Dear Daylight Savings Time:
Hello. My name is Jason. I am writing you this morning to express the emotions I am currently feeling to you, personally. These emotions include: confused anger, a tired and tragic sadness, a uniquely unquantifiable sort of hatred that I simply call "MMMMMMMMUUUUAAAGGAAAH." That sort of thing.
Why do we do this, again? Because we hate ourselves? Why has an hour of sleep been so cruelly and untimely ripped from me? Was this for farmers, or some crap like that? Argh. Argh, I say.
With the intensity of a thousand white hot suns, drowning in the throats of a hundred angry cats, I despise you, Daylight Savings Time. It is as perfect a hate as you shall ever feel in your lifetime. I want you to suck on that hate, forever and ever, until the end of Creation.
Gah,
Jason
Good "morning" and welcome to your Sunday Morning Liveblog. My name is Jason and I will be your host this morning in the one online venue that promises that you are not trapped in here with David Gregory, George Stephanopoulos and Chris Wallace, but that rather, they are all trapped in here with me. Today! Uhm...I don't know. Probably some stuff on how Tim Geithner is ruining all your weekends, with THE BANKINGS. Plus nonsensical panels. Anyway, you should send me emails, leave comments, follow me on Twitter, but, for your sake, you should do all of these things in an hour, because my God, why are you even awake, this is crazy.
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
Today, twittering old man John McCain is awake with us, ready to handle our beavers. Earmark reform, McCain wants it, Obama promised it, but nobody promised the elimination thereof, at the same time, the administration is putting this off until they have a budget that's "last year's business." McCain hates it, he wants it vetoed.
McCain has gotten "incredible response" from his twittering of various earmarks, but I think he's probably not including the incredulous response from people who have actually USED THE GOOGLE to find out what some of the programs he's held out for ridicule actually do. He also could, right now, make some mofeaux FAMOUS with that twitter, if he wanted to. I think "Lindsey Graham" is fewer than 140 characters! I bet you can squeeze in "Mitch McConnell."
McCain is not a fan of the GEITHNERS, and his lack of specifics, and says that they haven't made the decision to let "some banks fail." He's against using the word, nationalization. He's also rather likes the current housing bill, which makes sense, it's very similar to the one he's proposed. The Big Three should, in his estimation, go into Chapter 11.
Wallace has to ask about Rush Limbaugh, who hates McCain. McCain thinks it's a distraction. I find myself sort of wishing I had a tie like McCain's.
And, blah, some platitudes on foreign policy. Thankfully, it would appear that we are no longer all Georgians.
McCain thinks Obama is working very hard, doesn't agree with the budget, is pleased with defense procurement reform, wants to work on stuff they agree on, admits that telling him "I told you so" may be "pleasant feeling," but "childish."
Also, John McCain says that he has bright prospects for his daughter in terms of her "professional" and "social" life, so, look for John McCain to sell off Meghan McCain into arranged marriage or something, and for Meghan to liveblog it all, on the Daily Beast, your source of Meghan McCain social liveblogging.
Meanwhile, Tim Kaine. Wallace asks how much of the market decline Obama has to eat and take responsibility. Kaine says that the market was sort of collapsing over the course of a year, maybe? Did you notice? But still, the market is crazed right now.
Kaine says there's a bunch of elements to the Obama plan. The first element is creating a "capital cushion for banks." The second element is mitigating foreclosures. The third element is "securitizing assets." The fourth element is a plan that uses private investment to purchase bad assets. And the fifth element is a weird movie with Bruce Willis and Milla Jovovich in a sexy orange bondage suit, Gary Oldman is the absolute TITS in that movie.
Don't ask me what private investors want to buy toxic assets, by the way. Aren't people terribly reluctant to even SELL their toxic assets right now?
Shouldn't President Obama do ONLY ONE THING, called FIXING THE ECONOMY? Rather than do stuff with health care and energy. Kaine points out that there are ways in which all those issues are connected to our economy, and how ultimately a) solutions to some of these issues will be helpful to the economy and b) both parties are finding agreement and intersection on some of the smaller issues, without being un-innovative, so why not exploit that?
