This is not news (really, it isn't)

Anyone surprised by this hasn't lived in America for the last ten years:

[Chris] Matthews: “Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?”

[Scott] McClellan: “I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House.” […] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talkng points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

Matthews: “So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople.”

McClellan: “Well, certainly.”

As we like to say around here, "durhey!"

I'd explain what that means, but it's Saturday and I don't think I could do it justice.

--WS

Dissecting a Thinly Sourced Smear

I don't know--and I don't care--if former Senator John Edwards has a love child with some woman. It's none of my business and it's none of anyone else's business but his and Elizabeth Edwards. Don't look now, but the evidence on this is so thin you can see through it in the dark. John Edwards is not running around telling people what to do in their marriage so he's NOT a hypocrite, despite everything you're reading from the right wing smear merchants in this country. It's sad that I have to say all of that--it really is. In a mature country that has a healthy attitude about marriage, sex and politics, this wouldn't be an issue. If fathering a child out of wedlock disqualified someone from being President, or an influential leader, or someone who spoke truth to power, there wouldn't be anyone left worth listening to. Give me someone flawed and complicated over someone repressed and self-hating any day. Give me a break--making a baby out of wedlock is a worse crime than sending over 4,000 Americans to their death? And we have no way of knowing whether this is even true! Grow the fuck up, wingnuts.

Fox News gets on board, and does one of the thinnest and most ridiculous pieces yet to be featured on this subject.

A hotel security guard told FOXNews.com he intervened this week between a man he identified as former Sen. John Edwards and tabloid reporters who chased down the former presidential hopeful after what they're calling a rendezvous with his mistress and love child.

I'd sure like to see pictures of this--not that that would be proof. How about a birth certificate with Edwards listed as the father? Or would that have to be checked for kerning as well? All we have are anecdotes and statements. The reporters from the National Enquirer claim they were threatened by hotel security guards and that their cameras were in danger of being seized. Every time I check the Enquirer website, I see the same stock photos and nothing from this supposed encounter. [Nah, not gonna link to it.]

The Beverly Hilton Hotel guard said he encountered a shaken and ashen-faced Edwards — whom he did not immediately recognize — in a hotel men's room early Tuesday morning in a literal tug-of-war with reporters on the other side of the door.

"What are they saying about me?" the guard said Edwards asked.

"His face just went totally white," the guard said, when Edwards was told the reporters were shouting out questions about Edwards and Rielle Hunter, a woman the National Enquirer says is the mother of his child.

The guard said he escorted Edwards, who was not a registered guest at the hotel, out of the building after 2 a.m. Edwards did not say anything while he was escorted out, said the guard, adding that at times the reporters on the scene were "rough on him," sticking a camera in his face and shouting questions.

Sounds pretty guilty to me! Except for the fact that we haven't seen those photos, nor can we believe anything this guard says. There were other guards present, by the way. What's their story? Are we supposed to believe tabloid trash writers to be credible about anything? Have any of those reporters paid a person for information? That's what I'd like to know.

Here's the best part of the whole Fox News story:

The guard did not recognize Edwards at the time of the incident, but said he concluded it was the 2008 presidential hopeful after hearing reports about the incident and finding an Enquirer reporter's notebook at the scene.

That's the SIXTH paragraph in the story--and I don't know about you, but that's why I think the story is complete and utter bullshit. An after-the-fact identification based on the tabloid media attention given to this story smacks of a payoff or an attempt to buy a corroborating witness. Tabloids pay for sources and stories all of the time--did someone offer this guard a wad of cash to say what he now says?

Even if the security guard didn't recognize Edwards, the fact that he "recognized" him after the fact and "concluded" it was him speaks volumes--does he have any training to identify people, does he have a reason why he didn't ask for Edwards ID at the time of the incident, does he have a criminal history, does he have a history of filing false reports, and so on. When you scrutinize how these people source their information, their house of cards comes tumbling down every time. It certainly would help if Fox News had any--any--trained, working journalists on staff. Apparently, they don't.

Sounds pretty suspect to me. Someone is trying to milk this for all it's worth, and while I hate to take the time to even blog about it, I do so because of the involvement of Fox News in perpetrating this smear.

And that's about all the time and effort this story deserves.

Another Dishonest Wingnut Sent Packing

When they say he's going to take on a diminished role, does that mean he'll be shambling around the building in his pajamas at four in the afternoon?

