So apparently NBC's Chuck Todd is now helping to craft commercials for Mitch McConnell.

Seriously WTF?

Todd is smart enough to realize, now that he is hosting the prestigious Meet the Press, that what he says can be used by one candidate or another to attack their opponent. And yet he casually gifts McConnell with a statement that can now be used to help bury Grimes in Kentucky.

Not too long ago my attitude was "anybody but Gregory," but Chuck Todd has suddenly made me reconsider that sentiment.

(H/T to Crooks and Liars.)

For those who believed that replacing David Gregory with Chuck Todd would rescue Meet the Press. Boy were you wrong!

So that was a clip from this Sunday's MTP.

As you see the whole thing turned into a shouting match with Joe Scarborough essentially hijacking the show and attempting to turn into a sixth day of Morning Joe.

Here is how Mediaite summed it up:  

Scarborough’s been on MTP as a guest before, and he’s usually toned down his act to Weekend Joe to befit the more respectable Sunday show environment. Weekend Joe, however, was nowhere in evidence Sunday when he and MJ-regular David Axelrod got into a name-calling spat over the ebola panic, leading to one of those shoutfests that plague cable news and are in no short supply on Scarborough’s weekday show. In fact with MJ-regulars Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell flanking the two the bit was indistinguishable from a Morning Joe segment, and just as ultimately useless.

Scarborough is definitely pushing the Right Wing position on the Ebola situation, which is to foment fear and then attempt to direct the blame toward the President. As reiterated by Ted Cruz just today.

By the way he is not the only MSNBC host to engage in that kind of behavior. Which inspired me to send this tweet.

I'm watching MSNBC's Chris Matthews have a full on Lindsay Graham case of the vapors over one Ebola case in America.
— Gryphen 2009 (@Gryphen2009) September 30, 2014

Yes I realize I spelled Lindsey Graham's name wrong, but I was irritated when I sent it.

If Chuck Todd wants to maintain control of his show he might think about suspending Scarborough until he learns to play nice with others or perhaps fit him with a shock collar to keep him form going feral on the MTP set.

Chuck Todd's first outing as host of Meet the Press receives mixed reviews.

I have to admit that I totally forgot to watch this yesterday.

I've been binge watching Californication lately, and I completely forgot that this was on.

But have no fear I powered through it when it was rebroadcast later in the day, and my take was "Meh."

And apparently I am not alone.

Here was the Washington Post take: 

There was no revolution Sunday as Chuck Todd debuted as host of “Meet the Press,” NBC’s venerable, venerated and vulnerable talk show. Little about Todd’s first hour redefined Sunday talk-showing as we know it.

The Huffington Post was a little kinder: Chuck Todd's version of "Meet The Press" was not radically different than David Gregory's, but the show was certainly livelier, less stuffy.

The big selling point was that Todd secured an interview with the President.

Here is how Politico reported on that:  

Chuck Todd kicked off his inaugural edition of NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday by trying to manage expectations: “Obviously it’s a pretty big honor for me to be sitting in this chair as the 12th moderator of this program. We’re living in a house as we remodel it, so the program …will continue to evolve.” 

He needn’t have: Todd’s opening program was strong on news. Yes, that was chiefly due to an exclusive interview with President Obama, but Todd was also an effective interrogator. “What do you tell the person that’s going to get deported before the election that this decision was essentially made in your hopes of saving a Democratic Senate?” he asked the president of his decision to delay executive action on immigration. 

Obama had the upper hand in steering the conversation, but Todd elicited some newsy comments from the president on his plans to address the nation regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, on the potential spread of the Ebola virus, and on his struggle with optics — specifically playing golf after making remarks on ISIL’s killing of James Foley. “I should’ve anticipated the optics,” Obama said. “Part of this job is also the theater of it. That’s not something that always comes naturally to me. But it matters.” 

Going one on one with Obama, and not being a wuss about it, should give Todd some props coming right out of the gate, but of course the President is not about to do cameos every week in order to drive up ratings. 

In other words, though he could not have helped but to be better than David Gregory, color me unimpressed.

For those who missed the Obama interview (Like me.), here it is in its entirety.

So it's official Chuck Todd WILL be replacing David Gregory on Meet the Press.

