In an attempt to facilitate a more active blog, I will be posting commentary on the issue more frequently. Obviously, if I am such a frequent MTP watcher then I must certainly have commentary on the events of the day, week, year, outside the encapsulated Meet the Press hour.
With that said, I would like to comment on this little tidbit: Time Magazine's Person of the Year - You - is gimmicky and editorially lazy. I can think of dozens of the people who had a better year than I did so am I still deserving? I can think of at least 20 reasons why I shouldn't be the person of the year and one of them is FOR using the internet. Have editorially cajones and pick a person - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for example. That would go well for corporate sales, I'm sure. But he did have the highest profile effect on the world this year.
What's most disturbing is that when I finally picked up a copy of the magazine and looked at the mirror, all I saw was a distorted view of myself and it wasn't affirming at all. So now the media, following the current administration, is effectively altering how we see ourselves and hence how the rest of the world sees us.
Have a happy 2007.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
September 17, 2006
Who Has Clarity?
All politics is definitely not local as evidenced by today’s Virginia Senate Seat debate between George All and Jim Webb. The closest the debate came to discussing the state of affairs and general health of Virginia was to clarify whether Southern Virginians understand if Senator Allen’s ‘macaca’ comment was harmful. However, I thought that Mr. Russert concentrated, rightly, on the serious part of the comment, something that other journalists didn’t address too much, understandable since they are still trying to get past the initial gaffe.
Mr. Allen said, “Welcome to Virginia, welcome to the real America.” When asked what he meant by that Senator Allen stumbled in his answer even though he had sufficient time to reflect on it since the time he said it. He could have brushed it off easily by saying something to the effect of, “By saying that, I meant that these people standing here are the majority. They believe in what I believe in.” That’s even suspect, just coming off the top of my head, but the fact remains is that Senator Allen had plenty of time to clarify and he could not. Second fact, I’m not for Senate.
Also, the senator was inherently at a disadvantage before the debate began because of the aforementioned macaca and his voting record on Iraq policy; he has a lot to answer for.
With this in mind, Mr. Russert tried to put the screws to Former Secretary Webb about his attitudes toward women in combat. The damn thing is that very few politicians can fully say he or she is sorry or that they regret a comment – never a full concession. Mr. Webb regretted some language but not all – typical.
However, I will say this – agree with him or not, Jim Webb seems a lot more sure of where he stands on things and that you have to respect. Allen couldn’t (wouldn’t) answer the ‘yes or no’ question about being disloyal to the President if he voted against the Iraq war. Speaking of relative respect, how much more do you have for Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham? That indicates Allen is a follower in the Senate, maybe not as Governor was he a follow, but in the United State Senate – he is. Then Senator Allen in the debate said he was still anti-establishment (Mr. Russert shot in, “but you were the Governor”). If you believe that… I don’t know… Maybe there’s medication for you.
I also realize that I beat up on the Republicans more in this column, but frankly it’s been on their dominant watch that things have gotten screwed up. In the context of this debate discussion, I’m not giving Mr. Webb a pass, not at all. But these days that we’re living right now require clarity of thinking, purpose, and policy. We can no longer afford political answers to real questions - questions where the answers determine the number of dead on the ground.
That group of three senators I had mentioned earlier – I don’t agree with them on a lot of issues, but on the issue of interrogation they are right and that you have to, at least, respect.
The first 40 minutes of the hour were devoted to the questions of Iraq. Who has more clarity to answer those difficult questions – the winner of the debate, the man who has a son in the military, the man who was on the front line and behind the curtain – Jim Webb.
All politics is definitely not local as evidenced by today’s Virginia Senate Seat debate between George All and Jim Webb. The closest the debate came to discussing the state of affairs and general health of Virginia was to clarify whether Southern Virginians understand if Senator Allen’s ‘macaca’ comment was harmful. However, I thought that Mr. Russert concentrated, rightly, on the serious part of the comment, something that other journalists didn’t address too much, understandable since they are still trying to get past the initial gaffe.
