Former GOP Congressman On Fox: 'Just Voting No' On Everything Is What Makes Tea Partiers 'Chuckleheads'

Former Congressman Steve LaTourette of the Main Street Republican Partnership and Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks clashed on Fox News Sunday over remarks LaTourette made where he called members of the Tea Party 'chuckle-heads.' LaTourette blamed the Tea Party for the current budget problem while Kibbe rejected the notion that members of the Tea Party are somehow responsible for the frequent budget crises that have consumed Capitol Hill in recent years.

'I don't think I would say it is all Tea Party freshmen, it is those who seem more interested in voting no and going home than governing,' said LaTourette when asked by Wallace to explain the position.

Kibbe went on to defend the Tea Party saying that the only reason anybody is actually talking about balancing a budget is because of the Tea Party members that were swept into Congress in 2010. Kibbe said that the Tea Party members are the only people on Capitol Hill that are actually serious about solving the long term budget problems.

'We're never gonna fix this problem just by pretending that the process of bipartisanship somehow gets to real problems because that's how we got here. This crisis was created by both Republicans and Democrats not willing to make tough choices,' said Kibbe.

LaTourette proceeded to reiterate his point saying that the Tea Party members are an important part of the GOP but that they can't just throw their hands up at everything and say no. They have to work together with others if they want to get anything done, he said.

'Just voting no and then holding your nose and saying 'boy if it passes I can go home to my local Tea Party groups and say 'I voted no!' that's ridiculous. That's what makes them chuckleheads,' said LaTourette.

Watch clip below via Fox

ABC's Matthew Dowd Torches CPAC: 'It's Like A Flintstones Episode' And Stuck In 'Mesozoic Era'

ABC contributor Matthew Dowd heavily criticized the Conservative Political Action Conference during a segment on This Week for including Sarah Palin as a major speaker at the convention and for being out of step with modern conservative politics. He described the conference as being stuck in a Flitstones episode and said that 'its time has come and gone.'

Dowd took dead aim at Palin for her reality show remarks about Washington's political class by nothing that she actually had her own reality show. 'Between Palin and the Kardashians, there's ten reality shows that have been built around that,' he said.

The imagery and the attendees of the conference struck Dowd as being completely outside the current political climate saying that it is increasingly filled with relics of a conservative movement from a different time. 'It's like going to the Land Before Time, it's like going to a Flintstones episode. It's like a bunch of dinosaurs. Most of them are throwbacks in time. It's like who's running for Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes,' he said.

'CPAC's time has come and gone and it's time for somebody to put together a 21st century conservative agenda,' he said.

When asked about having conservative ideas hashed out public he said he's fine with but 'I just wouldn't do it in the Mesozoic Era.'

Watch clip below via ABC

Paul Ryan Tells CBS' Bob Schieffer 'We Do Not Have A Debt Crisis'

Congressman Paul Ryan downplayed concerns that the United States is in the midst of a debt crisis on Face The Nation this morning by saying that the country hasn't arrived there yet because it is buoyed by factors unique to America. Ryan's statement was similar to what House Speaker John Boehner said earlier today where he too allayed concerns of a national debt crisis.

America is still a step ahead of the European nations that are confronting a debt crisis, of Japan that is in its second lost decade, it's partly because of our resilient economy, because of our world currency status. So we do not have a debt crisis right now but we see it coming. We know it's irrefutably happening and the point we're trying to make with our budget is let's get ahead of this problem,' Ryan said.

RELATED: John Boehner Tells ABC He Trusts Obama, Agrees Debt Is 'Not An Immediate Problem'

Ryan said that the longer the nation delays in addressing the current budget problems will lead to serious harm to the seniors and the poor down the road when it's too late to resolve the debt problem.

Bob Schieffer asked Ryan if he trusts he president and congressional Democrats and Ryan said he does but with caution.

'I subscribe to the Reagan school of thought which is 'Trust but verify,'' he said.

Watch clip below via CBS

Sarah Palin's CPAC Speech Trashes Establishment GOP, Calls Obama Liar, Reality Star

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin delivered the most scathing and electric rebuke of President Obama at CPAC yet by calling him a liar along with a litany of other one liner insults during her lunchtime address that repeatedly brought the crowd to its feet. Later in her speech Palin unleashed her wrath on Karl Rove and the assorted political consultants that she so despises.

After being introduced by Senator Ted Cruz in a surprise appearance, Palin unleashed a laundry list of zingers in Obama's direction on guns, criticizing calls for a ban assault weapons and expanded background checks.

'It's not about the bad guys, it's all about the led. That chunk of metal solely did the crime,' she said, snarkly ripping the president's gun proposals.

'That's like saying that pork made me fat,' Palin said, moving quickly to her next zinger.

'More Background checks? Dandy idea Mr. President, should have started with yours,' Palin said to roaring laughter.

Palin trashed Obama for his nearly all of his policies from guns to the budget to 'free Obamaphones and prophylactics.' At one point she ripped Obama's budgetary practices, calling him a liar and echoing Congressman Joe Wilson's 2009 outburst. 'Barack Obama promised the most transparent administration ever. Barack Obama, you lie!'she said, again drawing applause and cheers.

At one point Palin, a former reality TV star, ripped Washington as a whole for lacking 'leadership' and being a 'reality television show.'

Some of her other zingers:

'We don't have leadership coming out of Washington. We have reality television.'

'He's got the rifle, I got the rack.' When referencing a gun rack gift for her husband, Todd.

'Remember No drama Obama? Now it's all drama Obama.'

My advice to college kids is: You gotta be thinking Sam Adams not drinking Sam Adams.

After she completed her thorough trashing of the president she took a dig at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg by drinking a big gulp on stage and expressing her disgust at the soda band that he attempted to implement. Still, she was not done as the consultant class and Karl Rover were next in her line of fire. Palin delivered a scathing rebuke of the failed 2012 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney without mentioning him or any of the consultants involved by name just saying that they continue to make millions even though they repeatedly lose elections.

'If these experts keep losing elections keep raking in millions, if they feel that strongly about who should run in this party they should buck up and run or stay in the truck. The architects can head on back to the Lone Star State and put their name on the ballot,' she said in a clear reference to Rove.

This was Palin's second CPAC appearance.

Watch full speech below via CSPAN:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Another Reason Anderson Cooper Should Be Glad His Daytime Show Is Ending

Padma Lakshmi joined Anderson Cooper as his co-host on his first episode back after a hiatus to cover the papal conclave, and boy do those Anderson Live producers know how to throw a warm welcome home.

After an awkwardly segued video clip of the new show Finding Bigfoot, Padma and Anderson fell into titters over the absurd premise when ' HOLY SHIT WHAT WAS THAT?!

That, friends, is Bigfoot pranking non-believers. Move over, Ellen. Anderson's jokes might start trumping yours in virality.

Check out the priceless moment below.

Conservative Rockstar Ben Carson Excites CPAC Crowd With 2016 Talk

Dr. Ben Carson wowed the crowd at CPAC with a thoughtful speech that mixed tidbits about neuroscience with current politics and policy and in the process managed to firmly cement his position as a conservative darling. Carson drew a loud and sustained applause when he said toyed with the crowd about a possible 2016 crowd.

Carson rocketed to superstardom in conservative circles after lecturing President Obama during the National Prayer Breakfast in February . He further raised his profile among the conservatives by making the rounds on numerous right-leaning media shows and being ridiculed on some left-leaning programs.

During his speech 22 minute speech the neurosurgeon focused on what he called 'common sense' and 'logic' in today's political world and implored not just conservatives but liberals, too, to use it everyday. Carson hit on religious themes while frequently circling back to the prayer breakfast that put him on the radar of national conservatives.

'This is a country for, of, and by the people not for, of, and by the government. If we turn it over to them we cannot complain about what they're doing because this is a natural course of men and we have to hold their feet to the fire,' Carson said.

Carson's biggest moment came when he hinted at what it would be like to be president.

'Let's just say you magically put me in the White House,' he said, eliciting a roar of cheers and long applause from the crowd.

'I take it back,' he said, before going on to explain how he thinks Obama is destroyin the nation by dividing the nation and pitting people against each other.

Watch clip below via CSPAN

Donald Trump: Forget 'Illegals,' Let's Ship In More 'Europeans'

After insulting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a Golden Girl Friday morning, the roster of headliners at the Conservative Political Action Conference continued to woo the groups of voters they alienated during the 2012 election. This time, former GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump told the CPAC audience to give up on ever earning the votes of the '11 million illegals,' even if they were given citizenship, and instead, wondered 'Why aren't we letting people in from Europe?'