Evan Bayh, gah. He opposes the monstrous idea that we return to the marginal tax rates of the Clinton years. I recall distinctly how diabolically far my dollar went! And how Satanically easy it was for me to find a job! Thank you, Evan Bayh! Except Evan Bayh is TEH SUXXORS:
Meanwhile, the median household income in Indiana is $42,000 a year. Families making that much would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Families making double the Indiana median household income would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Families making double that would not see tax increases under Obama's plan. Only families making almost six times the median household income of Indiana would see increases; increases that would essentially take us back to the rates that prevailed during the more prosperous 1990s. But never fear, if you're dramatically richer than most Indianans and sociopathically unconcerned with the well-being of your fellow citizens, then Evan Bayh is fighting for you.
ARGH. Somehow, my TiVo skipped me ahead into the panel discussion, right to Juan Williams and Bill Kristol bitching over the money that Kristol's friends lost. Williams is attempting to explain that Obama has not unleashed a wave of public anger, that he's possible in the polls. Mara Liasson and Brit Hume attempt to downplay all that. TYPICAL RESULTS, says Liasson. "GARDEN VARIETY HONEYMOON," says Hume. Uhm, I am quite sure this very panel clucked about the "honeymoon being over" weeks ago. Williams says that the Obama support is remarkable, given the size of the crises. This leads Hume to intone that "Wall Street is Main Street," and that's the sort of perspective you get from news pundits that haven't scrimped and saved, maybe ever, certainly not recently.
Someone named "KELLS JESSE" emails:
This what you are worried about? Daylight savings? I do think there are bigger things to worry about
How adorable. First time here, I guess.
Now everyone is going to talk about Rush Limbaugh. Hume says it's "not a new idea" to frame Limbaugh as the leader of the GOP. Hume says the GOP doesn't have a leader. Liasson agrees, and says the White House was running a mind game, but probably took it "too far." I think it proves that one can do two things at once! But Bill Kristol wants RAHM EMANUEL TO BRING HIM A BANKING PLAN. (Deep down, I can't imagine, actually, that anyone wants Emanuel to author the banking plan. But then, deep down, I can't imagine, actually, that anyone wants the people who are purporting to author the banking plan to actually author it.)
Anyway, the GOP, not popular in the polls. Kristol is all: BLAH EFF THE POLLS. THERE'S A REALITY OUT THERE! Oh, Bill...NOW you're all into "reality." Anyway, the future of the GOP, according to Kristol, are a bunch of kids in Colorado, all of whom want Juan Williams to visit them, for ridicule.
Now Hume is mumbling something that I can't hear. And Wallace says my favorite line: "Mara Liasson, ten seconds." And woo, it's over.
THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
Panel of key players! Woo! McCaskill says it's too early for a new stimulus package, and that unemployment is a lagging, not a leading indicator. Bayh sort of agrees, and that there will be general uptick in employment by the end of the year.
Richard Shelby says, "this country's economy is based on credit" like that was a GOOD THING. Then he starts talking about "closing" banks. GS asks, you mean, "nationalize?" Shelby says, no, close..."send a strong message." Tom Donohue says, uhm...maybe we shouldn't close a bank that's tied into so much of the economy. McCaskill notes that local banks are not the problem, though no one said they were.
Bayh thinks that we should "stabilize" the banks, which, I don't know, I think sounds like zombification writ large.
Shelby insists that the UAW has run the Big Three into the ground, because it was rank and file assembly line workers who were continually designing terrible business models and designing cruddy vehicles that no one wants to buy. Won't somebody think of these companies' CEOs and their grand sacrifices and unparalleled wisdom.
Why is McCaskill supporting this bill, with the earmarks? She says she's done all she can to fight these particular earmarks, voting against them, on a blanket basis, and promoting reform. But she doesn't want to sit on the "sidelines on every budget." It's clear that the Dems are defining "earmark reform" as something that will prevail on the next appropriation bill. I am reluctantly accepting this premise. Shelby, of course, loves him some earmarks. This gets McCaskill the chance to note that earmarkery should not be seen as an issue where the Democrats are mad about them and the GOP are all disciplined anti-earmarkers.
