I agree that the debasing attacks on the former Governor are ridiculous. Hannity just conducted an interview with Palin which brought him huge ratings. He was respectful to her and I’m sure the principles she trumpets are similar to his own. That is fine. What is not fine is the nonsense he spewed with his panel as they all got fired up defending Sarah Palin. Hannity made the remark that you can bash a conservative woman all you want – but no one would touch a liberal woman. He basically said if you’re Hillary Clinton, you’re safe from this kind of treatment.

Well, Sean, if you’re reading this – here is a little refresher course on what the left did to Hillary in 2008. And by the way, you and your right wing cronies taught them well with the fifteen years of Hillary bashing she and we have had to put up with. Here are a few examples…

“A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario.” ( Keith Olbermann, MSNBC)

“The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC)

“When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. She’s castrating, overbearing and scary.” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC)

“Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way?” (David Shuster, MSNBC)

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s cunt.” (Bill Maher, HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher)

“If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out.” (Jonathan Alter, Newsweek)

“Some women deserve to be called bitches.” (Castellanos, CNN)

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” (Leon Wieseltier, literary editor, The New Republic)

“She’s an aging, resentful female.” “She’s a ludicrous embarrassment.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, MSNBC)

“Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.” (columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune)

“She’s the most secretive politician in America today.” (David Plouffe, Obama campaign)

“We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House….She’s got a testicle lockbox.” (Rush Limbaugh)

“Someone needs to go there and take her out behind the barn.” (Pete Snyder, FOX)

“It cries.” (Glenn Beck, FOX)

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future.” And when Hillary Clinton speaks men hear, “Take out the garbage.” She does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.” (Marc Rudov, FOX News)

“She is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex…” (Bob Ellis, ABC Unleashed)

“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” (Maureen Dowd, NY Times)

“…when I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry. I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.” (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews Show)

Readers, please feel free to add your own.

You see, Mr. Hannity, there are several big reasons why Sarah Palin said she would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a cup of coffee. Those two ladies have a lot to commiserate about. They were both trashed by the left.

The majority of the comments above came from the liberal media. This was but a mere fraction of the daily filth spewed by the likes of these arrogant cowards. Never mind the shameful General T. McPeak who said “Hillary is not fit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier,” or some of the horrid, betraying comments made by the backstabbing elite in her own party. Further, the daily commentary from the likes of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so many lefty blogs who bashed Hillary, the more qualified candidate, in favor of a brand name with no experience seems to have escaped Mr. Hannity’s attention as well.

I’m sure Sarah Palin has a great deal of admiration for Hillary – her toughness, her resilience and her body of knowledge. What a shame, Mr. Hannity, that you cannot see fit to extend the same courtesy to a woman clearly deserving of your respect – even if your political philosophies differ.

This is the big problem with punditry from either side. I appreciate that Mr. Hannity has been brave enough to cover topics others news stations will not. I also appreciate that FOX News is the only network daring to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on policy, rather than cheerleading. While I may not agree with the conservative bent of the network, I do at least get some news rather than pillow fluffing. Hannity’s show clearly is more opinion than anything else, but when he ignores the experience of Hillary Clinton and the insults her supporters had to put up with in the campaign last year – his credibility takes a nosedive.

It was interesting that just before he mentioned her name, he paused for a moment – he knew he was lying about her, saying liberals gave Hillary a pass – but he just couldn’t help himself. Integrity is not selective.

It is said that character is what you do when nobody’s looking. Perhaps Mr. Hannity thought no one would be paying attention. Well, I was looking and his character last night was found wanting.

With Fox News against the White House attempt to censor the cable network. Check that, to shut DOWN the network. I am assuming that, by now, you have heard of the concentrated attacks on the Fox News Network by Administration officials, and the president himself. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this earlier in the week, “Fox Is Not A News Station?,” if you need to catch up.

Well, the strangest thing has started to happen as the White House has continued its unprecedented attack on a major network, not just freezing out a reporter here or there as other administrations have done, but a flat out drive to shut down this network. I can scarcely believe it myself, but what has happened recently is that reporters from other networks, even the Washington Bureau chiefs of the main news outlets, have started to stand WITH Fox News.