'When it comes to immigration, you know that the 11 million illegals, even if given the right to vote, you know you're going to have to do what's right. But the fact is, 11 million people will be voting Democratic,' Trump said, and in case the message about those 11 million undocumented immigrants was lost on the crowd, added 'You can be out front, you can be the spearhead, you can do whatever you want to do, but every one of those 11 million people will be voting Democratic, that's just the way it works.'

Trump went on to describe the current push for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship, a 'suicide mission' for Republicans, a clear message that Republicans should give up on the Latino vote they just lost so crushingly. In case it still wasn't clear, he added, 'You're just not going to get those votes.'

He then contrasted that electoral calculation with this question: 'Why aren't we letting people in from Europe?'

'I have many friends, many, many friends, and nobody wants to talk this. Nobody wants to say it,' Trump said, 'but I have many friends from Europe, they want to come in!'

As Mitt Romney never tires of reminding people, the Republicans got their clocks completely sterilized by minorities and women in 2012, and immediately began to try and make inroads, particularly through renewed support for comprehensive immigration reform. Trump's clear disdain for immigration reform, and his preference for 'European' immigrants, isn't likely to help with those inroads, and perhaps provides a preview of what the GOP has in store for future primaries.

It's also worth noting that, in another part of his speech, Trump wondered why the United States gives military support to South Korea, which is currently facing renewed threats from North Korea. 'What do we get for it?' Trump asked, rhetorically. 'Nothing.'

This guy once held a double-digit lead over eventual nominee Mitt Romney, who, himself, thought that the United States could be brought to its knees by any terrorist claiming to have planted a dirty bomb somewhere. We dodged those bullets, but the party is still fully loaded.

Here's the clip, from CPAC 2013:

Follow Tommy Christopher (@TommyXtopher) on Twitter.

MSNBC Host Grills GOP Rep On Same-Sex Marriage: 'What If One Of Your Children Were Gay?'

On MSNBC this morning, in the wake of GOP Sen. Rob Portman's position change to being pro-gay marriage due to his son's coming out, fill-in host Richard Lui pressed GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) over whether he'd consider changing his stance on same-sex marriage if he had a homosexual child himself.

In an op-ed piece in the Columbus Dispatch this morning, Sen. Portman reversed his stance on same-sex marriage, deeming it a result of his 21-year-old son's coming out. He wrote: 'We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people's lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other.'

'When we look at that comment that was made by Senator Rob Portman and that revelation, do you think this will change the conversation?' Lui asked Rep. Chaffetz.

'Anybody who knows Rob Portman knows that he is sincere he's honest he cares about his family he's passionate,' Chaffetz replied. 'I mean all of those positive things. And I know this is very heartfelt and he believes it. And gosh, more power to him. He believes really does this, and I respect him for it.'

Lui wanted to know whether Chaffetz believes Portman's reversal will signal a sea change within the GOP on same-sex marriage.

'I still believe in traditional marriage, and I would remind my friends and colleagues who disagree with me, that it is interesting to me that those who advocate the most diversity and diversity of thought sometimes have a hard time with somebody that disagrees with them,' the congressman replied. 'I just happen to believe in traditional marriage. That is where I'm at and what I believe in, and Rob Portman has changed his position, and I respect that. Jon Huntsman did the same thing.'

The MSNBC host pressed further, asking the Utah congressman, 'And if one of your children were to be gay, you would not change your perspective is what you're saying?'

'I would love them with all of my heart, all my heart, absolutely,' Chaffetz responded.

'But you would still not support marriage equality?' Lui asked.

Chaffetz stood firm on his position: 'I just believe in traditional marriage, that's what i believe in. And I believe somebody who is gay can still be very happy and thrive and we want nothing with but the best for them. I don't want to discriminate against them, but I just happen to believe in traditional marriage.'

Watch below, via MSNBC:

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

7 Rock-Solid Prescriptions For The GOP's Future' From Donald Trump's CPAC Speech

As soon as it was announced that Donald Trump would be delivering one of the longer speeches this year's CPAC, the world knew that something special was coming.

Trump did not disappoint, opening day two of the conference with a wide-ranging and utterly serious vision for the future of the Republican Party. If the GOP simply follows these specific ideas below without any question or hesitation, they are sure to find themselves back on top in no time.

1. 'Build a great economy.'
'We don't have a great economy right now. China has, other people have, other countries have' we don't make things anymore' We have to make America strong again and make America great again.'

2. Immigration reform is a 'suicide mission.'
'Now this is a hard one, because when it comes to immigration you know that the 11 million illegals, even if they're given the right to vote'the fact is, 11 million people will be voting Democratic. You have to be very, very careful because you could say that, to a certain extent, the odds aren't looking so great for the Republicans, that you're on a suicide mission, that you're just not going to get those votes.'

3. When I offer to build 'the most beautiful ballroom there is in the country,' take me up on it.
'A couple of years ago I saw a major, major state dinner. And it was in a tent on the White House lawn' I called up the White House, someone I know very well, very high position, and I said, look, 'I will offer, free of charge, to build the most beautiful ballroom there is in the country, anywhere.' 'They said, 'thank you very much, wow, what an offer.' We never heard from them. That's the problem with the country.

4. Stop calling yourselves the 'stupid party.'
'What a horrible statement to make. Because that's the statement that's going to come back and haunt you when the Democrats start using it.'

5. Don't take Karl Rove's money.
'When you watch someone who spends $400 million on campaigns with perhaps the worst ads I've ever seen ' they did ads on Obama I thought were being paid for by the Obama campaign' When you spend $400 million and it's a failure and you don't have one victory, you know something is seriously, seriously wrong.'

6. Spend more time talking about how rich you are.
'I've made over $8 billion. I've employed tens of thousands of people. And yet I'm continually criticized by total light weights all over the place. It's unbelievable. If Mitt Romney made one mistake, it's that he didn't talk enough about his success. Because honestly, people really want success. They want a leader who's successful.'

7. Never go to war without 'paying yourselves back' in oil.
'When I heard that we were first going to Iraq, some very smart people told me we're actually going for the oil, and I said, 'Alright, I get that, there's nothing else, I get it. We didn't take the oil. And then when I said, we spent $1.5 trillion, we should take that ' you know, they have the second-largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia, so $1.5 trillion is nothing' we should take it and pay ourselves back' What the hell are we thinking?'

Watch video below:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

I Want Michael Moore To Be Wrong About Newtown Crime Scene Photos

Filmmaker and activist Michael Moore is taking predictable criticism over his assertion that the media should release photos of the children horrifically slain in the December 14 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. There are several elements of Moore's commentary that are viscerally repulsive, but little within it that I can easily identify as just plain wrong. The thing that I find most offensive about Michael Moore's commentary is the mere possibility that his central premise, that Americans need to see those photos in order to become energized about life-saving gun regulation, could be right.

Where I clearly disagree with Moore is in the notion that media outlets should publish the photos of the children's bodies without the parents' permission. His comparison of the Newtown children with Emmett Till, the black teenager who was savagely lynched in 1955, is compelling, because Till's mother insisted that the world see the strange fruit of racist hatred. If the Newtown parents were to make such a decision, it would immediately silence the notion that the photos were 'political props,' or that gun control advocates care more about their cause than the feelings of the parents. As silly as that notion is, releasing the photos without their permission would badly undercut the desired effect.

While I disagree with Moore on that point, he makes a fine case for it, citing other published horrors which led to beneficial political change:

In March, 1968, U.S. soldiers massacred 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. A year and a half later, the world finally saw the photographs ' of mounds of dead peasants covered in blood, a terrified toddler seconds before he was gunned down, and a woman with her brains literally blown out of her head. (These photos would join other Vietnam War photos, including a naked girl burned by napalm running down the road, and a South Vietnamese general walking up to a handcuffed suspect, taking out his handgun, and blowing the guy's brains out on the NBC Nightly News.)

With this avalanche of horrid images, the American public turned against the Vietnam War. Our realization of what we were capable of rattled us so deeply it became very hard for future presidents (until George W. Bush) to outright invade a sovereign nation and go to war there for a decade.

It is in making that case, and elsewhere, that Moore's commentary begins to turn the stomach. It's a cold, practical argument, as is his stated goal of 'finishing off the NRA' by releasing the photos, which he then couples with graphic, emotionally fraught descriptions of what the Newtown photos might look like. Michael Moore is not a deft writer, and his emotional manipulations can be clumsy, self-conscious. The effect is profoundly uncomfortable, even repulsive. Is 'finishing off the NRA' a worthy consequence of such a soul-shattering tragedy?

