On Thursday’s The Dylan Ratigan Show, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan went after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and complained about the lack opposition to the conflicts: "Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war?…there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares." His solution to the supposed apathy? A draft. [Audio available here]

Ratigan began his rant by describing the financial and human toll of the wars. He particularly highlighted "the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed." He argued: "We might even be creating more terrorists….being there may be doing more harm than good." On his May 13 program, Ratigan condemned the U.S. military for "dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly."

Describing the limited number of Americans who have loved ones on the front lines, Ratigan proclaimed: "…it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars." Ratigan then proposed: "…we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft." He further declared: "Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there…"

After a discussing the topic with a panel of military experts, Ratigan admitted: "I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic." Even so, he concluded: "…the solution is still fairly simple….Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there….that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen." An on-screen graphic read: "Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft."

Here is transcript of the July 1 segment:

4:30PM

DYLAN RATIGAN: Well, day four in our ‘Fix It Week’ garage. And today we tackle a true matter of life and death in this country, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, already America’s longest war. The other, unfortunately, not far behind, long and costly. $731 billion spent so far in Iraq. $280 billion in our efforts in Afghanistan with no clear end in sight at the end of the deadliest month in the history of the war. The cost in American lives 4,396 soldiers dead in Iraq. 1,125 killed in Afghanistan. And then there are the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed.

There are two main problems with what we’re doing overseas, as I see it, and why we’re not doing it well. The first, we have no political will to shift from a strategy that has been repeating itself for years with no apparent end in sight. And two, there may not even be an honest understanding of our enemy and what a modern day insurgent war strategy is, let alone, how to actually fight an effective counterinsurgency. We all know about the heroin, the bribery, the rampant political corruption. But what about our overall strategy? And what we’re doing? We might even be creating more terrorists. Our leaders may not even understand the insurgency that they are fighting against. Think about how difficult it would be to launch a so-called counterinsurgency strategy if you haven’t been able to be truly honest about how a modern day insurgency works. Very few people, unrelated, using the internet and communications to disrupt society. Bottom line, us being there may be doing more harm than good.

So why isn’t that conversation taking place in our Congress and in our homes? Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war? Well, quite simply, like the cheap price of oil, there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares. They may say they care. But the politicians know, there’s no – the phone’s not ringing. No one really is expressing themselves. In fact, the number of active duty troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is at the lowest level since World War II. Which means the percentage of us that are exposed to the realties of war in this country, that we’ve been fighting for a decade, is the smallest it has ever been.

Why is that? Well, more than a third of our soldiers have been sent back to the front lines multiple times. Some of the same soldiers sent back five and six times to the same war. Why is that? Well, it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars.

It means that the fewest number of Americans are truly feeling the brunt of our wars. Meanwhile, those who are feeling it, feel it harder than any troops in American history. I think we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft. Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there and come up with a different way to deal with insurgent warfare in the 21st century.

[PANEL DISCUSSION WITH MILITARY EXPERTS]

RATIGAN: I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic. It’s why I asked these gentlemen to join me and benefit from it. But politically, for me, the solution is still fairly simple. I don’t see how, after all these years and all this time, we can continue these types of strategies without an either ‘get out’ or ‘get in’ strategy. Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there.

[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: The Fix Solution: Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft]

And explaining, not emotionally, but from a policy standpoint, why that is. And that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen. Either way, you have to let your politicians know how you feel. We, the people are critical to this process. Dylan.MSNBC.com has contact information for each and every member of Congress. Remember, you can get mad – or you don’t get mad, I should say, if you don’t get involved. This is a classic example.

Chris Matthews, on Thursday’s Hardball, invited on AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka to comment on Barack Obama’s immigration policy speech, but the segment ended in typical fashion as the two blamed the Republicans for thwarting true reforms with Matthews accusing them of playing the race card as he boiled down their efforts as merely "pandering to angry white people." Matthews also went on to say the GOP was "locking themselves in" to alienating the Latin-American voter as he asked Trumka: "How can the Republican Party kiss them off?" For his part the AFL-CIO president claimed the GOP was also on a mission to turn off the unemployed and senior citizens as he charged: "They’re blowing the elderly off."

The following exchange was aired on the July 1 edition of Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What is the Republican, I mean, you’re not a partisan, actually. You tend to be progressive in the union movement. But what is the Republican case besides just pandering to angry white people?

RICHARD TRUMKA, AFL-CIO PRESIDENT: Nothing.

MATTHEWS: What is their plan here?

TRUMKA: Well, their plan is to try to divide people up because they like the current system.

