We've Been Silent On McCain-Paris-Britney Too Long!

Mother and child

Even though Bush personally nixed plans to have Britney Spears play the Republican Convention in NYC in 2004, the trashy, drug addicted and dysfunctional McComb, Mississippi/Kentwood, Louisiana dancer and singer, is as famous for endorsing him (as well as Pepsi and a bevy of swell fragrances called Curious, Fantasy, In Control and, most recently, Believe) as she is for her attempts to write songs. Watch her first brush with GOP presidential fame:



Now she has been dragged into another Republican presidential campaign-- along with one of the few celebrities with even less talent than herself-- and she doesn't like it one bit. While McCain has been roundly berated for taking the low road for a spate of vicious, racist, negative campaign ads, Britney herself has either been too drugged up to be aware of them or is, uncharacteristically, keeping her own counsel. But the other camp isn't.

Kathy Hilton, the proud parent of Paris, is a McCain campaign contributor. Shallow, selfish rich people tend to kick in a little when their candidates are running for office. But now that infamous McCain ad, further dehumanizing her daughter, has got her dander up. Kathy posted at HuffPo this morning. She actually managed 5 coherent sentences proving she's twice as smart as her daughter and Britney combined. She points out that the ad is a frivolous way to chose the next president and that it's a "complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs," although glossing over why she donated money to a candidate who's record and policies are the very cause of those millions of people losing their homes and their jobs. But her first point, a quintessentially Republican-- and personal-- one, is that "it is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign." Indeed. And I hope they learned their lesson. Why not, as an alternative, donate to someone who is planning to come to the aid of those millions of people whose homes and jobs are in jeopardy because of the Bush-McCain Economic Miracle? May I suggest someone courageous, fearless and brilliant like Alan Grayson, Jeff Merkley, Carol Shea-Porter, or Howard Shanker? Or, if you don't want to donate to a Democrat, Steve Porter.

Meanwhile, here's McCain's latest fucked up and desperate campaign ad-- in which he substitutes Britney and Paris for Moses-- and here's one from Obama:

Wisdom from the Beyond: Introducing a new feature, DWT brings you former President Nixon's thoughts about the Britney Spears custody case

Apparently, some of the "real people" at Amazon's Askville

Now that Amazon.com has introduced its exciting new Askville site,
"a friendly gathering place where you can ask questions on any topic and 'get real answers from real people,'" never let it be said that DWT can't rip off a cockamamie idea and go it one cockamamier.

Seeing the growing number of people on TV who specialize in communicating with the beyond, we realize that what "real people" really want is to get "real answers" to important issues of the day from the people who would know, the people who've been there and done that, and now have a more cosmic perspective: dead people.


For our inaugural outing, Juan T. from Ashtabula, Ohio, writes:

"I'm wondering what President Nixon, wherever he is, thinks of that judge taking Britney Spears' kids away from her."

President Nixon responds:

I'm glad you asked me that, Juan. As it happens, I've given the matter a lot of thought. And I have to say that, like most Americans, dead as well as alive, I have been appalled by the way the media has been hounding that poor girl. Lovely young woman. I read her blog every day.

It's like when Pat used to come whining to me about how our Trisha was caught smoking in Girl Scouts, or the other one--what the [expletive deleted] was her name? the one who married the idiot Eisenhower boy--was having sex with her boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever, I would always tell her, "Stuff a sock in it, woman, I have important things to worry about for [expletive deleted]'s sake."

Oh, [expletive deleted], there she is, calling me again from Heaven. Wouldn't you know, they can call us, any time of day, but we can't call them! Probably just can't find her [expletive deleted] fuzzy slippers again. Like I would know what the woman did with them. They don't even let us have answering machines so we can screen calls. Well, I'm just going to let the [expletive deleted] thing ring.

At least she's not like that crazy slut Rudy Giuliani married--this last doozy, I mean. Do you suppose he knocked the [expletive deleted] bitch up? But to get back to your question, I think the judge's decision was an outrageous instance of judicial activism, and you can be sure that if I was still in the White House, I would have done something about it.

Although I do have to say I enjoy the way this KFed fellow belts a tune.

Richard Milhous Nixon was a U.S. senator from California (1951-53), vice president of the U.S. (1953-61), and our 37th president from 1969 until his resignation in disgrace in 1974. He died in 1994 at the age of 81.
.

