You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 9
PLAYS: 9
(1986: A year of contradictions)
Continuing our Thousand Yard Stare at years gone past, I came across 1986 and this year-end wrap up from Lesley Stahl on Face The Nation. It's a quick gloss over, probably because each story is good for about a weeks worth of posts. Nonetheless, it gives a good introduction to just what kind of year 1986 was. A lot of contradictions, not to mention denials. Between Libya, Iran-Contra, the upheaval in the Phillippines, Chernobyl - it was a busy year.
Lesley Stahl (CBS News): “What would happen to your country if Mrs. Aquino becomes President?”
Ferdinand Marcos (Philippine President): “The country will become Communist.”
The oft-used famous last words, but another indication of where 1986 was heading.
We'll be spending a lot of time there in the weeks/months ahead - fear not.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (27)
PLAYS: (64)
We all knew this was coming, right? On this week's Face the Nation, Olympia Snowe cites the lack of time for Republicans to further amend the health care bill none of them ever had any intention of voting for as the reason she won't vote for it. Steve Benen has more this:
By all appearances, the White House, from the outset, made an effort to garner bipartisan support for health care reform. At least in the Senate, that now appears impossible. Democrats no longer need Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) vote, but they sought it out anyway, to no avail.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who had been considered a possible Democratic ally, said she would oppose the measure because it was being rushed. "It is a take-it-or-leave-it package," she said.
I just can't figure out what on earth Snowe is talking about. She voted with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee reform plan, but now appears to be looking for an excuse to oppose the effort. But to sound even remotely credible, Snowe will have to do better than this.
I agree. Weak indeed. How's the bipartisanship working out for you President Obama? Snowe reminds me of her buddy Susan Collins talking about wanting to "improve" a bill she had no intention of voting for either. As Steve notes in his post, both of them have had ample chance to make this bill as bad as it is now.
"You have to take out the Medicare buy-in. You have to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the class act which was a whole new entitlement program that will in future years put us further into the deficit," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer Sunday.
"I want to tell you, we could pass a health care reform bill this week with more than 60 votes and it would be bipartisan if we just took a few things out of the bill as it is today," said Lieberman.
Lieberman wants to pass a Republican health care package, which is no plan at all. This bitter man is hijacking the entire health care reform effort for no other reasons than his petty, narcissistic agenda. He is a traitor to the liberal policies that once, as a vice-presidential nominee in 2000, he would have never signed onto.
Greg Sargent comes up with video proof which exposes Lieberman of being a bad-faith participant in health care negotiations. Holy Joe just three months ago was saying that he supports a Medicare buy-in plan. Oh, my!
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
In the vid, Lieberman appeared to go further than the current Senate deal, which would expand Medicare to those aged 55-64, saying he supported the idea of expanding it to people aged 50 and over. Lieberman referenced his proposal along these lines during the 2006 campaign, and added:
“My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid…
“When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group — post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they’re too young to qualify for Medicare.
“What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you’re 55 or 60 and you’re without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you’re older … you’re rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money.”
It’s not entirely clear that Lieberman was offering a full-throated current endorsement of the proposal, but his tone is clearly positive and approving. It’s yet another sign, as if you needed one, that Lieberman’s current opposition to the Senate proposal doesn’t appear to have any roots in a genuine policy disagreement.
It appears that Holy Joe wants to destroy health-care reform because his feelings have been hurt by liberals who disagreed with his warmongering behavior. The pettiness he holds dear to his heart is being used to destroy any chance that working-class Americans will be getting meaningful health care reform. You can't go lower than that.
Again it boils down to leadership, and President Obama and Harry Reid have not led this fight well from the beginning. They knew they had to deal with Joe, so he was bowed down to. The problem is that he felt no repercussions after he threw his full support to John McCain in the 2008 election. "He's with us on everything except the war," was what Harry Reid said. How did that work out for ya, Harry? Joe is destined to destroy health-care reform altogether.
People need to send the link to this to all the press and the villagers they can think of to show just how perfidious their favorite "man of integrity" is being on this. Thy won't care about the substance, but this helps expose Lieberman's pettiness which villagers always find uncomfortable. (The exposure, not the pettiness.)
