41% of Americans can't name any GOP candidates

Poll: 41% of Americans unable to name any GOP candidates by Muriel Kane The Pew Research Center has released a new poll showing that 41% of Americans responding are unable to come up with the names of any Republican presidential candidates without prompting. In contrast, only 19% are unable to name even one Democratic candidate. According to the Pew report, "The Republicans' disengagement, if not disillusionment, with the campaign is borne out by the fact that many more Republicans are able to recall unprompted the names of Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama than can name Rudy Giuliani and other leading GOP candidates." Hillary Clinton's name was offered unprompted by 78% of all respondents and Barack Obama's by 62%. However, no more than 45% came up with the name of GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani -- and even among Republicans the figure was only 57%. This level of awareness of Democratic candidates is far beyond what it was at the equivalent point in the 2004 campaign, while the awareness of Republican candidates is generally similar to that in past elections, resulting in what Pew describes as "a sizable partisan gap in campaign interest." Pew's figures further show that throughout the course of 2007, about half of respondents have indicated they are following news about the candidates either very or fairly closely -- roughly the same as for other major news stories. In the past, that level of interest has developed only with the start of the presidential primaries. Despite this, 55% of respondents indicated they were finding the presidential campaign "dull" and 66% said elections were "too long," while only 41% consider the press is doing a good or excellent job of covering the campaign. When asked what particular areas they would like to see better covered by the press, the greatest number, 77%, asked for more about the candidates' positions on issues. By a small margin of 45% to 42%, respondents indicated they would actually like less news on who is leading in the latest polls. The poll is available in pdf form at this link.

Rudy backing away from Bernie Kerik

Marc Mukasey’s Sensitive Assignment: ‘Distance Giuliani From All Allegations About Kerik’ Marc Mukasey, the son of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, has been tasked by Rudy Giuliani to “to keep an eye on” former NYPD police commissioner Bernard Kerik’s criminal investigation. Earlier this month, media reports said that federal prosecutors were prepared to file charges against Kerik “that will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice.” Kerik, whose nomination as homeland security secretary in 2004 ended in scandal, pleaded guilty last year to two misdemeanor charges of taking payments from the same company that is alleged to have bribed him. Publicly, Giuliani has offered a strong defense of Kerik, recently calling him an “excellent police commissioner” and praising him for being “heroic” on 9/11. But privately, the Giuliani team is attempting to whitewash their ties with Kerik. The New York Post reports that part of Marc Mukasey’s “sensitive assignment” has been to thwart Kerik’s lawyer from interviewing witnesses who might help his defense because those witnesses are “linked to Giuliani”: A source familiar with the Kerik probe said Mukasey’s role in monitoring the Kerik case is “obviously trying to distance Giuliani from all [the allegations about Kerik], although obviously it all occurred on Giuliani’s watch.” […] A source said Mukasey has “made it impossible” for [Kerik’s lawyer] “to interview witnesses” who work at Giuliani Partners, the consulting firm founded in 2002 by the former mayor after he left office. Kerik had been a key player in Giuliani Partners before his fall from grace. Mukasey is “basically shutting them down,” the source said. Marc Mukasey is currently a partner at Giuliani’s law firm where is a leader of the firm’s “Special Investigations” practice. His father, Judge Michael Mukasey, has called Giuliani a “good friend” and has pledged to recuse himself from all cases that might involve the former NYC mayor.

Michigan Repugs delegation cut in half for 08 convention

Mich. national GOP delegation cut in half October 22, 2007 By KATHLEEN GRAY FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER Michigan Republicans will lose half their delegates to the GOP’s national convention in St. Paul, Minn. next year. The state was supposed to have 60 delegates going to the national convention, but will only be allowed 30. The Legislature passed a law in August moving Michigan’s presidential primary to Jan. 15, in violation of national party rules.As a result of that violation, RNC chairman Mike Duncan said today that Michigan will lose half its delegation at the Sept. 1-4 convention, where the party’s nominee will officially be selected.“This will come as no surprise to any of the states involved,” Duncan said, noting that the rules for the 2008 delegate selection process were passed in 2004.Four other states — New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina and Wyoming — also will lose half their Republican delegations because they moved their presidential primary election dates.Michigan moved up its primary, in part, to challenge the traditional roles that Iowa and New Hampshire have played as the first caucus and primary elections in the nation. Those states get extraordinary attention from the presidential candidates from both parties.While Republicans will only lose half their delegates, Democrats are facing a harsher sanction. All of the Democratic candidates have signed pledges not to campaign in Michigan. And four of the Democratic candidates — Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, former Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — have withdrawn from the Michigan primary.Duncan said Monday there’s still time for Michigan to change its mind and not face any consequences for the Jan. 15 primary.“The compliance committee won’t meet until after the 2007 general election in November,” he said. “And we always believe in redemption.”

Blackwater facing law suit by survivors

An injured survivor and the three families of men killed in a Sept. 16 shooting in Baghdad, filed suit against Blackwater USA in a Washington, D.C. federal court this morning. The case was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the firms of Burke O’Neil LLC and Akeel & Valentine, P.C. Talib Mutlaq Deewan, who was wounded in the incident, and the estates of the deceased men – Himoud Saed Atban, Usama Fadhil Abbass, and Oday Ismail Ibraheem – sued Blackwater and its affiliated companies alleging the firm violated U.S. law and “created and fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company’s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life.” The lawsuit is seeking unspecified compensatory damages for "death, physical, mental, and economic injuries," as well as punitive damages. According to a synopsis of the suit, the complaint asserts that "Blackwater violated the federal Alien Tort Statute in committing extrajudicial killing and war crimes, and that Blackwater should be liable for claims of assault and battery, wrongful death, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, training and supervision." Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights cites Blackwater's "repeated and consistent failure to act in accord with the law of war, U.S. law, and international law." "For the good of both nations, as well as for countless innocent civilians, the company cannot be allowed to continue operating extra-legally, providing mercenaries who flout all kinds of law," he continued. "This lawsuit, like the ongoing U.S. and Iraqi government investigations, cannot bring back those killed at Nisoor Square but it can make Blackwater accountable for its actions." “This senseless slaughter was only the latest incident in a lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct by Blackwater in Iraq,” Burke O'Neill partner Susan Burke commented. “At the moment of this incident, the Blackwater personnel responsible for the shooting were not protecting State Department officials. We allege that Blackwater personnel were not provoked and that they had no legitimate reason to fire on civilians." Defendants named in the suit are Blackwater USA, Blackwater Security Consulting LLC, The Prince Group LLC and Erik Prince, Blackwater's founder. In 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights won a victory in a Supreme Court ruling which determined that so-called enemy combatants held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must be afforded the right to challenge their detention before a judge. The Center represented detainees in the case. The same year, the group filed a criminal complaint with German authorities, urging them to investigate possible war crimes related to abuses at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Under the "doctrine of universal jurisdiction," the Center stated then, "suspected war criminals may be prosecuted irrespective of where they are located." The full text of the Blackwater complaint can be read here in pdf.

