Download | Play    Download | Play

On Washington Journal, Larry Kudow is asked about the unfairness of a the caller's seventeen year old grandson being sent to prison for a year for buying marijuana when those like Rush Limbaugh got off Scott free for their drug possessions and Kudlow's response is to send the kid to AA. Kudlow had some other less than friendly callers that morning as well. The entire interview for anyone with the stomach for it can be found here.

Hopefully the important issue the caller was trying to get to before being cut off by C-SPAN is one that our incoming administration will treat a bit differently as noted in this recent Washington Post article.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, commissioned by Sen. Joe Biden, has come to an unsurprising conclusion: After more than $6 billion spent, the controversial drug control operation known as Plan Colombia has failed by large margins to meet its targets.

The goal had been to cut cocaine production in Colombia by 50 percent from 2000 to 2006 through eradication of coca crops and training of anti-narcotics police and military personnel. In fact, cocaine production in Colombia rose 4 percent during that period, the GAO found. With increases in Peru and Bolivia, production of cocaine in South America increased by 12 percent during that period. In 1999 it cost $142 to buy a gram of cocaine on the street in the United States, according to inflation-adjusted figures from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. By 2006 the price had fallen to $94 per gram.

President-elect Barack Obama won his historic victory by promising pragmatic, results-oriented solutions aimed at the common good. The recent report demonstrates that Plan Colombia does not fit those criteria.

Follow this link to read the rest of the article: Wasting Drug War Resources.

The anti-union movement is on, and it all is centered around the automotive industry's quest for a rescue package/loan from the government. Limbaugh leads the charge in his Monday, Nov. 17 broadcast.

As the clip unfolds it appears that his own boss was trying to get him to change the topic. A caller who self-identifies as a Republican tries to shoot down some of the myths of the UAW that Limbaugh pushes on his flock on a daily basis. When asked about working past 67, he spins it by saying you shouldn't retire at 55.

It's a long clip, but this is what's being said. His boss even freaks out on him at the end:

Limbaugh: You're a nice guy and I'm sure that you are a salt of the earth guy but since you asked, What I am supposed to do, go back to work at 67? No, you're not supposed to retire when you're 55. You sound to me like you are totally capable of still working. Unless you work for a place that forces you out and says 55 you can no longer do the job, you got no business retiring at 55 IF you can't afford to retire. What's wrong....My boss is having a conniption there. What's wrong? Is that the unpolitick thing to say? I have not ... the American Dream. I have not redefined the American Dream. The American Dream is retire at 65. People are retiring now at 50 and 55 and so forth when they are still capable of working. According to the tables at 55, you've got 22 years left...

I have not redefined the American Dream. I have not redefined it. ... I don't understand what I said that's wrong here.

What planet is this man living in? He keeps digging deeper and deeper. Does he even know what the American Dream is?

h/t to C&Ler Dan for sending in the audio and says:

Rush basically tells auto workers that if their pension plans go bankrupt, they should go back to work.

Limbaugh obviously has no idea what concessions the UAW has already made. "GM, Union Agree on Contract to End Strike"

And this:

For General Motors (GM), a new labor contract represents a step forward. For the United Auto Workers, a big step back.

The two sides came to a tentative agreement on a new, four-year labor pact at 3:05 a.m. EDT Sept. 26, ending a two-day strike. If UAW President Ronald Gettelfinger can get the deal ratified by his 74,000 GM workers in the coming days, the contract will pull the automaker much closer to Toyota's (TM) cost structure. But for the UAW, it will roll back contract benefits and wages won over years of collective bargaining.

Many in the progressive movement did not like these concessions, but they happened. We can debate that later, but to gasbags like Limbaugh, if you work for a company for 30 years, you shouldn't get a pension and should work till you die. Does he hate policemen and firemen as well? Should they not be able to retire with a pension after trying to keeping us safe for thirty years on the job?