Courtesy of Mediaite: 

David Gregory officially announced he’s leaving NBC News, and now an NBC internal memo sent out by NBC News president Deborah Turness has confirmed that Chuck Todd will take the reins at Meet the Press.

Here’s the full text of the announcement: 

Dear All, 

I want to share some news about Meet the Press. After an exceptional 20 years with NBC News, David Gregory is leaving the network. 

I want to express my sincerest thanks to David, who, after the death of Tim Russert, led Meet the Press for almost 6 years. Under his leadership the show has had a string of exclusives, and David has shown a remarkable gift for holding leaders to account and getting answers on issues that matter to our audience. He is an outstanding journalist whose sharp intellect and quick sense of humor have made him a pleasure to work with. I know you all join me in expressing our deepest gratitude and in wishing him the very best. 

I am very pleased to announce that Chuck Todd will take the helm on September 7. There is no one with a bigger passion for politics than Chuck. His unique ability to deliver that passion with razor sharp analysis and infectious enthusiasm makes him the perfect next generation moderator of this beloved broadcast. 

Chuck will ensure that Meet the Press is the beating heart of politics, the place where newsmakers come to make news, where the agenda is set. We have some exciting plans to evolve and update the broadcast under Chuck’s leadership that we will be sharing with you shortly. Chuck will continue as NBC News political director, and will hand over his roles as chief White House correspondent and anchor of MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown. 

Andrea Mitchell will serve as moderator of Meet the Press this weekend, and will continue to be a central figure of the broadcast, along with some new names that we will announce in the coming days. 

For nearly seventy years, Americans have turned to Meet the Press on Sunday mornings for unrivaled insights on the news stories, political battles and public affairs debates dominating the national discussion. The next-generation Meet the Press, led by Chuck Todd, is certain to be the must-watch political destination on Sundays and beyond. 

Deborah

Anybody else feeling a little underwhelmed? 

Is David Gregory out at Meet the Press? Or is somebody just teasing us?

Wait, what's happening?

Courtesy of Politico:  

Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director and chief White House correspondent, is likely to succeed David Gregory as moderator of "Meet the Press," with the change expected to be announced in coming weeks, top political sources told POLITICO's Mike Allen. 

The move is an effort by NBC News President Deborah Turness to restore passion and insider cred to a network treasure that has been adrift since the death of Tim Russert in 2008. Gregory, his replacement, suffered from low ratings and, in recent months, an onslaught of negative press reports. 

While Todd is not a classic television performer, sources said his NBC bosses have been impressed by his love of the game, which brings with it authenticity, sources and a loyal following among newsmakers and political junkies.

Of course NBC has been quick to try and squash these rumors, but considering how often this  rumor starts circulating I have to think that there is definitively something to it.

Like many of you I am no fan of Gregory.

However though Chuck Todd would be an improvement, he would not be much of one.

I would REALLY like to see somebody in the job who had a great love of politics, and little patience with bullshit.

Somebody who could be respectful while refusing to let a guest spin a question to their liking, or avoid it altogether.

Actually to be honest, and I know this will never happen, my emotional choice would be for young Luke Russert to take over the position that his father once commanded with such integrity.

I think that Luke would take the job incredibly seriously and I believe he would rise to the challenge.

But that will never happen, so I guess I will just have to be happy that Gregory gets tossed out on his skinny ass instead.

Watch rising Republican star Ben Carson attempt to weasel out of his remarks comparing Obamacare to slavery.

Courtesy of Salon:

 Appearing on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, former celebrated surgeon, current right-wing folk hero and potential future 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson attempted to defend his earlier remark comparing Obamacare to slavery by noting that “anything is slavery that robs you of your ability to control your own life.” 

“First of all, recognize what I said,” Carson responded when asked by host David Gregory to explain his earlier comments. “Worst thing since slavery. I didn’t say that it was slavery.” 

“Well, you said ‘it is’ slavery ‘in a way,’” Gregory interjected. 

“Right, and I said, ‘in a way,’” Carson specified. “In a way, anything is slavery that robs you of your ability to control your own life.” 

“And when you take the most important thing that you have, which is your health care, and you put that in the hands of government bureaucrats,” Carson went on, “I think, you have done the wrong thing.” 

“And as I was about to say, you go back and you look at the neo-Marxist literature, and look at what they say — don’t have to listen to what I say — about taking control of health care of the populous, and making people dependent,” he added.