Please sign this petition to progressive Senators Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Roland Burris, and Sherrod Brown:
PETITION: "Don't let Joe Lieberman win! Americans need you to stand strong and block any 'compromise' without a strong public option. If necessary, demand that Sen. Harry Reid and President Obama support budget reconciliation and pass a bill with just 51 votes -- at which point, Joe Lieberman will be irrelevant and the public option can be made even stronger."
Key Democrats have said they won't support a bill without a strong public option:
That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 30
PLAYS: 5
(Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan - At every turn, some new loose cannon)
We talk about how unhinged and fear-driven the Republican "base" is lately, but seem to forget there is a long history that goes with it. One that goes back for decades if not longer.
I almost forgot how freely and how often President Reagan invoked the Evil Empire theme and played on fears of how Russia was superior militarily to the U.S. - how we were unprepared for a nuclear threat and how a threat could come at any time.
It was the fear then and it's the fear now. Fear, it would seem, is the driving force behind the Right wing agenda and the mainstream media.
So when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was interviewed on Face The Nation in April 4, 1982, he displayed a goodly amount of disbelief over the lack of responsibility Reagan was showing by proclaiming the U.S. no match for a Soviet showdown during a recent Press Conference.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “There is a leakage of reality in this Administration. The Commander-in-Chief, what Commander-In-Chief has ever told the world that the United States is inferior to an adversary? And why would anyone say that when it isn’t even so?”
It's interesting to note that CBS Correspondent George Herman attempts to cover over the situation by claiming Reagan "wasn't really serious in his estimation" of his statement - the Mainstream Media, as always are more than willing to join in the reality leak.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (527)
PLAYS: (2020)
Sen. Joe Lieberman isn't backing down from his demand that health care reform not include a public option but now he has a few more requirements.
"You have to take out the Medicare buy-in. You have to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the class act which was a whole new entitlement program that will in future years put us further into the deficit," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer Sunday.
"I want to tell you, we could pass a health care reform bill this week with more than 60 votes and it would be bipartisan if we just took a few things out of the bill as it is today," said Lieberman.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 539
PLAYS: 355
(White House Chief of Staff and later Treasury Secretary James Baker with "friend" - coincidence? We think nope.)
Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand, stratagems and feints - all those characterizations to sum up the Reagan Economics plan. In this interview, part of the CBS News Face The Nation series from August 15, 1982, White House Chief of Staff, later appointed Treasury Secretary James Baker is asked point blank about the wildly varying opinions on the economic state and on the deficit.
George Herman (CBS News): “When do you personally think the deficit may be below $100 billion?”.
James Baker: “Well George, the official figure is of course is what I gave you and I recognize there are differences of opinion with respect to that. I think the point is that . .is that these ballooning deficits that we see are the reason why it is very important that the Congress implement the budget resolution that’s before it and it’s very . . .this is the reason it’s very important that we have a tax bill and that tax bill pass the Congress. Now, it’s really not important when I personally think the deficit might be below $100 billion. In the first place, I’m not an economist, and I really don’t have any independent view of that. The important thing, I think is that we need to constantly keep our eye on the fact that deficits are a major problem in this country. And that the ever expanding size of these deficits keeps interests rates up. And the fact that interest rates are remaining too high is what prevents the recovery from taking place. So it’s very important, we think, that as an administration that we . .that we do some responsible surgery, if you will, on these deficits”.
I guess having knowledge of economics wasn't a prerequisite for being appointed Treasury Secretary in 1985, at least not in the Reagan White House. I think its' safe to say the world o' crap we're in right now didn't necessarily start on January 2001.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 543
PLAYS: 418
(The Wolf at the front door is starting to look like the family pet)
The never ending story of the Economy, and the ever perplexing world of Reaganomics of the 1980s. Probably not a revelatory view, but one given by Donald C. Platten, who was in 1983 Chairman and CEO of Chemical Bank. The interview via CBS News Face The Nation on August 14, 1983 gives some indication where things were heading.
