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

DOWNLOADS: (497)

PLAYS: (548)

I'm so glad Blitzer just thinks only "liberals" are going to be upset by this. And note to Wolf Blitzer, it's not "enhanced interrogation". Waterboarding is torture. Jonathan Turley gave a much more honest assessment at his blog and on Olbermann's show -- Justice Department Declines Punishment for Bush Officials for “Bad Judgment”

The Justice Department confirmed that the investigation originally found professional misconduct by Yoo and Bybee, but an unnamed high-ranking official at the Office of Professional Responsibility overruled the finding to avoid any professional action against them.

[...]

Now the report merely states that the men “exercised poor judgment.” That is a remarkable downgrade from the Nuremberg prosecutions of lawyers and judges for war crimes to the Obama Administration saying that support of torture is a matter of “poor judgment.” Poor judgment is when you invite the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and Susan Brady to a small dinner party. Arguing for torture and misrepresenting settled law to facility a torture program is usually viewed as something of a slightly higher order than “poor judgment” or “bad form.”

From CNN -- Report clears Bush officials of misconduct over 'torture' memos:

Bush administration lawyers who wrote "torture" memos have been cleared of allegations of professional misconduct after a Justice Department internal investigation, which recommends no legal consequences for their actions.

The report by the Justice Department concludes the high-ranking lawyers who developed controversial legal guidance on waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques may have exercised poor judgment, but not professional misconduct.

The conclusion resulted from a decision by top career Justice Department executive David Margolis to reverse a recommendation of investigators that found the two lawyers' legal memos did constitute professional misconduct. That tentative conclusion, which was overruled by Margolis, said the lawyers should be referred to their state bar associations for potential disbarment.

But in the final report, the examination of the legal guidance written by Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee found they did not constitute a professional breach that could have led to state disbarment. Read on...

Heather already wrote a great post on this, but I wanted to add a little more. I just love conservatives because they find new words to describe the same old shit that has caused the country into a complete meltdown.

Their latest one is called Constitutional Conservatism. Digby says that Wolf Blitzer proclaimed it's a new day for conservatives.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world. A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

• It applies the principle of limited government based on the
  rule of law to every proposal.
• It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
  politics and life.
• It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
  economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
• It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
  and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
  end.
• It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
  community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010 Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation

Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council

Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center

Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society

T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review

I wonder how many liberals will be signing on with Grover Norquist?
Anyway, it's more of the same bullshit. Didn't Karl Rove help George Bush to create the "Compassionate Conservative?" That was a load of crap too.

In fact, these conservatives are as "constitutional" as they are "compassionate." Which is to say: Not really at all. The giveaway this time around is their complaints that we "Mirandized" the Underwear Bomber and gave him "rights under our Constitution," as though those were only available to U.S. citizens. Except that the Constitution itself is very clear that we give those rights to everyone, citizen or not, under our jurisdiction. You'd think "constitutional conservatives" would be all over that.

We remember how bogus "Compassionate Conservativism" was. Source Watch:

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (445)

PLAYS: (1779)

Wolf Blitzer asks RedState's Erick Erickson about their latest bit of, as Paul Waldman calls it, Founding Father Fetishism:

Today, a group of movement right muckety-mucks released "The Mount Vernon Statement," meant to be a guiding document for their side. You've got the heavyweights -- Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform -- and a few lesser lights, such as professional gay-basher Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. The document itself is about as vague as it could be. There isn't a single policy issue mentioned; just a lot of repetitions of phrases like "founding principles" and "limited government."

But you'll note that it's presented on yellowed paper, with clip art of quill pens at the top! And the signatures are in ornate, Hancock-esque script! And it's called the Mt. Vernon statement -- like George Washington, get it? Read on...

And for another great breakdown of this nonsense, check out this post over at Lefty's Last Cry, a progressive blog from Notre Dame -- Conservative Constitutional Pornography.

This just looks like more of the same gripes from conservatives that we've been listening to for, I dunno, how many years now? And there's this from Digby -- Over Before It Began:

Wolf Blitzer just wondered if this "Mt Vernon Statement" will launch" a new era of conservative ascendance." I thought, already? Did the era of liberal ascendance come and go when I popped out to Starbucks for a cappuccino?

In case you were wondering what this bold, new conservative manifesto contains, here it is. My God, what ever will we do in the face of this fresh, exciting breakthrough?