What Carson seems to miss is that before Obamacare came in an leveled the playing field somewhat, the insured were at the mercy of the insurers, who could drop you as a client for just about any reason at all.

Not only that but if you got your health insurance through your job, which the majority of Americans seem to do, then your choices of policy holders, cost, and coverage was dictated to some degree by the company that you worked for.

Did that make the employees slaves to their employers?

You cannot call Ben Carson an idiot. He was a very successful surgeon, and has written a number of bestselling books. However watching him attempt to wriggle out of, what can only be described and inflammatory and deceptive remarks, it is clear he is a zealot who is using his ethnicity and education to inflame a group of people who will not take the time to fact check his remarks.

And speaking as a white guy, I found it very troubling to see a black man who is so willing to toss around a word like slavery in such an off hand manner.

I would think that he would know better.

Watching Darrell Issa squirm over new revelations about Benghazi.

The above was the exchange between David Grefgory, Andrea Mitchell, and a clearly uncomfortable Darrell Issa. Transcript courtesy of Mediaite:

“You’ve said repeatedly that it was al Qaeda,” Gregory said. “The reason that matters is that you and other critics said that the president specifically won’t acknowledge that it was al Qaeda because it was an election year and he wants to say that after bin Laden [al Qaeda] has been decimated, and it would make him look bad if it as al Qaeda.” 

“Al Qaeda is not decimated and there is a group there involved that is linked to al Qaeda,” Issa replied. “What we never said—and I didn’t have the security to look behind the door, that’s for other members of Congress—of what the intelligence were on the exact correspondence with al Qaeda, that sort of information—those sorts of methods I’ve never claimed.” 

“Why use the term al Qaeda?” Mitchell asked, somewhat rhetorically. “Because you and other members of Congress are sophisticated in this and know that when you say al Qaeda, people think central al Qaeda. They don’t think militias that may be inspired by bin laden and his other followers. So it is a hot button, for political reasons, from the administration’s view.” 

“But Andrea, it was accurate,” Issa responded. “There was a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with al Qaeda. Now, al Qaeda is not a central command and control. It was, in fact, a loose group that could take general statements and act on them…The fact is people from this administration, career professionals, have said under oath there was no evidence of any kind of a reaction to a video and, in fact, this was a planned attack that came quickly. That’s the evidence we have by people who work for the U.S. government and were under oath.” 

Issa is a slippery POS but he is caught repeatedly during this exchange in lie after lie, and simply changes the focus every time he is cornered.

By the way his contention that the video was not "widely seen in Benghazi" at the time of this attack is essentially irrelevant. It only had to have been seen, or at least heard about, by the actual attackers.

And that fact is reported in the New York Times piece: 

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

So though a rather unspecific attack HAD been in the planning stages before the assault, it was the anger over the video that provided the spark.

Now Susan Rice did not yet have the information about nonspecific plans for an attack, all she knew as that there were no direct ties to al-Qaeda at the time she went on TV in an attempt to head off a full frontal attack from the Right during an election year.

This is what she said:  

MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired. 

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

As it turned out there was no evidence of any protests outside this compound, but based on reports around the world of similar occurrences, and the limited eyewitness accounts at this time, there is every reason to believe the administration was relating what they believed to have taken place in good faith.

What the Republicans did in response, was anything but in good faith.

And what Darrell Issa did in particular should be categorized as either criminal or treasonous behavior. 

My favorite part of this morning's Meet the Press.

Courtesy of Think Progress: 

Talking to David Gregory on NBC’s Meet The press, King argued that immigration reform would entail granting citizenship to “a lot of people…up to the age of 35″ who smuggled drugs over the Mexican border. Navarro hit back hard, telling King he needed to “get therapy” for his bigoted views about Latinos: 

KING: This proposes to legalize a lot of people that will include the people who are drug smugglers up to the age of 35. You cannot do a background check on people that don’t have a legal existence in their home country… 

NAVARRO: First of all, I think Congressman King should get some therapy for his melon fixation. I think there might be medication for that. I think he’s a mediocre congressman with no legislative record and the only time he makes national press is when he comes out and says something offensive about the undocumented or Hispanics.… There are other voices who are the adults in the room and who are working hard towards a reform. and I think it’s going to happen. I’m more optimistic than most. 

GREGORY: Before I let him go, he just heard that. Congressman King, do you want to respond to that in terms of what actually is going to get accomplished? 

