The Dylan Ratigan does a pretty good job of explaining the 2200 page report that exposes the Lehman scandal. It shines a bright light on why we need financial regulations and serious reforms.

The NY Times:

The bankruptcy examiner’s report filed by Anton R. Valukas on the 2008 demise of Lehman Brothers discusses some accounting gimmicks that are eerily reminiscent of how Enron tried to prop up its balance sheet back in 2001 before it collapsed. Both companies appear to have played right along the edge of properly accounting for transactions designed to make them appear much stronger than they turned out to be, becoming steadily more aggressive as they teetered on the brink of ruin.
The examiner’s report discusses potential claims that the bankruptcy trustee can bring against Lehman’s former officers and outside advisers and does not mention potential government law enforcement action.

Reading his report, however, gives strong indications that at a minimum the Securities and Exchange Commission is likely to pursue civil charges for securities fraud, and that criminal charges are certainly possible against Lehman’s former top executives. The examiner’s report gives us a new term for hiding problems on a corporate balance sheet that may become common parlance: “Repo 105.” Starting in 2001, Lehman Brothers engaged in repurchase agreements, called “repos,” which were described by DealBook as “what amounts to a short-term loan, exchanging collateral for cash up front, and then unwinding the trade as soon as overnight.”

Read here for more of the story.

Market Watch:

The report, which runs to 2,200 pages, said former top officers including ex-CEO Dick Fuld and Chief Financial Officers Chris O'Meara, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt could face legal claims for negligence of breach of duty.

Auditor Ernst & Young could also potentially face a professional malpractice claim for not challenging Lehman's non-disclosure of the off-balance sheet transactions, the report said. See full story on the Lehman report.

Lehman's collapse in 2008 really got things going.

Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest US investment bank, has filed for bankruptcy protection, dealing a blow to the fragile global financial system.

The news led to sharp falls in share prices around the world, and officials took measures to reassure markets. Lehman had incurred losses of billions of dollars in the US mortgage market.
--

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the US was "working through a difficult period in our financial markets right now as we work off some of the past excesses".

But he added: "The American people can remain confident in the soundness and resilience of our financial system."

However he warned that uncertainty remained and it was likely that there would be further "rough spots" ahead before the market was corrected.

Turmoil would continue in financial markets until the housing correction was completed, he added.

Mr Paulson said he was committed to working with regulators in the US and abroad, as well as policymakers in Congress to take the necessary steps "to maintain the stability and orderliness of our financial markets".

But he gave no details of what such steps might mean.

And remember these magical words by President George Bush?

Earlier in the day President George W Bush said: "In the long term I am confident that our financial markets are flexible and resilient and can deal with these adjustments."

This BBC article brings back really bad memories, but I hope they remind the Congress to get financial reform done, now.

Because I live in a city (the unhip part), I actually know people who occasionally use payday lenders. And while the industry is ripe for all kinds of abuse, the people who use these lenders conscientiously (the ones who don't roll over the loan, thus incurring obscene amounts of interest) insist they want that option -- because it's still cheaper than going to the loan sharks.

However, the number of people who do roll over those loans is great enough that the payday lending industry needs to be very tightly regulated. The industry knows that; that's why they pour so much money into campaign coffers. But there's simply no question that the interest rates are usurious and this is exactly the sort of thing Democrats have been fighting to change. Not a good place for "bipartisan" compromise! From the NY Times Dealbook:

Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is playing a crucial role in bipartisan negotiations over financial regulation, pressed to remove a provision from draft legislation that would have empowered federal authorities to crack down on payday lenders, people involved in the talks said. The industry is politically influential in his home state and a significant contributor to his campaigns, records show.

The Senate Banking Committee’s chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, proposed legislation in November that would give a new consumer protection agency the power to write and enforce rules governing payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial companies that are not part of banks, Sewell Chan reports in The New York Times.

Late last month, Mr. Corker pressed Mr. Dodd to scale back substantially the power that the consumer protection agency would have over such companies, according to three people involved in the talks.

Mr. Dodd went along, these people said, in an effort to reach a bipartisan deal with Mr. Corker after talks had broken down between Democrats and the committee’s top Republican, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama. The individuals, both Democrats and Republicans, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations.

