Currently viewing the tag: "Bonkers"
might ensue, but…who knows what evil lurks in the actions of these bat shit crazy Republicans?
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/25/w…
Senate Majority Leader decided court order only applied to Secty of State and ordered Legislative Reference Bureau to publish Walker’s End Run anti-union legislation.
Rules? Laws? Hey, they’re Republicans!
The Republican running to retain his seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is also a fine speciment of a bat guano Republican. He voted with the rest of the conservative justices to allow judges to not recuse themselves in cases brought by their most generous donors.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/davi…
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Broadcasting & Cable put CNN talk show host Piers Morgan on the cover of its February 28 issue promising Morgan would take on Fox News. But his envy at their audience was showing. When B&C editor Ben Grossman told him he heard him slammed on Fox Business Channel, Morgan was delighted:
Good. If they’re talking about me, great. I want Fox to trash me every single day, nothing could be better. I love Fox’s aggression. I think CNN should take some of that aggression and fight fire with fire.
Morgan also suggested Keith Olbermann was "slightly bonkers" (only slightly?):
I was surprised, but nothing he does should surprise us. He’s a passionate, opinionated, theatrical, slightly bonkers, great broadcaster. But it’s very good for CNN he’s not still around.
He didn't think it was bonkers for Olbermann to move to a "start up" like Current TV. Morgan wants to create some strange kind of passionate, aggressive nonpartisanship. He doesn't want to be one of the "more raucous beasts in the jungle." He doesn't want to even aspire to attracting that audience:
MORGAN: Yes, I would like to develop that more. But I don’t want to be partisan, be categorized as left wing or right wing. I’m an interviewer. I don’t want to move too far away from that into punditry, that’s not why I was brought here.
GROSSMAN: But you know punditry sells on U.S. airwaves.
MORGAN: In the last five, six years, definitely. But before that, what Larry did sold. I think it reaches a point where everyone is screaming so loudly, and I don’t accept that everyone in America, that’s all they want to watch. I don’t have to become an O’Reilly or Beck from an independent position….
And being independent right now is a really good thing. Being too far right or left right now is a bit dangerous, given what’s going on in the Middle East. What Americans need is facts.
GROSSMAN: But don’t television ratings say that is not true? Opinion-driven shows like those on Fox News are on fire.
MORGAN; What I think is that Fox News does better programming. Roger Ailes has done a better job producing compelling television. It can’t be dismissed as right-wing loonies. They have identified an audience and go after it with a passion and a fury and a mad partisan opinion, but it works. I was talking to Rupert Murdoch [at the NBA All-Star Game] and we both agreed, I am not going to get those viewers. And I’m not going to try. Or Rachel Maddow’s viewers.
Grossman also asked about the tremors around Parker Spitzer, which has since dumped Kathleen Parker, and Morgan implied that he has a rougher time contesting Sean Hannity in the ratings because Bill O'Reilly's much more popular than Spitzer et al:
They are up against ferocious competition. It’s MSNBC that now has the problem. Would I like to have Bill O’Reilly’s 2.4 million people as an inheritance? Of course I would. Let’s get real about where Fox’s figures are and have been for quite some time. They have been four or five times as high as CNN’s for quite a while, and obviously Hannity benefits from inheriting 2.4 million people every night, and that’s a fact.
House Republicans’ reading of the Constitution was interrupted Thursday by a woman who shouted “except Obama, except Obama” to the venerable document’s words on a U.S. citizen’s eligibility to be president.
Just as Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., was reading “no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States” is eligible for the presidency, a woman in the visitor’s gallery yelled out that it did not apply to President Barack Obama.
Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who was presiding over the House, banged the gavel and halted the proceedings, warning that such action from members of the public was a violation of House rules. The woman was quickly removed by Capitol police.
Lawmakers took turns reciting each verse and article of the document. Republicans in charge of the chamber rattled it off with missionary zeal, as if in a school civics class. Democrats pitched in, but with seemingly less ardor.
Historians said it was the first time the 222-year-old governing document had been read in its entirety on the House floor.