Download | Play    Download | Play

On Saturday's Chris Matthews Show, a panel featuring NPR's Michele Norris, Time's Michael Duffy and CNBC's Erin Burnett ponders who's going to be leading the GOP charge against the Obama administration in the coming months. Matthews wonders initially if it will be Sarah Palin, and the guests chew on that briefly, until Howard Fineman sets them all straight:

Matthews: There's a role open right now. It's the Chief Jeerleader. When the new administration takes office, no matter how historically wondrous it is, like Barack Obama's, there's gonna be someone on the other side who leaps to the chance be the person who dumps on the parade every day. Is it gonna be Sarah Palin?

Michele Norris: It's going to be a bit hard for her to do that from Alaska. I mean, some of that depends on -- frankly, it depends on you, you know ... whether you give her the kind of airtime that she needs to do that.

But she's also got to make sure she keeps the people back in Alaska happy. And she's got to improve her favorability ratings there and make sure that she takes care of business. I think perhaps that's a role she sees for herself. But I think that more likely the 'chief jeerleader,' ot use your term, may come out of the Senate, because that's where the real squabbles are going to be as they try to push forward this bailout package.

Matthews: You know, when you look at her, she seems so confident. You wonder whether we keep forgetting that we don't pick the president, they pick themselves, and we choose among them. And as long as she's willing to keep picking herself as a possible candidate for president, she's gonna be in this running.

Michael Duffy: Oh, I think she's done a very smart thing here. She knew that if she was ever gonna come back, she had to put this clothes thing to rest now, this week.

Matthews: Erin, did she put that to bed?

Erin Burnett: Ah, I think that's unclear. I'd like to pause for a second there. I think this speaks to her strengths and her weaknesses. She's incredibly strong in motivating people. She can say quick one-liners, she energizes. But sometimes you say, where's the depth there, where's the substance? There's not really much there behind it. There's not a whole lot of thoughtfulness in her delivery. And sometimes a great politician doesn't really need those things necessarily. So I don't really know the answer to your question, but I don't know that I need to know the answer. Just say that she can be a great politician.

Matthews: You don't need to be that complicated to be a great politician, this is probably true. But that leaves open the big question: Who will be the voice of the opposition for the next couple of months, first year of this administration? Will it be a Pawlenty, a Palin, a Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney? Will it be John McCain?

Norris: Again -- I don't think it's going to be John McCain. I think we learned a lot about McCain after he ran for election last time, he went back and really rolled up his sleeves and worked. I don't think it's gonna be him. I still think it's going to come out of the Senate. I think it's going to be one of the senators.

Howard Fineman: It won't be out of the Hill at all. It's going to be Rush Limbaugh, and what's left of the conservative commentariat. They are going to be in charge of this party until the Republicans begin to get their act together.

Matthews: So the ticked-off voices.

Fineman: The ticked-off voices, and Rush will be the guy.

If he's right that Limbaugh and the Venom Brigade are going to be in charge of the GOP (and he probably is), the main question remains: Will they just drive the Republican bus deeper into their muddy ditch, or careen it off into a bottomless chasm?

As the election heads to the finish line, the Conservative lunatic fringe are really losing it. Remember when right wing radio talk show host Bill Cunningham viciously attacked Obama as he opened up for John McCain in Cincinnati? McCain had to repudiate him shortly after and then Cunningham attacked McCain in response. The circle jerk just makes one dizzy. Well, in his mind, not only do poor people lack values, morals, and ethics, but they also are fat and flatulent."

JFK:

"You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they're poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics. And if government can't teach and instill that, we're wasting our time simply giving poor people money." Earlier in the show, Cunningham had stated that "unlike many countries in the world, Steve, we have fat poor people. We don't have skinny poor people. Ours are fat and flatulent."

Our poor people are fat. They are Cadillac Queens that eat great food which is paid for by you and me.

Digby then finds Rush Limbaugh saying that Obama is hypnotizing Americans. No, really.

