"Republicans have become the most hypocritical, disgusting, phoney, vicious party in American History."

And their supporters love them for it, sad to say.

So is Rachel & Co. not going to Tampa or Charlotte at all? Cuz I read all these press releases and reports a while back, and it sounded like there was a great production on-site in the making.

Sure is what the language in the press release appears to be saying.

Phil Griffin Talks MSNBC Convention Coverage

TVNewser: Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews to Anchor MSNBC’s Primetime Convention Coverage

MSNBC has announced its coverage plans for the 2012 Republican and Democratic National Conventions in Tampa, Florida and Charlotte, North Carolina.

Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews will lead the network’s primetime coverage, with nearly every program originating from the host cities during the conventions.

The Republicans ARE doomed. The shear audacity of attempting to "build" a case against Obama and the Democrats on a blatant lie that has been proven over and over and over to have been taken OUT OF CONTEXT and in which the particular sentiment expressed regarding the role that infrastructure plays in our society, has also been illustrated by Mitt Romney himself as well, and then, to showcase it at your party's national convention with signs displaying this mocking "We Built It" platitude, perfectly illustrates the separation from reality that has taken over the Republican Party.

The disgusting lies and hate they spew is disheartening...we have to get out and vote and bring friends. The Republicans can't be allowed to continue this lying and they need to be called out every time they do it. MSNBC has the responsibility any republican or democrat for that matter that comes on any of your shows needs to be corrected and not allowed to continue the lying. Tell the truth.

Al, Ed, Rachel, FYI, get your facts straight

In October 2008, GM announced Janesville Assembly would be largely idled December 23, 2008 when production of SUVs would end.^[10] A skeleton crew continued to work at Janesville Assembly through June, 2009, completing the Janesville/Isuzu light truck contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janesville_GM_Assembly_Plant

#1.5

From the article you linked to:

It employed around 7,000 workers at its peak in 1970, but was down to about 1,200 at its closing in 2009

Wow ... what is your point?

Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow tried to tell the Gov of Wi that this plant closed down before Obama took office, Ed Schultz came within a word of calling Scott Walker a liar, I just heard Al Sharpton say it again, the fact is the plant closed sometime in 2010. MSNDC needs to get their facts straight.

So MSN is lying even though the article confirms their statement. Good to know.

Chris Matthews is still claiming the plant closed before Obama took office, what a loon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janesville_GM_Assembly_Plant

In October 2008, GM announced Janesville Assembly would be largely idled December 23, 2008 when production of SUVs would end.^[10] A skeleton crew continued to work at Janesville Assembly through June, 2009, completing the Janesville/Isuzu light truck contract.

[edit] 2010

On January 13, 2010 GM put Janesville Assembly on stand-by to produce new vehicles due to recent increase in demand for GM vehicles.^[citation

Right so the plant shut down in 2008 (before Obama is in office) in all except for it's last order which is what most manufacturing plants do when they close down (they fulfill all contracts that are currently pending, but do not take in any new contracts- this is what happens in all cases except for bankruptcy). With the last contract completed the doors finally closed 6 months into Obama's presidency. But it's his fault that it closed down. Seems legit.

On January 13, 2010 GM put Janesville Assembly on stand-by to produce new vehicles due to recent increase in demand for GM vehicles

This means that the plant was put on stand-by (slated to re-open) due to increased demand in GM vehicles. This does not mean the plant closed in 2010, it means it re-opened or was put on a list as a potential factory to re-open a year after it officially closed down when demand made it seem plausible for new cars to be produced at the plant. You do understand the difference between the two, yes?

So based on the information you've provided Chris Matthews is correct and you are incorrect. Good to know.

Cartoon,

Wrong again skippy, did the plant close before Obama was in office? It's door were still open in Jan 2009, right? Obama promised, while at the plant in 2008 that it would remain open for the next 100 years. You and Al and Ed can try to spin it, but the facts are the facts, and continuing to call Ryan a liar is well a lie.