KING: Well, I would say this. First of all, I spoke only of drug smugglers. If Ana understands the language, she should know that. I didn’t insult her or other Republicans and I didn’t – 

NAVARRO: I’m not undocumented. I vote, Congressman.

God I loved that!

"You're going to talk to ME about insulting people Congressman?" I am not always a fan of Ana Navarro but I liked how she slapped the shit out of King for saying such overtly racist things about Hispanics.

And here's the thing, he made it sound like he was ONLY talking about drug smugglers, but his actual quote was “For [every DREAMer] who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that — they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.” 

He is clearly saying that out of 101 immigrants that 100 of them are drug smugglers. There is no way NOT to take offense at those remarks if you re Hispanic, or even simply a reasonable person.

Like I said I don't there will be too many times in the future where I agree with Ana Navarro, but in this case I thought she was awesome!

Darrell Issa's appearance on Meet the Press to attack Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration over Benghazi was full of lies and half truths. Raise your hand if that surprises you in the least.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This from Think Progress: 

Issa claimed that the administration leaned heavily on the CIA to change its draft of the now infamous set of unclassified talking points on what happened in Benghazi to better fit a political narrative and hiding the true nature of the attack from the American people:

ISSA: The fact is, we want the facts, we’re entitled to the facts. The American people were effectively lied to for a period of about a month. That’s important to get right. And – 

GREGORY: I just want to be clear here what you believe the lie was. 

ISSA: This was a terrorist attack from the get-go. The attack succeeded extremely quickly, because in no small part because the consulate or the diplomatic facility in Benghazi was not given the support it needed or quite frankly the decision to leave which might have been just as good. Either way, they were in fact covering up an easy attack that succeeded that was from the get-go about a terrorist attack. It was never about a video. 

Counter to Issa’s claim, however, the evidence shows that while the administration acted cautiously in what it put forward, it ultimately told the public just what it knew to be fact about the attack. President Obama himself referred to the assault in Libya as an “act of terror” at least twice within 48 hours. 

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice delivered the final draft of the talking points on Sept. 16, 2012, appearing on all five Sunday news shows. Rice gave what was at the time the administrations’ best knowledge about what caused the attacks, saying that it was the result of a demonstration that mutated into a coordinated attack. Those appearances lead to her being the target of a Republican smear campaign in the weeks and months ahead. 

From the CIA’s original draft of the talking points, however, the intelligence community believed that what occurred in Benghazi was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” The Cairo protests were, in fact, spurred on by an anti-Islamic video as Rice ultimately wound up referencing in her appearances. In another draft, before the document was provided to the rest of the government for input, the word “attack” became “demonstrations,” showing that the very claim that Republicans have accused the White House of lying about came from the CIA itself. The view that the video had at least some part to play in the attack’s genesis has been borne out in later reporting.

Ambassador Thomas Pickering was also a guest on MTP and he refuted virtually all that Issa claimed as well. What's more is that Pickering has essentially absolved Hillary Clinton, who is clearly the target of this GOP smear campaign, from any culpability for the decisions made the night of the Begnhazi attack.

John McCain loses his cool on Meet the Press when pressed about what exactly he thinks the President is covering up concerning the attack in Benghazi.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Courtesy of Politicususa:

JOHN MCCAIN: So there are many, many questions. And we have had– a massive cover-up on the part of– 

DAVID GREGORY:But a massive cover-up of what? 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID GREGORY:–I mean, Susan Ri– wait a minute– 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID GREGORY:Susan Rice said there was a lot of– 

JOHN MCCAIN: Do you care– 

DAVID GREGORY:–confusion. 

JOHN MCCAIN: Do you care– 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID GREGORY: I’m asking you– 

JOHN MCCAIN: Do you care to– 

DAVID GREGORY:–what is the Republican way– 

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m asking you, do you care– I– I’m– I’m asking you, do you care whether four Americans died? Or do you– the reasons for that? And– and shouldn’t pe– people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died– 

DAVID GREGORY: Well, what you said was the cover-up– 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID GREGORY: A cover-up of what? 