That question is at the heart of the 'exploitation' narrative, and relies on the misguided premise that all 'political'goals are created equal. They are not. The NRA exists to promote the financial interests of the gun industry, at a heavy cost to public safety. Advocates for gun regulation exist to save lives. The NRA has proven itself a worthy villain in this tragedy, a fact that Moore's headline assumes, but doesn't take the full measure of.

Advocates for gun regulation support the right of Americans to defend themselves, to own firearms, and even to allow schools to employ trained police officers for protection. The NRA opposes any and all regulation of firearms, including background checks that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, and a ban on high-capacity magazines that would have demonstrably saved the life of nine year-old Christina Taylor Green.

Therefore, 'finishing off the NRA' is not just a political goal, it is a moral imperative. That Michael Moore failed to deliver that message with nuance and sensitivity doesn't make it less true.

What's less certain is the premise at the heart of Moore's essay, reflection upon which cuts deeply and painfully:

I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut ' a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country ' somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child's body, that's the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

At this point, we have no real way of knowing whether the tragedy in Newtown has really changed things. It may already have. Polling on specific gun control measures shows overwhelming public support, but doesn't measure the intensity of that support, so it may be a long time before we find out. First, Congress must vote on all of these measures, and if they don't pass, we'll have to see if voters punish them for it in the 2014 mid-terms. Moore points out that past tragedies haven't managed to move Americans to demand action, but maybe this time will be different.

It's my hope that Americans are already as moved by this tragedy as I was, and whether or not they agree with all of the measures being considered, will demand a vote on them. The idea that I might live in a country full of people who would need to see photos of these horrifically slain children in order to demand action angers me. As I read Moore's piece, it was this anger that blotted out the merely discomforting aspects of it, and even blotted out my disgust with Moore's concern-trolling critics. If we can't internalize this tragedy now, if we can't already feel the crushing weight of those lost souls, if we can dope ourselves into closing our eyes, looking away, then to hell with us.

But there's an even more disturbing possibility embedded in Michael Moore's demand. As much as I want it to be unnecessary, there may come a time when one or more of the Newtown parents decides to heed Moore's advice, decides that no matter the emotional toll, it is worth publishing these photos if it will save a child in the next mass shooting. As accursed as I find anyone who requires such prodding, the practical effect of their support might be necessary, and might be worth it. However, given the American people's, and the American media's, history of backing down from the loudest voices in the room, there remains the sickening possibility that even those photos wouldn't be enough.

MSNBC Fooled Ed Schultz (And The Media) About His Future In Primetime

Well, it's official. Liberal firebrand Ed Schultz is out, and progressive policy wonk Chris Hayes is in at MSNBC's 8 p.m. weeknight primetime slot. Before making this change that was apparently a long time coming, MSNBC effectively fooled (dare I say may have lied to?) the media (and Schultz himself) into thinking The Ed Show was safe.

Hayes will leave his weekend morning show to host the prime time gig, while Schultz claims he 'raised his hand' and volunteered for the 'opportunity' to end The Ed Show and host a new weekend 5-7 p.m. show. Right.

Happy faces aside, it seems clear this was Schultz's spin and that, in fact, MSNBC had pushed him out of the more far prestigious primetime slot.

No one knows exactly why Schultz was demoted to weekends, but the shift undoubtedly comes as a move towards the young, technocratic image the network has effectively crafted under the Obama administration. As The Week notes, Schultz's bellicose manner is a relic of the Bush era, when progressives were fired up and on the warpath. But now, it's likely MSNBC wanted to make room for the youthful, cerebral and mild-mannered Hayes to fill out an evening that also includes young wonk-in-chief Rachel Maddow.

The media world remembers when New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter broke the story back in November that Schultz was likely on his way out of 8 p.m. In return, the fiery host unleashed a flurry of insults at Stelter, accusing him of reporting 'media garbage' and not being able to 'sniff very well' when digging through a scoop.

While Schultz stormed, MSNBC claimed : 'We're very happy with the performance of our prime time lineup, which topped Fox News Channel three nights this week. There are no changes planned.'

Television news insider site TVNewser seems to have fallen for the 'spin' and headlined an article 'Ed Schultz Being Replaced at 8pm? Not so Fast' and discussed Schultz's 'strong' ratings in his time slot.

Brian Stelter is a great media reporter and it always seemed preposterous that he had somehow gotten it totally wrong. With that in mind, I guess MSNBC could argue that its reaction was technically truthful at the time (operative word: 'planned'), but more likely it was just PR spin that managed to fool both Schultz and the some in the media into thinking he wasn't going anywhere.

On the other hand, many will speculate that the move could be mutual on both parts, seeing as Schultz's wife just finished cancer treatment, and he might not mind having some extra time to spend with her. It's also possible Schultz was in such rage over the inevitable prime time ouster that he lashed out at Stelter just because he could.

But I'd say Schultz having been snookered is a much more likely scenario, seeing as how there's no way someone as hot-headed as The Ed Show host would play along for four months with the network if he knew the end was near.

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

WATCH LIVE: Sen. Marco Rubio Speaks At CPAC 2013

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is scheduled to speak at CPAC 2013 on Thursday, March 14th beginning at 1:15pm ET. Rubio's last major speech to his conservative base came in the form of the official Republican Party response to the State of the Union last month, which received more media attention for his over-zealous water drinking as it did for the content of his speech.

View the full CPAC 2013 schedule here and watch continuous live streaming coverage of the conference below:

Free desktop streaming application by Ustream

Dee Snider Blasts Trump For 'Very Little' Presence On Celebrity Apprentice: 'He Doesn't See Anything'

It's a not-so-well-kept secret that reality television abides by a rather loose definition of 'reality.' We may love the D-R-A-M-A, but things usually aren't as they seem. And this is what Twisted Sister's Dee Snider 'who's on the current all-star season of Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice ' took issue with during a recent radio interview with WOR's John Gambling. Trump, he said, isn't very clued in to what's going on.

One of the problems with the show, Snider (who was fired on Sunday night's episode) said, is that they see 'very little' of Trump himself. 'Like a judge, he doesn't see anything,' he asserted. 'He only hears what's going on in the boardroom. He doesn't see tapes, he doesn't know anything.'

Thus, in the boardroom, he added, when Trump is listening to the various team members, he has no frame of reference to know how truthful they're being ' and that's an issue.

Snider also commented on the infamously 'evil' Omarosa, also a contestant this season, noting that 'she's lovely' off camera, but the show is a performance. 'When she's doing her act, she is a villain,' he said. 'And that's where she lives, in the world of reality TV. And she does her thing.'

So, is the show fun? 'The standard answer from everybody who was asked to return to the show was no,' Snider said, explaining that it's incredibly strenuous and time consuming. 'It is Survivor': For the men, it's 16 hours a day, six days a week, three shows a week.

An 'unrelenting grind.'

Yep, sounds enjoyable.

Listen below:

Obama Warns: 'Increasing America's Debt Weakens Us Domestically And Internationally' ' In 2006

'[T]he cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget,' said President Barack Obama. 'This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.'

Obama made this appeal from the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2006 as he and his fellow Democrats rallied against raising the debt ceiling limit. Then, the national debt stood at just over $8 trillion. Today, it has ballooned to more than $16 trillion. On Wednesday, Obama told ABC News host George Stephanopoulos that there is no 'immediate crisis in terms of debt,' and he will not pursue a balanced budget 'just for the sake of balance.' In light of these comments, Obama's words from 2006 merit revisiting.

RELATED: Obama In Wide-Ranging Interview With ABC: 'We Don't Have An Immediate Crisis In Terms Of Debt'

Human Events columnist David Harsanyi dug up Obama's floor speech from 2006 in opposition to increasing the debt ceiling limit. It is worth the read in its entirety, but a few choice elements are particularly damning in light of the president's recent dismissal of debt reduction as a worthwhile pursuit.

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,' Obama said. 'It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.'

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

'[I]t took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years,' Obama said of the Bush administration. 'Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.'

'Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally,' Obama said before registering his opposition to increasing the nation's debt ceiling.

This speech is regularly circulated. In 2011, then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama only voted against the debt ceiling because he knew the Republicans had the votes to ensure the measure passed. In January, 2013, CBS reporter Major Garrett asked Obama directly about his 2006 vote.

'I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult and budgets in this town are always difficult,' Obama told Garrett. 'I went through this just last year. But what's different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting.'

In other words, the president objects to the debt ceiling being used by Congress as a political cudgel to bludgeon the executive, except when he's the member of Congress doing the bludgeoning.