Under the proposal agreed to by Mr. Dodd and Mr. Corker, the new consumer agency could write rules for nonbank financial companies like payday lenders. It could enforce such rules against nonbank mortgage companies, mainly loan originators or servicers, but it would have to petition a body of regulators for authority over payday lenders and other nonbank financial companies.

Consumer advocates said that writing rules without the inherent power to enforce them would leave the agency toothless.

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

DOWNLOADS: (420)

PLAYS: (1253)

I have to say I'm glad David Barstow at the NY Times wrote about the real core of the Tea Party movement being a revival of the militia movement, but it's very annoying too. David Neiwert and I have been writing on this subject ever since Fox News helped launch this extreme conservative coalition into action. The Villager elders all saw it too, but were afraid to put them in proper context. Barstow at least gives them some "official" cover to finally start calling them out.

Tea Partiers may say they are an independent movement, but their values are arch-conservative, and in the end it still benefits the GOP and their corporatist owners. A new CNN poll shows that 87% of them would vote for the GOP if there was no nobody endorsed by the Tea Party movement in their district.

Michael Steele met with 50 Tea Party activists for over four hours the other day because the GOP is very nervous that they would actually start a third-party movement and splinter the vote. If the Tea Party activists were serious, they would run their own presidential candidate in 2012.

Greta Van Susteren interviewed Amy Kremer, a Tea Party activist (who doesn't like the Birthers unlike Palin) about the Steele meeting and she made clear that the Tea Partiers were working strictly with the Republican Party; it hadn't crossed her mind to talk to the Democratic Party, too, until Greta asked her about it as a signal that they were, you know, truly cough cough *nonpartisan* cough hack.

As you can see in the video, Michael Steele was all worried that the Tea Partiers would be concerned that the meeting was about the GOP co-opting the Tea Party movement, which he assured them was far from the truth, as indeed it was. This was kinda like a sea lion assuring a transient killer whale that it had no intention of eating him.

Meanwhile, Andrea Mitchell interviewed another of the Tea Party leaders at the meeting, a woman named Lisa Miller, and she essentially said, as have many others in the Teabagger movement, that they actually want to take over the GOP. No ifs, ands or buts:

Miller: The Republican Party, based on its platform, has much in common with the Tea Party, but local and state parties don't necessarily reflect those values anymore. And so we're going to have to retake, if you will, the Republican Party, as opposed to the Republican Party absorbing us.

If the DNC held meetings with a liberal activist coalition that said the GOP are Nazis, traitors and not born in America, the media would be going crazy, and Fox News would be calling them psychos. (We remember the Senate condemnations of MoveOn.org for daring to criticize Bush's Iraq War general and for a supposed "Hitler ad" it never produced.)

Here's more on the meeting:

Around 50 leaders representing 30 Tea Party groups met with Steele and other GOP advisers to talk about strategies and the importance of conservatism in the 2010 midterm elections.

"The chairman believes it is extremely important to listen to this significant grass-roots movement and work to find common ground in order to elect officials that will protect these principles," RNC spokesperson Katie Wright told the Washington Post.

Not all Tea Party activists supported the meeting, however, as Talking Points Memo reported:

In an email to TPMmuckraker, Robin Stublen, another Florida-based Tea Party activist who has argued previously against working with the GOP, warned of "a back door attempt by the RNC to put their 'stamp' on the movement that welcomes all conservatives regardless of political party."

Oh, they aren't extremists. I mean, wanting to hang Patty Murray is quite normal, isn't it?

As I'm reading about the Marine-led NATO offensive in Afghanistan, I'm wondering if this represents the "new" counterinsurgency warfare, or is this just the basic combined arms "search and destroy" conventional approach that we saw in Iraq? From the NY Times:

The first large skirmish began at 9:30 a.m., as Second Platoon, the company headquarters and most of the Afghan platoon stopped at the edge of a small village and prepared to clear it. The Taliban opened up with automatic rifle fire from a few hundred yards away, shooting from concealed positions protected by open ground.

Marines and Afghan soldiers rushed to mud walls and returned fire. The Taliban’s fighters could be seen at times running between fighting positions and irrigation ditches. A few were struck by the Marines’ fire, and fell. Others kept up their fire. Bullets buzzed past the Marines.
------
Often, small groups of Taliban opened up from a different direction after the Marines had faced several minutes of fire. It was clear that the Taliban had ringed the company, and was probing and picking at the Marines as much of Company K moved toward a road and bridge that Captain Biggers intended to seize.

As the company spread out, the fighting moved with it. At times, two or three gun battles raged at once, including at the outposts where the Marines had left their equipment. The Taliban harassed and attacked these positions several times during the day.
-------
More than a half-hour later, after the fighting had subsided again, the Himars rocket barrage struck a nearby house, but not the one from which highly accurate fire had been holding the Marines against the wall.

Several Marines cursed. The wrong building had been hit. The company commander saw the children stream outside, ordered a cease-fire, and sent a patrol to go help.

Certainly there's the time and place to use conventional warfighting tactics to take on a large concentration of insurgents. Pretty sure that's in the COIN manual. But I feel like we're still fighting at the tactical/operational level, looking for short-term gains with no feasible long-term strategy to win and get out. It is encouraging that there are more Afghans involved in this joint operation than ever before, and word is that "development aid" is set up to follow into the province. But the "proof is in the tasting of the pudding," so they say. We'll watch and see what happens next.

Flipping around to CNN, Wolf's The Situation Room goes gaga over the Scott Brown swearing-in. They are in a frenzy. The devoted almost the entire first hour of TSR to him. Tongues are hanging out, heavy breathing follows as the cameras check him out to the chamber where Joe Biden does the honors.

Fox News stocks talker Ben Stein (fired for ethics violations at the NY Times) opines that he's just the type of guy you want to have a beer with and he's so much better looking than the schoolmarmy-looking Martha Coakley.

Then they picked up his presser. It's all about cutting those damn taxes...

He ducks the DADT question by saying he'll just ask the generals how they feel. That's real leadership. He said the stimulus didn't create one new job...

And Brown said that not only do we have to worry about terrorists attacking our airports, but they are also coming for our shopping malls.

Q: Do you mind being one or two republicans as long as you like the bill.

Brown:...We have terrorists trying to kill not only in our airports, but in our shopping malls.

I hadn't heard of that one. There was the Derrick Sharif case in 2007, but that involved no terrorist organizations and was a conspiracy of one. There have been some right-wing sites that were saying a mall would make a nice, juicy target.

Wonder if that's where Brown was getting his information.

SHORTER Alan Kuperman: "Well, diplomacy has completely failed to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, so now it's just a question of whether Israel or the United States hits Iran first. And since we can do 'shock and awe' better than the Israelis, let's get to it."

You have to wonder about the sanity of a person who, after receiving a PhD in Political Science from MIT and has directed the Strauss Center's Nuclear Proliferation Prevention program for more than a year, is advocating bombing Iran's nuclear energy infrastructure as an approach to enforcing nonproliferation.

Seriously, dude. Resign now. You clearly are out of touch with reality (although nothing says "serious analyst" like that soul patch). And shame on the NY Times for printing an op-ed that belongs more in the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times.

UPDATE: Joe Palermo spells it out at Huff Po.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1821)

PLAYS: (1781)

All the news yesterday out of Rupert Murdoch's interview with Sky News was about Murdoch's endorsement of Glenn Beck's claim that President Obama is a racist who hates white people. But the rest of the interview had some even more disturbing remarks in it -- especially early on, when talking about his plan to make everyone pay for their Internet content.

Rupert, Rupert, Rupert. He just doesn't understand how the Internet works. If he continues to actively try to destroy the "fair use" of content, readers from all across the political spectrum will revolt against him. Even from his own side. Murdoch hates Google and every other search engine because he thinks by having Google linking to his stories, they are kleptomaniacs and robbing him. When asked why he just doesn't remove his websites from Google searches now, he replies that he will after he turns them all into "just for pay" only sites. If he feels they are ripping him off then why doesn't he do it now? The answer is he can't afford to do that. I dare him to do it.

newsroomamerica writes:

When challenged that his news organisations could just remove themselves from the search engines, he said "I think we will. But that's when we start charging. We do it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall but its not right to the ceiling, you get the first paragraph of each story. If you are not a paying subscriber of WSJ.com you get a paragraph and a subscription form.