Mr. Allen said, “Welcome to Virginia, welcome to the real America.” When asked what he meant by that Senator Allen stumbled in his answer even though he had sufficient time to reflect on it since the time he said it. He could have brushed it off easily by saying something to the effect of, “By saying that, I meant that these people standing here are the majority. They believe in what I believe in.” That’s even suspect, just coming off the top of my head, but the fact remains is that Senator Allen had plenty of time to clarify and he could not. Second fact, I’m not for Senate.
Also, the senator was inherently at a disadvantage before the debate began because of the aforementioned macaca and his voting record on Iraq policy; he has a lot to answer for.
With this in mind, Mr. Russert tried to put the screws to Former Secretary Webb about his attitudes toward women in combat. The damn thing is that very few politicians can fully say he or she is sorry or that they regret a comment – never a full concession. Mr. Webb regretted some language but not all – typical.
However, I will say this – agree with him or not, Jim Webb seems a lot more sure of where he stands on things and that you have to respect. Allen couldn’t (wouldn’t) answer the ‘yes or no’ question about being disloyal to the President if he voted against the Iraq war. Speaking of relative respect, how much more do you have for Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham? That indicates Allen is a follower in the Senate, maybe not as Governor was he a follow, but in the United State Senate – he is. Then Senator Allen in the debate said he was still anti-establishment (Mr. Russert shot in, “but you were the Governor”). If you believe that… I don’t know… Maybe there’s medication for you.
I also realize that I beat up on the Republicans more in this column, but frankly it’s been on their dominant watch that things have gotten screwed up. In the context of this debate discussion, I’m not giving Mr. Webb a pass, not at all. But these days that we’re living right now require clarity of thinking, purpose, and policy. We can no longer afford political answers to real questions - questions where the answers determine the number of dead on the ground.
That group of three senators I had mentioned earlier – I don’t agree with them on a lot of issues, but on the issue of interrogation they are right and that you have to, at least, respect.
The first 40 minutes of the hour were devoted to the questions of Iraq. Who has more clarity to answer those difficult questions – the winner of the debate, the man who has a son in the military, the man who was on the front line and behind the curtain – Jim Webb.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
September 10, 2006: This Ain't No Thumbsucker
September 10, 2006
The football season is definitely upon us with Tim Russert geared up for some smash-mouth politics. This was the case today in his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney. As Mr. Russert knows, any good football relentlessly pounds the ball on the ground to establish territory – gutty and in the trenches. Finally, Mr. Russert was successful in taking one from the Vice President. So many times, had Mr. Cheney been interviewed on Meet The Press and every time out he had established his ground and kept pounding away, but not quite so this time. All winning streaks come to an end and today Mr. Cheney had no ground game and his quarterbacking was definitely called into question.
I anticipated Mr. Russert indeed asking a tough question, but he usually doesn’t follow up and keep the pressure on – at least that was the line before the interview. Many topics weren’t discussed during the full-show interview, such as real domestic issues. The leak of Valerie Plame’s identity was as close as they got, but it is quite clear that domestic policy isn’t something Mr. Cheney puts at the top of his agenda.
On the eve of the 5-year anniversary of downed planes, human sacrifice, and numbing introspection, the question of catching Osama Bin Laden still hangs over the doorway of American war rooms in this fight against terrorism and the discuss of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and his whereabouts at the forefront. Cheney has a gift for explaining things away. At noted by Russert, opium production is up 60% and the narco-state that is Afghanistan is growing again. Cheney swept it away saying that the country has been and seemingly always will be in this condition, a feeble attempt at an explanation.
Mr. Russert turned the conversation to Iraq and Cheney could only shuffle his feet. What I’ve noticed from watching all Cheney’s interviews on Meet The Press is that when he sits at the MTP table, his head gets lower in relation to the line of his shoulders when he’s lying. It’s unmistakable. Pressed by Russert on the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, Cheney lowered his head and cited two suspect pieces of intelligence. A 70% probability that it was Mohammed Atta pictured in a photograph – that’s our rationale for war?
At one point in the questioning, Russert interjected North Korea and its nuclear capability and the fact that we’ve let that situation fester – “you took your eye off North Korea to focus on Iraq.” At which point, Cheney smirked as if to say – “if only we were on the hunting range…” He proceeded to take the conversation back to the ‘beginning’ – September 11.
I could go on and on with examples of how Mr. Cheney tried unsuccessfully to avoid Russert’s rush attack but the Vice President that this contest was over by the first half. It was good to see someone hold Mr. Cheney’s feet to the proverbial fire, but it was more important that it was Tim Russert who did it. There are many politic talk shows, but Meet The Press is the political interview of record as far as I am concerned.
Throughout the broadcast, Mr. Russert seemed incredulous with regard to Cheney’s answers. He felt duped I suppose by the answers given in previous interviews and it was evident that he felt he needed to make himself righteous again.
Cheney knew it and his defense was weak. He referred to newspaper articles that he doesn’t like as thumb suckers. By that rationale, this interview was a thumb sucker. “That’s all I’m going to say on the subject.” This quote is actually in reference to the Scooter Libby case, as much of domestic policy as they were going to discuss, but this was really the theme throughout – pleading the fifth or blaming other people – George Tenet for example. “George said it was a slam-dunk.” So then if he was wrong, why was he given the highest civilian award this country could bestow on an individual?
As Mr. Cheney would say throughout the interview, “hmmm…”
It’s the beginning of the season and you can tell Dick Cheney doesn’t like football, that was his former boss, Richard Nixon’s game, he didn’t bring his helmet for this hour of knocking heads, and his sport of choice requires a gun. By the way, duck hunting isn’t a sport – the ducks don’t have guns.
With that said, the study of linguistic pragmatics becomes essential in deciphering the final exchange.
MR. RUSSERT: Should I be relieved you didn’t bring your shotgun in today?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I wouldn’t worry about it. You’re not in season.
[Read: You should be because this is probably your last interview with me. And now you are in season.]
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, I hope I never am.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: All right.
[Read: I have some buckshot with your name it.]
MR. RUSSERT: Thank you for sharing your views.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Thank you, Tim.
[Read: Congressional expletive.]
So with the season opener in the books, it’s Russert 24, Cheney 3. You go Buffalo!
The football season is definitely upon us with Tim Russert geared up for some smash-mouth politics. This was the case today in his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney. As Mr. Russert knows, any good football relentlessly pounds the ball on the ground to establish territory – gutty and in the trenches. Finally, Mr. Russert was successful in taking one from the Vice President. So many times, had Mr. Cheney been interviewed on Meet The Press and every time out he had established his ground and kept pounding away, but not quite so this time. All winning streaks come to an end and today Mr. Cheney had no ground game and his quarterbacking was definitely called into question.
I anticipated Mr. Russert indeed asking a tough question, but he usually doesn’t follow up and keep the pressure on – at least that was the line before the interview. Many topics weren’t discussed during the full-show interview, such as real domestic issues. The leak of Valerie Plame’s identity was as close as they got, but it is quite clear that domestic policy isn’t something Mr. Cheney puts at the top of his agenda.
On the eve of the 5-year anniversary of downed planes, human sacrifice, and numbing introspection, the question of catching Osama Bin Laden still hangs over the doorway of American war rooms in this fight against terrorism and the discuss of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and his whereabouts at the forefront. Cheney has a gift for explaining things away. At noted by Russert, opium production is up 60% and the narco-state that is Afghanistan is growing again. Cheney swept it away saying that the country has been and seemingly always will be in this condition, a feeble attempt at an explanation.
Mr. Russert turned the conversation to Iraq and Cheney could only shuffle his feet. What I’ve noticed from watching all Cheney’s interviews on Meet The Press is that when he sits at the MTP table, his head gets lower in relation to the line of his shoulders when he’s lying. It’s unmistakable. Pressed by Russert on the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, Cheney lowered his head and cited two suspect pieces of intelligence. A 70% probability that it was Mohammed Atta pictured in a photograph – that’s our rationale for war?
At one point in the questioning, Russert interjected North Korea and its nuclear capability and the fact that we’ve let that situation fester – “you took your eye off North Korea to focus on Iraq.” At which point, Cheney smirked as if to say – “if only we were on the hunting range…” He proceeded to take the conversation back to the ‘beginning’ – September 11.
I could go on and on with examples of how Mr. Cheney tried unsuccessfully to avoid Russert’s rush attack but the Vice President that this contest was over by the first half. It was good to see someone hold Mr. Cheney’s feet to the proverbial fire, but it was more important that it was Tim Russert who did it. There are many politic talk shows, but Meet The Press is the political interview of record as far as I am concerned.
Throughout the broadcast, Mr. Russert seemed incredulous with regard to Cheney’s answers. He felt duped I suppose by the answers given in previous interviews and it was evident that he felt he needed to make himself righteous again.
Cheney knew it and his defense was weak. He referred to newspaper articles that he doesn’t like as thumb suckers. By that rationale, this interview was a thumb sucker. “That’s all I’m going to say on the subject.” This quote is actually in reference to the Scooter Libby case, as much of domestic policy as they were going to discuss, but this was really the theme throughout – pleading the fifth or blaming other people – George Tenet for example. “George said it was a slam-dunk.” So then if he was wrong, why was he given the highest civilian award this country could bestow on an individual?
As Mr. Cheney would say throughout the interview, “hmmm…”
It’s the beginning of the season and you can tell Dick Cheney doesn’t like football, that was his former boss, Richard Nixon’s game, he didn’t bring his helmet for this hour of knocking heads, and his sport of choice requires a gun. By the way, duck hunting isn’t a sport – the ducks don’t have guns.
With that said, the study of linguistic pragmatics becomes essential in deciphering the final exchange.
MR. RUSSERT: Should I be relieved you didn’t bring your shotgun in today?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I wouldn’t worry about it. You’re not in season.
[Read: You should be because this is probably your last interview with me. And now you are in season.]
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, I hope I never am.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: All right.
[Read: I have some buckshot with your name it.]
MR. RUSSERT: Thank you for sharing your views.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Thank you, Tim.
[Read: Congressional expletive.]
So with the season opener in the books, it’s Russert 24, Cheney 3. You go Buffalo!
Sunday, July 16, 2006
July 16, 2006
We're getting there as far as more consist posts, I promise. Today's program was quite significant on both fronts - foreign and domestic and with regard to the former, I feel that it would be helpful if the programming of the show got back to interviewing more international diplomats and leaders of state - perhaps even leaving Dodge City and traveling to them. Are the producers or NBC News reticent to go and interview an Iranian official - is there something unpatriotic about that. Hear what an official from Iran has to say and then the American people, who I believe the show ultimately and always serves, can gain some perspective. I want to hear it from the originators - put a name and face and voice together.
There's always a little segment in the Week - How They See Us - and even though you have to consider the editorial platform of the magazine and how it edits the piece, the segment does exist. Meet The Press should consider this perspective a bit more.
The first segment was distressing and also ultimately even sadder than the second, but by no means the fault of Mr. Russert. Joe Biden, the supposed voice of reason for the Democratic Party and the former Speaker of the House and neo-con Newt Gingrich were invited to share their 'insights' into how the United States should proceed internationally. I found both perspectives from these two seasoned politicians to be dim.
One the one hand, Mr. Gingrich is spouting on about WWIII, and on the other side Biden is in denial about how shreud the United States' opponents are. There is no way one can co-sign Mr. Gingrich's policy of militarilly taking out missles whereever and whenever we want. It isn't a world war - the war is between the United States and dictatorships around the world with the help of proxy terrorist organizations. Militarily, we don’t have the support from other nations to warrant the call for WWIII. And note the word 'organization': These people have their act together more than we think.
[Since 9/11, we've gone about it all wrong and maybe one night when life doesn't get in the way I will post what
how we should have gone about it. Whatever....]
To the right of Mr. Gingrich sat Senator Joe Biden of Delaware who tries to employ this voice of reason as many senior Democrats do, but at this point (and Biden illustrated it clearly here) it's all too vague. More diplomacy and the status quo in Iraq is his basic message, but Gingrich is right. Other countries aren't taking us seriously right now. However, it's the neo-cons who initiated the erosion of our credibility in the first place. Hmmm....
Joe Biden and the Democrats [a polka band from Waukesha, Wisconsin whose tunes no one wants to listens to] have to start proposing solid concrete, tangible solutions to the problems that this country faces. I know the strategy is to play foil to all the Republican screw-ups, and eventually letting them fall on their collective face, but sit back attitude should end NOW.
And on many little nuances with regard to details about larger policy, they tend agree, saying things like "With that point, I agree with...," playing diplomat with each other - ridiculous. Also, to Mr. Russert's credit, he tries to always break up any potential love-fests on an issue and right he should. There is a distinctly divided constituency out across the land.
As I write this, I am waiting for the transcript to be posted because there was a comment Senator Biden made as they faded, which was quite telling... stay tuned... here we go: Mr. Gingrich outlines what kind of diplomacy we should employ with North Korea and what does Mr. Biden say? "You should tell them that." Ugh. Them? The North Koreans or the Neo-cons? It doesn't really matter because neither would listen, but additionally there are two problems with that. One, there's Sen. Biden passing the buck - he's a candidate for President. Two, in what Mr. Gingrich said, earlier Sen. Biden didn't necessarily agree and now he let's it go.
Now onto the poster child for journalistic patheticness (let it stand), Robert Novak. He described how he would interview senior officials on couches, no tape recorder, no pen just having conversations. He also repeated that he would rather be the interviewer, commentator, or analyst than the interviewee. This is a person so set in his Republican views and closely aligned with the Administration, he had probably felt like he had carte blanche around The White House, thinking he was untouchable. He doesn't save face with this interview, he's simply a bird who got smashed in the beak and fell off his perch. Now he discloses that he DID give grand jury testimony back in 2004 and didn't fight the subpoena. Excuse me, that sounds like, "Run for cover and save your ass."
If Meet The Press has Robert Novak on as an analyst again, the program will definitely lose some credibility with this humble observer.
There's always a little segment in the Week - How They See Us - and even though you have to consider the editorial platform of the magazine and how it edits the piece, the segment does exist. Meet The Press should consider this perspective a bit more.
The first segment was distressing and also ultimately even sadder than the second, but by no means the fault of Mr. Russert. Joe Biden, the supposed voice of reason for the Democratic Party and the former Speaker of the House and neo-con Newt Gingrich were invited to share their 'insights' into how the United States should proceed internationally. I found both perspectives from these two seasoned politicians to be dim.
One the one hand, Mr. Gingrich is spouting on about WWIII, and on the other side Biden is in denial about how shreud the United States' opponents are. There is no way one can co-sign Mr. Gingrich's policy of militarilly taking out missles whereever and whenever we want. It isn't a world war - the war is between the United States and dictatorships around the world with the help of proxy terrorist organizations. Militarily, we don’t have the support from other nations to warrant the call for WWIII. And note the word 'organization': These people have their act together more than we think.
[Since 9/11, we've gone about it all wrong and maybe one night when life doesn't get in the way I will post what
how we should have gone about it. Whatever....]
To the right of Mr. Gingrich sat Senator Joe Biden of Delaware who tries to employ this voice of reason as many senior Democrats do, but at this point (and Biden illustrated it clearly here) it's all too vague. More diplomacy and the status quo in Iraq is his basic message, but Gingrich is right. Other countries aren't taking us seriously right now. However, it's the neo-cons who initiated the erosion of our credibility in the first place. Hmmm....
Joe Biden and the Democrats [a polka band from Waukesha, Wisconsin whose tunes no one wants to listens to] have to start proposing solid concrete, tangible solutions to the problems that this country faces. I know the strategy is to play foil to all the Republican screw-ups, and eventually letting them fall on their collective face, but sit back attitude should end NOW.
And on many little nuances with regard to details about larger policy, they tend agree, saying things like "With that point, I agree with...," playing diplomat with each other - ridiculous. Also, to Mr. Russert's credit, he tries to always break up any potential love-fests on an issue and right he should. There is a distinctly divided constituency out across the land.
As I write this, I am waiting for the transcript to be posted because there was a comment Senator Biden made as they faded, which was quite telling... stay tuned... here we go: Mr. Gingrich outlines what kind of diplomacy we should employ with North Korea and what does Mr. Biden say? "You should tell them that." Ugh. Them? The North Koreans or the Neo-cons? It doesn't really matter because neither would listen, but additionally there are two problems with that. One, there's Sen. Biden passing the buck - he's a candidate for President. Two, in what Mr. Gingrich said, earlier Sen. Biden didn't necessarily agree and now he let's it go.
Now onto the poster child for journalistic patheticness (let it stand), Robert Novak. He described how he would interview senior officials on couches, no tape recorder, no pen just having conversations. He also repeated that he would rather be the interviewer, commentator, or analyst than the interviewee. This is a person so set in his Republican views and closely aligned with the Administration, he had probably felt like he had carte blanche around The White House, thinking he was untouchable. He doesn't save face with this interview, he's simply a bird who got smashed in the beak and fell off his perch. Now he discloses that he DID give grand jury testimony back in 2004 and didn't fight the subpoena. Excuse me, that sounds like, "Run for cover and save your ass."
If Meet The Press has Robert Novak on as an analyst again, the program will definitely lose some credibility with this humble observer.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
April 23rd, 2006
Unbelievable we're back for the first post since November '04, and it hasn't been for lacking of watching in the slightest, but life gets in the way of blogging so one of the editorial decisions of these posts will be brevity. You're welcome.
So today was classic MTP; one that would reactivate a blog, and I owe it to the presence of three things - Ted Kennedy in 1962, and his presence in the studio); David Broder, the Dean of Editorial Page Biters of Sound, and Lord Stanley's Cup.
"The Administration is cutting and running," which is not exactly true, but is a provocative phrase - without a doubt. The reason it isn't exactly true is that the Administration is actually 'maintaining.' They are waiting out the policy they have in place until the Iraqi's can get their shit together, frankly, and then by that time their eight years will be over. Are the 'cutting and running' mentally and trying to bring the American public along with them by botching other things more closer to home? Well...you fill in the rest.
Ted Kennedy can be very good in the common sense role, but really for any politician opposed to this administration's agenda it's quite easy. But to his credit, he did not vote for the war and yes, he has been consistent with his view. But perhaps, most importantly, he addresses the middle class often as he did today. Republicans in all honesty, have lost complete sight of that, at least rhetorically.
So classic MTP is when you have a guest with the following criteria: a long history with the show, a 'senior official' status, and, of course, you've been making some headlines - i.e. Senator Kennedy's book and his co-sponsorship of the Immigration bill with Sen. John McCain.
But what was best about his appearance was when Tim (my apologies for first name basis - no respect, it's written because he is brought into my home and consciousness often - last time mentioned) went back to a clip from 1962, Kennedy's first appearance, and then asked about corruption, I think Tim was expecting a somewhat of a reminisce from the Senator but he articulated his defense of the position and remained consistent on something for 44 years. At least he has that.
The other part of a classic is the roundtable and the presence of David Broder. It isn't a classic roundtable if he's not there - simply put. Partially due to his personality and a lot to do with the fact that he always speaks common sense, he never has to raise his voice to make a point.
And classic Broder today was the way he completely shutdown Tony Blankley of the Washington Times - his local verbal jousting partner - and Tony knew it. Also, Broder always gets asked the first question - I wonder if they have a contract? Tony was talking about CIA discipline and this was a problem. Well, David calmly but firmly retorted that if the Administration would exercise some itself then there wouldn't be the compulsion for such leaks and as Blankley would describe it - subversion. Ah, the Dean... Blankley tried to recover about all he had was off balance bullshit rebuttal.
Ron Brownstein aspires to be the Dean - sitting next to Broder and echoing many of his points so Blankley has no chance - it's gang mentality. And why not, Blankley is a columnist for a newspaper and I have no problem that he states an opinion that I disagree with - it's just that he still uses the word 'we' as in my Republican colleagues and I think... That's towing the anchor a bit too much.
Aside: Bill Bennett was quoted that journalists should go to jail for publishing such sensitive information - about leaks and such. Hasn't this commentator discredited himself enough already? Judith Miller's motivations can absolutely be put to question so to put forth such a notion is simple posturing - counterproductive.
And then you have a former Press Secretary - Dee Dee Meyers who worked for President Clinton. Everyone you talk to nowadays who has heard a former Clinton official speak marvels at how much common sense they all seem to have. Then you automatically think why can't this country be that sensible. If only Clinton could keep his thing in his pants and only if the Republicans would be so sexually repressed - maybe to this day would we still be better off.
Lastly, the presence of Lord Stanley's Cup - the oldest professional trophy in sports on the oldest television program, my humble kudos to the synergy. Being a big hockey fan myself, as soon as I saw it, I knew that Tim was going to relish in last night's 3-2 Buffalo win over my Flyers. Isn't politics sporting?
So today was classic MTP; one that would reactivate a blog, and I owe it to the presence of three things - Ted Kennedy in 1962, and his presence in the studio); David Broder, the Dean of Editorial Page Biters of Sound, and Lord Stanley's Cup.
"The Administration is cutting and running," which is not exactly true, but is a provocative phrase - without a doubt. The reason it isn't exactly true is that the Administration is actually 'maintaining.' They are waiting out the policy they have in place until the Iraqi's can get their shit together, frankly, and then by that time their eight years will be over. Are the 'cutting and running' mentally and trying to bring the American public along with them by botching other things more closer to home? Well...you fill in the rest.
Ted Kennedy can be very good in the common sense role, but really for any politician opposed to this administration's agenda it's quite easy. But to his credit, he did not vote for the war and yes, he has been consistent with his view. But perhaps, most importantly, he addresses the middle class often as he did today. Republicans in all honesty, have lost complete sight of that, at least rhetorically.
So classic MTP is when you have a guest with the following criteria: a long history with the show, a 'senior official' status, and, of course, you've been making some headlines - i.e. Senator Kennedy's book and his co-sponsorship of the Immigration bill with Sen. John McCain.
But what was best about his appearance was when Tim (my apologies for first name basis - no respect, it's written because he is brought into my home and consciousness often - last time mentioned) went back to a clip from 1962, Kennedy's first appearance, and then asked about corruption, I think Tim was expecting a somewhat of a reminisce from the Senator but he articulated his defense of the position and remained consistent on something for 44 years. At least he has that.
The other part of a classic is the roundtable and the presence of David Broder. It isn't a classic roundtable if he's not there - simply put. Partially due to his personality and a lot to do with the fact that he always speaks common sense, he never has to raise his voice to make a point.
And classic Broder today was the way he completely shutdown Tony Blankley of the Washington Times - his local verbal jousting partner - and Tony knew it. Also, Broder always gets asked the first question - I wonder if they have a contract? Tony was talking about CIA discipline and this was a problem. Well, David calmly but firmly retorted that if the Administration would exercise some itself then there wouldn't be the compulsion for such leaks and as Blankley would describe it - subversion. Ah, the Dean... Blankley tried to recover about all he had was off balance bullshit rebuttal.
Ron Brownstein aspires to be the Dean - sitting next to Broder and echoing many of his points so Blankley has no chance - it's gang mentality. And why not, Blankley is a columnist for a newspaper and I have no problem that he states an opinion that I disagree with - it's just that he still uses the word 'we' as in my Republican colleagues and I think... That's towing the anchor a bit too much.
Aside: Bill Bennett was quoted that journalists should go to jail for publishing such sensitive information - about leaks and such. Hasn't this commentator discredited himself enough already? Judith Miller's motivations can absolutely be put to question so to put forth such a notion is simple posturing - counterproductive.
And then you have a former Press Secretary - Dee Dee Meyers who worked for President Clinton. Everyone you talk to nowadays who has heard a former Clinton official speak marvels at how much common sense they all seem to have. Then you automatically think why can't this country be that sensible. If only Clinton could keep his thing in his pants and only if the Republicans would be so sexually repressed - maybe to this day would we still be better off.
Lastly, the presence of Lord Stanley's Cup - the oldest professional trophy in sports on the oldest television program, my humble kudos to the synergy. Being a big hockey fan myself, as soon as I saw it, I knew that Tim was going to relish in last night's 3-2 Buffalo win over my Flyers. Isn't politics sporting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)