It all began with one of my favorite reporters, Jake Tapper of ABC News. He is one of the very few national reporters from a major network to consistently challenge the Obama campaign, and now the Obama Administration. And he did so again just the other day as his post entry indicates:

“Today’s Qs For O’s WH – 10/20/09”
From this morning’s gaggle in White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ office:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Let’s just stop right there. Jake Tapper referred to Fox News as a “sister organization.” That is HUGE, people. His use of that phrase speaks volumes, as he indicates a solidarity with Fox News (good post on that very topic at Commentary Magazine here). Perhaps it is even a bit of a warning shot across the bow that the White House needs to back the hell off from this attack on a major press outlet.

The Q&A continued:

(Crosstalk) Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion. -jpt

You know I can’t stand Gibbs anyway, that mealy mouthed worm. But Tapper demonstrates what a stand up guy he is by pursuing this line of questioning, and not letting Gibbs, or the White House, off the hook.

I mentioned above that the White House is doing its darndest to completely shut down Fox News. The following video is a good summation of what has happened thus far, the latest attack by the White House, and what the other networks did:

I know, right? They know, I gather, that this time around, it may be Fox News, but next time, it could be CNN, or MSNBC. I would love to think that the solidarity of the major networks was the result of it simply being the right thing to do.

The All Star Panel on Fox News takes this on, too, with a bonus clip of Obama’s discussing Fox News:

Uh huh. Sure, he’s not losing sleep over it. If he isn’t, why are he and his minions going out of their way to ATTACK Fox News? It most certainly IS “breath-taking in its pettiness” as Mr. Barnes put it.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”

And, when he said this:

“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.”

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said this about the importance of a free press and our responsibility to it:

“To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man (sic) will proceed in improvement.”

Hopefully, that is exactly why the networks are standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue. They know, as we do, that our liberty is at risk when the press is under attack from its government.

Like Jefferson, like the Washington Bureau, like Jake Tapper, like many of you reading this, I stand on the side of a free press, and on the side of our liberty. It is our duty, it is our call, it is our very democracy.

Here is the article:

President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

“I don’t think it’s going to be — it’s not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately,” James Jones said.

The Democratic-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn’t expected on the issue until early next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently wrote Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked to share their views and recommendations on the contentious policy. In Sept. 24 letters, Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.

So far, this is absolutely nothing we have not heard before, is it? No. But wait, there’s more:

“At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country,” Reid wrote.

Jones said Obama “has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I’m sure the president will take it on.”

As a candidate, Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifsexuality.

Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.
The largest number of gays who were ousted under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged, or .089 of the force.
The House is considering legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow people who have been discharged under the policy to rejoin the military.
Jones appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Wait, what did General Jones say? John “It Is Hard For Me To Feel Sorry For This Former Obama Cheerleader” Aravosis was none too happy about the pronouncement by the National Security Adviser in this post:

Apparently, General Jones would have us believe that President Obama wasn’t aware that we were fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he promised to lift the gay ban during the campaign in exchange for our votes. So, Jones tells us today, Obama can’t get to that particular promise right now because he’s busy fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Uh huh.

So when exactly are both of those wars going to be over? I’m guessing some time after Obama leaves office. And that of course assumes that we don’t have more wars to “distract” the president.

Jones just set us back. Again. He just gave the Republicans, and conservative Dems, the perfect talking point. Should anyone – members of Congress or the administration – move to lift the ban any time before these wars are over, our opponents will simply quote General Jones saying that to lift the ban during war time would be too distracting.

What could Jones have said? How about, there’s a new analysis from a Department of Defense-related publication that same the ban can be lifted without hurting morale and cohesion. Or how about saying that the President just wrote to Senator Reid, agreeing to work together to lift the ban?

Once again, let me just interject that those of us who were paying attention BEFORE the Election, during the Primaries, were very much aware that Obama wasn’t going to do a damn thing for us, at least not in a timely fashion. There were clues: Never marching in one Pride parade EVER, unlike Hillary Clinton; Donnie McClurkin, “Cured homosexual”; State Senator The Rev. James Meeks; Doug Kmiec; and Pastor Rick Warren, to name just a few. The information was there for those who were willing to see. I’m just sayin’. Back to Aravosis:

Nope. None of that. All we got was another reason why the president may never be able to keep his promise. The Obama administration is doing next to nothing – and perhaps nothing altogether – to move the ball forward on repealing DADT. This isn’t the kind of policy you just wake up one morning and say “ah, today is the day to lift the ban.” Bill Clinton found that out the hard way. It takes months, if not years, of preparation. Working the PR angles, the media, the grassroots, the public at large, the Pentagon. While we have no idea what if anything Obama is doing to work the Pentagon – though Jones’ repeated unhelpful remarks suggest that whatever the president is doing, it isn’t working – we certainly do know what he’s doing on the Hill. Zippo. Harry Reid had to write Obama a letter last week begging him help. And in terms of lobbying the public, we get unhelpful statements like what Jones did, again, today.