Rev.Jackson calls Hannity out

Rev. Jackson warns Hannity, 'You are using very deceptive language' David Edwards and Muriel Kane The recent appearance of a noose on the office door of a black Columbia University professor is only the latest in a series of similar incidents which have given rise to fears of a wave of resurgent racism. Rev. Jesse Jackson told Sean Hannity on Fox News Wednesday that a number of civil rights groups have asked the Department of Justice to declare these incidents "hate crimes" but were told they were merely "deplorable." "When the Department of Justice is silent and does not act to deter hanging nooses and swastikas and burning crosses, it gives a kind of permissiveness," Jackson warned. Jackson was asked about Don Imus's rumored return to radio after having been banned for calling black basketball players "nappy-headed hos," a possibility which has already evoked statements of condemnation. "What he did, while it was very racist and offensive, he showed contrition in his apology to the young women," Jackson stated. "I do not think what he did warrants a life without parole." Jackson said he believes that contrition, forgiveness, and redemption are always possible and emphasized that Imus deserves a chance to redeem himself. Hannity finally asked Jackson about his previous endorsement of the Duke lacrosse team rape allegations, saying, "Turned out those boys were innocent. Do you owe them an apology?" "I never attacked the young men," insisted Jackson, telling Hannity he was "using very deceptive language" in implying that Jackson thought the young woman who brought the charges ought to be rewarded. Jackson explained, however, that he still believed it was wrong for the woman to have forced to become a stripper just to afford an education.

Whores of the right wing media gang up on a 12 year old boy

Right Wing Launches Baseless Smear Campaign Against 12 Year Old Recipient Of SCHIP Two weeks ago, the Democratic radio address was delivered by a 12-year old Maryland boy named Graeme Frost. Graeme told his story of being involved in a severe car accident three years ago, and having received access to medical care because of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He said: If it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today. … We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. … I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. The right-wing immediately condemned Democrats for daring to put a human face on the SCHIP program at a time when Bush was proposing a “diminishment of the number of children covered.” Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) — who has posed with children to advance his own political agenda — claimed Graeme was being used “as a human shield.” Conservatives have more recently turned their targets on young Graeme Frost himself. A poster at the Free Republic propagated information alleging that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government. Among other bits of information, the post by the Freeper “icwhatudo” asserts that Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost “nearly $40,000 per year for tuition” and live in a well-off home. The smear attack against Graeme has taken firm hold in the right-wing blogosphere. The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Powerline, and the Weekly Standard blog have all launched assaults on the Frost family. The story is slowly working its way into traditional media outlets as well. Here are the facts that the right-wing distorted in order to attack young Graeme: 1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year. 2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost. 3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe. 4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined. 5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program. Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family. Right wing bloggers have been harassing the Frosts, calling their home numerous times to get information about their private lives. Compassionate conservatism indeed. MCL comment: Hopeful this is the final staw for the non 27% loon fringe of America, these right wing trash hoes like Michelle Malkin have no shame they will attack a woman who lost her son, they will trash a man fighting a disease like Parkinson, they will trash vets that speak out against the war and now they're going after a 12 year old boy because he supports SCHIP I knew right wingers would attack anyone that don't drink the Bush kool-aid but I didn't think they will sink this low to attack a kid and his family. This beyond low not only they calling the dude a liar, they're going the route to post his home address on the neo crazy web site Free Republic.com hoping the real insane members of Free Republic or some loyal Bush bot follower will go over to his house and do god knows what. Let's recap the past couple of weeks, right wingers raised a stink about Move on to now they're trashing anti war troops to little kids.

Rush's ditto-heads send Vote Vets hate mail

Rush’s listeners flood VoteVets with hate mail. In the past two weeks, as the controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comments unfolded, VoteVets.org has been at the forefront of pushing to hold Limbaugh accountable for disparaging pro-withdrawal soldiers. On MSNBC’s Countdown last Friday, VoteVets.org Vice President Brandon Friedman read aloud some of the hate mail the organization has received from Limbaugh’s listeners: - “Do us all a favor and shoot yourself. You are a waste of human flesh.” - “Tell the truth about Rush. You phony piece of [expletive].” - “You traitorous bunch of [expletive] cowards.” - “Rush Limbaugh is a great American, and you are a phony.”

Becareful what you say: cuz AT&T will drop you for being critical

Filed by Nick Juliano Companies insist they don't censor customers Buried deep within the dense, legalistic agreements two of the country's largest telecommunications carriers force subscribers to accept are provisions that could allow the companies to cut access to subscribers who criticize them online. Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus uncovered the little-noticed clauses in AT&T and Verizon's service contracts. In a Wednesday column, Lazarus writes that the companies say they can terminate Internet access "for any behavior that AT&T or Verizon believes might harm its 'name or reputation,' or even the reputation of its business partners." Both companies told the columnist that they have not enforced the policies, which critics view as an inappropriate corporate check on Americans' freedom of speech. "Not being able to speak your mind about something is contrary to public policy," University of Wisconsin law professor Frank Tuerkheimer told the LA Times. But Tuerkheimer, a specialist in Internet-related issues, said such corporate blocks are not illegal because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private companies. The discovery comes after Verizon faced harsh criticism for blocking text-message alerts from Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group; the company reversed its decision after an outcry from subscribers. Earlier in the year, a Pearl Jam concert webcast by AT&T did not include lead singer Eddie Vedder's criticism of President Bush; AT&T blamed a contractor for censoring the comments. A one-line disclaimer in AT&T's 14,000-word service contract gives the company right to boot from the Internet any customer who might cross the telecom giant. Along with "defamatory, fraudulent, obscene or deceptive" behavior, Lazarus writes, customers can be suspended for anything that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, Yahoo [AT&T's online partner] or their respective parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." An "acceptable use policy" issued to Verizon customers alongside its 10,000-word contract contains similar prohibitions on obscene, pornographic or racist content, and it tells customers they risk losing service if they "damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties." A Verizon spokesman, Jon Davies, told the paper that the policy is designed to prevent customers from setting up Web sites that look like Verizon's to attempt to defraud customers and steal personal information. Such behavior is explicitly prohibited elsewhere in the contract, meaning Verizon's terms give the company wider latitude to censor customers' online communications, the columnist notes. "But whether or not it's interpreted that way is irrelevant," the Verizon spokesman said, "because we've never used it that way. Actions speak louder than words." AT&T also stressed it had no plans to censor customers and insisted its language was "common" and "designed to protect the brand." A spokesman, John Britton, told the paper that the company would be revising its policies to more explicitly enshrine customers' free speech. "We are going to clarify the policy," Britton said, "to make clear that nobody is faced with losing service because they express an opinion about the company."