Either the president was being disingenuous in 2006 when he so strenuously objected to the staggering rate of growth in the nation's debt or he is being untruthful today when he tells Stephanopoulos that there is no debt crisis. Somewhere, there is an enterprising reporter just dying to ask the president to clarify his position on just how big a threat the nation's spiraling debt poses.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Rand Paul Advocates More 'Tolerant' GOP In Op-Ed: 'I Filibustered To Defend Millennials'

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) shot back at critics of his nearly 13-hour filibuster against the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan in an op-ed published on PolicyMic.com. Paul went directly after the Wall Street Journal editorial that accused him of catering to 'impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms,' and idea that was later echoed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the Senate floor.

Paul used his op-ed to embrace the 'millennial' generation, a group that PolicyMic specifically targets, and defend younger libertarians from attacks by conservatives establishment like the Wall Street Journal and McCain. 'We do need a Republican Party that addresses the concerns of young people,' Paul wrote. 'We need a different kind of GOP, a party that speaks to the rising generation, who may have unique interests and concerns.'

While much of the op-ed dealt with issues of deficit and debt, the section below indicated a desire for enhanced liberty on social issues as well.

'I believe a Republican Party that is more tolerant and dedicated to keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible would be more appealing to the rising generation. We have a nation of 300 million people who all harbor very different opinions on various policies. We have a Constitution that allows, even requires, many of these decisions to be made at the state and local level, which could accommodate the diversity of opinion in this country. Most young people I encounter simply have no desire to tell other people what to do or how to live.'

The sentiments put forth by Paul in this article could be an indication of what he plans to say during his address at the CPAC conference later this week in Washington, D.C. Paul is scheduled to speak at 1:30pm ET on Thursday, March 14th.

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Beck Compares Rand Paul To 19th Century Senate Caning Victim, Predicts Launch Of 'Historic Movement'

Glenn Beck delivered a veritable history lesson to his audience Monday night, telling the story of Charles Sumner's 'Crime against Kansas' speech in 1856, which led to that Massachusetts senator getting caned by Rep. Preston Brooks on the Senate floor. Beck saw significant parallels between Sumner's physical beating and the verbal attacks Sen. Rand Paul received from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham last week.

After telling a brief history of the 'pro-freedom' Republican Party's founding culminating with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Beck zoomed in on the story of Sumner's speech, in which he made a the grievous error of calling out a fellow senator by name. That senator's cousin, Preston Brooks, then came to the Senate floor and beat Sumner with his cane.

'The most important difference,' Beck said, 'between what happened with Rand Paul's speech last weekend and Senator Sumner's speech is, well, Rand Paul wasn't beaten with a cane.' He added that Paul 'didn't attack anyone.' He just 'defended the Constitution.' But that didn't stop McCain and Graham from calling out Paul by name on the Senate floor. As Beck said, 'their words are their cane.'

Beck then entered the prophetic mode he self-deprecatingly mocked last night on The O'Reilly Factor, predicting that just as Sumner's speech launched a movement that ended with Lincoln in the White House, Paul's filibuster will presage a similar 'historic movement' for the libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican Party.

Watch video below, via The Blaze:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Matthews: No American Pope Because Americans Are Most Sensitive 'To The Hell' Of Abusive Priests

MSNBC host Chris Matthews joined Alex Wagner on Tuesday where he blasted the Catholic Church's behavior towards priests who are found to be sexual abusers. Matthews insisted that, in spite of the fact that the Vatican is rumored to be considering two American cardinals to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, they would never select an American to be the next Pope because Americans are the most sensitive to 'the hell that's been broken loose' by abusive priests.

RELATED: Matthews Hopes New Pope Reforms Church: 'We Got Meat On Fridays, We Would Have Rather Had Birth Control'

'We have another Boston/New York rivalry,' said Alex Wagner of the two American cardinals in consideration to become the next Pope. 'In this horse race, Chris, where to you pin the likelihood of the world getting an American Pope?'

'Well, not likely,' Matthews replied. He said that Americans and Irish are the 'most sensitive to the hell that's been broken loose in recent decades in the Catholic Church with this exploitation of altar boys.'

'The American Catholics cannot stand it, they want I over with, they want it zeroed out,' Matthews added. 'If a priest has a sexual need, get out of the priesthood. If you've got something you're hiding in terms of your sexuality, get out of the priesthood. This is no place for you.'

'Either change the rules officially or enforce the damn things,' Matthews concluded. He said that Americans believe that there is 'widespread' abuse and an institutional proclivity to cover up that abuse in the church.

Watch the clip below via MSNBC:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

'Have A Doughnut And Shut Up': Do You Think Mark Levin Despises 'Krispy Kreme' Chris Christie?

Well, if it hasn't become clear enough yet: Mark Levin really does not like New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie. On his radio show last night, the conservative firebrand told Christie to 'have a doughnut and shut up' because of the governor's support for President Obama's Medicaid expansion.

Levin spent several minutes railing against the eight Republican governors who've recently thrown their support behind the Medicaid expansion under Obama's health care law. 'More and more people are on the government dole,' Levin alleged of the ObamaCare expanded definition of 'poor.'

He mocked the NJ governor: 'This is why, when you have governors like 'Krispy Kreme' signing onto this, it's going to be financially ruinous for your states.'

Levin also ridiculed Christie for what he believes are a lack of conservative credentials. 'I'm a conservative, why don't I get to speak at CPAC?' the radio host mimicked the governor.

'Have a doughnut and shut up,' Levin concluded.

Listen below:

[h/t MofoPolitics]

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Matt Lauer Speaks Out About Ann Curry's Exit From Today, Hits NBC For Handling Ordeal Badly

After many months of rumors and criticism, Matt Lauer is speaking out about Ann Curry's exit from Today, the show's struggles, and contacting Katie Couric about returning. In an interview with Howard Kurtz, Lauer said the network didn't handle Curry's exit very well. It was 'a disaster waiting to happen.'

'I don't think the show and the network handled the transition well. You don't have to be Einstein to know that,' Lauer said. 'It clearly did not help us. We were seen as a family, and we didn't handle a family matter well.'

Noting the criticism the show was getting, Lauer further noted that 'some of it was self-inflicted and perhaps deserved.'

Lauer, himself, was the subject of much backlash, being blamed for the pushing Curry out. So much so, that he apparently offered to step aside. NBC executive Steve Burke recalled Lauer telling him, 'If you think the show's better off without me, let me know, and I'll get out of the way.' Burke told Lauer he was 'the best person who's ever done this.'

Before Curry even started the job, though, he contacted Couric about returning to Today ' and she was interested. As we know, that never ended up working out:

Their plan was to sell the daytime program to NBC and feature Couric on Today during the year and a half until the show could get on the air and Lauer would be contractually free to join her. Couric could be a Today co-host, perhaps as part of a troika with Curry, who had already been offered the job. NBC executives debated the plan, but Burke rejected it after concluding that the syndicated show would be too expensive to produce. Couric teamed up with ABC instead.

Kurtz's story goes into detail about some conversations Lauer had with Curry, as well as more background about the network's decisions, as well as the current ratings fight versus Good Morning America. In the end, Lauer said he's in no position to complain.

'I'm not going to whine or get depressed. Who's going to feel sorry for me? Nobody,' he said. 'I am the luckiest guy I know.'

Read the full story here.

Rand Paul's Filibuster Should Be Uniting The GOP, But Instead Risks Tearing Conservative Coalition Apart

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's marathon filibuster could have injected new life into the moribund Republican Party. Instead, today, Paul's actions are tearing the conservative coalition apart. The party's old guard is having a fit at the impertinence of the new. Long-time libertarians are aghast at the praise Paul has received from Republican commentators they have for years dismissed as reactionary neoconservatives. The Republican Party ' as they have been wont to do in the era of President Barack Obama ' is busily engaged in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

'If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids,' sneered Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the Senate floor in reaction to Paul's 13-hour filibuster of the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan.

'Calm down, Senator,' the members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote dismissively. They called the Paul's filibuster a 'rant' and mocked his 'theatrical timing.' 'If only his reasoning matched the showmanship,' the board mused.

'He knows that jumping on the Rand Paul black helicopters crazy train isn't good for our Party or our country, no matter what Twitter says,' an unnamed aide to Sen. McCain told BuzzFeed.

'Will it ultimately serve [Paul] well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican Party?' asked The Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday. 'How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semi-hysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafés?'

'Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party?' Kristol concluded rhetorically.

The mockery that Paul has received at the hands of some of his fellow Republicans is a two way street. Mediaite's own libertarian columnist Andrew Kirell called some of the nation's right-leaning commentators, like conservative radio hosts Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh, as well as tea-party leaning Republicans like Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mitch McConnell (R-K), 'bandwagon jumpers' for their praise of Paul's actions despite their previous positions on civil liberties.

