The Invisible Pundit

Fun Afternoon Fluff!

2009-05-18T15:39:00.000-07:00

Unlike Ms. Maureen Dowd, I'll go ahead and give full credit and say that I found this on Talking Points Memo... ;)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2009/05/the-obamas-and-friends.php?img=1

More Than Once a Week...

2009-05-18T02:59:00.000-07:00

Breaking!....BREAKING News Everyone!.....Breaking News: Joe Scarborough and I have agreed on something. I'm not kidding. This is not a joke. This is not a sign of the apocalypse or end of days.
The opening clip they showed on 'Morning Joe' today was that of the protester who started yelling "You've got blood on your hands!" over and over again during Pres. Obama's speech at Notre Dame yesterday and consequently, getting thrown out and Joe could not have looked more stern, serious and angry. I thought he was going to launch into a nuclear style attack on Nancy Pelosi's press conference cause seriously, the man's hatred of Nancy Pelosi (despite what he says to the contrary) rivals only mine of him.
And then he winds up expressing his personal disgust at someone interrupting the president! Now, I am all for the 1st Amendment and the right to protest so I would never say that this shouldn't be tolerated at all, etc. But I think your message gets lost when you're uninvited and interrupting the actual president. This tends to gross me out a little bit and get my patriotism all up in a bunch!
But hey, that's me.....and Joe Scarborough, apparently! Hey, look at us: Common ground and crap!
And that's where it ends and the familiar hatred begins. Welcome to 'Morning Joe' everybody and the bizarre morning ritual that is The Invisible Pundit!
Oh, and I have to say that despite the obvious lag between blog posts; this will not be a once-a-week thing! This is meant to be an every day or at least every other day blog! However, still getting unsick and still trying to catch up with the rest of my life. Basically, for all of my flippancy in my previous blog about being ill, last month was one of the worst months of my life and it's taking a while to recover. But we're moving on! That is the last excuse for my tardiness that I will post, I promise. And we're off and blogging! And finding common ground with some of the worst people ev.er. Look at us growing! (Or deteriorating....it's hard to tell).

Anyhow, watched half of 'Meet the Press' yesterday. I watched the first half which was the "debate" between Chairman of the RNC Michael Steele and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and it was more of a "let's watch giant tool David Gregory ask run-of-the-mill, general media-malaise non-productive, non-investigative, all around tool-ey questions, interrupting Tim Kaine every two seconds" uh...segment. BUT the one good thing that all of that accomplished was that it allowed TONS of air time for Michael Steele. And the man just got to SPEAK, mostly uninterrupted and the more that guy speaks, the better for us. So: Awesome!
I then switched over to George Stephanopoulos on ABC and watched the hyper-scary panel of George Will, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Steve Schmidt, James Carville and no I'm not kidding: Liz Cheney. So now she's a pundit. In other words, this now proves that she is promoting herself. This is no longer just about the Cheney agenda, but the Liz Cheney agenda. Is it just me or does this further cheapen the already-dubious tactics of the Liz and Dick press tour?
I could hardly watch this round table. I had to watch through slits of my fingers, basically. I won't even get into the detail on this but instead let the detailed transcript speak for itself and make my comments after the following:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we'll let the round table discern what period of day that all changed.

Let me bring them all in right now. I've got George Will as always, former State Department official Liz Cheney, Steve Schmidt, John McCain's former campaign manager, James Carville, Democratic strategist, also the author of "40 More Years, How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation". Making George Will laugh. And Katrina Vanden Heuvel of "The Nation" magazine.

George, let's begin with the decisions President Obama made this week. He decided not to allow the release of these photos of detainee abuse. He decided to reinstitute military commissions. You saw there a lot of human rights groups upset. Jim Webb apparently not all that upset as a Democrat. How significant are these shifts and are they the right moves?

GEORGE WILL, COLUMNIST: Well, they come after he essentially affirmed warrantless wiretapping and escalated in Afghanistan. So you can see why a certain faction of the Democratic Party is unhappy. On the other hand, he has changed his mind on the photographs, but he's changed his mind by keeping a promise. The promise he made during the campaign was I will always consult with my commanders. He consulted with the commanders who said among other things, the 10 days after the Abu Ghraib photos were released, there was a spike of violence in Iraq. They strongly urged him not to release these and he won't. Now there is a court involved in this and the court has so far said that under the Freedom of Information Act, they have to be released. He can appeal that, he can lose, and he can then say I did my best and the photos come out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That good enough?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, "THE NATION": Obama was elected in part to correct the illegal shameful policies of these last eight years. I'm interested in the military commission's decision. Because he sided ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you support him on the photos?

VANDEN HEUVEL: I don't. And I think they will come out and I think Obama could've set a clean break by saying we will never allow these policies to happen again. They should be released to a commission. That's what I think he should have said if he wanted to elide the full disclosure. But on the military commissions, he sided with the military over his Justice Department, which weighed in and said that the federal courts have a long and good tradition of safeguarding the government's national legitimate interests as well as safeguarding intelligence information and the due process of suspects. I think that it was a mistake. And I think what he's done, President Obama, is made it harder for some of his supporters to support him. And he will need them. He will need them in the fights ahead. And he can't -- my final point, he cannot evade any longer the need for full true transparency and accountability. The momentum for a commission, a nonpartisan independent commission is so powerful at this stage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm not sure that's true. If you heard those senators today ...

VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, we're not just inside the Beltway, George. I think there is interest in this country as more and more comes out if he's going to pursue what he wants to pursue in terms of his agenda.

LIZ CHENEY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I would imagine listening to Katrina that you would agree, then, that the president ought to declassified the memos the vice president's asked for, so the American people can see the effectiveness of this program. And I think the president deserves some credit for coming to the right place on military commissions and on the photos. But I do think it gives the American people some pause to sort of have watched the stops and starts here. The president on Guantanamo second day in office announces it's going to be closed before I think he had a real understanding and a handle on what the alternatives would be and how difficult it would be. And with the pictures, I think also, you saw again, an announcement they would be released, and then having to walk that back, and even an admission, frankly, that he hadn't looked at the pictures before announcing they'd be released. And I think on issues that have to do with national security and war and peace, the American people would like to see a little bit more consistency in terms of their commander-in-chief.

STEPHANOPOULOS: George, the White House is obviously sensitive this charge on flip-flopping, but does it matter if you're going to end up in a place where you are going to get a lot of support?

