Republican Party Videos
newest 100 republican party videos / republican party widgets / media rss:

For second part of our examination of religious energies below the surface of the 2008 presidential campaign, our guest is conservative columnist Rod Dreher. Dreher is an outspoken critic of mainstream Republican economic and environmental ideas and the conduct of the Iraq war, but he voted for George W. Bush twice. We explore the little-known story of religiously-influenced impulses within the conservative movement that diverge from the Religious Right.

David Gergen excoriates the GOP s huge failure of leadership for failing to get more than 1/3 of their caucus to vote for the bailout bill and calls them poor babies for using the Nancy-Pelosi-hurt-my-feelings excuse. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) It s really the House Republicans who bear special ignamy tonight because two-thirds of them voted against it. It was House Conservative Republican member who derailed it. They had strong reasons they voted against it but let their be no doubt, if we pay a huge price like we did today, it was the house Republicans who [bear responsibility]. This business about Nancy Pelosi making a speech, yes she shouldnt have said it, yes it was inappropriate, but the fact that it changed their minds? Oh poor babyies. Yes, a few words from the House Speaker made them run and go back into their boxing corners? Come on.

Gov. Palin misspeaks calling Republican Party ticket Palin-McCain.

The Republican Party has long used wedge issues like abortion, gun control, and gay rights to its advantage in rallying conservative voters, but a shifting agenda amongst political evangelicals and new thinking about Democratic Party tactics might be changing the game. David Brancaccio discusses these issues and their implications with Bishop Harry Jackson and Author Drew Westen. Bishop Jackson, an influential voice among the nation's 100 million evangelicals, has shown a willingness to open his mind to opposing views, especially on climate control. Westen, author of "The Political Brain," talks about how appealing to voters' emotions reaps bigger electoral rewards than hammering home policy proposals.

John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in part to appease his party's strongly conservative base. With the Republican right wing weighing so much influence even in the waning days of the Bush presidency, where does that leave prominent moderate Republicans? Is there room for them in the GOP? David Brancaccio sits down with former New Jersey Governor and EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to discuss the political tolerance of the modern Republican Party, and her perspective on the current race.

Here in the United States, it s convention time with the Republican National Convention winding down tonight as John McCain strives to land the biggest job in the world. Whenever any of us goes for a job, it pays to think about our strengths. What makes us unique? What sets us apart? Now when we think of the Republican Party, we think of elephants! Sure enough, this huge, bumbling animal has become the symbol for the Republican Party. Last week, we talked about what a donkey could say in an interview to stand apart. This week, we ll do the same for an elephant. So we showed our fictional elephant how to hold his trunk so it looked like a tie, and sent him off for an interview. Of course, we gave him a healthy breakfast of grass before he left! Our elephant stressed that he has an excellent memory. He will help you remember important things about your key clients. He can also recall facts that may not have been documented. Our elephant emphasized that he was as strong as any creature you ll ever find. He can shoulder weights that you would never dream of on your own. Elephants have been used to transport goods all over the world. So our elephant stressed that your work will be much easier if you hire him. If you remember, our fictional donkey also stressed how strong he was. We found this intriguing two animals both emphasizing the same strength. It s interesting, though, that they re still different. There are situations where you would use a donkey, but not an elephant and vice versa. So don t just think about your strengths think about the nuances of your strengths and how a potential employer might find them useful. Comedian Jake Novak, of Jake s Comedy Corner, called in for today s show. He s thought about some common interview questions that might be good for the Presidential candidates. Last week, he had some questions for Barack Obama. This week, we ll share questions for John McCain. Jake s Take 5 Interview Questions for John McCain Question #1: Where do you see yourself in five years? Please don t say the Shady Pines Nursing Home, because that s where I want to put my parents and there s not enough room as it is! So try a different nursing home. Question #2: Are you willing to travel for this job? Because you know, Senator McCain, you tend to get cranky when you have to sit on the plane for more than fifteen minutes at a time! Question #3: Describe your employment history. And I d like you to leave out all of the stuff before the invention of metal tools! Question #4: What can you do for us that other candidates can t? Because the last time I checked, the Senate has 115 Republican white guys who want to be President! You re not really that unique in that way! Question #5: What will you do when you get this position? I m just hoping you won t go on Jay Leno again, because that s really not doing right by the American people. Executive privilege means you don t have to appear on other people s TV shows. Our main question comes before the job interview when John McCain filled out the application for the job of President, what did he put down for his address? Get the tips and tools you need to be a BIGG success. Subscribe to the Bigg Success Weekly it s FREE! Next time, we ask if it pays to be honest with your employees even in tough times. Until then, here s to your bigg success! Related posts 5 Interview Questions for Barack Obama Subscribe to The Bigg Success Show in iTunes. Subscribe to the Bigg Success feed. (Image by cssdteacher, CC 2.0)

Jeffrey s thought s about the heightened focus on global warming, global climate change and the consciousness supporting sustainability. Time magazine featured  “The Global Warming Survival Guide, 51 Things You Can Do To Make A Difference” on it’s cover a while ago, and now with the presidential elections with Barack Obama and Joseph Biden in full swing against John McCain and his unannounced vice presidential candidate, it will be interesting to see how both the Republican and Democratic party s address the issues of climate change, and whether they follow through with realistic plans to address it. With the continued attention that Al Gore has gotten from his film An Inconvenient Truth, even George Bush has conceded that he too is taking global warming seriously. The Omni Art Salon theme music When Angels Smile, is provided courtesy of Back To Earth

