So, "Source" says the White House will paint a grim fiscal picture. Source who? They never give their last name. Neither does that ubiquitous scamp, "Sources", come to think of it.
The White House will predict a record budget deficit in the current fiscal year and more big shortfalls for the next decade in its upcoming budget proposal, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.
Oh, now I recognize the name! "Congressional Source". Why didn't they just say so?
In its budget proposal to be released on Monday, the White House predicts a record $1.6 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30, the Capitol Hill source said.
According to the estimate, deficits will narrow to $700 billion by fiscal 2013 before gradually rising back to $1.0 trillion by the end of the decade, the source said.
Oh, so now it's "The Source" and "Capitol Hill Source". Playing footsie with us are you?
Deficits are expected to rise again toward the end of the decade due to the increasing cost of retirement and healthcare programs as the "baby boom" generation retires. [...]
The grim forecast could help build support for a bipartisan commission proposed by the White House that would recommend ways to address long-term budget problems.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a call coming in from "Some Say" on line 2.
A recent statement by a spokesperson for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin only served to fuel the media’s coverage of the ongoing feud between Palin’s family and that of Levi Johnston, the father of Palin’s infant grandson and the ex-fiance of Palin’s teenage daughter, two journalists said Sunday. [...]
Rather than quell the media frenzy surrounding the break-up of the two teenagers and subsequent feuding between their respective clans, the statement on Palin’s behalf only served to add fuel to the media fire, two journalists said Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”
She brings it all on herself, then blames others for her own missteps. Typically McBackfire, igniting the very fires that come back to burn her.
This was Tucker's Big Chance for his Big Comeback from his Big 2004 Smackdown by Jon Stewart. Remember that (video here)?
Now it's five years later, and we have him debating the rousing Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart Face-Off with Stephanie Miller (who understated it as "kind of an ass-kicking") and Tee Vee critic David Zurawik. The bulk of the relevant conversation is in Part One:
Part One:
Part Two:
In these videos, as in most others that feature him, Tucker is so wrong on so many levels about so many things, it's hard to know where to start... but what the heck, I'll be happy to document his inanities:
--"I'm sure [Cramer's] wife was ashamed of his behavior, the butt-sniffing he gave Jon Stewart." Sothat's why she was ashamed of him? Really? Wrongy McScreamington's 2006 admissions and terrible advice were fine with her?
--"He went after Cramer the moment Cramer criticized Obama's budget. That's what kicked off this entire feud." Wrong. It was Santelli's little tirade (as Stephanie Miller pointed out later at about 4:00 of Part One) and little "bailout" of his own that set him off, plus his revelations about CNBC's overall coverage. Moving on.
--"Jon Stewart is a partisan hack." This was nothing but infantile payback. See approximately 3:50 of the 2004 video.
--"He's speaking on behalf of the Democratic party". If Tucker knew anything about Jon Stewart, he'd know he's an equal opportunity satirist, and a self-proclaimed independent.
--"It's just a matter of time before he becomes unfunny... It will happen. You watch." No, you watch, Tucker. According to you, if a comedian gets serious, they lose their sense of humor and all appeal as a comedian. Someone better tell half of the guests on Real Time with Bill Maher... and Bill Maher... and other comics too numerous to list. That quote is one of the stupidest conclusions I've ever heard. In fact, my feeling is that this episode will not only fuel more razor sharp wit from Stewart, but will also provide fodder for any comedian who thought Bush's exit would leave them with "nothin'".
--Stewart is "posing as if CNBC is single-handedly responsible for this recession, which it is not." Stewart never "posed" any such thing. However, I do recall his having the guts to call CNBC out for horrific reporting and misleading their viewers. All one has to do is review the videos, Tuck.
--"You will never see Jon Stewart criticize the economic policies of this administration." Nobody is spared on The Daily Show, Tuck, nobody. Do your homework. Good lord, but he's pathetic.
--"For him to call me a partisan hack is ludicrous. I'm the least partisan person I know." Jaw-dropping. Either he is a complete and utter amnesiac, or he doesn't know another partisan punditiot in the whole wide world.
Interestingly, Tucker didn't need Jon Stewart to disgrace him on CNN again. No, this time he Tucked himself over with no help at all.
.jpg)