Fox still hasn't done Jones Act research

Fox still hasn't done Jones Act research

Fox News' Steve Doocy falsely claimed that "foreign ships that want to come help in U.S. waters can't unless" the Jones Act is "lifted by the president." In fact, foreign ships are already involved in the oil spill response, and the Jones Act allows for exceptions in the case of an oil spill.

This is not the first time Fox and Doocy have acted without a shred of honor and integrity. It is especially sad that as a father Doocy is setting such a horrible example of values for his children.


Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle is a little loony

Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle just sat down for an interview with Jon Ralston, one of the top political reporters in the state, on the NBC station in Reno. And a big question that Ralston had for her was just what she meant by people having "Second Amendment remedies."

Ralston played back the audio, with accompanying on-screen text, from an interview that Angle gave with a conservative talk radio host back in January. "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years," Angle said. "I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

 She has since denied that what she said sounds like what it means. Apparently Angle does not believe in the democratic processes, like elections, set out by the Founders. So Angle would be on the oppressors side of any so-called revolution.Where was she from 2000 to 2008 when conservatives were screwing over the middle-class and lying us into wars over fantasy WMD.


He's Out! Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) Says He's A No On Financial Reform. Brown is living up to his reputation as an airhead in the pocket of Wall St at the expense of consumers and investors.

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) Lying Hypocrite and Fake Patriot

 Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) Lying Hypocrite and Fake Patriot

Earlier this year, ThinkProgress released a report detailing how more than 114 lawmakers who voted to kill the Recovery Act — over half the GOP caucus in Congress — later either took credit for stimulus projects or hailed stimulus-related programs as a success. Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is mentioned in the report for celebrating a stimulus-funded laboratory after voting against the stimulus, has continued to vigorously attack the stimulus as a failure, while hailing Tennessee stimulus projects as a success.

On Friday, Wamp’s office released a statement praising the construction of a new Alstom steam and gas turbine factory in Chattanooga. Wamp said the $300 million dollar factory, “means good high-end manufacturing jobs for our region’s workers.” Wamp did not mention anywhere in the release that Alstom’s new plant was boosted by $63 million in stimulus funds, and that the Recovery Act Wamp opposed contains various clean energy loan guarantees and tax credits for Alstom’s business.

Zach is another doublespeak conservative. He is in office to enrich himself and make sure government does not work for the people. 

The first rule of conservatism is when you cannot win the debate on the merits, lie and lie some more - Myths and falsehoods about Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination

We're Sad to Find That Sarah Palin is Off Her Meds

At Oil Palace in Texas, Palin Pushes ‘Drill, Baby, Drill,’ Says Obama Wants To Rule By ‘Presidential Fiats’

In the wake of the oil spill disaster in the Gulf, many House Republicans backed away from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s infamous 2008 campaign slogan “drill, baby, drill” in conversations with ThinkProgress. In a Facebook posting earlier this month, Palin herself declared that the United States “must” “drill, baby, drill,” but “the public will not trust” oil companies to do so “unless government appropriately regulates oil developments and holds oil executives accountable.”

Last night, at the Oil Palace in East Texas, Palin invoked the mantra again, saying, “I chant, ‘drill, baby, drill,’ because it will help make the country energy independent.” NBC affiliate KETK in Tyler, Texas aired an extended excerpt of Palin’s speech this morning, including her claim that if America doesn’t “drill, baby, drill,” soon we’re “going to be bowing” to “the foreign countries” that “drill for us”:

    PALIN: When I was governor, I had to file an amicus brief against Exxon, in favor of the plaintiffs to get Exxon to finally pay up what they owed Alaskan victims. And thousands of Alaskans in those 20 years, the fishermen, they died. A whole other generation now that finally received some compensation. So, how dare BP put the Gulf victims through such a thing. We have to make sure that BP will not do this. Will not do what Exxon did to Alaskans all those years ago. But see, we’ve learned a lot since then.

    We’ve also learned more about government’s proper role and not violating the separation of powers, which I think Obama is kind of flirting with also, some government overreach. We are a rule of laws, not a rule of presidential fiats that I think President Obama would rather have sometimes, it seems. So, anyone who wants to chastise anyone for believing in ‘drill, baby, drill,’ should keep this in mind. I first said those three little words when I was running for the number two job in our country and if I had won, my duty in the White House would have been to help our country towards becoming more energy independent because I understand why we need to be.



Palin is trying to have it both ways when she correctly says “we have to make sure that BP” will “pay up what they owe” to victims of the oil spill, but then asserts that President Obama is “kind of flirting with also, some government overreach.” Earlier this month, Obama got BP to agree to set up a $20 billion escrow fund that “will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored” by BP. Though Palin claims she to want guarantee that BP compensates victims, she recently bashed the escrow fund as “an unconstitutional power grab.” In her tweet attacking the fund, Palin encouraged her followers to read a column by Thomas Sowell that compares Obama to Hitler for setting up the fund.

The mental stress on Palin must be incredible, playing apologist for BP one minute than accusing using the kind of demigougery against Obama that she says everyone does to her. Lying hypocrites shouldn't throw stones.


Myth: Elenea Kagan is "anti-military"

CLAIM: Kagan is an "anti-military loon" with "hostility to the U.S. military." Bill Kristol wrote on The Weekly Standard's blog that Kagan's position on military recruiters at Harvard reflected "hostility to the U.S. military," and Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft called Kagan an "anti-military loon."

REALITY: Kagan's support of the military is well established. Kagan has repeatedly praised the military -- describing it as the "noblest of all professions" -- even while opposing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Military veterans at Harvard Law have affirmed Kagan's support for the military.

FACT: Kagan repeatedly praised military, cadets in West Point speech. In an October 17, 2007, speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, Kagan repeatedly praised the military, stating: "I am in awe of your courage and your dedication, especially in these times of great uncertainty and danger." She went on to say:

    I don't accept many outside speaking invitations; this may be the only talk of this kind that I'll give this year. I accepted this invitation primarily to thank all of you senior cadets -- and to wish you godspeed as you go forward to serve your country and your fellow citizens in the greatest and most profound way possible.

The gateway Pundit has been playing pretend patriot behind the safety of his fully loaded keyboard for so long he actually cannot tell the difference between his sad lies and reality.

Republicans Are Smart. Darn Smart.

Brian Kilmeade Provides Fox News Entertainment By Embarrassing Himself

Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade has been embarrassing himself more than usual over the last few days on Fox & Friends. Yesterday, after news broke that the cap BP placed on its leaking oil well had to be removed because one of its robots bumped the well’s venting system, Kilmeade had some harsh words for the robot. “I’d love to talk to that robot that knocked…the top off the cap that was in the bottom of the Gulf yesterday,” Kilmeade said. “What was that robot thinking?” he asked in disgust.

Then today, as Media Matters notes, the Fox co-host had had this dim-witted question for President Obama:

    KILMEADE: The President took a matter of hours to pick a commander in Afghanistan so why is it taking months to plug the leaking oil?

It’s unclear how Kilmeade believes that appointing an individual to lead the war in Afghanistan is comparable in difficulty to plugging an oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico.

In most high schools students have to write a compare and contrast paper. The comparisons ad contrasts have to make sense. Brian must have skipped that day. 

Gov. Bobby Jindal(R) vetoes bill to open oil spill records. What are you hiding Bobby. maybe its that he did not call out the Gurad to help with the spill response.