Thomas Frank appeared on The Colbert Report last night to promote his new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, and succinctly explained the thesis of his latest work thusly: Conservatives may be good at winning elections, but they suck when it comes to governing. Download | Play Download | Play Once you start treating it as a business, you know once you start turning over government operations to the market you re not talking about democracy any more. What you re talking about is plutocracy. Rule by the wealthy. Rule by the market. (h/t Heather for vids and transcript) Rough transcript below the fold: Colbert: My guest tonight says that conservatives have destroyed the government. Oh yeah? Then why do I still have to vote? [ ]..Now you re saying that that uh they don t rule very well. That s your argument. What do you mean by that? They ve been ruling for the Congress for most of the nineties and for most of the 1990 s, plus they ve had control of every other branch of the government. How could they not rule well if they stayed in power? Isn t that the objective of government? Frank: Yeah I guess if you figure in one, in one sense it is. They ve been very good at winning elections. What they ve actually been doing in Washington DC though is throwing the bureaucracy into reverse. You know, uh, selling off the government to you know to the highest bidder or in some cases the lowest bidder. Colbert: Isn t that the quickest way to reduce the size of government? Is that redefine what the role of government is. Frank: You know that s uh Colbert: Government doesn t do this. Government doesn t do that. You know government is just welfare for people who can t put out their own fires. Frank: That s an excellent suggestion. Just redefine the whole thing. Government isn t about you know looking after the general welfare. Government is about looking after you know our campaign contributors or something like that. The problem is that s not what we have the elections about. That s not what they were elected to do. Colbert: What were they elected to do? I ll bite. Frank: I d start with endorsing the laws. Colbert: Okay, sure, but laws.. Franks: Labor laws Stephen? Colbert: Labor laws? Frank: Yeah. Colbert: Labor laws are very mutable. Who s to say, who s to say what a hazardous work environment is? I mean maybe OSHA, but if you sell OSHA off to a private enterprise to enforce the labor laws.. Frank: Ah, very good idea. See and this is what s been going on in Washington for the last well, at least the last eight years but if you go back further as I do in the book for the last 28 years it is basically turning over these operations to the private sector where we really have no idea what they re doing. Colbert: But government s like a business. Why shouldn t a business run the government? Frank: Well that s the funny thing it ain t a business. Colbert: It ain t a business? What do you mean it ain t a business? You mean isn t a business? I just wanted to point out that that was grammatically incorrect. Frank: I believe, I believe you nailed me. Colbert: I did nail you. How s that feel by the way? How s that feel? Good? Stings a little but it s a good feeling. Frank:But it s not a business. Colbert: Okay what is it then? Frank: Government is the uh, the expression of the uh, you know, public will. Colbert: But it takes money, it takes money Franks: It does take money.. Colbert: It makes it a business. Frank: Oh very good. Colbert: It does it takes money crosstalk Frank: Is the Treasury Department a business? Colbert: There s the deficit, debt Frank: Here s the interesting thing. Once you start treating it as a business, you know once you start turning over government operations to the market you re not talking about democracy any more. What you re talking about is plutocracy. Rule by the wealthy. Rule by the market. Colbert: And people who know what they re doing and that s why they got rich. crosstalk Colbert: Who do we give the government to? The losers of the world? You know there s no silver or bronze in life. There s only people who rule and people who follow. Frank: There was a time, there was a time in this country when a lot of people shared your views on this Colbert: A lot of people share my views now sir. Frank: Maybe so but hopefully it s not the people who vote. Colbert: Uh huh. We shall see. crosstalk Colbert: Tell me, tell me something the conservatives have done to the government that have made our life worse. Frank: Well if you, let s say you live in New Orleans. Colbert: No one lives there any more. Frank: Alright crosstalk Frank: Let s say you are a meat packer in the state of Iowa.. Colbert: Aha yep. Frank: And you re thirteen years old.. Colbert: Yep. Frank: You probably shouldn t be, you know, working on the killing floor when you re thirteen. Colbert: Uh why because I don t want to build character? Here s the point is. I know that conservatives say like Grover Norquist wills say he wants to make the government so small that he can drown it in a tub. But my question for you is that even if they do that, who s paying for that water? I hope it s not the taxpayer. Frank: You know exactly. You know the really interesting thing is they haven t shrunk government. I mean it s grown. I mean you vote for these guys crosstalk.. Colbert: They ve made the government weaker. Frank: They ve turned it over to your buddies in the private sector. They ve turned it over to the big contractors, the big campaign donors. Colbert: And what s so wrong with that? Frank: Well those people don t answer to you and me. They don t answer to We the People Stephen. They answer to Colbert: Stockholders! Frank: Yeah, they answer to the stockholders. They answer to He the Boss . Colbert: Meet the new boss. It s the same as the old boss. Frank: You know it is! It is!