9.11 truth movement flip off Bill Maher on Youtube

Jason Rhyne Published: Tuesday October 9, 2007 After being broadly denounced as "crazy people" by HBO's sharp-tongued Bill Maher, some members of the so-called 9/11 Truth movement -- a group convinced that US government accounts of the Sept. 11 tragedies do not fully explain the events of that day -- decided to give Maher a taste of his own caustic medicine. In a new video making its rounds on the internet, one band of miffed Los Angeles-based "Truthers" borrows the graphics, theme music and trademark bite of Maher's popular "New Rules" segment to push back at the comedian's charges that conspiracy theorists are lunatics. "Crazy people are defined by acting crazy," activist Stewart Howe says in the clip, sitting alongside a Maher-esque video window depicting Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in a straight jacket. "9/11 Truthers," he continues, "are defined by a patriotic quest for the truth." "I love Bill Maher, but he's wrong about 9/11 Truth," Katy Kurtzman, who also appears in the video, told RAW STORY. "We wanted to give it back to him the way he gives it out, which is 'I'm smarter than you and I'm gonna make fun of you about it.'" "We had no idea it was going to go as viral as it has," she said of the project, which is the subject of more than 35,000 hits to date on YouTube and has received widespread postings on websites skeptical of the official 9/11 story. "It's a response to Bill Maher," said Kurtzman, "but it's also a cheerleading thing for 9/11 Truth." In the Sept. 14 episode of his program, Real Time, Maher had been characteristically barbed: "Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion," the comedian jabbed, "have to stop pretending that I'm the one who's being naive." "How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think 'well, if you believe that was the cause," he continued, adding that people should "stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you." But Bruno Bruhwiler, who edited the green screen video response to those charges, says Maher wasn't being fair to the greater 9/11 Truth movement. "Sure you have to take some of it with a grain of salt," he said of particularly outlandish conspiracy theories that the majority of the group doesn't stand by, "but in general, a picture emerges." "It was upsetting because he was dissing the 9/11 Truthers, but he wasn't having any on his show," Bruhwiler continued. "Which is odd, because it's a debate show." So the Truthers invented their own equal time response opportunity. "New rule: buildings do not collapse into the path of most resistance at anything close to freefall speed," Kurtzman counters on video, referring to claims by some that only a controlled demolition would allow for such a fast collapse by the Twin Towers. "Go back to kindergarten and play with blocks until you figure that out," she tells Maher, aping the host's finger-wagging delivery. Kurtzman also raised questions about the collapse of the World Trade Center's building seven, which fell despite not being struck by a plane. "Two airplanes can't slam into two buildings and knock down three," she says, punctuating the point by flipping Maher off. Stewart Howe, Kurtzman's co-star in the clip, says in the video that Sept. 11 was part of an orchestrated plan that fulfilled a host of Bush administration goals. "They wanted to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. They got it. They wanted to make billions of dollars for their corporate friends. They got it," Howe says, adding that widely accepted explanation of the events of 9/11 helped increase executive power and convinced Maher himself to "parrot the official story." "Didn't they manage to accomplish all of this? Absolutely they did," he continues, adding that "it doesn't look like incompetence to me Bill, it looks to me like 'mission accomplished." "Bill Maher is doing what most of the mainstream media is doing. All they can really do is attack the messenger," Howe told RAW STORY. "If they allow it to become a rational debate, they'll lose every time. It's just not debatable." Although the video format didn't allow the group to delve into the swirl of 9/11 facts and figures they say supports their case -- they point to an online documentary called "9/11 Mysteries" and a number of websites as representative of their views -- it did give them a chance to stick up for themselves. "We thought, let's just have fun and slam back," said Howe. And if Bill Maher ever decides to change his mind about what happened? "In the hopeful event that you rise to the occasion and take the red pill as opposed to more Zoloft," Kurtzman says, "get back to us because we won't hold a grudge." "That," she says, "would be crazy."

Clinton to stay on Michigan ballot

Clinton to keep name on Mich. ballot October 9, 2007 By TODD SPANGLER FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will remain a candidate in Michigan’s primary. Her campaign staff this afternoon confirmed she will remain on Michigan's Jan. 15 ballot, despite the fact that other candidates – Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden – have withdrawn. A spokesman said Clinton thought removing her name was unnecessary because she already has pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state broke national party rules by moving its primary to Jan. 15.“This won’t take away from Iowa one bit,” said former Michigan Gov. Jim Blanchard, who is helping to run Clinton’s campaign in Michigan MLC off hand comment: In the short term it hurts the Dems running and MDP there's going to be a lot of fence mending now to next year, personally I was leading towards Hillary anyway so thanks Edwards and Barrack for making the choice easier for me. As for the Republicons making hay on this story how exactly? The Republicons still need either to gain or supress Detroit votes to win the state. As for Ron Paul people he's correct on one issue and wrong on everything else.

Shocking news: Ann Coulter said something stupid

On Hannity & Colmes, Coulter vowed to fight Clinton because "I do not want to be fitted for a burqa" Summary: On the October 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter told co-host Sean Hannity, "I do not want to be fitted for a burqa, so I will join you in fighting President Hillary Clinton." Coulter's comment came after Hannity, referring to the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates, asserted: "You know what? On the defining issue of our time, all of them have taken a strong position on terrorism," adding, "If we don't have a country because the country's been blown up by people who want to kill us, that's an important campaign issue." Later during the segment, co-host Alan Colmes told Coulter that "if Hillary's elected, we're not going to be wearing burqas, OK? I don't think that's going to happen." Media Matters for America noted that an October 2 New York Observer blog post featuring excerpts of an interview with Coulter quoted her as saying: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat [sic] president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women." From the October 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: Before I get to [Samuel "Sandy"] Berger [former national security adviser to President Clinton], so you don't like Fred. You don't like Rudy. You sort of like Mitt. You don't like McCain. If the Republicans split, doesn't she win? COULTER: Well, as my family used to say, let's burn that bridge when we get to it. Right now, it's probably going to be Giuliani or Romney, and I'd rather not have to defend someone who had a sanctuary city and supports -- HANNITY: Why don't you like Fred Thompson? I like Fred Thompson. I like Mitt. I like Rudy. I like -- COULTER: You're easy. HANNITY: I'm not easy. You know what? On the defining issue of our time, all of them have taken a strong position on terrorism, and I believe all of them will -- you know what? We want to have all these debates? If we don't have a country because the country's been blown up by people who want to kill us, that's an important campaign issue. COULTER: Yes, and I do not want to be fitted for a burqa, so I will join you in fighting President Hillary Clinton. [...] COLMES: He's [Berger] not advising the Clinton camp -- by the way, if Hillary's elected, we're not going to be wearing burqas, OK? I don't think that's going to happen. He is not advising -- COULTER: That was 10 minutes ago. COLMES: -- he's not advising the Clinton campaign.

Rush takes a step up to attack a 12 year old

Rush Smears 12-Yr Old: ‘They Filled His Head With Lies Just As They Have Some Of These Soldiers’ Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted the right wing has been orchestrating a coordinated effort to smear a 12 year old recipient of SCHIP. These conservatives have been propagating baseless “facts” to suggest that young Graeme Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government. Rush Limbaugh has joined in the smear campaign. On his radio show yesterday, Rush introduced his hit job on Graeme by saying, “I had some rudimentary information on this two weeks ago, and it wasn’t enough for me to trust going with. But since then, it has been verified, and most of it’s been verified by a ‘Freeper’ at Free Republic.” Apparently, a posting by a “freeper” is all Rush needs for confirmation. Rush proceeded to recycle the myths that Graeme and his sister must be fat-cat recipients of government welfare because they attend “one of Baltimore’s expensive private schools” and own a house in a decent neighborhood. As we noted yesterday, Graeme has a scholarship to the private school. His sister’s tuition is covered by the state due to her brain injuries, and the house was purchased for $55,000 in 1991 when the neighborhood was not as safe as it is today. Limbaugh then tried to draw a parallel between Graeme and his “phony soldiers” remark: So the bottom line for me is: They can’t rely on truth to make their case for their cause. They have to lie. Be it about me, be it about their own voters (such as the Frosts) be it about President Bush, they must lie — and anybody who stands in the way of their succeeding with that lie becomes an enemy, becomes a target. That’s where I and my buddies in talk radio come in. We are a thorn in their side because we represent the truth they are trying to hide, the truth that they are lying about, and they have to do something about it — and they have to do that by lying. […] They send the kid out to lie. They filled this kid’s head with lies just as they have some of these soldiers about me. Put lies in the kid’s head or put it on the script that he’s reading. He goes out and reads it. He’s 12-years-old! They will use anybody! They’ll corrupt anybody, to get where they’re headed. That’s who they are, folks. Listen to it: Go to the link for the audio The real “bottom line” is: Rush propagates baseless information from a “freeper” to attack a 12-year old, fails to determine the facts for himself, and then accuses others of not being able to “rely on truth to make their case.” When right-wingers attack soldiers who disagree with them on Iraq or kids who disagree with them on health care, that is indeed where Rush and his “hate radio” buddies “come in.” The right-wing attack machine personally assaults anyone for daring to disagree.