No, you're wrong. The quote from the speech was "if your government Cares for you, this factory will be here for 100 years". The government at the time was headed by W Bush. The factory closed (12/23/08). When Obama gained the presidency, he took steps to save the US auto industry, and the rebound is very obvious to those of us who live in Michigan. So Obama did not promise to save that plant as Ryan implied and the Wisconsin governor stated. That was the second lie in their statements.

JLeon, look at the history tab on the wikipedia article. Someone is deliberately manipulating the data today. It's probably all spin, by now.

Yeah I was going to say this too @Hyper.

But JLeon makes one claim- that the plant closed in 2010- and then when that is debunked he makes a second claim- that it was really closed in 2009- as opposed to admitting that his first claim was wrong. This is how you know a person is peddling lies.

As I stated the Wikipedia page that JLeon linked to says that the plant closed down in 2008 except for a skeleton crew to finish out a final work order. When you work in manufacturing and your plant is closing down and it is NOT due to bankruptcy you finish the orders you have pending, but you do not take in NEW orders. The factory was closed in 2008, but did not finish it's final work order until June of 2009. But as I said even if you take this line of reasoning you are saying that the decision to close down a plant prior to Obama's time in office should've been offset by the fact that Obama took office and started putting policies in place 5 months before the factory finished it's final work order. So apparently in 5 months not only was the auto industry supposed to be saved, but it was supposed to be saved to the point that this factory staying open at full capacity would be justified. Even Mitt Romney has said that this is an unreasonable time frame for expectations since policies do not immediately take effect. This isn't spin JLeon- it's fact. What I find ironic, however, is how subjective the term "spin" is. I'm "spinning" by stating to you how things work and the facts that YOU linked to. You're not spinning however by asserting that la la la it's all Obama's fault. I also love the complete obliviousness to when the auto bailout took place and how it pertains to this factory.

Seems legit

Cartoon News,

The plant didnt shut down in 2008, face the facts, or are you as dense as Ed Schultz?

Cartoon NEws,

The auto bailout started under Bush,

Gosh, when did Bill W. say that? Is it in the Big Book? (Sorry, that's a really obscure joke, but I couldn't resist.)

As usual Chris Matthews puts his own partisan spin on John McCain's address. Just like last night he distorts the points that he so badly missed in the first place.

McCain just said that usual garbage about how Obama leads from behind and doesn't believe in US exceptionalism.

*sigh*

Do we really want to "lead the charge" - again - and turn around and see that no other country is following us - again?!?!?!?!?!

How stupid is that!?!?!?!?!??!

If you don't like the coverage - CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

YES this is the worst coverage ever! I mean you're trying to inform the public?! Why aren't you covering the port-o-potties?! We need to know exactly WHEN people are going to go to bathroom! It's absolutely critical for us to understand what's going on in American politics! And why aren't you covering what refreshments are there? Why isn't there someone interviewing every person in attendance of the convention? They have valuable political insight- c'mon now MSNBC let's be fair and balanced! Why don't we know what the candidates ate for lunch? I mean they might be favoring the turkey industry, but not the chicken industry. Don't you think chicken ranchers need to know that?! Or what if one of them is secretly a vegan?! That'd mean there's a commie in the party! How are we to know if you aren't actively inspecting and covering every little irrelevant thing going on at the convention?! Shame MSNBC, shame

#endofsnark

I mean it's not like MSNBC has commercials to go to or like Ron Paul has any relevancy in this election, but no! it should be covered anyways! I mean why the convention is being covered on national news at all isn't, apparently, specious enough for you. Now you must speculate bias when they don't show and say the things that you've arbitrarily felt entitled to tell them to show and say.

Sorry Rachel & company ,I'm watching America's Got Talent,since none of the republican speaker's has any.

I think the coverage is good this time. I could hear more from Chris Hayes.

Seriously. That's what the American right has become. Ain't it ugly?