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) What a complete and utter tool. On C-Span s Newsmakers show this weekend, Roy Blunt blames Nancy Pelosi for how little the 110th Congress has accomplished. Now I have my issues with Pelosi s priorities and leadership, but let s call a tool a tool. The reason that so little has been passed is that the Republicans have been playing these stupid partisan games (and Blunt, John Ashcroft s and Tom DeLay s personally groomed protege, knows exactly how to do it) and basically fighting every bit of legislation that comes along. Can you say obstructionism, Roy? (.pdf) I knew that you could. And then to prove that the Republicans are serious about being as difficult as possible, Blunt admits that the Republicans have every intent to shut down Congress after the summer recess unless the Democrats allow for off-shore drilling rights. But it s the Democrats fault. I can t believe how dishonest this guy is and of course, since he s being interviewed by a Washington Times journalist, no actual facts will be proffered. We ve discussed the fallacy of the off-shore drilling doing anything to help our energy crisis a perfect example of the Shock Doctrine being pushed upon us. Yes, our gas is expensive, relatively speaking, for us (but compared to Europe, still a bargain). No actual increase in supply would happen for at least 5-10 years, no guarantee that resource would go to offset Americans costs (rather than going on the global market to the highest bidder) and the disaster waiting to happen of oil spills in sensitive ecological areas makes it a smart choice for the Democrats to take a stand. The only benefits go to oil companies and I d say they re doing fine right now. So it s up to the Democrats (hear me, Pelosi?) to get in front of this and make sure the American people know that Blunt That s all that needs to be said. transcripts below the fold Q: Has Nancy Pelosi been an effective Speaker? BLUNT: Not if you not by any standard legislatively. There s a lot to admire about Nancy Pelosi. She s incredibly tenacious, she takes a position and sticks with it. In my opinion, she usually sticks with the position that s wrong, and I think she s particularly doing that on energy. But I read in Time Magazine the other day, it may have been stories like that have been in both of your publications as well that this Congress has passed fewer laws than any in the last 30 years. We finally today passed one of the appropriations bill this week. 1950 was the last time the Congress wouldn t pass an appropriations bill, but not a single one by the end of July. And we hadn t. And, you know, Time Magazine pointed out, 30 year low, of the 260 bills that went to the President s desk, which sounds like a lot if you re outside of Washington, but when you think about what was in them, you and I know it s a 30 year low, and 74 of those 30 bills, of those 260 bills, were naming post offices, a bunch of the bills were things like declaring National Watermelon Month, and one of my favorites was designating dirt as an important national resources, sort of spend a lot of time on the obvious. You d have a hard time getting beyond two handfuls of legislation that this Congress has passed that really mattered. And the Speaker, more than anybody else, has to accept responsibility for that. [snip] SEAN LENGELL (Washington Times): Beginning this week, Congress takes their five week annual summer break. But when you come back, some Republicans have suggested that the idea of possibly voting against a continuing budget resolution, that would fund the government for next year unless Democrats agree to lift a ban on offshore drilling. If they did this, it would essentially shut down the government. Is this something you would support, this tactic? BLUNT: I certainly wouldn t see it that way. I would see that you know, there are two bans in the appropriations process and you re watching this some people know exactly what that means, others wonder well how do you in the money spending protest process, ban something. And essentially, so you can t spend a penny to lease any of the offshore drilling rights or any of the shale oil drilling rights in the west or off-shore drilling rights in the Atlantic or Pacific. And so that s a that s a ban on those in the bill. That ban runs out September the 30th. It s not my fault we don t have an Interior Appropriations Bill that is already taking care of this problem. As far as I m concerned, October 1, we should be able to begin the leasing process and drilling and mining in both of those areas, going American supply. Now whether Democrats would rather shut down the whole government rather than let those two things happen, is really the question as opposed to whether Republicans would you know that only lasts until September the 30th, and they haven t done anything to extend it. So I m assuming it s done. LENGELL: But would the public blame the Democrats or blame the Republicans for shutting down the government? BLUNT: In this environment, where energy is the most important issue, and the only thing you re fighting over is whether you allow drilling, we d have to see. I d rather be on the side of that that wanted to go after American energy sources than the side that didn t.

Barack Obama s trip overseas is off to a great start with Prime Minister Maliki endorsing his withdrawal plan and the White House accidentally informing every news organization about it and Chuck Todd is hearing that Republicans are starting to worry. Download | Play Download | Play MR. TODD: Republicans are panicked about this trip because they think that this is going to be a home run. And arguably, you ve got some Obama folks who actually think he ought to come home right now. It s never going to get as good as it s gotten in the last 48 hours. You ve got McCain suddenly in the White House parroting what Obama has been saying in Afghanistan. The McCain folks will say, Hey, we re not parroting. We ve been there before. But they clearly caught McCain flat-footed there. And then what Maliki did, even in the backtrack statement that the spokes the government spokesperson over there said, he threw in the word timetable. In order to really appreciate the importance of the Maliki development, consider what would happen if the opposite occured: To really understand the importance of Maliki s comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves. It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about Obama s Iraq Problem. Obama would probably lose the race. Exactly. And this is what Marc Amibinder has to report: Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, We re fu*ked. If McCain loses the foreign policy debate, which is becoming increasingly likely, he ll have an insurmountable problem on his hands.

Our Favorite Lib., Tony Campolo joins us on this edition of Steve Brown Etc. to give us the latest on his efforts to represent pro-lifers “to the highest members of the Democratic Party.” Use one of the options below to listen. Mr. Campolo has been appointed to the Democratic Party s platform committee and he says Democratic officials are open to hearing his argument that abortion is a human rights issue. We talk about that and the need for Christians to speak truth to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Tony Campolo is a speaker, sociologist, pastor, social activist and author of 35 books, his most recent being, Red Letter Christians, A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics.

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) Neocon Bill Kristol made his usual appearance as part of the Power Panel on Fox News Sunday this morning and was surprisingly supportive of Hillary Clinton. In a rather tongue-in-cheek fashion, Bill decries the misogyny that he says plagued the Democratic primaries, and that Republicans are much more open to a strong woman: I think Hillary Clinton was gracious. She s put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I m appalled by personally, never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we re - Republicans are much more open to strong women, and that s why John McCain s going to put Sara Palin , the Governor of Alaska on the ticket. How sweet of Bill to show such compassion for wait, wasn t it Bill who said this last February? Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women… it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that’s led them to defeat year after year… White Women are a problem - but, you know… we all live with that… Yes, it sure was. Because we know there was zero sexism coming from the right during the primary season, right? There was nary a peep on FOXNews about Hillary losing male votes because her voice was shrill, or that her tears were just a political stunt, while male candidates of both parties getting choked up was just a sign of their passion, right? Save it, Bill. Even in jest, it just makes you look petty.

In light of Charlie Black s ridiculous and revealing comments to Fortune magazine Monday, Jon Stewart shows how Republicans are calculating their winning November strategy. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) Why is it that a terror attack helps Republicans? Well, it s quite simple. A terror attack, when added to an election, equals Republican. Why is that? Let s show our work. First we have to solve for R. Now, if you add 7 1/2 years of Republican administration, times the five years we ve been at war, which has divided the nation, add in the government s incompetent response to the domestic disaster of Katrina, minus the equity in your home thats disappeared, plus the price of oil squared, over the boon that the Iraq war has been to terrorist recruiting, times tortue, minus the resoucres we could have been using in Afghanistan, plus the resources we could have been using to catch bin Laden, carry the Cheney and . Digg It!