MATTHEWS: Because it’s cheap labor.

TRUMKA: Well the current system gives them plentiful undocumented workers that are afraid to do anything. It creates a two-tier system, a permanent underclass that they use to drive wages down. So while they pander to people saying, "We want to fix it," they won’t step up and do anything to fix it. That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re in favor of that. Every single member of the union movement, every single union is in favor of the plan I just gave you. We think that the system is broken and must be fixed.

MATTHEWS: That’s pretty forthright.

…

MATTHEWS: Richard if we have no more illegal immigration, if that border were ever to stop, it’s not gonna close, but if it ever closed, we’d still 10 years from now, 20 years from now have a lot more Spanish background or Mexican background, Latin-American background Americans who would be voting. How can the Republican Party kiss them off? How can they just say we don’t want Latino, Latina voters to vote for us? And that seems to be the position they’re in, in locking themselves in. They can get away with it for a few years. Ten years, 20 years from now? They’re gonna be a minority party.

TRUMKA: Absolutely. And they’re gonna be locked into a minority status. But they’re doing that to a lot of different groups. They’re doing it to the laid off. Telling people that you, you don’t have a job because you don’t want a job.

MATTHEWS: Right.

TRUMKA: Not because you can’t find it or because we have 15 million people unemployed and six people applying for every job. They’re blowing them off. They’re blowing the elderly off. It’s everybody. This has been the party of no. It’s veto or filibuster everything and agree to nothing.

MATTHEWS: Mr. Trumka, you speak clearly. Thank you. It’s great to have you on. Happy Fourth of July sir.

On day 72 of the continued Gulf of Mexico oil spill, "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough decided to open the show by continuing to bash Minority Leader John Boehner’s work ethic. This assault comes just ten days after his assertion that he wants his leader to have a "happy place to go to" and there is no problem with, "the president golfing every Sunday."

The former Republican congressman, who quit his job, ridiculed Boehner, saying "everybody on Capitol Hill knows about John Boehner, he’s not exactly the hardest worker in the world. He’s a guy that likes golf, and he’s a guy that likes, you know, socializing."

Scarborough made sure to address that even though he doesn’t know John Boehner personally, he was just "reporting" what he heard on the Hill. To Scarborough this analysis was imperative because, "If you’re going to bend history, if you’re going to pick up 40, 45 seats, it’s a 24/7 job."

So, let me get Scarborough’s math straight. Being the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, a position of somewhat limited power, is a 24/7 job. But, the position of President of the United States, the "Leader of the Free Word," is about a 6 day a week job and requires a "happy place to go to?"

A transcipt of the July 1, 2010, "Morning Joe" segment is available here: 

6:01:17 EDT

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It’s exciting. So hey, John Boehner, my gosh. John Boehner getting hammered by the president.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Or — okay, sure, yes, by the president.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, some people, Mika, yesterday, yesterday, I simply reported on what scores of Republicans have been telling us on Capitol Hill about John Boehner. I think I made it very clear I don’t know what John Boehner’s work habits are. I don’t know what his socializing habits are.

BREZEZINSKI: Well, you’re not there with him every day.

SCARBOROUGH: No, Not only am I not there with him every day, I’m never there with him.. Even when I was in congress, John Boehner did it different things than me. I worked. He went to bars. I kid. I’m joking! But, John Boehner, you know, it’s like — it’s like — kids, sit down and get some popcorn. I’ll tell you what it’s like on Capitol Hill. No, seriously. It’s like a very small campus, right? So everybody knows everybody’s work habits, they know their business, and so that’s why getting all of this push back on something that everybody on capitol hill knows about John Boehner, he’s not exactly the hardest worker in the world. He’s a guy that likes golf and he’s a guy that likes you know, socializing.

BREZEZINSKI: Well, he has a great tan.

SCARBOROUGH: Hs’s got a great tan.

BREZEZINSKI: He is clearly outside a lot.
SCARBOROUGH: He has that going for him. He is very healthy. I am not sure what shade of orange that exactly is, but I don’t think it’s a spray-on type. Look at poor Eric Cantor, he is pale. He works.

BREZEZINSKI:: Pale, as a ghost.

SCARBOROUGH: Pence, Look at pence. Pence works! I feel sorry..

BREZEZINSKI: Aww, withered and pale. Like he is in the coal mine.

SCARBOROUGH: Those are fluorescent lights on those guys. Look at me. I work. It’s all spray-on. It’s all natural. Actually, I’m Greek like Charlie Crist. Anyway, I just want to say that’s fine when you’re a back bencher, not working that hard. That is a view of your voters, but when you run, the Republican party on Capitol Hill and they want to take over the majority, it becomes an issue.

