O.k., when he said "I've been shot at," he really meant "I've been sued for sexual harassment." Everyone understands that!
Now that Bill O'Reilly's history of making false statements of fact (what some guttersnipes might call "lies") is getting some scrutiny, the hits just keep on coming.
Of course, his claims to have been "in a war zone" and "in the Falklands" saving lives while many people were killed were among the first to be debunked, by David Corn in Mother Jones. (We're not even counting "I tried out for the Mets with Tom Seaver" or "I led my college division in punting.") Then it was his false claim to have been present at the suicide of a witness in the JFK assassination investigation. And there was that bogus claim to have seen nuns being shot in El Salvador. After that it was his phony tale of being the target of an angry mob in the L.A. riots. I'm probably forgetting a few other whoppers here.
And now, as Talking Points Memo shows, he's been caught claiming to have been "shot at." When and where? Well, presumably in the Falklands. Or El Salvador. Or maybe by Lee Harvey Oswald?
He doesn't say -- and I guess we're just supposed to take it on faith!
It is true, unfortunately, that the proposed deal now being hammered out to lift the debt ceiling does not include any new revenue, as the President and Congressional Dems had long advocated. The Rs won a concession on that point, as they have on so many in this abysmal process, by threatening to destroy one of this country's most valuable national assets, the full faith and credit of the U.S. treasury. They took the hostage and threatened to shoot and a significant chunk of their members are just crazy enough to make that threat serious.
That sucks -- no way around it. We need new revenues to balance this deficit eventually and we didn't get them in this negotiation.
But we may get them yet. The Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of next year, and the Rs badly want them extended.
Next time around, it will be the President and the Dems holding the strong cards.
Bill Clinton believes that the President's tax cut/unemployment extension deal is a good deal, because it will be "a significant net plus for the country" and he unequivocally supports it. He predicts that it will help the economic recovery and it will significantly help millions of unemployed Americans.
Among other comments, he thinks it will be "a much, much better agreement" than we will be able to get from the new Congress beginning next month.
He says: "I don't think we can get a better deal."
He particularly likes the payroll tax cut.
The Rand Paul campaign finally had to acknowledge that they knew who the Kentucky Stomper was and admit that he was with their campaign. But, they said, they disapproved of using violence to wage politics and so they had "decisively severed all ties with the supporter in question."
And they told FOX News that included returning any campaign donations.
Greg Sargent's The Plum Line of the Washington Post has video of FOX reporting that.
But now we see that Rand Paul has decided not to sever the ties that involve money for his campaign...
There was a hint of this in the way the Washington Post covered the story earlier this week about the phone message left for Anita Hill by Virginia Thomas (wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) asking for an apology. They included a quote from a woman, Lillian McEwen, described as a woman who had dated Clarence Thomas in the past who was now working on a memoir of her life, and who said that the harrassing behavior Anita Hill described in her testimony was consistent with the Clarence Thomas she used to date.
And now Lillian McEwen is speaking out -- and the Washington Post has the article.
This is explosive.
Washington Post story on Lillian McEwen
The New York Times has the story today.
NY Times link.
A volunteer lawyer working for a small legal services program in Maine managed to blow the lid off of a nationwide conspiracy to take people's homes through a massive and sustained scheme to defraud.
It is the mortgage foreclosure efforts of some of the nation's biggest banks and lenders, and it turns out to have been rotten to the core.
I am stunned to learn that Congressional Democrats have decided not to hold a vote before the elections on extending the tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of this year.
Let me see if I've got this straight: the Democrats in Congress are deciding not to vote to extend tax cuts for every single American voter (on annual income up to $250,000), which polls show is a broadly popular move, because they are scared that Republicans will call them names for failing to give additional tax cuts for the 2% at the very top on whatever income they make above $250,000??
The U.S. Senate finally passed a modest but helpful bill that will assist the nation's many thousands of small businesses by providing tax breaks and much-needed loans as they continue to struggle through the nation's worst economic crisis in our lifetimes.
This obviously should have been done months ago -- and it would have, but a determined minority blocked it. The Democratic majority only got it passed today because two Republicans finally jumped ship and switched their votes to break their party's blockade of the bill. The Senate Republicans actually held up help for America's small businesses in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression 75 years ago. This is simply outrageous!
RenMin has a diary with some of the details
According to CNN, a man walked into the lobby of the U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas this morning, pulled out a shotgun and opened fire, killing a court security officer and wounding a U.S. Marshal before he was cut down in a hail of gunfire from the numerous security officers.
Dr. Dean was on the "Countdown" show with Keith Olbermann last night and expressed his support for the compromise on health care reform hammered out by the so-called "Gang of 10." He wisely conditioned his support on seeing the details, of course, since all that has been described publicly are the very broad outlines of the deal. But he was very clear in saying that, based on what he knows now, this is a good deal.
I'm not sure why this isn't getting more attention in the media. Senate Democrats -- with some significant help from Republican Senators -- absolutely shattered a Republican attempt to filibuster a nominee for the Court of Appeals (the intermediate federal appellate court, just below the Supreme Court). The vote was 70-29!
Not only was this a crushing defeat of the GOP's boneheaded attempt to block a highly-qualified and respected nominee (one who, as a sitting federal District Court judge, had already been confirmed once before by the Senate), but it represented the end, as a practical matter, of the famous "Gang of 14" compromise that moderate Senators from both parties entered into four years ago when Republicans ran the place.
As the Washington Post put it in the lede:
Democrats on Tuesday crushed a Senate filibuster against a controversial appeals court nominee, demonstrating to Republicans they can't stop President Barack Obama from turning the federal judiciary to the left.
60 votes? Why have the Senate Republicans chosen to mount a filibuster to block an economic stimulus bill in the midst of the worst national economic downturn since the Great Depression?
And why hasn't one single news story (to my knowledge) pointed out that the Republicans are using an extraordinary procedural measure here? (Just saying that the bill "needs 60 votes" isn't pointing out that the Senate GOP is filibustering the bill).