Donald Platten (Chemical Bank): “The feeling I personally go to bed with every night is that the economy will shortly stop being in a recovery mode, in other words we will have reached the former peak of the economy and that there will be a growth that we’ll be able to talk about as far as our economy in the months ahead. I think what is going on now in the economy is very healthy. I don’t think we have to worry about it being over exuberant. I think there will be a good economy going from now right straight through the year end into 1984. I think there will be pauses. I think in certain industries there’s going to be really no basic recovery in a significant way. I’m afraid that the problem of unemployment is going to continue with us for some time to come, and that really is the biggest thing in the country today. We’ve dispensed with the word Inflation, really. It’s a non-subject, why? Because it’s down to around 3 to 4 percent as against 14 percent a couple of years, so now the unemployment factor is the one that’s on most peoples minds. And that is going to continue down as the economy continues to grow, that it will not affect everybody as well as some other people, there’s no question about that.”
Hindsight and the reading of Tea Leaves. Twenty-six years ago they were doing it. Twenty-six years later, they still are.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 488
PLAYS: 269
(Sen. John Tower . . . more or less)
The Reagan years saw Americas fair share of military excursions overseas. Between a disastrous stay in Lebanon, an invasion of the island of Grenada, the ongoing skirmishes with Libya, our clandestine involvement in Nicaragua and El Salvador - the list is pretty endless. All were done under the veil of the Cold War - the eternal "good fight" against Communist insurgency throughout the world. But more and more the real motives were being revealed and they had more to do with sources of raw materials (i.e. oil) than they did with Moscow. Russia was knee-deep in their own Afghanistan, and we were busy supplying arms to the Mujahadeen (i.e. Taliban) - but our "tinkering in internal affairs" was the subtext, while the Media attention was drawn to the splashier pictures - Mohammar Khadafi, Yuri Andropov and the Evil Empire. CBS News program Face The Nation had a panel featuring Senator John Tower (R-Texas), Chairman of The Senate Armed Services Committee discussing our latest set of situations and our Foreign Policy on August 7, 1983.
Sen. John Tower: “I think it should be understood that the United States is committed to the protection of its vital interests abroad . . . we don’t want to find ourselves more or less isolated in this world from important sources of raw materials.”
George Herman (CBS News): “Are you concerned at all about the issue of legitimacy, for example the side that we are supporting, that of President Hissene Habre` is a government which took over and forced out the previous President whose name was Goukouni Queddei, as I recall. So that we are really supporting rebels or insurgents ore revolutionaries against what was a legitimate government . . . .”
Tower: “The fact is, that is the recognized government of Chad. It is the government that is accredited to various capitals throughout the world. It is the government that is recognized by the Organization of African States.”
Herman: “But it’s a civil war, shouldn’t we . . . .?”
Tower: “I understand that . . but the point is, not involvement in the civil war, but . . trying to prevent the intrusion of others in the civil war and turning it to their own uses. Don’t think that Colonel Khadifi has any great philosophical notions about who should be in charge in Chad. Colonel Khadafi would like to be the dominant influence in Chad. And the implications for other African states and the implications for the United States and Western Europe and our interests there are very obvious to me . . . “
Eventually the lid would be blown off the Iran-Contra affair, but in 1983 it was Business As Usual.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (294)
PLAYS: (475)
From Face the Nation, FreedomWorks' Dick Armey claims that the GOP's purity resolution is not a litmus test for candidates. Sure looks like one to me Dick. I'm not sure what else you'd call it when you're using it to purge moderates from the Republican Party. Steve Singiser at DailyKOS has a post up on how this push to the right could end up being good for Democrats in the 2010--On Party Purity and Eleventh Commandments.
SMITH: The headlines out of the GOP this week, this notion, the Republican National Committee considering a list of 10 principles. Some have called them the GOP 10 commandments, which include things like support for the surge in Afghanistan or opposition, for instance, to the Obama health plan.
As a candidate, if you agree with the eight out of 10 -- with eight out of 10, you’ll get support from the national GOP, and if you don’t, you’re out of luck.
