BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
I am sorry for his family, his wife and 2 young children, but this is the life and ending charlie kirk created. He was not a nice person, not a good person. He was a "christian" nationalist, racist, bigot, misogynist, hateful, vile, greedy, self-serving, ass licking fascist pig. The neo-nazi drumpf / trump-vance administration is already spinning this to turn their magat cult's attention away from epstein and the failing economy as was posted on Blue Sky
Perfect scenario here.
Let's kill a big maga influencer, tell them it was a democrat, never find the shooter cuz it was paid assassin. Keep saying it on media. Recycle ♻️
Maga is now not focused on the Epstein files or economy.
Mission complete.
Same rhetoric was used for J6. 🤨
IT is disgraceful that msnbc fired Matthew Dowd for speaking the truth about charlie kirk. So much for real reporting from msnbc, when will they complete the merger with FAUX fox news?
In this piece from media matters charlie kirk shows just how repulsive he was.....
Charlie Kirk: “It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd Amendment”
Kirk: “Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty”
www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk...
THERE has been much condemnation of donald drumpf's 'punish the woman for getting an abortion' statement, but his answer to the next question shows he supports imposition of christian sharia law on us. Thank you to Chris Matthews for conducting this hard hitting interview with drumpf because he showed America what he really is, if anyone hadn't figured that out by now. The one thing I still can't understand is that more than 50% of republican women have a favorable opinion of drumpf AFTER he made his statement on women and abortion. I would love to send these women to Iran or saudi arabia for a year so they personally experience the kind of government they want to impose on America. From +Daily Kos, +MSNBC & UltraViolet....
When I watched the Chris Matthews interview with Trump on MSNBC tonight, I’d already seen the video exchange where Trump said that women who had gotten an illegal abortion should be punished. But when I watched the entire discussion, Trump made an even more shocking, and I think, more newsworthy statement that no one even bothered to mention.
Was this because he was saying something that everyone took as a given? I really hope to God not.
At the end of that whole segment, just before the commercial break, Chris asked him if the guy who had gotten the woman who had an illegal abortion pregnant should also be punished. After hemming and hawing for a few seconds - during which Chris pointed out that ‘some would say the guy had something to do with it’, Trump said simply...
I just about fell out of my chair. But I wasn’t the only one. There were audible gasps from the pro-Trump audience members, a good portion of which were women.
I know that Trump’s view of women is probably slightly above his views on keeping dogs as pets, so it’s no surprise that he’d said that. But where is the media outrage over his second statement?
The idea that women might have to go to jail if they’ve chosen the only option available to them when making the gut wrenching choice about whether to have a child or not, is horrific on it’s own. But saying that the guy who was equally responsible for putting her in that position should bear no consequences at all when she’s being punished, is beyond the pale.
Thank you Chris Matthews for asking that question, because it really needed to be asked. But I really think the mainstream media needs tohold him accountable for his FULL statement.
Trump: GOP-approved? (video)
Donald Trump reached shocking new lows this week, even for him.
Possibly more shocking: the number of Republican Party leaders who say they'll endorse him if he's the nominee (which is highly likely).
Trump's racist and sexist rhetoric is defining this election, and every woman voter needs to know what the 2016 GOP is all about. Check out this short video and then please share it with everyone you know.
KEITH OLBERMANN will be back on the air starting Tuesday night, thanks to the PR campaign by the PCCC and others! Thanks to all who spoke up and signed the petition!
We did it! Olbermann is back on the air this week!
Craig
We did it! The president of MSNBC just announced that Keith Olbermann will be back on the air on Tuesday night!
This is a huge victory for the whopping 300,000 of us who signed the petition, which was delivered directly to MSNBC's president and reported on by many top news outlets.
MSNBC'S blatant hypocrisy is amazing....and they expect the American public to accept it without a fight? Sign the petition from PCCC Progressive Change Campaign Committee by clicking the link below, and read more on this from ThinkProgress.... BREAKING: MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle.
Media are writing about this breaking story right now, and our growing petition will display the public outrage. Sign here.
NBC policy does not prohibit employees from donating to political candidates. But MSNBC president Phil Griffin is miffed that Keith didn't get "prior approval" first. Seriously. His feelings are hurt.