In the end, don’t think that Jones is simply freelancing. There is no way a senior administration official goes on TV and keeps screwing up like this. At first it’s a screw up. After this many times, it’s part of the plan. And the plan is to move the goal posts again and again and again until Obama can pass his gay rights promises to the next president, assuming we get a Democrat elected again this century.

No, there isn’t any way a senior administration official goes on CNN and says something like this all on his own. Seeing what the General really said is what made that AOL headline so incredibly misleading (the Yahoo link for General Jones was far more accurate). That seems to be a bit of water-carrying to me, a hope that it will deflect some of the frustration being voiced about Obama now, including on SNL this past Saturday night (10/3).

In other words, not only does it appear Obama isn’t getting to DADT in a timely fashion, he may not be getting to it at ALL. I wish I could tell you I am surprised, but unlike Mr. Aravosis, this is what I feared was going to happen under Obama.

As of Monday, October 5th, 439 service members have been discharged under “DADT” under the Obama Administration. For how long will those numbers go up? Will it indeed be until Obama is out of office?

And I have another number for you: 400. Yes, Saturday marks an inauspicious milestone. 400 is the number of Service Members who have been discharged under DADT during Obama’s Administration. 400 men and women whose lives were changed simply because of whom they love. 400 men and women who were willing to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way for us, for the U.S.A, and they have now been fired.

And here’s another number for you: $56,400. That is the average, approximate cost to train a service member for their first duty station by one estimate. $56,400 each for enlisted personnel, not officers, including when they first visit a Recruiter (these are 2006 figures, so it might be more now).

The average cost to train an officer? That number is: 120,772. If that officer happens to be a fighter pilot, you can go ahead and round that number up to: $1,450,000. Remember, these are just averages. The cost to train Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was $25,000,000. Fehrenbach, a decorated war hero, was fired from the Air Force under DADT.

And one last number for you: 9/11. Many people in this country were moved to do some kind of service to and for their country as a result of the attacks on 9/11, GLBT people included. Obama has been pushing this huge call to Service, including on 9/11/09. Secretary Clinton gave a speech on the Commemoration of the First Annual National Day of Service And Remembrance on 9/11. Presumably, the ability to serve one’s country should be open to ALL of its citizens.

Yet today, that ability is not. As of today, 400 Americans have been told their willingness to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way on her behalf, is neither desired nor accepted. 400 Americans have been told that the National Day of Service does not apply to them. 400.

How about those numbers?

New Orleans, hit so hard by what so many (including President Obama in his Sunday interview with the local newspaper) still see fit to describe, mistakenly, as a natural disaster, is making remarkable progress, while the agency that so disastrously failed at building a protective system mandated by Congress — the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — may be making some of the same mistakes in rebuilding that system. And the White House, for the second consecutive administration, seems not to care.
Snip
While the national media packed up and moved away after the initial orgasm of anger at FEMA, the local media reported something remarkable: The Corps was claiming that the flooding was due to the “overtopping” of its levees and floodwalls, while two teams of pro-bono forensic investigators were finding evidence that no overtopping had occurred.

As the Corps started denigrating these investigators, they kept digging, and kept coming up with the real story, available now for all to see (though all too few have) as the ILIT report from the University of California at Berkeley and the Team Louisiana report from Louisiana State University.

Their conclusions: The “hurricane protection system” built by the Corps had serious design and construction flaws, baked into the system over 40 years under administrations of both parties, that caused catastrophic failure in more than 50 locations under storm surge conditions markedly less than the system was advertised to withstand.

You and I, federal taxpayers, had paid to flood New Orleans.
snip
Since the Obama administration took office, the Corps has: announced that one part of the new “system” will be built using a “technically not superior” solution, because of funding problems; and, defying a Congressional mandate, delivered a report supposed to offer a post-2011 plan for so-called Category 5 storm protection 20 months late and lacking a specific plan, offering only a menu of possible options. It’s almost as if the Corps is inviting someone else to do the job.