Dick Armey, is this litmus test a good idea?
ARMEY: First of all, it’s not a litmus test. Secondly, it is being offered for consideration in the party.
SMITH: Right.
ARMEY: And I think, thirdly, it is seven out of the 10. But if you -- if you read the list, at least five of the 10 are right at the center stage -- center post of the big 10 of American politics today, fiscal conservatism.
I think it’s -- if the Republican Party is going to win any future elections, it has to be presented as an alternative to the Democrat Party’s fiscal spending. And -- and in fact, it’s a very reasonable thing to say, if you want the support of the Republican Party, demonstrate some allegiance to the primary positions taken by the party.
That’s not a litmus test. That’s just saying, if you want us to give you our money, our support, our -- our troops in the field, our endorsements, then demonstrate that you’re someone like us.
Say what you will about Bill Gates and Microsoft (and Vista victims should have plenty to say), I try to separate that out from Gates' work with his wife, Melinda, at the Gates Foundation, which is doing great work in helping to fund research and global efforts to combat AIDS. The foundation now appears to be broadening its emphasis to encompass the cause of global health care. (Watch Glenn Beck's hair catch fire at the very thought.)
Bill and Melinda will be on Meet the Press today, and what they have to say will probably be worth listening to. (No one will blame you for skipping the Rick Warren half of the show, though.) It'll also be a nice changeup from the usual menu of gasbag Beltway insiders -- although certain matchups (Dede Scozzafava and Ed Gillespie on Face the Nation, and Howard Dean vs. Mike Huckabee on CNN) will probably be worth seeing for the entertainment value ...
(All times EST)
•ABC’s “This Week,” 9:30 a.m. — Guests: Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican; Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent.
•CBS’ “Face the Nation,” 1 a.m. Monday — Guests: Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat; former House majority leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican; Dede Scozzafava, former Republican U.S. House candidate in New York; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor.
•CNN’s “State of the Union,” 8 a.m. — Guests: Sen. Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican; Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat; Rep. David Obey, Wisconsin Democrat; former British prime minister Tony Blair.
•“Fox News Sunday,” 9 a.m. — Guests: Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican; Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat; former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Republican; Howard Dean, former national Democratic Party chairman; Maj. Gen. Carla Hawley-Bowland, commanding general of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Army’s North Atlantic Regional Medical Command.
•NBC’s “Meet the Press,” 9 a.m. — Guests: Bill and Melinda Gates, co-chairs of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1062)
PLAYS: (1920)
Oh lovely. More fear mongering on another Sunday bobble-head show, this time from Bob Schieffer. Pat Leahy sets him straight on why the United States is perfectly capable of prosecuting terrorism cases.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you heard what the congressman said, Senator Leahy. Tell me why you think he’s wrong.
LEAHY: I think that Eric Holder, our attorney general, is right. I think the president is right in holding the trials of these murderers in New York City.
What we’re saying to the world is the United States acts out of strength, not out of fear. I know when I go around Vermont, people say, let’s try criminals. Let’s try criminals like KSM. Let’s get them convicted. We’re very much a law enforcement type of state here.
I was a former prosecutor. I’d like to just see them prosecuted. In the same which way we prosecuted Timothy McVeigh. We’re not afraid to do that. We’re the most powerful nation on earth. We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world. Let’s show the world that we can use that power. We can use our judicial system, just as we did with Timothy McVeigh, and send the people -- and convict the people.
SCHIEFFER: But Timothy McVeigh was an American. He was not what some people would call an enemy combatant.
LEAHY: But...
SCHIEFFER: Won’t this be a circus of sorts, though? That’s what the congressman is saying. He says it’s going to just turn into a propaganda show.
LEAHY: I have a lot of faith in our judges. They know how to run a trial. They know how to keep decorum in their court. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants to stand up and say, as he did in Guantanamo, I committed all these murders, I did all these things, fine. If I was a prosecutor, I would just sit there and let that jury hear it, because he’s going to be convicted.
