Because what’s equally as important as President Obama’s State of the Union address? Clearly, Herman Cain’s response.
Back on May 24, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell slammed The New York Times, much of the media, and Sarah Palin for furthering the always-ridiculous notion that Sarah Palin would run for President. He’s a bit long with his commentary, but O’Donnell deserves props for having said all of this four-and-a-half months ago.
The day that it becomes absolutely clear to everyone who doesn’t already get it, that Palin will never run for President, on that day, she becomes worth half as much—or less—as a reality TV star.
– Lawrence O’Donnell / 2011.05.24
Blasting Fox News…Defending her suspended MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann…
Please watch even if you think Keith Olbermann is just another guy on TV with a big head. It’s 20-minutes long. Please make the time. The balances of the two houses of Congress are at stake on Tuesday.
Seriously. Right-wingers are in an uproar over the firing of Juan Williams, who basically said that people in Muslim garb make him nervous. Juan Williams has said a lot of things as a contributor on Fox News that apparently were pissing off his bosses at NPR. Of course, the right jumps on this as a “freedom of speech” issue.
“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot,” Williams said on the “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday. “But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Replace “Muslim” with black, Jewish, Puerto Rican, or gay. If it sounds bigoted, it’s because it is.
And, as far as I know, no successful or aspiring Muslim terrorists in America actually go around wearing Muslim garb.
As far as this being a first amendment issue, your employer doesn’t have to allow you to say whatever you want while your representing them. Whenever Juan Williams has been on Fox News, he’s been presented as a news analyst at NPR. Now that Juan’s not on NPR, he has a first amendment right to say whatever the f*ck he wants.
So Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin want to defund NPR now. Go ahead. I’m now a “sustainer” as of this fall’s pledge drive. NPR only relies on federal funding for 10% of its operating expenses anyway. I’ll double my donation if federal funding disappeared tomorrow. Given how the Democrats folded where ACORN was concerned (and, for the record, ACORN was pretty much cleared of wrong-doing), I wouldn’t be surprised to see them fold here, too (or with any issue, but that’s a subject for another post; everyone go vote anyway, preferably for a Democrat, as the alternatives are really awful…again a subject for another post).
Now, I know this is not the proper response. I should go on to defend NPR as a service Americans should be proud to support with their tax dollars. Federal funding ensures that quality informational programming reaches all 50 states and rural areas, etc.
But I’d prefer for some billionaire to just cut NPR a check and tell Jim DeMint to go f*ck off. Conservatives will see NPR as even more of a liberal machine than it is now. So f*cking what?
I’m not paying for television service right now, and I don’t know if I will again. NPR and my local station WUNC are pretty awesome, and I’m happy to pay to keep them going and thriving.
And no one should feel sorry for Juan Williams. The douchebag is getting a pay raise from Roger Ailes.
Yes, my writing style is rather immature this evening. As if I f*cking care.
I thought CNN should’ve fired him seven months ago after his Chilean-earthquake anchor job, mocked here by Jon Stewart (coincidentally, the Jew that Sanchez has the biggest beef with):
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
There has been a meme in the media in 2010 that voter anger is going to drive out a lot of incumbents. I know the story is generally focused on November, but, you would think, if voters were truly furious, a lot of congressmen would be losing the primaries.
Rachel Maddow pointed out the myth of this meme tonight, and I think it’s fascinating, another example of how the media is often just an giant echo chamber that fails to own up when their big story is wrong. Even NPR played it up. NPR’s headline last week:
…which, oddly enough, now, within Google, links to a different story now.
From CNN.com tonight:
Rachel didn’t actually give raw numbers. I’ll do that, with the help of Politico.com.
Record of incumbents in Senate primaries thus far: 10-2 (83.3%)
W: Richard Burr (R-NC), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Thune (R-SD), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV)
L: The two includes Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who lost in the Democratic party primary because he had been a Republican for 40 years, and Bob Bennett of Utah, who didn’t actually lose a GOP primary but lost a vote held by party activists at a state convention.
House of Representatives incumbents’ performance: (losers in parentheses)
Alabama: 4-1 (Griffith, R-5, party-switcher)
West Virginia: 2-1 (Oliverio, D-1)
North Carolina: 13-0
North Carolina: 11-0
New Mexico: 3-0
New Jersey: 12-0
North Dakota: 1-0
South Carolina: 3-1 (Inglis, R-4, stll has run-off)
South Dakota: 1-0
Record of incumbents in House primaries thus far: 241-3 (98.8%)
But every media outlet is telling you that voter anger is th story to watch as primaries are held across the country.
UPDATE – Jon Stewart took on this silly narrative tonight, too. He brought up that, in all of the Governor, Senate, and House primaries yesterday in which there were incumbents, 82 out of 84 won. That’s 97.6%.
And then he took aim at the new narrative, that last night was “Ladies’ Night”. I thought Hillary Clinton had put those 18 million cracks in the ceiling so that pundits would no longer refer to the electoral success of women as a marketing tactic to get women liquored up.
What’s the most import aspect of healthcare reform?
A) How much it will cost over ten years
B) How much it will cut the deficit over ten years
C) How many more Americans will be insured
D) How many fewer Americans will die from being uninsured
E) Whether Americans with pre-existing conditions be guaranteed affordable insurance
According to MSNBC.com and most mainstream websites, the answer seems to be A.
No matter that this is $849 billion over ten years. No matter that it’s just a big number at the end of the day, without being put into the proper context of being shown next to figures of other big taxpayer expenses. For instance, we’ve been spending about $150 billion a year to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Medicare costs the government about $500 billion a year. (I’m using the government figure of 3.2% of GDP from 2008). So, $85 billion a year, for MAJOR healthcare reform, that would “add coverage for 31 million [and] reduce [the] deficit over 10 years“.
You have to read the article to get other vital details about the plan.
But since most people only have the time to read headlines, they don’t know much more than what MSNBC.com tells them in the headline. I just think that’s so irresponsible for any organization that purports to be a journalistic vessel.