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: First of all if you say my generals said I shouldn't release, it would cause a spike and the president says, OK, I won't release it. I think as George pointed out, that was something he said during the campaign. We would be awfully uncomfortable as Democrats if he were releasing these pictures tomorrow and it was these things that General Petraeus and Secretary Gates and the new commander coming into Afghanistan, General McChrystal, would've said let's don't do this. So let me tell you, as a Democrat I'm very happy that he decided to listen to his commanders. And it may very well be that as it winds its way through the courts the courts will release them anyway. I don't know.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, and maybe part of the calculation is they are going to come out eventually. But we're at a critical time in Iraq now as troops are moving out of the cities, we're heading towards elections. And Afghanistan, the timing here did matter.

CARVILLE: It did. And again, you would not want to be president and have the secretary of defense and your top commanders come back and say we advise against doing this. That would make me uncomfortable and I'm a pretty good Democrat.

CHENEY: Those same people advised against doing it before the White House publicly announced they would release the photos. It's a little disingenuous to say he made the decision based on what the military commander ...

VANDEN HEUVEL: But it's also buying the military argument -- It's buying the military argument that the release of these photos will increase violence. These photos, Guantanamo, Bagram, that has been the cause for anti-Americanism and our actions, our policies in escalating in Afghanistan.

CARVILLE: I agree with you. We became infatuated with torture. We should've never done that. However, and the reason you have these photographs is because they exist. Having said all of that, if these generals come in and you're the president and he says -- they say you shouldn't do it right now.

VANDEN HEUVEL: You don't envy ...

CARVILLE: I don't envy the decision, but I'm more comfortable as a Democrat with him making this decision than another decision.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Steve, he's also facing, we saw with the senator as well today, some more controversy over Guantanamo. And this was the next big political controversy that's going to be coming down the pike for the president. He said he wants Guantanamo to close, Democrats in the House say they're not going to fund it. And now appears the Democrats in the Senate are going to say exactly the same thing and what you've got above all is a huge consensus developing in the Senate that no one wants a detainee in their own state.

SCHMIDT: Well, there are a lot of very dangerous people committed to kill Americans that are housed at Guantanamo Bay. It was a very irresponsible decision to announce the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison before he had any idea where the detainees there were going to go. The decision he made this week was the right decision. Katrina said he bought the military story. When an American military commander says you're going to get soldiers killed if you release these photos, commander in chief made the prudent decision, he made the right decision, and he deserves credit for it here. More and more, though, you see over this course of his young presidency him adopting policies that he criticized on the campaign, because now he's in the real world. He's leading our country and we are a nation at war. And he is making decisions, thankfully, that are responsible with regard to the security of the country and the lives of our men and women.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things you see is the president is pretty unsentimental about it. He's showing unsentimentality. He's also showing great flexibility, which is, you know, useful in a president, but he is getting criticism on this Guantanamo issue for not giving his own party cover. I mean, he's got his secretary of defense saying we're going to have to bring some of them into the States. He's got his attorney general saying we're not going to let any dangerous people into the States, but we might have to allow some detainees here, yet he's been relatively silent.

WILL: Well, you know, the supermax prisons in our country are full of Americans who have killed Americans and are perfectly safe. So the idea that we can't find a place to house these very few people who are really dangerous strikes me as preposterous. And I don't think the country minds it when a president changes his mind. It indicates that he's looking at the evidence.

(CROSSTALK)

VANDEN HEUVEL: I agree with George on the supermax. But you said, George, that the next big controversy is Guantanamo. The next big controversy is the mounting evidence showing that torture was used to extract evidence to create a link, a false link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. That is a crucial area of investigation and anther reason...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me try to get a little bit more context here and we'll let Liz respond.

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me just explain to the viewer what Katrina is talking about, a little more context on what she's talking about. There were some reports this week that the vice president's office actually back in 2003, in April of 2003, I believe, sent some sort of word to Iraq that a detainee in custody should be waterboarded in order to get information to establish whether there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, or more information on weapons of mass destruction. Your response.

CHENEY: Well, two things. It's easy to sit here inside the Beltway and say gosh, no problem to put terrorists in Colorado. And I think, frankly, the people in Colorado would have something to say to that to object. On this particular allegation, you know, nobody who is talking about this in the press has any knowledge of specific detainee treatment. And you saw the CIA yesterday come out and say absolutely unequivocally waterboarding was not used to establish this kind of a link.

VANDEN HEUVEL: I have not seen...

CHENEY: Well, you should...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But I want to press one thing there, because there was a report -- no, but you explained one part of it. I just want to ask you to explain another part of it. The report, though, that the vice president's office did ask specifically to have information about Iraq-Al Qaida connections presented to this detainee, do you deny that?

CHENEY: I think that it's important for us to have all the facts out. And the first and more important fact is that the vice president has been absolutely clear that he supported this program, this was an important program, it saved American lives. Now, the way this policy worked internally was once the policy was determined and decided, the CIA, you know, made the judgments about how each individual detainee would be treated. And the vice president would not substitute his own judgment for the professionals...

STEPHANOPOULOS: No one in his office either?

CHENEY: ... at the CIA. So I think it's very important for us to look at exactly what the facts are. And the facts are that three people were waterboarded. The people that, you know, claimed to have been waterboarded in these articles are not any of those people. And I think, frankly, you've also got to look at the source of some of these allegations, and one of the big sources is Colonel Wilkerson. Now, Colonel Wilkerson gets coverage because of his associations with General Powell.

STEPHANOPOULOS: His former chief of staff.

CHENEY: And has made a cottage industry of out, you know, fantasies about the vice president...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he's not the only one reporting it, but it's good to get your answer. We're going to have to take a break right now. This roundtable's going to continue after the break. The Pelosi-CIA showdown. Who will win? How much trouble is the speaker in?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: We'll be right back with the roundtable and the "Sunday Funnies."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. Everything that I received, we were not told that -- in fact, we were told that waterboarding was not being used. No, I wasn't -- I was informed that a briefing had taken place. Now, you have to look at what they briefed those members. I was not briefed that. I was only informed that they were briefed but I did not get the briefing. So, yes, I am saying that they are misleading -- that the CIA was misleading the Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi under fire but not backing down one bit in her Thursday press conference. Let me bring our roundtable back in to talk about it. George Will, Liz Cheney, Steve Schmidt, James Carville and Katrina Vanden Heuvel. And, George, I love the way that Dan Balz of The Washington Post analyzed this. He said: Her performance -- "The speaker's performance in the Capitol was either a calculated escalation of a long-running feud with the Bush administration or a reckless act by a politician whose word has been called into question."

WILL: The Bush administration is gone and people addicted to attacking it really have to get over that. Her charges are so shrill, so specific, and so grave that they turn something that was arguably advisable, a truth commission, into something that's becoming mandatory to find out whether or not we can trust the CIA. That's a very serious charge she made.