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (423)

PLAYS: (856)

What in the hell is Donna Brazile smoking? When asked about George W. Bush being unwilling, like his former Veep Cheney, to attack President Obama, Brazile says he's trying to be an "elder statesman" and put partisanship aside. Well Donna, that's just mighty kind of him not to say too much about the guy left to clean up his mess after he took a wrecking ball to the joint, but "statesman" is about the last word I ever think of when I hear George W. Bush's name.

BLITZER: Let's let to our "strategy session." Joining us now our two CNN political contributors, Donna Brazile the Democratic strategist and Mary Matalin, the Republican strategist. Guys, thanks very much for coming in.

Mary, I'll start with you, talk about your former boss, the former president of the United States, George W. Bush. He was in Naples, Florida, giving a speech, together with his brother, the former governor, Jeb Bush. One of the reporters who covered it wrote this, "George W. Bush said more competitive congressional districts are needed so that politicians have to work harder on their campaigns. That, he said, could help diminish the partisanship as political leaders would be forced to focus more on the issues. He said those who call names shouldn't be elected." All right. So when I read that report, it sounded to me, tell me if I'm going too far, it sounds like he's being critical of the tea partiers.

MARY MATALIN: I didn't read it that way at all. There's been a long discussion about redistricting creating untouchable seats, where there's no competition of ideas and it produces Congress people who can walk their party off the edge, like Nancy Pelosi. No one can touch her seat. I took it as part of that discussion. When I think of name-calling, and I'm sure what George W. Bush thinks of when he thinks of name-calling is being called a Nazi or liar or a warmonger, or names that were thrown at him for policies that have been continued by the Obama administration. I know Donna and I agree on this, name-calling is a far different kind of politics than partisanship. There's nothing wrong with being partisan. There's something wrong with vile, personal attacks.

BLITZER: Which is a fair point. Mary, he also refused to be critical of the Obama administration. It's now more than a year since the president took office. Unlike the former vice president, Dick Cheney, President George W. Bush is still holding back. I guess he thinks it's inappropriate at this point for a former president to be critical of the current president. I guess you think that's the right thing to do, right? Let me ask that of Donna.

MATALIN: Sorry.

DONNA BRAZILE: Well, let me just say this. The think the former president is clearly trying to walk a fine line and demonstrate that he is ready to move beyond the politics of personal destruction, and to become an elder statesman. We need more elder statesmen, more former political leaders willing to use their time and talent to help lead the way to a better future for all of us. I also think that beyond trying to eliminate all of this hyper- partisanship, we need to overhaul our campaign finance system. I didn't get a chance to watch the smackdown between Joe Biden and Dick Cheney. I heard it was an interesting match, but I was more interested in watching Drew Brees.

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

DOWNLOADS: (642)

PLAYS: (2528)

Rudy Giuliani came on The Situation Room to attempt to clarify his remarks on Good Morning America and still has his facts wrong. John's right. The media needs to give this liar a time out. Rudy now wants us to believe that he meant to say we weren't attacked since Sept. 11th on George Bush's watch. When asked about the anthrax attacks, Giuliani claims that wasn't a terrorist attack because the FBI didn't ever figure out who did it, and it "was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism".

Of course Blitzer didn't point out how utterly ridiculous that statement is, or some of the other domestic terrorist attacks that happened on Bush's watch as well, so he didn't do much better than George Stephanopoulos' bit of stenography on Good Morning America.

Media Matters reminds us of some of the terrorist attacks that happened on George Bush's watch. It seems Rudy Giuliani has joined the ranks of Dana Perino and Mary Matalin with hoping that Americans have very short memory spans, and don't know how to use the Google.

For more go check out this most excellent set of graphs put together by Bob Cesca--Terrorist Attacks and Presidents. He pretty well blows out of the water this latest Republican talking point that George Bush kept us safe from terrorists. Nice work Bob.

RUDY GIULIANI: Wolf, you want to know if I forget about September 11th?

BLITZER: I'm sure you didn't.

GIULIANI: No. No.

BLITZER: But you did say this on...

GIULIANI: I...

BLITZER: ..."Good Morning America." I'll play the little clip and then you'll explain what you had in mind.