LEAVE GENERAL PETRAEUS ALONE! RIGHT NOW! I MEAN IT!

H/T to Lucas Gardner and David Letterman:



On the other hand, Larry Craig says he isn't gay and Petraeus is making progress in Iraq.

Who would ever have thought there would be more to this story? I'm going back to Bush and Petraeus and Osama bin-Laden's beard. Jesus! This really has taken on a life of it's own!!! Look what Irwing just sent me.

PETRAEUS GETS SOME BAD REVIEWS AFTER PRESENTING THE BUSH REGIME'S LATEST STAY THE COURSE LINE

Bush's political general spent over half the past month flacking for the regime's odious and unpopular war escalation policies. He met with clowns like David Diapers Vitter (R-LA) and Chris Shays (R-CT), provided party-line propaganda ammo for far right lunatics such as James Inhofe (R-OK), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Bud Cramer (D-AL), Thelma Drake (R-VA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and chit chatted with countless journalists from... well, Australia.

Now he's on Capitol Hill trying to provide cover for the most hated president in history along with his discredited and disastrous policies. After his slick speech, meant more for razzle and dazzle using  questionable statistics than to actually shed any real light on how to remedy a tragic situation-- which, to be fair, should be the job on the incompetent nincompoop he works for-- Newsweek dismissed him as a smooth salesman whose wares are outmoded. The American public wasn't taken in and "Petraeus’s draw-down recommendations have outraged critics of the war who accuse him of merely doing Bush's bidding and adjusting his recommendations to the politics of the Hill." And, still, the hapless Bush counts on Petraeus not as a general so much as a Republican politician who knows how to take orders.

Let’s not mince words: David Petraeus may be the only thing standing between George W. Bush and total failure in Iraq. And it’s apparent that most of the Washington power elite-- as well as the rest of the country—understands that.

...But it's questionable whether even the smoothest-talking salesman could appease public opinion-- or Petraeus’s Pentagon detractors-- at this point. Newsweek has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.”

Last night David Letterman summed up Petraeus' credibility with a comment about Britney Spears' career-ending VMA performance: "General Petraeus thought it went quite well."
This morning's Washington Post took the sugar coating off Petraeus'-- and Bush's-- message that they want to see a U.S. military presense in Iraq for many years, something the vast majority of the American public does not support.

Members of Congress who are listening to their constituents were not sucked in. "The administration has sent you here today to convince [Congress]... that victory is at hand," Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (Calif.) said in an opening statement. "With all due respect," he told Petraeus, "I don't buy it."

Last yesterday I spoke with Ron Shepston, the retired Air Force officer and Vietnam vet who is taking on rubber stamp Republican Gary Miller (CA-42) in a very Republican suburban Orange County/Inland Empire district, a district where Kerry only pulled 37% against Bush. But Ron insists that even in a district like the 42nd, people are sick and tired of Bush's lies and his bungling domestic policies and failed foreign policy. His approach to ending the war doesn't beat around any Bushes. He says our presense in Iraq is making a bad situation worse and he wants to see withdrawal begin immediately. Ron will be the Blue America guest this Saturday-- 11am, PT, on Firedoglake-- and I urge you to come over and ask him about his positions and why he thinks they will win even in such a partisan GOP area.

After speaking with Ron I started getting e-mails from numerous candidates who were not impressed with th Bush Regime's Petraeus dog and pony show. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Blue Dog who was endorsed by our PAC last year, and who now sits on the House Armed Services Committee, sounded very much in touch with how most Americans feel about this war.

The President’s stated goal of increasing troop levels in Iraq was to buy the Iraqi government some breathing room to make political gains. This did not happen. A recent GAO report on progress in Iraq shows the Iraqi government has failed to meet 15 of 18 benchmarks for success and a separate report from retired Marine General James Jones declared that Iraq is still far from being able to take over security responsibilities in Iraq.  The report also indicates that the Iraqi Interior Ministry which runs the security force is "dysfunctional" and recommends that the national police force be disbanded...
 