So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there’s no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya — his father’s home country.
Um…is anyone curious why this seemingly dramatic episode wasn’t covered in the mainstream media even though I’m confident there’s gotta be at least partial video about it? The fact is that even if Barack Obama had been born on Mars and was the brother from another planet, he’d still be a U.S. citizen since not even birthers dispute that his mother was a U.S. citizen.
I find the seeming reluctance of Republicans to support the notion that the elected President of the United States is a full-fledged citizen born in Hawaii not only racist but unpatriotic. This is doubly true of black Republicans.
Seriously, winking at the bigotry of your base is beyond prejudice and in the realm of indulging anti-American sentiments that divide us as a nation. It’s not a coincidence that this is a partisan problem. From
“Not surprisingly, there are big partisan differences, although a majority of Republicans thinks Obama was definitely or probably born here,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Eighty-five percent of Democrats say that Obama was definitely or probably born in the U.S., compared to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans say he was probably not born here, and another 14 percent of Republicans say he was definitely not born in the U.S.”
The mainstream media MUST begin to call the birthers what they are — people so blinded by bigotry that they cannot accept logic nor reality. It’s a widespread delusion among Republicans driven by simple fear and hate. It’s got to stop because it erodes the foundation of our union to allow these people to believe that there isn’t something deeply, deeply wrong with them — and with yelling crazy things re: Obama and interrupting proceedings on the House floor. This little pattern among Republicans — started by Rep. Joe “You Lie!” Wilson — ain’t cute and it ain’t cool.
House Republicans’ reading of the Constitution was interrupted Thursday by a woman who shouted “except Obama, except Obama” to the venerable document’s words on a U.S. citizen’s eligibility to be president.
Just as Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., was reading “no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States” is eligible for the presidency, a woman in the visitor’s gallery yelled out that it did not apply to President Barack Obama.
Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who was presiding over the House, banged the gavel and halted the proceedings, warning that such action from members of the public was a violation of House rules. The woman was quickly removed by Capitol police.
Lawmakers took turns reciting each verse and article of the document. Republicans in charge of the chamber rattled it off with missionary zeal, as if in a school civics class. Democrats pitched in, but with seemingly less ardor.
Historians said it was the first time the 222-year-old governing document had been read in its entirety on the House floor.
So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there’s no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya — his father’s home country.
Um…is anyone curious why this seemingly dramatic episode wasn’t covered in the mainstream media even though I’m confident there’s gotta be at least partial video about it? The fact is that even if Barack Obama had been born on Mars and was the brother from another planet, he’d still be a U.S. citizen since not even birthers dispute that his mother was a U.S. citizen.
I find the seeming reluctance of Republicans to support the notion that the elected President of the United States is a full-fledged citizen born in Hawaii not only racist but unpatriotic. This is doubly true of black Republicans.
Seriously, winking at the bigotry of your base is beyond prejudice and in the realm of indulging anti-American sentiments that divide us as a nation. It’s not a coincidence that this is a partisan problem. From
“Not surprisingly, there are big partisan differences, although a majority of Republicans thinks Obama was definitely or probably born here,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Eighty-five percent of Democrats say that Obama was definitely or probably born in the U.S., compared to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans say he was probably not born here, and another 14 percent of Republicans say he was definitely not born in the U.S.”
The mainstream media MUST begin to call the birthers what they are — people so blinded by bigotry that they cannot accept logic nor reality. It’s a widespread delusion among Republicans driven by simple fear and hate. It’s got to stop because it erodes the foundation of our union to allow these people to believe that there isn’t something deeply, deeply wrong with them — and with yelling crazy things re: Obama and interrupting proceedings on the House floor. This little pattern among Republicans — started by Rep. Joe “You Lie!” Wilson — ain’t cute and it ain’t cool.
North Korea’s heir apparent is obsessed with a Chinese film ‘The Rise of the Great Nations,’ about how advanced countries like the United States, Great Britain, and France became Great Nations. Kim is quoted as saying that he could watch the film over and over again.