JOHN MCCAIN: Of the information– concerning the deaths of four brave Americans. The information has not been forthcoming. You can obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn’t. And I’ll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including what did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi? And why was it? Why was it that we– that the f– the people who were evacuated from the– from the consulate the next day were not interviewed the next day. And then they would’ve known that it was not a spontaneous demonstration. Why did the president for two weeks, for two weeks during the heat of the campaign continue to say he didn’t know whether it was a terrorist attack or not?

Am I losing my mind or was that David Gregory ACTUALLY doing his job, and refusing to let a politician off the hook?  I have to say THAT was a thing of beauty.

And I also have to hand it to Gregory for not losing his shit when McCain asked him "do you care whether four Americans died?" That would have been it for me and I would have ripped McCain a new asshole.

When I watched this in the morning I actually cheered out loud at this portion of the show. The only thing that would have made it better is if Gregory had said, "Are you seriously suggesting there was a coverup, Senator? Well then I have one word for you sir, 'yellowcake uranium.'"

But what he did was far better than many other journalists have been willing to do. So good for David Gregory.

Oh, and fuck John McCain!

President Obama to appear on Meet the Press this Sunday. (And no it has nothing to do with Gregory's "legal trouble.")

Excited to announce that President @barackobama will be my exclusive guest this Sunday on @meetthepress nbcnews.to/W9Ykim #MTP
— David Gregory (@davidgregory) December 28, 2012

Courtesy of Press Pass:  

This Sunday, David Gregory sits down exclusively with President Barack Obama. This will be Mr. Obama's 11th appearance on the program, his second time as the commander in chief. In the midst of fierce fiscal cliff negotiations, we’ll hear directly from the president about where things stand and whether a compromise is even possible. Plus, David will talk with him about other key issues facing the country as he prepares to begin his second term in office.

Now oddly enough I first heard this news yesterday from a tweet sent out by Breitbart.com. THEY attempted to explain the rare appearance as coming in response to the fact that Gregory is in some minor legal trouble due to the fact that he waived a 30 round magazine for an assault rifle in Wayne LaPierre's face while interviewing him last Sunday, the possession of which is against Washington D.C. law.

(You know, because the "liberal media" is working for the Obama administration, so of course the President drops everything to ride to the rescue when one of his media minions has any trouble while doing his nefarious bidding. Makes sense if your are a Right Wing retard.)

Anyhow of course the REAL reason that the President is making the appearance is to discuss the fiscal cliff non-negotiations and to take his case to the American people in order to hopefully compel them to contact their Representatives to help move things along. Which of course is exactly what he has been doing for the last several weeks.

From my point of view it appears that the ONLY person who seems to really be taking this budget situation seriously is the President. Which you can see for yourself in this video clip of his speech yesterday. (If you doubt his frustration watch how sternly he shushes the people talking off camera at the 4:30 mark.)

You know we had a little fun yesterday with the idea that the President is purposefully causing a civil war among the Republicans, as that idiot Krauthammer reported on the Hannity show, and you know part of me thinks that he might very well be fanning the flames of discontent simply to keep them inconsequential moving forward.

However in the case of the fiscal cliff I don't think the President is using IT to cause more disarray among the conservatives, in fact I think he is the only one who is not using it for a political cover.

I really don't think the President ever thought it would get this far, and simply does NOT want to allow the intransigence among the Republicans result in yet another black mark against the American economy, like it did during the 2011 which of course famously resulted in the downgrading of our credit rating.

No I don't think that the President is going into this thinking politics, despite what Fox News might want you to believe. I think he is only considering the needs of the country right now, and the needs of the American people.

Senate Intelligence Chair, Senator Feinstein, cuts the legs out from under Right Wing conspiracy that Ambassador Rice misrepresented data about 9-11 attack in Benghazi.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein, on the Republican charge that Susan Rice lied to the American people about terrorist attack in Benghazi on White House orders: "With the allegation that the White House changed those talking points, that is false. There is only one thing that was changed, and I have checked into this, I believe it to be absolute fact, and that was the word "consulate" was changed to "mission." That was the only change that anyone in the White House made. And I have checked this out.'

David Gregory: "Do you believe that the President, or anybody serving the President, deliberately misled the American people about the true nature o this attack?"

Feinstein: "No!"

Gregory: "Absolutely not Senator?"

Feinstein: "That is correct."

That essentially should be the end of this entire conversation. I don't think that ANY Republican is ready to call Senator Feinstien a liar, and if she says there was no attempt at a cover up that should be the end of that.