BREZEZINSKI: Well, and did you have — it is one now. All right.

SCARBOROUGH: It is on the record what has been saying off the record the past two years. Let’s go and talk to our friends in New York City. First of all, the great Willie Geist.

SCARBOROUGH: By the way, Willie, I think you and I should just clear the air that we don’t really care whether people work hard or not, go out, party. I judge not that you be not judged. I did not judge Boehner. We are just reporters, Willie, damnit! That’s what we do.

 WILLIE GEIST: I don’t even have to say that out loud. I lead by my actions by not working hard. Everybody knows that about me.

SCARBOROUGH: Everybody knows that. Let’s bring in political analyst, Harold ford Jr. is with us and also is political reporter from the Huffington Post, Sam Stein. We will get to Harold in a second. He is going to have three points to say about John Boehner’s work ethics.

BREZEZINSKI: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: But, Sam, let me first go to you. This is the thing that is so funny about Washington, D.C. You state a fact that is obvious that nobody will state on the political record and then everybody is shocked that you state what everybody says when the cameras are turned off and it happens all the time. In ‘98 when we conservatives were ready to get rid of newt Gingrich, everybody, he’s the worst guy! We hate him! He’s got to go! Then you say, I think newt Gingrich may need to leave. Then everybody’s, oh, we’re shocked! Why would you say such a thing? In 2006, George W. Bush, every republican that would come into a green room and say Bush is killing us, we are going to lose the majority. He is spending too much and he was horrible on Katrina and this war is a mess. Then if you say that on the air, well they go crazy! How dare you say what everybody in Washington is saying! Now it’s the same thing with Boehner. A lot of Republicans in Washington, have you not heard, are concerned that John Boehner, he wants to be the Speaker of the House. Doesn’t have the work ethic or the focus to make Republicans the majority party.
SAM STEIN: Well, it’s more he’s not the right figure head. He, in that interview that has now been made famous by Barack Obama, he talks about this being another 1776 revolution type year. He’s not a revolutionary figure. He’s a guy, you mentioned, he goes out, he doesn’t have a great work ethic but he fund-raises for people. His PAC has spent 90,000 this year alone, I think on golf outings. I mean, this is not Thomas Paine we’re talking about. This is someone who raises money for other Republicans and tries to build up the institutions but isn’t exactly known as the sharper thinker or the hardest worker on the hill. Now, he serves a person but not the person you want the head of the party that is trying to barrel down the gates in an off-year election.

SCARBOROUGH: Again, Sam, you talk to a lot of people up on the hill. I think Republicans may tell me things they don’t think other reporters. Because, I was a member there. But, you hear these complaints from Republicans, don’t you?

STEIN: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: This guy is not the hardest worker. He is what my mother used to term a good-time Charlie and that is not a negative term. He golfs, drinks, has a good time. There are a lot of people on Capitol Hill that do that and I don’t judge any of them. I’m just reporting here.

STEIN: And, they like him because he is good at fund-raising. He does pass around money. He helps people out when it comes to election time. But, yeah, you’re absolutely right. They don’t think of him as the intellectual heavy weight of the party. That usually goes to someone like Paul Ryan or Eric cantor is the one that is really trying to make the party renewed with novel ideas and new institutions for re-election. But yea, Boehner is not considered from people I talk to on the Hill to be sort of the hard worker, grunt worker that you would want as a figure head.

BREZEZINSKI: I think what is interesting it’s not necessarily that interesting that Sam is saying that. But it is apparently earth-shattering, no offense, and sweetheart. He’s adorable. That’s okay. My point is when you say something or someone else in the Republican Party says something true, but critical, there is a reaction that is unhealthy and I think that is your overall point. Let’s get off Boehner and talk about really what the party needs to do if it wants to be honest with itself.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.

BREZEZINSKI: And productive.

SCARBOROUGH: What’s so funny in Washington is this way and Harold Ford Jr. Knows Washington is this way. In 2006, I would go on my show every night and say George Bush is spending too much money, the debt is too high. He responded terribly to Katrina. The war is a mess right now. And if we continue in this direction, Republicans are going to lose the majority. I had so many weanies out there attacking me. How dare you attack George w. Bush! And you’re not a true conservative! While you have people on other shows go you’re a great American. He’s a great American. Republicans are great Americans. While Rome was burning I was telling the crew people got angry at me, Harold, but guess what? The second Bush left town, they said you were right, Joe, the second newt left town, they said you were right, Joe. You know what? If Republicans don’t take the majority this year, they are going to say the same exact thing again. It seems Washington never learns, Harold. Washington never learns.

