Although it's early in the year, I can say with confidence that this will be the best panel of the year.
Michele Norris, NPR 'All Things Considered'
Tom Brokaw, NBC News
Peggy Noonan, Columnist, Wall Street Journal
Jon Meacham, Editor Newsweek
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Presidential Historian
If you are familiar with these individuals, you would easily agree that each is the exact person you see in his respective position.
[Aside: I realize there are both men and women in that list and above I used 'his.' It's a traditional grammar convention and not a sexist remark. That I have to explain this is a disappointing commentary on our culture.]
I am not all that familiar with Peggy Noonan, but after hearing her speak for one minute and you say to yourself, 'Of course, the Wall Street Journal.' I will read her column consistently when Rupert Murdoch makes their site for free because she made some very candid points, which are always needed. Namely, about the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (tbd) dynasty. It is very UNLIKE us as a country to keep voting this way.
This country likes the underdog, the outsider, the insurgent (though these days that depends on geography), but then again, maybe we don't. Maybe we have been saying this to our collective selves so long that it's now really become a myth. But as mentioned by this panel today,we've been through so many troubling experiences such as the two wars and a housing crisis, not to mention warrant-less wiretapping, New Orleans, and a 9 trillion dollar debt. With so many looming clouds floating around maybe we want someone who has experience? Let's face it, we have a large contingent in this country that says frankly, 'Fuck the weak.' Callous, but true.
Which brings me to the anecdote provided by Michele Norris. But first, I can't go any longer without saying that this panel taught me something today. Gave me insight, and more importantly perspective through history. Robert Novak never teaches me anything when on Meet The Press. That's why it will end up being the best panel of the year.
She spoke about the 92 year-old man in the church, telling people to not be afraid of looking forward, embracing change. This is the movement that is Barack Obama. He inspires that thinking and that makes him a symbol. Symbols when back by words always succeed.
The panel talked about how none of the Republican candidates were the complete package, but neither are the Democrats. The two leading candidate in that party present a lot of the same ideas but operationally go about in very different ways. On the one side, having great ideas is great, but our current president always refers to a high cause, etc, but the FBI's phone bill for wiretapping doesn't paid.
If you're going take away my civil liberties, please do it efficiently.
As for the other leading Democratic candidate, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Meacham who is a great editor and because of his stewardship that Newsweek deserves respect. He and Tim discussed significance of the recent campaign soft-tirades by President Clinton. The question: If top Dems. can't reel him in on the campaign trail, how are they going to do it if Mrs. Clinton is in the White House? This question deserves some serious thought and I'll have to come back to it in a future post.
Jokingly, at the end of the program, Tim asked the panel for its presidential picks, but then said quickly that they were out of time. Even with all the insight given in this particular hour, the back and forth with regard to the candidates is endless. Again, no one out there is the complete package. Huckabee's speak last Monday, in which he discussed changing the constitution so that it is more in line with Christian doctrine, was frightening. Michele Norris said that even Christian conservatives were 'spooked.' That's the Omen.
Speeches like that make me grateful that everything is on tape these days. However, on tape Senator Obama mentioned that Ronald Reagan presented ideas and was a transformational presidential character. The Democratic candidates seized on this. Doris Kearns Goodwin explained that yes, President Reagon did create a sea change and that it's historical fact. And she is correct - absolutely. Again, you want a Presidential historian, DKG (her dj name) is the one you want to talk to. On the program today.
[Insight into dorkness: When I see that movie 'Scent of a Woman' and Al Pacino reminisces about Lyndon Johnson, I think of DKG - Yikes!]
So when you see someone like Barack Obama speak intelligently and candidly about Ronald Reagan somehow that's blasphemy. What this really is.... it's minutiae. A little nugget to keep your eye off the real issues, which is difficult to do because so many are thrust upon us. deciphering which ones are more important than others can get confusing. Today's panel gave it all a little perspective so update your subscription of the MTP podcast and save this one!
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
1.13.08: Operational Conversation, Hillary Clinton
The Democratic side of the campaign IS about gender and race in a large way.... and yes, issues as well (the economy, the Iraq occupation, the tanking of American prestige in the world, etc.). However, these two aspects will most certainly weigh on voters minds when they enter the booth. It will without a doubt, it's just reality so deal.
At the beginning of the interview, we had to sit through Mrs. Clinton playing the operatives' operative - straightening out her campaign staff on Meet The Press - defending, thrusting, and parrying. What would you expect? All candidates have to deal with this on all levels. Politics is a dirty business - I think I heard that somewhere before. But all this aside, and the reason to put it aside is that it is going to continue to happen. Hillary as a victim - ok, but Mr. Obama could also claim to be a victim due to race and John Edwards can claim victim as well. Whatever.... Gloria Steinem's column in The New York Times earlier this week was correct that gender is the biggest obstacle of all. If a woman candidate only had two years experience on the federal level, she would not be taken seriously as a candidate.
But to the meat of the interview - I just don't think that any candidate still in the race on either side of the aisle could have the conversation that Mrs. Clinton with Tim Russert today. As citizens, we all want decisions in Washington to be cut and dry, but it just doesn't work that way. Mrs. Clinton demonstrated thoroughly that the details of policy that you must have an intimate grasp of are endless. No other candidate, including McCain who is lock step with our present (and failed) administration hasn't given answers that reflect such a thorough knowledge of all fronts as Mrs. Clinton did today.
Of course, Mr. Russert has to ask about the Iraq Resolution vote, he is obligated to at the very least. But he prefaced the question by quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin - saying that presidents should learn from their mistakes, which injects his opinion about her vote. Mrs. Clinton didn't bite and it would be deadly to apologize for that vote, or any vote for that matter.
I remember John Edwards made a big to-do about apologizing for his vote on that resolution. He's a sucker. Is he aspiring to have a Jimmy Carter presidency? I don't want politicians apologizing - it's bad form across the board. There is one exception that I'll make. George W. Bush should apologize for Dick Cheney. Now, do I agree with Mrs. Clinton's vote on that resolution, no, but I don't want her to apologize for it. Waffling is political suicide, ask John Kerry and soon Mitt Romney will have his own dissertation on this.
So what did this interview tell us, that Mrs. Clinton, like her or hate her, is the most knowledge when it comes to the various issues that face this country. Is she the most qualified to be president? Well, that is for you to decide.
[Aside: Did Mr. Russert look tired during this interview today or what? Maybe this was a good thing because ornery was the right call for the day.]
At the beginning of the interview, we had to sit through Mrs. Clinton playing the operatives' operative - straightening out her campaign staff on Meet The Press - defending, thrusting, and parrying. What would you expect? All candidates have to deal with this on all levels. Politics is a dirty business - I think I heard that somewhere before. But all this aside, and the reason to put it aside is that it is going to continue to happen. Hillary as a victim - ok, but Mr. Obama could also claim to be a victim due to race and John Edwards can claim victim as well. Whatever.... Gloria Steinem's column in The New York Times earlier this week was correct that gender is the biggest obstacle of all. If a woman candidate only had two years experience on the federal level, she would not be taken seriously as a candidate.
But to the meat of the interview - I just don't think that any candidate still in the race on either side of the aisle could have the conversation that Mrs. Clinton with Tim Russert today. As citizens, we all want decisions in Washington to be cut and dry, but it just doesn't work that way. Mrs. Clinton demonstrated thoroughly that the details of policy that you must have an intimate grasp of are endless. No other candidate, including McCain who is lock step with our present (and failed) administration hasn't given answers that reflect such a thorough knowledge of all fronts as Mrs. Clinton did today.
Of course, Mr. Russert has to ask about the Iraq Resolution vote, he is obligated to at the very least. But he prefaced the question by quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin - saying that presidents should learn from their mistakes, which injects his opinion about her vote. Mrs. Clinton didn't bite and it would be deadly to apologize for that vote, or any vote for that matter.
I remember John Edwards made a big to-do about apologizing for his vote on that resolution. He's a sucker. Is he aspiring to have a Jimmy Carter presidency? I don't want politicians apologizing - it's bad form across the board. There is one exception that I'll make. George W. Bush should apologize for Dick Cheney. Now, do I agree with Mrs. Clinton's vote on that resolution, no, but I don't want her to apologize for it. Waffling is political suicide, ask John Kerry and soon Mitt Romney will have his own dissertation on this.
So what did this interview tell us, that Mrs. Clinton, like her or hate her, is the most knowledge when it comes to the various issues that face this country. Is she the most qualified to be president? Well, that is for you to decide.
[Aside: Did Mr. Russert look tired during this interview today or what? Maybe this was a good thing because ornery was the right call for the day.]
Sunday, January 06, 2008
1.6.08: Republican Nominee
Well, let's cut straight to the point. John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, and he should be if the Republican party is smart. In a 'position of power,' McCain performs very well as evidenced in today's interview. He surging in New Hampshire and he knows it. If he captures New Hampshire, Michigan is his as well. The counter-argument for Romney is that he is a native son of that state so the strength may be with him. Fact: Al Gore lost Tennessee in 2000.
After almost every question, McCain flashed a smile or let go a chuckle because he's in a position where he can speak his mind. McCain sat comfortably when Mr. Russert questioned him on his earlier statement concerning the 100-year hypothetical military presence in Iraq. At various challenging points in the campaign for him, if posed that question, McCain's anger would be firing in claymore directions. But here, today, he got to come on Meet The Press and revel in his positions. And as with all politicians, one never hesitates to tell you when they were right. And McCain has been correct on more than a few things - be it some were easy calls. 'Rumsfeld should go' was an easy call on both sides of the aisle.
For the purposes of this column today, the most interesting topic in relation to the campaign was his comments on Mitt Romney. 'He has changed his positions on almost every major issue. That is a fact. I could chronicle it for you. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good person,' he said. Translated, he thinks he is a shitty politician and would be a shitty leader. (That's a bit straighter talk, but an accurate projection.) He's exactly right.
As for the other candidates, Huckabee doesn't have a wide enough base to win the nomination, but taught the others some lessons in Iowa. Thompson is a lazy candidate, period. He's been that way from the start. And Giuliani... it's mystifying that his campaign thinks he is going to surge to the lead on Super Tuesday. Today's two guest strategists, Steve McMahon (D) and Mike Murphy (R), said that it has never been done. And Giuliani isn't going to be the first one to do it. One, he has no momentum going into that day, voters look to the initial states as a barometer - not to be underestimated. Also, and this plays more in this particular election, is that it is too blatant of a political campaign tactic. This time around, it is already well established that that does not play.
McCain is the truest Republican in the field. Say what you will about his immigration stance and ideas, but he is from a border state. And when we talk immigration, we're never thinking Canada. So on today's Meet The Press, you listened to the Republican nominee.
[Aside: Mr. McMahon and Mr. Murphy were very good at framing and interpreting the polls and speeches. It's always very easy for an opposition strategist to speak frankly about the other side... that's the point I guess. I can't remember seeing Mr. McMahon before (maybe just a memory lapse), but Mr. Murphy has been on quite a bit. However, he reminds me of a professional football coach that keeps getting fired because of a mediocre record, but then somehow manages to instill false hope and get hired again.]
After almost every question, McCain flashed a smile or let go a chuckle because he's in a position where he can speak his mind. McCain sat comfortably when Mr. Russert questioned him on his earlier statement concerning the 100-year hypothetical military presence in Iraq. At various challenging points in the campaign for him, if posed that question, McCain's anger would be firing in claymore directions. But here, today, he got to come on Meet The Press and revel in his positions. And as with all politicians, one never hesitates to tell you when they were right. And McCain has been correct on more than a few things - be it some were easy calls. 'Rumsfeld should go' was an easy call on both sides of the aisle.
For the purposes of this column today, the most interesting topic in relation to the campaign was his comments on Mitt Romney. 'He has changed his positions on almost every major issue. That is a fact. I could chronicle it for you. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good person,' he said. Translated, he thinks he is a shitty politician and would be a shitty leader. (That's a bit straighter talk, but an accurate projection.) He's exactly right.
As for the other candidates, Huckabee doesn't have a wide enough base to win the nomination, but taught the others some lessons in Iowa. Thompson is a lazy candidate, period. He's been that way from the start. And Giuliani... it's mystifying that his campaign thinks he is going to surge to the lead on Super Tuesday. Today's two guest strategists, Steve McMahon (D) and Mike Murphy (R), said that it has never been done. And Giuliani isn't going to be the first one to do it. One, he has no momentum going into that day, voters look to the initial states as a barometer - not to be underestimated. Also, and this plays more in this particular election, is that it is too blatant of a political campaign tactic. This time around, it is already well established that that does not play.
McCain is the truest Republican in the field. Say what you will about his immigration stance and ideas, but he is from a border state. And when we talk immigration, we're never thinking Canada. So on today's Meet The Press, you listened to the Republican nominee.
[Aside: Mr. McMahon and Mr. Murphy were very good at framing and interpreting the polls and speeches. It's always very easy for an opposition strategist to speak frankly about the other side... that's the point I guess. I can't remember seeing Mr. McMahon before (maybe just a memory lapse), but Mr. Murphy has been on quite a bit. However, he reminds me of a professional football coach that keeps getting fired because of a mediocre record, but then somehow manages to instill false hope and get hired again.]
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Aug. 8, 07: Recess
President George Bush is on 'recess.' Recess is what elementary school kids take twice a day.
Soldiers and civilians dying in Iraq; bridges collapse and people still unaccounted for; subways flooding; a city still in disrepair a year after the fact; and 7 million people about to lose their homes are nothing to worry about. Let's go to recess.
And our politicians complained that the Iraqi parliament took the month off.
Have a nice day.
Soldiers and civilians dying in Iraq; bridges collapse and people still unaccounted for; subways flooding; a city still in disrepair a year after the fact; and 7 million people about to lose their homes are nothing to worry about. Let's go to recess.
And our politicians complained that the Iraqi parliament took the month off.
Have a nice day.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Aug. 5, 07: Authenticity
Well, Barack Obama was swinging this week. Coming in with right hand leads, almost disrespecting his opponent. Foreman's eyes were wide and white hot when Ali disrepected him that way. Dan Quayle is no John Kennedy and Hillary Clinton is no Mohammad Ali.
But the stance on Al Queada in Pakistan is the most hawkish statement to do from any candidate, Republican or Democrat.
[Aside: When I write Republican or Democrat, what always sticks in my side is the word 'or.' It bothers me to not end. However, at this time, Independents are a quasi party in fact. But alas, Joe Liberman screwed it up for everyone.... again.]
Then as noted on this week's MTP, the tense exchange by the top three candidates (who again are the only ones ever mentioned - everyone else is vying for second place, in other words, the VP spot) with regard to Washington lobbyists. This is a great achievement for people and the internet. The candidates no longer dictate the questions and subsequently people's agendas. And CNN should get no credit, by the way.
So...
Not that anyone reads this blog or that they took my advice, but they got a politician on there this week and discussed Iraq. Today's pair of terse lips belonged to Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense. My impression of Sec. Gates is one of a man who knows what he wants to say and actually say it, but there always this sense that in the back of his mind he's going through all the briefings of what to say and how to say it in accordance with the administration. His posture at the table gives it away. I believe he's a straight shooter, but everytime he's got the target and about to take the shot, someone (Cheney, Rove, et. al) come along and pop the barrell up from underneath so he misses everytime. Basically, Sec. Gates is in Pergatory.
For example, he said he is not pleased with the political stasis in the country and there needs to be a a political solution to succeed (something we all know) - but I think he also wants to say that it is not going well enough on the ground militarily for his liking. He gave a definitive yes with regard to the report and subsequent change in strategy.
I could go on and on with these examples throughout the interview, but suffice to say that here you have one of the few individuals in the administration with some authenticity and credibility, yet the muzzle looks as uncomfortable as it feels on the Secretary's face.
Then in the round table today, there were two voices of importance that deserve to be listened to if out of nothing more than respect. Carl Berstein and Doris Kearns Goodwin are those voices. Ms. Goodwin's presidential expertises lends vital perspective to these candidates, and boy do we need it.
I have long thought that all of the democratic candidates were only VP material, but someone's got to get the nomination. And with the regard to the Republicans, the candidates are ridiculous. There doesn't seem to be a true conservative among the front runners and it's like Laurel and Hardy to watch them try to be. Also, frightening and disturbing at the same time, but that's for another post. The key to the discussion was Ms. Kearns five point presidential litmus test: They have withstood adversity, they have diverse perspectives around them, they have a sense of loyalty, they’re not afraid to admit mistakes, they know how to manage their emotions, they can define the goals for the country, and they know how to relax.
Maybe one or two of the candidates have 3 of the 5, maybe 4 of the 5 (and that's being very kind), but none have all... NONE! As Ms. Goodwin states, Lincoln was able to admit a mistake, FDR was humbled, but those were different times, different kinds of leaders and not everyone was watching of course, but it does put perspective on it all.
As for Mr. Berstein, he never really said anything too terribly enlightning, but he's wrote the book... and the latest book about Hillary Clinton. Of course Bill is an asset and she is quite a lady, but he was smitten with Ms. Kearns' answers and that's significant. And as a cordial foil, there was David Mendall who has written a new book about Barak Obama. However, he called Obama condescending and intellectually elist. And just for completion's sake, there was another journalist from Christian Broadcast Network, which doesn't impress me.
So is there authenticity in any of these candidates? Well, they all just want to be right all the time, like our current POTUS so you decide. However, if they really want to produce something authentic, they would do something to benefit us all, or they could just eat more ruffage and then see what happens.
Again, NO MTP Minute. This sucks. Yes, we should have our immortalize leaders telling us what lessons they've learned. But no, we wouldn't want that.
But the stance on Al Queada in Pakistan is the most hawkish statement to do from any candidate, Republican or Democrat.
[Aside: When I write Republican or Democrat, what always sticks in my side is the word 'or.' It bothers me to not end. However, at this time, Independents are a quasi party in fact. But alas, Joe Liberman screwed it up for everyone.... again.]
Then as noted on this week's MTP, the tense exchange by the top three candidates (who again are the only ones ever mentioned - everyone else is vying for second place, in other words, the VP spot) with regard to Washington lobbyists. This is a great achievement for people and the internet. The candidates no longer dictate the questions and subsequently people's agendas. And CNN should get no credit, by the way.
So...
Not that anyone reads this blog or that they took my advice, but they got a politician on there this week and discussed Iraq. Today's pair of terse lips belonged to Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense. My impression of Sec. Gates is one of a man who knows what he wants to say and actually say it, but there always this sense that in the back of his mind he's going through all the briefings of what to say and how to say it in accordance with the administration. His posture at the table gives it away. I believe he's a straight shooter, but everytime he's got the target and about to take the shot, someone (Cheney, Rove, et. al) come along and pop the barrell up from underneath so he misses everytime. Basically, Sec. Gates is in Pergatory.
For example, he said he is not pleased with the political stasis in the country and there needs to be a a political solution to succeed (something we all know) - but I think he also wants to say that it is not going well enough on the ground militarily for his liking. He gave a definitive yes with regard to the report and subsequent change in strategy.
I could go on and on with these examples throughout the interview, but suffice to say that here you have one of the few individuals in the administration with some authenticity and credibility, yet the muzzle looks as uncomfortable as it feels on the Secretary's face.
Then in the round table today, there were two voices of importance that deserve to be listened to if out of nothing more than respect. Carl Berstein and Doris Kearns Goodwin are those voices. Ms. Goodwin's presidential expertises lends vital perspective to these candidates, and boy do we need it.
I have long thought that all of the democratic candidates were only VP material, but someone's got to get the nomination. And with the regard to the Republicans, the candidates are ridiculous. There doesn't seem to be a true conservative among the front runners and it's like Laurel and Hardy to watch them try to be. Also, frightening and disturbing at the same time, but that's for another post. The key to the discussion was Ms. Kearns five point presidential litmus test: They have withstood adversity, they have diverse perspectives around them, they have a sense of loyalty, they’re not afraid to admit mistakes, they know how to manage their emotions, they can define the goals for the country, and they know how to relax.
Maybe one or two of the candidates have 3 of the 5, maybe 4 of the 5 (and that's being very kind), but none have all... NONE! As Ms. Goodwin states, Lincoln was able to admit a mistake, FDR was humbled, but those were different times, different kinds of leaders and not everyone was watching of course, but it does put perspective on it all.
As for Mr. Berstein, he never really said anything too terribly enlightning, but he's wrote the book... and the latest book about Hillary Clinton. Of course Bill is an asset and she is quite a lady, but he was smitten with Ms. Kearns' answers and that's significant. And as a cordial foil, there was David Mendall who has written a new book about Barak Obama. However, he called Obama condescending and intellectually elist. And just for completion's sake, there was another journalist from Christian Broadcast Network, which doesn't impress me.
So is there authenticity in any of these candidates? Well, they all just want to be right all the time, like our current POTUS so you decide. However, if they really want to produce something authentic, they would do something to benefit us all, or they could just eat more ruffage and then see what happens.
Again, NO MTP Minute. This sucks. Yes, we should have our immortalize leaders telling us what lessons they've learned. But no, we wouldn't want that.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
July 29, 07: Opinionator Playoffs
With the end of the political season upon us [read session is out (thank God)] so it seemed like the commentator playoffs this week with 7 people at the table. And before we get into this week's show and topics, I just want to throw out a couple of not so pithy comments about the commentators that were persona non grata but are regulars. First example being Robert Novak - wouldn't make the playoffs - old and irrelavant. He rendered himself that way with his conduct in Valerie Plame matter. Until now, he had acted as though he were a part of every Republican Administration for the last 50 years. Then the heat came and they tossed him aside. This is the adminstration's protocal when it comes to the enablers, with the except of Gonzo. More about him later.
Another is David Broder... not in the playoffs this year either. He's got the experience without a doubt... He's the Gordy Howe, but I find that now his opinions don't pack the same punch as they used to. I can barely make it through his written column and sometimes I just can not.
Lastly, there's David Brooks... the New York Times conversative conscious, or unconscious as the case maybe. He strikes me as having been that kid in school who everyone knew was smart and would have been asked for help if he weren't such a dick about it. Then being smart, he felt that he achieved a different plane of thinking - beyond everyone else - but it was just extremely off base, sort of like a William Krystol light. He would have gone far in the playoffs, but overconfidence got him swept in the first round.
Which brings us to this week's show.
At this point, there is no avoiding discussion about the presidential campaign, but MTP has been beating it to death. Yes, there was news this week with Obama and Clinton but it wasn't until 20 minutes into show that another candidate was even mentioned. Obama calling Clinton Bush-Cheney light is minorly astounding. There is no one in that league - too much to get into here, but take it as not good.
The LA Times, should thank their lucky stars to have Ron Brownstein on staff. I live in Los Angeles and that paper is completely suspect as a decent paper. Brownstein keeps them ligit. And his comment on the two candidates being on the different tracts is somewhat accurate, but it was almost like he was patting down the fire.
Through the analysis, you can always count on Chuck Todd to supply the catchy analogy - Obama has gotten his 'sea legs' and the 'punching the champ..' He was a damn good blogger. I am not one.
John Harwood's comment that Hillary Clinton's neckline on the floor of the Senate was contrived was ridiculous and completely cynical. He invalidated himself right there for the rest of the hour. By that rationale, Andrea Mitchell should have worn a low neckline if she wanted to be heard.
Simply, Dan Balz is usually too busy to be on these types of shows and take that as good.
Lastly, I read Eugene Robinson's column all the time and he's always on MTP. He always states things that are obvious and completely lucid and filled with common sense. It just seems like no one within the beltway seems to understand this language. Whereas David Brooks thinks he's ahead of the curve, Eugene Robinson actually is.
When the commentary switched to the Democratic primaries, specifically in Iowa and New Hampshire, all felt that if Obama finished third in one of those, then he would be in trouble.
He is going to finish third in Iowa and maybe New Hampshire (despite polling well) and this is what is going to be his problem - winning primaries. Maybe in New York, California, Illinois, Michigan (possibly), but those first two (IA & NH) - third. Definitely. Based on the primary tallies, he won't get the nomination. Dan Balz threw out the possibility of Clinton finishing third in Iowa - no way.
With regard to the Republican nominees, I really have trouble taking any of them seriously. Having lived in New York many years (and during the entire Guiliani administration), Rudy isn't an option. Isn't obvious that he's not equipped to be POTUS? And that he leads in South Carolina says one of two things - either the choices are incredibly poor or the median IQ in South Carolina is suspect. Like Bush, Guiliani talks out his ass. And George Bush does - "Heck of a job Brownie." Enough said.
Fred Thompson says he's been testing the waters and they're feeling warm. News for him, that's where many tiger sharks swim so he best beware - caveat em-presiden-tor.
Then lastly we come full circle to Gonzo. At this point what else can we possibly say? By now, I would make a better Attorney General than Lil' Al. He's completely perjured himself and has got to go. When you're AG breaks the law.... hello?
Some final comments for this week:
All the poll figures on the show this week drove me nuts.
Next week - get a politician and talk about Iraq. People are still dying there.
I don't do the Take Two online after the show. Love the Podcast but I'm not that crazy.
Signing Through -
Another is David Broder... not in the playoffs this year either. He's got the experience without a doubt... He's the Gordy Howe, but I find that now his opinions don't pack the same punch as they used to. I can barely make it through his written column and sometimes I just can not.
Lastly, there's David Brooks... the New York Times conversative conscious, or unconscious as the case maybe. He strikes me as having been that kid in school who everyone knew was smart and would have been asked for help if he weren't such a dick about it. Then being smart, he felt that he achieved a different plane of thinking - beyond everyone else - but it was just extremely off base, sort of like a William Krystol light. He would have gone far in the playoffs, but overconfidence got him swept in the first round.
Which brings us to this week's show.
At this point, there is no avoiding discussion about the presidential campaign, but MTP has been beating it to death. Yes, there was news this week with Obama and Clinton but it wasn't until 20 minutes into show that another candidate was even mentioned. Obama calling Clinton Bush-Cheney light is minorly astounding. There is no one in that league - too much to get into here, but take it as not good.
The LA Times, should thank their lucky stars to have Ron Brownstein on staff. I live in Los Angeles and that paper is completely suspect as a decent paper. Brownstein keeps them ligit. And his comment on the two candidates being on the different tracts is somewhat accurate, but it was almost like he was patting down the fire.
Through the analysis, you can always count on Chuck Todd to supply the catchy analogy - Obama has gotten his 'sea legs' and the 'punching the champ..' He was a damn good blogger. I am not one.
John Harwood's comment that Hillary Clinton's neckline on the floor of the Senate was contrived was ridiculous and completely cynical. He invalidated himself right there for the rest of the hour. By that rationale, Andrea Mitchell should have worn a low neckline if she wanted to be heard.
Simply, Dan Balz is usually too busy to be on these types of shows and take that as good.
Lastly, I read Eugene Robinson's column all the time and he's always on MTP. He always states things that are obvious and completely lucid and filled with common sense. It just seems like no one within the beltway seems to understand this language. Whereas David Brooks thinks he's ahead of the curve, Eugene Robinson actually is.
When the commentary switched to the Democratic primaries, specifically in Iowa and New Hampshire, all felt that if Obama finished third in one of those, then he would be in trouble.
He is going to finish third in Iowa and maybe New Hampshire (despite polling well) and this is what is going to be his problem - winning primaries. Maybe in New York, California, Illinois, Michigan (possibly), but those first two (IA & NH) - third. Definitely. Based on the primary tallies, he won't get the nomination. Dan Balz threw out the possibility of Clinton finishing third in Iowa - no way.
With regard to the Republican nominees, I really have trouble taking any of them seriously. Having lived in New York many years (and during the entire Guiliani administration), Rudy isn't an option. Isn't obvious that he's not equipped to be POTUS? And that he leads in South Carolina says one of two things - either the choices are incredibly poor or the median IQ in South Carolina is suspect. Like Bush, Guiliani talks out his ass. And George Bush does - "Heck of a job Brownie." Enough said.
Fred Thompson says he's been testing the waters and they're feeling warm. News for him, that's where many tiger sharks swim so he best beware - caveat em-presiden-tor.
Then lastly we come full circle to Gonzo. At this point what else can we possibly say? By now, I would make a better Attorney General than Lil' Al. He's completely perjured himself and has got to go. When you're AG breaks the law.... hello?
Some final comments for this week:
All the poll figures on the show this week drove me nuts.
Next week - get a politician and talk about Iraq. People are still dying there.
I don't do the Take Two online after the show. Love the Podcast but I'm not that crazy.
Signing Through -
Friday, July 06, 2007
July 5, 07 (22:44pst): Bush's Legacy in Full Effect
It's sad to think that a president so concerned with his legacy neglects the here and now that eventually builds it. If The President could just try to get a handle on the occupation of Iraq, stop wiretapping us here at home, and work on being energy self-sufficient, then he would have performed miracles and live up to the legend that is in his mind. However, it looks pretty certain that the next person to take the office is going to have to clean up the mess. And I'm talking mess like the one at the end of the food fight scene in Animal House kind of mess. Do I really need to go into the messy examples? OK, just a few then - Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care, Katrina and New Orleans, Prescription Drugs, Immigration, Commuting I. Lewis Libby, and who can forget that silliness with Social Security. He was going to fix it all right, by taking the 'social' and the 'security' completely out of the equation.
However, George Bush shouldn't worry about that frivolous list or his legacy. Like I said, someone will come to clean it up. Take The Texas Rangers, they have... well, they haven't completely recovered since George Jr. owned them, but with a couple of good prospects...
The fact is that George W. Bush's legacy is in full effect. The two justices that he has appointed to the Supreme Court have already proven to be insufficient in fulfilling the title of judge. What we've seen is partisan decision making. Their decisions on Campaign Finance, School Desegration, and the Death Penalty wreak of political favoritism - toward The President's party. These decisions are Bush's legacy and we're going to have to get used to it. Hopefully by the time they are replaced (and hopefully with more rational and progressive thinking judges), we'll still be alive enough to care.
However, George Bush shouldn't worry about that frivolous list or his legacy. Like I said, someone will come to clean it up. Take The Texas Rangers, they have... well, they haven't completely recovered since George Jr. owned them, but with a couple of good prospects...
The fact is that George W. Bush's legacy is in full effect. The two justices that he has appointed to the Supreme Court have already proven to be insufficient in fulfilling the title of judge. What we've seen is partisan decision making. Their decisions on Campaign Finance, School Desegration, and the Death Penalty wreak of political favoritism - toward The President's party. These decisions are Bush's legacy and we're going to have to get used to it. Hopefully by the time they are replaced (and hopefully with more rational and progressive thinking judges), we'll still be alive enough to care.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
July 1, 07: Chertoff is a Hack
Sometimes, all you want is a straight answer from the people who you actually need it from the most. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for example: 'Will you step up the amount of air marshalls on flights to England and Scotland? Will you increase security during the 4th of July?' Yes or no questions. His answer involved things you'll see and things you won't see for the latter question. He then adds that the government is asking the public 'to be cautious' or something like that. How about examples? Empty rhetoric like that puts more fear into me than the notion of a terrorist attack. We can not have a political hack as our head of homeland security. And what's with the different facial hair everytime that guy is on the show. Is he trying to stay incognito or what? With the terrible job he is doing he better stay in disguise.
Senator Patrick Leahy is pissed off... Well, as pissed off as he can get and I have one word for him, 'gotcha!' Play it and don't be afraid to say it. I do believe that you're pissed off for the right reasons so in as much as you represent me, this American citizen asks you, on my behalf, play 'gotcha.' You could tell that he is angry by the way he mentioned more than once that he was a former proscutor, It is as simple as this. If I were to illegally wiretap someone, I'd be in trouble with the law. Our government? This is American Democracy 101. Wait... What's that?... Oh, right, that course was eliminated by the No Child Left Behind Act, I forgot - my bad. It's illogical for lawmakers to be partisan on this issue. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, then you investigate with every tool available. They get paid to think this way.
So a straight answer from Sen. Leahy? Well, Mr. Russert let him give an answer as he kept the questions to a minimum to let the Senator speak. That's one indicator to what opinion Mr. Russert agrees with. The other is that Tim was sitting back a little in his chair. When Mr. Russert really wants to hammer someone, he takes a posture like the Andre The Giant of mongooses facing a corbra. But Sen. Leahy got the cautious grizzley.
For this week's roundtable, I really didn't expect too much. None of the MTP allstars were on - Eugene Robinson, David Broder, Roger Simon, Gwen Iffil, Kate O'Beirne - but the perspectives were refreshing. It wasn't just commentators who needed to hear themselves talk so I thought they were all good - but I couldn't pay attention to David Brody however. Sorry David but I don't know who the hell you were. Also, you part of the Christian Broadcasting Network, which I am hearing about for the first time. Which brings me to ask, why don't the have someone from the Saivism Science Monitor on the show. Why is it always the Christian something or other... just saying.
And I love Chuck Todd, always has good insight, quality talking head. But he does get all the questions that require an expanded explanation. He is the NBC Political Director after all. However, wasn't he writing for some web site just two years ago. You can totally tell that Russert got him that job. Which just goes to show that you can go from being a blogger to the Political Director at NBC. But I say - good for him! This column isn't bitter toward newspeople, just skeptical. It is bitter toward politicians, if only slightly.
With regard to Judy Woodruff and Tavis Smiley, these two are proof that good things happen to nice people. They're both now on PBS.
What has been bothering with the round tables of late is the predominance of time has been focused on the presidential races. It just seems like MTP, where Mr. Russert makes the content decisions, has purposefully stayed away from these ridiculous statements and actions from the Vice President. Even today, with Sen. Leahy, VP Cheney's name wasn't mentioned. Also this week, he didn't have the roundtable weigh with regard to what was found in London and what happened over the weekend and how it relates to us. Mentions of the Iraq War! Only mentions! And what was galling is that the occupation was only mentioned in terms of presidential politics - please.
Judy Woodruff had the most to offer today with her knowledge of the voting habits of the 17-29 year olds - good stuff. But Mr. Russert misspoke when he said 17 to 19 year olds, no big deal, but that age group is not Gen X. It's Gen Y... and why do we have these classifications? One is disenfranchised and the other self-absorbed.
So blah blah blah the canidates have this and that or they don't. This column will weigh in on the race, but not now. Now, we're only getting posturing. Maybe we'll talk about all the candidates by process of elimination. That could be good.
Lastly, thank God her brought back the MTP MInute. Should be in every show! The problem is that there was no discussion ot the CIA documents disclosed recently. So the Minute almost exists in a void. It doesn't matter really, there should just be more.
Signing Through -
Senator Patrick Leahy is pissed off... Well, as pissed off as he can get and I have one word for him, 'gotcha!' Play it and don't be afraid to say it. I do believe that you're pissed off for the right reasons so in as much as you represent me, this American citizen asks you, on my behalf, play 'gotcha.' You could tell that he is angry by the way he mentioned more than once that he was a former proscutor, It is as simple as this. If I were to illegally wiretap someone, I'd be in trouble with the law. Our government? This is American Democracy 101. Wait... What's that?... Oh, right, that course was eliminated by the No Child Left Behind Act, I forgot - my bad. It's illogical for lawmakers to be partisan on this issue. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, then you investigate with every tool available. They get paid to think this way.
So a straight answer from Sen. Leahy? Well, Mr. Russert let him give an answer as he kept the questions to a minimum to let the Senator speak. That's one indicator to what opinion Mr. Russert agrees with. The other is that Tim was sitting back a little in his chair. When Mr. Russert really wants to hammer someone, he takes a posture like the Andre The Giant of mongooses facing a corbra. But Sen. Leahy got the cautious grizzley.
For this week's roundtable, I really didn't expect too much. None of the MTP allstars were on - Eugene Robinson, David Broder, Roger Simon, Gwen Iffil, Kate O'Beirne - but the perspectives were refreshing. It wasn't just commentators who needed to hear themselves talk so I thought they were all good - but I couldn't pay attention to David Brody however. Sorry David but I don't know who the hell you were. Also, you part of the Christian Broadcasting Network, which I am hearing about for the first time. Which brings me to ask, why don't the have someone from the Saivism Science Monitor on the show. Why is it always the Christian something or other... just saying.
And I love Chuck Todd, always has good insight, quality talking head. But he does get all the questions that require an expanded explanation. He is the NBC Political Director after all. However, wasn't he writing for some web site just two years ago. You can totally tell that Russert got him that job. Which just goes to show that you can go from being a blogger to the Political Director at NBC. But I say - good for him! This column isn't bitter toward newspeople, just skeptical. It is bitter toward politicians, if only slightly.
With regard to Judy Woodruff and Tavis Smiley, these two are proof that good things happen to nice people. They're both now on PBS.
What has been bothering with the round tables of late is the predominance of time has been focused on the presidential races. It just seems like MTP, where Mr. Russert makes the content decisions, has purposefully stayed away from these ridiculous statements and actions from the Vice President. Even today, with Sen. Leahy, VP Cheney's name wasn't mentioned. Also this week, he didn't have the roundtable weigh with regard to what was found in London and what happened over the weekend and how it relates to us. Mentions of the Iraq War! Only mentions! And what was galling is that the occupation was only mentioned in terms of presidential politics - please.
Judy Woodruff had the most to offer today with her knowledge of the voting habits of the 17-29 year olds - good stuff. But Mr. Russert misspoke when he said 17 to 19 year olds, no big deal, but that age group is not Gen X. It's Gen Y... and why do we have these classifications? One is disenfranchised and the other self-absorbed.
So blah blah blah the canidates have this and that or they don't. This column will weigh in on the race, but not now. Now, we're only getting posturing. Maybe we'll talk about all the candidates by process of elimination. That could be good.
Lastly, thank God her brought back the MTP MInute. Should be in every show! The problem is that there was no discussion ot the CIA documents disclosed recently. So the Minute almost exists in a void. It doesn't matter really, there should just be more.
Signing Through -
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
An Attempt at Resolution
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)