'[S]ome of his newfound fans seem to have simply sensed the direction of the wind and hopped on a bandwagon to avoid looking out of touch,' Kirell wrote:

Plenty of the Republican politicians and talking heads who are suddenly 'concerned' about due process in the War on Terror would undoubtedly be jumping in line to defend the same secretive policy from the 'LIBERAL MEDIA' if this were a Republican president (cough, cough, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, cough, cough) and now likely stand with Rand because of how easily it can be construed as a purely anti-Obama movement.

'[I]f that's what it takes to get Rush Limbaugh to say that he agrees with Rand Paul, that he's open to these ideas, I'll take it,' said the libertarian Reason Magazine's senior editor, Brian Doherty, in an interview with Business Insider. He cast doubt on the idea, however, that any Republican was as supportive of the substance of Paul's filibuster more so than the opportunity to score a political victory against the Obama White House.

The talking filibuster has an inherent 'one man against the world' quality that is uniquely attracted the disillusioned. The last talking filibuster, conducted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in December, 2010, in opposition to Democratic Party's plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts across the board, lit a fire within the progressive left. Overnight, 'income inequality' became a struggle against injustice and arguably contributed to the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, a powerful minority within the Democratic and Republican coalitions were equally emboldened by Paul's challenge to both this and, by extension, the last presidential administration's unconstrained conduct of the global war on terror. Like the Occupy movement, the scope the impact Paul's filibuster will have on American politics cannot be fully appreciated just yet.

For the conservative coalition of voters who either enthusiastically or reluctantly pull the lever for Republican candidates, an antipathy towards perpetual and ungoverned global warfare is on the ascendancy. Rather than reluctantly embrace this reality and guide the party's transition, neoconservative officeholders and commentators would rather warn against what they see as a dangerous ideology. Instead of recognizing this spontaneous moment of revitalization for the GOP, they seek to stifle it.

Neither neoconservatives nor the little 'L' libertarians are going to have the party they want in the short term. The former group still wrestles with the board perception that the Iraq war they championed was folly. The latter still struggles to reconcile the perfect with the good ' a politically terminal condition. Both, in this case, are wrong.

Individual perceptions of the war on terror notwithstanding, Paul's filibuster represented a shot across the White House's bow over the conduct of drone warfare abroad and, hypothetically, at home. Republicans who disagree with Paul's position on international interventionism should voice their objections behind closed doors. Libertarians displeased with the support of Republicans they deem ideologically impure would be better served by praising their change of heart rather than demanding they self-flagellate as penance for perceived past transgressions.

This is not a policy debate ' It is a political one. By appearing divided, the GOP risks squandering the spoils of Paul's the political victory. By seeming united, they force the White House into a defensive posture which could result in future opportunities for political gain. This choice, one would think, is an easy one.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Fox News Anchors Casually Misinform Viewers About New York Soda Ban

Urban sugar junkies are bracing for impact, as Mayor Mike Bloomberg's (R-NY) ban on large, sugary beverage takes effect on Tuesday. The controversial measure makes it illegal for a food service establishment in New York City to sell sugary beverages in containers larger than 16 ounces in volume. On Fox News' America's Newsroom Monday morning, co-anchor Martha MacCallum expressed shock that city inspectors would use measuring cups to enforce the ban, and decried her inability to buy a 'bucket of soda.'

The problem is, MacCallum's soda of choice will still be legal tomorrow, even in buckets.

Co-anchor Bill Hemmer informed Fox News viewers that 'The city's ban on large sugary drinks takes effect tomorrow, on Tuesday, despite ongoing legal attempts to overturn it. City inspectors will be armed with 17-ounce measuring cups to make sure restaurants and eateries are not selling drinks that exceed 16 ounces.'

Martha MacCallum cut in, stunned. 'No, they're not!' she exclaimed. 'They're going to measure them in measuring cups?'

This may seem like an odd reaction, but the measuring cups are actually a compromise from an earlier proposal that would have required inspectors to chug suspect beverages, then record the duration of the subsequent belch. That pilot program was scrapped when inspectors found that it didn't produce a volume measurement of any kind.

Hemmer went on to explain that the owners of the nearby Evergreen delicatessen are 'none too happy about this coming their way.'

'What is better than a big bucket of soda?' MacCallum asked, adding 'Nice big cold diet coke.'

'You can do that at home,' Hemmer replied, 'but not at Evergreen.'

'Thanks very much for allowing me to do it at home,' MacCallum said, sarcastically. 'Give me a break.'

MacCallum's unaccountable shock at the use of measuring cups aside, the problem here is that she, and Hemmer, have now told Fox News' audience that the New York City soda ban includes Diet Coke, when it clearly does not:

A food service establishment may not sell, offer, or provide a sugary drink in a cup or container that is able to contain more than 16 fluid
ounces.

'(1) Sugary drink means a carbonated or non-carbonated beverage that: (A) is non-alcoholic;
(B) is sweetened by the manufacturer or establishment with sugar or another caloric sweetener;
(C) has greater than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces of beverage; and
(D) does not contain more than 50 percent of milk or milk substitute by volume as an ingredient.

Well, there's a silver lining:  you an still get a bucket of Mountain Dew if it's at least half milk. Yum. But according to the law, you can still get Diet Coke in whatever size you want, even without milk.

Comedy Central hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert also made similar errors about the ban several months ago, but they are fake news anchors, on fake news shows. America's Newsroom is part of Fox News' 'hard news' programming block. While bashing the soda ban is especially popular with conservatives, Fox's viewers should expect the information broadcast about it to be accurate.

This may not seem like such a big deal, and maybe it isn't. The soda ban isn't just unpopular with conservatives, and it was just a throwaway bit. I report, you decide, but here's why I think this is important.

As I've said before, I don't watch a lot of Fox News, mainly because there's already a whole website devoted to it. When I do write about Fox News, I try to confine it to their 'hard news' programs, because that is where the network has made a clear promise of fairness and accuracy. The last few of these that I've done have been pegged to clips that I saw elsewhere, not on Fox News, because I don't watch Fox News.

This morning, though, I decided that a gander at Fox News might be a quick, easy way to jump-start a slow news Monday. I figured that if I watched for an hour, maybe there would be something I could write about. In fact, it took 46 seconds for Fox's hard news anchors to say something that was utterly false. Presumably, Fox News agrees that 'opinion programs' should be held to the same factual standard as 'hard news' shows, but based on what I've seen, Fox's hard news shows are setting that bar too low. 46 seconds too low.

Andrew Sullivan Takes Shot At Catholic Church, Declares Many Cardinals Are Secretly Gay

On the Chris Matthews Show Daily Dish publisher Andrew Sullivan declared that many of the cardinals picking the next pope are gay and that gay marriage will not be a factor in their voting.

Matthews opened the segment pointing to a poll showing a majority of American Catholics now support gay marriage. Some of the panelists speculated that this has more to do with the libertarian streak of the country.

'The pervasive things Americans believe is libertarianism. 'Don't Tread On Me' is our national, motto,' said Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

CNN's Gloria Borger and The Washington Post's Kathleen Parker both agreed that it had more to do with changing demographics and a greater acceptance of gays and lesbians among young people.

Matthews asked Sullivan if these changing sentiments among lay Catholics will have an impact on the selection of the next pope.

Sullivan said no and then added that many of the cardinals are actually gay, prompting chuckles from some of the panelists off screen.

'There are so many gays electing the next Pope that who knows whether that would happen,' said Sullivan, talking about a topic he has written about before.

'You mean the Cardinals?' a startled Matthews interrupted.

'Yes,' Sullivan answered.

Sullivan noted that the the only religious group in the United States that still opposes gay marriage in large numbers is white evangelical Christians. Sullivan contended that continued opposition to gay marriage by evangelicals will kill them off the way it has hurt the Catholic Church.

Earlier this month Sullivan speculated that Pope Benedict XVI was in a gay relationship with one of his assistants.

Watch clip below via Chris Matthews Show.

Role Reversal? 'Dove' Laura Ingraham And 'Hawk' Juan Williams Clash Over Drone Strikes On Fox

Conservative commentator Laura Ingraham got into it with liberal commentator Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday over executive authority during wartime and Senator Rand Paul's filibuster over drone strikes.

Ingraham, traditionally a defense hawk, agreed with Paul's position and praised him for exciting young people and rallying some on the left to his side. While raising questions about the ability of a president to kill American citizens without a trial Paul not only build a broad and diverse coalition, Ingraham contended, but he set himself up very nicely for a presidential run in 2016 that could 'shake up' the GOP.