Jeb Bush was never the brightest kid in class himself, but at least he knew enough to keep a low profile - until now. Trying to save his brother George's reputation - Genco Olive Oil in the shitter due to Fredo

The Rove is strong in that one: What better way to avoid acknowledging your brother’s responsibility for his numerous, world-historical catastrophes than prissily criticizing his successor for his unwillingness to take responsibility for the disasters your brother authored?

Inevitably, the article turned to speculation that the Bush clan might have another scion to barf up for presidential consideration.

Overpriced, Underperforming U.S. Health Care System Lags Competitors

Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Rick Scott - Criminal and Flaming Hypocrite

After Saying ‘I Would Fight All Of The Stimulus Money,’ Rick Scott Profits Off The Stimulus

Rick Scott, a disgraced hospital scam artist who led a dishonest crusade against health care reform, is currently the frontrunner in Florida’s Republican gubernatorial primary. In his campaign, he has vilified last year’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saying, “I would fight all of the stimulus money. He added that Florida “should not have accepted that money because we’re all going to have to pay for it, or our kids are going to have to pay for it at some point.” But Politico now reports that one of Scott’s companies “boasted of winning” millions in stimulus money:

    A telecommunications company owned in part by Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott — an outspoken foe of the federal stimulus — has boasted of winning more than $60 million in stimulus grants and Dept. of Agriculture loans to develop high-speed internet infrastructure.

    In a March 2010 press release, XFONE, Inc. President and CEO Guy Nissenson wrote to investors, “”As most of you know, Xfone has been focused on growing its Fiber-To-The-Premise (FTTP) business over the past two years, given the sizable opportunity to bring broadband to secondary and rural markets in the U.S. This strategy took a huge leap forward recently with the notification that our wholly-owned subsidiary PRIDE Network had been awarded $63.6 million in stimulus grants and long term loans from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).” A company monitoring report filed with the SEC in 2009 describes Nissenson, a founding partner, as one of two “controlling shareholders” and Scott as one of two “other major shareholders.”

According to the Palm Beach Post’s politics blog, Scott “invested $10 million in the company in 2007 and 2008. He lost most of the value of that investment when the stock price dove. But after receiving the stimulus money, the value of Scott’s holdings increased by $4 million” as the company’s stock price tripled.

Rick is just your average conservative corporate socialist. He has made millions via the government and screwed over tax payers while doing so.

McChrystal and The Tragedy of Outsized Egos

Gen. McChrystal Doesn't Heart Fox. Will Fox News Continue To Heart Him?

Republicans Defend Lazy Rich and Unearned Income

Scott Brown(R-Mass) Winning Fight For Loophole In Volcker Rule

In the battle between Scott Brown and Russ Feingold over financial reform, Scott Brown appears to be winning.

Senate staffers tonight are hammering out the shape of the so-called Volcker rule, which would limit insured financial firms' ability to take speculative bets with their capital, or prohibit it altogether.

Brown for weeks has been seeking a carveout in the legislation--originally authored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)--that would allow banks to invest a portion of their profits in hedge and private equity funds. And as the 60th vote for financial reform, his demands carry a lot of weight. Enter Feingold, who opposed financial reform from the left. After discussions with, and public pressure from, pro-reform groups, Feingold has toyed with the idea of changing his vote from 'no' to 'yes', becoming the new 60th vote and robbing Brown of his leverage--if the Volcker rule survived loophole free.

Multiple sources tonight say that in all likelihood the hedge fund loophole (known as a 'de minimis exemption') will be included in the offer that the conference committee considers this week.

One of the major fsctors that lead to the current economic wreckage is antiregulation fever. Brown appears to be a cheerleader for the next meltdown keeping America's greediest and laziest happy at the expense of working Americans..

Conservative media defend BP against "shakedowns," "show trials," and environmentalists at least 62 times

Media Matters has identified at least 62 recent instances of media conservatives defending BP, 38 of which occurred on the Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, or the talk shows of Fox News hosts. There were at least 21 criticisms of BP's escrow account as an Obama "shakedown" or "slush fund," 10 attacks on President Obama for supposedly "demonizing" BP, 15 examples of conservatives deriding investigations of the company, 12 claims that environmental regulations are responsible for the spill, and five absurd conspiracy theories about the spill.
Right-wing media portray BP as the victim of a "shakedown"

Republicans in Congress are not representatives of the people; they're lobbyist for special interests whose salaries are paid for by tax payers. The tax payers they are intent on giving the shaft for their friends at BP.

Freedom of speech? Not when it offends the new god of right-wing conservatism Glenn Beck - Bob Inglis's Defeat Sends Warning Signal To GOP: Don't Badmouth Glenn Beck

The landslide defeat of Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), who lost his Republican primary last night by a whopping 71%-29% margin against Spartanburg County Solicitor Trey Gowdy, could provide a stern warning to Republicans everywhere: If you deviate from the talk-radio and Tea Party line, this could happen to you.

In interviews this morning, two separate Republican sources cited to me two key events in Inglis's political downfall: When he told a town hall meeting last year to turn off Glenn Beck, and when he voted with House Democrats in September 2009 to reprimand Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for yelling "You lie" at President Obama during a speech to Congress. Other factors that were cited included Inglis's vote for the TARP bailout -- an issue that also helped sink Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) at his state Republican convention in May -- and his work on the issue of climate change.

Two short years ago Inglis was far right-wing conservative - a smiley faced fascist - now he is not far Right enough. That tells everyone how out of touch Republicans have become and intend on staying.

Conservative George Will Genius or Overrated Moron

Conservative George Will Genius or Overrated Moron

If Will and Voegeli are to be believed, Franklin Roosevelt and "Lyndon Johnson, an FDR protégé," both "repudiated the Founders' idea that government is instituted to protect pre-existing and timeless natural rights, promising 'the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order ...'" The result of this repudiation of natural rights by American liberals, Voegeli writes, is a welfare state "blanketing the skies with crisscrossing dollars." According to Voegeli, "Lacking a limiting principle, progressives cannot say how big the welfare state should be but must always say that it should be bigger than it is."


Will and Voegeli repeat two now-familiar claims of Straussian propaganda. First, FDR, LBJ and modern liberals have rejected the idea of "pre-existing and timeless natural rights." Second, they have favored putting as many people as possible on the dole. The historical record makes it clear that both accusations are libels.

It is true that Woodrow Wilson, like many other political scientists in the early 1900s, was influenced by German scholarship that emphasized cultural and social evolution and rejected the Lockean tradition of natural rights liberalism as outmoded and "Newtonian." But as Derek Webb points out in an important essay titled "The Natural Rights Liberalism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Economic Rights and the American Political Tradition" (2007): "Roosevelt, unlike many of his Progressive predecessors, self-consciously grounded his defence of economic rights in the philosophical, historical, and constitutional principles of early American liberalism."

Was Roosevelt repudiating the American Founding when he told Democrats in Philadelphia in 1936: "This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776 -- an American way of life." The goal of the New Deal, he explained, was "to preserve to the United States the political and economic freedom for which Washington and Jefferson planned and fought." What do George Will and William Voegeli think that FDR meant by "reaffirm," "restore" and "preserve"?

The only way conservative can appear to win the debate against liberalism - the political philosophy on which the United States was founded - is to maliciously misstate what liberalism means and what liberals stand for. Since will must resort to this straw man tactic that means he is no genius.

