You had a moment there Martha to put the kibbosh on his b.s. but you lost it.
You had a moment there Martha to put the kibbosh on his b.s. but you lost it.
My frustration with the Sunday political talk shows is through the roof. The guests rarely, if ever, include Progressives, and if they do, they are outnumbered by ConservaDems, conservative Republicans, or "moderates," so their voices are minimized, if not ignored completely (scroll).
That said, there are moments of truth and even levity that make their way into what passes for "debate."
"There's certainly an irony in having Karl, who is the Michael Jordan of politicizing the executive branch. You know let's go back to the firing of nine attorney generals during the Bush years, now being outraged... U.S. Attorneys, sorry..."
Here is some context, via the ABC transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: There's some question about whether Fox News, I think Karl Rove, actually got the subpoena or not. The Justice Department has a record of it being sent. Fox News said...
ROVE: Well let's be clear though. The -- Paul is referring to 9-13.400. These are the guidelines from the Department of Justice itself. It says, "The Department attorneys should take all reasonable steps to attempt to obtain the information through alternative sources, or means. They must first attempt negotiations with the media, aimed at accommodating the interests of the trial of grand jury with the interests of the media", they made no such attempt. "They must also precede any requests to subpoena the telephone toll records by having negotiations with the affected media", none of which they did.
These are the guidelines with the -- which the attorney general himself is responsible for...
ROVE: Well, look yes. I -- I do think so. He's got two problems. One problem is, when he signed the Rose affidavit, he did not abide by his own guidelines. Second, the defense they're offering for it, which was offered by Jay Carney that we're, conflating a subpoena with a prosecution means that what they said -- this was, remember of a criminal conspiracy when they sought the subpoena from the third judge they attempted to get it from, and finally got it from, was not where they didn't really intend ever to prosecute him.
So they were lying to the judge. And then the third one is -- the third problem he has is, on the 15th of May, he says before the House of Representatives under oath, in front of the Judiciary Committee, this is something I'd never contemplate. And on the 17th we learned that he did the Rosen -- the -- the Rosen...
PLOUFFE: I don't think he should go over this. I think if anything, he's guilty of over-zealously trying to uphold the law. And I think we all -- I think this is going to be a helpful process, which is how do we balance in -- in 2013, some of these guidelines go back to 1980 before the internet and email. How do we balance the need to protect national security and secrets, and our interests with the public's right to know, and investigative journalism? I do find out curious that the loudest Republican voice is now calling for the attorney general to go.
Were the same ones a year ago saying, we weren't investigating leaks strongly enough. They wanted a special prosecutor, because they said U.S. attorneys would not be tough enough. And so I think their objections lay less in the principle and substance of this, than almost a Pavlovian response. That if they have an opportunity to take political shots at the administration and the president, they'll...
HUFFINGTON: There's certainly an irony in having Karl, who is the Michael Jordan of politicizing the executive branch. You know let's go back to the firing of nine attorney generals during the Bush years, now being outraged... U.S. Attorneys, sorry...
HUFFINGTON: You know, I agree with you that Holder has to go. But there is a certain irony in the Republican doing...
Here is the entire segment and more:
If he said this once, he said it ten times, I guess just to make sure we heard it. Via.
As I mentioned here, enough about President Obama’s “controversial comments” on Kamala Harris. He and she are friends, he made a quip in that context, and started out by saying how brilliant, dedicated and tough she is. Yes, it was bound to raise many an eyebrow, but it also didn’t deserve all the attention and air time it's been getting.
Here is Paul Krugman on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." There's a 4-second lag at the beginning of the video due to my continued ineptitude at grabbing segments.
We've always from time immemorial had that guy at the end of the bar nursing his third beer and venting his opinions. Now they do it, thanks to progress, on the Internet. And it creates this echo chamber.
You were the victim of a lot of free speech on the internet.
... It was dumb. And it's right to slap him for it. But you know, there's a little bit of pig in all of us. I speak from personal experience. So there we are.
So there we are. Oink.
Did I mention how glad I was that Paul Krugman appears on these shows?
Here is the entire Roundtable segment:
In what seems like another lifetime ago, our old pal and brilliant colleague Cliff Schecter used to write a Friday "Cliff's Corner" post at AMERICAblog that always started out with, "Another week. More preposterousness to report."
I am tempted to take it from there on a weekly basis: Another Sunday. More outrage to report. I can't and won't watch all the Sunday talk shows, and sometimes I refuse to watch any of them. However, today I caught some of "This Week" and a little of Alex Witt's MSNBC show.
Witt was discussing gun safety measures with two commentators (I didn't catch their names). One wondered why President Obama was taking his message to different cities, traveling around trying to rally the American people. The guest's point was, hey, the crowds clearly agree with him, so why waste his time? He should be in DC meeting with Congress members, getting personal, appealing to them one-on-one, because that's what they'd prefer and that might work.
Did Obama's goal really escape this guy? He's not trying to convince America of anything. They are convinced. They're 91% and 88% and 59% convinced. He's trying to get them to pressure their representatives, because that's what works. In fact, I believe the commentator even said that very thing. Congress won't pass laws, because constituents aren't pushing them enough, not because Obama's not in their faces. When the hell have Republicans ever cared about what the president tells them? When have they not blocked him, despite his reaching out or meeting with them or wining and dining them or golfing with them? Good lord.
Next: The panel on "This Week". George Will and Greta Van Susteren. Really? When will Sunday talkers have the balls to include an equal number of true Progressives on their panels, let alone their guest lineups (scroll)?
Next: All Hillary all the time. Enough already. Here's an idea: STFU about Hillary. It's 2013, and we have the 2014 elections to worry about. 2016 can wait. Just. Stop.
Next: North Korea. The news media's familiar crescendoing drumbeat. Have we learned nothing? Reporting news objectively is one thing, stoking fear is another.
And finally, enough about President Obama's "controversial comments" complimenting Kamala Harris. Obama had called Harris "the best-looking Attorney General" after saying she was brilliant, dedicated and tough. Whether or not his remarks were offensive, it simply doesn't warrant this much time and attention:
"Everybody should relax, lighten up. Mock outrage. I wish there was more outrage about the jobs numbers than we had about Kamala Harris."
How about more outrage about GOP obstruction, their phony "reinvention," their terrible policies, their unconstitutional efforts to outlaw legal abortion, and their ongoing campaigns and legislation to disenfranchise voters? How about that, "This Week" panel?
The Political Carnival T-Shirt
Modeled by @suzannegypsy
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below:
Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.