Mr. Shearer points out that “New Orleans architect, David Waggonner, has been convening a group of local architects and planners and engineers and their Dutch colleagues to mine the eight centuries of collective wisdom of the Netherlands about the challenge of living with water.”

They have come up with a new approach and sadly, it looks as though there is no “federal impetus” of adopting it.

President Obama, who has mainly limited his comments about New Orleans to feel-good boilerplate, did pledge to make good on President Bush’s promise on that eerie, floodlit night in a deserted Jackson Square in 2005, to rebuild New Orleans better and stronger. But he has yet to actively intervene to make sure New Orleans gets state-of-the-art flood protection and robust and timely coastal wetland reconstruction. Like President Bush, President Obama so far seems to be acting as if just saying it makes it so.

Granted, President Obama has his hands full, but he did want the job and the job requires multitasking. Could this be considered part of a stimulus plan? Putting people back to work rebuilding the levees properly?

I wish to point out only one thing that struck me when I read Mr. Shearer’s commentary – after the New Hampshire primary, and Hillary Clinton’s unexpected win over her rival, Barack Obama, his campaign co-chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., commented on CNN that “Hillary Clinton never cried for Katrina victims.” His incendiary remark was clearly a tasteless attempt to alienate the African American community from Hillary since he had and has no idea what she cries about. Fast forward 18 months and one thing is absolutely clear. President Obama is the one who never cried for Katrina victims.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Anyway, the article, Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?, is a very good piece on Obama’s Drug Deal. I mean, about the deals cut for big Pharmaceutical companies in the current health care bill. And here’s there thing – Palast actually has some background in this area. From his site: Palast studied healthcare economics at the Center for Hospital Administration Studies at the University of Chicago. Here’s what Palast has to say:

Eighty billion dollars of WHAT?

I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?

On June 22, President Obama said he’d reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, “reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs.”

Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?

I checked out the government’s health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and totted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.

In other words, Obama’s big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That’s 2%.

Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!

Wowie zowie – what a GREAT job Obama did as “Haggler-in-Chief”!! A whole whopping 2%? Over TEN YEARS????? Great, Obama – thanks!! Sheesh:

For perspective: Imagine you are in a Wal-Mart and there’s a sign over a flat screen TV, “BIG SAVINGS!” So, you break every promise you made never to buy from that union-busting big box – and snatch up the $500 television. And when you’re caught by your spouse, you say, “But, honey, look at the deal I got! It was TWO-PERCENT OFF! I saved us $10!”

But 2% is better than nothing, I suppose. Or is it?

The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs, projected to rise over the period of “savings” from a quarter trillion dollars a year to half a trillion dollars a year. Minus that 2%.

We’ll still get the shaft from Big Pharma, but Obama will have circumcised the increase.

Well, that’s a nice turn of phrase. And accurate. Here’s what the Great Haggler got for that:

And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama’s promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!

What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.

The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he’d overturn. But, once within Tauzin’s hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush’s crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.

What else went down in Obama’s drug deal? To find out, I called C-SPAN to get a copy of the videotape of the meeting with the drug companies. I was surprised to find they didn’t have such a tape despite the President’s campaign promise, right there on CNN in January 2008, “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN.”

This puzzled me. When Dick Cheney was caught having secret meetings with oil companies to discuss Bush’s Energy Bill, we denounced the hugger-muggers as a case of foxes in the henhouse.

Cheney’s secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were creepy and nasty and evil.

But the Obama crew’s secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were, the President assures us, in the public interest.

We know Cheney’s secret confabs were shady and corrupt because Cheney scowled out the side of his mouth.

Obama grins in your face.

See the difference?

The difference is 2%.

Ah, yes – that would be the difference alright. A paltry 2% with a Cheshire Grin to go with it. Perfect. That’s the “Change” for which I was “Hoping.” Seems to me that someone has been hitting that “Hopium” pipe if he expects us to accept THIS gift to the big Pharma Companies. I wonder if there is coverage for THAT under his new plan?

Oh, and Palast had this attached to his post:

ALERT

Now it’s Let’s Make a Deal with hospital lobbyists.

First, the President was caught with his principals down, cutting a scuzzy back-room deal with pharmaceutical lobbyist Billy Tauzin to limit drug price savings to just 2% over 10 years (see attached, “Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?”), the New York Times today reports that another deal was sealed by lobbyist Chip Kahn of the American Hospital Association.