Of course it won't be, because the GOP is desperate to find SOMETHING to damage Obama's presidency. However the fact that they have taken this incident and blown it so completely out of proportion, even going so far as to refer to it as "bigger than Watergate," is an indication that they have NOTHING to work with in damaging the President's credibility or that of his administration.

By the way this investigation is far from over, and I think that there will indeed be some heads that roll. However, as much as the Right Wing might want to hope otherwise, I think it is clear that the heads of President Obama and of Ambassador Rice will stay firmly on their shoulders

Chuck Todd shares some very good news on MTP. But then things turn ugly.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Okay so the fact that the map shows the President so far ahead in these swing states is good news indeed, and reflects what we have been hearing from numerous polls as well.

That part of the show made me very happy. THAT part did.

However later in the program is where David Gregory seriously dropped the ball and earned my extreme dislike, and made me yell swear words at my poor TV.

Here is the exchange with Ralph Reed (Founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and the same scumbag who was implicated in the Jack Abramoff Indian gambling scandals) that irritated the crap out of me:


GREGORY: One of the things, Ralph, if I can interrupt. This is something that-- that Romney says he wants to do in the debates. He had a-- a conversation with Good Morning America about that. Let me play just a portion and have you respond to it in particular. 

(Videotape; Good Morning America; September 14, 2012) MR. ROMNEY: I think he’s going to say a lot of things that aren’t accurate. But I think that the challenge that I’ll have in the debate is that the President tends to, how shall I say it, say things that aren’t true. And-- and-- an in attacking his opponents. (End videotape) 

GREGORY: Give me an example of what he would want to attack, what the president has done, and-- and how you think Romney will handle it. 

MR. REED: Well, I think President Obama has, and I-- I want to be charitable here, has a-- a casual relationship with the truth. He’s very eloquent. He’s extremely articulate. He is very bright. Anybody who thinks otherwise, who thinks that when you untether him from the teleprompter that he didn’t bring his A-game is underestimating him. But here is the problem. His words are very eloquent, very flowery, very-- tickle your ears. But none of it is true. He said that unemployment would never go above 8 percent if we passed his stimulus plan. It’s never gone below 8 percent. He said that he would cut the deficit in half in his first term. He’s-- he’s doubled it, and he’s increased the national debt by 50 percent. He said he would change Washington and put an end to the partisan rancor. Washington is more polarized and more paralyzed than it’s been in the modern era. The Senate which his party controls has not passed a budget in three years. And we’re 92 days from a fiscal cliff which the CBO says is going to plummet us into a double digit dip recession. 

GREGORY: Those might be broken promises. I think people would challenge you on the idea that those… 

FMR. GOV. RENDELL: Right. 

GREGORY: …those things are-- are lies. There’s some casual relation between-- let me get-- I want to get a break in here because we’re going to come back and talk more about these debates and get some of your questions, suggested questions for the debate. We’re also going to talk about the foreign policy debate that’s going on in this campaign. Richard Engel, our chief foreign correspondent will join us from Afghanistan this morning. More from our roundtable as we continue right after this.

After the break they never got back to this, these allegations that the President is a liar. And except for Gregory's tepid response that those were not lies but rather promises he did not or, more accurately, could not keep, these allegations were left unaddressed.

So those words of Ralph Reed's just hung there in space for every casual viewer to accept as truthful when in fact they are complete and utter bullshit!

The President does NOT lie, that is the habit of a certain Mitt Romney! And he would gladly have kept EVERY ONE of those promises but the Republicans have been fighting him from day one, just so that they could make THESE very claims when the election cycle rolled around again.

And all Gregory did was allow those charges to be made unchallenged, which makes him no longer a journalist but a tool for the Republican party. So Fuck him!

Sorry for the rant, but this literally bothered me ALL day yesterday, and I had to get it off my chest.

Thanks for listening.

Introducing Sarah Palin to the RNC, perhaps Jon Huntsman's most egregious crime against America.

Courtesy of Mediaite:

“I was asked to introduce her and nominate her because I think I was about the only person who actually knew her after John McCain had picked her as a running mate. I was chair of the Western Governor’s Association, I’d worked to a limited extent with Sarah Palin, so when you’re looking for somebody who can actually go up and nominate her, I was asked to do it and I did as told.”