The Tea Party's Toxic Take on History

The muddled Tea Party version of history is more than wrong and fraudulent. It's offensive. Calling Obama a tyrant, a communist, or a fascist is deeply offensive to all the real victims of tyranny, the real victims of communism and fascism. The tens of millions murdered. It trivializes such suffering inexcusably for the T.P.ers to claim that they are suffering from similar oppression because they might have their taxes raised or be subject to demonic "federal regulation."

The media for the most part has shown itself afraid to challenge the insidious distortions of language and history Tea Partiers promote. In the last few weeks, several news outlets have been propagating the meme that Tea Partiers are "just regular folks." And certainly some are. But if you examined the ideology that shows its face, the one that is apparent in sign carriers and blog commenters and cable spokespersons, you find something disturbing.

Consider this CNN report, which attempts to give a smiley face to the Tea Party's underlying ideology. Even Fox News recognizes Tea Party dogma as a seething cauldron of deranged and vicious lies about history. Look at the guy in the photo in this report and how proud he is of his illiterate swastika sign.

These swastika nuts look ridiculous. But words matter, sometimes in a life-and-death way. Take for instance the Tea Party demonization of "federal regulation" as the instrument of the tyranny that's been imposed on them. I would like every Tea Partier who has denounced federal regulation to write a letter to the widows and children of the coalminers in West Virginia who died because of the failure of "federal regulation" of mine safety.

Tell the weeping survivors that such regulation is tyranny, that their husbands and fathers had to die, but for a good cause: lowering federal spending so the T.P.ers could save a few pennies on taxes. That's worth 29 lives snuffed out in a mine blast, isn't it? They either don't see the connection or don't care.

Indeed the demonization of "federal regulation" could prevent cowardly legislators from strengthening protections for miners and other workers imperiled by unsafe conditions. But the happy T.P.ers will still go out with their swastika and Hitler-mustache signs, whining about tyranny. Wouldn't it be great if there were a liberal politician who, in the wake of the mining catastrophe, had the courage to stand up and say that federal regulations are often a very good thing? Don't hold your breath.

Impeach Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) for Malicious Lies About Border Security

Fox News Trots Out Lou Dobbs To Validate Sen. Kyl’s Disputed Accusation That Obama Used Border Security As A Bargaining Chip For Immigration Reform

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) told a group of tea partiers on Friday that Obama was using border security as a bargaining chip to pass comprehensive immigration reform. According to Kyl, Obama told him, “If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.” Kyl told his audience, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage.” The White House has denied having made such a comment. It’s easy to imagine that Kyl misinterpreted, that Obama’s words in a larger context meant something completely different or that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. But Fox News was so eager to paint Obama as a liar willing to sell out national security for his political agenda, that they brought on virulently anti-immigrant, birther-promoting Lou Dobbs to declare Kyl the truthteller and attack Obama over immigration. Dobbs must have greatly pleased Fox News in his first appearance because they brought him back for a later, prime time encore.

It’s not as though Dobbs had any real inside knowledge of what had happened.

To seat around and give opinions is not the same as providing proof no matter how much delusional conservatives insist it is.

Impeach Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) for malicious Lies About Border Security

Right-wing blogs have seized on Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) claim that President Obama is refusing to "secure the border" in order to force the GOP to support comprehensive immigration reform -- a claim the White House has since flatly denied. Indeed, the Obama administration has already taken numerous steps to boost border security but argues that "truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution," which is a view shared by immigration experts as well as several Republicans.

....Obama administration has taken measures to increase border security, immigration enforcement

LA Times: Obama admin. "has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and on deportations." The Los Angeles Times reported on June 16 that Obama "agree[d] to dispatch 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and to seek an extra $500 million for border enforcement. That came after 18 months in which the Obama administration has outdone its predecessor on border enforcement spending and deportations of illegal immigrants, all in an effort to build support for a comprehensive immigration plan."

Obama admin. has increased the number of Border Patrol agents. PolitiFact has noted that Obama has been "increasing the number of border patrol officers." The Arizona Republic reported on May 26 that "[t]he Border Patrol today has more than 20,000 agents nationwide, more than 16,000 of whom are assigned to the U.S.-Mexican border"

BP or GOP. They Stand for the same thing

Ripping the populist mask off GOPBP Did Barton's brain malfunction? Does Barbour know what "escrow" means? Why does Bachmann hate fishermen? Ask them

With their manic, absurd defenses of BP, certain leading Republicans (echoed by Fox News commentators) have achieved levels of self-parody far too exaggerated for a "Saturday Night Live" sketch. Everyone understands that politicians of both parties sometimes stooge for corporations. But Haley Barbour, Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton, among others, have said things about the British oil giant -- and the $20 billion escrow fund to compensate Deepwater Horizon damages -- that could only be uttered by someone truly stupid. Or someone who thinks the rest of us are truly stupid.

As a GOP representative from Houston, Barton should be expected to act like an oil industry rent-boy. That is his essential identity and purpose in life, and that is why he apologized to BP chairman Tony Hayward for the "shakedown" perpetrated against the company by President Obama. But there was no shakedown nor was there, as some conservatives have suggested, any violation of the corporation's constitutional rights. The president has no power to prevent BP from defending claims in court, nor can he prevent the Justice Department from indicting BP executives on criminal charges if sufficient evidence exists to do so. The establishment of the escrow fund was entirely voluntary, and indeed many observers believe that the decision to create it was motivated as much by self-interest and public relations as by compassion or guilt.

Haley Barbour too has behaved like an abject servant of the oil bidness for his entire public career -- and he has seen no reason to change just because an endless tide of sludge is washing up on the shores of the state he misgoverns. From the beginning of the disaster, Barbour has tried to minimize the effects of the spill and make excuses for BP, but he has outdone himself in a fit of indignation over the escrow fund. According to him, it will make full restitution to the Gulf's beleaguered workers, fishermen and business owners less likely, because it will reduce the profits BP needs to pay out damages. Of course, if $20 billion is already in escrow, then the injured parties need not worry about where the money will come from. But don't try to make sense of Barbour's argument, because you can't.

Republicans just cannot help themselves. Back in 2009 they were putting on their pretend populism, pretending to care about the average American instead of the Wall St thugs who helped the GOP wreck the economy. It wasn't long before they were fighting against tighter regulation - which they are still doing - so we would not have another economic meltdown. The conservative movement is all about greed and power, not working class Americans.

California Should Vote for Carly Fiorina. She Has a Firm Grasp of Reality

While Hewlett-Packard Benefits From The Stimulus, Fiorina Claims It ‘Manifestly Has Failed’

Moreover, the former HP CEO has made a concerted effort to criticize the stimulus package, asserting the economic recovery act “has done nothing” for unemployment in California. In Sacramento on Wednesday, Fiorina reiterated her misguided rhetoric at a press conference held at Rex Moore Electrical Contractors & Engineers, a Sacramento electrical company:

    “If you’re a business owner and there are stimulus dollars that might help your customers buy more of your product or might help you, of course you’re going to accept the stimulus dollars,” Fiorina said. “But that is not an argument that the stimulus package has worked because the stimulus package clearly, factually, manifestly has failed because people are losing their jobs for every single dollar that’s out there.”