Anti Democrats new wmd in the Republican party

Download | Play Download | Play Former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee this morning to answer questions about what he knew about, and his role in the treasonous outing of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. McClellan recognized the enormous damage the Plame scandal caused our country and government, and continued his calls for an end to the permanent campaign and scandal culture in Washington D.C.. He criticized President Bush for failing to work in a transparent, and honest manner for the American people, and the media for glorifying people who perpetuate partisan politics, rather than searching for the truth. I, as many others, take issue with his lack of candor back when these crimes were being perpetrated against our country, but at least he s there, in front of Congress and doing the right thing now. You can stream the hearings live on CSPAN s website. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, and members of the committee. I am here today at your invitation to answer questions about what I know regarding the Valerie Plame episode. Back in 2005, I was prohibited from discussing it by the White House ostensibly because of the criminal investigation underway, but I made a commitment to share with the public what I knew as soon as possible. That commitment was one of the reasons I wrote my book. Unfortunately, this matter continues to be investigated by Congress because of what the White House has chosen to conceal from the public. Despite assurances that the administration would discuss the matter once the Special Counsel had completed his work, the White House has sought to avoid public scrutiny and accountability. The continuing cloud of suspicion over the White House is not something I can remove because I know only one part of the story. Only those who know the underlying truth can bring this to an end. Sadly, they remain silent. The result has been an increase in suspicion and partisan warfare, and a perpetuation of Washington s scandal culture, one of three core factors that have poisoned the atmosphere in Washington for the past two decades. The central message in my book is the need to change the way Washington governs. We need to minimize the negative influence of the permanent campaign, end the scandal culture, and move beyond the philosophy of politics as war. The rest of the transcript below the fold. No one has a better opportunity to make that happen than the president. To do so, he must first fully embrace openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle and seek common ground to unite Americans from all walks of life and political persuasions. I believed President Bush could be that kind of leader for the country when I first went to work for him in Texas. He was a popular, bipartisan leader who had a record of working with Democrats. Unfortunately, like many good people who come to Washington, he ended up playing the game by the existing rules rather than transforming it. The larger message of my book is bigger than any person or party. It is about restoring civility and bipartisanship and candor to our national political discourse. It is about putting our Nation s interests above partisan goals. Indeed, all of us especially those in elected office can do more to make this happen by promoting openness and engaging in civil discourse. The permanent campaign leads to just the opposite. Substantive debates over policy give way to a contest over which side can most effectively manipulate the media narrative to its advantage. It is about power and electoral victory. Governing becomes an offshoot of campaigning rather than the other way around. Vicious attacks, distortions, political manipulation and spin become accepted. Complex issues are reduced to black-and-white terms and oversimplified in the context of winners and losers and how they will affect the next election. Too often, the media unwittingly ignores the impact of government on the daily lives of Americans, focusing foremost on the Beltway game and lionizing those who play it most skillfully. There is no more recent example of this unsavory side of politics than the initial reaction from some in Washington to my book. I received plenty of criticism for daring to tell the story as I knew it. Yet few of my critics tried to refute the larger themes and perspectives in the book. Instead of engaging in a reasoned, rational, and honest discussion of the issues raised, some sought to turn it into a game of gotcha, misrepresenting what I wrote and seeking to discredit me through inaccurate personal attacks on me and my motives. The American people deserve better. Governing inevitably has an adversarial element. People and groups will always differ about the proper use of limited government resources. But should government be a process of constant campaigning to manipulate public opinion, or should it be centered as much as possible on rational debate, deliberation, and compromise? Writing this book was not easy for me to do. These are my words, my experiences, and my conclusions. I sought to take a clear-eyed look at events. To do so, I had to remove my partisan lens and step back from the White House bubble. Some of the conclusions I came to were different from those I would have embraced at the outset. My book reflects the only idea of loyalty that I believe is appropriate in democratic government, and that is loyalty to the ideals of candor, transparency and integrity, and indeed to the constitutional system itself. Too often in Washington, people mistakenly think that loyalty to an individual officeholder should override loyalty to basic ideals. This false loyalty is not only mistaken, but can exercise a corrupt influence on government. I am here because in my heart I am a public servant who, like many Americans, wants to improve the way Washington governs and does not want to see future administrations repeat the mistakes this White House made. I do not know whether a crime was committed by any of the Administration officials who revealed Valerie Plame s identity to reporters. Nor do I know if there was an attempt by any person or persons to engage in a cover-up during the investigation. I do know that it was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons. I regret that I played a role, however unintentionally, in relaying false information to the public about it. I ll do my best to answer any questions on this matter that members of the committee may wish to ask. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It s pretty laughable to watch the leader of the party of stagnation and obstructionism claim that Republicans will win in November once they prove to voters that they re the real agents of change. I wonder if Boehner realizes how foolish he sounds? Doubtful. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) BOEHNER: Well, Wolf, we ve got a steep hill to climb. It s a challenging year for Republicans. I think Republicans, we have to do is show that we re agents of change. We have to go out there and show the American people that we have solutions, which we do, for the economy, gas prices, our national security and health care. And I think if we re able to go out there and present a clear choice to the American people, I think we ll do much better than the people expect in this election cycle. The American people do realize that Republicans have solutions to their problems, Congressman. The only thing is that they categorically reject them on every level. This month, the Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on eight out of ten electoral issues tracked regularly by Rasmussen Reports (see data tables). The two parties are essentially even on the other two issues. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, the Democrats also have the advantage on eight out of ten issues. So, by all means, please go out there and make the case that Republicans want to make the tax cuts permanent, cover up the energy crisis with gas tax holiday gimmicks, vest the President with draconian and unchecked spying powers, and deny millions of Americans access to quality health care. That will just make our jobs easier. Transcript below the fold: BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. Throughout the program, we re going to reflect a little bit on the life and legacy of NBC s Tim Russert. Tim was a consummate journalist and one of the toughest interviewers on television. Here s a little sample. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BOEHNER: We re going to have Republicans who are skeptical of this plan who will probably vote for this. RUSSERT: How many? BOEHNER: And while RUSSERT: How many do you think? BOEHNER: We may lose the vote on this, we will not lose the debate on this. RUSSERT: You lose a third of the Republicans? BOEHNER: I don t think we ll lose a third. RUSSERT: Ten percent? (CROSSTALK) RUSSERT: You had said that this resolution would demoralize the troops. But the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs said that is just not true. (END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: Joining us now from Cincinnati is the man who got some pressure that day, pretty hard pressure, from Tim Russert, the House Republican Leader John Boehner. Congressman, thanks very much for coming in. BOEHNER: Wolf, good morning. BLITZER: Before we get to some of the other issues, the economy, taxes, energy, your thoughts right now? I know you were on the receiving end sometimes of some tough questions from Tim Russert. But give us your thoughts on this very sad Father s Day weekend. BOEHNER: Wolf, he was a tough journalist and clearly the preeminent political journalist in Washington. But Tim and I had a very special relationship. We kind of grew up in the same kind of blue collar neighborhoods. He in Buffalo, I here in Cincinnati. My dad owns a tavern. We both went to Jesuit schools. And, you know, growing up Catholic together. And so after he wrote his book about Big Russ I had a chance to talk to Tim about his experiences growing up with his father, my experiences growing up with my father and I can tell that you the two of us shed a tear together one day. He was a great human being. Someone who clearly loved his family and did a marvelous job covering those of us in politics. But let me tell you, he was a tough, well-prepared interviewer. BLITZER: He certainly was and we will all miss him. We re going to have some more reflections on Tim coming up here on LATE EDITION. Let s get to the most important issues out on the agenda right now. And you re the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. In our latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, we asked registered voters all across the United States who would handle the economy better. Fifty percent said Barack Obama. John McCain got 44 percent. Among registered voters, we asked your choice for Congress. Look at this. BLITZER: Do you support a Democratic Congress? Fifty-four percent said they do, 44 percent said they would support Republicans in Congress. You ve got a huge problem awaiting you come November because it looks, if you believe in these numbers, congressman, you believe in some of the special elections that have recently taken place, you re on the verge of suffering even greater losses in your minority status in the House of Representatives. BOEHNER: Well, Wolf, we ve got a steep hill to climb. It s a challenging year for Republicans. I think Republicans, we have to do is show that we re agents of change. We have to go out there and show the American people that we have solutions, which we do, for the economy, gas prices, our national security and health care. And I think if we re able to go out there and present a clear choice to the American people, I think we ll do much better than the people expect in this election cycle. BLITZER: Senator Obama, the new leader of the Democrats, now says that if the Republicans take over, if McCain gets elected, it s simply going to be more tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans. Listen to Senator Obama. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Senator McCain is now calling for this new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive, twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly three times nearly three times as regressive. Understand regressive means it is skewed to hurt low income and middle income people and that help rich people. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: All right. You want to respond to Senator Obama? BOEHNER: Wolf, if you look back over the really the last 27 years, since 1981 when Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, we ve been cutting taxes for the last 27 years by and large. And what s happened? We ve allowed the American people to keep more of their own money, to invest in our economy, to expand the jobs in our economy and, guess what? We ve got more people working, a healthier economy. More people are paying taxes. More revenue coming to the federal government. Washington doesn t have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem. And I think that reducing taxes, allowing the American people to invest in their own future is a much better prescription than what Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats want which is higher taxes, bigger government in Washington and more control from Washington. BLITZER: During the past almost eight years when the Republicans were except for the last year or so were in charge of both the White House and the Congress, the national debt went from around $5 trillion to more than $9 trillion. This is the debt that our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren are going to be paying off for a long time to come. Why should the voters trust the Republicans? BOEHNER: Well, the real issue here is that you look at the additional domestic spending, it was mostly for our the efforts after 9/11. Homeland security, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq and a growing entitlement problem. The president is trying to address the Social Security entitlement program and got nowhere. If we don t address the long- term problem of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid where we ve made promises, we, the baby boomers, have made promises to ourselves that our kids and their kids cannot afford. We need to address these programs because that s where the real run-up in the national debt is occurring. And I can tell you the Republicans earn back the majority of the Congress, we will address this entitlement crisis head on and be straight up and honest with the American people. BLITZER: The price of a gallon of gas here in the United States, the average now over $4. And in some parts of country even approaching $4.50 and even $5 a gallon. Many Republicans including you, you want to start drilling. Especially drilling in Alaska, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The leader of the republicans now John McCain says bad idea. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MCCAIN: I understand that the attractiveness of it. I would also say to you I would not drill in the Grand Canyon. I wouldn t drill in the Everglades. And I believe that this area should be kept in pristine preservation. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: He is referring to what s called the Anwar oil reserves, the oil fields out there. Why he is wrong? BOEHNER: Well, in my opinion, we can drill in Anwar in an environmentally safe way. And so John McCain and I disagree. But we do agree we could have more domestic drilling here in the United States in an environmentally safe way. You know, if we re going to get serious about getting off of our dependence on foreign energy, we got to do what I call all of the above. We need more conservation. We need an alternative fuels. We need biofuels. We need to look at nuclear energy in a more serious way. And, yes, we need to drill more and to develop more domestic production. And over the 18 years that I ve been in Congress, there have been 46 votes to bring more domestic production online. And I voted 46 times to have more production in the United States. Nancy Pelosi on those same 46 votes, only voted twice to bring more domestic production. And if you look at the record over the last 18 years, Republicans have been for more domestic production, trying to get off of our dependence of foreign energy and about 90 percent of the time the Democrats have opposed this. And I can tell you, Wolf, that each and every day over the next five months leading up to this election, Republicans are going to force the Congress to deal with this issue. It s time to be honest with the American people and show them if you don t want to drill, show the American people you don t want to drill. BLITZER: Congressman Boehner, thanks very much for joining us. Happy Father s Day.

