Leave Cory Alone!

This morning, Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker was a guest on Meet The Press and sort of stuck his foot in his mouth in the false equivalency market, and Fox News ran with it.

"This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides," Booker said. "It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It's a distraction from the real issues."

Booker was immediately attacked on Twitter, some of it justified, some of it way over the top, to the point that he decided to clarify his remarks in a video.



I think he realized the false equivalency and tried to correct the record. But in no way did Booker deserve some of the nasty comments he received on the interwebs.

Quote of the Day

"Oh, Tim, if you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy." 

~Mitt Romney to Tim Russert, on Meet the Press in 2007

Well, no shit, Sherlock. Mitt Romney has taken changing policy positions, AKA flip-flopping in his case, to an art form.

This quote was unearthed by Think Progress in regards to the resignation of openly gay policy advisor Richard Grenell, affirming at the time that Romney doesn't think it's the job of the federal government to protect workers from being fired based on sexual orientation. Based on the recent caving to the evangelical right on the Grenell affair, it seems this is one of the few policy issues on which he hasn't flip-flopped.

No Mitt, you're not my guy.

Rrrruhh?! Newt Trashes GOP/Ryan Plan

TPM: Newt Gingrich slammed the House GOP budget on Meet The Press this morning, telling interviewer David Gregory that replacing Medicare with a voucher system was too "radical" an approach.

..."I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said, calling the plan "too big a jump" for the country. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

Behold, Newt the Moderate!

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Newt is just saying what anyone in their right mind who just threw his very large hat in the presidential ring (see, what I did there? I made a big head joke) would say after looking at polls showing a majority of Americans, Republicans and Tea Partiers included, are opposed to government hands on their Medicare.

It's just proof that Newt will say anything to advance his position. I'm sure he'll shoot toward the top of the current list of GOP candidates with this one. How he'll be perceived on his comments about Kenyan, anti-colonial mindsets or our "food stamp president" is another matter.

The Bachmann-Bot 6000

I must now assume that Michele Bachmann (R-Earl Gray) is not actually a human being, but some kind of cybertronic robot preprogrammed to never stray from whatever talking point script is typed into its memory at any given time.

What other reason could there be for the Bachmann-Bot 6000 to repeat "over $105 billion" eight times in a twelve minute interview on Stretch's Meet The Press? It's hard drive must have been damaged during transport to the studio and continued rebooting during camera time. It actually pulled out a cue card in Safe Mode.

"Crime against democracy... Obamacare... debt ceiling... $105 billion... $105 billion... gangster government... $105 billion... $105 billion... does not compute... does not compute..."

This doesn't even begin to touch on the "gangster government" comment the Bachmann-Bot 6000 used in describing the Obama administration.

Let's also note that the Meet The Press powers that be should be ashamed of themselves for giving a wingnut like Bachmann-Bot 6000 a national platform to spread its lunacy across the airwaves. Let's hope they think twice before booking morons again... although I'm sure John McCain will make his bi-monthly appearance very soon.

Tweet of the Day

A David Gregory tweet during President Obama's press conference on health care. There is no longer any need to wonder why Meet The Press sucks ass.

Imagine If He Were President?!

What little respect I had for Senator John Sidney McCain III, if any at all, has now vanished.

"On 'Meet The Press' today, he told host David Gregory [Sarah Palin] is qualified to be president.

In fact, he was so spring-loaded to make the point about his former running mate on the Republican presidential ticket, he didn't even allow Gregory to finish his question..."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Harold Ford Jr. Kicks Armey's Ass

I'm not a big fan of Harold Ford, Jr. usually because he rebuts Republican talking point statements with, "I agree with everything you said, but...", but I'll give credit where credit is due. On Meet The Press today, Ford took Dick Armey to task right before a commercial break with the following:

REP. ARMEY: Let me make a couple points. As Milton Friedman said, "The real rate of taxation is the rate of spending." It's going to be pay me now or pay me later, but eventually every dime's worth of government spending is going to be taxation. But I think there's a fundamental question here that Hubert Humphrey would appreciate. The fact is, even by Hubert Humphey's standards, Humphrey-Hawkins, this government is too big. It's too much of a burden on the economy. And people sense that this president wants to take an already existing burden on the American economy and make it even bigger with a questionable ability...

REP. FORD: All right.