Dobson's Rudy problem

James Dobson's Rudy problem Endorsing GOP front-runner Giuliani would be anathema to Dobson's evangelical base, but his "third-party" alternative could be a boon for Democrats. By Joe Conason Oct. 05, 2007 When James Dobson warns that he will lead evangelical conservatives and other "values voters" in a third-party revolt if the Republican Party nominates Rudolph Giuliani for president -- as the Focus on the Family president warned in Thursday's New York Times -- it is hard to suppress a cynical smirk. Such rumblings from the religious right seem ritualistic, issued predictably in election years or whenever Republican politicians show signs of straying from the fold. Many analysts listen, shrug and then predict that the party leadership will somehow accommodate the restive theocrats long before Election Day -- and that the imperatives of power will prevail, as usual, over principle. But this time could be different for the increasingly disgruntled Dobson and his theocratic cohort. This time they may feel they have no choice but to follow through on their threat to support a "minor party" candidate. Consider their dilemma. Having founded both a mass movement and a lucrative business on the promotion of "pro-family" values, the Dobson faction now confronts a potential moral disaster in the person of Giuliani, who represents the antithesis of everything they profess to hold most sacred. For years and decades, they have exhorted their listeners and contributors to despise every politician who supports reproductive rights, tolerates homosexuality and indulges in extramarital sex (or even divorce, which they consider equally sinful). So how could Dobson -- or any self-respecting conservative Christian -- ever condone a vote for the former mayor of New York, whose personal and ideological record is so profoundly at odds with what they have described as their bedrock beliefs? To this day, Giuliani proclaims his pro-choice views on abortion, which horrifies the religious right despite his promise to appoint antichoice judges to the Supreme Court. His flashy wife, Judith, is No. 3, whom he acquired in a spectacularly public adultery that culminated in an ugly split from his second wife and accusations of multiple infidelities -- a family debacle that continues to damage his relationship with his children. After his outraged second wife demanded that he leave their home at Gracie Mansion, he sought refuge in the lavish Manhattan apartment of a wealthy gay couple, who sheltered him for several weeks. In short, by any objective standard, he makes the Clintons look dull and even righteous. Moreover, Giuliani deviates from right-wing dogma not just on a single issue but on almost every social issue, including immigration and gun control. And to most of the evangelical right, abortion is not just a single issue but the paramount moral question of our era, followed by the worrisome specter of gay marriage. For Dobson to endorse Giuliani would seriously undermine the legitimacy of evangelical politics and of Christian fundamentalism as an ideology. No doubt Dobson and his fellow true believers would rather not bolt; instead they hope that the Republicans will heed them and abandon Giuliani -- based on the same "electability" argument that some Democrats have used against Hillary Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll provides statistical support for that ploy, showing that up to 27 percent of Republican voters would prefer a third-party candidate of the Christian right to either Giuliani or Clinton. In a three-way race pitting the two front-runners against an unnamed "family values" candidate, Clinton wins with 46 percent and Giuliani is left with only 30 percent. So the Dobson faction may well be able to ruin the Republicans next year and bid to rule them in future elections. At the moment, however, it has no plausible candidate and no alternative strategy. The pronunciation of anathema on Giuliani and the threat to split from the Republicans is the culmination of a long, fruitless process for Dobson. For many months, Dobson allies such as Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, have warned that Giuliani is "far from the mainstream" and unacceptable to them, but their search for a competitive candidate has failed -- while Giuliani has continued to dominate in both national polls and fundraising. The presidential contest began without an attractive candidate for the religious right, and so far none has appeared. Indeed, the catalog of disappointment has only continued to grow. The religious right's historical disdain for Sen. John McCain is well known, and his strenuous pandering to the extremists he once denounced has not improved their opinion of him. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is seen as unreliable and untrustworthy even to those willing to overlook his apostate Mormon faith. Sen. Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican, is ideologically acceptable but has turned out to be a bit weird and an inadequate campaigner. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, once touted by some evangelicals as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, is so limp and lackluster that he has been reduced to pleading for applause from bored voters -- which probably doesn't surprise Dobson, who never liked him either. Frustrated by this panoply of scrubs, Dobson encouraged Newt Gingrich to run, but the former House speaker was unable to raise enough money or enthusiasm to enter the race. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister who is well-liked by evangelicals and enjoyed a moment of publicity after a decent showing in the Iowa Republican straw poll, has managed to raise only a million dollars in the third quarter -- compared with more than $11 million raised by front-runner Giuliani. Whether Dobson is serious about a third party or not may become clearer at his upcoming "Values Voters Summit," a mini-convention of religious-right activists that will convene in Washington on Oct. 20, with appearances by nearly every Republican presidential hopeful (except Giuliani and Thompson). The Republican Party won't be "finished" by the defection of the religious rightists -- as a few feverish partisans predict -- but they have the capacity to make what portends to be a bad year even worse.

Fact or fiction: Limabugh "phony soldiers" controversy

MEMO: Fact vs. Fiction in the Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy Summary: To: Interested Parties From: Karl Frisch, Media Matters for America Re: Fact vs. Fiction in the Limbaugh "phony soldiers" controversy... Date: Friday, October 5, 2007 Below you will find a brief description of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments along with documentation that corrects common misconceptions in the media about the controversy surrounding his remarks and subsequent statements on the subject. OVERVIEW During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh characterized service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." Limbaugh said to a caller that "[t]here's a lot" that people who favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "don't understand" and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, " 'Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.' ... 'Save the -- keep the troops safe' or whatever," adding, "[I]t's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people." Limbaugh's caller replied, "No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media." Limbaugh interjected, "The phony soldiers." The caller, who had earlier said, "I am a serving American military, in the Army," agreed, replying, "The phony soldiers." FACTS vs. FICTION

FICTION: Limbaugh's comments referred to only one soldier

FACT: During his September 28 broadcast, responding to criticism of his comments, Limbaugh claimed that rather than speaking generally of soldiers who support withdrawal from Iraq, he was "talking about one soldier with that 'phony soldier' comment." Later in the program, he asserted, "[E]verybody involved in this knows full well I was talking about one genuine, convicted, lying, fake soldier," referring to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran. But as the September 26 transcript makes clear, Limbaugh actually referred to "phony soldiers," plural. Responding to the caller's statement that supporters of withdrawal "like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," Limbaugh responded, "The phony soldiers" [emphasis added].