Interestingly, both Rex Moore and the window-making plant Fiorina’s campaign visited yesterday both benefited from stimulus funds — the first receiving $447,000 subcontract through the program and the latter advertising that customers could receive energy tax credits. The New York Times also reported that there is another California business benefiting from the Recovery act: Fiorina’s former company, Hewlett-Packard. The Times called this “the kind of benefit to private industry that Fiorina says has been missing from the stimulus program. ”

As The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo has pointed out, the Senatorial candidate’s “only real solution to anything is to cut taxes. But that doesn’t do much good for those who are already out of work and have no taxable income, and it doesn’t spur demand that will give businesses more customers and thus a reason to expand.”

Additionally, while Fiorina argues “people are losing their jobs” because of the stimulus, she clearly fails to recognize the stimulus’ positive impact in California. Although the Golden State is undeniably still struggling economically, the more than 70,000 jobs created as a result of the stimulus are difficult to ignore. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Recovery act has already saved or created 2.8 million jobs — an estimated 3.7 million by September.

If a politician has to tell lies as often and as big as Fiorina tells them that means she is hiding something - in this case the same gross ignorance and negligence she displayed as a failed executive. Like most Republicans Carly doesn't live in the reality based world the rest of us do. 

Conservatism is Not an American Political Movement. Conservatism is a Gang of Corporate Thugs

Rep. Joe Barton Likes BP -- and the Company Likes Him Back with Cash

After BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward had expressed his contrition to members of Congress for the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a long-time friend of the oil industry, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), today issued an apology to Hayward for his harsh treatment at the hands of the White House.

Barton, speaking at a congressional hearing, called the $20 billion escrow account set up by BP to pay for claims related to the spill, a "shakedown" on the part of the Obama administration. 

Individuals and political action committees associated with BP have donated $27,350 to Barton's political campaigns since the 1990 election cycle -- eighth among members of Congress, the Center for Responsive Politics' research indicates. (Barton might find it ironic that the man he said so mistreated BP, President Barack Obama, received more than $77,000 from BP employees during his political career.) Contributions from PACs made up 94 percent of Barton's donations.

Individuals or PACs associated with the oil and gas industry as a whole have been Barton's biggest patron since he entered Congress, donating more than $1,448,380 since the 1990 election cycle. The figure puts him at No. 1 among all House members for donations from the industry, fifth among members of Congress and fourth among active members of Congress.

Barton's comments today came after Hayward had just taken his licks from several members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, including Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). Barton, the ranking Republican on the energy and commerce committee, must have been a welcome sight.

Barton has been a consistent skeptic of global warming and opponent of legislation to address climate change. In his Oval Office speech Tuesday night, President Obama sought to use the disaster from the spill in the Gulf to argue for action on significant climate legislation.

Barton was also among a group of Republican congressmen from Texas who earlier this week put forth a bill to end the moratorium on deepwater drilling. When announcing the bill, he questioned whether the temporary moratorium imposed by the Obama administration would become permanent.

(Update 4:08 p.m.:) Barton's biggest single corporate contributor, Anadarko Petroleum, is a 25 percent stakeholder in the Macondo Prospect, site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Individuals and PACs associated with Anadarko have given Barton's campaigns $146,500 since the 1990 election cycle. Political blog FiveThirtyEight highlights this fact in this report.

FLASHBACK: During Exxon Valdez disaster, President Bush got a free pass from the press

On the night of June 10, NBC’s Nightly News aired one of its many reports about the BP oil spill disaster. In this segment, Lisa Myers examined “what the government knew about how bad the leak could be and how much they told the public,” as Brian Williams put it. The report leaned heavily on the question of whether the Obama administration “leveled with the public” about the severity of the spill.

The rather breathless Nightly News segment, with lots of what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it implications, perfectly captured the news media’s somewhat odd obsession, virtually from Day One of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, with making Obama a central figure, if not the responsible player, in the drama about an oil-industry catastrophe.

No, the government didn’t operate or own the rig. And oil giant BP was obviously the responsible party. Yet the press immediately focused in on Obama.

The knee-jerk interest in the Oval Office was especially odd when compared with how the same Beltway press corps went out of its way in 1989 to completely remove President George H. W. Bush’s role as a player in the Exxon Valdez environmental crisis. If you go back and look at the coverage, in the days following the first reports that the Exxon supertanker’s hull had ruptured on Bligh Reef, spilling more than 10 million gallons of oil into the pristine Prince William Sound, a gusher that ended up covering 11,000 square miles of ocean, you’ll see that Bush was mostly a non-player in that unfolding drama, which quickly became the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Bush barely even warranted mention during the blanket news coverage.

In terms of reporting on the Exxon Valdez disaster, which was punctuated by constant claims from locals that the oil industry, with its nonexistent contingency plan, as well as the federal government, with its decidedly hands-off approach, had woefully botched the cleanup (sound familiar?), Bush remained, in the eyes of the press, a non-entity, a spectator. And not the kind of bystander who got tagged with blame, which was why there was virtually no Beltway media chatter about how the Exxon spill would play out politically for the new White House inhabitant. It wasn’t even discussed.

Well, not by most. A St. Petersburg Times editorial did condemn the federal government’s “ineffectual” and “almost blithe” reaction to the monster spill. And there were a couple of other media darts thrown Bush’s way. But they were the exceptions. For instance, I can’t find any examples of mainstream outlets suggesting Bush “owned” the Exxon spill. And I didn’t see these kinds of very unsubtle headlines and images, courtesy of the New York Times, used during the Valdez coverage:

During the 1989 man-made disaster, corporate media journalists didn’t obsess over whether or not Bush was showing enough emotion. They didn’t conduct poll after poll to figure out Bush’s “grade” for handling the spill. They didn’t fixate on stagecraft. And they certainly didn’t include the president on lists of people who were “to blame for the oil spill,” the way Time recently included Obama on such a list, blaming him for the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. (Why was Obama to “blame”? Because “shortly before” the disaster, he proposed allowing for more offshore drilling. And no, that doesn’t make any sense.)

With Bush and the Exxon Valdez, the press didn’t really seem to care what the president thought of the disaster or what he planned to do to fix the mess. Yet three presidents later, with the country once again under attack by oil-industry malfeasance, the press has been focusing most of its attention on the White House and demanding to know what the president is going to do to clear up the confusion. The press has also been spending countless hours calculating the supposedly immense political fallout. (Although, according to polling firms, there has not been any yet.)

In other words, the press gave Bush a free pass following the Exxon Valdez spill, while today, the same press corps seems determined to hang the oil spill around Obama’s neck. Why the glaringly different approaches when covering epic oil spills?

By the way, I'm certainly not suggesting that Obama and the federal government are above reproach, or that tough questions shouldn't be posed about the cleanup effort. And obviously, the BP crisis has extended weeks longer than the Alaska spill did under Bush, giving the press more time to dwell on Obama. But I am suggesting the press corps has undeniably imposed a double standard in its treatment of a Republican president during an environmental crisis and its treatment of the current Democratic president.

And trust me, it wasn’t like Bush was proactive in the wake of the Exxon Valdez calamity.

Consider:

-He didn’t travel to Alaska to monitor the cleanup or meet with locals.

 -He didn’t display much public emotion about the disaster.

-He didn’t publicly flash anger about the spill.

-He didn’t want the federal government to take over the cleanup.

-He didn’t go on primetime TV to address the nation about the spill.

-He didn’t meet with the CEO of Exxon at the White House to discuss the cleanup.

-He didn’t send top administration officials to Alaska until five days after the spill.

That's the so-called liberal media. One impossibly high standard for Democrats and a free pass for Republicans.