Was this WSJ model what we can expect to see in other online publications? "Maybe, maybe. There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe could be challenged in the courts and bar it all together. But it's ok, we are getting a lot of advertising revenue so we will take that slowly."

The doctrine of fair use defines the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as news reporting, and is a content gathering cornerstone for most mainstream media, including publications owned by Mr Murdoch.

The NY Times already tried the firewall approach and failed.

Jamie Holly emailed me and said:

When a search engine goes to a website it reads a file called robots.txt. This is like an instruction manual for search engines on what to search and not to search. You can view my robots.txt file here.

So what does the robots.txt file on foxnews.com say?

Well look at that. Not only is Fox allowing Google, but they are giving specific directions to Google to read files and index those items. So in an analogy sense this is like inviting someone into your home, pointing out all your valuables and asking them to take them. You even help them carry them out the door and wave good bye with a big old smile, then go inside and call the police reporting you've just been robbed.

And Murdoch going after "fair use" is really interesting. The big question under section 107 of the copyright law has always been this:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Fair use is allowed for:

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

Google only shows a headline and around 128 characters, which a lot of times isn't even a full sentence for their "news" service, which is also considered a very valuable "research" tool. If he thinks some judge would rule that as not being fair use then he is dumber than I thought.

I really hope Murdoch does go after Google legally on this. It would be so much fun to watch. Of course the only lawyer that I think would take Murdoch's case is Orly Taitz.

Glenn Beck joins the Net Neutrality fight by standing with Rupert and the wealthy as usual. Beck says Net Neutrality would 'destroy the free market that created the Internet'. Oh really?

Yes ma'am, may I have another?

Glenn Beck's idea of 'freedom': Letting corporations control what you read on the Internet

Does Murdoch really believe that every other content provider in one form or another will suddenly join up with him and boycott Google and turn the net into a pay-per-view outlet?

I can only imagine the fun hackers would have at destroying his website security if he actually tried to implement it.

Deleted scenes from Sicko (2007) showing the health care system in Norway.

Ever wonder why the single most sensible, economical and democratic way to provide health care to every person in the US was never really mentioned in the rhetoric whirlwind of public options, opt-outs, co-ops, triggers and free market embracing?

Part of the reason why is that the media refused to mention it:

The media analysis group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an action alert September 22 titled "NYT Slams Single-Payer" that described lopsided reporting in a New York Times article about "Medicare for all," a form of a single-payer health care system. FAIR noted that the article, titled "Medicare for All? ‘Crazy,’ ‘Socialized’ and Unlikely", laid out a list of arguments against single-payer while failing to include any balancing responses from the option's supporters.

Yeah, those nutty Norwegians, not to mention Canadians, Danes, French, Brits, Swedes, etc. etc. They're all just crazy for treating health as a human right, instead of a corporate profit opportunity. FAIR continues:

It's worth noting that thousands of doctors have voiced support for a single-payer system (see, for example, Physicians for a National Health Program's letter to Barack Obama), in part because they believe they spend too much on the administrative costs associated with private insurance companies. A survey of physicians published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (4/1/08) found that 59 percent supported government-sponsored national health insurance.

Seelye also wrote that Medicare for all "would almost certainly mean a big tax increase on the middle class," before noting in parentheses: "Supporters argue that a tax increase would be somewhat neutralized by the elimination of premiums that people pay now to insurance companies." Actually, single-payer advocates argue that a payroll tax on businesses (many of which currently pay for private insurance for their employees) and a small income tax increase that would likely amount to less than what most citizens currently pay out of pocket could fund a single-payer program. By calling a "big tax increase" a near-certainty and treating the savings on insurance premiums as a claim made by advocates, the Times told readers which side it was on.