Here are the numbers they don’t want you to see: Hospitals will be allowed to hike their prices and revenues by six trillion dollars ($5,853 billion) over the next ten years, only $155 billion less than they had projected before the Obama “reform.”

In all, the Obama back-room deal will “reduce” our $26 trillion total hospital bill over the next decade by one-half of one percent.

Once again, the lobbyists got the gold mine, the public got the shaft.

Say it ain’t so, Mr. President.

Great. More smoke and mirrors from the Great Concessioner (is that a word?) – in – Chief on our behalf. That’s just jake, Mr. Obama.

One last thing, I don’t know this for sure, but my guess is that Huffington Post isn’t gonna be publishing any more of Greg Palast’s work. Just a hunch…

Thankfully, I don’t have to touch a drop – turns out Stephen Green of Pajamas Media is willing to do it for me, and thus you, in this post, Drunkblogging ObamaCare. He’s a giver, that Mr. Green. So, here is his take on Obama’s Health Care Plan Press Conference #174,318:

4:48PM I’m watching Fox News tonight, instead of the usual CNN. Why? Because DirecTV makes it easy to remember FNC (Channel 360, get it?), but CNN (Channel 2…something) not so much. We’re 12 minutes out, and I’m in desperate need of a second martini. Back momentarily.

4:48PM Oh, and all times Pacific, it seems.

4:49PM Also liveblogging, [1] Dr. Melissa Clouthier. She tells me she might be drinking. Or wishes she was. Or something.

4:53PM Yes, you can already read the bulk of the President’s remarks online. But that’s cheating, and I won’t do it. But I will go pour that second martini now.

4:58PM Juan Williams says President Obama won’t “focus on the nitty gritty.” In other news, I won’t be focusing on club soda with a twist of lemon.

5:01PM OK, here’s one tiny little early preview for you: “It’s all Bush’s the Republicans’ Blue Dog Democrats’ Oops, can’t say that the Republicans’ fault.”

5:02PM The President is on.

5:03PM “We’ve saved jobs! We can’t count them, but trust us!”

5:04PM The US isn’t prepared to compete in the 21st Century? How many more industries do we need to nationalize before we’re ready to compete in the 19th?

5:05PM I still don’t get where this guy has the nerve to say that he’s going to save money on anything, and reduce the deficit by one thin dime. Has he not seen his own waste, fraud, and red ink?

5:05PM “How does my family benefit?” We’re working on it. Now sit down and shut up.

5:06PM Now as I understand it, the “public option” will dictate what the private options must offer, and how much they must charge. So how do I keep my existing coverage again?

5:06PM “Primarily for the richest Americans.” The word “primarily” is new, yes?

5:07PM Oh, so I benefit because I’ll get a crappy plan, but my neighbor up the hill in the better neighborhood will pay for it.

5:08PM Eliminate Medicare waste! That’s fine. So why not start there?

5:08PM When you hear a politician bemoaning the horse race aspect of politics, it’s because he’s losing the argument.

Well, that’s a good point, drunk OR sober, if you ask me:

5:09PM “I have great coverage.” Fine, Mr. President. Then either YOU take OUR public option, or give US your coverage. Mmmkay?

5:10PM “We will pass reform that does four contradictory things.” Or at least that’s what I heard him say.

5:10PM Now, the press gets its turn.

5:11PM First question boiled down to: Where’s the leadership?

And then there was talk about premiums.

5:11PM Other advanced countries don’t eat quite so many Chee-Tohs, Mr. President.

5:12PM First impression: He’s talking details and numbers. This is lousy salesmanship. Health care ain’t double-pane windows, Mr. President.

5:14PM And, he’s still selling this as a tax-the-rich scheme. But the numbers don’t add up, even according to the CBO.

5:15PM “Waste in the system?” Dude, in government programs, that’s a feature, not a bug.

5:16PM “If we don’t change, we can’t expect a different result.” OK, fine. Since government has been driving up prices, let’s have less of that instead of more. Just sayin’.

Right there with you, Stephen:

5:17PM More bad salesmanship: Telling folks they won’t get “five different tests.” Most people want the damn tests.

5:18PM From Reuters: “Why the rush?… Will support collapse?”

5:18PM He’s rushed because he gets letters. Is anyone buying this?

5:19PM “The default position is inertia.” It’s Newtonian politics! Only without the math!