Meanwhile, Republicans Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan also gave political contributions -- but are not suspended. It must only be ok for MSNBC employees to give to Republicans, not Democrats. The Democratic Party sadly saw this week what happens when you alienate your base. Tell MSNBC that if they want to keep their viewers, they must put Keith back on the air NOW!
Then tell your friends. Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Julia Rosen, PCCC
P.S. It's worth noting that Olbermann donated to 2 PCCC-endorsed candidates: House Progressive Caucus Chair Raul Grijalva (who was just declared the winner, after lots of PCCC help!) and Jack Conway in Kentucky (who sends his immense thanks to PCCC members). Good for Keith.
Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
UPDATED: We have been notified that Comcast has not yet officially taken over MSNBC/NBC Universal. Although Comcast has tentatively finalized a deal to purchase a majority stake in NBC, Comcast awaits final approval of the takeover from the Justice Department and from the Federal Communications Commission. A statement from Comcast reads: “The joint venture between Comcast and GE has not yet received regulatory approval. Comcast is not in any way involved with decisions made currently by NBC News.” However, once Comcast gains final approval from federal regulators to move forward, Comcast COO Steve Burke, a Bush fundraiser, will be placed at the helm of MSNBC and other NBC companies. Our original post inaccurately asserted that Comcast’s Burke was involved in the decision to fire Olbermann. We apologize for the error.
Earlier today, MSNBC declared that it would be suspending progressive host Keith Olbermann because he violated NBC’s ethics rules by donating to three Democratic candidates for Congress. As many bloggers have noted, conservative MSNBC hostJoe Scarborough has donated to Republican candidates for Congress while promoting the same candidate on air, but has never been disciplined. Moreover, Gawker notes that MSNBC has been exempt from the formal NBC ethics rules for years. It is still a mystery why MSNBC selectively applied NBC’s ethics rules to Olbermann. However, it important to realize that MSNBC has undergone a fundamental change in leadership in the last two months.
Late last year, Comcast — the nation’s largest cable provider and second largest Internet service provider — inked a deal taking over NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC. Comcast moved swiftly to reshuffle MSNBC’s top staff. On September 26th of this year, Comcast announced perhaps the most dramatic shift, replacing longtime MSNBC chief Jeff Zucker with Comcast executive Steve Burke [Updated: The shift from Zucker to Burke has not taken place yet -- Burke will preside over MSNBC once the Comcast merger is complete. We have been informed that no Comcast officials are currently involved in the decisions of NBC or MSNBC.]. Burke has given generous amounts to both parties — providing cash to outgoing Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) as well as to Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and other top Republicans. But as Public Citizen has noted, Burke has deep ties to the Republican Party. Public Citizen’s report reveals that Burke served as a key fundraiser to President George Bush, and even served on Bush’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology:
Comcast – the country’s largest provider of cable TV and broadband Internet services – has increased its political giving along with its mergers and acquisitions. CEO Brian Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the 2000 Republican Convention. Comcast Cable President Stephen Burke has raised at least $200,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign. [...] Comcast’s political giving has increased along with its mergers and acquisitions. The company was a “platinum sponsor” at the 2000 GOP convention, and Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the Philadelphia event. Burke was appointed to the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology in 2002.
Why would Comcast be interested in silencing progressive voices? Historically, Comcast has boosted its profits by buying up various telecommunication and media content companies — instead of providing faster Internet or better services (overall, American broadband services are far slower than in many industrialized nations). Many of these mergers, as Public Citizen and Free Press have reported, have been allowed by regulators because of Comcast’s considerable political muscle. Comcast’s latest regulatory battle has been to oppose Net Neutrality — a rule allowing a free and open Internet — because the company would prefer to have customers pay for preferred online content.
Olbermann has been a strong voice in favor of a free and open Internet. Republicans, on the other hand, have supported the telecommunication industry’s push to radically change the Internet so corporate content producers have the upper hand over start-ups like blogs, independent media, small businesses, etc. As Reuters has reported, the incoming Republican Congress has signaled that it will vigorously side with companies like Comcast against an open Internet.