CARVILLE: You know, seven years ago, the CIA says something. She says -- and she and Senator Graham and Senator Rockefeller say something. I just -- I don't think that Democrats really want to be at war with the CIA. We had that, you know, before and that's not particularly productive. I think that she and the CIA director should sit down and they should as best as we can determine this is what happened. It was seven years ago. I'm a little bit like Senator Webb. I mean, we could...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But then why go the extra step and say they lied?

CARVILLE: Well, you know what -- and I love the speaker, she's a great family lady and everything else, I probably wouldn't have done that, OK?

(LAUGHTER)

CARVILLE: I just -- you know what I mean? It raises to the level of some kind of a -- "she has got to resign" or this or that. No, I probably -- if I would have been there I would have probably said, look, I have a very different recollection or something along those lines. This is something that happened seven years ago. There's some support that they didn't tell us. There is some support that they did tell her. But she and Leon Panetta are from the same part of the country, they're from the same political party. It seems to me that somebody could sit down and say, this is our version of it or whatever and we need to get a better way to do this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it doesn't look like the Republican Party is going to let that happen.

SCHMIDT: No, look, I think if you watch that news conference, I mean, she couldn't have looked worse, totally not credible. I think what's totally exposed here is her partisan witch hunt against former Bush administration officials. And while I disagree with some of the policies, particularly with regard to waterboarding, sincerely the vice president and others sincerely believe these were the policies necessary to keep this country safe, which was kept safe for seven-and-a-half years. And I think the ludicrousness of we're going to try to prosecute, we're going to try to haul people before congressional committees. I mean, you look at the committee hearings on the auto companies, it's inconceivable to me what the circus looks like when we start to investigate the intelligence agencies in a time of war.

VANDEN HEUVEL: Hey, guys, this is about truth and torture. Illegal, immoral, wrong torture. This is not a political football game. I'm not here to absolve or condemn Nancy Pelosi. I'm saying we need to use this time to get to the truth of what a party in power in 2002, with all of the power in the world did in terms of briefings, insufficient, incomplete briefings on a range of issues, WMDs, 9/11 Commission, Iraq. We need to use that. We need to declassify the briefings material and not cherry-pick as your father, Liz, wishes to do, is releasing...

CHENEY: My father doesn't wish to cherry-pick -- no.

VANDEN HEUVEL: He just wants two documents. But we need a truth commission with General Taguba. That is my proposal. The man who ran the Abu Ghraib report. Have a military man oversee and have real power to get to the truth of what we need to do to move forward responsibly. Steve, to bury this will tarnish and undermine and subvert the justice and power of this country...

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: Katrina, there is absolutely actually no confusion on our side of this issue. On our side of this issue, you know, you can say you agree or you disagree with the policy, but these were policies that kept the country safe. The vice president, as an example, has been very clear in saying absolutely I supported these policies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but...

CHENEY: No, but you let her go, George. You've got to let me finish. The vice president has been absolutely clear in saying these are the right policies.

CHENEY: Now the people who seem to be confused are, you know, the Nancy Pelosis of the world who supported it but then they didn't support or who were really offended by it but they made no response to it. So I think it's very important here to be clear about what the facts are and in fact what happened.

CARVILLE: George, absolutely stunning finding and in line for four more years where Democracy Corps asked the American people, sometimes it you want to know an answer, best thing is ask the question. We said when it comes to national security policy, do you think President Obama is doing better, worse or about the same as President George W. Bush? Very fair question. The results were startling. Fifty percent said President Obama, 25 percent said President Bush. We're living in a world where twice as many people think that this administration is doing a better job on the signature Republican issue. This is somewhat of a -- this represents -- this is, again ...

CHENEY: It depends which polls you quote. No, but, James, there is a Rasmussen poll out that that says 58 percent of the American people polled believe that the release -- I'll show you my polls too believe that the release of the interrogation memos actually made us less safe so you can quote a whole range of polls on your question, James.

CARVILLE: Liz, this is just fact.

CHENEY: That's right. I'm telling you the response here.

CARVILLE: Twice as many people think that this president, on the question, who is doing a better job of keeping the nation safe, so what is clearly working is that this, quote, offensive, this talk radio offensive that somehow or another Obama is keeping us less safe is blowing up in their face and I'm all for letting the offense go.

CHENEY: I know you've been in the Seychelles but what's going on in the United States in the last week really bears little resemblance to what you just said.

CARVILLE: Again, this poll was conducted ...

VANDEN HEUVEL: Last week has been a coordinated campaign ...

CHENEY: Last week is actually the American people saying, wait a second, we do not want a president who is going to dismantle the things that kept us safe without studying them and thinking about them. And when the White House announces they're going to release pictures then turns the decision around and says, we're not releasing the pictures that tells you that the American people who are speaking out are actually having an impact ...

CARVILLE: Can I repeat this ...

WILL: Surely ...

CARVILLE: Fifty percent President Obama ...

CHENEY: In your poll. Which poll, James? So, James, my poll says 58 percent of the American people actually believe we're less safe.

STEPHANOPOULOS: George Will in first and then Katrina.

WILL: Surely the point is smaller than this cosmic question we're talking about our national safety is did the CIA lie to Congress and if not, is the speaker, the third person in line to be president of the United States, is she truthful at this point? Now, Senator McCain was he says briefed on waterboarding and vehemently, his word, protested. Jane Harman who replaced Nancy Pelosi as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee says she was briefed and wrote a strong letter of protest. Let's find out what -- who is telling the truth, the CIA or the speaker.

CARVILLE: Senator Graham, who takes copious notes, says that he wasn't as did Senator Rockefeller as did Senator Feinstein. I'm all for -- it is imminently conceivable that seven years ago people have two different memories of a meeting. That's not outside the realm of possibility. But we can -- just like we need to find out if torture was used to extract confessions to talk about links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein which we know that al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11.

CHENEY: Al Qaeda had to do with 9/11 ...

VANDEN HEUVEL: Can this table agree that we need a commission to investigate -- to investigate the full range of abuse, misuse of intelligence, in addition, what we've seen over the last week, Liz, and we may live on different planets is a coordinated campaign to distract attention from the true architects of a torture campaign which has made this country less secure, I think that is what millions of Americans have seen and the polls, which show that President Cheney who has given interviews ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Vice president ...

VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, I'm sorry. I always thought of him as president. Has given interviews to the compliant media is now 56 GOP insiders think he's doing damage to the Republican Party. What does that suggest?

CHENEY: Well, Katrina, I really appreciate your concern for the Republican Party and I think you and I do live on opposite planets but I do think that it's the case that the American people, you know, when President Obama first came into office, he was asked do you agree with Vice President Cheney's advice that you ought to take a long, hard look at these policies and at the intel and what we've learned before you make changes. He said I actually do, I agree with that. Day two, he comes into office and he doesn't just change the policy but he releases to the terrorist, to the enemy the list of the techniques that we used so those techniques are now out there in the legal memos, they're out there for the terrorists to train to. Then he comes in and says, listen, we're going to prosecute potentially people who worked in the Bush administration who worked very hard to keep the nation safe. Now, in my view that's un-American. That's not something that's ever happened before in this nation.