I also was taken by the sobering testimony of Ambassador Crocker when he stated, "There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory. Any turning point will likely only be recognized in retrospect…"
 
I respectfully disagree with General Petraeus’ recommendation to continue the surge through next summer. I believe a phased redeployment should start as soon as possible. Using a date certain phased redeployment provides America with its best leverage to force political progress in Iraq. We must hold Iraqi leaders accountable for their future. Even General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged that our success in Anbar was due largely to the local war lords rejecting the strong arm tactics of Al Qaeda, taking security in their own hands, and kicking out Al Qaeda themselves.

The upstate New York district adjacent to Gillibrand's was also won by a Blue America-endorsed candidate last year, John Hall, who is not a Blue Dog and who we have endorsed again for 2008. While Kirsten's dismissal of the Bush Regime's plan to keep the war going might have surprised some, no one can be surprised by Congressman Hall's reaction to Petraeus' approach.

The hearing provided little in the way of new evidence and I believe we still need a firm timetable to wind down our involvement in Iraq.

We already knew American troops are very good at their jobs, so it should come as no surprise that as the have moved into neighborhoods, they have improved security. The escalation was designed to provide "breathing room" to Iraqi politicians to negotiate.

However, General Petraeus gave no new evidence that Iraqi forces are prepared to hold the gains American troops have made. And Ambassador Crocker seemed pessimistic that Iraqi politicians could take advantage of whatever small improvements have occurred.

When announcing his escalation, President Bush said we would see results in 6 months. Now, at the 6 month point, his two top officials in Iraq are unable to show any tangible signs of improvement and have asked for 6 more months. The American people don't want 6 more months of the same quagmire and I don't believe Congress should provide it.

General Petraeus's proposal of a troop reduction is merely a token withdrawal that covers only a very small portion of the 160,000 troops in Iraq. This withdrawal is being forced upon him because we don't have enough troops to replace the ones being rotated out of Iraq. He has offered to reduce troops not because the escalation is working, but because there are no fresh troops to replace them.

Another Democrat endorsed in 2006 and again this year-- who came close last year and is expected to win next year-- is Eric Massa a man with a long and distinguished career of military leadership. His opponent, a wishy-washy rubber stamp Republican named Randy Kuhl has never found a Bush-Cheney proposal on Iraq he couldn't support with his vote. This morning Eric, pointing out that while Petraeus was giving his testimony 9 more Americans were killed in Iraq, demanded Kuhl change course.

"It is clear after closely watching the testimony yesterday that the surge, which my opponent has wholeheartedly supported, even while being 'skeptical,' has failed... General Petraeus stated that our military must now hold the current troop surge level until next summer, but I remember reading an article in the Olean Times Herald in August of 2006 where my opponent suggested that we would start bringing the troops home by last Christmas. The conversation about Iraq has indeed taken a turn for the worse. Rather than having the conversation of 'did the surge work or not,' we are now discussing the impossible-- namely sustaining the enormous spike in our deployment that's been rapidly breaking our military for an additional year. We don't have the troops to do this and we simply cannot afford to spend anymore American lives on this three way civil war. The longer we stay, the worse it gets and I refuse to sit on the sidelines while American military personnel continue to pay the ultimate price for George Bush and Randy Kuhl's failed strategy in Iraq-– this while the Iraqi government goes on two month vacations."

"Last year when Randy Kuhl spent some 16 hours in Iraq, he told us that it's really quite pleasant in Baghdad with all the fabulous shopping and lobster for dinner. Kuhl also told us that we would start seeing troops home by the end of 2006, he then changed his web site to extend that for an additional year and now the Administration has extended that yet another year-– our seventh in Iraq.  Now I suspect that he'll change his language once again and back Petraeus' new plan of sustaining the surge and over extending our military indefinitely. Today, I call on Congressman Randy Kuhl to renounce his dark alliance as George Bush's Whip and stand up for our troops. I am not asking as his political opponent, I am asking as a Retired Naval Commander and an American. We cannot endure another Vietnam, and that is exactly where the Republicans are leading us. The time to change course is now, and if our leaders won't do what's right, then we will replace them next November.

Rep. Tom Allen is a Blue America-endorsed candidate running for the Senate against rudderless rubber stamp Republican Susan Collins, lately a protege of Joe Lieberman. Tom's clear and consistent record of supporting the fighting men and women while opposing Bush's misuse of them through his misguided policies, makes his statement after listening to Petraeus somewhat predictable. After all, Tom has been out on the campaign trail talking with everyday Mainers for the last several weeks and he knows how strongly they feel about ending this terrible war, even if his opponent is still clueless.

During my trip to Iraq last month, General Petraeus told me he believes our troops will be in Iraq in some form for nine or ten years. That is completely unacceptable. Today, General Petraeus recommended troop withdrawal to pre-surge levels and leaving 130,000 troops there. That, too, is completely unacceptable.

General Petraeus and President Bush are simply offering plans to continue the war. What we need is a plan to end it-- and that starts with setting a deadline for withdrawal. This is the only way to get the involved parties to resolve their differences.

Newly elected Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter, who handily defeated a pro-war extremist last year, called Petraeus' request to keep 130,000 soldiers in Iraq "simply unacceptable. After more than four years since the beginning of the war, we are no closer to ending our involvement and our military is stretched to the breaking point. It is time for a change in direction in Iraq."

If none of these reactions surprises you, how about rubber stamp Republicans, terrified about losing their seats next year, finally abandoning Bush and Cheney and calling for an end to the war? In 2004 the Democrats didn't even bother running someone against James Reynolds in NY-25. Last year ardent war opponent Dan Maffei came within 1% of beating him and this year Maffei is running again-- and looking like a big winner. Walsh has one of the most pro-war, aggressively rubber stamp voting records of anyone in Congress. Since October 10, 2002, there have been 54 Iraq-related votes. With one minor, non-binding exception Walsh could have gone to play golf, given Dick Cheney his proxy and told him to vote any way he'd like. It has been enablers like James Walsh who have allowed Bush to get away with his agenda of dishonesty and destruction for the last 7 years. And yet today the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle is reporting that even Walsh can no longer abide Bush's war agenda. Walsh "is switching gears and is now calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Not only that but Walsh, who visited Iraq during the weekend, says he will no longer support funding the war."

Walsh's record on Iraq has been extremely deceitful and it remains to be seen what he will actually do when it comes down to a vote. Few who have seen him in operation over the last half dozen years are willing to take him at face value since his rhetoric has never matched his actions in the past.

Rather than leave you with a statement from a slippery character like James Walsh, let me quote one of the most inspired reactions to Petraeus I've read so far, also from an upstate New York congressman. After Petraeus had spoken Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) was crystal clear: "The surge has failed."

The sad truth is that Iraq is a very volatile country; there are tragic levels of violence now and there will be tragic levels of violence whenever the United States leaves. However, the United States' presence in Iraq is not doing anything to quell the violence that already exists. For that reason, it's time to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

President Bush misled this country into invading Iraq and he has proven to be extraordinarily incompetent at managing the subsequent occupation. When President Bush said Iraq was connected to al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks he was deliberately wrong. When President Bush declared "mission accomplished" just six weeks after the invasion of Iraq he was foolishly wrong. When President Bush asked for time to let his so-called surge work he was wrong. Now that he is asking for more time to let his so-called surge work we are wise enough to know that he will be wrong again so we must step in and end the U.S. occupation of Iraq now. It is time for our troops to come home and to be redeployed to Afghanistan and other parts of the world where al Qaeda continues to lurk as a major threat to our national security. Not another American should die in Iraq.

Send a message.


UPDATE: EVEN A RIGHT WING HACK LIKE GEORGE WILL ADMITS BUSH'S IRAQ POLICIES HAVE FAILED; MAYBE HE'S PAYING ATTENTION TO RUSS FEINGOLD

Wow, even George Will! George Will has been one of the gaggle of Insider media hacks who have cheered Bush on from day one. But today... not so much. His 9/11 solumn starts with an explanation of how "the surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus' standards of success."

And who woulda thunk George Will would agree with Russ Feingold? Amidst a roomful of potted plants distinguished senators, Feingold let loose.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply tragic that, six years to the day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our attention is focused on what has been the greatest mistake in the fight against al Qaeda-– namely, the Iraq war. I strongly supported the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, which served as a sanctuary for al Qaeda. The war in Iraq has been a terrible diversion from Afghanistan, and what should be a global fight against a global enemy.

The war in Iraq has taken away resources-- particularly personnel and money-- that could be better spent fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates not just in Afghanistan but also in North Africa and Southeast Asia. It has reversed the outpouring of support and good will that emerged after 9/11, it has deepened instability throughout the Middle East, and it has resulted in the emergence of an Al Qaeda affiliate in Iraq that didn't exist before the war.

As this summer’s declassified NIE confirmed, Al Qaeda remains the most serious threat to the United States, and key elements of that threat have been regenerated or even enhanced. While our attention and resources have been focused on Iraq, Al Qaeda has protected its safe haven in Pakistan and increased cooperation with regional terrorist groups.

The question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11, and it’s a lesson we must remember today and every day.

WHO DO THE HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITIES SUPPORT? AND HATE?

I never had many right wing friends. I know a few Republicans; not many. But in business you meet some from time to time and some seem friendly. I live in L.A. and there are hardly any around. One of my favorite restaurants-- especially when I have fancy out-of-town guests-- is the Water Grill and it draws a pretty establishment-looking crowd and sometimes I get a mildly Republican vibe in there. Someone once took me to Mastro's Steakhouse and it reeked of them. It was loud and brassy and the portions were enough for a family of four. Everything was gross; I never went back.

I do have one friend who claims to be a "libertarian" but who I've worked on for years and as a result he's now a more respectable human being-- he's even stopped whoring around, getting drunk and using drugs, and he's married a lovely (and progressive) woman and they have two kids and he has totally turned against eating unhealthy food and supporting Bush and the Republicans. Unfortunately, primitive tribal identity politics has a strong hold on him and last week he invited me to come with him to a fundraiser for the guy he's supporting for president, Giuliani. "It's time for an Italian president," is all he could say in defense of the goomba he wrote a $2,300 check for.

I know how fed up he is with the Iraq War and how the Republicans have disastrously botched what they call the "war on terror." I argued that by supporting a stay the course Republican like Giuliani he would be condemning his two sons to eventually have to go fight overseas. "They're protected," he says, something many wealthy, selfish sociopaths think about their own situation. What about other people's sons and daughters? It doesn't matter; it's time for an Italian president.

Today's L.A. Times has a piece on who Angeleno celebrities are supporting. Will Smith is for Obama; wingnut Dennis Miller is for Giuliani; Oprah is for Obama, as are Ben Affleck, Ed Norton, Matt Damon, George Clooney and David Geffen; Quincy Jones and a lot of the old school Dems are sticking with Hillary.

The didn't mention which Republicans Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears are backing. But the article goes on to talk about a growing sophistication among celebrities who have learned that their support can be a "double-edged sword."

Clooney points to a deeply personal example of Hollywood backlash: His father, former television anchorman and game show host Nick Clooney, lost his congressional race in Kentucky in 2004 after his opponent blasted him for having "Hollywood values."

"It became an issue of Hollywood versus the heartland," said Clooney, who opted not to publicly campaign for his father. "I believed I could only do him more harm."

So when Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told Clooney last year that he was thinking about running for president, the actor was excited but cautious. "I told him I would do anything for him, including staying completely away from him," said Clooney, speaking recently on his cellphone from the South Carolina set of his latest movie, "Leatherheads."

Obama, however, welcomed Clooney's involvement and support. They got to know each other a year ago while attending a rally to raise awareness about the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan and have stayed in touch. When asked about Clooney at a recent event, Obama broke into a smile, gestured expressively and said simply: "He's a good friend."

I doubt Paris and Brittney are as politically astute as Clooney but I know for a fact that some Republican strategists are already asking them to keep their right-wing opinions to themselves. When the Bush-lovin' Brittney was asked to perform at the last GOP convention, some of the wingnuts went bonkers.

The belly-baring pop star is being courted to attend the Republican convention in New York next week, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, and that has sparked outrage among some conservative groups.

"Through her immature antics, Spears has probably done more to undermine sexual morality than all the misguided legislation introduced in the United States over the last decade," the Illinois Family Institute wrote in an e-mail to members. "It would be the height of hypocrisy for a party that claims to represent wholesome values to celebrate her."

Citing Spears’ "lesbian" kiss with Madonna, her "general immodesty," and her annulled marriage to a childhood friend, the group is urging Republicans to call the GOP’s convention hotline to protest any appearance by Spears.

