FIRE THE BOOKER

MEET THE PRESS

This past Tuesday, the Democratic Party made history. In one fell swoop, the party of the people took back control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also did so without losing a single seat that was previously held by a Democrat, which is all but unheard of. And, in recognition of this most momentous occasion, our liberal press, in the form of Meet the Press, has scheduled exactly zero Democrats to appear.

Given the strong majority now enjoyed by the Democrats in the House, perhaps it might have been a good idea to interview someone like Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi or perhaps one of the candidates running for Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer or John Murtha. Think again. Equally frustrating is the fact that the election was viewed in many quarters as a repudiation of the Bush adminstration's running of the war in Iraq. With the fact of a Democratic Majority in the Congress and the anti-Iraq message sent, who does MtP choose to feature? None other than war supporter and minority party Republican John McCain and war supporter and non-Democrat Joe Lieberman.

I can think of no greater example of NOT having one's finger on the pulse of the public than these two bookings. Seriously, were there no Democrats willing to come on a discuss their plan for the direction of the 110th Congress? I understand that the mainstream media has an inexplicable hard-on for McCain (a erection not shared by most hard right Republicans), but what exactly does he truly have to offer in an interview? Aside from announcing his intentions to run for president in '08, having him on is a waste given that he is a member of the minority party and a supporter of a war policy that was widely repudiated by many Americans as they went to the polls last Tuesday. I suppose a case could be made for a Lieberman interview given his somewhat unique position in the Senate. It is not an interview that I would be interested in watching given that it will most likely be a retread of his statements in the past - namely a call for bipartisanship (though he obviously never misses a chance to practice said bipartisanship by jabbing at his mates among the Democrats) as he prances and preens at having snubbed his nose at the Democratic voters in Connecticut who decisively decided that he did not represent their interests any longer.

Overall, this is just a missed chance by our "liberal media" to feature the new majority's plans for America and instead choosing to partisans whose time in the limelight is quickly passing.

EH, NO BIGGIE

ROBERT NOVAK


Novakula was on Meet the Press this morning, and in an offensively lame attempt to downplay the importance of the upcoming midterms he actually made the claim, "This is going to be one of the least important elections that I have even seen."
Um, are you kidding me?!
Actually, this is something of an interesting tact that he's pursuing, this way when the GOP loses its majority in the House and possibly the Senate, he can sit on his throne and spouting all manner of nonsense like, "Hey, don't worry about it! It's really no big deal." He probably should have amended his statement since, in his mind, if the Dems win control, then it's no big deal, but if the GOP holds on, then it's a huge deal because it's just more proof that Americans support Bush and his policies.

One of the arguments he makes in an effort to prove the unprovable is that yes the Dems will have subpoena power, but that really doesn't mean all that much because the GOP had subpoena power back during the Clinton years and they were not effective in their efforts. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the reason why the GOP was not "effective" in their investigations is because Clinton hadn't done anything wrong in almost all of these instances! Wow, there's an concept! But of course, this doesn't register with a hack like Novak. How about this, Bobby - we Dems win control of one or both houses of Congress, we'll start investigating Bush and then we'll see just how effective subpoena power can be. Sound good?

I truly believe that we're in uncharted territory here as the GOP bobbleheads are officially off of their daily talking points. How so? Well, here's Novakula telling us that these elections don't mean all that much, but then you have Sean Hannity crapping himself in abject fear of the Dems winning this November. I mean, he's begging Dem voters to stay home so that they do not participate in the downfall of the United States by electing a Dem Congress, but in Novak's mind, nobody should give a rat's patootie. You're starting to confuse me, fellas. I liked it better when you were always on the same page.

BARACK OBAMA

Russert is doing his damndest to get Barack Obama to fall into the usual Demo pit... eating their own. In other words, he is trying his best to get Obama to criticize Democrats and the Democratic party in general. He's also just trying to trip him up any which way he can.

So far, and overall, Obama is doing a truly masterful job of deflecting and redirecting the conversation. Go Obama!

I swear I'd vote for him for President if he wasn't a teenager. Clinton/Obama, I just might go for.

BUDPAUL THOUGHTS - Just my two cents, but I've got a couple of problems with Barack and the possibility that he's going to run in '08. First, he's been in the Senate less than two years at this point and I do not believe that he is seasoned enough for the job at this point. Plus, look at the committees he's currently serving on - Environment and Public Works, Veterans' Affairs and Foreign Relations - not exactly a strong resume at this point. 2012? Better.
Another thing that chaps my ass about him is his ultra-close relationship with on Joe Lieberman. I know that Barack is more of a "DLC" Dem then "Netroot" Dem, and I will refrain from passing judgment on which is "better" at this point, but anyone with as close a relationship with Lieberman as Barak has given what Joe's done to and said about the Dems over the years certainly warrants closer scrutiny in my book.
BLUEKAT'S THOUGHTS: We are different people with different viewpoints, which should make this site even more interesting, I hope. I agree that Obama does not have a great deal of experience in Congress but I don't see that as a negative factor. If anything, I see any experience in Congress as a negative factor for anyone running for President, and to a lesser degree, Vice President. There hasn't been a member of Congress elected President since Kennedy. Congress (both parties) has an approval rating of 16%. Neither factor is encouraging. He is very compelling, but does need more scrutiny. Still, he's not seasoned enough for #1, possibly viable for #2, as I see it.
As for Lieberman, I don't think that he should be running as an independent. I disagree with the way he has conducted himself during the Bush administration. I also disagree with the way he was eviscerated by his party. Democrats eat their own. Since the Johnson administration, Democrats have tended to criticize one another more than their opponents. It is our greatest failing that we cannot come together as a party and recognize that there is room for far left liberals, liberals, moderates and centrists. I think, on whole, the far left liberals have nearly co-opted the liberal blogosphere and are attempting to do so party-wide, which will be disastrous for anyone running a national campaign. I find what they are attempting to do to Rahm Emanuel laughable, when he is working so hard to elect Democrats that he has lost 14 pounds and hardly finds time to gulp a sandwich. This, while I envision his attackers sitting on their asses like me, smoking, drinking and eating and typing, like me. As for me, I refuse to be categorized, except as a Democrat. Depending on the issues, I might be far right to centrist. The Democratic Party needs to be The Real Big Tent, if for no other reason, so that we can all get our bleary-eyed, fat ass carcasses inside. Perhaps here, we can help show how to pitch that tent, eh?