MSNBC host Joe Scarborough calls the Republican House Leader ‘a lazy bar hopper’

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said that Republicans on Capitol Hill tell him "all the time" that House Minority Leader John Boehner "is not the hardest worker in the world" and that by early evening he can be found hitting up the Washington bar scene.

"I hear it on the Hill, I'm sure you hear it on the Hill all the time, it's not reported, but so many Republicans tell me this is a guy that is not the hardest worker in the world," said Scarborough on Wednesday's edition of Morning Joe. "Every Republican I talk to says John Boehner, by 5 or 6 o'clock at night, you can see him at bars. He is not a hard worker."

Scarborough, who represented Florida's first district in congress from 1995 to 2001, said that the way he hears it, Boehner has a tendency to become "disengaged" and by comparison doesn't put in the work hours Newt Gingrich did when he was the ranking Republican in the House.

Watch Scarborough’s comments here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6jEIh52jbA&feature=player_embedded

Republican Senator says his party is 'full of slogans but empty of ideas'

Utah Sen. Bob Bennett, who lost his re-election bid in a republican primary, told a Republican group on Tuesday that the party could even take back the Senate soon but will lose both houses just as fast if the GOP continues to rely on slogans and not solutions.

“As I look out at the political landscape now, I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas,” Bennett told The Ripon Society.

“Indeed, if you raise specific ideas and solutions, as I’ve tried to do on health care with Sen. Ron Wyden (D- Oregon), you are attacked with the same vigor as we’ve seen in American politics all the way back to slavery and polygamy; you are attacked as being a wimp, insufficiently pure, and unreliable.”

Bennett was criticized before the Utah Republican Convention in May for teaming up with Wyden to push a health care measure he considered a rival to the Democrats’ reform effort, and the senator came in third to two challengers — Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater — who courted the tea party movement.

Bennett said there was great momentum for Republicans to take back the House and, with the death of Sen. Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, there’s a chance a Republican could win that seat as well and join a landslide to bring the Senate into GOP control.

But, Bennett added, the Republican Party may find itself in the role played by Robert Redford in the film, “The Candidate,” who after winning office turns to his aides and says,“What do we do now?”

“The concern I have is that ideology and a demand for absolute party purity endangers our ability to govern once we get into office,” Bennett said.

 Utah Republican Party Chairman Dave Hansen says Bennett is right on one part: if the GOP takes over without any good solutions or doesn’t learn from past mistakes, it will hand the government back to the Democrats quickly.

But Hansen noted that the party hasn’t put together one major campaign document focusing on what ideas it will pursue if it controls Congress, like it did in 1994 with the Contract for America.


Watch Sen. Bennett's comments here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1e3h78wzL0&feature=player_embedded

Senate Republicans block bill to help homeless veterans with children, instead want to give tax breaks to CEO's to ship American jobs overseas

Today, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) brought her bill, the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act, to the Senate floor seeking unanimous consent. Murray said the bill would “expand assistance for homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children and would increase funding and extend federal grant programs to address the unique challenges faced by these veterans.”

However, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected on behalf of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to this seemingly non-controversial issue:

Minority Leader McConnell: Madam president, reserving the right to object and I will have to object on behalf of my colleague Sen. Coburn from Oklahoma. He has concerns about this legislation, particularly as he indicates in a letter that I’ll ask the Senate to appear on the record that it be paid for up front so that the promises that makes the Veterans are in fact kept. So madam president I object.

Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen said ,“This is pretty low, even for Republicans.” While Murray  pledged to continue to fight for the bill’s passage, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) spokesperson said “Republicans have their priorities backwards — according to them, it’s OK to give tax breaks to CEOs who send American jobs overseas, but not to help out-of-work Americans and homeless veteran.”

Watch the Republicans block the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riNOnsbI6bQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi slams CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan for trashing another Rolling Stone reporter whose article caused Afgan War general to be fired

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi slammed CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan in a post titled, "Lara Logan, You Suck" Monday, in response to Logan's appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday,   during which she trashed Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings for violating an "unspoken agreement" and publishing anecdotes in his article on General McChrystal that she feels were meant to be off-the-record. Logan also maligned Hastings' methods of gaining McChrystal's trust in order to facilitate their interview.

Read Taibbi’s June 29 2010 post below:

“Lara Logan, come on down! You're the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!

I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Timescolumn that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."

Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn't mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here's CBS's chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that's killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him. According to Logan, that's sneaky — and journalists aren't supposed to be sneaky:

"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is… That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't — I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."

When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?

But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn't even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an "element of trust" that you're supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he's got to be able to trust that you're not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?

True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?

And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan's own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses.

But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon's biggest contractors?

Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I'm not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?

Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an "unspoken agreement" not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.

Then there's the part that made me really furious: Logan hinting that Hastings lied about the damaging material being on the record:
"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me… I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just — I don't believe it."

I think the real meaning of that above quote is made clear in conjunction with this one: "There are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back."

Let me just say one thing quickly: I don't know Michael Hastings. I've never met him and he's not a friend of mine. If he cut me off in a line in an airport, I'd probably claw his eyes out like I would with anyone else. And if you think I'm being loyal to him because he works for Rolling Stone, well – let's just say my co-workers at the Stone would laugh pretty hard at that idea.

But when I read this diatribe from Logan, I felt like I'd known Hastings my whole life. Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it.

As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.

They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you're not playing for the right team!

Meanwhile, the people who don't have the resources to find out the truth and get it out in front of the public's eyes, your readers/viewers, you're supposed to be working for them — and they're not getting your help. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!”
 

Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin invokes 'Drill Baby Drill' again in an incoherent and rambling speech in Texas. What a stupid clown

Last night, at the Oil Palace in East Texas, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin invoked the mantra again, saying, “I chant, ‘drill, baby, drill,’ because it will help make the country energy independent.” 

NBC affiliate KETK in Tyler, Texas aired an extended excerpt of Palin’s speech this morning, including her claim that if America doesn’t “drill, baby, drill,” soon we’re “going to be bowing” to “the foreign countries” that “drill for us”:

“When I was governor, I had to file an amicus brief against Exxon, in favor of the plaintiffs to get Exxon to finally pay up what they owed Alaskan victims. And thousands of Alaskans in those 20 years, the fishermen, they died. A whole other generation now that finally received some compensation. So, how dare BP put the Gulf victims through such a thing. We have to make sure that BP will not do this. Will not do what Exxon did to Alaskans all those years ago. But see, we’ve learned a lot since then.

We’ve also learned more about government’s proper role and not violating the separation of powers, which I think Obama is kind of flirting with also, some government overreach. “, said Palin who quit as Alaska Governor half way through her first term.

Palin is trying to have it both ways when she correctly says “we have to make sure that BP” will “pay up what they owe” to victims of the oil spill, but then asserts that President Obama is “kind of flirting with also, some government overreach. Why do people listen to this clown?

Watch her speech here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrtB7xAXy4k&feature=player_embedded#!

Fox news affiliate mistakenly broadcasts reporters trashing former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin’s lame speech in California

A Fox affiliate television station is refusing to apologize for accidentally broadcasting a room full of reporters offering very frank assessments of a speech by former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The slip-up happened Friday night as Fox40 in Sacramento was broadcasting live from California State University in Stanislaus, CA. After the speech concluded, journalists and crew members behind the scenes offered some off-the-cuff assessment of her remarks, with one man saying he felt like he'd just stepped off a roller coaster.

Another said he could understand why "the dumbness doesn't come through in sound-bites." Yet another argued that she'd not used a complete sentence or even "made a statement."

The station insists their reporter and photographer were not behind the comments, however, they do not offer an apology or name the reporters whose voices were picked up.

The Fox crew was turned away from her actual speech, according to their explanation. Instead of filming the former official up close, they were forced to point their cameras at a screen in a media overflow area at a separate venue.

"We were faced with two decisions -- to not carry a speech of local and national importance due to the low-quality methods we'd be forced to transmit, or to provide a signal by any means necessary," the station explained. "It was with the public interest in mind that we opted for the latter."

Watch former half-term Gov. Palin’s speech, and listen to reporters’ off camera comments here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyH7Pggxy7c&feature=player_embedded#!

Fox Business channel host thinks only the the poor, not the rich, should be taxed more to pay off federal budget deficit

 

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the gap between the richest one percent of earners in the US and the middle class has more than tripled since 1979.

But that didn't stop Fox Business host Cheryl Casone from using the report as the basis of her proposed solution to the US's mushrooming budget deficit: Increase taxes on the poor.

In a discussion on the CBO report , which showed that 40 percent of income tax filers ended up paying no federal income tax in 2007, Casone argued that fixing this "imbalance" would solve the federal debt problem.

"The fact that most Americans are not paying any income tax at the end of the day kind of shows the imbalance," Casone said on Cashin' In Saturday."What if everyone pays just a little bit -- we're out of debt in this country."

That idea was rejected by Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute, who pointed out that people who pay no federal income taxes still pay state and local taxes.

"When you factor in their local taxes as well as their state taxes, you find that the poorest 90 percent are paying almost the same share of total taxes as the upper one percent," he said.

An analysis of the CBO's report, carried out by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, shows that the income gap between the richest one percent of earners and the middle fifth "more than tripled" between 1979 and 2007.

The report found that:

Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation — an increase in income of $973,100 per household — compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom

In 2007, the average household in the top 1 percent had an income of $1.3 million, up $88,800 just from 2006; well above $55,000, the total 2007 income of the average middle-income household.