Of course, many have, this week, captured this issue as something that Obama "lied" about, on the presumption that he campaigned on a platform of eliminating earmarks. This isn't a fair assessment. Obama has professed a promise to reform the process. I appreciate that it's probably not practical to eliminate them - earmarks can be the small bore price of compromising on important bills. And, of course, not being an expert as to what it would require to reform the process, I accept, reluctantly, the premise that this budget has to be exempt from the promise. But you can't claim that excuse the second time around!
Bayh talks about how he's opposing the omnibus for the sake of the very wealthy people in his district, for whom he believes tax cuts should be on the table.
Is it just me, or does this whole notion, that the President should not attempt to solve more than one problem at once, fundamentally dumbassed? It's like every minute the president spends on, say, cap and trade, is an opportunity cost to fixing the banks? The Presidency has sort of a huge job, and I think it's sort of broadly understood that the President will have many, many irons in the fire. It also just seems a little childish, I think, to assume that a good health care policy, for example, couldn't have a positive effect on the economy. People talk about additional stimulus packages - there's no reason to believe that the right energy policy, one that reset our priorities to weaning ourselves from foreign oil, wouldn't carry it's own economic stimulus, through a resetting of priority, or a call for new infrastructure, or new studies, or the deployment of new innovations.
Tom Donohue believes, apparently, that allowing management to intimidate its employees into not forming unions would be a "defibrillator to the economy." The post-war economy of the 1950s would beg to differ.
Another Panel discussion! Featuring E.J. Dionne, David Brooks, Cokie Roberts and George Will, the lead weight on the Washington Post's credibility.
Will, the lead weight on the Washington Post's credibility, for whatever reason, believes that his magic teevee allows people to connect what Obama's doing with what's happening to the Dow, as long as we are talking about the days the Dow falls. The Dow actually has had up days, of late, and no one is suggesting that the president keep wearing his lucky socks.
Roberts joins the chorus of people who are surprised that the President wants to do more than one thing, and David Brooks sings his lonely solo about how long term planning at a time when there is a crisis of any kind is crazy.
Apparently, it's too much trouble for ABC News to identify WIll Forte as the person who imitated Tim Geithner last night.
David Brooks says that teh government "doesn't have the authority" to nationalize banks. It's a sort of quaint notion. Remember back when only the Senate could declare war? Yes. Those were some adorable times. Even George Will understands that a guy like Henry Paulson went ahead and did all sorts of stuff without waiting for anyone to determine whether he's got the authority to act, and that guy is like a lead weight on the Washington Post's credibility!
Dionne notes that the idea that a two percent increase in the size of government ends capitalism as we know it is nonsensical. Brooks, on the other hand, warns of the creeping Europeanization and that Cokie Roberts will have to learn French. Because Western Europeans are terrible monsters, what with their superior quality of life measures. Why won't people like Brooks at least use scary metaphors, like we're becoming Cuba or something.
I wish I could pretend that anyone was, at any time, saying anything interesting. I wish they'd just show more of Will Forte imitating Tim Geithner.
Brooks name checks Ross Douthat, which leads me to wonder, yet again, when will one of these Sunday Talk Shows unleash the potential of new voices, like your Ross Douthats and Ezra Kleins? I think the first one of these shows that demonstrates the respect for a political discourse not preserved in amber could reap a benefit in the ratings. Online, it's a wild and woolly world of political chatter. Sunday, it's just largely a hidebound mess.
Okay, let's talk about Rush Limbaugh. Jesus, thank God for Rush Limbaugh, because he's been such a boost to the media. When you think about how many people did not get laid off this month because of the need to carefully cover Rush Limbaugh, my heart is cheered. Honestly, part of my next paycheck is a dollop of Rush ka-ching! God bless that attention whore, and his painkiller addictions.
Brooks notes that the creepy Reagan fetishization is starting to undo the party in a more fundamental way than Rush Limbaugh is. Will disagrees, but then, that's what you'd expect the lead weight on the Washington Post's credibility to say.