'Rand Paul served an enormously important function during that filibuster. He wasn't waving his hands and ranting and raving, contrary to what the Journal condescendingly said. He actually said, 'Look, we have three branches of government, it is our solemn duty to put a check on what the executive decides to do. They want to slap the label enemy combatant on an individual and it gives the president unilateral and secret authority to order an assassination by drone or any other strike. That is something that is quite shocking to a lot of people,' Ingraham said.

Williams initially skipped over the drone strike issue focusing on another controversial executive power known as 'the kill list.'

'You don't want the president exercising this power in a vacuum,' he said.

When Williams got to the drone strike issue he insisted that the president does have the power to kill Americans in the United States without judicial oversight.

'I thought it was grandstanding, it was an internet sensation but the fact is no US citizens has ever been targeted or killed by a drone on US soil. Secondly, the Constitution gives the president authority to go after US citizens if that US citizen is somehow involved in colluding with an enemy of the United States. I mean, go back to the Civil War, of course you have that right,' he said.

'Hasn't been done since the Civil War,' interjected Ingraham.

Wallaced cheered the exchange.

'I just want to say I love the fact we have the hawk, Juan Williams, and the dove, Laura Ingraham,' Wallace said.

Ingraham insisted she wasn't a hawk, preferring the term 'constitutionalist.'

'Not the dove! The constiutionalist. I know something about the Constitution,' said Ingraham.

Watch the clip below via Fox

Jeb Bush To NBC's David Gregory: You Guys Are Crack And Heroin Addicts

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush downplayed 2016 speculation when closing out an interview with NBC's David Gregory during an appearance on Meet The Press that was a part of his Sunday show blitz. Bush joked with Gregory that such talk is evidence that the political press are 'crack' and 'heroin addicts.'

Just after telling Gregory that he thinks 'history will be kind' to his brother, former President George W. Bush, he was asked about who 'the hottest politician in Florida is right now.'

'Is it you or Marco Rubio? Who will we be more likely to see in the White House?' asked Gregory.

Bush laughed off the question.

'Man, you guys are crack addicts. You really are obsessed with all this politics. Marco Rubio is a great guy,' said Bush.

'I've been called a lot of things,' said Gregory.

'Okay, heroin addicts, is that better?' said Bush.

'Put aside the politics for a moment. We've got big challenges. Marco Rubio, to his credit, is working on those and he deserves a lot of credit for it. I'm very proud of him,' Bush said.

Watch clip below via NBC

Maddow Blasts Republican Opposition To Trying Terrorism Suspects In Federal Court

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow took Republicans to task Friday night for their hostility to trying terrorism suspects, particularly Osama Bin Laden's son-in-law, in federal courts. Maddow pointed to the successful federal prosecution of the first World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef, and other terrorists like Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman in the mid 1990s.

Maddow walked viewers through a segment with a geography lesson of Manhattan that showed where the World Trade Center is in relation to her MSNBC studio and the federal courthouse where terrorism suspects have been tried. Maddow relayed that the terrorists that go to a court that is 'ten blocks' from the site of the worst terrorist attack in American history usually end up in a federal SuperMax prison.

'International terrorism suspect goes in, life sentence comes out,' she said.

The same court that tried Yoused and Abdel-Rahman was again buzzing with activity this week with the trial of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, an Al-Qaeda spokesman. He was charged with a the crime of conspiracy to kill Americans.

Hawkish Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham greeted this trial with outrage and Maddow blasted them for not celebrating the capture and trial of a notorious terrorist.

'They said the right decision would have been, of course, to ship this guy to Guantanamo. There argument is that Guantanamo is so much better!' she said.

Maddow shredded their claim that the government couldn't gain any intelligence from him without sending him to the controversial Cuban prison by pointing to several pages of interviews with Ghaith.

She continued to blast the Republicans in her trademark mocking style.

'But still, everybody freak out! Double Guantanamo! Maybe that will help you get re-elected if you ever have to go back in a time machine to run for office again in 2004,' she said.

Watch below, clip from MSNBC

Limbaugh Hits McCain And Graham For Opposing Rand Paul, Dining With Obama: 'Who Are They Siding With?'

Rush Limbaugh took a call from a listener Friday that set him off on a rant against Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for their opposition to Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster. The caller demanded that McCain and Graham make a public apology to Paul on the Senate floor, and Limbaugh agreed.

'This incident, the Rand Paul filibuster,' Limbaugh said, 'has turned things upside down in Washington.' He tied the older senators' backlash against the younger Paul to the dinner they had with President Obama Wednesday night. Limbaugh expressed his outrage over the fact that McCain and Graham were lobbing insults at Paul while at the same time sitting down to dine with the object of Paul's scorn. 'Who are they siding with?' he asked.

Echoing Shepard Smith, who set off McCain by calling him 'interventionist' Friday on Fox News, Limbaugh said, 'There is a fear among McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others who favor an interventionist foreign policy.' Specifically, he said, old guard neo-con Republicans fear that Rand Paul is following in his father's 'isolationist' footsteps. 'That's why they're calling Rand Paul a wacko,' Limbaugh said, 'because that's what they thought of Ron Paul.'

Limbaugh appears to be using his massive platform to stoke the latest rift emerging in the Republican Party, between those who support Rand Paul's broad stand against military intervention and those, like McCain and Limbaugh, who would rather not disrupt the status quo.

Listen to audio below:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Red Eye Panel Blasts Fellow Panelist For Dissing Rand Paul Filibuster

Senator Rand Paul continues to receive praise from all corners of the media, including Fox's late gab fest Red Eye for his filibusterhref> on droning American citizens. All but one of the panel from Saturday morning's broadcast, comedian Joe DeRosa, showered Paul with positive comments for his filibuster. DeRosa called Paul's performance 'showboating.'

'This was showboating and nothing more. This was ridiculous. This was exactly like when Trey Anastasio plays a 35 minute solo. 'Look! I can do this! Nobody wants to listen to it though. It was annoying. It was dumb. It was like a bad Andy Kaufman routine. It accomplished nothing. And it was a show piece. It was a way for the right to take a shot at the left and I get it,' said Derosa.

Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld thanked DeRosa for his Phish reference but derided DeRosa for saying that it was a left vs. right issue.

Reason Magazine editor-in-chief Matt Welch noted agreed with Gutfeld and noted that there is now a bipartisan civil liberties caucus in the Senate that speaks up on issues like drones. Welch called the filibuster and civil liberties caucus 'awesome.'

(Full disclosure I am a paid contributor to Reason magazine.)

Derosa continued to defend his opinion on Paul's filibuster saying that the right doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties.

'The right is the team that usually doesn't really have a problem with this sort of thing. Don't you think they are showboating a little bit? 'Look! Look what Obama is doing'' said DeRosa.

'Joe, you are making a mistake. Rand Paul is at his heart libertarian. I would not put him as a traditional conservative,' said Gutfeld, who admitted that he likes drones and agrees with DeRosa but that if the roles were reversed Democrats would be up in arms if a Republican president had a similar policy.

During the halftime segment with Andy Levy, DeRosa was taken to task by Levy for not recognizing that Paul actually does care about civil liberties issues and that wasn't showboating. Levy noted that Jedediah Bila pointed out early that this is right in Paul's 'wheelhouse.'

'I agree that he's very passionate about it. I agree that he really cares about it. I think there are more effective things you can do with your time. It's like fireworks,' DeRosa said.

Gutfeld that took a shot at DeRosa's comedic career and performing in-front of a small crowd at a nightclub.

Levy suggested that some of the Republicans, like Marco Rubio, that joined Paul on the floor of the Senate during filibuster may have a political motive in joining him.

Watch both clips below via Fox News.

Stephen Colbert Fires Back At North Korea With His Own Elaborate 'We Are The World' Dream Sequence

Stephen Colbert took it upon himself Thursday night to issue an semi-official American response to the terrifyingly ridiculous North Korean propaganda video that hit the web last month.

In the original version, a North Korean man falls asleep to the peaceful sounds of 'We Are The Word,' karaoke-style. But soon the tone shifts, as missiles are seen raining down on what appears to be New York City.

Colbert couldn't let Kim Jong-un get away with such an anti-American video without hurling something back in his direction. 'We are not only in an arms race,' he said, 'we are in a dreams race.' So Colbert laid his head down on his desk, started playing 'We Are The World' and let his imagination wreak havoc on North Korea.

You'll just have to watch the video below, via Comedy Central, to see Colbert's dream in all its glory:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Why Did GQ Pull Naomi Campbell's Hugo Chávez 'Rebel Angel' Interview'Yesterday?

In the wake of Hugo Chávez's death Wednesday afternoon, British GQ re-published an interview in which British supermodel Naomi Campbell fawned over the 'rebel angel' Venezuelan autocrat.