HAROLD FORD , JR: You know, it’s easy when you’re in that cocoon as you and I both remember to not only dismiss or find it easy to dismiss criticism but easier to ignore some of the concepts and structure of the criticism. I know you and I both know Eric cantor and John Boehner and Paul Ryan could take not only some advice from those in Washington, particularly people who have been there like you and understand what voters and in different parts of the country are wanting to hear. I think Mika nailed it. The real issue here is whether or not your substance will appeal to voters. We have a history of people leading Democrats, Republicans in the House and the Senate who have representations for working hard and having a lot of charisma and not having a lot of charisma. The real test is you’re whether or not your caucus is offering substantive alternatives or real substantive ideas. Democrats have been criticized some of the last year and a half. Republicans have faced their share of criticism. It’s no secret. John Boehner is a good guy but he’s a darn good golfer, too.

SCARBOROUGH: By the way –
FORD, JR: the question will be whether they win a majority or make more progress they will be judged by that, rightly so.

SCARBOROUGH: And Harold, that’s a great point. I like John Boehner.

BREZEZINSKI: I don’t think he likes you.

SCARBOROUGH: It doesn’t matter. John probably doesn’t take it personally but, I mean, seriously, I don’t know John Boehner personally. I really don’t. I don’t know him personally. I just have reported, over the past 24 hours, what I’ve been hearing over the past 24 months and as Harold says, John Boehner is a good guy. He is. John Boehner is one of the few guys in Republican leadership that we didn’t try to overthrow because he wasn’t conservative enough. And I’ve never had a cross word with John. I know this may come as a surprise to people, but seriously the only thing I was doing was lending a voice to the frustration I’ve heard when cameras are turned off the past 24 months. Now, Harold, people will ask why don’t other Republicans go out there and say that. Maybe because the same reason Democrats don’t go out and say they think Nancy Pelosi is acting like a tyrant. Which Democrats say, off the record, all the time?

BREZEZINSKI: O hear we go, Terrific!

SCARBOROUGH:But when you hear one after another after another. Republicans, sam stein are are  fighting to take control of the house. That is no easy task. I bring up Nancy Pelosi because Nancy Pelosi is hard worker. Newt Gingrich, hard worker. If you’re going to bend history, if you’re going to pick up 40, 45 seats, it’s a 24/7 job, is it not?

As is its custom from time to time, the Castro regime trotted out former refugee Elian Gonzalez for PR purposes yesterday. This time the cause of celebration was the 10th anniversary of the young man’s return to the Communist regime on June 28, 2000.

Associated Press reporter Will Wiessert covered the story, which I found published at AOLNews.com with the headline, "A Decade Later, Elian Gonzalez Speaks Out."

Wiessert began by noting that "Elian Gonzalez says he’s not angry at his Miami relatives who fought to keep him in the United States" and that he was "thankful [that] ‘a large part of the American public’ supported him being reunited with his father in Cuba."

Later in his article, Wiessert insisted that "Cuba has worked to play down the public persona of both" Elian and his father since June 2000, but that "the latest anniversary of their triumphant return proved an exception."

The AP reporter was equally uncritical of the totalitarian regime in other parts of his report. For example, Wiessert noted that during Elian’s time in the U.S. that "[s]tate television crated a nightly ’round-table’ program that provided updates on the Gonzalez case and it endures today, though it now discuss all sorts of themes."

A roundtable public policy program hosted by the state media of a Communist regime? Yeah, I’ll bet that’s real fair and balanced.

Wiessert also noted that Elian’s father Juan Miguel Gonzalez was "elected to parliament" following the custody struggle in 2000, but he failed to note that the Cuban parliament is window dressing for the Castro regime, and allows no opposition parties.

Wiessert’s piece quoted a Castro regime official as well as a useful idiot who heralded the "love and justice" of the Castro regime:

The latest event was organized by Cuba’s Council of Churches, which includes all major Cuban religions except the Roman Catholic Church, and was held at the Episcopal Santisima Trinidad Cathedral in Havana. The council staged a celebration in the same church days after Gonzalez’s return in 2000.

"It was a triumph, not only of love and justice, but of logic over indecency of spirit, truth against evil," Rev. Marcial Miguel Hernandez, president of the Council of Churches, told those assembled Wednesday night.