SCHMIDT: It's Banana Republicanism is what it is.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he's pretty much taken that off the table, the prosecution...

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: Yes, but come on, George, to even suggest it, I don't he has taken it off the table.

VANDEN HEUVEL: When is democratic accountability banana republicanism?

(CROSSTALK)

SCHMIDT: ... thousands of Americans murdered in Lower Manhattan and across the country by these attack, anthrax, the belief that more attacks were imminent. The public officials in the Bush administration who worked to keep this country safe, you may disagree with the policy, but to want to do these prosecutions, to haul people before the congressional circus up here is nonsense. And at the end of the day, at the end of the day, the president made the right decision, in my view, to stop the practice of waterboarding. There are profound issues facing this country. We ought to move forward, not look backward. There is an obsession on the left with get Bush, get Cheney, get Bush administration officials, the Democrats now run this city and they should leave it in the past.

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to go to the politics just a little bit because Katrina talked about that National Journal Insiders Poll where 57 percent of Republicans say they don't think it's helpful. And I know you probably believe what your father is doing is helpful, obviously. But I want to get Steve as John McCain's former campaign manager, I know a lot of your former colleagues, Republican operatives, think it's not that helpful to have a former vice president coming out this early in this way. SCHMIDT: It doesn't matter. Dick Cheney will never be on a ballot again for national office. What you've seen him be able to do, though, is to put great attention onto an issue and to impact this issue in a very marked way over the last week. The party doesn't have a leader right now and the party is not going to have a leader until we have a nominee. And so there's a lot of voices in the party and I think he has been a voice in this country on issues since the late 1960s and he has every right to speak out.

CARVILLE: I don't have a problem. He's the former vice president. He wants to go out. He can speak all that he wants to, just like Rush Limbaugh can speaks all that he wants to. There is a debate in the Republican Party. I think it is a good debate. And the vice president, Rush Limbaugh -- Rush Limbaugh says we ought to kick John McCain and Meghan McCain out of the party, good riddance to Specter. I'm sure it's going to be -- Monday, it's going to be good riddance to Huntsman. I think it is healthy for the country for the vice president to be out there. I'm all for this. I don't have an objection to it at all.

STEPHANOPOULOS: George, has that brought a smile to your face?

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

WILL: Yes, I'll be you are all...

(LAUGHTER)

WILL: It's campaigning 101 to define your opponent. And your side thinks it is advantageous to define the opposition party as Dick Cheney. Pro-Cheney, anti-Cheney, doesn't matter because a rising generation of new Republicans are coming along and by the time we get into another election they're going to be the story.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet, one new -- one member of that rising generation, Jon Huntsman, has decided he is going to join Obama's team.

WILL: Sent to China. And that may be a tribute from the Obama administration to the political potential in Mr. Huntsman. I don't know. He also speaks Mandarin Chinese. He would be a good ambassador.

CHENEY: I would like to say something about the next generation of Republicans. Look, it seems to me that, you know, our opponents like to spend a lot of time talking about who is up and who is down. The future of the Republican Party is going to be built based on substance. And a key part of that substance is a strong national defense. And what you see all across the country today, frankly, are the rise of conservative groups, people who say, I'm not Republican, I'm not Democratic, but I'm conservative. And they've got a set of core beliefs, strong national defense, belief in the Second Amendment, individual liberties, low taxes, limited government, those are the things that this party has long stood for and that made America great. The national security piece of it is one in which the vice president has, in fact, been very effective in the debate over the course of the last two weeks, not just in influencing public opinion but, frankly, in influencing the Obama White House. So I think, you know, it's great for me to sort of hear James and Katrina talk about, you know, where they think the party is going. In fact, I think that the Republican Party has got to stay true to those core principles. And when it does, I think we'll be back to winning elections again.

VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, I certainly respect your father's right to go out and speak to the nation. I think those who disagreed with that have a kind of royalist mentality, that the vice president should disappear. I think two of the great speakers of our time have been Vice President Gore and ex-President Jimmy Carter.

However, what he's doing, it seems to me, is a kind of political suicide mission for the Republican Party with the Republican Party as his collateral damage. You talk about an evolving generation. That generation will find it harder, in my view, if the party is so allied with a failed and disastrous Bush-Cheney administration.

(CROSSTALK)

VANDEN HEUVEL: But my last point is, I do think there is energy in the Republican Party in an interesting area, which is libertarianism. George Will, smile or not, but I do think Ron Paul is not the right messenger. But it was surprising that before Obama took off that a lot of young people found in Ron Paul's message, again, not the right messenger. But that's where you may see the strength. On the other hand, the demographic shifts in this country speak to what Steve Schmidt spoke to when he spoke in defense of gay marriage and the need for a party to accommodate and be a big tent and not self-marginalize, which it has done.

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: ... give me time to respond to this.

CHENEY: Look, at the end of the day, what the vice president is doing is not about politics. And it's fascinating and interesting for all of us who care about politics to make these analyses. At the end of the day, what he's doing is standing up because he believes that this country is less safe if we dismantle these policies, and because he believes it's wrong for an administration to come in and prosecute...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... helping the Republican Party?

CHENEY: Absolutely. No question.

CARVILLE: (inaudible) losing the next generation. And the generation coming up, the Republicans have all 32 percent of the young generation. The big problem that the party faces, and that's one of the reasons I think that people want to, 66-32 voted Obama over McCain in this election. That was -- even John Kerry carried younger voters. As these younger voters come to the system, the Republican Party is going to have to think of a way -- I think that they will -- to address these voters and these concerns. Right now, they're not doing it. And, therefore, as a Democrat, I -- I wouldn't -- and it wouldn't be any good -- but I don't think anything that this vice president is going to say, maybe he doesn't think is political, but if you're a former vice president and you attack an incumbent president, it is by its nature political.

WILL: The secret of the Republican revival are the seeds sown by Democratic policies -- inflation and all the rest -- and I suggest that one day, "40 More Years" will be a title as memorable as the book titled "Dow 36,000."

(LAUGHTER)

CARVILLE: George, you and I won't be here for this.

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Couple of minutes left, and I want to -- as George is selling your book for you, I want to talk about the president today. He's going to be going to Notre Dame, facing a lot of protests on campus, George, from those who say he shouldn't be honored in this way by a Catholic institution. WILL: Well, the wrong principle is to say that whenever a speaker speaks at a university, the university is necessarily endorsing what he says or what he stands for. No one wants that. On the other hand, the question is not what Mr. Obama will say today, but what Notre Dame says by inviting him. It goes against the guidance issued in 2004 by the bishops, reaffirmed this week by the protests from Cardinal George of Chicago and Cardinal Dolan of New York, saying that on a matter this important, on abortion, it is wrong for a Catholic university to muddy its message, because inviting the president suggests that the issue is not all that important.