Download | Play Video and more from Media Matters: In a June 4 article headlined Judge tosses school official s lawsuit against Fox News, the Associated Press reported on the dismissal of a school superintendent s lawsuit against the Fox News Channel and Fox gullible, as the AP noted, and while he dismissed the lawsuit, the Fox Vice President for News John Moody reportedly warned staff in January 2007 that seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC. In dismissing the suit, U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby wrote: The facts in this case a morning cable news show derisively reporting events and statements obtained unwittingly from an online parody should provide grist for journalism classes teaching research and professionalism standards in the Internet age. But First Amendment principles developed long before the Internet still provide protection to the gullible news program hosts against this public official s claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Poetic justice would subject the defendants to the same ridicule that they accorded the plaintiff. But in real life, the aggrieved school superintendent must be satisfied with their later retraction and a professional reputation sullied less than theirs. Read on Somehow, this comes to mind.

Last week we brought you this story about McCain campaign Co-Chair Phil Gramm and his lobbying efforts that put him on the wrong side of the ongoing mortgage foreclosure crisis. Now, it appears Gramm s association with the aging Republican senator s campaign is doing far more harm that previously known. UBS, a bank for which Gramm lobbied, is now under investigation for alleged use of overseas tax havens to hide assets of its wealthy clients from U.S. authorities while in office, Gramm also supported these tax havens after 9/11, which hampered the government s ability to track Osama bin Laden s financial network before 9/11. Download | Play Download | Play In the #3 story on Monday s Countdown, Keith Olbermann talks with The Nation s Chris Hayes about the stench of lobbyists that continuously plagues John McCain s campaign and how this and other devastating scandals completely blows his anti-lobbyist, tough-on-terror campaign theme: Hayes: What this reveals is actually a really profound contradiction at the heart of the Republican coalition, the conservative coalition and McCain s campaign, which is on the one hand, it s home to the most sort of, chest-beating, self righteous moralists about foreign policy - we can t talk to Ahmedenajad because he s an anti-Semite, at the same time it s a party who s agenda is run by global conglomerates that pursue dollar and profit with no regard for any kind of sense of morality

A flood of recent polls suggests the 2008 election will once again display the Iron Law of 21st century Republican presidential politics. That is, with Americans showing an overwhelming preference for Democratic positions across virtually the entire spectrum of issues, the GOP has to make the race about something else. This year as in 2000 and 2004, the Republicans will try to turn the race into a presidential personality contest. And to win it, they need to manufacture a character gap between John McCain and Barack Obama. Two surveys in the past week show the Republicans dilemma. First, a new Rasmussen poll revealed that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on each and every one of the 10 issues measured. Democrats enjoy double-digit advantages on the economy (50%-36%), government ethics (45%-26%), health care (54%-33%), Social Security (49%-36%), education (50%-35%), Iraq (50%-39%) and immigration (45%-35%). The GOP lags by smaller margins on national security, taxes and abortion. Meanwhile, an ABC News/Washington Post poll similarly reflects the devastating impact for the GOP of Americans record-setting disapproval for President Bush and the direction of the country With 82% of respondents now believing the U.S. has gone off the rails, Democrats have built a massive 21 point cushion (53%-32%) as the party Americans trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years. Those lopsided results are consistent with an April poll from Rasmussen which found that election 2008 is creating record numbers of Democrats. The results showed a 10-point Democratic advantage in party identification (41.4% to 31.4%), almost double the margin one year earlier. That delta is unprecedented: In fact, the Democrats now have the largest partisan advantage over the Republicans since Rasmussen Reports began tracking this data on a monthly basis nearly six years ago. The calculus is simple. If Americans vote the issues, Republicans lose. Which is why character matters more than policy to the Republican faithful. In early May, yet another Rasmussen survey showed that by a 52% to 36% margin, Americans contend that a candidate s policies on the issues matter more than his or her character. Unsurprisingly, given Americans clear support for Democratic positions and priorities, Republicans instead responded that character counts most. The Rasmussen findings show a sharp partisan cleavage over the importance of candidate s policies versus character. By a two-to-one margin, Democrats said policy positions matter most. But Republican respondents argued the reverse, with character trumping issues by 49% to 43%. Among independents, policy proposals rank as more important, by 49% to 32%. As a result, the Rasmussen poll like the later ABC/WaPo survey showed a dramatic advantage for the Democratic Party in a generic presidential match-up: The survey found that 48% of the nation s adults are inclined to vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate while 34% prefer a Republican. Which is precisely why the Republican Party cannot let the 2008 election be about the issues. As Rasmussen suggests, thus far the GOP has been very successful in converting the White House race into a personality contest in which the supposed maverick John McCain is amazingly competitive at a time of almost universal disdain for his party and its policies: In fact, one of the most significant stories so far in Election 2008 is the way that John McCain significantly outperforms the Republican brand. On a series of key issues, the Democrats are trusted more than the GOP but McCain is trusted more than either Democrat. As I noted recently, John McCain has been the beneficiary of both the bitter (and endless) Democratic race and the seeming imperviousness of the media s McCain maverick myth. For example, on the economy, Americans prefer Democrats over Republicans by 48% to 40%. Yet in head-to-head matchups, voters say they trust John McCain over both Hillary Clinton (47% to 42%) and Barack Obama (46% to 39%). Despite John McCain s repeated admissions that the issue of economics is not something I ve understood as well as I should, right now Americans trust him more than his Democratic rivals on the issue they consider most important in 2008. On Iraq, national security and taxes as well, McCain is also seen as more trustworthy. Even with the albatross of a disrespected Republican president and a discredited GOP brand, John McCain may be winning the character war. Sadly, we ve been here before. The 2000 and 2004 exit polls clearly show the Republican Party succeeded both in portraying the presidential contest as being about character and in defining the accepted media narrative for candidates Bush, Gore and Kerry. Eight years ago, 24% of voters claimed being honest/trustworthy was the quality that mattered most; among them, George W. Bush trounced Al Gore by 80% to 15%. In 2004, Bush walloped the supposed flip-flopper John Kerry by 70% to 29% among those claiming honesty was the most important presidential attribute. Among those wanting a strong leader, Bush swamped Kerry by a staggering 75 points. In his 2007 book The Big Con, Jonathan Chait described how Republicans consistently win elections despite almost universal disdain for their policies among the American people. In a nutshell, Chait argues that Republicans must convert elections into contests of character because they simply can t win on issues. While their man, be it George W. Bush or John McCain, is the authentic guy you d like to have a beer with, the GOP drives the media conventional wisdom that paints the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry and now Barack Obama as effete, out-of-touch elitists whose positions change with the wind: Media outlets functionally affiliated with the Republican Party have been able to create news that makes its way into the nonpartisan media. It is a kind of machine that manufactures images of character. The Republicans seminal insight was that the random process by which small events come to wield great symbolic insight into the character of presidential candidates didn t have to be random. It was possible to prime the pump, in a way. (p.169) The data is clear. If the election is about the economy, health care and Iraq, John McCain cannot become the 44th president. Only if the GOP succeeds once again in transforming the race into a media medley about lapel pins, angry ministers and Muslim-sounding middle names can the Republicans hope to maintain their hold on the White House. The right-wing media machine is already hard at work on producing the 2008 version of the character gap. The supposed elitism of Barack Obama (and not the perpetually out-of-touch John McCain) has already emerged as an indispensable, if demonstrably false, conservative story line. In Monday s New York Times, Bill Kristol extolled McCain s exceptionalism. Meanwhile, uber lobbyist and McCain senior adviser Charlie Black now labels his man slightly right of center after just weeks ago airing a McCain television spot titled, True Conservative. No doubt, McCain s move to the center and away from his president and his party is well underway. All the more reason why the Democratic Party needs to move beyond its interminable nominating process and begin the demolition of John McCain s maverick myth. To win the war for the White House, Democrats need to win the battles for Americans hearts - and minds.