5:20PM “I’m not going to sign a bill that adds to the deficit.” Well, that would be a really nice change from the last six months.

5:22PM He keeps talking about “health care inflation.” But inflation is when the same dollars buy you less, or more dollars buy you the same stuff. Isn’t health care improving every year? If we dial back prices, won’t we be dialing back care?

5:23PM From someone: “Is this going to cover all 47 million uninsured?” Answer: “I want to cover everybody. The truth is…” And then Obama bemoans the fact that some people won’t want to pay. Why not just tax the bastards, eh? Oh, wait…

5:24PM Just think: Mountain and Western time zones are watching this pre-primetime, because NBC finds Susan Boyle more attractive than Barack Obama.

And can you blame them? Nope, me, either:

5:25PM Follow-up: “Isn’t this a fight inside the Democratic party?”

5:26PM Answer: Dude, Republicans, suck, right? Entire Press Corps: [Nodding enthusiastically.]

5:28PM Jake Tapper: “Experts say… there is going to have to be some sacrifice…”

5:29PM Answer: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier.” Just like with public schools, EVERY FREAKING GODDAMN DOLLAR goes to education. Or, you know, maybe not so much.

5:30PM Blue pill? Red pill? Is this The Matrix or Dr. Suess?

5:33PM “The American people are understandably queasy about the deficit… trillions here, trillions there…” and then more talk about the Republicans. You know what? Last weekend, Obama explicitly said “give it to me” on responsibility for the economy. I know his promises have an expiration date, but couldn’t that one have made it until, I don’t know, Friday?

5:34PM I saved almost two billion dollars on defense yesterday! So gimme 300 billion for health care, mmmkay?

That’s some interesting math Obama’s got going there. Another thing he learned from Bush, apparently, though he sure blames him enough:

5:35PM “We inherited…” Please see my 5:33 comment.

5:36PM Dude Who Looks Like a Younger, Soberer Chris Hitchens: “What kind of pain… are you calling on beneficiaries to make?”

5:38PM Clever. On the sacrifice question, Obama started talking about Republican-approved reforms. The buck stops… to the right.

5:39PM Blonde Lady: “Are you fulfilling your promised on transparency?”

5:39PM Answer: “We have a lot of meetings.”

5:41PM Brunette Lady with the Brady Bunch Part: “Would you support a fee on risky activities?”

5:42PM Answer: We’re going to enact a 4.6% surcharge on the incomes of people who get drunk and have unprotected sex with strangers. Or with cloven-hooved animals.

5:43PM There’s a chance I’m drunk, but I swear I just heard Obama say he was going to tax stuff until the economy starts to grow again.

5:45PM Oh, my — Obama just said that the solution to government-created moral hazards is to impose more government. I need another drink, stat.

5:46PM The Stapler Guy from Office Space: “Can you promise… the government will not deny any coverage… and will you and Congress abide by the public option?”

5:47PM Answer: The Dude will “largely abide.”

5:48PM “With regulation, there will be improvement.” Sometimes, all I have to do is quote.

I know, right? That’s what makes all of this just so much, um, well, fun? Hahahaha. If only people’s lives, jobs, and money weren’t at stake. Ahem. Here’s more:

5:49PM Government is going to “make sure there’s some competition out there” by homogenizing coverage and prices.

5:50PM Oh my god. He’s still talking. He’s supposed to be nudging nervous Democrats back into the Reform camp. Instead, he’s… hearing himself talk. I can’t wait to see what Mickey Kaus has to say about this later.

5:52PM That Jewish Dude from “The West Wing” Shaved Off His Beard: “[Mumbles incoherently about some clinic]”

Answer: Hold the Mayo.

5:53PM “Getting the politics out of health care” by having politicians take over health care. The mind — and the liver — boggles.

5:53PM I missed the last question, because there was this lady old enough to think that wearing a bright red dress would get President Reagan to call on her, said something, and then there was joking about where Obama lives.

5:55PM I have a couple of very nicely-marbled strips to grill, and a great big Cab Sauv to open. Is this thing over yet? Please? Pretty please?

5:56PM Our black president is telling me that “race haunts us.” Dude, it’s not your race, it’s your ideology. Mmmkay?

5:57PM Final thought: In high school, I once spent an entire weekend trying to get this girl to unsnap the button fly on my 501s. That was less frustrating than tonight’s press conference.

5:59PM Juan Williams calls it “a lost opportunity” and doesn’t expect the August deadline to be met.