CARVILLE: I think that what -- if it is that important -- and I'm not the best Catholic in the world, but I consider myself a Catholic -- what they need to do is get the faculty and make sure, like say, a constitutional law teacher there that would teach that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and that person has got to go. I mean, that's much more of an effect than anything like that. I also found it interesting that the valedictorian, the young woman that's going to Harvard, to medical school said that she voted for Obama, that she was completely -- didn't agree with him on abortion. But if Notre Dame wants to get serious about this, I think they can go down and find -- I bet you there are a lot of pro-choice faculty members that might even be some that are in law school and find out what these people are doing.

SCHMIDT: As a Catholic, I agree with James completely on this. It always drove me nuts when President Bush was in office, he was invited to a commencement speech --and I'll defend the right of anyone to protest in this country, absolutely on anything -- but I think we do too much turning our back to each other in this country. He's the president of the United States. And that's an office that ought to be treated with respect. The university invited him, and I think he ought to be able to go and say his piece. And, you know, it's discouraging to me that you see, you know, time after time, let's turn our backs on each other, let's walk out of this stuff, and there's too much of that in this country.

VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, the protesters are more Catholic than the pope, the Catholic bishops more Catholic than the pope. This is an unwelcome intrusion of religion into academic life. This is a moment for people to listen to a president who is a listening president on the whole issue of abortion. It should be a decision between a woman, her family and her doctor, not the government. And I think that there is a hypocrisy here. Where were these Catholic bishops on Iraq when the pope denounced it, or when George W. Bush, who presided over more executions as governor and then president, was invited to speak? So there's hypocrisy and a double standard.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm afraid that is all we have time for today.

END

So that was that. Poor Katrina.
There's a few things that Republicans do very, very well and one of those things, those tactics would be the use of repetition in the media: Creating a meme. They are experts with this because they have no problem, each one of them, going on live television, radio, etc and repeating the same line their colleague just spouted off to somebody else two minutes before. Whether that's because of a lack of conscience or intelligence or both, who knows. And you know, they are rarely called on the carpet for this by the media...I've hardly ever seen that happen.
And right now, they are winning the message war regarding investigation of the torture memos. Nancy Pelosi, I believe, is being probably mostly honest and did just that very, very badly. And in doing so, she gave the Republicans the best fodder for a new spin on this whole situation that they've had yet, let alone this being the best thing to happen for the Republican Party at all for a good eight months or so, so they're thrilled right now.
And for every ten Republicans and for that matter, every five Democrats who go on CNN or MSNBC admonishing Nancy Pelosi (or for Dems) saying that we need to "move forward", we get maybe ONE Katrina vanden Heuvel trying to counter this. So she's set up to lose. There's only one of her. Just one.
So liberals end up yet again looking like the Granola Party and wimps on war and foreign policy and flashback to 2001: unpatriotic for questioning the honesty of the CIA. Fantastic.
Now, I'm not proposing that we should turn torture investigations into "Bumper Sticker Politics" but........hm, well actually, maybe I am! Maybe that's exactly what we should be doing. The Republicans have no problem doing that ("Drill Baby Drill" anyone?!) so why the hell shouldn't we?! I'm SICK of being the Granola Party, sick of it! We've gotta toughen up and send about 20 Katrinas out there every five hours with some BALLS. The Democrats have screwed us on this royally and we need to counter all of that damage.
Bob Shrum came on 'Morning Joe' today and actually dared to propose that yes, the CIA may have LIED and he was practically laughed out of the studio after he was yelled at by about four people for ten minutes.
We are losing this war guys and we need to grow some testicles QUICKLY or else the possibilities of investigation...even a god damned good for almost nothing 'Truth Commission' will be all but lost. Again QUICKLY.

Ok I'm Back!

2009-05-11T04:32:00.000-07:00

Still sick. And sunk into a deeper hole of the sickness after my last post, but I'm here and I'm watching 'Morning Joe' (so ya'll don't have to).
Christ I hate these people. I have no idea why I do this to myself.
So, back to it! We're discussing Dick Cheney's 'Face the Nation' appearance yesterday and his statement that if we're going ahead and picking members for our high school Young Republicans Club and the choice is between Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell, well, Dick's going with Rush.
I watched that entire interview yesterday and between blowing the shofar that is my nose and trying desperately to pay attention, I managed to not be shocked by one aspect of the entire disastrous spectacle, people. I can't be alone in that, either. He didn't say a thing I didn't either expect him to say or hasn't said before.
And that's not to say that I wasn't frothing at the mouth listening to Dick's bile, but I just wasn't surprised by much of it.
The only thing I would have to say I was a little stunned by was the casual way in which Dick Cheney pretty much threw Colin under the bus in declaring Rush his bestie-for-life! He was in full smirk-mode and seemed thrilled at the opportunity to trash Colin Powell in such a publicly disgraceful manner.
I mean, especially if you're gonna do a quick character rundown between the two, that's more then a little disturbing and it says a lot about the median I.Q. of the rest of the Republican Party right now.
That said, I'm listening to Joe Scarborough saying the following statement: "I believe that history will be kind to Dick Cheney in the end...when all of the memos come out and all is said and done and I do believe that we are less safe now..." and on from there. This is actually disgusting.
First of all, in the last week and a half that I've been ill and NOT blogging, I've been walking around the house, ranting about all of this. And one thing that has bothered me is the way in which the media on either end of the spectrum has been so quick to make assumptions as to Cheney's motivations, then and now. The man's brain needs to be studied....his handwriting analyzed, writings scrutinized comma by semi-colon! But until we do all of that, I don't see how you could possibly be even remotely confident making ANY assumptions out loud on WHY Cheney has done anything that Cheney has done! You get into seriously dangerous territory doing this.
I've been listening to Chris Matthews do it, every numskull on 'Morning Joe' including Peggy Noonan doing it. Admittedly, she sends me over the edge with her perennially precious, affected tone. And reading her columns back during Monica-gate vs. her columns and statements now regarding the prospect of prosecuting torture, the woman is bathing in hypocrisy and it's fucking embarrassing! And she is in friendly territory and is never called out on this.
Last Friday, the 8th, she was pressed by Mark Halperin to lay out an assumption on why Dick Cheney is doing all of this press and going so far off the reservation. So right there, I admit that she was pressed into giving her opinion. Fine. Fair enough. But here's what she said: "He is so deeply worried about what may be coming, he feels he has to come forward and warn and instruct..." and then adding: "He can be so Darth Vader-ish that perfectly reasonable statments can not be heard by more than 50% of the population".
And this was said in the most drippy, sickly sweet way like a mother speaking of her son. It was a horror show.
Dick Cheney is a horror show. The Iraq War has been a disaster of epic scales and the policies attributed to it raped our Constitution and international agreements. The attack on 9/11, it stands to reason, could have been prevented and wasn't. Hurricane Katrina was the worst man-made catastophy in our nation's history and an entire city and it's people were lost. They were disregarded because they were poor and black. And they were thrown out like trash by our nation's leaders in the most vile, disgusting, hateful way possible. Period.
But it seems that people have a short memory. And amazingly enough, Cheney still holds credibility. You may scoff at that, but there's Peggy Noonan saying as much and there's Joe Scarborough asserting this every single day and on and on...and let's not even change the channel to discuss what the people on Fox are saying...it's too fringe at this point to even pay any regard whatsoever.
And choosing boys to play on your team, choosing Rush Limbaugh of all people; a man so hateful, so racist, so sexist, so sick over a decorated war hero just beautifully summarizes the patriotism-deficit that the GOP is suffering right now. And the media is unwilling to have the conversation that may lead down that road. I don't understand it.
Did everyone already forget what these men did to this country? Is it all over? Did I miss something? Did every resident in New Orleans move back? Is our nation healed?

SICK.

2009-05-07T05:41:00.000-07:00

Hello What-Few-Readers-I-Have!

A very belated 'Hello!'
The Invisible Pundit (um, me) has been sick all week. Sick as a dog!
The irony being of course that I was just making fun of all of the hysteria over the H1N1 virus. Nooooo, I do not have the H1N1 virus. That would make for an awesome blog post though and the poetic justice would just be amazing.
Anyhoo, though I am not the victim of the irony gods, I did still find myself revising my last will and testament at one point, but am slowly on the mend.
So I will be putting together new posts! I think one of the subjects of the posts will probably reflect just how wrong, wrong, WRONG I was to get even the slightest bit optimistic about the Arlen Specter conversion. There will be more 'Morning Joe' bitchery and many random notes on just all-around political and journalistic hackery.
O.k., so let me get to work and some new posts will be up in a bit! And they will not reflect the virus (not H1N1!!) that has been rapidly eating away at my very soul for the last week.
Promise! :)

'Morning Joe': Michael Steele Edition!

2009-04-30T03:33:00.000-07:00

For the last two or three mornings, I've missed half of, if not all of 'Morning Joe' due to some seriously uncharacteristic oversleeping. So you can take away from that fact a few things: a.) Life has been far less stressful overall as a result, b.) My ulcers are starting to clear up quite nicely! and c.) The neighbors are sleeping a lot more soundly as no more crazy neighbor-screaming-at-t.v.-at 3:30 a.m.! YAY!
You would think that those things would be nice possibilities, wouldn't you?
Alas, no. Totally throws off my whole mood; life; routine. Can't start my day off RIGHT without a nice, steaming, fresh bowl of HATE, as it turns out.

So this morning, I wake up right and normalcy and routine are magically restored to the land of the Invisible Pundit...Finally! Ah yes, all is right with the world. Blood pressure is back up to a nice, unseemly rate; stress lines have reappeared in all the right places and snack products aren't on a plate anymore but instead, smashed against the television screen, right where they belong.

Anyhoo, turns out I woke up just in time! Michael Steele will be a guest this morning! Seriously, can it get any better than that, people?
Oh, but before we get to that, apparently V.P. Biden appeared on the Today Show this morning and 'Morning Joe' had an early clip from that interview and played it. Basically Biden, ruminating on the Swine Flu spread, said that ideally he wouldn't want his family in any confined spaces like a plane or a subway.....(you know, with all the sneezing hurling at you at 210 mph).
So of course, Joe and Mika took this, seized it and are running with the idea that "V.P. Biden is inciting panic!!!!" God, I fucking hate these people. Any little nugget they can get a hold of to implicate the President or anyone in his administration and they just run wild with it. It's like watching a 5 yr-old stealing a pair of scissors off his Mom's desk (after just being told not to) and running through the house at full speed with the blade out. That said, Biden'll probably have to walk that little statement back, slightly.
And Joe Sestak is on. Yep, he's running against Specter. He didn't say it of course, but that's made clear by the way that he's suddenly very concerned about Specter's motives in switching parties...some very subtle, underhanded attacks on Specter. O.k. Sestak, I'm done with you. Oh! So are they! That was a quick segment.
Oh, I'm sorry, it DOES get better, as it turns out! Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is now on!...aka, Mika's dad (inexplicably), former National Security Advisor to Pres. Carter and foe to all things Joe Scarborough.
He's dropping some truth on these people about Pakistan and Iran.
And I'm really hoping he's gonna call Joe stupid again.....O.k., he didn't straight out call him stupid but "stunningly superficial". Here's a video of that exchange for all of your enjoyment. I had an extra spring in my step that day:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/zbigniew-brzezinski-calls_n_154211.html

He's also promoting his new book "America and the World" written with Brent Scowcroft. That should be a good read. No fight today though...disappointing.

O.k., the main event is finally here! Michael "Hip-Hop/Bling Bling" Steele vs. Joe "Angry-White-Guy" Scarborough...both stupid, both Republican, both terrible at their jobs, both afflicted with diarrhea of the mouth. Both just all around public embarrassments.
O.k., they're playing nicey-nice so far. Scarborough remarking that the Repub. party is at their lowest point since 1965 and Steele is saying that the Dems may have bitten more off then they can chew with Specter "heh heh heh".
And of course Steele is playing this as "we got 'em right where we want them" routine and sucking up the whole, "yeah, the last eight years sucked and we spent a lot of money, etc." but denying that Bush and Cheney were responsible somehow (!!) but it was everybody, including congress. Oh god, I'm so sick of that narrative. Who signed the bills? Who signed the Executive Orders (the hundreds of them)?
Oooooooh nooooo. "We all wear our GOP hats...we just all wear them different! Me? I wear my hat backwards cause that's how we roll!" Oh christ.
Now on to social issues with Steele claiming to be a "Constitutionalist". Oh spare me. He's saying that he prefers social issues be addressed at the state level and of course, they let him off the hook without bringing up his remarks about abortion or gay marriage, for that matter. Pathetic.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele
And wow, it's over. With a sad, little whimper.
Lame and quick. What a let down!
O.k., well that's that. Another morning, another breakfast wasted, sliding off the television screen. In other words, all is as it should be! :)

There's something about Barack and babies.......(or maybe just something about being 32 and childless)

2009-04-29T16:06:00.000-07:00

Swine Flu: Upgrade!