"I do remember reading that the highly educated are the most susceptible to being hypnotized, so that would put me in the risk group, ladies and gentlemen. And yet, I'm going to watch Obama tonight."

"If you do watch Obama tonight, here's the sign that I want you to make for your TV: 'Do not be hypnotized. You are listening to a socialist.'"

In case you're wondering, the highly educated Rush isn't using "hypnotized" as a metaphor. He means it literally.

It's getting nuttier out there by the second. This will be a long weekend.

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heather)

Above all else, Chris Matthews loves the game of politics. As show after show prove, he makes no value judgments, applies no moral compass. Playing the game well is admirable, even if your character is not. But every once in a while, reality creeps into the discussion and Matthews reacts to the net result of treating life as a game of partisan one-upsmanship. Such as it was on Monday, as Matthews spoke to conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish -- who rather surprisingly endorsed Obama last week -- about Rush Limbaugh's racist reaction to Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama.

I don't know how you get into this tribalist talk. We could make all kinds of assumptions, but we have no knowledge of a person's inner beliefs. ... You know what drives me crazy? When somebody says 'well, I know you're Catholic, so you must believe this.' Or 'I know you're Jewish, you must believe this.' Or 'I know you're black, you must believe this.' Give us all a break, Rush. Let us think. Let us think. Let us decide.

I'd like to think that he is waking up to the nastiness of the right but sadly, as my buddies at MM's Country Fair point out, Chris Matthews has a history of "tribalist talk" himself.

Rush Limbaugh, somewhat predictably, isn't backing down from his claim that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama was a product of their both being black men -- that is, that it was about race, not policy;

"I thought it should be about race," he said. "I thought you liberals thought this was a historic candidacy because finally we are going to elect a black guy…why hide behind this, why act like it's not about race?"

"This was all about Powell and race, nothing about the nation and its welfare," Limbaugh added.

Limbaugh simply doesn't get it. Obama's candidacy is historic, yes -- but what has made it possible all along is that his campaign has been about transcending race, not wallowing in it.

Obama has carefully eschewed identity politics throughout this campaign. Meanwhile, the Republican campaign has been about nothing but. And it has its most transparent mouthpiece in Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is the guy at the sports bar who carefully tabulates the racial composition of every team on the screen and roots accordingly. If a team has a black quarterback, he predicts they're going to lose. Heaven forfend that any black player demonstrate too much enthusiasm over a touchdown or a dunk or a home run, or that any black linebacker should level a white quarterback, because then the "thug" and "jungle" references come out. He hates Tiger Woods with an inexplicable venom (mostly because he's too uppity "full of himself").

We all know that guy. (Some of them are in our families.) And anyone who's even moderately serious about sports, and moderately knowledgeable about them, knows that that guy is completely and hopelessly full of shit.

Continue reading »

(h/t FDL)
You knew it was coming. To the conservatives that populate pollute the airwaves, Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama could only be because he is black:

STEPHANOPOULOS: We just found out that former Secretary of State General Colin Powell has said he's going to vote for Barack Obama. Big impact?

WILL: Some impact. And I think this adds to my calculation -- this is very hard to measure -- but it seems to me if we had the tools to measure we'd find that Barack Obama gets two votes because he's black for every one he loses because he's black because so much of this country is so eager, a) to feel good about itself by doing this, but more than that to put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric.

First, I'm not even sure what "put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric" means. And what do either of them have to do with Powell's endorsement?

Is Will trying to suggest that Powell has some variation of "white man's guilt" and is seeking to mollify it by endorsing Obama? Clearly, Will does think that the endorsement is more based on skin color than anything else, a projection that I find more illustrative of the simple-minded Republican groupthink support than anything else. It shows just how insulated and isolated the GOP is from the real world, where people look at more than just how much someone looks like you and considers larger issues.