It is not clear why MSNBC has selectively suspended Olbermann indefinitely without pay — but the move showcases the limits of the corporate media. While modern technology has created a seeming multitude of entertainment and television choices, the reality of corporate media consolidation has resulted in fewer investigative news options and less voices in the media with a critical perspective on powerful business interests. Olbermann has stood out as a voice for working people in a media universe dominated by “reality television” and business lobbyists posing as political pundits. It is unfortunate that Comcast and MSNBC have chosen to suspend him. [Update: Comcast has no formal control over MSNBC yet, but will once the merger is complete in the coming months.]
Update Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts tacitly acknowledged that he would be open to interfering with the editorial content of MSNBC shows and with hosts like Keith Olbermann:
Comcast is in line to acquire control of NBC Universal, once regulators sign off on the $30 billion deal. Mr. Chernin asked Mr. Roberts how he planned to handle daily editorial control of such an immense news operation. “Are you saying that you’ll never interfere?” he asked. Mr. Roberts blanched slightly at the question, which included a hypothetical situation that had Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC host, attacking a couple of Republican congressmen just as the approvals were being finished. “Let’s have that conversation in six months or 12 months,” Mr. Roberts said.
Update Media Matter's Eric Hananoki notes that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough gave a local Alabama Republican candidate $5,000 as recently as last year, and CNBC host Larry Kudlow donated $1,000 to Republican Chris Shays in May of 2009. Indeed, Kudlow also serves on the Leadership Council to the Club for Growth, a group that has donated over $2 million to Republican candidates this year. Do NBC ethics rules apply to Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Kudlow, or other conservatives working for the media company? As Greg Sargent reported, a close reading of the NBC ethics rules suggest that the political donation standards do not even apply to opinionated hosts like Olbermann.
Click the header to sign the petition to Sen Majority Leader Reid.
MSNBC and Rachael Maddow video below.
LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO LEADER REID
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
FULL TEXT CONTINUED BELOW
Senator Michael Bennet (CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jeff Merkley (OR), and Sherrod Brown (OH) are the orginal Healthcare Heroes who co-sponsored the Senate letter.
Now you can join them and add your name to the growing list of co-signers which already includes 119 House Democrats with more Senators signing on every day.
The current list of Senate signers includes:
Michael Bennet (CO)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
John Kerry (MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Al Franken (MN)
Roland Burris (IL)
Bernie Sanders (VT)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Tom Udall (NM)
Jack Reed (RI)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Chuck Schumer (NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Show these Healthcare Heroes you have their backs -- join them as a citizen signer today.
The full text of Senator Bennet's Public Option Letter:
LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO LEADER REID
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.
As Democrats, we pledged that the Senate health care reform package would address skyrocketing health care costs and relieve overburdened American families and small businesses from annual double-digit health care cost increases. And that it would do so without adding a dime to the national debt.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the Senate health reform bill is actually better than deficit neutral. It would reduce the deficit by over $130 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the first 20 years.
These cost savings are an important start. But a strong public option can be the centerpiece of an even better package of cost saving measures. CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation.
Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system.
A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness.
A strong public option would create better competition in our health insurance markets. Many Americans have no or little real choice of health insurance provider. Far too often, it’s “take it or leave it” for families and small businesses. This lack of competition drives up costs and leaves private health insurance companies with little incentive to provide quality customer service.
A recent Health Care for America Now report on private insurance companies found that the largest five for-profit health insurance providers made $12 billion in profits last year, yet they actually dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Private insurance – by gouging the public even during a severe economic recession – has shown it cannot function in the public’s interest without a public alternative. Americans have nowhere to turn. That is not healthy market competition, and it is not good for the public.
If families or individuals like their current coverage through a private insurance company, then they can keep that coverage. And in some markets where consumers have many alternatives, a public option may be less necessary. But many local markets have broken down, with only one or two insurance providers available to consumers. Each and every health insurance market should have real choices for consumers.
There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.
There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”
There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines.
The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option. The latest New York Times poll on this issue, in December, shows that despite the attacks of recent months Americans support the public option 59% to 29%. Support includes 80% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and even 33% of Republicans.
Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform -- and as the best thing we can do to stand up for regular people against big insurance companies. In fact, overall support for health care reform declined steadily as the public option was removed from reform legislation.
Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.
Respectfully,
Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator
