Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Watch this 14 second promo clip and try to determine which side is represented in the Battle for America. Does it have the people's best interest in mind? If not, then who might benefit from this news/advertisement? These are not easy questions but the answer is within the grasp of those willing to put in the work, utilize their education and have decent deductive reasoning skills. Finally, what word that begins with the letter "P" am I thinking of? Good luck.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

This Heartland clip is the perfect complement to the extended threaded discussion BRAD BLOG commenter Big Dan has been leading on corporatism and the media. In this short segment, host John Kasich uses the new home of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards as the pretext for attacking his two Americas campaign. Surprisingly, Kasich doesn't disagree with Edwards that two Americas exist and even calls Edwards an expert on the subject. The problem, as Kasich sees it, is that Edwards speaks of the great wealth divide when he should use his "sunny disposition" and own experience to "celebrate" all the opportunities afforded Americans. With "some elbow grease and a little ingenuity" even the "John Edwards dream" is possible!***

And that is as simple and clear a delineation of the two sides battling for America that one is likely to get in a 1:37 clip. In the red, white and blue, and incessantly patriotic corner, are Fox News, giant corporations and the super rich that own them. The masses, according to this corner and as articulated by Kasich, should just accept their lot in life without complaint yet remain motivated by the unlikely prospect of striking gold. In the other corner is John Edwards and others not controlled by the vast corporate system that has engulfed society. They are fighting incredible odds to try to revive the principle of equal opportunity for all Americans as well as adopt more equitable economic policies necessary to maintain a healthy democracy.

Which side are you on?

***This is not a guarantee and we make no claim as to the veracity of this statement. By law we are required to state that the odds of this occurring, even with "elbow grease" and "ingenuity," are less than the chances of George W. Bush telling the truth on any subject. This does not minimize the point, however, that the John Edwards dream is real and can happen to you. And that is what America is all about.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

There are three things that I can count on in life beginning with the sun coming up tomorrow and that when it comes up I will be a day older. A close third, is that every Saturday night on the McLaughlin Group, Tony Blankley will make a hypocritical statement. And tonight proved typical.

In this 1:55 clip (January 27, 2007), McLaughlin asks the panel whether Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who delivered an impressive rebuttal to Bush's lackluster State of the Union speech last week, has the credentials to be President. Eleanore Clift then sets Blankley off by calling his chickenhawk friends in the White House chickenhawks.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

The Soup's Joel McHale zings Republicans at the beginning of this Fox & Friends clip and then smacks Fox News at the end. Sandwiched in between is some really uncomfortable banter between the three hosts about the birds and the bees and how many roosters it takes, before Brian Kilmeade ends the clip with a crude Rosie O'Donnell smear. Poor Rosie. Fox has swift boated her so often and mercilessly lately that you'd think she was the junior Senator from New York. The clip runs 0:55.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Bill Kristol responds to Shepherd Smith's questions about whether the White House has a "Plan B" by stating, "they're serious about it...they're serious about staying in Iraq and winning and they're serious about being serious about judging whether we are winning. No more happy talk". Kristol seems to believe this is praiseworthy. As for Plan B? You'll have to judge Kristol's response for yourself.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Andrea Mitchell calls former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie on his B.S. GOP talking points today on MSNBC. Refreshing to say the least.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

On Saturday, there was a death "surge" in Iraq as at least 25 U.S. troops were killed on a single day in the worst one-day death toll for our troops since the start of the War.

Meanwhile, as Bush prepares to serve up another 21,500 American troops to Iraq, it's worth taking a look at who the hell came up with the "augmentation" plan in the first place, what it said before the Bush spin machine grabbed hold of it, and what the plan's author has had to say since Bush revealed it to the country on January 10, 2007.

According to Fred Barnes, Fox "News" perennial and editor of The Weekly Standard and as confirmed by the BBC, Washington Post and The Economist, Bush's new and improved plan for Iraq is based on a 50-page report written by retired General Jack Keane and Frederick Kagan, a "military academic" at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The report does, in fact, read much like Bush's proposal. With one small exception. As Barnes points out, the Keane/Kagan plan originally "envision[ed] a temporary addition of 50,000 troops".

With that in mind, here are some excerpts from the report, a television appearance and other media authored by Frederick Kagan over the last two months --- beginning before last November's election, well prior to Bush's announcement of the new scheme --- along with a couple of guest appearances by Surge Master Bill Kristol...

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer
Hopefully this mashup evidences the insanity of George W. Bush's Iraq policy. Lies, incompetence and just plain scary - do you live on this planet - quotes are a recipe for continued disaster in Iraq. Sadly, even if the Bush were right about the consequences of leaving, it still would be our only option as long as he remained Commander In Chief. With no credibility left, the only place anyone is likely to follow the President is to the Hague. Somehow, some way, we must end the war and the Bush presidency before he and the neocons 'make the peace' with Iran.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer
Democracy Now's Amy Goodman interviews Greenpeace's John Passacantado in this 10 minute clip that aired yesterday. Passacantando discusses the plight of the polar bear and the extensive effort undertaken by Exxon and the White House to mislead the public about global warming. Also worth checking out is Greenpeace's sobering website, "Exxon Secrets", which is essentially a searchable database evidencing the long reach of the oil behemoth's disinformation campaign.

For the record, despite all appearances, Passacantando and BRAD BLOG's own Brad Friedman are not related.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Below is a sampling of statistics and fun comparisons contained within the newly released 2006 Injustice Index, which is part of the The Drum Major Institute For Public Policy's 2006 Year in Review:

See more fun stats and the entire Year in Review at the Drum Major Institute.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Christine Jennings and her lawyer, Kendall Coffey, appeared Wednesday on Lou Dobbs Tonight with guest host Kitty Pilgrim to discuss the latest news concerning Florida's 13th Congressional District. As BRAD BLOG has reported often (most recently here, here and here), Vern Buchanan was declared the winner in Florida's 13th after the disappearance of 18,000 votes left the Republican with a paltry 369 vote lead over his opponent Jennings. Subsequently, a handful of experts including one provided by e-voting manufacturer ES&S, concluded that the inclusion of the missing votes would have propelled Jennings to an easy victory based on an analysis of the Sarasota votes which did not spontaneously combust.

Unfortunately, the will of the people is a foreign concept among those controlling the Florida election apparatus which declared Buchanan the winner after recounting nothing a couple of times. With no paper trail (much less a paper BALLOT, and there is a big difference!), a "recount" merely refers to state election staffers testing whether a few selected machines are working properly and is entirely unrelated to the vote count. By certifying Buchanan the winner, the state forced Jennings to seek relief in the Florida courts.

This did not sit well with Sean Hannity who, with Buchanan on as a guest a few weeks ago, found the entire affair "unbelievable" and further evidence that Democrats are sore losers. Juxtaposing the Hannity clip as well as Tom Feeney's reaction to the election controversy, recounted by Brad here, to Jennings appearance on CNN (clip above right), makes for quite an interesting experiment. While hardly evidence that could be used in a court of law like the damning statistical evidence, the contrast is, nevertheless, telling.

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer
This clip is from a Noam Chomsky speech given over the weekend titled, "What's Next? Creating Another World in a Time of War, Empire and Devastation," which aired today on Democracy Now! In this excerpt (3:45), Chomsky uses the recent Baker/Hamilton Report as the starting point for his critique of US foreign policy. He questions the selective use of polling data in the Report which fails to mention that the vast majority of both Iraqis and Americans desire an immediate pullout of US troops or a definitive time-line for withdrawal. It's all a bit strange to Chomsky, who states, "In our mission to bring democracy to the world we don't care about the opinions of people --- they're kinda irrelevant."