REP. ARMEY: ...to do any good. Has the government actually made health care better in America? I would argue probably not.

MR. GREGORY: All right. Comment, Harold?

REP. FORD: Two things. We use the term "bailout" when we talk about the help on the financial side. It's important to note that the TARP is designed to actually be paid back. If the banks perform at the rate that some have suggested they performed this quarter and across the year, you're looking at a dividend payment from the banks back to the taxpayer, rightly so, between $12 to $15 billion this year, number one. Number two...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

REP. FORD: ...I would agree with you, Leader, in this regard. Spending is large, but what is the alternative? Government's playing the role of the, the, the, the, the financial investor of last resort, the spender of last resort. We, we fought this, we fought this battle for many years in this country. Think if we'd decided not to pass the Servicemen Readjustment Act back in 1944 called the GI Bill. It was an enormous expenditure. You sent eight million veterans to college, you provided one year of unemployment compensation and you ensured they could buy a home. The impact that had on the nation's economy going forward, educating that greatest generation, has been enormous. Think if Eisenhower's national interstate, the highway system would not have passed. It cost $425 billion in real day terms. The impact it's had on commerce, prosperity and growth has been immeasurable. We face one of those moments. This is one of those 100-year flood moments. And as much as I'd like to see government not engage and involve itself in so many enterprises, I don't know the alternative. And as much as I like and respect you, I've not heard from Republicans or conservatives or the TEA party attenders, what is the alternative? If the alternative, alternative is to sit back and do nothing, the majority of Americans, evidenced by poll after poll, say, "Do something. Be active and get us out of this mess."

Although Gregory interrupted to go to break, if you watch the video, Armey had no answer or else he would have responded.

GOP Budget Message: "Homina Homina Homina"

Eric "The Squirrel" Cantor appeared on Meet The Press today to poo-poo Poresident Obama's budget while bringing up the fictional train from Disneyland to Las Vegas again, but he did say that the GOP was going to offer an alternative budget proposal.

MR. GREGORY: Are you going to vote for the president's budget?

REP. CANTOR: Listen, the budget process, as you know, David, is one that has just begun on Capitol Hill. There is a lot of, I think, reticence to embrace his budget on both sides of the aisle. This budget, frankly, doesn't have the focus that we need right now in this economy. The focus should be, job one, fixing this banking system and trying to get jobs created again.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But the, but the budget says there's $750 billion to help capitalize the banks. You, you have not offered a figure on what you think is necessary to do that, other than saying you got to do something to get private capital in.

REP. CANTOR: David, David, the Republicans will have a plan.

Meanwhile in Bensonhurst, Mitch "The Fish" McConnell was doing his best Ralph Kramden impersonation on This Week with George Snuffleupagus.

George Stephanopoulos repeatedly pressed McConnell for a comprehensive Republican alternative budget. Each time, McConnell simply attacked Obama’s plan. He said that he and his colleagues would be offering amendments to “reframe” what the Democrats have proposed, but don’t plan on offering a comprehensive plan:

McCONNELL: [W]e are going to offer a number of amendments to the Democratic proposal. […]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But shouldn’t you have a comprehensive approach that lays out the trade-offs? If you just have rifle-shot amendments, you don’t have to make all the trade-offs that you have to make in an overall budget.

McCONNELL: Well, we’re just sort of getting down in the weeds here about procedure. Through the amendment process, we would absolutely reformulate the Democratic plan. Whether you have a comprehensive approach or whether you offer an amendment is something a parliamentarian can debate.

So what's the plan? Come up with an alternative, comprehensive plan to show you really want to play ball, or weaken the Democratic plan with crap ass amendments? Enjoy the wilderness, boys.

Meet The Press - Barack Obama Interview, Dec. 7, 2008

Colin Powell Endorses Obama!

BAM!



UPDATE (4:55pm):

KA-POW!



(H/T Bob Cesca)

I Miss Tim Russert

Watching Meet The Press this week was an eye opening experience as I sat dumbfounded by the lack of moderation by Tom Brokaw. One thing that you could always count on when watching MTP with Russert at the helm was an informed debate, thoughtful questions and a chance for the guest to respond. None of that was on hand this past Sunday.

Joe Lieberman and John Kerry were on as surrogates to their respective political parties; Kerry for Obama and Lieberman for McCain. Yeah, I don't care that Holy Joe has an "ID" after his name - there's no such thing as an "Independent Democrat."