Or as we say on the internets: EPIC FAIL.

Whew, thank heavens. I haven’t had enough cappuccinos yet to deal with any more of Obama’s ramblings, even if they are filtered through Green’s “Drunkblogging”!! But I appreciate his efforts for the rest of us. For those of us who can’t stomach this man sober, you have done us a great service. Thanks, Mr. Green – you’re a prince!

Fox Cable News reduces its competitors to Lilliputs, who in this reference to Gulliver’s Travels, have been unable to catch Fox sleeping long enough to tie it down.

Instead, Fox is the winner of my Tingle Up My Leg Award, named for MSNBC’s Chris “Tweety” Matthews. Unfortunately for Tweety, his show commands only about a third of the viewers compared to the competitors on Fox during the same time slots.

Fox Cable TV rules the news, second only to the powerhouse, USA, that mostly shows TV drama repeats and made-for-TV movies.

This week Fox again leads by a large margin its competitors. In primetime (8-11 p.m.), Fox News averaged 551,000 viewers in the target 25-54 year-old demographic, with MSNBC finishing a distant second with 271,000, and CNN third with 248,000. If you want to see this weeks cable news ratings, they are all here, but to save you time, Fox is first for every hour of every day.

Fox Cable News takes a lot of hit from critics of course. “Faux News,” as they like to call it, is as “fair and balanced” as a Las Vegas slot machine. Those of us who study the news know that almost every media outlet has its “slant” (translation= rock solid predisposition). So Fox is propably no more, and surely no less, biased than most any other news source.

But why does Fox run so far ahead of the rest of the pack?

I asked some friends, and would be interested in hearing from our readers here as well, whether they like or dislike the way Fox delivers news. Some disagreed with specific hosts and their personalities but liked that viewers get something different than what comes out of the White House spin room. Others noted that Fox is much better at touching on what people care about, like government spending.

Fox may also out-fox its competitors. For example, much of the rest of the media was deriding the anti-tax “tea party” demonstrations as a gimmick, masterminded by corporate Republicans rather than a true grassroots movement. The protesters themselves were re-labeled by smirking commentators as “teabaggers.” (See Larry Johnson’s story if you are unaware of a meaning of that term.) Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow of MSNBC suggested that the protestors were either political plants or nut-jobs. Fox, on the other hand, actually promoted the protests, promising beforehand to give the events full coverage and following through.

Well, I watched some of that on Fox, and I didn’t give a rat’s ass whether the demonstrations were organized by pros or not. I wanted to see lots of pissed-off people who feel ripped off like I do, to hear stories expressing their disdain for the runaway spending that seems to have trouble trickling down to those of us who paid for it. That day, Fox definitely worked for me.

h/t Hot Air

Eileen O’Connor, a former CNN reporter, now trains people to work in national media. Perhaps CNN needs to hire her back!

Here’s a clip of one of those racists suffering from Stolkhome Syndrome from Tax Party Tea Day that Janeane Garofalo was talking about.

Zo wrote on his blog:

Janeane Garafolo says the tea parties were a gathering of racists.

Strange, that these racists would welcome a black man to speak at their racist gathering at the state capital.

I wasn’t expecting to speak, I just went up to get some footage for PJTV, but the organizer of the Tea Party found out I was there, and requested I come up and say a few words. How racist!!!

If you’re a right winger and are tired of the media painting you as racist, spread this vid and watch the left downplay it and expose themselves even more as the true racists!

God bless, ya!

In case you don’t recognize Zo in this video, he is so mellow here, here is one of his latest rants:

You don’t have to agree with all he says, but he sure gives me a lot to think about it.

Today on Glenn Beck, Kathy Barkulius was on to tell Glenn about her interaction with that CNN “reporter” named Susan Roesgen. Kathy is the one who confronted Susan after she tried to SAVAGE the fellow tea-party goer, who was holding his son, and basically tried to shut him up with DNC talking points. Kathy wasn’t going to stand for it, so after CNN’s cameras quit rolling, Kathy made her stand and gave Ms. Roesgen a piece of her mind! You can find the original video of the confrontation elsewhere on YouTube.

Here are more videos and excellent tidbits I’ve found on Roesgen. But my primary question remains: WHY is she still listed at CNN as a reporter?