Conservative Nuts Are Bigger and Crunchier

Thune Says GOP Now Wants To Make Sure Spending For Iraq And Afghanistan Wars Is Offset

Since the Republicans lost control of Congress and the White House, they have conveniently decided it’s time to rein in spending after helping President Bush bequeath the current administration with a more than $1 trillion deficit.

Part of that campaign has been to target the once sacrosanct emergency war funding. Republicans made a fuss last year because the war funding bill contained money for the IMF. Last month, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said war funding needs to be paid for. Today on ABC’s Top Line, Sen. John Thune (R-ND) indicated that most Republicans are starting to hold this view:

    THUNE: Republicans are increasingly, I think, dug in on the issue of making sure that new spending is offset. … Frankly, I think that there is even a growing consensus among Republicans that we need to start budgeting for this, we need to start figuring out how to pay for it. And I think that’s kind of the majority view among Republicans now.



The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim has noted the obvious hypocrisy here:

    The indecision on the vote from Coburn’s colleagues is a stark contrast from the wars’ early years, when President Bush’s war supplementals flew through GOP-controlled Congresses and any opposition was portrayed as unpatriotic. Cries of “Support The Troops!” met any lawmaker who questioned the direction or the purpose of either the Iraq or Afghanistan war.

The sudden 180 degree which on many issues, including funding to finish up the major battles against terrorism in Afghanistan, makes reasonable Americans wonder if conservatives have any genuine convictions. They seem to stand for whatever nut brained scheme that will make Republicans look good even when it is at the expense the troops and of good governance for and by the people.

Down And Out? Bill McCollum Hits The Skids In FL-GOV
Republicans in Florida seem to really like Rick Scott - the Medicare fraud criminal. McCollum is a long time insider - once a lobbyist - Florida conservative really know how to pick some loathsome candidates.

Right-wing harmony: BP escrow account is "a slush fund"

Right-wing media figures have responded to the decision by BP and the Obama administration to establish an escrow account funded by BP to pay claims arising from the Gulf oil spill by calling the account a "slush fund." Conservative commentators have habitually labeled progressive initiatives "a slush fund."
Right-wing choir sings: BP escrow account is "a slush fund"

Limbaugh: "[T]his is going to be used as a little miniature slush fund." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed, "When we last heard from the leader of the regime, he said that an independent, third-party person will be handling the $20 billion payout to people in the Gulf of Mexico." After noting that Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation Kenneth Feinberg would oversee the escrow fund, Limbaugh said, "The guy works for Obama, he's a czar, but somehow this thing is going to be sloughed off as some sort of independent agency he's going to head up? How stupid do they think we are, folks?"

Right-wing conservative pundits are the yellow rags of journalism. They throw out lots of accusations everyday about wacky conspiracies and never offer any proof. Repeating a lie over and over again is exactly what most criminals do.

Confirmed: James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart Were Scumbag Liars About ACORN

Congressional report clears ACORN of wrongdoing — after group forced to disband

Congressional report clears ACORN of wrongdoing after group forced to disband

When a duo of right-wing provocateurs posing as a pimp and prostitute released selectively-edited videos trying to impugn the community activist group ACORN, both Democrats and Republicans condemned the organization.

Congress then voted to cut off federal funding for the group (a decision that was later ruled unconstitutional). Following negative press and Congress' vote, ACORN effectively disbanded Apr. 1 and reorganized under new names.

But a just-issued report by the Government Accountability Office that reviewed ACORN's federal funding at the behest of Congress  found little grist for the mill for politicians or right-wing bloggers looking to bash the now-defunct advocacy group for the poor.

The 38-page report surveyed over 31 federal agencies, probing how ACORN used federal funds and whether adequate controls on spending existed.

The report found no evidence of fraud, lax oversight or misuse of federal funds.
Story continues below...

In fact, the report discovered that ACORN had adequately accounted for spending $40 million worth of major and minor grants awarded by the federal government to the group since 2005 to combat a variety of problems afflicting poor Americans, including lead poisoning, housing discrimination and lack of adequate job training.

The preliminary report on the group’s funding also found that of the grants that warranted audits no irregularities in spending were found.  Smaller grantees said that oversight was adequate as well.

Of eight major grants awarded ACORN by the federal government the report found fault with one, a grant by Neighbor Works.

“Neighbor Works determined that ACORN Housing Corporation had not provided a description of what it planned to accomplish under the grant, as required. After Neighbor Works brought this to the attention of ACORN Housing Corporation officials, these officials subsequently provided the documentation. Oversight of sub-awards is generally delegated to grantees,” the report states.

Of fifteen sub-grants awarded ACORN by a variety of federal agencies, the report did not find any irregularities.

Not much of a surprise - Breitbart and O'Keefe are Conservatives. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy.  O'Keefe and Breitbart are adherents to the conservative cult that beleives that all lies and dirty tricks are fine if done in the name of their fascist-lite agenda.

When money rules health care: Doc linked to 68 deaths

The trial of a doctor and his wife accused of contributing to the fatal overdoses of 68 patients by overprescribing pain medication went to jurors on Tuesday.

Stephen Schneider and his wife Linda were portrayed by the prosecution in closing arguments as running a "Burger King for pain pill addicts" while the defense argued that the state's case was overblown.

The case has drawn attention in part because of a debate over the medical treatment of pain in the United States, but also the high number of deaths attributed to the defendants.

"This is a sordid tale of how money and not medicine controlled the defendants' actions," Assistant U.S. Attorney Tanya Treadway told jurors in closing arguments.

"The defendants were running a pill mill, not a legitimate medical practice," she added.

Dr. Rand Paul: Not board-certified, but self-certified

Dr. Rand Paul: Not board-certified, but self-certified

Libertarian ideology rejects most of the modern regulatory systems that protect consumers, because everyone should be responsible for determining whether the hamburger contains E. coli on his own. But does that do-it-yourself dogma apply to the regulation of medicine, too? If you're Dr. Rand Paul, practicing ophthalmologist, the answer is emphatically yes.

According to an amusing story in today's Louisville Courier-Journal, the Kentucky Republican Senate candidate bills himself as a "board-certified" physician even though he is not actually certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology -- the only recognized body that certifies doctors in his specialty.

Another great thing about "Dr." Paul is he can also repair your shoes, wire your house, perform brain surgery and install your plumbing because he once read a book on all that stuff and has certified himself as an expert.

Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing fanatic, a pathological liar and a pervert. To Bill and his fans all of that is just fine because supposedly he is a patriot. The rabid right apparently defines patriotism a little different than normal Americans. O'Reilly mischaracterized Pelosi interview to portray her as out of touch

Bill O'Reilly cropped an interview with Nancy Pelosi to falsely claim that she said she "hasn't heard the Democrats blaming Bush" for the Gulf oil spill, comments O'Reilly suggested showed Pelosi as out of touch or dishonest. In fact, Pelosi said that she hadn't heard the "critique" that that "Democrats keep blaming the Bush administration."

Pelosi actually said she had not heard the "critique" that Democrats are putting too much blame on Bush

Pelosi said she hadn't heard "critique" that Dems blame Bush too often. Pelosi was actually responding to Todd's question during the June 11 edition of MSNBC's The Daily Rundown (accessed via the Nexis database) asking: "At what point do you think the public says, you know what, yes, we were unhappy with the Bush administration. That's why you're speaker of the House, that's why Barack Obama is president of the United States. So stop blaming the Bush administration." Todd then asked, "When you hear this critique: 'Why do Democrats keep blaming the Bush administration?' " Pelosi responded: "I haven't heard that."