After learning that the GOP borrowed their new campaign slogan from an anti-depressant medicine, Jon Stewart put together this effective new ad that should hit the airwaves soon. Download | Play Download | Play You are the guys that have been in charge! What do you mean change you deserve ? Oh, you were being sarcastic, I guess.

Download | Play Download | Play While the rest of the country seems to have forgotten about Iraq, in Maine s Senate race the issue is front and center. Bush Enabler Susan Collins is being confronted both for her support of the war and her lack of oversight when she chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (2003-07) and is now the republican ranking member, a committee chaired by her good, good friend Joe Lieberman with similar disastrous consequences. The news report from WGME in Portland is noteworthy not only for the content but the inclusion of some of Robert Greenwald s Iraq For Sale footage. Republican Sen. Susan Collins and her Democratic challenger Tom Allen are sparring over whether she should have called executives from Halliburton before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Allen tells News 13 that Collins and her committee failed in its oversight role when it came to American contractors like Halliburton and KBR in Iraq. Collins responds by saying she focused on legislation calling for greater accountability among contractors. That includes a special inspector general in Iraq, an office that has led to investigations, audits and criminal indictments. Collins says results are more important than political theater, but Allen says she was missing in action when she was most needed. Congressman Tom Allen is a Blue America endorsed candidate for the United States Senate.

Absolute shocker tonight as the special election in MS-01, one of the reddest districts on the map, has been won by Democrat Travis Childers. Russert, Matthews, Olbermann, and even Huckabee all agree: this is very, very bad news for the GOP. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) Both Darth Cheney (Russert s words) and Mike Huckabee campaigned for Childers opponent. Maybe it s not a good idea to have the least popular guy in America promoting you. Just a thought. The Democrats are now 3-for-3 in these red district special elections: Along with Childers win tonight, Bill Foster took Denny Hastert s old IL seat, and Dan Cazayoux took the solidly red 6th district in LA. Another bit of good news comes out of Nebraska tonight, where true Democrat Scott Kleeb beat out fake Democrat Tony Raimondo by a wide margin for the right to take a run at Chuck Hagel s open seat. Congrats, Scott.

Arianna Huffington squared off against John Stossel on 20/20 this past Friday to promote and discuss the main theme of her new book, Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe. Download | Play Download | Play ABC News: Huffington s politics lean left, but that wasn t the case in the mid- 90s when she was a friend to Newt Gingrich and a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. Now she s written a new book called Right Is Wrong, in which she argues that the lunatic fringe of American conservatives have hijacked the country. You can read an excerpt from the book here. John Amato: The book is really, really good. There are so many outrageous stories constantly coming our way that I almost forgot about the Utah mining disaster. She covers it in detail.