A bit later, parliament head Ricardo Alarcon said that "for many in the United States, Elian’s case was the discovery of the reality that the imperial propaganda, the industry of deception, tried jealously to hide."

Yet no critics of the Castro regime were quoted in the story, even though Wiessert found space to quote propaganda from an official Castro regime newspaper:

"The boy of yesterday is now a Cuban like any other," said the Communist Youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde, adding that "a decade after being used as a toy by the enemies of the revolution … he is preparing to be a future officer of the Revolutionary Armed Forces."

Former Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos on Thursday attacked Republican Carly Fiorina for opposing the current unemployment plan in the Senate. The Good Morning America host derided, "And are you running for the wrong job? How do you create jobs in the Senate if you don’t pass legislation?"

Stephanopoulos also recycled the California candidate’s June 9 joke about Democratic opponent Barbara Boxer’s hair. Citing the nearly month-old gaffe, he challenged, "I have to ask you about what everybody saw right after the primary, that hair comment, off-mic. Why not apologize for that?" [Audio available here.]

Each Stephanopoulos question either repeated a Boxer talking point or attempted to force Fiorina onto the defensive. The GOP hopeful asserted, "Since the stimulus bill passed, the unemployment rate in California has gotten worse. It was a little over ten percent when the stimulus bill passed in February of ‘09. It’s now 12.4 percent."

In a surprised tone, Stephanopoulos retorted, "You think that’s because of the stimulus?" When Fiorina offered an alternative to the Democratic unemployment bill, the ABC host recited, "But 200,000 Californians right now are going to lose their benefits."

Apparently, it didn’t occur to Stephanopoulos to wonder what responsibility the incumbent, Boxer, has for California’s problems.

A transcript of the July 1 segment, which aired at 7:08am, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jon, thanks very much. Let’s get more on this, now, with Carly Fiorina, the former chairman of Hewlett-Packard. Now, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in California.

CARLY FIORINA: Great to be with you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And let’s start with immigration. The President is going to give a speech. Certainly going to take on Arizona’s tough, new immigration law. His attorney general calls it unconstitutional. They’re going to file suit. You said, it’s right for Arizona. But you wouldn’t recommend it for California. Isn’t that trying to have it both ways?

FIORINA: No. I think, sadly, the people in Arizona have been placed in a terrible position. Border security is the federal government’s job. And it should remain the federal government’s job. Unfortunately, the federal government isn’t doing its job. And we have a situation where portions of the border are virtually lawless, where we have members of drug cartels, Mexican drug cartels well inside the Arizona border, on lookout posts, observing our law enforcement officials. That’s an untenable situation. And what’s going on on the Mexico/Arizona border is truly dangerous. So, I believe the federal government needs to do its job. Secure the border. I also think the federal government needs to do its job and create a temporary worker program that works. It’s very important in California for agriculture, technology. We don’t have a temporary worker program that works.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You believe the Arizona law is constitutional?

FIORINA: I do. And I’ve read the Arizona law. If you read it, 20 pages, it’s not difficult to read. It’s actually less onerous than federal immigration law. It’s certainly less onerous than the immigration laws in Mexico or virtually any other country. I think, sadly, the people of Arizona felt they had no choice but to protect their citizens.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about the number one issue in the country, jobs.

FIORINA: Yeah.

STEPHANOPOULOS: California has the third-highest unemployment in the nation. Two million people out of work. And more than 200,000 Californians are going to lose their benefits if Congress doesn’t extend the unemployment benefits. That’s stalled in Congress right now. If you were in the Senate, would you vote to extend benefits?

FIORINA: Not the way it’s put together today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not?

FIORINA: Because the problem with this bill has a lot of other things that are appended to it, which add to the deficit, which increases taxes. You know, that’s what Congress always does. I think people are tired of professional politicians because they see a lot of political posturing on both sides. But, they don’t see problems being solved. First, I think, we need to be focused on job creation. And we haven’t been focused on job creation. So, let’s give, small businesses, for example, a two-year payroll tax holiday if they would hire unemployed workers. I would far rather have seen us focus on job creation over the last 18 months.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But 200,000 Californians right now are going to lose their benefits.

FIORINA: Absolutely. And, so, why can’t we put forward a bill that does nothing but extend unemployment benefits? Why do we put all these other things on top of it? So that we have a deficit-busting, yet another, deficit-busting bill. You know, Californians are worried about two things, whether they’re Democrats, independents or Republicans. They’re worried about jobs. We have 2.3 unemployed people, as you point out. Third-highest unemployment rate in the nation. But they’re also worried about out-of-control spending. Because they don’t understand. They’re cutting back in their families and businesses. But they see Washington, D.C. Getting bigger and bigger and more expensive.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But- And you’ve said, passing legislation in the Senate is not the way to create jobs. And are you running for the wrong job? How do you create jobs in the Senate if you don’t pass legislation?

FIORINA: Well, what I actually said was that passing stimulus legislation in the Senate is not the way to create jobs. Since the stimulus bill passed, the unemployment rate in California has gotten worse. It was a little over ten percent when the stimulus bill passed in February of ‘09. It’s now 12.4 percent.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You think that’s because of the stimulus?

FIORINA: I think the stimulus bill has been an utter failure because it’s not focused on job creation. We spent over $800 billion of taxpayer money and the unemployment rate has gotten worse, not better. In fact, what we’re doing in California is destroying jobs because of high government spending, high taxation, thick regulation and too rich entitlements. I’m running because I think California’s a harbinger of what’s to come in this nation if we continue down this path, the destruction of jobs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your opponent, Senator Boxer, passed legislation in her committee yesterday, to lift the liability cap on British Petroleum. She says that BP has to pay for all of the pollution. Would you vote to lift that cap?

FIORINA: Well, I think, in essence, it has been lifted. Bp has agreed to a $20 billion fund. I think the President did exactly right to conclude that agreement with BP. I think it’s probably unfair to ask BP to pay for the workers that have no longer have work, given the President’s ban on offshore drilling, which a federal judge has challenged.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you wouldn’t vote to lift the cap?

FIORINA: I wouldn’t say that. I said BP should pay for all of the cleanup costs, whatever that turns out to be. And clearly, $20 billion is way above the original cap.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, we’re just about out of time. I have to ask you about what everybody saw right after the primary, that hair comment, off-mic. Why not apologize for that?

FIORINA: You know, I regret the comments, because I gave people the opportunity to talk about something superficial and petty. I’m probably insufficiently sensitive about hair. I started this campaign bald, literally, because I went through chemotherapy and battled cancer last year. But, this is an election about serious issues. And those serious issues include how are we going to create jobs? How are we going to get government spending under control? And how are we going to create a more accountable bureaucracy in Washington? You know, people are tired of a level of incompetence in Washington bureaucracies and lack of accountability, that we would not tolerate anywhere else.

So you want to crawl under a high-powered lamp and bake your skin so that it has a brownish-orangish glow to it, even though there are potential health consequences. Well, the federal government is here to save you and, according to "CBS Evening News," that’s not a bad thing.

The new federal 10 percent tax on indoor tanning has provoked odd alliances – such as when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told "Snooki" from MTV’s "Jersey Shore" through Twitter he would "never tax your tanning bed." But on the June 30 broadcast of "Evening News," CBS correspondent Michelle Miller made the case why the government should.

"Gisselle Colon wanted to be bronze and beautiful. She sunbathed and bought a membership to a tanning salon several years ago. Last month, things turned ugly," Miller said. "This is her scar. In May, Gisselle was diagnosed with melanoma, one of the deadliest and most preventable forms of cancer." (h/t @KenShepherd)

And according to Miller, guess what – exposure to large doses of UVA radiation increases the likelihood you’ll wind up with skin problems.

"An estimated 30 million Americans use tanning beds every year – 2.3 million are teenagers. It costs about $17 a visit. A 10 percent tax will raise that price by $1.70," Miller continued. "It’s unclear whether that will be enough to discourage indoor tanners. What is clear, new research finds indoor tanning before the age of 35 increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent. Why? Tanning booths emit those UVA and UVB radiation. UVA causes the burns, UVB the tan. Booths emit mostly UVA, but it can be at doses 12 times stronger than the sun."

This tax will hurt small business owners, according to theNational Federation of Independent Business. The NFIB says approximately 19,000 "mom and pop" small businesses could be affected by this tax and those businesses will likely spend an average of more than $74 an hour to comply with federal tax paperwork burdens.

"The first present we get under this new health care law takes effect this week – and that is the tanning tax," Karen Harned of the NFIB said at The Heritage Foundation’s Bloggers Briefing on June 30.

But this didn’t stop Miller from making the obligatory case for the tanning salon regulation, or even a ban.

"New public service announcements take aim at teen tanning," she said. "So too, are lawmakers. Thirty-two states now restrict it, for example, by requiring parental permission in person. And New York State is considering banning indoor tanning outright for anyone under 18."

Politics was once an honored profession of high calling by men of strong principles and courage whose interest in being elected to these positions of public trust was to serve the country and make sure their generation left a better world to the next one.

They were, for the most part, men of faith, men of integrity, commitment, practicality and common sense who viewed high political office as a term of service, not a lifetime vocation.

They fought and won wars against far superior odds, battled economic downturns, abolished slavery and left us a rich endowment of federal papers documenting their vision of what the United States of America is and was meant to remain.

It is a heartbreaking fact that nowadays politics has become not a calling but a game. Gaining public office is achieved by the most photogenic, the silver-tongued, the most attractive who look good on television and can raise the most money.

We tend to pay more attention to the messenger than to the message, the one who can lie with the straightest face.

Many times policy is achieved by backroom deals and downright sellouts. The leadership promising perks to make it look like Congressmen and Senators are bringing home the bacon to the folks back home to enhance their next election chances.

They never stop to think about just whose bacon they’re sending and "by the people, for the people, of the people" has turned into, buy the people, fool the people and rob the people.

And before any of you cherry pickers accuse me of taking sides, let me assure you that I’m talking about Democrats and Republicans. After all it was the Republicans who started this national debt spiral, the Democrats have just taken it to new and insane highs.

Our founders did not design this system for career politicians, but rather citizen politicians who would serve a couple of terms and let someone fresh off the street serve, someone who is acquainted with what’s happening now, not twenty years ago when this bunch of hacks took office.

Our political bodies were intended to be made up of common folk, doctors, druggists, farmers, carpenters, and some but not all lawyers.

The corruption that plagues our political system is not just confined to the federal branch but rots our local and state governments as well.

The one-sided attitude of the media I think dissuades a lot of honorable people from going into politics. If you’re not a member of the party the media supports they come after you with both barrels blazing, examining your whole life with a microscope trying to unearth some juicy little tidbit that will turn the public against you and undermine your campaign, and who wants to put their family through that.

We need look no farther than the last presidential election to find proof of what I’m talking about.

Look at the raging war that was waged against Sarah Palin. A media that actually turns a totally blind eye to childbirth out of wedlock acted as if Bristol Palin had committed a crime of immense and proportions.

While Barack Obama, the all-time media darling, who sat under the preaching of a revolutionary racist for twenty years claimed he had never heard any of the inflammatory, anti-American rhetoric that regularly spewed from Jeremiah Wright’s mouth.

He kept company with a sixties era terrorist who to this day wants to destroy the American way of life, and was never held accountable.
Those who have sworn to serve you pass bills that they haven’t even read and the last thing they want is for we the people to find out what’s actually in them.

There’s a dirty little club in Washington and the state capitols around this country, a club whose membership fees are to toe the line and be willing to sell out your own nation for a place at the big hog trough.

And ladies and gentlemen, with the exception of a handful of good men and women who actually keep the faith in this pack of wolves, that’s what they are, pigs with and insatiable appetite for power.

Two stories in Thursday’s New York Times featured the paper avoiding pinning liberal labels on two media organs: the liberal newsmagazine Newsweek and the far-left political blog Daily Kos.

Reporter Jeremy Peters insisted in Thursday’s Business Day that the left-leaning magazine Newsweek was "apolitical," yet easily spotted a right tilt in two potential purchasers of the struggling weekly: "2 Suitors for Newsweek Are Said to Be Ruled Out." A photo caption made the easily refutable claim that Newsweek "strives to be apolitical."

The Washington Post is looking for a bidder who will be a good fit for the magazine, which strives to be apolitical.

Really now? As Nathan Burchfiel at NewsBusters reminds us: "Newsweek has attacked Tea Parties and conservative leaders like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, earned praise from gay marriage activists for its coverage, launched pro-atheism attacks on religious figures like Mother Teresa, among numerous other liberal positions."

Peters gave Newsweek’s editors the benefit of the doubt on its liberal slant, which even Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz believes is an accurate view:

The ideas that Newsweek is promoting are mainly left-of-center….When Newsweek put a conservative’s essay on the cover, it was by David Frum, assailing Rush Limbaugh under the headline ‘Why Rush Is Wrong.’ And when Newsweek took on Obama, it did so from the left, in a piece built around New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and his criticism of the president’s economic policies.

Peters was able to see conservatism and libertarianism in the two rejected buyers, but not the clear liberalism at Newsweek.

With no shortage of interested parties, the issue for the Post Company has become whether it can find a new owner that the company’s chairman and chief executive, Donald E. Graham, believes will be a suitable steward for the magazine.