"I did as told." Isn't THAT the same defense used by Nazis during the Nuremberg trials?

I love how Huntsman tries to dance around his participation in the nomination of Sarah Palin as VP. "It wasn't my fault! They made me do it!"

In my opinion if there is a GOD there should be a special place in Hell for EVERYBODY who was involved in bringing Palin to the national stage. And no I would not give Jon "I was only following orders" Huntsman a pass either.

Michele Bachmann goes all "deer in the headlights" while being grilled by David Gregory. This is why Teabaggers avoid the mainstream press.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Check out those bug eyes.  She has NO idea what to say to this line of questioning.

"I am running for the Presidency of the United States. I am not running to be anyone's judge."

"But you have judged them."

"I..I..I don't judge them. I don't judge them. I am running for Presidency of the United States

WTF? Gregory reads off her own statements and she acts as if she has never heard them before.

And besides these clearly homophobic statements, she and her husband have charged the Federal government, through Medicaid, to provide psychologically damaging "reparative" therapies in an attempt to alter the sexual proclivities of homosexual men. If she and her husband Marcus had not judged this lifestyle as deviant than why would they provide a service to try and change it?

When Bachmann is asked if, as President (I'm sorry "Presidency"), she would appoint an openly gay person to her cabinet or to the courts, she lists three criteria: "Where do they stand on the Constitution, are you competent, and do you share my views?"

It should be crystal clear to anybody that, based on Bachmann's stated opinion about homosexuality, that the last one ("Do you share my views?"), ABSOLUTELY precludes any chance of a gay man or woman being provided any opportunities during a Bachmann Presidency.

I know she and her people probably think she effectively danced around that question, but I have little doubt that most Americans, especially gay Americans, had little trouble recognizing how the rights of homosexuals would be treated if Michele Bachmann had her way. 

By the way, I am not a David Gregory fan as a rule, but I thought he did a pretty good job here.

Sarah Palin on the cover of Newsweek, "I can win!" Really? Does ANY credible person still believe that?

It looks like Snowdrift Snooki is still relying on that water bra of hers to garner attention.

I find it rather ironic that this article about Sarah Palin shows up in the same issue which contains Bernstein's scathing piece about the crumbling of Rupert Murdoch's empire, without which Palin would probably ALREADY have faded away into the shadows of our memory.

As it turns out the piece is one long Valentine to Sarah Palin, which must have been the agreed upon approach before Palin would ever dare to talk to a national magazine. It is no wonder Newsweek is going out of business.

Here is a some of what the article reveals. (And believe me, it is not much.)

I believe that I can win a national election,' Sarah Palin declared one recent evening, sitting in the private dining room of a hotel in rural Iowa.

“The people of America are desperate for positive change, and deserving of positive change, to get us off of this wrong track,” she told me during a conversation that lasted late into the night and, inevitably, kept returning to the subject that has titillated the media and spooked Republican presidential contenders for months: her political intentions. “I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around,” she said. “But I do believe that I can win.”

Palin NOT egotistical? Yeah okay.

Here Palin readies the excuse she will use not to run, or that she will trot out to explain why she is quitting partway through a very short lived campaign, her favorite of all human shields, the kids.

If Palin doesn’t end up running, the reason will be simple, she said. “Family. If it came down to the family just saying, ‘Please, Mom, don’t do this,’ then that would be the deal-killer for me, because your family’s gotta be in it with you.”

By the way, just WHO is caring for Trig these days?

It is an abiding source of annoyance to Palin that her success story as Alaska’s governor vanished overnight in 2008. “Do people not understand why McCain picked me?” she said with some exasperation.

Oooh, oooh, let me answer that! Yes we do understand why he picked you, but it is NOT because you were a good governor!

“You know, I rarely use the term ‘bipartisanship,’?” she said. “I use the term ‘independent.’ Piper’s middle name is ‘Indie.’ That’s the Alaskan way of life. Seventy-three percent of Alaskans aren’t registered Republican or Democrat, they’re independent. Todd’s not a registered Republican. Most of the people I know, they’re independent people saying, ‘Just use common sense.’?”

You know that is just another way of saying that she refuses to work with anybody. Which is the LAST thing this country needs right now, and I think most Americans are well aware of that.