Pelosi went on to highlight problems Obama "inherited." Seconds later in the interview, Pelosi commented (via Nexis): "And here's what the president inherited. He inherited a deficit when this president inherited from the Clinton administration four budgets that were either in surplus or in balance, and he turned it into a massive deficit. He brought us to the brink of a financial crisis. He brought us to the brink of deep recession, ignoring issues that relate to climate change."

How sad that being a shiftless lying pundit makes O'Reilly a millionaire. It also says something about the IQ of his average fan.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) Should be Impeached for Being Mentally Deranged

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): Obama ‘Chose To Stand’ With Ahmadinejad And Hamas By Offering Humanitarian Aid To Gazans

Just about every part of Bachmann’s argument, from the facts to the conclusions, is wrong. First of all, the $400 million Obama promised goes to Gaza and the West Bank, and the majority of it will almost certainly go to the larger West Bank. Secondly, none of the money will go to Hamas. The funds will instead be distributed through NGOs and the U.N., as has been U.S. policy in Gaza for some time.

Moreover, Bachmann’s claim that the aid package means Obama “chose” Hamas over Israel is complete nonsense. Beyond that fact that Obama has repeatedly stressed his support for Israel, U.S. aid to Israel easily dwarfs that to the Palestinian territories, and aid to Israel has actually increased under Obama.

Contact your Congressional representative today. The U.S. Congress is no place for a person whose mental faculties cannot differentiate between reality and her deranged fantasies.

Wall Street Journal falsely accuses Obama of lying about Medicare benefits

Wall Street Journal falsely accuses Obama of lying about Medicare benefits

A Wall Street Journal editorial falsely claimed that President Obama was misinforming seniors when he said the health care law does not change the "guaranteed Medicare benefits" for Medicare Advantage participants. In fact, the law explicitly states that "nothing in this Act shall result in the reduction" of "benefits guaranteed by law to participants in Medicare Advantage plans."
Purporting to correct Obama, WSJ falsely suggests health care law cuts "guaranteed Medicare benefits"

From the June 11 Wall Street Journal editorial:

    The White House is launching its latest Willy Loman campaign to resell ObamaCare, helped by $125 million that unions and other interest groups say they'll spend to make Americans love their new entitlement. Seniors in particular should curb their enthusiasm.

    "First and foremost," President Obama told seniors on Tuesday in Wheaton, Maryland, "what you need to know is that the guaranteed Medicare benefits that you've earned will not change, regardless of whether you receive them through Medicare or Medicare Advantage." First and foremost, nothing about that sentence is true.

    Advantage gives almost one of four seniors private insurance options, and Democrats are about to cut its funding by some $136 billion over the next decade even as health costs rise. The Congressional Budget Office says these cuts will cause enrollment to drop by 35%, the Administration's own Medicare actuaries predict 50%, and both outfits take for granted that benefits will also decline.

In fact, the law explicitly protects the guaranteed benefits of Medicare Advantage enrollees

Law states: "Nothing in this Act shall result in the reduction or elimination of any benefits guaranteed by law to participants in Medicare Advantage plans." From the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

    SEC. 3601. PROTECTING AND IMPROVING GUARANTEED MEDICARE BENEFITS.

    (a) PROTECTING GUARANTEED MEDICARE BENEFITS. -- Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

    (b) ENSURING THAT MEDICARE SAVINGS BENEFIT THE MEDICARE PROGRAM AND MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES. -- Savings generated for the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act under the provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall extend the solvency of the Medicare trust funds, reduce Medicare premiums and other cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and improve or expand guaranteed Medicare benefits and protect access to Medicare providers.

    SEC. 3602. NO CUTS IN GUARANTEED BENEFITS.

    Nothing in this Act shall result in the reduction or elimination of any benefits guaranteed by law to participants in Medicare Advantage plans.

Medicare Advantage plans required to cover "all the services that Original Medicare covers." Medicare.gov states: "Medicare Advantage plans always cover emergency and urgent care. Medicare Advantage Plans must cover all the services that Original Medicare covers, except hospice care. (Original Medicare covers hospice care even if you're in a Medicare Advantage Plan.)"

Health Affairs' Susan Dentzer: "[W]hen the president said, your guaranteed benefits won't change, he's correct." Susan Dentzer, editor in chief of Health Affairs, told PBS' NewsHour that "when the president said, your guaranteed benefits won't change, he's correct." Dentzer added: "It's some of the extras that some of these plans have provided that may or may not change. But, quite honestly, we won't know that for several years."

AARP: "[E]xtra benefits" -- not "guaranteed benefits" -- may be cut. Answering questions about the health care reform law, the AARP Bulletin wrote on June 7 that "the law comes with this warranty: There will be no cuts in guaranteed benefits for Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries." AARP further stated that "care for people in Medicare Advantage plans costs 13 percent more than it costs for people in traditional Medicare," adding, "So it's not surprising that these payments have enabled Medicare Advantage plans to offer extra benefits like dental coverage, eyeglasses and gym memberships. As the subsidies are scaled back, some of those may be cut."

Florida seems to have a fetish for electing criminals for governor. They may get another one in Rick Scott. Scott is such a scum bag he makes average scum bags look good, Florida governor candidate McCollum says opponent Rick Scott is ruthless

Attorney General Bill McCollum said Monday that he is angry his opponent in the GOP primary for governor is using "ill-gotten gains" to spend millions on untruthful ads.

McCollum also said Rick Scott, the former CEO of Columbia/HCA, has a questionable background, citing the $1.7 billion fine the for-profit hospital chain paid for Medicare fraud. He estimated Scott has used his fortune to spend $15 million in the campaign.

"It's most disturbing not just because he's spending money and he's very wealthy, but because the background of the individual is somewhat questionable," McCollum said of Scott. "On top of that, he's just ruthless. It appears to me that's his track record in business and it's also what he's showing in his campaign in ads that are not truthful."

Scott is clever. He steals millions from the government, the elderly and disabled and now he is using that money to run for office.

Democrats and the Economy - Fox Rewrites History

Did the GOP commission Fox to rewrite the history books?

Appearing on Fox & Friends, purported business expert Stuart Varney made extensive revisions to U.S. economic history, among them: the false suggestion that President Obama has not cut taxes; the false suggestion that President Bush presided over strong job growth; and the false claim that after President Clinton took office, the economy did not improve until Republicans took control of Congress.

...Varney: When Reagan took office, "he cut taxes"; when Obama took office, "he raises taxes." From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

    VARNEY: Yes, well look. What happened when President Reagan took office in January 1981? We had double-digit unemployment. He cut taxes, set off a growth of prosperity for a generation. Now we've got President Obama in; he inherits a nasty recession, he raises taxes and raises spending. He has not cut unemployment. There's a difference in reaction to a nasty situation. One works, one doesn't work. I'm very partisan. I'm very clearly partisan. Sorry, ladies and gentlemen.

In fact, Recovery Act included significant tax relief for individuals, families, and businesses. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Recovery Act contained $288 billion in tax relief, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, which is a two-year annual credit of $400 per individual or $800 for families. In addition, the Recovery Act included a temporary increase in the earned income tax credit, a temporary increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit, an increase in the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and tax incentives for businesses.