That’s the important thing. And we show the world that our judicial system works. I think that’s why people like Ray Kelly, who is the commissioner of police, one of the finest commissioners of police anybody has ever had there in New York City, said we’re prepared, we can handle this.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1373)
PLAYS: (1212)
Joe Lieberman claims that he 'wish[es] people would come out and debate me on the public option instead of questioning my motives' when asked about the money he's receiving from the insurance industry. That's news to Rachel Maddow Joe. If you're looking for someone to debate you about your motives, I hear she's still looking for a response from your office.
SCHIEFFER: I’m going to ask you this question because I want to give you a chance to respond to it. Some of your critics say that the reason that you are so dead set against the public option is because there are so many insurance companies headquartered in your home state in Connecticut and they’ve been some of your biggest supporters. What have they given you this year, $400,000? Something like that? Has that had anything to do with your position on the public option?
LIEBERMAN: No. I wish people would come out and debate me on the public option instead of questioning my motives. If they look at the record, I have never hesitated to get tough on insurance companies when I thought they were wrong. When I was attorney general of Connecticut, I filed an antitrust action against the Connecticut insurance companies.
A few years ago when there was a patient bill of rights in the Senate which the insurance companies opposed, I supported it. Right now, I’ve said that I will support the removal of the antitrust exemption that insurance companies have. That’s not the reason.
But I will say this. This recommendation of a public option, a government health insurance company, takes our government down a road that we’ve never gone down before.
In other words, we believe in a market economy. It’s what’s created the great American middle class. But it doesn’t have a conscience. When it behaves badly, we regulate it, companies. We sue them. I’ve been angry at oil companies. I never had the idea that the government should go into the oil business to make oil companies behave better. I think this would be a terrible mistake.
MADDOW: I also want to tell our viewers that we invited Senator Lieberman to come on the show tonight. His office did not even bother to respond to our requests.
But, Senator Lieberman, you should know you have an open invitation as you long have had to come on the show. I promise you will get a fair shake. Actually, at this point, I promise to not only buy you a shake. I will buy you a cookie if you come on the show.
We won't be seeing that happen any time soon. Lieberman won't get the kind of softball interview he received from Bob Schieffer if he comes on Maddow's show.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (58)
PLAYS: (251)
I don't agree with Bob Schieffer all that often but I do agree with most of his points on this one. From CBS News' Face the Nation, Nov. 1, 2009--A Class in Nation-Building 101:
SCHIEFFER: Finally today, as the president tries to develop a new strategy in Afghanistan, I wonder if this is the real lesson that we’ve learned in Afghanistan so far, that nation-building, like charity, probably begins at home, at least the way we seem to be going about it in Afghanistan.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Terrorism poses a threat to America’s national security, but is trying to build a Western-style nation in Afghanistan by funneling money to its leaders really the best way to combat terrorism?
I guess what set me off is that story about how we’ve secretly put the president of Afghanistan’s brother on the CIA payroll. He’s the one who is supposed to be mixed up in the drug trade. The idea was that, by doing that, he’ll help us pave the way to building a democracy there. Now, that’s good work if you can get it. But I don’t see how that is making us safer.
Whatever the size of the military force the president decides on for Afghanistan, I think he needs to be paying more attention to where the money is going for the non-military spending there. Incredibly, no one really seems to know. The judge by what we’ve gotten from it so far, we’d be much better off with some nation-building back home. Our infrastructure is already a mess.
We could start at the Oakland Bay Bridge, where a 5,000 pound part of the top fell off into the traffic below. That would certainly make us safer, for sure.
In Afghanistan, we’re having to relearn what we should have already known, that we can help others but we can’t do it for them. And when we have to pay others to help themselves, I don’t see how that helps anyone but the guy getting paid.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1666)
PLAYS: (1153)
Sen. Joe Lieberman says that health care reform is important but not so important that he would vote for a bill that includes the public option. The "independent Democrat" blames those that insist on having the public option for his threat to filibuster health care reform.
"I'd say to the people who are all of a sudden making the public option -- a government health insurance company -- the litmus test here, they're stopping us from getting something done," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer.