But whether the wingnuts want Brittney and Paris out there campaigning for McCain or Giuliani or whichever rightist they decide to sacrifice to Hillary-- or if they'd keep them locked up in a closet as tightly as Mitch McConnell keeps his sexual proclivities-- the GOP sure hates outspoken progressive celebrities. Although some of the biggest names in fascist propaganda, like Ann Coulter, Hannity and Scarborough, stayed away last night the Republican Party's Media Research Center had their 20th anniversary gala/hate-fest at Washington's Grand Hyatt. Greedily shoveling the grilled beef down their throats-- eat more, little piggies, eat more-- they were all hootin' and hollerin' as they let their hair down and took off their masks to reveal the monsters lurking beneath. The purpose of the night was to slander progressive media celebrities and independent voices who don't just regurgitate Rovian talking points and recycled tracts from Hitler and Mussolini.

Bottom of the barrel GOP spokesperson, Neal Boortz, for example went after Keith Olbermann, calling him a "void surrounded by a sphincter muscle... You know you've done something right when that footstool attacks you on national TV." Boortz also seems to have a bone to pick with Bryant Gumbel, calling him an "arrogant little jock-sniffer" and an "obtuse mindless person." Oooooooo.

One of the biggest Republican thinkers in the media-- not counting Brittney Spears-- is Wheel of Fortune's Pat Sajek and although he was too almost drunk to make it to the podium on his own, he did manage to accept a large pointy phallus ("The I'm Not a Political Genius But I Play One on TV" Award) for Rosie O'Donnell, saying "I don't know if she has room for this, but I'd be happy to take it over to her and show her where to put it." Hic.

In case you hadn't already heard about this: TV's Craig Ferguson makes news, to his amazement, by "not poking fun of somebody"

" . . . I certainly won't do [this show] for money, as it turns out, because I work for CBS . . . "
--TV's Craig Ferguson, week before last, in his explanation of his decision against doing Britney Spears jokes following her recent meltdown

I'm still trying to get my bearings after returning from sudden call-away to a family medical emergency. It's now, what, two full days since I returned, and I'm still playing catch-up across the board. In the e-mail is this item about our old friend TV's Craig Ferguson passed on by a friend. It's old news now, but there are bound to be others of you who haven't heard about it yet either:

Worth watching and listening to =

You tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bbaRyDLMvA
============================================================

Craig Ferguson Refuses To Do Spears Jokes

NEW YORK, Feb. 21, 2007 (CBS/AP)--Craig Ferguson decided not to poke fun at Britney Spears, at least for now.

Ferguson, host of "The Late Late Show" on CBS, told viewers Monday that after seeing photos of the bald female pop star, he reconsidered making jokes at the expense of the "vulnerable."

"Tonight, no Britney Spears jokes. Here's why: The kind of weekend she had, she was checking in and out of rehab, shaving her head, getting tattoos. That's what she was doing this weekend," he said on his show. "This Sunday I was 15 years sober. I didn't do it for anyone else but myself. I did it because it was an act of conscience. I'm amazed that not poking fun of somebody has become a news story."

"For me, comedy should have a certain amount of joy in it," Ferguson said. "It should be about attacking the powerful--the politicians, the Trumps, the blowhards--going after them. We shouldn't be attacking the vulnerable." Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel are free to do whatever jokes they want, but in light of Anna Nicole Smith's death, he said people should realize that addiction isn't a joke.

"I think there's an edit button missing somewhere," Ferguson told E! entertainment news anchor and The Early Show correspondent Giuliana DePandi. "I think that as a society, we should look it up every now and again. I think that society, there's something, kinda social, socially lacking … I won't do this show for demographics, I won't do it for viewers, I certainly won't do it for money, as it turns out, because I work for CBS, this is about doing something that I have fun doing and I believe in doing."

Ferguson said he doesn't know if Spears is an alcoholic, but she is clearly suffering.

"I don't want to talk about sick people like that," he said.

Spears made headlines over the weekend when she shaved her head at a Los Angeles hair salon and then went to a tattoo parlor where she had a pair of lips put on her wrist. The appearance came the same day as reports on TV and Web sites that Spears had briefly checked into a rehabilitation center.

Despite the media frenzy that is surrounding Spears' demise, Ferguson said fans are responding well to the stand he has taken.

"Thousands of e-mails have come pouring into CBS with people saying, 'Good job,' " he said. "I would have done it anyway, though. You have to understand this. The other side of this, for CBS, that you have to understand, is, if this was a less popular stance, I'd still be taking it."