Bruce Bartlett: "[F]ederal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president." Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and a Treasury Department economist under President George H.W. Bush, wrote on March 19 that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year":

...By cherry-picking just four years of Bush's administration, Varney erased two recessions; in fact, only 1 million new jobs were created during Bush presidency. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of nonfarm jobs increased from 132.5 million in January 2001 to 133.5 million in January 2009, an increase of only 1 million jobs. By contrast, employment increased by 22.7 million under Clinton, 16.1 million under Reagan, 10.3 million under Jimmy Carter, and 2.6 under George H.W. Bush.

 When a weird outside the mainstream political movement - such as Republicans and tea bagger conservatives - have to lie and rewrite history to make a point, its a strong indication of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of that movement and the strange people attracted to it.

Fox and Perino get Facts Wrong on Gulf Berm Barrier Plan

Perino baselessly attacked Obama administration for not approving berm plan "right away"

On the June 9 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Dana Perino responded to the statement that "[Obama's] officials responded immediately" to the Gulf oil spill by claiming, "I think Governor Jindal would disagree with the berms that weren't built right away." In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers was required by law to study the plan, portions of which it approved.

....AP: Army Corps previously said it was "working as quickly as possible" on permit request "but still has to follow" federal law. The Associated Press reported on May 24 that "the Corps said it is working as quickly as possible on the emergency permit request -- but still has to follow various steps required by federal law." From the article:

    In a statement, the Corps said the state's application is being processed as an emergency permit. The agency said that under federal law, the Corps had to comment on the proposal, leading the state to file a revised plan on May 14. The agency said the information is now being evaluated for potential environmental impacts.

    The Corps said it is working closely with the state -- and will make a decision as quickly as possible.

AP: Army Corps documents raised concerns that barriers "could instead funnel oil into more unprotected areas and into neighboring Mississippi." The AP reported on May 26 that the Army Corps released documents that day that "signaled support for parts of the state plan, including berms that would be built onto existing barrier islands," but stated that parts of the plan "could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne." From the article:

    A wall of sand that Louisiana officials have requested to block the Gulf of Mexico slick could instead funnel oil into more unprotected areas and into neighboring Mississippi, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said in documents released Wednesday.

    Gov. Bobby Jindal and leaders from several coastal parishes want to ring the state's southeastern coastline with a $350 million, 86-mile network of sand berms. However, the corps says the barrier could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne.

Not once has Fox thus far brought on an actual expert on engineering berms/barrier islands and the pluses and minuses of building them. Sure Republican Gov. Jindal doesn't care if the oil starts hitting new areas in Mississippi, he doesn't live there. Like most conservatives he is not for doing what is best he is about trying to score cheap political points.

BP and Halliburton Skip Mississippi Hearings On The Oil Disaster

BP and Halliburton Skip Mississippi Hearings On The Oil Disaster

Late last month, Mississippi state House Speaker Billy McCoy (D) and Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant (R) created a select committee to investigate the Gulf Coast oil spill. “[T]he people of Mississippi deserve to know how this happened and what the future may hold for this most valuable part of our state,” said McCoy. A key part of the select committees’ mission would be to hold hearings with top officials from companies responsible for the spill.

However, yesterday, BP wrote a letter saying it wouldn’t be showing up for the three-day hearings this week. ThinkProgress obtained the letter to McCoy, addressed from Margaret D. Laney, BP’s Mississippi Coordinator for Public and Government Affairs.

Who's to blame for the BP Gulf oil spill. Everyone with half a brain knows it is the fault of BP, Halliburton and TransOcean. We can also add in the anti-regulation crowd -mostly conservative - that receive the majority of oil industry money - for fighting against safety precautions like a remote controlled safety valve. A valve that other countries require. The conservaotive media is on their brooms swearing it is everyone's fault except the oil industry, Right-wing pundits ludicrously blame oil spill on environmentalists

Krauthammer: We're drilling deep because "environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coasts off-limits to oil production." In a May 28 National Review Online article, Charles Krauthammer blasted environmentalists for driving oil companies into deeper waters. Krauthammer concluded that "we [are] drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place" in part because "environmental chic has driven us out there."

Doocy: "Back in the day, they used to just drill pretty close to shore," but environmentalists "pushed them out further and further." On the June 3 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated that "back in the day they used to just drill pretty close to shore," but "as the environmentalists said there's a real danger here, they pushed them out further and further." Doocy then cited an editorial in Investor's Business Daily that he said made the "good point" that "questions would this be so tough to cap and stop if it weren't pushed into water almost a mile deep by environmentalists."

If Conservatives swear something is true, it's generally an indication they're ignorant boneheads lying to sling mud against their opponents and convince the sheeple that hang on their every word to follow the hard Right. MMS=Minerals management Service -

MMS: "remarkable increase" in deep-water drilling due in part to "finding of reservoirs with high production wells." According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS): "The deepwater portion of Gulf of Mexico has shown a remarkable increase in oil and gas exploration, development and production. In part this is due to the development of new technologies reducing operational costs and risks, as well as the finding of reservoirs with high production wells. "

MMS report: "Best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico." In a 2004 report -- titled Deep Water: Where the Energy Is -- the MMS stated that "our best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico and other frontier areas." MMS reported that due to "declining production" in "near-shore, shallow waters" in the Gulf of Mexico, "energy companies have focused their attention on oil and gas resources in water depths of 1,000 feet and beyond." MMS estimated that "the deep water regions of the Gulf of Mexico may contain 56 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or enough to meet U.S. demand for 7-1/2 years at current rates."

Conservative Pigs and Shills Whine - attack Obama for seeking "ass to kick" over spill

Conservative Pigs and  Shills Whine - attack Obama for seeking "ass to kick" over spill

Right-wing media have rushed to attack President Obama for responding to criticism that he spends too much time consulting experts rather than "kick[ing some butt]" by saying, "I want to know whose ass to kick." Many conservative media figures previously hyped criticism that Obama lacked emotion in his response to the oil spill.

Fox, right-wing media also criticize Obama's "ass to kick" comment

Obama responded to criticism that he was spending too much time consulting "experts and advisers" rather than "kick[ing] some butt" by saying "we talk to these folks" to get answers "so I know whose ass to kick."During a Today show interview which aired on June 8, co-host Matt Lauer asked Obama to respond to critics who say: "This is not the time to meet with experts and advisers. This is a time to spend more time in the Gulf and -- I never thought I'd say this to a president but -- kick some butt." Obama replied: "I'm going to push back hard on this, because I think that this is a -- just a -- an idea that got into folks' heads, and the media has run with it. I was down there a month ago before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fisherman down there, standing in the rain, talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."

Kilmeade calls the comment an "artificial, I'm tough because you wanted me to be tough" moment. On the June 8 edition ofFox & Friends, after playing the clip, co-host Brian Kilmeade called it "artificial, I am tough just like you wanted me to be tough." Carlson admitted that Obama is "in a no-win situation" regarding the emotional appeal but criticized him for "us[ing] the language that he used," calling it "phony," while co-host Steve Doocy called it "less presidential."

The conservative media sits around on its highly paid butt enjoying the worse environmental catastrophe in our history because it gives them a chance to act like an elites high school clique, throwing childish insults at Obama no matter what he does. Real patriotic Americans see Fox and dolts like Kilmeade for the anti-American hacks they are. hacks that will say anything to make a money.

Bill O’Reilly Says Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supports “Baby Killing?”