FICTION: Limbaugh's comments occurredduring a discussion about Jesse MacBeth

FACT: On the October 2 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, while purporting to give viewers "some background" on Limbaugh's comments, co-anchor Megyn Kelly reported: "Rush originally used this term 'phony soldiers' when he was talking about a guy named Jesse MacBeth. ... Limbaugh was making the point that this guy was basically a 'phony soldier,' and he was trying to say that sometimes people on the left use 'phony soldiers' like this to make their points." But contrary to Kelly's assertion that "Rush originally used this term 'phony soldiers' when he was talking about" MacBeth, Limbaugh did not mention MacBeth on the September 26 broadcast of his radio show until 1 minute and 50 seconds after he used the phrase "phony soldiers." After Limbaugh used the phrase, the caller he was speaking with went on to discuss the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, with Limbaugh responding. Limbaugh then thanked the caller for calling, and the caller is not heard again on the broadcast. Only after this did Limbaugh bring up MacBeth on his September 26 show.

FICTION: Limbaugh's comments referredto a group of actual military imposters

FACT: During his September 28 broadcast, following his repeated assertions that he had been referring to "one soldier," a caller asked, "But you did say 'soldiers' in plural, though, didn't you?" Limbaugh replied: "Yes, because there have been a number of these people, but they were not active duty -- I was not talking about anti-war, active duty troops. I was talking about people who've been exposed as frauds who never served in Iraq but claimed to have seen all these atrocities, [unintelligible]." Limbaugh repeated this explanation during his October 2 broadcast, describing MacBeth as "the man I was referring to and others like him as 'phony soldiers.' " However, this explanation is inconsistent with his statements earlier in his September 28 program -- noted above -- that he had been talking about "one soldier." Indeed, the transcript (subscription required) of the September 28 broadcast that is posted on Limbaugh's website shows him asserting: "I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth [italics, bold, and underline in original]."

FICTION: Limbaugh played the "entire"segment to explain his remarks

FACT: On his September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" September 26 segment in which he referred to "phony soldiers" to prove that "Media Matters ... selectively choose[s] what they want to make their point." In fact, the clip he then aired omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here. Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: "Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy." After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: "That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website Media Matters generated this story." Further, the transcript (subscription required) of his September 28 broadcast posted on Limbaugh's website does not make clear how much time elapsed between Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark and his discussion of MacBeth -- or even that it omitted any part of the conversation: Limbaugh's transcript does not provide any notation or ellipsis to indicate that there is, in fact, a break in the transcript of the September 26 clip he used. Similarly, during the October 2 edition of Fox News Live, after Fox News aired a brief clip of Limbaugh's September 26 "phony soldiers" comment, Carrie Lukas, director of policy for the conservative Independent Women's Forum, asserted, "If you go on for another, about 30 seconds, you hear Mr. Limbaugh start talking about Jesse MacBeth."

FICTION: Limbaugh did not call Rep. Jack Murtha a "phony soldier"

FACT: During the "Strategy Session" segment on the October 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, conservative talk show host Bill Bennett claimed that Limbaugh "did not call [Rep.] Jack Murtha [D-PA] a 'phony soldier.' " Bennett asserted that instead, Limbaugh "took Jack Murtha on, on the merits of the argument." In fact, during his September 28 broadcast Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians? According to Murtha's biography on his congressional website, Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.

FICTION: Limbaugh didn't compare wounded Iraq vet to suicide bomber

FACT: On his October 4 radio show, Limbaugh asserted that he "didn't call" wounded Iraq veteran Brian McGough "a suicide bomber" on his October 2 show and said he was "grateful" for McGough's service. McGough appeared in an ad released by VoteVets denouncing Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. In the ad, McGough says to Limbaugh, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." Limbaugh said on October 2: "[T]his is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." Several media outlets have noted Limbaugh's comments, reporting that Limbaugh compared or likened McGough to a suicide bomber, including the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and ABCNews.com. Further, FoxNews.com reported that "Limbaugh decried the ad by the group that he linked to MoveOn.org, figuratively saying VoteVets is treating McGough like a suicide bomber."

Britain to cut its force in Iraq by half

Britain to Cut Its Force in Iraq by Half By JANE PERLEZ LONDON, Oct. 8 — Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the House of Commons on Monday that the number of British troops in Iraq would be reduced by half, to 2,500, by next spring, and he left open the strong possibility that all British soldiers would leave Iraq by the end of 2008. Mr. Brown said the reductions were possible because of the progress made in training Iraq security forces. He described the situation in Basra, the southern Iraqi city where the British troops are based, as “calmer.” In his formal statement to Parliament, Mr. Brown said that a decision would be made in the spring as to how long that reduced force of 2,500 would remain in Iraq. At a briefing at the Foreign Office after Mr. Brown’s statement, a senior British official, speaking of that reduced force, said that “there was no guarantee they will be there beyond the end of 2008.” The Bush administration has made clear that the bulk of American troops will remain in Iraq at least until the end of President Bush’s term, and Mr. Bush has spoken of a military commitment extending beyond his administration. Thus, the British intentions announced on Monday would make it likely that British soldiers, sent by former Prime Minister Tony Blair as a strong commitment to the war in Iraq, would leave well before American soldiers do. In his response to Mr. Brown in Parliament, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, David Cameron, seemed to sum up Mr. Brown’s statement, saying, “Now the troops are coming home.” In explaining his rationale, Mr. Brown told the Parliament: “The Iraqis are now able to take responsibility for the security themselves.” He described a two-phase process of handing over responsibility for security in Basra Province, where the British have been based since the start of the war. The process starts with British forces training and mentoring Iraqi security forces, securing supply routes to the Iranian border and providing backup to local security forces when needed. In the second phase, starting in the spring of 2008, British troops will retain a more limited ability to intervene by force, Mr. Brown said. Troop levels will decline in stages, from the approximately 5,000 now in Basra Province to 4,500 and then to 4,000. Levels will fall to 2,500 by spring, Mr. Brown said. During the session in Parliament, thousands of antiwar demonstrators clogged the streets outside chanting slogans and carrying banners calling for the return of all British soldiers from Iraq. At the Foreign Office briefing, the senior British official said that the troop reductions had been discussed in detail with the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus. “It is a number with which General Petraeus is content,” the official said. The 2,500 British forces remaining after next spring will be stationed at the Basra Air Station, and they will be involved almost entirely in preparing trainers for two divisions of Iraqi soldiers, the official said. About 500 more British troops, serving support roles to those in Iraq, would be based in a neighboring country, the official said, and he indicated that Kuwait was the most likely location. In determining how much to reduce British force levels in Iraq, Mr. Brown has had to deal with three constituencies: the British electorate, with whom the Iraq war is unpopular; the British Army, whose commanders have complained about the Iraq deployment stretching the military too far; and the White House. Mr. Brown’s announcement effectively means that all British troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2008, said Toby Dodge, a senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London and a specialist in Iraq affairs. He said that Mr. Brown wanted “British troops out of Basra by the British election,” which is likely to be held in 2009. The reduced numbers were also welcomed by the British army commanders, he said. Despite the statements by the British that the Pentagon was satisfied, Mr. Dodge said he believed that the White House was “deeply uneasy” over the decision. He cited remarks by Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the American troop increase this year, who has expressed frustration at the disengagement of British forces in Basra. In his statement to Parliament, Mr. Brown also sought to defuse an outcry over the future of Iraqi civilians at special risk of attack because they worked with the British troops. Iraqis who had worked alongside the British for more than 12 months would be eligible for aid and emigration to other countries, possibly including Britain, he said. At a news conference at 10 Downing Street before his Commons statement, Mr. Brown was bombarded with questions about why he had allowed speculation about an early election to boil and then backed away from calling a poll. "Yes, I did consider holding an election,” Mr. Brown said. “Yes, I looked at it.” But in the end, he said, he followed his "first instinct" to take more time to show voters his vision for the country, particularly in housing, education and health. Mr. Brown insisted that opinion surveys had not influenced his decision. "I happen to believe we would win at any time," he said. Some surveys published in the British press over the weekend showed that the Conservative Party had made inroads into swing seats now held by the Labor Party. A plan to by the Conservatives to cut the inheritance tax, announced at their annual conference last week, had special appeal in those seats, the surveys showed. The British news media reported today that Mr. Brown would probably have won a November election but the current majority of over 60 seats would most likely have shrunk substantially. The surveys showed the electorate to be volatile after both the Labor Party and the Conservative Party held their conferences, and after the surprisingly successful conference speech of Mr. Cameron, the Conservative leader. Mr. Brown said today that an election was "not likely" in 2008. He must call one by 2010.