Just as predictably, Rush Limbaugh chimes in as well:

Rush Limbaugh said Colin Powell's decision to get behind Barack Obama appeared to be very much tied to Obama's status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh
wrote in an email. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

Um...hey Rush, how about George W. Bush in 2000? Maybe he wasn't "very liberal" (although he certainly portrayed himself as more centrist than he is in actuality), but he was definitely considered inexperienced on the national scene and you don't get much whiter than the Bush clan. Rush continues:

"I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [General] and Secretary of State and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."

Really, you want to go diving into that "how ungrateful that black man is for all the white men have done for him" abyss? It's frightening to me how these conservatives don't to even try to hide their white hoods any more. Rush, I know that conservatives value ignorance, but you have to know that becoming a four-star General is not a political appointment. Powell earned that rank, and to suggest otherwise now because he doesn't agree with your water-carrying is just more of the Republicans' sick tactic of smearing the messenger.

As we are witnessing, the conservative movement is in shambles now and the only thing they can do is spew racist hatred out into the world and hope it sticks to their audience in droves. And how is the conservative right going to make sure race is all you can think of when you think of the name Obama?

How about by making the case that blacks in general are lazy, angry, and engaged in a 3 decades old plot to train black children as militants against the US? It's those scary black terrorists again. Don't think anyone would actually SAY that? Think again. Listen to it in Rush Limbaugh's own words. It's hard to cut out much of his racist diatribe so the full transcript will appear under the fold.

Limbaugh: We know that technological advancement is going along at light speed. And yet during this period of time, whether it be the last 57 years or be it the last 20 years, it seems that a majority of the black population has remained angry, frustrated, and behind. They've been left behind. They are acting like they've been left behind, and of course we've heard that this is because of racism, natural systemic institutional racism in America, that we are unfair, that this country is just horrible and rotten.

...The federal government became the father. The father didn't have to hang around in order for the kids to be okay, depending on how you define okay. But as you study more and more of this ACORN stuff, you find that it has been part of an entire movement that has been going on for two, maybe three decades, right under our noses.

We thought that it was just liberal welfare policies and all that that kept blacks from progressing while other minorities grew and prospered, but no, it is these wackos from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright to other anti-American Afrocentric black liberation theologists with ACORN, and Barack Obama is smack dab in the middle of it, they have been training young black kids to hate, hate, hate this country, and they trained their parents before that to hate, hate, hate this country. It was a movement. It was a Bill Ayers, anti-capitalist, anti-American educational movement. ACORN is how it was implemented, right under our noses.
It has been a movement, it has been a religion, and Obama and Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers were all up to their big ears in it.

A C&Ler emailed and said:

They're desperate. And they can't say it themselves, so they hire people who can. Rush, in this particular break, had just finished with a nice chat with the person who accused Barack Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists." And he went from that conversation ... to his little theory about Black Madrassas out to rise up and kill us all. Does it get any sicker? I'm afraid it might with them.

The influence of right wing hate radio has never been more evident than what we have been witnessing now. And it will get worse, much worse. These talkies like Limbaugh are giving their listeners permission to engage in violent acts. It's out in the open, on display right before our eyes.

Continue reading »

Audio and more from Media Matters:

On the August 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that "it is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat [sic] Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them. It's the reverse of it. They've, they've ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it." Limbaugh added: "It's perfect affirmative action. And because of all this guilt and the historic nature of things, nobody had the guts to say, well, wait a minute, do we really want to do this?" Read on...

Yes, someone should have told this young, uppity negro to STFU and know his place in American society. You knew he was a baby killer, right?

Rush is a racist pig, we all know that. We knew long ago that the Republicans weren't going to go down without a fight and that this election cycle was going to yield some of the ugliest politics in modern history -- this is what it looks like. The stench of desperation makes this even more pathetic, as Limbaugh and the party he so diligently carries water for, take their nose dive into the political dustbin.  

A lot has been made about John McCain's fumbling answer to a question about the fairness of insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control.