Within hours, however, the piece was mysteriously scrubbed from the site. Was this a protective PR demand from Campbell's people? After all, she's in the midst of promoting her new Oxygen reality show?

After reading Campbell's '25 Things You Don't Know About Me' piece in Us Weekly today, in which the supermodel boasts about conducting a 2007 sit-down with Chávez, our sister site Styleite became curious to find that interview.

What did they find? Well, the re-published 'When Naomi Met Chavez' interview was available in the morning. But a few hours later, it was gone:

The discussion between Campbell and Chávez originally ran in the British magazine's February 2008 edition. The website republished the interview in 2010 to coordinate with the release of Oliver Stone's South of the Border documentary about the Venezuelan president.

And after news came of Chávez passing, British GQ again reposted the piece with an introduction reading:

'To mark the death of Hugo Chávez last night, we are re-publishing Naomi Campbell's Q&A with the Venezuelan leader for GQ. The two discussed oil wars, the end of America, surviving a military coup and why Christ and Castro are the greatest revolutionaries of them all.'

In the actual interview itself ' which some may remember as controversial even back in 2008 ' Campbell calls the Venezuelan leader a 'rebel angel' and glosses over the president's well-known human rights abuses. 'I found him to be fearless, but not threatening or unreasonable,' she wrote of her meeting with 'the man himself.'

At one point, she asks him if he'd ever go topless like Russian president Vladimir Putin. 'Why not? Touch my muscles!' Chávez said. Elsewhere, she asks him if he knows the Spice Girls.

Her adulatory treatment of Chávez only served to fuel (unsubstantiated) rumors that the two were having an affair. After his passing, Campbell was included in an article about 'the many lovers of Hugo Chávez.'

Suffice it to say, at a time when most are discussing Chávez's brutality and iron-fisted reign ' others are eulogizing him, yes ' a revisiting of Campbell's interview with the heavy-handed 'democrat' would not reflect well upon the supermodel.

Campbell, you see, is in the middle of her brand-new Oxygen reality modeling competition series called The Face. Co-judging the series with the much less controversial models Coco Rocha and Karolina Kurkova, the Chávez interview might not be the 'look' she wants four weeks into the show.

We reached out to British GQ and asked them why they would have suddenly pulled this relevant interview. So far, the magazine has yet to provide comment.

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

MSNBC Guest: If SCOTUS Doesn't Strike Down DOMA, It Will Go Down In History Like The Dred Scott Decision

Gay rights activist David Mixner appeared on MSNBC with anchor Thomas Roberts on Friday where he warned Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that his legacy was at stake as the Court takes up the constitutionality of two laws regarding the rights of gay Americans. Mixner said that, if the Roberts Court does not strike down these laws, those decisions will be viewed by future generations as infamously as Americans view the Court's decisions on Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson.

RELATED: Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court To Overturn California's Gay Marriage Ban

'Do you think the Supreme Court is going to give the Republicans the cover they need to come out of the closet for marriage equality later this year,' Roberts asked after noting the Supreme Court may invalidate both DOMA and California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

'I think the key is that John Roberts is going to be very concerned about his legacy,' Mixner replied. 'This is his court. This will be the signature.'

'The question is whether he's going to go the direction of the Dred Scott decision or Plessy v. Ferguson, where separate but equal, or if he's going to see the inevitable tide of history and want his court to be on the right side of history,' he added.

'This is a step towards freedom for millions of fellow Americans,' Mixner concluded.

Watch the clip below via MSNBC:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Civil Rights Leader Calls 'Inappropriate' Scalia The 'Rush Limbaugh Of The Supreme Court' On Colbert

Stephen Colbert invited Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP Julian Bond onto The Colbert Report Wednesday night to discuss the Supreme Court's recent case on the Voting Rights Act. The septuagenarian civil rights pioneer did not hesitate to express his distaste for Justice Antonin Scalia, who recently referred to the legislation as a 'racial entitlement.'

Colbert began the interview by presenting the premise that 'racial discrimination is over,' a supposition that Bond swiftly rejected. 'If anything,' Bond said, racism 'has increased' during President Obama's time in office. 'His presence angered many people who accused him of being President while black,' Bond added, eliciting laughs from Colbert's audience.

On Justice Scalia's assessment of the Voting Rights Act specifically, Bond said, 'He is the Rush Limbaugh of the Supreme Court. He says inappropriate things over and over again.'

Bond did not have anything kinder to say about another one of the Court's most conservative members, Justice Clarence Thomas. Asked by Colbert why he and Thomas view issues of race so differently given their similar roots in Georgia, Bind was unequivocal.

'I think Justice Thomas and I have lived different lives and we've drawn different lessons from the lives we've lived,' Bond said. 'He thinks this way and I think that way, and I'm right.'

Unfortunately Colbert did not have enough time to hear his guest's views on every member of the Supreme Court, but in Julian Bond he did find a fiery 'opponent' for the issues of race and the right to vote without intimidation.

Watch video below, via Comedy Central:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Sen. McCain Tears Into Rand Paul's 'Totally Unfounded' Filibuster: 'A Disservice To A Lot Of Americans'

Sen. John McCain took the Senate floor on Thursday afternoon to respond to Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster about drones ' and made it abundantly clear that he does not in fact 'stand with Rand.' Reading from the critical Wall Street Journal editorial urging Paul to 'calm down,' McCain tore into Paul's arguments.

'I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded,' McCain asserted, pointing to Paul's Jane Fonda hypothetical, deeming it ridiculous. To 'somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy and even may demonstrate against it is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false,' he added.

'I don't think we should have any doubt that there are people, both within the United States of America and outside of it, who are members of terrorist organizations that want to repeat 9/11,' McCain continued ' but 'to somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous.'

The drone program does merit further discussion, debate, and likely more legislation, the senator said. But Paul's arguments were wrong, he argued, referring specifically to Paul's oft-cited example of a drone strike while someone's sitting at a café.

It's a 'disservice to a lot of Americans for by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government,' he charged. 'They're not.'

He went on to contend that we are in danger, but that danger is from the enemy 'hellbent on our destruction.' Bringing up Anwar al-Awlaki, McCain said he should not have been protected anywhere in the world.

'I don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people,' McCain pressed. While we do need to discuss our state of 'almost interminable warfare.' But Paul's filibuster brought a serious discussion into the 'realm of the ridiculous.'

Watch below, via C-SPAN:

CNN Anchor Tries To Nail Rand Paul On Drone Warfare Hypocrisy, Is Shut Down

The morning after Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) nearly 13-hour filibuster, he appeared on CNN to elaborate on his request for more information from the White House and the Department of Justice regarding their belief that domestic drone strikes on American citizens could be legally justified. CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield cornered Paul with what she thought was his hypocrisy on drone strikes by citing a the 2010 'Times Square bomber' as an individual who she thought both Paul and the administration would agree deserved to be targeted by a drone. Paul did not give Banfield the response she was probably looking for.

RELATED: Judge Napolitano Applauds Rand Paul's Filibuster, Slams Obama: 'Brave New World Is Not Too Far Off'

'It sounds like the senator and [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder are on the same page about the café scenario,' Banfield began. 'The Times Square bomber who, but for a bad trigger device, could have blown up Times Square. If there were a drone hovering there, would that be an imminent threat that the senator would agree we could use lethal force on that American citizen?'

'Anybody bringing a weapon to a place, assembling a weapon, using a weapon,' Paul replied. He went on, however, to illustrate how drone strikes carried out overseas would not be acceptable in the United States. 'Here, you would be accused of a crime and we would determine whether you're guilty or not,' Paul said.

Paul said that the White House and Obama administration officials 'need to be explicit' about the standard they would use to justify a strike on an American citizen in the United States without due process. When asked by CNN reporter Dana Bash if he really believed the Obama administration would approve of the bombing of a caravan of suspected terrorists as they do overseas, Paul replied that he did not. 'And that's why they should say they won't,' he added.

Banfield did not appear satisfied with Paul's answer. 'I want someone to give me a real good definition for imminent, and I hope the parties will agree on what that definition's going to be, because it seems like the senator agreed with Eric Holder in the circumstance of the Times Square bomber,' Banfield concluded.

Watch the clip below via CNN:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

NYC Deputy Mayor Trashes Rand Paul's Anti-Drone Crusade: Americans Are 'Okay' With Obama's Drone Program

As Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) mounts a filibuster to prevent the U.S. Senate from confirming President Barack Obama's nominee to become the next Central Intelligence Agency Director due to the White House's drone warfare program, the hosts of MSNBC's Now delved into public opinion on the matter. New York City's Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson claimed that Paul is displaying his 'idiosyncratic' style in filibustering Obama's nominee. He added that most Americans trust the president and his determinations as to who should be subject to drone strikes.