GIULIANI: Yes. I know. This is so silly. But go ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "GOOD MORNING AMERICA," COURTESY ABC)

GIULIANI: What he should be doing is following the right things that Bush did. One of the right things he did was treat it was a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. As you know, the blogosphere is going crazy with that, the comment, we had no domestic attacks under Bush.

All right, you remember at least one, don't you?

GIULIANI: No, here -- here's what I usually say when I said that -- and I did not put that -- those words in. I said -- I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since September 11th. And the reason I say it is on September 11th and the days after September 11th, I received many briefings, many warnings, as the mayor of New York, that we were going to be attacked again, that we were going to be attacked frequently.

And I think many people are surprised, even those people who hate President Bush -- I think many people were surprised that we didn't have those major attacks and that at least some of the things that President Bush was warning was helping in making certain that we didn't have any kind of major terrorist attack.

I did omit the words "since September 11th." I apologize for that. I should have put it in. I do remember September 11th. In fact, Wolf, I remember it every single day and usually frequently during the day.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (51)

PLAYS: (159)

From the AFL-CIO blog--Trumka: Senate Health Care Bill Must Change to Be Real Reform:

The health care bill being considered by the U.S. Senate is inadequate and too tilted toward the insurance industry, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said today.

In recent days, as the Senate has debated health care reform, small numbers of senators have held health care hostage by threatening to block a vote. The new proposal by the Senate puts the interests of insurance companies—and senators who would rather look out for the insurance companies—ahead of real reform.

Trumka said the top priority now is to fight over the rest of the legislative process to fix the bill and make sure we can pass real health care reform:

The labor movement has been fighting for health care for nearly 100 years and we are not about to stop fighting now, when it really matters. But for this health care bill to be worthy of the support of working men and women, substantial changes must be made. The AFL-CIO intends to fight on behalf of all working families to make those changes and win health care reform that is deserving of the name.

Continue reading...

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (74)

PLAYS: (361)

CNN's Jeanne Moos takes a look at some of the treatment Joe Lieberman has been receiving on line. I think she picked out some of the nicer stuff that's out there.

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

DOWNLOADS: (615)

PLAYS: (2528)

Sen. Russ Feingold explained to Wolf Blitzer why he doesn't think a troop surge in Afghanistan makes any sense, and that he would vote against funding it.

BLITZER: Let's talk about this with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. He's a key member of both the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committee.

Did I get that right, Senator?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That's right, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, a key word there being key, is that...

FEINGOLD: That's right.

BLITZER: OK.

Let's talk a little bit about why you oppose what the president is doing. What's wrong with his logic?

FEINGOLD: Well, it just doesn't add up for me.

The president says, we're doing this. We're adding 30,000, 35,000 troops to finish the job. And I ask the question, "What job?" because the president has been so eloquent in pointing out our issue is fighting al Qaeda.

The argument falls apart when you realize that al Qaeda does not have its headquarters in Afghanistan anymore. It is headquartered in Pakistan. It is active in Somalia, and Yemen, North Africa, affiliates of it in Southeast Asia.

Why does it make sense to have a huge ground presence in Afghanistan to deal with a small al Qaeda contingent, when we don't do that in so many other countries where we're actually having some success without invading the country and attacking those that are part of al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (43)

PLAYS: (129)

December 01, 2009 CNN

Sen. Lindsey Graham of course has "concerns" about having a withdrawal date from Afghanistan.

WOLF BLITZER: Campbell, thanks very much.

Anderson Cooper it's going to be joining us in a few moments, as well.

But let's talk to Senator Lindsey Graham. He's a Republican from South Carolina. He spent a lot of time thinking about Afghanistan, the war in Iraq.

Senator Graham, thanks very much.

What did you think of the president's new strategy?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, there's some consensus and concerns. I think every American is disappointed that eight years into this thing, we need to send more troops. But that's reality. And I -- I support the president's decision to send 30,000 more troops. I hope it's enough. If General McChrystal says it's enough, that's good by me.

I hope the NATO troops that go in will be able to engage the enemy. Numbers matter, but you've got to be able to fight. So if we're sending more NATO troops in with rules of engagement that won't engage the enemy, we're probably defeating our purpose.

But I guess the one concern I have is that what does this mean about July 2011?

How -- how will the enemy perceive that?

How do the Afghan people perceive what we're going to do?

It's not realistic we can withdraw a lot of troops in 18 months, if your goal is to train the Afghan Army and police force to stand up and fight.

BLITZER: Is it your understanding that the withdrawal of the 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan would start in July 2011 and would be complete by election day 2012?

Is that your understanding?

GRAHAM: I don't know. And that's a really good question. I've enjoyed the panel, by the way. This is a thinking, devious enemy. They're going to compute in their strategy what this means. They're going to try to figure out what population centers to attack. They understand we're going into an election cycle. But maybe tomorrow we'll know better.

But from listening to the president, I'm uncertain as to what that means we're going to do in 18 months.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (250)

Wolf Blitzer apparently has some trouble understanding what the notion of due process means or he would not even be asking questions like this. I think Maj. Hasan's lawyer Ret. Colonel John Galligan handled it pretty well.

Transcript via CNN.

BLITZER: You spent 30 years active duty in the United States military. You retired, what, back in 2001? A lot of folks, when they heard I was interviewing you, they asked me how could a retired U.S. military officer, a full colonel, go ahead and represent someone accused of mass murder? And I want you to explain to our viewers why you're doing this.

GALLIGAN: Wolf, I will tell you what I have told consistently anyone who asks that same question, and that is as a military -- former military JAG officer, former military judge, former prosecutor, former defense counsel, and now currently actively involved, also, in the civilian practice of criminal defense work, I fully appreciate the importance of ensuring that everybody has a fair trial. I think that's particularly important when it applies to anyone in uniform, officer or enlisted.

Their profession is to defend us. We owe it to them as either fellow service members or as U.S. citizens to ensure that we properly defend them.

The rights that I'm asking be accorded to Major Hasan are the rights that service members live and die for. Let's just make sure we don't deprive them in his case.

I also tell people that I'm a firm believer in the military justice process. Sadly, because so few people do serve in the U.S. Army and sister services today, there's an increasing -- a diminishing number of people who really understand the military justice system.

If properly applied, it can ensure that an individual has a fair and just hearing. If allowed to run its course, without being perverted along the way, I'm confident that most people will say we arrived, at the end of the day, with a fair, impartial and just result.

My purpose in representing the major is to ensure that we keep the military justice procedures on track. I've told people it's a great system if it works right, but it's a system that, if you have problems in it or difficulties along the way, be careful, get out of the way.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (903)

PLAYS: (2013)

From The Situation Room Oct. 8, 2009. Tony Blankley tries to rationalize the NRCC's sexist statement about Nancy Pelosi saying 'taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place'. In Tony Blankley's world, the media doesn't pay any attention to Republicans unless they're behaving badly. Really Tony? You're joking right? Because I sure as hell don't see any shortage of Republicans getting face time in the media no matter how they're behaving. The media has had so many 'exclusive' interviews with John McCain since he lost the presidential election I'd almost swear they didn't realize who won. I can't get the man off of my television screen.

And I think Tony needs to take a look at this from the good folks over at Think Progress with a snapshot of the media coverage of Republicans from back in January-- REPORT: GOP Lawmakers Outnumber Democratic Lawmakers 2 To 1 In Stimulus Debate On Cable News

As Media Matters has documented, during the Bush administration, the media consistently allowed conservatives to dominate their shows, booking them as guests far more often than progressives. The rationale was that Republicans were “in power.”

It appears that old habits die hard. Even though President Obama and his team are in control of the executive branch and Democrats are in the majority in Congress, the cable networks are still turning more often to Republicans and allowing them to set the agenda on major issues, most recently on the debate over the economic recovery package.

On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.

The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week.

Boy Tony, how can the Republicans ever manage to get their message out without making sexist remarks about Nancy Pelosi when the media ignores them like that?

And David Gergen tries to rewrite history pretending that St. Ronnie would never have behaved so badly. Two words David. Southern Strategy.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (47)

PLAYS: (211)

From CNN Ensign says he did not breach ethics rules:

Embattled Republican Sen. John Ensign told CNN Tuesday he did not break Senate ethics rules by helping to secure a lobbying job for the husband of the woman he had an affair with.

"I think it's pretty clear. I said in the past, I recommended him for jobs just like I've recommended a lot of people," Ensign told CNN senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash and congressional producer Ted Barrett. "But we absolutely did nothing except for comply exactly with what the ethics laws and the ethics rules of the Senate state. We were very careful in everything that we did. You can see our statements on that."

The comments come four days after The New York Times reported the husband of the woman Ensign had a affair with, Doug Hampton, has since lobbied the Nevada senator on behalf of his clients. The New York Times also reported evidence that suggests Ensign played an active role in getting Hampton the lobbying position. Hampton, a former senior aide to Ensign, is barred by congressional ethics rules from lobbying his old boss for one year after leaving his post in the Senate.

While Republicans continue to distace themselves from the Senator, it appears he still may have one friend in Nevada--Harry Reid-- who continues to call the Ensign scandal a 'personal matter'. Time to end the 'gentlemen's agreement' Senator Reid.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (84)

PLAYS: (299)

From CNN's The Situation. As Randi Kaye asks in her report, "Is Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican in a tough re- election fight, trying to cover up the execution of an innocent man on his watch?"

From TPM--Texas Governor Stymieing Panel Probing Flawed Death Penalty Case?:

Even by the standards of Texas's enthusiasm for state-sanctioned killing, this is pretty shocking...

A Texas scientific panel has been looking into possible missteps in a criminal investigation of a 1991 arson case which led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. A recent New Yorker story about the case laid out compelling evidence that Willingham may well have been wrongly put to death.

The panel, the Texas Forensic Science Commission, was scheduled to hear today from a nationally recognized arson expert it had hired, Craig Beyler, who had last month released a report which called the original probe slipshod.

But on Wednesday, Texas governor Rick Perry abruptly removed three members of the commission. In their place, he appointed a new chair with a reputation as a hardline conservative prosecutor, who promptly canceled the hearing at which Beyler was to testify.

Continue reading...

As the TPM article points to, there is a lengthy piece on this at The New Yorker--Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (92)

PLAYS: (385)

As Media Matters has documented, the right wing has been after Kevin Jennings for some time now. Conservative media unleash anti-gay rhetoric in attacks on Jennings:

The latest target in the Glenn Beck-driven conservative media witch hunt for Obama administration "czars" is Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools director Kevin Jennings. In their attacks on Jennings, numerous conservative media figures have resorted to thinly veiled homophobic appeals to paint Jennings, who is gay, as a "radical" "gay activist" with an "agenda" of "promoting homosexuality in schools," and have misrepresented or distorted Jennings' previous comments about religion and tolerance.

Continue reading...

CNN's Jessica Yellin debunked some of those attacks on CNN's The Situation Room.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1356)

PLAYS: (4076)

Here's another portion of Michael Moore's interview with Wolf Blitzer from Sept. 24, 2009. Michael is exactly right about one thing here. You're not seeing the passion on the left in support of the President because he started from a compromised position instead of starting with single payer and compromising from there if need be. He is also correct that if, not when, the President ever came out for single payer, you would see massive amounts of people coming out and supporting him. You're not going to see that passion on the left for a watered down giveaway to the insurance industry.

BLITZER: That's what President Obama said back in 2003. But now he's backed away from that as president of the United States and he seems to be backing away even from the so-called public option, which would allow the government -- a government-run health insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies. Is this what you wanted?

MOORE: Well, here's the -- here's the problem with President Obama on the health insurance proposal. He's a nice guy. You know, I mean, really, I believe he came into the White House with an olive branch to the people on the other side of the aisle. He believed in bipartisanship. I mean you've got to give the guy credit. He really -- he did not come in wanting to fight. He came in saying, you know, we're all Americans here and we need to fix this and we need to put aside this partisan stuff.

The other side didn't want to put it aside. The other side wanted to fight him tooth and nail. And -- and as part of his nice guy thing, he -- he backs a half measure, a public option.

BLITZER: But that might not even...

MOORE: And we (INAUDIBLE)...

BLITZER: That might not even make the final bill that he signs.

MOORE: And that may not. Well, of course not, because any time you don't fight for the thing you want, any time that you start off compromising, you're never going to get what you want. He started off with a compromise position -- let the private insurance companies still sit at the table, have a public option. He should have started with what he truly believes in, what he believed in, what he said in 2003, a single payer, national health care system, like all other Western countries have. We should have the same thing.

I know he believes in that, but he was trying to reach out and say, you know what, I'm not just going to come in here and ram this, so I'm willing to work with you and listen to your concerns. They don't want to listen to him.

Continue reading »