2009-04-29T14:20:00.000-07:00

Just watching the coverage all day of the "100th Day" of Pres. Obama...
And spliced into that coverage is the coverage of the Swine Flu and it's....er....progression, I guess.
The World Health Organization has this Health "Terror" Alert type of scale that runs from 1 to 6 (six being the apocalypse, the world imploding, our faces melting, etc.) and we've been at about a 4 for the last day or two.
Today we got upgraded to a FIVE!! A FIVE!!
Does anyone else find this a little bit hysterical? A little bit excessive? A little bit panicky?
I'm just of the mind that they would reserve a five for like, oh the Black Plague or something. Maybe I'm wrong.

Fun Stuff!

2009-04-29T08:53:00.001-07:00

Hey Ya'll!

A very nice link here to 300 photographs of Pres. Obama's first 100 days in office, courtesy of Huff Post (via The White House!):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/300-photos-from-obamas-fi_n_192756.html

Some Overnight News and Views

2009-04-29T05:23:00.000-07:00

Kathleen Sebelius was finally, finally confirmed for HHS Secretary yesterday and then sworn in, with Pres. Obama by her side.
And not a moment too!........late......Ah well, better late than never. "Hey, uh, er, Kathleen....we got this flu dealie...." Fun job!
Anyhow, that's done, thank god.

News came in overnight that a 23-month old child who had come to Texas from Mexico to receive treatment, died from the "Swine Flu", which is the first confirmed death from the virus inside the U.S. so far and an incredibly sad one, at that.

Speaking of the virus: Need a little comic relief after that last depressing bit of information? I don't know about you all, but everything Michael Steele says it comic gold to me! So here he is Ladies and Germs, yesterday on CNN defending the Republicans' cutting of the pandemic preparedness funding from the Obama stimulus package: "Did we know this at the time of the vote?" Steele asked. "Don't come back and make this link six months after the fact ... we don't know what tomorrow holds." He added, "I'm not going to sit here and accept that connection."
Here's the link where you can listen to the audio:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/steele-swine-flu-couldnt_n_192457.html

Please listen! Seriously, this guy just couldn't be any worse at his job if he tried. He sounds like a bratty teenager being called out by his parents for stealing money out of Mom's wallet.
Not to mention, between the Bobby Jindal volcano flap and then this new, fun little parallel, I am of the mind that Steele could've played the PR aspect of this MUCH better by simply conceding the point that a little forethought next time might be a better way of approaching such issues. But alas, for our entertainment: No. just. bratty. pimply. teenager.

Watched 'Countdown' last night and the opening segment was of course on Sen. Specter (whose name I seem to be tiring of typing, for some reason) and Olbermann's guest was Chris Matthews, who for the first time talked about his own decision not to run for the Senate.
I don't know about ya'll, but when I heard that Chris had decided against the run and instead renewed his contract with MSNBC, I couldn't have been happier.
I've always had a love/hate relationship with Chris Matthews as a viewer. On the one hand, he's very child-like (and I mean that in the best way) and sort of just OPEN to people and an open book, as a result! Like I said yesterday, he's incredibly optimistic and sincere and he ALWAYS means what he says. He's one of those very rare people who ALWAYS means what he says.
And he's always fun to watch because boy, does that cat love his job! He loves what he does.
There have been times when he's irked me with obtuse questions or a position he takes on a particular issue that I simply didn't agree with. And during the primaries, he seemed downright schizophrenic on a daily basis! If you were like me at all and the primaries were YOUR WHOLE LIFE during that time, it was quite maddening. I don't know if I could count all of the times I stared quizzically at my television, listening as Chris yet again changed his position or how many times I beat my chest in frustration yelling, "Pick a SIDE, CHRIS!!!!!!"
But alas, he eventually made his "side" well known and caught a lot of flack for it. But I appreciated it.
In any case, I'm thankful for Chris Matthews and all of his weird quirks and his sometimes obtuse viewpoints/questions, for all of his obvious enthusiasm and passion for politics. It makes me feel a little less alone in my own obsession with it all, so I'm glad he's still here.

o.k., more in a bit!

Michele Crazy-Pants Bachmann

2009-04-28T16:43:00.000-07:00

O.k. well basically the part I missed on 'Hardball' regarding Michele Bachmann was just that there is a new website devoted to her particular brand of crazy.
Good stuff: http://www.dccc.org/page/content/bachmannwatch

And on it is a new little nugget that she has shared which only proves my theory that she receives all of her information from chain emails from the tin-foil-hat-wearing section of the far, far, far side of the right wing and she actually repeats these things OUTLOUD:

In a recent interview on conservative media outlet Pajamas TV, Bachmann made some interesting observations about a previous swine flu outbreak:

(Clip begins at 12:00:) "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/04/bachmann_intere.php

Hardball: Livebloggin' that shit! ;)

2009-04-28T14:56:00.000-07:00

O.k., last minute of the show and 'Politics Fix': Huh, very candid: Chris said he looks for good Republicans to vote for to "balance" everything out.
Smerc making a point about how GOOD Tom Ridge is and yet McCain didn't pick him as his running mate, instead picking the DUMBEST human being ALIVE: Palin (o.k. that last part was all me). The reason being that Ridge is pro-choice and that's where we're at with the Repub party and the ridiculous litmus tests needed to BE a real player in the Republican party, etc.
And lastly, Chris is a nutjob and I can't help but love him.

O.k., will re-watch this at 4:00 to catch the Michele Bachmann segment and will post about that....

Hardball: Livebloggin' that shit! ;)

2009-04-28T14:46:00.000-07:00

'Politics Fix' time: Michael Smerconish and Rick Hertzberg from The New Yorker.
Huh, no big surprise here: Smerconish is with Specter (from a voter's perspective) even though he's switched parties. Well, o.k., Smerc voted for Obama though so that's reasonable.
Hertzberg saying that Repubs are no longer a "credible opposition party".
HA! Smerc saying that they "don't need a tea party! They need double espresso!" Oh, punny.
Whoa, not so fast Chris! He's saying he can't lose the democratic primary in '10. Well, let's see about Sestak, Chris.
Eeeeks....Tom Ridge put out a statement today insinuating that he's basically thinking about running as well. Oops.
Smerc saying that there's an obviously huge religious influence on the Repub party and on social issues which is what's killing the Repub party right now, which is my whole thing. Also, shout out to commenter "Frank" who said basically the same thing below in the "Rino" post! :)

More Hardball: Livebloggin' that shit!