RELATED: Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional

'Because you are the deputy mayor of New York City, you understand the threat of terrorism and the very difficult balance between civil liberties and national security,' host Alex Wagner said. 'This is one of those areas where it feels like the technology has gotten far ahead of the, sort of, legal framework.'

She implied that Americans are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the administration's suggestion that they have the authority to execute American citizens via drone both domestically and overseas. Wolfson dismissed Wagner's concerns outright.

'There's a reason why the most idiosyncratic, most extreme member of the United States Senate is the person leading the filibuster here,' Wolfson said.

'I think, at the end of the day, where the president is, where the administration is, is kind of where the American people are on this,' Wolfson added. 'They trust this president ' and I think, to some extent, they trusted the last president ' to keep in mind that they're job, at the end of the day, the most important job they have, is protecting the American people.'

Wolfson said that the executive branch will reserve the right to execute drone strikes as it sees fit. 'And I think the American people are more or less okay with that,' Wolfson concluded.

According to a recent Reason-Rupe national survey (conducted of adults from February 21 ' 25, with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percent), 57 percent respondents nationwide said that they believe it is unconstitutional for an American president to authorize the execution of an American citizen overseas without due process of law. 59 percent of respondents said they think the federal government exceeds its authority when it comes to targeted strikes against citizens.

Watch the clip below via MSNBC:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

WATCH LIVE: Sen. Rand Paul Filibusters CIA Director John Brennan's Nomination

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and his fellow Republicans don't have the 41 votes necessary to prevent a cloture vote that would block the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA director. So Paul has taken to the Senate floor for an old-fashioned filibuster, vowing to talk about the CIA's controversial drone program for as long as he possibly can.

Watch Sen. Paul's filibuster live on C-SPAN.

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Stossel Bluntly Tells O'Reilly: Your Colmes Outburst Was 'Obnoxious' And 'Out Of Line'

Immediately following Bill O'Reilly's Tuesday night outburst against Alan Colmes, John Stossel weighed in by bluntly telling the Fox host that his actions were 'out of line' and 'obnoxious.'

'I'm still feeling bad about Colmes,' O'Reilly said after introducing Stossel for a segment on environmentalism.

'Good. You were out of line,' Stossel said.

'I wasn't out of line,' O'Reilly responded matter-of-factly. 'I was maybe out of line with my tone, but not with the facts of the matter.'

In the previous segment, the Factor host blew up on Colmes when the liberal contributor was unable to name any of Obama's 'specific' cuts. O'Reilly reaffirmed his own beliefs by asking Stossel (disclosure: my former boss) whether the president has named specific, 'solid' cuts to any programs.

The libertarian FBN host agreed, noting that 'Sequester cuts aren't even cuts. Spending's going up.'

'So the truth is on my side,' O'Reilly replied. 'It's just that i probably didn't frame it with Colmes.'

'You were obnoxious,' Stossel said without hesitation. The off-camera stage crew can be heard laughing in the background.

O'Reilly said he is willing to 'accept' that he was 'over the top,' prompting Stossel to joke that he's glad his colleague used up his anger on Colmes, as opposed to taking it out him.

Watch below, via Fox:

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Iowa GOPers Push Bill To Make Divorce More Difficult, Question If It Leads Girls To Be 'Promiscuous'

Seven Republican members of the Iowa House are hoping to make divorce more difficult by pushing a bill that would prohibit 'no-fault' divorces for parents of minors. The move, they said, stems from concern about the negative effect of divorce on children.

Rep. Ted Gassman, according to Radio Iowa, argued it's ' time to look out for the children instead of constantly worrying about the adults.' He went on to note that the issue is 'near and dear' to him, alluding to his daughter and son-in-law who recently divorced.

'There's a 16-year-old girl in this whole mix now,' Gassman said, referring to his granddaughter. 'Guess what? What are the possibilities of her being more promiscuous? What are the possibilities of all these other things surrounding her life that a 16-year-old girl, with hormones raging, can get herself into?'

'This basically is an attempt on my part to keep fathers in the home,' he also said. 'I sincerely believe that the family is the foundation of this nation and this nation will go the direction of our families. If our families break up, so will this nation.'

Opponents of the bill argued that not divorcing in some situations can actually have an adverse effect:

Representative Marti Anderson, a Democrat from Des Moines who opposes the bill, said the tension in her childhood home lasted eight years, until her parents divorced back when fault had to be proven.

'The stay-together time was very, very damaging to my family,' said Anderson ' the oldest of four children, 'and although we're all adults now, I'm not sure any of us have ever really gotten past that.'

A three-member House subcommittee debated the bill and gave it initial approval on Monday. Currently, all 50 states allow no-fault divorce (which allows couples to split without assigning blame for the cause).

Shaq Slams Rodman's 'Risky Move' In North Korea: 'Leave The Diplomacy To Diplomats'

Shaquille O'Neal and Dennis Rodman have a history of tangling on the basketball court, and now that the two men are retired it doesn't seem like things have changed much. On CBS This Morning Tuesday to promote his new show 'Upload with Shaquille O'Neal,' the former Lakers star offered a tough assessment of Rodman's recent visit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

When host Charlie Rose asked O'Neal to comment on Rodman's trip, he got a far more nuanced and astute assessment of the situation than anything Rodman himself said Sunday on ABC's This Week.

'I think we as people should understand our roles in life,' O'Neal said. 'And I think certain people should leave diplomacy to diplomats,' he added, drawing a expression of surprise from Norah O'Donnell. 'It was a very, very risky move what he did.'

Perhaps to prove that he still has a sense of humor about the whole thing, O'Neal did add that 'if there are any diplomats watching and you want to make me a diplomat, just give me a call.' If anything, O'Neal's measured response proved that if any former NBA player was going to be the first American to meet Kim Jong-un, we may have better off with Shaq than we were with Rodman.

Watch video below, via CBS:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Country Star Trace Adkins To Piers Morgan: 'I Would've Slapped The S**t Out Of You'

For those who don't remember, shortly before he was a controversial CNN anchor Piers Morgan was the winner of the first Celebrity Apprentice series after narrowly beating out country star Trace Adkins in the final round.

For Sunday's premiere of 2013's All-Star Celebrity Apprentice, Morgan returned as Donald Trump's 'advisor,' and had to face down his former season one nemeses in the likes of political consultant Omarosa and Adkins.

Naturally, some sparks flew when the rivals reunited.

At one point Morgan mocked Omarasa as a 'wonderful creature,' prompting her to make a middle-school 'your momma' joke followed up by a remark that he should check his attitude because 'this ain't CNN, Piers.'

Adkins, however, was much more terse in his anger when confronted by Morgan.

During a debriefing in Trump's office, Adkins claimed he was never actually 'pointed at' by Trump when fired in season one, and so he never actually felt fired. Trump explained that he 'never had the heart' to be so harsh to the country star.

Morgan interjected, with a smile, that he would have done it ' 'it' being pointed at Adkins and 'fired' him.

'Did you? I don't think so. I would've slapped the shit out of you,' Adkins shot back.

'Whoa!' Morgan said with a chuckle. 'Calm down, cowboy. It's not my fault I beat you.'

Watch below, via NBC:

[h/t MofoPolitics]

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Red Eye Trashes CNN's Howard Kurtz For 'Perfecting The Art Of Playing It Safe' And 'Asking Softball Questions'

Saturday night's special edition of Red Eye paid 'tribute' to CNN's Howard Kurtz, relentlessly mocking the media critic for 'perfecting the art of playing it safe' and making the difficult task of asking 'softball questions' seem 'effortless.'

Introducing a new segment called 'Profiles in Punditry,' host Greg Gutfeld explained that he would like to 'commend those who go unrecognized in this challenging word of commentating.'

The inaugural 'salute' went to Kurtz:

'During your career as Washington Post columnist, host of CNN's Reliable Sources, and Newsweek's Washington bureau chief, you've perfected the art of playing it safe. You've taken the difficult practice of asking softball questions and made it look effortless, earning you the undisputed title of our nation's premier media critic. Print journalists, TV reporters, and even bloggers ' no one is safe from your hard-hitting, no-nonsense style. When talking heads need somewhere to paid their demo reel, you welcome them with open arms and, in the process, inspire a generation of pundits to find that elusive middle ground between something and nothing. So here's to you, Mr. Kurtz, Red Eye's pundit of the week.'

'I don't know of anybody who deserves it more,' Gutfeld deadpanned following the video. 'He's amazing.'

'There's a deeper point,' Tucker Carlson added, 'How bad can a recession be if Howie Kurtz has a job?'

Watch below, via Fox:

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter