sham “reform” without a public option that would essentially funnel government subsidies to their company. They have a good racket going, and they want to keep it. Read on...

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

DOWNLOADS: (891)

PLAYS: (1373)

Isn't it wonderful that Raum Emanuel thought it was a great idea to get a bunch of Republicans to pretend they're Democrats? Who would have ever imagined that could have turned out badly? Bluedog Mike Ross decides to see just how many Republican talking points he can squeeze into a several minute segment on CNN's State of the Union.

King: [A]t one of your recent town halls, there was actually a young man -- not quite ready to vote, I don't believe -- who got up and raised one of the big concerns about this bill, and that is spending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Ross, I want the same opportunity that you had. Please do not -- don't load me up with debt that I can't pay.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, you voted in committee to keep the process moving, to get the House bill moving along, to keep it moving after you got some concessions. If that bill were on the full House floor tomorrow, based on everything you have heard back home, including the concern there about deficit spending, would you vote yes or do you need additional changes?

ROSS: Well, I think -- I think we'd probably need to see a few more changes, too.

Let me say this, that I'm glad to see all people, young and old, starting to talk about the debt. I've been talking about the debt for nine years. Let's not forget here, it took George Washington to Bill Clinton to put this country $5 trillion in debt. It took the last president to double it. And so, I'm one of those that have said, one of my key principles is I will not support a health care reform bill that is not deficit-neutral, period.

KING: Not deficit-neutral, period. As you know, the president is not on the ballot next year, but all of you Blue Dog Democrats in the House are on the ballot, and the Republican National Committee is already after you on the radio, sir. I want you to listen to a snippet from this radio ad attacking you for voting to keep the process moving.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMIC VOICE: He folded like a lawn chair.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross.

COMIC VOICE: He threw in the towel.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross did exactly what Nancy Pelosi wanted him to do.

COMIC VOICE: He caved in, he buckled.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross was one of just four congressmen who cast the deciding votes to advance Nancy Pelosi's radical big government health care plan. Ross backed a plan that will cost taxpayers billions, just days after talking like he wouldn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Such an important policy question facing the country right now, Congressman, but also a very dicey political environment. Can you vote for anything along the lines of what is right now before the House of Representatives and survive next year?

ROSS: John, first, I've got a response ad that I'm running to that ad, and I hope at some point you all will play just as many seconds of it.

I read the newspaper this morning. $57 million has been spent in the last six months, most of it in the last 45 days, trying to scare folks. I saw an ad the other night on TV. It scared the living daylights out of me. But I went back and watched it again. It used the word "could" six times in 60 seconds.

I've laid out -- I've now done 37 town hall meetings on health care reform since April. I'm doing telephone town hall meetings. I'm doing roundtable discussions at hospitals, where we bring in small- business owners, the self-employed, the uninsured, doctors, hospital administrators, and we're listening to them.

I can tell you, I've laid down my set of principles, so I will not force government-run health care on anyone. If there ever is government-run health care, the first ones to sign up should be the president and every member of Congress, including myself. You should be able to keep the insurance you've got today, if you like it, and always choose your own doctor. No federal funding for illegal immigrants or for abortion, and no rationing of health care. I will never vote for a bill to kill old people, period.

KING: Congressman Ross, we appreciate your time today.

The Seminal: Grassley brings the crazy...

Apoliticus: Top Five Campaign Mistakes

Mother Jones: George Bush, appeaser?

Submitted to a Candid World: Objection! Republican talking points and prior inconsistent statements

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Rich Lowry has lot of s'plaining to do...Gibbs To Media: How about reality?...Facts are stupid things...WaPo scraping bottom...Lane violation...Shrill...Whiney, Self-Serving Crapola....The New Yorker thinks Savage is just misunderstood...Our liberal media...Lou, you're an as*hole but we'd still like to see your birth certificate...Here's ours!...Humungous Hypocrisy at The Atlantiic