Iraqi authorities want Blackwater out..

By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers 46 minutes ago Iraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm's guards sprayed a traffic circle with heavy machine gun fire last month. The demands — part of an Iraqi government report examined by The Associated Press — also called on U.S. authorities to hand over the Blackwater security agents involved in the Sept. 16 shootings to face possible trial in Iraqi courts. The tone of the Iraqi report appears to signal further strains between the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the White House over the deaths in Nisoor Square — which have prompted a series of U.S. and Iraqi probes and raised questions over the use of private security contractors to guard U.S. diplomats and other officials. Al-Maliki ordered the investigation by his defense minister and other top security and police officials on Sept. 22. The findings — which were translated from Arabic by AP — mark the most definitive Iraqi positions and contentions about the shootings last month. The report also highlights the differences in death tolls and accounts that have complicated efforts to piece together the chain of events as one Blackwater-protected convoy raced back toward Baghdad's Green Zone after a nearby bombing, while a second back-up team in four gun trucks sped into the square as a back-up team. The Iraqi investigation — first outlined Thursday by The Associated Press — charges the four Blackwater vehicles called to the square began shooting without provocation. Blackwater contends its employees came under fire first. The government, at the conclusion of its investigation, said 17 Iraqis died. Initial reports put the toll at 11. It said the compensation — totaling $136 million — was so high "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are guests in this country." The U.S. military pays compensation money to the families of civilians killed in battles or to cover property damage, but at far lower amounts. The United States has not made conclusive findings about the shooting, though there are multiple investigations under way and Congress has opened inquiries into the role of private security contractors. Last week, the FBI took over a State Department investigation, raising the prospect that it could be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution. The Iraqi government report said its courts were to proper venue in which to bring charges. It said Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq expired on June 2, 2006, meaning it had no immunity from prosecution under Iraqi laws set down after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The government report also challenged the claim that a decree in June 2004 by then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer granted Blackwater immunity from legal action in incidents such as the one in Nisoor Square. The report said the Blackwater guards could be charged under a criminal code from 1969. U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the diplomatic mission would have no comment on the report. Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, said the document was in American hands. The report found that Blackwater guards also had killed 21 Iraqi civilians and wounded 27 in previous shootings since it took over security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government did not say whether it would try to prosecute in those cases. The State Department has counted 56 shooting incidents involving Blackwater guards in Iraq this year. All were being reviewed as part of the comprehensive inquiry ordered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

64% of Americans see media as too conservative

Perception of conservative bias in media 64 percent higher since Sept. 2001 Nick JulianoPublished: Monday October 8, 2007 Near majority who see 'liberal' media unchanged compared to growth in conservative perception The number of Americans who see the media as too conservative has grown by 64 percent since September of 2001, while the larger proportion of those who see it as too liberal has stagnated over the same period, according to a new Gallup poll. About one in five respondents in a recent survey -- 18 percent -- see the media as being too conservative a 63.6 percent increase over the 11 percent who saw conservative bias six years ago, Gallup found. Perceptions of conservative bias have increased steadily since 2001 and were slightly higher last year, when 19 percent said the media favored the right wing. Nearly half of Americans see the media as being too liberal, but that measure in the survey released Monday did not move from the 45 percent who saw liberal bias in 2001. "The tendency on the part of Americans to perceive the news media as too liberal has been observed in each Gallup survey in which this question has been asked since 2001," writes Gallup pollster Frank Newport. "Still, if there is a perceptible trend, it is the finding that the 'too conservative' number has been climbing slightly throughout the decade." The liberal bias perception seems overwhelmingly fueled by Republicans, more than three in four of whom say the media is left-leaning, but Democrats are not as likely to see conservative bias in the media. In fact, slightly more independents (25 percent) than Democrats (22 percent) told pollsters the media is too conservative, although a 43 percent plurality of independents saw a liberal bias. A solid majority of Democrats (59 percent) found the media was "just right" in providing balanced political coverage, while about a third of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, said there was no bias in the media. Overall, more than half of Americans have little or no trust and confidence in the media's ability to fairly report the news, while just 9 percent say they give the media a "great deal" of trust. That finding is consistent with poll results over the last few years, but it marks a steep decline in Americans' trust in journalists since Pew began asking the question during and after the Watergate scandal. Faith in the media reached its zenith in June 1976, when 72 percent of Americans trusted the media. Conservative bloggers honed in on the perceptions of conservative bias, saying the poll results reflected the charge leveled by many on the right that the national press corps is in the pocket of the Democratic party. Several blogs harped on the unchanged liberal bias perception while discounting those who see too much conservativism and ignoring the increase in conservative perception. "Actually this is telling and a rebuke to the left-wing blabber mouths of the net such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, Daily Kos and others who drone on about 'conservative imbalance.' It should also be used as a proof that if there is a problem with unbalanced media then it’s on the left, not the right," writes a blogger at Macsmind. "As a PS, 'One in five', who think that there is too much 'conservative' in the media mix, the fact that it isn’t a huge number and it shows just how marginal their blabbering is." On the same day the report was released, several right-wing bloggers also jumped on what they saw as an unfair discrepancy between media reports of a decrease in troop deaths in Iraq last month. "So only report the enemy’s news, and not ours. It’s not like we need to have a more complete and balanced picture of what’s going on in Iraq, is it MSM?" wrote the Jawa Report. "Gotta get those anti-war Democrats into the White House, after all!" John Cole, writing at his blog Balloon Juice, compiled several conservative reactions to an interview aired on CNN Sunday in which Pentagon reporters discussed the complications in deciding how to play reports that troop deaths went down in September. "The drop in casualties was covered- what didn’t happen was that the press didn’t make all sorts of sweeping generalizations about the data," Cole wrote. "They acted, in other words, like a responsible press corps." He said he takes "with a grain of salt" the reports that conservatives distrust the media. "It is becoming clearer and clearer to me," he writes, "that 'too liberal' is, for many of these folks, code for 'they don’t tell me exactly what I want to hear.'"

a week in review

Week in review personal post.. Alright couple of things happen during this past week, one Rush is hid behind his bosses to prevent an Vote Vets ad to air on his radio show, two Bush veto children health insurance, three Think Progress releases another study regarding the control the right wing has over talk radio even though the places where Nazi talk is air the market doesn't support the Republicon party and four the prostitute right wing media are tripping over themselves defending Rush Limbaugh's "phoney soldiers" comment. I went over to chicken hawk right wing blogger Amy Proctor even that hack is using the talking point that Rush was referring to one fake soldier and I pointed out if you actually read the transcript and hear the non Rush doctor audio you hear Rush and the douche bag caller both saying the term "phoney soldiers" and conservatives it doesn't help your boy cause when he refers to Jack Murtha as phoney when Jack Murtha served 30 years in the armed forces. In short Clear Channel says Rush listeners can't stand to hear opposing views on his show because it confuses them, Bush gives the American public another reason to vote against the Republicons, Think progress is telling you how to help end the right's grip on talk radio and the whores of the conservatives media are tripping over themselves defending Rush comments attacking Iraqi vets that don't believe in the mission. All in all it's been another black eye week for the Republicons and their mouth pieces in the media.

Great post from Dem underground

Truth 2 Power Journal Why do Rush, Fox News and the Right-Wing Hate our Troops? Posted by Vyan in General Discussion: PoliticsThu Oct 04th 2007, 04:36 AM When 380 tons of high explosives disappeared from U.S. custody following the fall of Baghdad - they blamed the troops. ("Lazy", "Incompetent"?)When the Abu Ghraib torture story broke - they blamed the troops. ("Bad apples on the night shift")When one soldier complained to Donald Rumseld about "Hillbilly Armor" they said he was being manipulated by the media to ask the question.And now after General Eaton has stated that "Conservatives are the worst thing to ever happen to the military", Gen. Sanchez stated that "This War is Lost", CBS has fired Gen. Batiste for criticizing the Iraq War all of the Right-Wing is racing the Rush Limbaugh's defense now that he's been accused of saying veterans who criticize the Iraq War are "phony soldiers."It's long past time we put this question to them directly.Why do Rush, Fox and the Right-Wing Hate our Troops?It's not like this is news to anyone that's been paying attention, but the blatantness of it has become truly stunning.Rush Limbaugh is now claiming that he's the victim of a smear campaign, that when he said "Phony Soldiers" (not singular, plural - not soldier - soldierS) he wasn't talking about people like General Eaton, or General Batiste or General Sanchez or General Shinseki or General Zinni - or the 20 retired Generals who've all come out an opposed the surge and our overall strategy in Iraq (not to mention Admiral Fallon the current head of Centcom) - no, he wasn't talking about any of them. Nah. Don't be silly.When he said this.... CALLER 2: What's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.He didn't mean, y'know, what he said.You didn't hear or read what you just thought you heard. It's just an illusion. A phantasm. A poltergeist playing tricks on your mind.Rush meant something else entirely, and you're a fool if you don't know it. Fox News says so. Rush originally used this term, "phony soldiers," when he was talking about a guy named Jesse MacBeth. Jesse MacBeth never served in Iraq, says Rush. He claimed to have a Purple Heart; he didn't. This guy was propped up by the left, because he opposes the Iraq war, as some sort of hero, as a talking-points guy, this Jesse MacBeth was, and Rush Limbaugh was making the point that this guy was basically a "phony soldier," and he was trying to say that sometimes people on the left use "phony soldiers" like this to make their points.So this Jesse MacBeth guy who literally isn't a soldier and has been convited of fraud is what Limbaugh meant. See, no problem.Some Soldiers do be phony.So why is it that Limbaugh didn't mention this Jesse guy until almost 2 minutes later?I guess that caller just knew what Rush was going to be thinking in another 1 minute and 50 seconds. Makes perfect sense.You see, real soldiers - unlike the "phony ones" like Jesse who've never really worn a uniform - are proud of their service. CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --So it's not like you might have one of these "phony soldiers" who might have actually served is it? Never happen.Ummmm.. how about John Murtha? LIMBAUGH: You shouldn't hold your breath because there's no standard to hold me to, in the sense that you're -- I never said what you think I said, Congressman Pallone, Congresswoman Schakowsky , Sen. Kerry , or any of the rest of you in the drive-by media. I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?So Murtha's apparently a "phony soldier" because he believes that some of our soldiers in Iraq killed innocent civilians at Haditha? (Mirroring false claims made by MacBeth) But Rush - Everyone Believes That because that's what happened. (via Time) But one morning last November, some members of Kilo Company apparently didn't attempt to distinguish between enemies and innocents. Instead, they seem to have gone on the worst rampage by U.S. service members in the Iraq war, killing as many as 24 civilians in cold blood.Blackwater deja vu anyone?Others who felt that way? How about General Batiste. I, however, see a direct link between Haditha, the national embarrassment of Abu Ghraib, going on four years now of uncontrollable chaos in Iraq, with the bad judgment, poor decisions of our secretary of defense back in late 2003 and 2004.Note that Batiste isn't blaming the troops here, he's blaming the leadership, of which he was a member. Just as John Kerry didn't blame the troops either back in 1971, he blamed the leadership and John Murtha didn't blame the troops, he blamed the... oh you get it already.Murtha's big issue with Haditha besides the massacre itself was actually the cover-up of that massacre by leaders at the Pentagon. MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.GIBSON: The commandant told you that this was a case of murder?MURTHA: Charlie, don’t mince words here. The commandant said it was a very serious incident. He was not going to tell me it was murder, but everything looked to him just like it looks to me. He didn’t say that in so many words, but he told me exactly what happened.So yeah, Murtha's deserves to be associated with a liar and petty crook who tried to rip off the VA - but Rush wasn't like calling him a "Phony" or anything. Except like when he was.And it's not like Rush has ever called other servicemen phonies or anything. It's not like he's ever said that about John Kerr... oops. (Reading From Washington Post article by Richard Cohen) "...during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swift Boat Veterans movement managed to paint Kerry as a quivering liar. The character attack was so bold, so outrageous, that it of course worked."Rush: No, it worked because it was true! The guy's a fraud! He's a total phony, and people were able to see it!Ok, so the only "phonies" are MacBeth, Scott Thomas, John Murtha and John Kerry.That's not so bad, right? None of them actually served in IRAQ. It's not like anyone has taken up Rush's mantle and used it against troops who've actually served in the current war or anything. Anyone except Melanie Morgan that is. A number of, of, soldiers who are fake, or who are embellishers, or who are posers. Who go out there, or soldiers like Jon Soltz from VoteVet.org who go out there and use their far left, anti-America agenda. Political agenda to undermine the real mission of our troops, our heros who are out there.Thanks Melanie, you've really made Rush's point that he was only talking about Jesse MacBeth (and Scott Thomas, and John Murtha and John Kerry - and via proxy - Jon Soltz).Then there's Tucker Carlson who said in response to an op-ed by 7 members of the 82nd Airborne who criticized the war... Carlson: How the hell to know, (if the vast majority of Iraqis want the U.S. in their country?)Well, gee, I don't know maybe they got the hint after a few dozen IED attacks. And maybe that view was somewhat reenforced after two more of them were killed in action.But nevermind them, let's get back to the real victim here. Poor Rush.It's all been so unfair to Rush, I mean he's be so taken out of context that's why he's had to re-edit his own transcript to remove the comments just to make sure that's his real (edited) comments are properly understood.And then when Capt. Jon Soltz of VoteVets got a might bit peeved with Limbaugh and launched an ad campaign against his comments...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKM_NsTswco Rush of course accused Brian McGough, the wounded soldier featured in the ad, of being used as a suicide bomb-thrower. This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.So tastefully stated, considering that particular vet was wounded by an actual suicide bomber. And who might that person who "armed this valiant soldier with lies" be?Might it perhaps be Iraq War Vet Capt. Jon Soltz?Time and time again, people like Rush, Morgan and Tucker demean exactly what it is our troops are fighting for - protecting our freedom. Our freedom to think for ourselves and speak our minds openly while their corporate overloads quiet look the other way, like Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays says he refuses to condemn Rush for his comments although Senator Webb, Senator Reid, Senator Harkin, Rep. Pallone, Rep. Udall and General Wesley Clark have.After that big MoveOn kerfuffle about not "insulting the troops" not one single Republican Senator has signed on to the Reid Letter to Clear Channel against Limbaugh's comments. NOT ONE. Y'know with Rush being so misunderstood all all...Since Rudy Guinliani thought it was perfectly fine to attack Hilliary Clinton for Not Attacking Move On, clearly they must think it's perfectly ok to accuse soldiers of being fake and phony liars (especially if they happen to support Democrats or simply oppose Republican positions or gasp - oppose our current war strategy). I mean c'mon, Democrats are "traitors" by definition right? Just ask Ann Coulter.We can't like, have soldiers who think for themselves! How can we properly implement a Myanmar-styled military junta under the guise of a never-ending state of perpetual emergency and suppress all dissent and opposition to the current regime that way?In their world the "real soldiers" are the ones willing to used as cannon fodder in a failed war, using a failed strategy with no questions asked. They fight without proper gear, in unarmed vehicles, have to drink contaminated water and then if they happen to be wounded instead of killed - have to live in rat infested squalor while government contractors from KBR to Blackwater cash-in to the tune of Billions.They're nothing more than Sheeple ready for the slaughter.In the real world, real soldiers who are certainly willing to fight and die for our rights when required, like those 20 Generals, like Jack Murtha, John Kerry, those seven members of the 82nd Airborne, Jon Soltz, Brian McGough and literally a million others have absolutely every right to question why their being asked to make these sacrifices, and every right - no, a RESPONSIBLITY - to say so when they think that we're going the wrong way.And that's exactly why the right-wing hates our troops. Because all of them just might not be the unthinking lemming zombie jack-booted neo-facists that they might dream for......some of them, those willing to speak Truth to Power, are True American Heroes.Vyan