2009-04-28T14:33:00.000-07:00

DAMN IT! I missed the segment on Michele Bachmann and whatever newest dose of crazy she had to dish out! I'll have to catch it in the repeat in a few hours.
Oh crap, now we're on to the apology Obama offered this morning for the Air Force photo-op fuck-up over Manhattan yesterday. Oh boy.
Nothing new here. Basically just these guys commenting that "someone should've known that this would be a huge mistake" blah, blah, blah.
And they're just wondering who's gonna get fired over this.
I personally don't think anyone will be fired over this. I think the uproar will die down very fast about this whole thing.

More Hardball: Livebloggin' that shit!

2009-04-28T14:21:00.000-07:00

Showing a new NBC News/Wallstreet poll with Chuck Todd and Chris Cillizza (who broke the story this morning of Specter's switch).....
Chuck Todd saying that this is horrible news for the Republican party. I say: They've not been doing all that well lately...have you guys heard?!
But I appreciate his enthusiasm.
Oooooh, new poll bottom line is that 51% of folks like Obama AND his policies. And 30-something% like him, but not so much with the policies. That's really not bad!

Hardball: Livebloggin' that shit! ;)

2009-04-28T14:04:00.000-07:00

We've got Howard Fineman and Andrea Mitchell with Chris, chatting of course about Specter.
Basically Andrea saying that she's known Specter so long that she knew him when he was a Democrat (early 1960's) and Howard saying that it's not a huge surprise, especially given the polling data on the 2010 race.
Chris says that it seems that all of the prospective Pennsylvania Dems who were planning on running in '10 seem to be clearing the field. Andrea says that Joe Sestak may NOT be dropping out though...he's going to wait and see. He's already raised about half a million though (not too bad) so he's sort of got a stake in the game, for now.
That could be a tough race! Sestak is fairly popular and like I said in an earlier post, switching would've been far more productive a year ago. Hm.
Chris saying that he has been "hearing" that Biden's been pestering Specter about switching a lot over the last few months. Well no shit, Chris! It would be completely stupid if they hadn't been.
HAHA! Chris is delightfully and quintessentially optimistic about Specter's probablility in breaking filibusters. I'm not there yet....a little more skeptical. But I love that about Chris Matthews...always sincere.

RINO: Republican in Name Only

2009-04-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

I hate that expression. But that's how a lot of Republicans seem to be viewing Sen. Specter's decision to switch parties. There's a lot of bitter, angry people out there.
Personally, I was always kind of sad that Specter was a Republican. He did always feel more like one of "us", really. So this just solidifies that matter.
The problem is that I believe him when he says that he will not or should not be counted on to be an automatic 60th vote filibuster-buster. I think he may be a little unpredictable and maddening in that regard but god, I hope I'm wrong.
In his little press conference a while ago, he also said that the Repub. party is "cleansing or purifying itself"...something to that effect (you'll see that I am AWESOME at direct quotes!) and his point is well taken. Basically, he means that they are imploding on themselves and squeezing out any moderates left in the party, citing people like Lincoln Chafee as an example. Completely true. Not to be a cliche but when you've got Sarah Palin, Limbaugh and Michael Steele (who doesn't know his ass from his head and changes persona's with each publicity stint), all leading the party, people like Specter and Chafee are quaint reminders or relics of a long forgotten ideology. Sad but true. True conservatives are dying out (or coming to us).

Shocker

2009-04-28T12:05:00.000-07:00

Lieberman......

Just saw Norah O'Donnell interviewing Joe Lieberman. His last comment was pure Lieberman in that he parroted the Republican talking point of the hour....something about how Specter's switching ISN'T good for the country...bad for the two party system....we need more moderates, blah, blah, blah.

Lieberman.

Stating the Obvious

2009-04-28T10:48:00.000-07:00

Switching around all of the major news networks, watching coverage of the Specter switch.
Listening to "newscasters" state the obvious over and over again...
I believe I heard Contessa asking someone something to the effect of, "Do you think that Sen. Specter's decision was born out of political expediency?"
Um, DUH.

Does that even need to be asked?! Seriously. The man had no chance in 2010's Repub. primary. No chance.
I am one of those people who immediately defaults to an optimistic view of people's intentions...even Republicans! I would LOVE to believe that at least about 20% of Sen. Specter's decision is based on an internal struggle based on ideological thinking, but even I know that that's a ridiculous question.
The importance of this news is obviously the political, business-end results that we'll see in the upcoming Senate votes and how crazy this may make the Republicans. Period. End of story.
Speaking of all things "crazy", here's how Michael Steele views the news:

"Let's be honest," Steele says in a statement. "Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

A little cranky. Can't blame him.

Sen. Arlen Specter: Democrat!

2009-04-28T09:18:00.000-07:00

My first reaction to this was excitement. I think this excitement was mainly driven by the fact that I am so OVER Swine Flu and the Pentagon photo-op fuck-up.
But yes, Pennsylvania (now former Republican) Senator Arlen Specter has officially switched parties and is now a Democrat. Whether this means he'll be caucusing with the Blue Dogs, I don't know yet but that is the shadow over my excitement...(madly searching around online for information and scratching head).
For the filibuster issue, this could obviously be good news if and when we finally get Franken sworn in.
The old man had NO CHOICE but to switch parties. For any paying attention to the prospective 2010 senate race polls, he couldn't beat his challenger and has been increasingly "winging" it with respect to his senate votes.....(i.e., Card Check). In that regard, I think it's long overdue and he would've saved face by doing this, oh I don't know, last year.
We'll see how this all pans out.

Why THIS Blog?

2009-04-28T08:15:00.000-07:00

Well, frankly it's been a long time coming.
As one of many who's been screaming at (fill in your daily political scream-fest show host here) to "gimme the third BOX!!!" for many years, I realized that the only prescription would be to start a blog.
It's too late to argue anymore if there are now too MANY blogs....and if you have to ask that question then the answer is probably yes.
But why read THIS blog?
This won't be your central read....well maybe it will! Who knows?! Maybe you like amateur political pundits! Maybe it's a weird fetish of yours, like toe-sucking or scab-picking. I won't judge!
But this may be a good blog for you if you are one of said "Commie, homo-loving sons-of-guns" to quote a certain actor (which, don't worry, will NOT be a regular practice of this blog!)
This blog might be for you if you are obsessed with the political media and all that it encompasses: the mainstream media, left-wingers I admire and occasionally dipping your toe into the pool of the scary right-wing media like an Alaskan lake in January.
This might be a good blog for you if for some reason you feel compelled to (like me if you live on the West Coast), wake your ass up at 3:00 a.m. every weekday morning to punish yourself by watching 'Morning Joe' (more screaming at t.v.) in some bizarre self-flagellation ritual and you want somebody else to share in that burden, with you.

And finally, this could be a good blog for you if you want daily recommendations for other like-minded writers (who aren't so amateur) and bloggers and the like.

If this blog is at ALL for you, I welcome your comments and really, really hope that I can serve you well!

Thank you!