Her current status as a freelance celebrity is plenty rewarding: she is reportedly paid $1 million a year by Fox, earned another $2 million for her TLC reality show, had a multimillion-dollar book deal with HarperCollins, and is a top-tier figure on the speaking circuit, able to command upwards of $100,000 per speech.

Moreover, Palin plainly thrives within that very tight circle she has drawn around herself, with Todd at its center, acting as gatekeeper and principal adviser. A campaign—even one as defiant of conformity as Palin’s would likely be—would require expanding that circle to include political professionals of uncertain loyalty. And it would mean opening the door to news organizations with which she has been openly feuding for the last couple of years.

Or not.

“The mainstream press is becoming less and less relevant,” she said, adding that she would have no hesitation in shunning media outlets she does not trust.

If this lunatic truly believes that she can run for public office while avoiding the press than she is even crazier than even I thought she was!

This is what Chuck Todd, Eugene Robinson, and David Gregory said about this article on Meet the Press this morning.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Palin Newsweek discussion starts at the 2:30 mark.)

I think Palin is just leaving another trail of breadcrumbs to keep the Palin-bots hopeful.  What do you all think?

Osama Bin Laden is dead!

David Gregory from MSNBC has just reported that the President will announce in minutes that Osama Bin Laden is dead.  

That he has been killed by US forces and that we are in possession of the body. 

Just like to take a moment to say "Screw you!" to Alaskan teabagging loser Joe Miller.

Bin Laden may be dead but radical Islam's war against the West is not. Wake up, Obama #WTP

Do you smell that?  That is Republican desperation.

How is this for karma, George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech was given eight years ago on May 1, 2003.

Just could NOT sit down and shut up, even during such a momentous night for America, could you Sarah?

Thank you, American men and women in uniform. You are America's finest and we are all so proud. Thank you for fighting against terrorism.
2 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

The President is now speaking. Go turn on your televisions.

President described how they located Bin Laden months ago, and then put together an operation to kill him.  Today a small team of Americans killed Osama and took custody of his body.

President is reminding us we are NOT at war with Islam, and that Bin Laden was NOT a Muslim leader.  He was a murderer.

Great speech!  I will put it up later when I can get the embed.

Pres Bush: "Earlier this evening Pres. Obama called to inform me American forces killed OBL...I congratulated him & the men & women...

Tweeted by Keith Olbermann.

Haley Barbour damns Sarah Palin with faint praise on Meet the Press.

On MTP Republican Governor Haley Barbour is asked about the new, more conservative, direction the Republican party is headed in, and whether Sarah Palin still has a role is in the party. Barbour is happy to defend the GOP, but the Sarah Palin question has him squirming like a schoolboy in the Principal's office.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"What role does she play in the Republican party?"

"Well she doesn't play any official role in the Republican party."

No the role she plays is the one of "spoiler". Palin does not want to join the Republican party, she wants the Republican party to join her! And if they don't she is going to continue to pull away the right wing fringe until the party collapses and she can start her OWN party.

THAT is Sarah Palin's endgame and the Republican party now knows it.

Did you see Barbour evade the two questions from Gregory about whether or not Sarah could be president? The Governor first pretended he did not hear the question, and then when it was repeated he did a verbal backflip to avoid answering it. He does not want to go on record as saying she cannot get the nomination because he knows that if he does he automatically loses the support of those in his party that adore her.

However I think that Palin is well aware that she cannot get the Republican nomination. The question that Barbour got right was that Sarah does not speak for the Republican party, she speaks for herself. And the scary thing is that there is a disaffected group of wingnuts that are listening to her. And since the election of President Obama that group is getting larger, and scarier.

That is why we saw the Republicans that we considered more reasonable, John Boehner, Don Young, Eric Cantor, and others joining Michelle Bachman for the teabagger press conference last week in Washington. They are desperately trying to keep up with their fleeing constituents. But the problem for them is they can only chase these crazy voters to the outer edges that define the Republican party. If they cannot convince them to stay within shouting distance they will be easy pickings for an even more conservative third party.

The party of Sarah Palin.

You would think that the victory of a Democrat in New York's 23rd, would have had intelligent Republicans pulling away from Bachman, Palin, and the teabagger crowd, but it has not. You now see Republicans making excuses and talking about a broken nomination process. Instead of blaming the Conservative party, and its supporters, they are providing cover for them.

They are inviting them in.

They are embracing them.

They are doomed.