Now that Dr. George Tiller is dead, Bill O’Reilly doesn’t have him to kick around anymore. But as I have noted, that doesn’t prevent Bill from burnishing his anti-choice creds albeit in a less incendiary way than frequently alluding to somebody as a baby killer. But Bill is still able to provide affirmation for his anti-choice pals be it his belief that a Lila Rose Planned Parenthood “sting” video is for real or, as he did in a discussion in which he attacked SCOTUS Judge Ginsburg, proclaim that fetuses are babies and that so called “partial birth abortion” “kills” “babies.” So while his attack on Ginsburg isn’t as blatant as what he did to Tiller, the intent and the target audience are very clear.

On May 14th, Bill O’Reilly (who had attacked Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg earlier in the week) discussed Ginsburg’s dissent on the so called “partial birth abortion” (a term coined by the anti choice movement) ban. O’Reilly tried to paint Ginsburg as a wild eyed pro-choice radical whose personal views on abortion colored her legal opinion. I must admit that Megyn Kelly, who is an attorney, handled Bill’s pompous, condescending, and patronizing histrionics quite well. Ginsburg stated, in her dissent, that the decision “tolerates, indeed applauds federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists…” This view is anathema to anti choicers, like Bill, who claim that the procedure is never necessary and that the life of a fetus is more important than the life of woman carrying it.

Poor Bill thinks women are something to control like little robots to be there for his service and pleasure so it makes sense in a bizarre way that he thinks every woman's uterus should be controlled by him.

BP Has A Friend in Conservatism. Many Republicans Could Care Less About Devastation of Oil Spill

Despite the devastation BP has caused, about a third of conservatives view the oil giant favorably.

As oil from BP’s Deepwater Horizon well makes its way deep into the marshes of the Gulf Coast, and the wildlife toll mounts, the company announced today that cleanup costs have already reached $1.25 billion and are growing quickly. Given this devastation, it’s not surprising that a vast majority of Americans — 72 percent — now have a negative view of the company, a new Rasmussen poll found. However, 22 percent still have a somewhat or very favorable view of the foreign oil giant. EnviroKnow examined the crosstabs from the poll and found that this group of BP supporters is made up disproportionately of conservatives:

    On BP favorability, a few key statistics stick out:

    * Conservatives are four times more likely to view BP favorably as Liberals are
    * Republicans are more than twice as likely to view BP favorably as Democrats are
    * Whites are nearly twice as likely to view BP favorably as Blacks are


Given conservatives’ almost religious devotion to offshore drilling, perhaps this is not surprising. While a majority of Americans now believe increased offshore drilling is “too risky,” several Republican leaders have called for an immediate expansion of drilling, even before the investigation of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is complete. Meanwhile, evidence mounts that BP flouted safety regulations before the disaster, and there are legitimate questions about the sincerity of BP’s pledge to pay for all damages from the spill. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 64 percent of Americans would support a federal decision to pursue criminal charges against the company.

Conservatives can usually be counted on not to be able to make the connections between bad policy and bad beahvior to the rest of economy. They receive the most money from big oil so fight the hardest against regulation. BP continues to make billions in profit as much of the Gulf coast economy has been wiped out for possibly decades.

The Rove Legacy

Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight By Karl Rove • Simon and Schuster • 2010 • 520 pages • $30

The evidence of the wreckage of the Bush years can be found everywhere. Under this conservative president, federal spending rose from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 21 percent in 2008, while a $125.3 billion surplus became a $364.4 billion deficit. Median family income, which had grown from $42,429 in 1980 to $46,049 in 1990, and which grew again during the Clinton Administration to $50,557 by 2000, shrank under George W. Bush, standing at $50,223 in 2007 before the start of the recession. During the Bush presidency, three million jobs were created. That compares to 23.1 million during Bill Clinton's two terms, and 16 million during Ronald Reagan's. The rate of job creation under Bush was the lowest under any post-World War II president.

In Courage and Consequence, Karl Rove's new memoir, "Bush's Brain" rejects these facts out of hand, arguing that Bush successfully "alter[ed] the conservative movement that he came to lead. And the direction he steered it in was productive, principled, and healthy for the country." To reach this conclusion, Rove ignores a staggering record of arrogance, recklessness, and negligence-a record awesome in its consequences. It is not as if this record was unavailable to Rove. Time may have diminished his recall of some of the details, but the magnitude of the damage inflicted by the Administration is indelible.

Voters seek three crucial areas of expertise in a president: risk management; national defense and the conduct of war; and fiscal responsibility. Bush fell short on each. Most famously, Bush failed to respond proactively to his August 6, 2001 daily CIA briefing, headlined "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," which warned of "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

More at the link. The Bush presidency is much like BP devastation of the Gulf, a catastrophe that average Americans will be cleaning up for years. So sure go out and vote for a tea nut go we can put the country in full reverse and conservatives will have another chance to create yet another catastrophic round of governance.

Fox Seems to Have Reached it Peak in Brain Washing the Sheeple

Are Fox Ratings Dropping As Tea Party Election Fails Stack Up? By Leslie Savan, The Nation

Could it be that the nation’s infatuation with Fox News is slowly, slowly coming to an end? Looking at long-term cable ratings, you might surmise that on its way to the Tea Party, Fox has indeed jumped a shark or two.

Nothing is simple when it comes to stats or cable news, but consider: Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren have each hit their lowest point in a year or more with the key 25- to 54-year-old demo, according to the latest Nielsens. This 12- to 16-month measurement is more detailed than a “year to year” comparison, which can make a show look strong or weak depending on what particular month you start from. But as a CNN press release happily notes: “May represents The O’Reilly Factor’s worst performance since January 2009, Hannity’s lowest delivery to date since taking over the time period in January2009, and [Van Susteren’s] On the Record’s lowest since May 2009. Fox Report with Shep Smith had its lowest demo delivery since December 2008.”

O’Reilly, for instance, had some 625,000 viewers in the 25-54 age range in January 2009, built to a peak of one million by November, and dropped, to 693,000, by May 2010. Hannity and Van Susteren had similar rises and falls. Glenn Beck did not hit a 12-month-or-more low point. But as Eric Boehlert of Media Matters points out, Beck’s numbers have fallen since his high in January, and “[a]fter twelve months of hype, Beck has not significantly grown his TV audience.”

And, by any measure, if you look at total viewership for all of Fox News, some audience-shedding is also evident. “In total day total viewers, FNC was down 6% year-to-year (while MSNBC was up 3% and CNN was down 16%),”writes Mediaite.

It’s true that Fox dwarfs MSNBC and CNN in raw audience numbers and that it’s still the number-one cable news channel, with the top 11 shows in both total viewers and the 25-54 group; O’Reilly, Beck, and Hannity still lead the pack, in that order. (Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, the nearest non-Fox hosts, are number 12 and 14 respectively.)

But comparing Fox ratings to themselves over a long period does show a trend that calls into question the Fox News Free-Market Theory of Journalistic Evidence: We must be right, and our version of reality must be the truest, because we have the most people watching—in other words, the market is the ultimate Decider. But that audience is currently decreasing—ergo, the market has also decided that Fox is less right and its version of reality less true than it was in the past. 

Though let's all admit that Fox has been somewhat successful in selling smiley-faced fascism as a mainstream warped fake patriotism. They largely preach to the choir, but they keep that choir fired up on lies, distortions, conspiracy theories.