Here’s a fun mash-up of Roesgen and Keith Olbermann:

Here’s “Susan Roesgen: A Disgrace to All Professional Journalists”:

Here’s “Shep Smith Responds to Diss from CNN’s Susan Roesgen!”:

The Washington Times has a great report, “Inside Blogotics“:

“Poor little Susan Roesgen had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day!” quipped self-described “Queer Conservative” Kevin.

In a famous clip that CNN has being trying to scrub from the Internet on copyright grounds, Ms. Roesgen asked a man holding his toddler why he was protesting, interrupted him with “what does that have to do with taxes?” and told him that Illinois will get billions from President Obama’s stimulus bill (the taxes will come from other states, obviously).

She signed off with, “I think you get the general tenor of this, uh, it’s anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the rightwing conservative network Fox and since I can’t really hear much more, I think this is not really family viewing, toss it back to you, Kera.”

“Unreal,” muttered Allahpundit at Hot Air.

“The title of the clip is ‘CNN Reporter Roughed Up at Chicago Tea-Party,’ which, as youll see, is a transparent lie unless you consider the crowd yelling at her to stop cutting off the people shes interviewing as ‘rough.’ But that’s par for the course for the narrative being organized here: A nasty, violent, ignorant crowd, all doing the bidding of CNNs sinister competitor. Stay classy, Turnerites,” he said.

Ace of Spades asks, “Is she there as a representative of CNN or of the Obama Administration? And is there a meaningful distinction between the two?”

Nor, Ace pointed out, was this Ms. Roesgen’s first run-in in recent days with protesters whom she doesn’t get. “Earlier, she couldn’t believe that pious Catholics at Notre Dame would object to the nation’s top constitutional abortionist speaking at that Catholic school,” Ace wrote, referring to an exchange that ended with her saying: “Can you believe that, Wolf, they’re actually praying that God will change the heart and mind of President Obama to make him pro-life?”

Susan Roesgen from CNN tries her best to smear the entire concept of the tea parties, stir up trouble, points out a couple of extreme signs, and is flat out RUDE to a guy with his baby. What she says after the *interview* is irresponsible, negligent, and flat out bullsh*t.

Not family viewing? She was the one not appropriate for family viewing. I would like to know if she ever showed up on Keith Olbermann’s door and attacked him for REPEATEDLY calling George Bush a facist.

When the segment was over she was taken to task for her obvious bias and, her attempts to smear the event and the people in attendance.

h/t Hillbuzz

I watched live coverage of this for hours yesterday, and never saw any craziness. I have seen hundreds of photos, and again, all mild, mainstream protesters.

This woman was there for one reason, and one reason only. She should be ashamed.

UPDATE: Well, looky here. Apparently back in 2006 Susan Roesgen, doing an interview, sees someone dressed as Bush, and calls it a look a like. The Bush costume has a Hitler mustache and Devil horns. Apparenly it is ok to disparage one POTUS, but not another.

h/t Michelle Malkin

She ticked off a lot of people with this crass behavior. People are writing and calling CNN to complain, calling for her to be fired, and for a CNN boycott, and there is already a facebook page set up called Boycott CNN….Say No to Biased CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen. I’ve been boycotting CNN for about a year…

And I don’t think our day would be complete if we didn’t see the race card.

From the Weekly Standard: House Democrat Leaders: Tea Partiers Are Racist, Nazi, Gun Nuts

Teabagging: You seem to know why all your friends in the media are using this term, Anderson. Do you mind elaborating? Do you have intimate knowledge of this sexual practice everyone the “progressive” press now seems to degrade as base homosexual activity? Do you too engage in gay bashing? Do you too think all Republicans are (gay) teabaggers? Do you know this firsthand? Or is it hard to be an objective reporter when one is teabagging with the President? I’m surprised you can talk.

This behavior wouldn’t be permissible in a junior high journalism program, let alone during live coverage of a significant event on a major news network.

I wonder if Susan Roesgen graduated from the Rachel Maddow School of Journalism.

She cannot even pretend to provide unbiased coverage. It’s beneath her. She is bent on offending everyone, and she quits the moment the crowd presents a challenge. Maybe she hates her job. Maybe she does not believe in work.

Send her to Afghanistan, and lets see how she fares. Or just fire her. She is pathetic.

[VIDEO UPDATE FROM PM317]:

Who handed her the talking points? What an elite snob. If she hates dealing with the public, maybe she should find a new job. Or is the reporter only supposed to hold a microphone, look at a camera and repeat talking points issued by a political party?