Download | Play Download | Play

I just love this video because it's one time that McCain's Media didn't have a chance to cover for him. Don't you think McCain should have answered the question? I mean it's simple enough, but I digress. I wonder---how do you think Rush Limbaugh would answer the same question? We know he likes his Viagra quite a bit, but would he be in favor of women getting fairly treated by the insurance companies also? Or would Limbaugh give up his little blue pills? Oh, never mind...

Limbaugh: I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois---I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans. I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property...I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don't see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don't see a bunch of people doing everything they can...whining and moaning---where's FEMA, where's BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.

Thanks to a C&Ler that emailed me much of this post. Limbaugh is an arrogant ideologue that loves Howard Kurtz and hates the black victims of NOLA. Don't you understand, it was all their fault for not escaping Hurricane Katrina! Wake, up! You drive by media fools. They were lazy, lazy people that deserved their fate. If only they were white and responsible. Just listen to this horrific rant as Limbaugh is all 'agush' with admiration over the way in which Iowa and the Midwest has responded to the flood disaster that befell the area last week. But to just congratulate the residents in their determination and courage in fighting the disaster isn't enough for the AM talk blow hard. Limbaugh could not pass up the opportunity to once again trot out his old, well known disdain for poor blacks in the south who were victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. To hear Limbaugh describe it, Iowa is more American, more honorable ... you know ... more white than Louisiana.

Download | play (The audio will work in just a few minutes)

It would seem that the images of floating bodies, and documented stories of elderly New Orleans residents drowning in their attics is cold hard facts surrounding humans that Rush Limbaugh thinks could have benefited by just pulling themselves up by their bootstraps a little more. Nevermind that more than 1700 human beings lost their lives on live television as America watched in horror. You don't hear progressives saying that Iowa is any less devastating because the death toll in those floods was a total of 5. It is still a tragedy. And progressives understand that full well.

But according to Rush the story of Iowa under water isn't a story about humans over coming adversity. It's a story about how much more patriotic the white bread basket is than the lazy south.

Yet another example of the massive cognitive dissonance required to be a dittohead, courtesy of AttyTood: 

To what do I owe the privilege? The backstory is interesting, but in a nutshell the right-wing blogosphere belatedly (as in nearly two months late) stumbled onto Sen. Barack Obama's April visit to the Daily News, where I had the chance to ask him how an Obama administration might deal with White House internal discussions of torturing terror suspects, and other potential crimes in the Bush White House.

Here's a short snippet of what I wrote on April 14:

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

[..]From there, the far-right blogosphere was off and running, working its way down the food chain until it burrowed into the muck of Limbaughland, who really seemed more worked up about insignificant little me -- who became a "Stalinist" once the worked-up El Rushbo reached the end of his monologue -- than about the Democrat poised to take over the White House :

 After the administration's left office, to pursue an investigation that might lead to criminal indictments for war crimes and other things.  We used to do that to the Nazis.  We did do that to the Nazis, the Nuremberg Trials and so forth.  This is who today's modern liberals are.  Now, Obama's got this wacko reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News who's obviously not a reporter. He is a leftist who happens to have secured a job in journalism, and he's got an agenda, and the agenda is right out of the cliched story line of the Drive-By Media, that we are a murderous, raping, torturing nation and that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell have to pay.  This is all about creating the notion in as many people's minds that our country is criminal, is in a constant state of decline, and we are not worth our reputation as the world's greatest superpower.

Limbaugh concluded:

This would be a direct assault on the United States and its government.  And you talk about we need to improve our reputation in the world.  Look at how they would do it.  By finding the US guilty at every opportunity of whatever baseless, phony charges that they would make.  This is Stalinist.  If you've ever wondered what the definition of is Stalinist, this would fit it.