Obama has 4 years in office as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Services while presiding over the end of one war and the near end of another war. He has killed or captured every major Al'Qaeda leader in the world including the most wanted of the leaders Osama Bin Laden. He has also decimated the ranks of Al'Qaeda and virtually destroyed the organization (according to intelligence analysts). In addition to this he has actively worked to reduce the loose nuclear arms available in the world and by the end of this year will have effectively tracked down and contained all loose nuclear material known by our intelligence community. In addition to this he worked as a US Senator with the Republican Party to pass policies to help reign in loose nuclear materials (what he has done as president has basically been an extension of his former foreign policy focus).

As with his domestic policies his attempts at foreign policy have made matters worse and our country less secure

How are you defining "worse" and "secure?" According to the those who work in the field of national defense our nation's biggest existential threats have been nearly wiped out and have been disenfranchised beyond recognition. But beyond this both of these claims- the claim that our country is worse and less secure- are empirical claims. You are likely doing what so many detractors on this blog seem to repeat again and again which is that you confuse your subjective opinion with objective fact. If you feel we're less secure and worse off OK that's your opinion. But when you move beyond your personal feelings to asserting that statement as a fact you have to have EVIDENCE to support your claims.

When Obama ran for President in 2008, he was a junior US Senator with no foreign policy experience. Yes he has experience while learning on the job. That is one of the few really important areas that I just don't think we can risk to just that - on the job training. I said that about Obama 4 years ago and I also think that with Romney now.

@skip Re: #7.2

During the 2008 campaign what Obama said he would do made sense and demonstrated a grasp of global issues.

Romney just spouts nonsense.

"What an effing hypocrite."

Yes, Grandpa McWar and everyone else on the right.

Personally I actually wish that we were involved with Syria. I wish we were involved with Sudan too. I think genocide is inexcusable and I think when we in the United States- with our military might and our prowess as a country- stand back and do nothing we are being complicit in that genocide. I wouldn't say all nations who do nothing are complicit, but when a nation such as ours stands back then I would argue we are (since we actually have the capability of stopping it). I would say that we do not deserve our military might or our world prowess when we allow such events to take place and turn a blind eye. I agreed with our intervention in Libya for the same reason- Qadaffi was threatening to use his military on his own people and tens of thousands would be killed. We are nearing the 10,000 mark in Syria and yet no intervention has been done.

Now do not mistake me here- I'm in agreement with you on the hypocrisy of the issue. My point is that Republicans don't even realize that there are so many in this country that would otherwise agree with them if they actually stood on principle instead of REACTING to everything on the basis of what they think will sell at that moment. They are like car salesmen* who will tell you the car can fly if they think it will get you to buy it. The irony, of course, is that in this metaphor there actually is a flying car that they sell. But instead of getting you into the flying car they got you into an old beater Honda** and simply lied to your face about it being able to fly.

The things that the Republican Party once had to stand on and could tout as being actual, good policies have now gone to the wayside and been replaced with reactionism and insanity. It's sad, really.

*Not to insult those of you out there who are honest car salesmen; I'm specifically referring to douchebag salesmen only

**Not to insult Hondas. My first car was a Honda and I had her up until a car accident I was involved in wrecked her. She was a great car ;-). But she definitely couldn't fly!!!

Regarding Syria:

I have not heard anyone on either any side give rationale for intervention in Syria that defines what we actually could accomplish - what the mission would be, a plan to reach the goal and how we would get out.

Libya was different - we could have an effective limited role - and had the backing of NATO but more importantly the Arab countries.

What is going on in Syria is terrible. But knowing that and then figuring out what we can actual DO about are two very different things.

However - Syria is known to have chemical weapons. President Obama recently made a statement that if Assad used them we would be forced to take action.

What is going on in Syria is terrible. But knowing that and then figuring out what we can actual DO about are two very different things.

Yes and it did occur to me in posting this that I was somewhat being too narrow. I was not meaning to imply that we should just charge into Syria yee-haw! cowboy style. I don't advocate for stupid wars by any stretch of the imagination. The same goes with Sudan. We can't just go in overnight and wreck up the place and I am completely aware of that. I apologize for making it sound as though I was saying let's just go in all willy-nilly without a second thought.