From the second Brokaw asked his first question, "Do you think running a campaign ad in which you feature Britney Spears and Paris Hilton with Barack Obama is respectful?" and Lieberman answered "I do," I was thankful that I didn't have anything in my hand or else I'd be getting a new TV today. I knew I was in for a bucket load of bullshit from then on. An to tell the truth, I expected it from Lieberman; it's become his normal routine. What I didn't expect was that when it was Kerry's turn to speak, he was interrupted by Lieberman more than once with no objection from Brokaw, and in an attempt to get to as many questions as possible, Brokaw would rush along and leave the "debate" unresolved.

It was a piss poor attempt at moderating and made me realize the talent that Russert had when sitting at that table.

Ralph Nader Needs To Shut Up And Just Go Away - Updated

On Sunday, February 24, 2008, three days before his 74th birthday, Ralph Nader announced his presidential bid on Meet The Press. Happy birthday, Ralph. It is the fifth* time that Nader is running for President, previously running in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

I've rewritten this post in my head multiple times since Sunday waiting for my anger to subside else my post be a swear-filled rant probably topping most previous entries. Ralph Nader needs to go away. Just shut up and go away.

Don't misunderstand. Nader is an admirable man, with great credentials. His consumer advocacy is second to none. He's founded over four dozen non-profit organizations that are funded by most of his net worth according to the FEC disclosure report in 2000. Taking on the automobile industry on safety at a time when the car was king was stunning.

But one question must be asked: why does someone who has no chance of winning the highest office in the land, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE, why would that person run again and again and again?

You can make a case for running once or twice. But this is Ralph Nader's fifth attempt at the Presidency. It's become a sad, sad joke. The power of his convictions has overtaken the rationale of his thinking. And call me cynical, but the only reason I think Nader is running is to fill his egotistical need to be in the spotlight and feel wanted.

Nader's fourth attempt in 2004 netted him a total of 463,653 votes, for 0.38% of the popular vote. Nader replied to this in filmed interviews by pointing out that, "Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me."

That's all well and good, Ralph, but the 2004 presidential election was up to that point, the most important election this country had ever seen. All you did was muddy up the waters. 0.38% of the popular vote is not viable, so why do it?

On principle, sure, you want to get your message out there. Here is what Nader's website states the issues are this time around:

- Adopt single payer national health insurance
- Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
- No to nuclear power, solar energy first
- Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
- Open up the Presidential debates
- Adopt a carbon pollution tax
- Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
- Impeach Bush/Cheney
- Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
- Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
- Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
- Work to end corporate personhood

Well, it all sounds great, doesn't it? Even liberal radio talk show host Mike Malloy, when speaking of Nader's candidacy, has said that this is what the Democratic Party should have been, this is what it was gearing towards 30 years ago and we have strayed. I agree with him. But I also believe we had a Ralph Nader in this election. His name was Dennis Kucinich, and he went about his candidacy in a serious way, attempting to put his name on the ballot of every state, out there stumping on the campaign trail, trying to make his voice heard long before Nader emerged from the ground looking for the sustenance of the spotlight.

If Ralph Nader was serious about actually helping third parties or independents become viable, then why is it we hear nothing from Nader for three and a half years? Then suddenly, his coffin lid opens, he rises from the ground, dusts himself off and feeds on the egomanical blood he so desperately craves. His first official run was in 1992. That's sixteen years - SIXTEEN YEARS! - that he could have been working to make a third party legitimate and a contender, instead of eye-rolling laughable.

When asked by Tim Russert about the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008, Nader responded, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form."

On that, Nader and I can agree. But you have to ask yourself: if this is what Ralph Nader truly believes, then why bother entering the race?

UPDATE: Correction- This is Nader's third official run for the presidency. According to Wikipedia - In 1992, Nader stood in as a write-in for "none of the above" in both the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic and Republican Primaries. In 1996, Nader was drafted as a candidate for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket during the 1996 presidential election. He was not formally nominated by the Green Party USA, which was, at the time, the largest national Green group; instead he was nominated independently by various state Green parties (in some areas, he appeared on the ballot as an independent).

Clinton Attacks Obama - Obama Bites Back

Tim Russert poses the question, Clinton answers with some Obama bashing.

Obama fights back:

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong. She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. …I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.

(H/T) Crooks and Liars