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t BillW s speech yesterday the media has been dissecting every syllable and nuance. Reactions have been mixed and the right is now trying to portray Obama as the black candidate who just wants to blame whitey. That s why it comes as no surprise that right wing tool, Joe Scarborough, can t stop talking about Obama and Reverend Wright and has now picked up the Free Republic line on the speech how dare he say ANYTHING bad about his grandmother! I really wonder why anybody, why any man would throw his grandmother under the bus during a political speech, regardless of the point he was trying to make. Now that Tucker no longer has his own show, Joe has taken on the role of wingnut concern troll and on this morning s Morning Joe, he was in rare form. He kept saying over and over how Obama s speech was one of the greatest speeches on race ever, then can t shut up about how white folk in Ohio and Pennsylvania will never buy into it. It s true, some people weren t impressed with the speech, but Joe constantly yammers on about how Obama supporters are all latte-sipping yuppies from midtown Manhattan and Georgetown, which is patently false. Will Bunch asks if we re ready for Obama s post-racial politics v.2.0. Given Scarborough s remarks, I m not so sure. Pam Spaulding hopes so: People who know me well are quite aware that I m not one prone to great waves of emotion; I m Ms. Even Keel to most. The emotion was because there I sat, reading elements of wisdom about our desperate need for engagement on the topic of race that I have written about on this blog for years. At times I have almost pleaded with readers to feel safe to open up to discuss the difficult issues of difference putting up posts with a dearth of comments because few were willing to put themselves out there. Sometimes I feel like a tiny, insignificant voice attempting to bridge a Grand Canyon-sized divide. I can t imagine what it felt like for Barack Obama to write and deliver this speech, knowing the audience that would be receiving the message. Because of that, in Obama s speech I was reading the words of a man that gets it, regardless of the fact that he is a candidate for President of the United States of America that resonate with me on this issue. That he is this close to becoming president of this country and to risk it all by cracking open this door on a painful area of this country is something I thought I would never see. He is giving voice to a healthier view on race relations that needs to be embraced from a stage where it s hard to argue that it is not an issue worth tackling.

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) Bill Moyers interviews former Rep. Mickey Edwards, author of Reclaiming Conservatism: How A Great American Political Movement Got Lost - And How It Can Find Its Way Back, and Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth Of A Maverick on what is essentially the bastardization of what the Republican Party has stood for historically. MICKEY EDWARDS: (W)hile I was in the House, Newt Gingrich sort of rose in power. And Newt decided that the purpose of the Republican in Congress was not to carry out the fundamental principles that they had originally believed in, but to defeat Democrats. That was all that mattered. And it became how do— it s always war Democrats versus Republicans, all the time. And when you look at it from that mindset, you have a Republican president — you know, he is not any more the head of a different branch of government. He s your team captain. He s your quarterback. And so, Gingrich really created a system of nonstop warfare that went well beyond, you know, what the situation was with Nixon. And institutionalized it to an extent that today, when the Congress properly issues — tries to vote a contempt citation against two people on the White House staff, Harriet Myers and Josh Bolton, you know, who defy a Congressional subpoena, and Republicans in Congress walk out in protest, rather than engage in defending the branch of government that they re a part of. So, I put a lot of the blame right on Newt Gingrich. I think he led to a lot of this. And as Matt Welch points out, despite McCain s Maverick image, he s marching right along in lockstep with Gingrich: Ever since then, restoring the power of the executive has been a fundamental part of modern Republicanism, which went totally against their traditions. And as part of that, John McCain actually one of the only philosophies that he elucidates in his book, his five books that he s written, is to restore executive power at the expense of Congress, especially when it comes to foreign policy and the making of war. It is basically the only interest that he shows in political philosophy in his books. But the country has seen the incredible damage done by these kind of philosophies over the last seven years. I think author Sarah Vowell once said that the only thing that surprised her was that her own deep pessimism turned out to be too rosy for reality. EDWARDS: But I think that he s making a serious mistake in terms of how he frames his persona for the general election. I don t think this country is ready for a continuation of Bush. And I don t think it s ready for a Hagee approved, Hagee-endorsed presidency. And why he s doing that, I don t know. Well, if this is a losing strategy, by all means, let s hope McCain keeps it up. Full video and transcripts of this episode available online.

Conservatives decrying the "cult worship" of Barack Obama conveniently forget their own official and puerile idolatry of their Superhero-in-Chief. A blast from the GOP past, strangely lost but now rediscovered...

This has nothing to do with hopes of being McCain's running mate, and it has nothing to do with a hissy fit. It has, however, a calculated career move...

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) The Republican National Committee obviously saw last night s Democratic Debate as a fundraising opportunity a big fundraising opportunity. Judging by the no less than SIX fundraising emails they sent to Air America s Rachel Maddow during the debate, they also saw it as a chance to start framing the race between their candidate and the presumptive Democratic candidate: Barack Obama. That s right. The RNC even took a break from their Hillary-hate, honed razor-sharp after 16 years, to attribute something Clinton said to Obama. Can you call that progress? Transcripts below the fold Olbermann: Rachel, this idea that we may have seen something in a sea change in terms of who s the Democratic leader that had nothing to do with the Democratic party but rather with the RNC, the Republicans and email? Maddow: The Republican National Committee was very busy from very early on in this debate sending out email after email after email after email just ripping Barack Obama for comments that he made during the debate and I saw at least six in a row that were all about Barack Obama. That were not about Hillary Clinton at all. They were so eager to attack Barack Obama in fact that when I was reading through these that I was getting from them, I started, something struck me wrong and I went back and checked the transcripts and in fact I figured out that they attacked Barack Obama. They actually sent out an email attacking Barack Obama by name for saying something about Cuba in this debate that was actually said by Hillary Clinton. You talk about unifying the Democrats. Ah they re so eager apparently to go after him they re willing to attack him for the stuff that Hillary said. Olbermann: He is the nominee presumptive from the Republican point of view do you think, Pat? Buchanan: Uh, he sure is and if the RNC has got enough money to be sending emails six of them to Rachel Maddow they ve got a real problem. Maddow: I m cheap .I m cheap .. Buchanan: They don t send me anything. Olbermann: Let s dive back into some of the substance, although it s a wonderful point. Perhaps you need to call somebody, Pat. You re not spending your dollars right here uh.. Maddow: I ll set you up an account Pat..you ll be fine Pat Buchanan at Air America