Frankly, I think the political right, all the way up to the White House, doth protest too much on this whole "war crimes" issue; that is, they're realizing the polls are showing the GOP may be shut out of power, and people desperately want to steer the conversation away from the things that were actually done the last 7 1/2 years, from authorizing torture to widespread spying on Americans. You're going to see a lot of things in the next few months -- some subtle, some blatant -- seeking to shift the debate away from the horrors inside the House at 1600.

StlToday:

WASHINGTON—The Senate unanimously confirmed Stephen Limbaugh Jr. to the federal court in St. Louis Tuesday.

Limbaugh, currently a Missouri Supreme Court judge, won final approval to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri after being nominated by President George W. Bush in December.

Limbaugh is a cousin to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Read on...

Well, Rush, your water carrying for George Bush and the GOP has finally paid off. My condolences to the people of Missouri.

It's no secret that the right STILL hasn't figured out how to effectively use the internets, so it comes as no surprise that the Grand Poobah of right wing radio talkies <corrected>, Rush Limbaugh, has made a complete fool of himself by using a 12 year old essay by a 10th grader to attack Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama.

The best story I’ve heard this week by far was told today over lunch. Apparently, a co-worker of mine named George listens to the Rush Limbaugh show in his car, and yesterday heard him discussing Barak Obama’s comments about similarities between the recent housing crisis and the lead-up to the Great Depression. I imagine the comments were referring to the obvious similarities between those who obtained ridiculous sub-prime loans and those in the 1920s who bought stock they couldn’t afford on margin. However, Limbaugh decided that Obama’s comments were the result of a crazy “liberal education” - and even remarks how “lucky” he is that he didn’t graduate from college, thus allowing him to escape the perils of actual knowledge.

To prove his point, Rush says he did some Google searches for “Great Depression” and then proceeds to attack each of the results as liberal propaganda. Because we all know that college professors teach straight off of Google results pages. So my friend is listening and hears something rather striking… the name of one of our mutual colleagues - Paul Alexander Gusmorino (”The Third!” - I love the way Limbaugh says that).

Limbaugh found among the top results an essay written by Paul, entitled “The Main Causes of the Great Depression.” He quotes Paul’s essay and refutes each of its claims, dissecting them as if they were part of a Harvard professor’s lecture on the subject. He doesn’t pull any punches either. “Mr. Gusmorino, you better check Karl Marx and see if you plagiarized him in putting this piece together.”

Ouch. Those words would be harsh if they really were for a Harvard lecturer. But that’s not who wrote this essay. It was my friend who works as a Program Manager at Microsoft. When he was in 10th grade. Read on...

The story checks out. I followed his link and sure enough, the transcript is right on El Rashbo's website. (scroll down a bit) He even has the Freepers going nuts over this.

President Bush made outrageous claims today in Israel, saying that Democrats were appeasers to Iran as you know since it's the hot topic of the day. Right wing talker Kevin James tried to call Obama "Neville Chamberlain," but as is usually the case with these talk show conservative hosts, he knew nothing about the historical facts revolving around Chamberlain and what happened as Hitler took power and started a war with Europe. I guess just repeating RW talking points doesn't work sometimes.

Chris: You are BS'ing me... You don't know what you're talking about.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Rough transcript:

Chris: I want to do a little history check on you---what did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939? What did he do wrong?

Kevin: It all goes back to appeasement. It's the key term.

Chris: No, what did he do, tell me what he did?

Kevin: It's the key term.

Chris: You have to answer this question. What did he do?

Kevin: It's the same thing, it puts it all...

Chris: Well tell me what he did?

Kevin: It's appeasement.

Chris: What did Chamberlain do wrong..

Kevin: His actions, his actions enabled, energized, legitimized

Chris: What did Chamberlain do?

Kevin: It's the exact same thing.

Chris: No stop, Kevin. I'm not going to continue with this interview unless you answer what that thing is. What did Chamberlain do in '39, tell me? '38?

Kevin: Chris, it's the exact same thing alright?

Chris: What did he do? <Yelling> What did he do!

Continue reading »