Brit Hume, a top anchor and executive with Fox News since the channel was launched 12 years ago, plans to step down at year's end. But he won't disappear entirely.

Sources familiar with the situation say that Hume, 65, will give up his job as Washington managing editor and anchor of "Special Report." They say he is near a deal to continue with Fox in a senior statesman role, not unlike that of Tom Brokaw at NBC, for roughly 100 days a year.

In his new role, Hume would be a senior political analyst, substitute for Chris Wallace as host of "Fox News Sunday" and anchor special events.

As Fox News hemorrhages viewers and gets caught doing ridiculous, unprofessional things while failing to serve the public's interest, expect to see more infighting and backbiting. Hume is merely a scapegoat for the failures of others. While O'Reilly, Hannity and Cavuto may seem untouchable, they have a pretty good chance of joining Hume, Gibson, Malkin, Burns, and Hill on the way out the door.

Good riddance--his diminished role signifies that the American public is sick and tired of being lied to--but that Fox News isn't going to change. Somewhere, a country is running out of wingnuts to put on TV.

--WS

No, the Iranians DO NOT have a missile that can hit the United States

Via Think Progress, we get one of the most insane and batshit crazy pieces of unadulterated fear mongering and out-and-out stupidity I have seen this year.




Dumbasses...

No, the Iranians do NOT have any missile, of any kind whatsoever, that can actually hit an installation in the continental United States of America.

--WS

Scott McClellan Rolls Over on the Bush Administration

UPDATED 11:57PM: McClellan is just "disgruntled."

The White House blasted former press secretary Scott McClellan Wednesday, claiming that his new book about President Bush and the Iraq war shows McClellan is a "disgruntled" former employee.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad — this is not the Scott we knew."

Excuse me, but we're ALL "disgruntled." And does anyone really know anyone, though?

-original post-

Hey, welcome back to the reality based community Mr. McClellan. Did you enjoy your sojourn into hell? What does it feel like to have your soul back?

Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president's intellect -- "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he writes -- but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.

"A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change," he writes.

In another section, McClellan describes Bush as able to convince himself of his own spin and relates a phone call he overheard Bush having during the 2000 campaign, in which he said he could not remember whether he had used cocaine. "I remember thinking to myself, 'How can that be?' " he writes.

How can that be? Only someone who knows that Bush really did use cocaine would dare write that. As I said last night to Blue Girl, how is it that McClellan isn't dead in a car wreck already?

We're not going to pimp the book from Scott McClellan, but we might enjoy making some rather derisive comments as more of these "revelations" come out.

Here is the most obvious comparison we can give you.
[Video below the fold]

Here's Karl Rove, the "architect," pretending there is no public record of what he did and claiming that McClellan sounds like a "left wing blogger:"



Here's David Gregory handing McClellan his ass back to him because Karl Rove is a proven liar:



Here's a little bonus video for your morning fun:



Yes, it was all about treason. And McClellan has gotten us closer to understanding what really went on and why there aren't guilty men at the end of a rope.

Get Ready for the Meltdown

An economy is like a mating ritual. The parties dance around each other and perform rituals. Instead of confidence, we have fear right now. Fear and Desperation are setting in because we have so many issues that aren't being addressed--and a tax rebate is exactly the wrong thing to do when we're watching everything start to come undone. Desperation is so sexy--ask any college girl and she'll tell you that a nervous, shaking, visibly horny young man who can't make up his mind and can't stop fidgeting with his keys always looks better than the guy who doesn't wear a watch and listens intently whenever someone speaks.

This is desperation, in an economy:

Federal Reserve makes emergency rate cut
Key U.S. interest rate slashed by three-quarters of percentage point

WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve, confronted with increased fears of a recession, cut a key interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point on Tuesday in an emergency move.

U.S. stock futures seesawed Tuesday after the Federal Reserve, responding to a growing financial market crisis, slashed interest rates 0.75 percentage point.

Dow Jones industrial futures, down more than 500 points before the Fed move, were fluctuating violently an hour before the start of trading.

The Interest rate cut comes as a panicked, desperate reaction to this bit of reality:

In Asia, Japan's Nikkei stock average closed down 5.65 percent — its biggest percentage drop in nearly a decade. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index lost 8.65 percent a day after showing its biggest losses since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In afternoon trading, Britain's FTSE 100 fell 0.69 percent, Germany's DAX index lost 2.55 percent and, France's CAC-40 fell 1.39 percent.

But don't worry, kids--Sean Hannity has it all squared away:

[Alan] COLMES: That doesn’t seem to be helping the economy very much…because things aren’t going so well.

[Sean] HANNITY: It is, Alan. The economy is phenomenal. Where have you been living?

Do you think a good many of our fellow Americans don't have the slightest clue as to what's going on because they've been going to Hannity and Fox News for their information? Think there's any kind of "cause and effect" here?

UPDATE I - KRUGMAN:

I still keep reading articles asserting that the last two recessions were brief and shallow. Formally, that’s true. But both were followed by prolonged “jobless recoveries” that felt like continuing recessions. Below is the employment-population ratio since 1989, with shading showing the official recessions. In both cases the employment slump went on for a long time after the recession was supposedly over.
There’s every reason to think that the same thing will happen this time. There’s a huge overhang of excess housing inventory; it will probably take several years before housing prices fall to realistic levels; and it’s not at all clear what will fill the gap left by weak housing and consumer spending.
There’s still the question of how deep the slump will be. I can see the case for arguing that it will be nasty. The 1990-91 recession was brought on by a credit crunch, the 2001 recession by overinvestment; this time we’ve got both. I guess we’ll see. In any case, whatever happens will probably last quite a while.

UPDATE II - JIM KUNSTLER:

The United States is so broke, its people at every level from the Federal Reserve on down don't know whether to shit or go blind. The homeowners cringing in the media rooms of their 5000-square-foot personal family resorts don't know how long they can stay put microwaving pepperoni hot pockets with the default clock ticking. The mortgage "servicers" don't know how they will persuade interested parties like, say, the Illinois State Cafeteria Workers' Pension Fund (holder of X-amount of mortgage-backed securities underwritten by, say, Merrill Lynch or Deutsche Bank) to foreclose on properties scattered everywhere from from Key West to Bainbridge Island -- or if there is actually any mechanism known to man that would make it possible to "work out" the sliced-and-diced collateral. The millions of maxed-out credit card holders and the issuers of their plastic are stuck together paddling a leaky tub in a sea of troubles every bit as wide, deep, and polluted as the one the mortgage junkies and their enablers are sinking in. The developers of malls, office parks, and power centers are weeping into their filing cabinets as the harsh daylight of insolvency stops the orgy of "consumption" and the retail tenants pack up their unsellable goodies for the liquidators, and the rent checks stop arriving in the mail, and the notes on this mall and that mall enter the eerie realm of "non-performance." And, of course, there are the genius wonder boyz and Wall Street playerz whose algorithms and turpitudes underwrote the script of this horror show -- for all I know they'll end up laughing into sugary skull drinks on a beach in the Cayman Islands, or doing Chinese fire drills in federal prison (or simply ass-fucked on the granite countertops of their Tribecca aeries by mobs of angry, repossessed, swindled former American dreamers pouring into Manhattan from the tract house dormitories of New Jersey and Long Island).

Fox News excludes Ron Paul from the final debate

Pravda Fox News, the official propaganda machine of the GOP, is running scared from Ron Paul. They must find his adherence to Constitutional principles wholly intolerable, since they refused to let him participate in the final debate before the voting starts. (Remember, Fox also refused to run a pro-Constitution ad.)

Now, don't confuse me with a Paul supporter - I'm not - and no, I won't be converted in comments - but I am a Democracy supporter.

Now I feel bad for somewhat supporting the exclusion of Gravel from subsequent debates after his "love" rant last August, because that exclusion led to the exclusion of Kucinich, who is the one true progressive who articulates liberal positions and ideals, but isn't electable. We went down the path of letting the M$M decide who will be heard, and this is the payoff. The GOPers are excluding the only anti-war candidate in the Republican field. (I WAS WRONG. I SHOULD HAVE RAISED HELL WHEN GRAVEL WAS EXCLUDED. And so should have you, and you, and you, and you, and you. Let's learn a lesson from our mistake.)

In the case of Paul, the only reason to exclude him is to silence him on opposition to the war. And he called 'em on it:

Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network “is scared” of him.

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will,” Paul said in an interview at a diner here. “They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

When 70% of America agrees about something, that's strong consensus. Unfortunately, it runs counter to the agenda of the war-whores at Faux News, and rather than deal with it, they chose to silence the lone voice of opposition.

Chickenshit bastards.