That is the main reason the Post Company decided not to entertain offers from Newsmax or Mr. Ritchie, according to these people. The conservative political ideology of Newsmax’s chief executive, Christopher Ruddy, is at odds with the editorial bent of Newsweek, which strives to be apolitical in its news coverage though is often criticized as left-leaning.

And Mr. Ritchie, who unsuccessfully tried to buy the Sun Times Media Group last year, is viewed as more libertarian in his political views. He has explored creating a third political party in Illinois with supporters of Ross Perot.

Also on Thursday, reporter Joseph Plambeck had every opportunity to identify Daily Kos as a far-left blog in "Politics Blog Questions Polling Data It Had Used," but failed to do so. 

Political junkies are fascinated by the emerging brawl between Markos Moulitsas, founder of the far-left campaign blog Daily Kos, and the polling firm Research 2000, which has been providing him with encouraging data for Democrats and slams of Republican voters as racist and conspiratorial. Moulitsas is accusing the Maryland company of having "fabricated or manipulated" polling results, based on statistical analysis done by three of his readers.

The political blog Daily Kos said Tuesday that it could not trust the data it has used in its weekly poll featured prominently at the top of the Web site, raising questions for the second time in a year about the veracity of a widely used polling company.

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of Daily Kos, said in a post that an analysis done by three readers shows "quite convincingly" that the polling data provided each week to the blog by the widely used polling company, Research 2000, was "likely bunk." The weekly poll has been published since January 2009. He is planning to sue the company for breach of contract and misrepresentation.

The Times has cited Research 2000’s data in several news stories but has not commissioned polling from the group itself. More significantly, liberal columnist Charles Blow used the firm’s research to mock Republicans as conspiracists in his August 8, 2009 column.

Plambeck returned again to Moulitas (in a concluding paragraph that didn’t make the print edition) touting "his blog’s success" and portraying Kos, who notoriously dismissed with an obscene phrase the brutal murders of four civilian contractors in Iraq, as a newly discerning data-miner.

Mr. Moulitsas said that because of his blog’s success, there are other polling organizations willing to work with him, adding that he will require them to provide all of the raw data. "I’m not getting out of the polling game," Mr. Moulitsas said. "I eat it. I breathe it. The last thing I want to do is see the demise of polling. I don’t know what I’d write about."

The fall-out from Lazy-Gate continues.  After rolling a clip of John Boehner rebutting Joe Scarborough’s assertion that the GOP House leader is lazy, Norah O’Donnell got into the act, with some [presumably] unintentional humor.

Seconding Scarborough’s suggestion that Boehner is known to hang out in bars, O’Donnell declared on today’s Morning Joe that:

"There’s been a reputation that John Boehner likes his butts and he likes his booze."

Realizing that her words lent themselves to more than one interpretation, Norah clarified . . .

O’DONNELL: Meaning cigarette butts.

Which in turn provoked a big round of belly-laughs on the Morning Joe set.

ROTF, laughing my Demos off . . .

Barack Obama is president.  Oil is gushing in the gulf.  America was eliminated from the World Cup.  Looking for a laugh break? Try this: MSNBC has described DEMOS as "non-partisan."  OK, I hadn’t heard of them, either.  But their web site just happens to mention that Barack Obama is "a founding Board member."

But that didn’t stop Chris Hayes of the lefty Nation mag, on MSNBC this evening subbing for Ed Schultz, from, yes, describing DEMOS as "non-partisan" in introducing the group’s Washington, DC director, Heather McGhee.  And who is Heather?  From the DEMOS site: "previously, she was the Deputy Policy Director, Domestic and Economic Policy, for the John Edwards for President 2008 campaign."

View video here.

Predictably, McGhee spoke in favor of the Dems’ financial regulation bill.  Her argument included this pro-Obama gem: "People understand that we’ve now got someone in Washington watching out for the consumer," etc.  Don’t you sleep better at night knowing Barack Obama’s in the White House?

Poking around the DEMOS web site, we find this  description of the group’s "four overarching goals":

    *  a more equitable economy with widely shared prosperity and opportunity;

    * a vibrant and inclusive democracy with high levels of voting and civic engagement;

    * an empowered public sector that works for the common good;

    * and responsible U.S. engagement in an interdependent world.

Shall we translate?: income redistribution, lax voting enforcement, bigger government, weaker defense.

Yup, sure sounds non-partisan to me!

Note: My first instinct was to Google "DEMOS" + "Soros," and while I can’t independently verify it for the time being, sure enough I got some hits, as here, listing the group as being funded by the far-left’s biggest financier.