Seelye cited Stuart Altman--identified as "a Brandeis economist who specializes in health care and who advised Barack Obama in his presidential campaign," but not as a director of a managed-care company that offers health insurance plans (WhoRunsGov.com)--to make a similar point about potential tax increases, and then went to "the other end of the political spectrum" to quote Robert Moffit of the conservative Heritage Foundation: "I don't see popular support for it beyond liberals.... It's a philosophical question: Do you want to give the government that kind of power?"

Of course, one might point out that public polling for years has demonstrated that support for single-payer is much broader than merely a liberal sliver of the population (FAIR Action Alert, 3/12/09); a July 2009 tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found 58 percent support for Medicare for all. But a piece detailing the deficiencies of a "crazy" single-payer system is an unlikely venue for that.

FAIR is asking that you contact NY Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt as to why they would run such an unbalanced and factually-challenged piece that hurts Americans by lying to them about their health care options.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: 212-556-7652

Following in the footsteps of the Washingtn Post, The NY Times mad fools of themselves when they suddenly decided that Glenn Beck and his right wing cohorts like Andrew Breitbart are credible news sources.
Eric Boehlert explains in his excellent article: The NY Times' pointless pursuit of right-wing "buzz" stories

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was "slow off the mark," and blamed "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio." She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies.

-- New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt, September 26 column [emphasis added]

Talk about great timing!

Just after The New York Times announced it would appoint somebody to monitor the partisan opinion media more closely, and right after editors were chastened for reacting too slowly to buzzworthy news scoops launched by the conservative media, the right-wing press went into overdrive last week.

Like a proud peacock showing off its feathers, the right-wing media was in full bloom, showing the Times all the tricks that have made the movement's trade so renowned. There was outright lying, lying by omission, attempted guilt-by-association, U.S.-bashing, hateful smear campaigns (lots of those), fearmongering, incompetence, and just batshit crazy stuff. (Did I mention the heavy dose of crazy?) All the key notes were hit -- and in just one epic week. I hope the Times is enjoying its new-found, front-row seat to the right-wing media's slow-motion crack-up...read on

Please read the entire article for a list of lies the right has been pimping. Does the media really have to ask why Americans don't trust the traditional media as much anymore? When the Washington Post and the NY Times turn to FOX Noise for what the now seem to believe is legitimate news sourcing one has to wonder what ever happened to the meaning of the word "journalism." Acorn, dudes!

You heard the one about Senator Ensign's affair involving hush money, right? And you're surprised he's still got a job, right? Well, this Senator Ensign story may finally mean the end for him.

The NY Times has a long piece about it.

Early last year, Senator John Ensign contacted a small circle of political and corporate supporters back home in Nevada — a casino designer, an airline executive, the head of a utility and several political consultants — seeking work for a close friend and top Washington aide, Douglas Hampton.

He’s a competent guy, and he’s looking to come back to Nevada. Do you know of anything?” one patron recalled Mr. Ensign asking.

The job pitch left out one salient fact: the senator was having an affair with Mr. Hampton’s wife, Cynthia, a campaign aide. The tumult that the liaison was causing both families prompted Mr. Ensign, a two-term Republican, to try to contain the damage and find a landing spot for Mr. Hampton.In the coming months, the senator arranged for Mr. Hampton to join a political consulting firm and lined up several donors as his lobbying clients, according to interviews, e-mail messages and other records. Mr. Ensign and his staff then repeatedly intervened on the companies’ behalf with federal agencies, often after urging from Mr. Hampton.

While the affair made national news in June, the role that Mr. Ensign played in assisting Mr. Hampton and helping his clients has not been previously disclosed. Several experts say those activities may have violated an ethics law that bars senior aides from lobbying the Senate for a year after leaving their posts...read on

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

DOWNLOADS: (1090)

PLAYS: (2235)

In a new poll done by CBS and the NY Times shows that not only do Americans want a public option, they want it BIG TIME. These are numbers that the White House and Rahm can't ignore anymore.
65% of Americas do favor a government administered health care plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance companies. That's something the Baucus Dogs and Republicans do not want to see after the mark ups have just completed. I'm sure they thought the teabaggers spoke for America, but as any informed person would know, they do not.

Adam Nagourney of the NY Times explains some of the poll results and the only reason that Adam finds the answer to the public option interesting is because the Villagers have spoken and said that the public option is dead and they get confused when Americans voice a different opinion than the one they think Americans should have.

He does make sure to highlight the parts that Obama is struggling with, but when it comes to the public option, there is no conflicting results, right Adam? On the question asked on this page, the public option shows the most clarity of any question asked.

Q)....it is interesting that in spite of those numbers, in spite of the confusion there is also some clarity forming in what people want because what the poll also reveals that as far as the public option is concerned, 65% favor that, 26% oppose it.

Adam: Yes, that was kind of an interesting finding particularly considering that the fact that the public option I think appears dead at least in the form that we were asking about. There's still a lot of support for it...The poll had a lot of interesting and I think in some ways---conflicting messages....

I think the public opinion as measured in polls is very important because it shows that people want something done. I don't know how it can affect them on thing s like the public option for example, but I think there's a sense in Congress, at least among Democrats that this is a big issue and people expect them to get something done and there sort of credibility is going to rest on less they succeed or not.

Adam says that the Obama administration is closely watching the polls, but still throws the public option under the bus. Isn't it always a left wing priority that is A-OK to chuck overboard by the pundits and reporters, but other facets of the Baucus Bill are quite OK to negotiate around. How about Conrad's co ops get jettisoned in a swamp?
We're keeping up the pressure on the public option and until we see an actual bill come out of committee we do not know what we're actually debating about.

Adam's article in the NY Times about the poll is interesting and does mention the public option which is a huge story unfolding on Capitol hill and in his own poll.

On one of the most contentious issues in the health care debate — whether to establish a government-run health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers — nearly two-thirds of the country continues to favor the proposal, which is backed by Mr. Obama but has drawn intense fire from most Republicans and some moderate Democrats.

mcjoan at KOS has a good post about the public option in Blue Dog districts: Public Option Popular in Blue Dog Districts

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

DOWNLOADS: (1155)

PLAYS: (2766)

The FOX News gasbags were all up in arms over the Dowd column and hey, you can always count on the All Stars to justify all wingnut behavior, no matter how hideous it is.

I can't believe Maureen Dowd's column garnered this much attention, but it has and is forcing Fox to try and dispel the charges of racism. Stephen Hayes should look at the background of Joe Wilson before he says it's disgusting to bring race into his outburst. Mr. Confederate flag was only showing his true colors.

Transcript via an email from Bob Fertik:

Bret Baier: Don't you have to be careful when you level the charge?
It's such a blunt object, when you say "racism" is a big charge.

Stephen Hayes: There is absolutely zero evidence that saying You Lied to the President of the United States had anything to do with race whatsoever and it is a disgusting smear for anybody to suggest that.

It is a sad day when a columnist in the NY Times can just imagine that
somebody is saying something, literally putting words in her mouth. She
prefaced the statement by saying "fair or not I heard him say 'You Lied
Boy.'" That's not fair. As a journalist, you can't imagine people saying things, you have to criticize them based on what they actually say and he didn't say this ...

Krauthammer: The accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by
people who know they are losing the national debate and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in American politics.

This is dealing from the bottom of the deck and I agree that it is a
disgusting tactic. It's done as a way to end debate. The minute you call someone a racist the debate is over, you don't continue. Accusations of racism are the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel.

As for Maureen Dowd imagining a word that wasn't said, in my previous
profession I saw a lot of people who heard words that weren't said. They were called patients and many of them were helped with medication. The reason she won't be and others who are hurling the accusation is because it's a deliberate attempt to change the subject and discredit the opposition with unprovable and unproved ad hominem.

Juan Williams is pretty useless as usual. However, he did manage to knock down Bret Baier's stupid attempt to find equivalency between the people who questioned George W. Bush's legitimacy -- who did so for legitimate reasons, considering Bush actually garnered fewer votes than Al Gore -- and the "Birthers" and other conspiracy theorists attempting to undermine Obama's.

But the whole discussion was a classic Village exercise in self-protection. If you're not seeing racism on display in this country now then, you're not looking very hard.

Yes, some of the protests are by right wing Americans who didn't vote for Obama, but there are far too many zealots seriously going bonkers over the race issue. Let's face it: All these Nazi and Hitler signs are a way to be racist, but without putting color into the mix. It's just as odious, I might add.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1049)

PLAYS: (2328)

I thought it was distasteful enough that Chris Wallace asked Juan Williams to have to explain why Ted Kennedy wasn't given the "Jesse Helms" treatment by the New York Times in their obituaries of the two men, but it also turns out that he was showing NewsBusters a little love as well. I'm glad Media Matters reads NewsBusters, so I don't have to.

Also, I'm sure I won't be the only one that thinks Chris Wallace or anyone at Fox complaining about "media coverage" is laughable on its face.

Wallace: I also want to talk about the "media" coverage of Ted Kennedy's death this week. Not only the amount of it, which was extraordinary, but also the tone of it, and I want to put up the first paragraph of The New York Times obituary on Ted Kennedy's death. This is the first paragraph this week.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a son of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew triumph and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night.

Now, here's the first paragraph of the Times' story on the passing of Jesse Helms last year.

Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday.

Bill Sammon, I'm sure some people will be offended that I'm even making the comparison between these two men, but that is a frightening difference.

Sammon: It is and there are two ways to rectify that double standard. One would have been for the New York Times to find something nice to say about Jesse Helms substantively, other than this mossy drawl. The other, if you're going to go the, and I think that's the preferable way to do it, because you want to, when someone dies, you want to find something nice to say.

The other way if they wanted to be fair would, they would have had to put something in Ted Kennedy's about Chappaquiddick, about his demagoguery Robert Bork, the, you know, lunch-counter America, the back alley abortions, all those kind of things, but they didn't, so either way you do it it's unfair, and that was a striking example.

Wallace: Juan, do you think that there's a striking difference in the way those two men were sent off?

Williams: Well, I think you should be nice to people at the time of their death in general, no matter what their sins, but in fact I think it was good journalism. I think in fact that if you look at the public impact that Jesse Helms had on the country, it was to stand in opposition to civil rights and all the gay rights and all this. If you look at the public impact of Ted Kennedy...

Wallace: But wasn't he for something?

Williams: Yeah! He was for stopping those things and that's what the lead said. I don't have any problem with that and in fact Chappaquiddick has been mentioned prominently throughout this whole period.

Sammon: Not in that lead.

Williams: Not in the lead but in the story. It's not like anybody's hiding Ted Kennedy's flaws. We know them.

Of course, par for the course, it's always alright to politicize a eulogy if you're a Republican. From our own Jon Perr-- Jesse Helms and the Partisan Eulogies of George W. Bush:

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (1182)

PLAYS: (4602)

In ‘01, Cheney said this on MTP:

CHENEY: It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.

on 6/19/04 CNBC, he said:

GLORIA BORGER, TV SHOW HOST: You have said in the past that it was, quote, “pretty well confirmed.”

CHENEY: No, I never said that. BORGER: OK.

CHENEY: I never said that. BORGER: I think that is…

CHENEY: Absolutely not.

It's not like we haven't seen this tale before. Cheney is getting ready to go on a Sunday Talk Show to discuss important issues, a big article appears that tries to completely justify his positions almost at the same time he's about to take the center stage. Wow. What a shock. One of Cheney's first victims and allies was the NY Times. Judy Miller was used as a a willing pawn when Cheney needed cover right before he was going on Meet the Press to help push the country into war with Iraq in 2002.
Cheney's team admitted during the Scooter Libby trial that using Meet the Press allowed them to control the message which was a major embarrassment for Tim Russert.

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

DOWNLOADS: (441)

PLAYS: (4038)

BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.

BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-

BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the-- This is, you know-- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and th4ere are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

Now the Washington Post has taken the job since Miller isn't around to pass along Bush talking points. I understand that at times anonymous sources play a role in breaking news, but this piece which is rife with anonymous sources is clearly there to provide cover for Cheney as he takes up his cause of justifying his horrific torture regime once again to the American people, but this time with a brand spanking new piece of propaganda from the elite media. The Sunday shows will have a field day with this...

Glenn Greenwald has more: 'The Washington Post's Cheney-ite defense of torture.'

If anyone ever tells you that they don't understand what is meant by "stenography journalism" -- or ever insists that America is plagued by a Liberal Media -- you can show them this article from today's Washington Post and, by itself, it should clear up everything. The article's headline is "How a Detainee Became An Asset -- Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding" -- though an equally appropriate headline would be: "The Joys and Virtues of Torture -- how Dick Cheney Kept Us Safe." I defy anyone to identify a single way the article would be different if The Post had let Dick Cheney write it himself...read on

Blue America wants to thank all the Progressives and Democrats for standing up for the "public option." We've already raised over 30K. They need to be made aware that we also appreciate the good things that they do too.

Darcy Burner made this point at Netroots Nation on a great panel discussion about what we've been doing on the health care front regarding our organizing efforts (and in her keynote speech as well). I heard from several members of Congress at NN how hard it's been in their freaked out town halls, but they believe in the "public option" and will not buckle from misinformation and people intent on killing health care reform. Progressives in Congress fired back at the White House and the Senate standing up and saying it's the public option, baby!

Please thank progressives for holding the line and donate to Standing Up for the Public Option.

The Netroots has been stepping up and pushing back hard against the ConservaDems plan to support the health care industry over American families. It's a sad choice they are making, but looking at the campaign donations they receive from the Health Care Industrial Complex, it's not surprising. It should be and the media has finally started to highlight all the money the Baucus Dogs have been taking from them.

Digby writes:

I was on a panel at Netroots Nation with Congressman Eric Massa. He was adamant about the public plan. There was no need to cajole him into supporting it, he had been there all along. He is also in a very tough swing district and his town halls have been horrific. It didn't move him, he stood and fought with his own constituents and came out even more committed because he realized just how important it was going to be to the very people who were so sadly misinformed.

That's called leadership and it deserves our support and thanks. So, Blue America thought it would be a good idea to do a little positive reinforcement and thank those who have gone out on a limb on this and are standing fast. 65 members of congress have pledged that they will not vote for a bill that does not contain a public plan and we would like to reward them.

If you have a couple of bucks to spare to thank the Progressive Caucus members who have drawn this line in the sand, please click here and give them your support.

Howie Klein put together the Act Blue page and writes:

You may remember that a few days ago I included all the names and phone numbers in a post and I want to encourage all DWT readers to call up congressmembers on the list and thank them. Thereisnospoon at Daily Kos explained the thinking behind whole campaign this morning. And Blue America is hosting an ActBlue page for people who would like to give any of the congressmembers who are standing up for the public option a dollar or two.

Is your congressmember on the list? Is your favorite member of Congress? Take a look -- and make your voice heard -- with a dollar.

Washington is paying attention. The top story at Politico today is headlined "Liberals Revolt Over Public Option":

Jane Hamsher:

The battle is not won, not by a long shot. Howie Klein and the Blue America team put together an Act Blue donation page that includes the 60 members who signed the letter, plus five more that our whip count effort have secured promises from that they will not vote for any bill that does not have a robust public plan. Thereisnospoon and Hekebolos over at Daily Kos are also on board.

Democracy for America is letting these members know that they have the support of their constituents, and Howard Dean -- well, he's been on fire. Eat it, Rahm.

Meanwhile, HCAN is going to spend $650,000 -- attacking Republicans. If grassroots efforts weren't under way to fight the real battle here, and we had to rely on the big moneyed interests, the public plan would have been lost a long time ago.

Americablog:

As everyone knows, we've been pretty upset at the Obama administration and some members of Congress over the health insurance reform debate. On Sunday, it looked like the Obama administration was going to drop the public option -- a provision that Obama has repeatedly told us is critical to reining in the insurance industry. That's proven to be unacceptable to many members of Congress. Since Sunday, a number of progressive members of Congress have stood up and basically said, ENOUGH!

Those members need to hear a big thank you from the progressive community. We need to strengthen their resolve. And, while we're quick to call out bad actions, we need to reward good behavior.

thereisnospoon

Piggybacking and expanding on that idea is an ActBlue page created by Howie Klein called Take the Pledge to financially reward those 64 representatives who are doing the right thing...read on