Republicon contenders back Health insurance veto

G.O.P. Contenders Endorse Health Insurance Veto By PATRICK HEALY The four leading Republican presidential candidates have aligned themselves with President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of an expanded health insurance program for children, once again testing the political risk of appearing in lock step with a president who has low approval ratings and some critics of the veto within their party. It is yet another issue — like the Iraq war, North Korea’s nuclear program and the management of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — where the Republican contenders are treading delicately as they gauge how to position themselves with an unpopular president on contentious issues. While all four are defending the veto, some in full-throated language, the candidates are at the same time forgoing praise of Mr. Bush’s judgment on the issue or of his leadership in general. The candidates’ embrace of the veto puts them in closer step with Mr. Bush, however, than they have been on some other major issues; former Gov. Mitt Romney, for instance, has warned the United States against becoming overly trusting of North Korea’s promise to dismantle its nuclear program. Some of the Republicans have also avoided sounding as optimistic as Mr. Bush about Iraq’s future. And Senator John McCain of Arizona, among others, has assailed the administration’s competence on both Iraq strategy and the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. As for the children’s insurance veto, the candidates, in aligning with Mr. Bush, are mindful of the concerns of fiscal conservatives that expanding the program could result in huge future costs. Unlike with Iraq or Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bush’s capacity to be a drag on the candidates’ fortunes is smaller on the insurance veto, Republican analysts say, because the veto is not especially unpopular with Republican primary voters. They are the current target audience for the candidates, according to their campaign advisers, so the electoral gamble of supporting the veto — if not Mr. Bush — is relatively modest at this point. “I don’t think the candidates can run with the president, and on the president’s positions, over the long haul because eventually they will trip you up,” said Rich Galen, a Republican consultant who is advising Fred D. Thompson, one of the leading candidates. Mr. Thompson has been strongly defending the veto. “You need to decide where you are on any given issue — not necessarily where the president is — and go from there,” Mr. Galen said. “Democrats can say this is a Bush veto or a Bush position, but Republicans don’t even mention that because it doesn’t make sense to talk that way to Republican primary voters right now.” Even so, for the last two days, the veto has put the Republican contenders in the cross hairs of Democratic fire aimed at Mr. Bush. Congressional Democrats, as well as some senior Republicans, have criticized the president for killing a bill that would cover four million more children. Senator John McCain, campaigning in South Carolina yesterday, demonstrated the balancing act for the Republicans by saying that he supported the veto, yet also favored an expansion of the insurance program, at least philosophically. "I certainly would favor an increase, but I think that a $35 billion increase which is funded by a bogus proposal which is a, quote, one dollar increase tax on cigarettes and somewhere around 2012 it basically disappears is not an unfunded liability I think we ought to lay on the next generation,” Mr. McCain said. The president’s veto came as the Republican candidates have been trying to appeal to the Republican base and their fiscal concerns during the nominating process, and it comes as conservatives have become increasingly critical of increases in government spending. Indeed, Mr. Bush himself has been leading a charge to reclaim the mantle of a fiscal conservative, not only to help frame his legacy but also to assist Republicans in their effort to draw a clear contrast with the proposed tax and spending increases of the leading Democratic candidates. The Democrats were quick to seize on the veto of the bipartisan bill to portray Mr. Bush and his allies as “heartless,” in the words of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. The Democrats have also highlighted fissures among Republicans over the veto, some of which complicate the situation for the presidential aspirants even further. For instance, one of the Republican supporters of the bill is Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a popular leader in a state that holds the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses in January. Mr. Grassley has had measured criticism for Mr. Bush, and some Iowa newspapers have closely covered the battle over the bill. Several of the presidential candidates have courted Mr. Grassley in turn; it is too soon to say if their support for the veto will draw his ire or create problems with voters there. In discussing the veto, the candidates have focused largely on what they see as drawbacks in the insurance program, rather than trying to rally behind President Bush or criticize the supporters of the bill. In an interview yesterday on New Hampshire radio, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani framed the insurance program itself as a “typical Democratic, Clinton kind of thing” that substitutes government solutions for private section options. “Half to two-thirds of the children that they’re going to take care of already have private insurance,” Mr. Giuliani said. “They’re going to move them to the government. It is not just a beginning, it’s a big step in the direction of government-controlled medicine.” Mr. Romney told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that the proposed expansion was wasteful duplication. “Can you imagine doing something like that in your enterprise, saying we want to get a new customer, so we’re going to lower the price to get this new account by 10 percent but then we’re going to go to all of our old customers and all give them 10 percent off too?” Mr. Romney said.