South Korea’s Chosun reports that Kim was so impressed with the film that he wants North Korea to take its place next to the US and other Great Nations….by 2012. From Chosun:
“A source quoted Kim as saying, ‘Now that our country has become an independent nuclear state, we can become a strong socialist nation if the food, clothing and shelter needs of our people are met.’
But North Korean intellectuals who watched the film were quoted by RFA as saying, ‘Nobody actually believes that North Korea can become a powerful country by 2012,’ as the official propaganda goal states. ‘We just hope we can get our food rations on time.’”
Nuclear deterrence, conventional deterrence, assumes that the enemy is rational. This is not rational. Simply saying that Kim is “out of touch” simply doesn’t reflect his inability to grasp reality. Kim is delusional. We can no longer assume that North Korea’s leaders will operate in a rational manner.
With insightful backwards logic like this, the new CNN show “Parker Spitzer” is certain to be a runaway hit – if just for the comedic value alone.
On CNN’s Oct. 8 broadcast of “Parker Spitzer,” disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the co-host of this program, trotted out a theory that seems so peculiar one might think he was pre-excusing what many feel is the eventual Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives. (h/t Greg Pollowitz)
“Let’s switch gears for a second,” Spitzer said. “Earlier today or a couple days ago, Newt Gingrich said 60 seats would be the Republican pick-up. I’ve got a crazy theory for you. I think the White House wants to lose the House. It needs a foil. It needs an enemy. Agree or disagree?”
And believe it or not, one of Spitzer’s guest panelists agreed, sort of. Steve Kornacki, the news editor for the liberal online media outlet Salon.com, said he thought Spitzer was on to something, but said it would be tougher for the White House to villainize possible Speaker of the House John Boehner and/or Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell the same way Clinton and the Democrats did with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich back in the 1990s.
“I think you’re basically right at this point when look at, especially when you start looking at the Senate,” Kornacki said. “If the House goes, then you probably want them all to go because then you can sort of set up the dynamic that Bill Clinton had after the 1994 mid-terms when his party suffered a drubbing. You know, it allowed them to go after Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party. The problem is this. Newt Gingrich made himself such an easy mark for Bill Clinton and for the Democrats back in 1995. He made himself the face of their party, and he was a very unappealing face. You say a lot of things about John Boehner, but I think John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, two in the Senate of that matter, they’re a lot more benign as public figures. So I think the dynamic might have been different where you had that train wreck, where Gingrich and the freshman just went after Clinton and shut the government down. It became do you like Clinton, or do you like Gingrich? And the public likes Clinton more than Gingrich. I’m not sure I see the same thing.
Ed Rollins, a GOP strategist and senior political contributor for CNN scoffed at the idea. He explained President Barack Obama’s willingness to negotiate with the congressional Republicans like former President Bill Clinton did with his counterparts is uncertain.
“The most difficult thing the president would face if you have one House seat or both Houses against you, the idea that Bill Clinton who could sit down and negotiate with Gingrich and with Trent Lott and make deals is not in the DNA of President Obama,” Rollins said. “And what’s going to happen if they lose the House, the Pelosis of the world who are not going to lose their seats are going to basically say you weren’t progressive enough, we’ve lost our conservative members who are the ones are going to get beat, and you better get more liberal. You go make deals with Republicans, you won’t — they’ll be in this tail more so than anybody else.
Chrystia Freeland, global editor-at-large for Reuters, also doubted Spitzer’s suggestion the White House would want this because it would be tough for the Obama administration to play that bipartisan role with an unwilling Republican Party and would backfire on the White House.
“And what could even be worse though, I disagree with you, Eliot, about this. I mean, I think whether they want it or not, I think they probably are going to lose control,” Freeland added. “But I think it’s really, really bad for this White House partly because the promise of Obama was I’m going to be the bipartisan guy. So this is going to be if he loses control, this is his big chance to be the bipartisan dealmaker. And I think he’s going to be a heck of a hard time doing that, partly because of what Ed points out and partly because these Republicans are not going to play ball.”