There are also complications with Russia and China who vehemently oppose our intervening with Syria. Russia, in particular, does not want us to intervene because Syria is a huge importer of Russian goods (especially weapons and other military grade products). There is also the issue of Iran and the threats made recently by Netenyahu regarding intervention. Although granted every once in a while one of those two countries espouses the desire to bomb the crap out of the other; I can understand the US being hesitant about getting involved with one war for fear of another brewing that we would have to get involved in. It certainly has to be considered and waged against the pro's and con's of intervention. And then there is lastly the issue of military exasperation and the debt incurred with intervention. It is not cheap to go to war and if you want to do it and be revenue neutral you either will have to make drastic cuts in spending or raise taxes or both. Since we are in a recession I can understand governmental hesitation on this issue as well. Our military has been fighting since I was in elementary school with several people very close to me having gone overseas not once, not twice, but some of them as many as eight times. The military is exhausted from constant war and in particular constant war in which the US military is the only entity that has to burden the wars and their subsequent costs.

Like I said I did not mean to overstate the issue and sound like it's a simply black and white deal. I suppose my zeal on the issue came across a bit stronger than I wanted. It just seems to me that we aren't even debating these issues and there is a bitter taste in my mouth from seeing Senator Obama talk about how if the American people would get up and speak out on the issue of Sudan he'd support our intervening. That Obama has yet to make a comeback.

Maybe I'd feel better if I felt like we actually gave a damn about foreign policy in this country. I don't know.

@Cartoon Re: #8.4

I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were implying that we "should just charge into Syria yee-haw! cowboy style".

I thought you were pointing out the natural inclination to help other people who are in very dire situations. But - as you have pointed out - we absolutely must temper that inclination with judgment to use the power and influence this country has wisely.

President Obama appears to have done that. President G.W. Bush obviously did not. And Mitt Romney shows no signs that he has the capacity to do that.

Here's an example:

President Obama was highly criticized - from all sides - for taking soooo long to come out against the regime in Libya and support the rebels.

Then we find out that there was a boat load of Americans and other foreigners stranded in the Tripoli harbor by bad weather - and there were a number of US embassy people still there. This had been kept very quiet. It was only after these people had made it to safety that President Obama and NATO and other allies could make the strong statements and take action. That was being SMART.

@Maphi

Yes I agree. I try to temper my gut reaction to the situation by reminding myself that at every juncture this man has shown an acute ability to handle foreign policy matters. I also remind myself that as president he has access to more information than I do as a citizen and that the decisions he makes are likely more informed than mine. It still upsets me, but like I said I likely wouldn't be as upset if I felt we were having a rational, national conversation. Although at this point in time can that even happen? I don't know.

I don't want to see what would happen under Romney. I have my own annoyances with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration (one of which I've now voiced here), but I trust the Democratic Party far more to at least listen to my voice and use common sense. The Republican Party has shown me that when it comes to war they go the cowboy style and all they know how to do is tear everything down. They know how to invade and blow @!$%# up, but they do not know how to repair things or take responsibility for their own policies (from my perspective, at least). And because of that I would far rather this current commander handle issues of foreign policy than I would Romney. This and the fact that Romney and his campaign and the Republican Party's overt reactionary impulses to everything going on in politics makes me fearful of what would happen once they were in control. They seem to be so far on the edge that it'd only take a slight breeze to push them over. And Romney sure as hell has interests that weigh on him to go to war so there's that element too.

hey Debi...I was late on the post but glad to see my ears work perfectly! I'm new at this...

I don't recall Biden being a mult-millionare at the Romney level. I'm sure he has a few million. And hes one of the few DC Politicans who had son(s) join the military.

We don't know how many millions romney is hiding in the Cayman islands - for all we know, he has another 200 million odd shore... for those raininy days.