Anyway, Rush, like Blago, keeping us all employed somehow.
To make up for the intellectual void of that panel, and for the sake of having something to pick over and debate, here's U.S. News' Rick Newman's case for putting GM into bankruptcy.
MEET THE PRESS
Let's see what horrors today's MEET THE PRESS has in store. First of all, operatic ass Lindsey Graham and preening windbag Chuck Schumer.
OH YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING. A roundtable consisting of Erin Burnett, Newt Gingrich, Mort Zuckerman, and some author that I've not heard of. I hope that author guy has come ready to do all the heavy lifting against this panel, who're basically arrayed in the defense of everyone who got the economy wrong, ever.
I think this might be the worst MEET THE PRESS I've ever had to [author's note: why did I type "adore" instead of "endure?" What drug had kicked in, at that moment?]. Honestly, I would rather be beaten to death, by banjoes, then watch this today.
Is more stimulus needed? Lindsay Graham gets all the stimulus he needs from the McCain campaign Flickr account, thank you very much. Schumer says that we need to wait and see on a new stimulus, three-legged stool, blah blah. Schumer is cautious on stimulus, bullish on housing, and that's all well and good. But what of the banks, baby? Schumer says...uhm...nothing.
Gregory joins the crowd of people who've just decided they're going to pretend the collapse of the Dow began on Election Day, even though the worst of the declines happened prior. Isn't Obama failing on the confidence issue? Schumer says no, and I'm tentatively agreeing...but confidence has a way of being pretty tissue thin! Only so many commemorative Obama magazine covers can be sold!
Schumer: [Obama] is smart! He's bold! He's moderate!
Graham: We need more delicious centrism! Of the sort that weakened the stimulus, given rise to the idea that maybe we need another one!
I will go along with Graham on the underestimations made on unemployment. I'd put money down on eleven percent before its over, and honestly, I'm worrying about twelve percent. He loses me on the whole "don't raise taxes in a recession." Again: it's a NET TAX CUT. Naturally, David Gregory's been on a three month streak of dumbassed disbelief on this measure, and refuses to accede to this. I guess I'm going to go the Yglesias well a second time, but why not:
But I suppose this is how the world really looks from David Gregory's chair. A rich person is somewhat like Jeffrey Immelt who earns tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses during good years, and in bad years he waives some of what he's owed, accepting mere millions in new salary, and gets hailed for his generosity. One assumes that with this multi-million dollar annual salary, he also has investment income. The lower classes in this universe are like Chris Matthews and David Shuster and need to host cable shows. And a David Gregory or a Brian Williams--hosting a network television show, to be sure, but not owning the network--becomes a typical middle-class American.
Lindsey Graham asks, "The question becomes, when are you throwing good money after bad?" Hilariously, you'd never know that this man was an IRAQ WAR PROPONENT.
Graham and Schumer are in favor of something called "good nationalization." Schumer's dithering, MAYBE WE NEED ANOTHER TERM...I don't know...let's consult government lexicographers. The sort of people who came up with TARP! Because yes, what the economy needs is a piece of sheeting to cover its infield! UHM...DON'T WE HAVE A WORD CALLED 'RECEIVERSHIP?' Schumer says, "a term called 'receivership, or whatever." Great. And now, America brings you: RECEIVERSHIP, OR WHATEVER.
Schumer keeps looking off to his right for some reason. IS THAT WHERE THE ANSWERS ARE? PUT THE CAMERAS THERE, PLEASE! Honestly, Schumer is making it look like there's something really interesting just off camera.
Onto the spending bill! And John McCain, yammering yammering. Graham says, OH NOES. I wish he'd veto the bill, we needs us some earmark reform. And then he defends McCain, saying that McCain, "does not object to members of Congress designating money to be spent in their state." UHM, "members of Congress designating money to be spent in their state?" That's sort of what EARMARKING...IS. Graham says that a "good earmark" (I guess?) is "transparent, has a federal purpose and people understand what the money is being spent for." He needs to have a talk to Maverick, then, because McCain is using Twitter to a) pretend that certain earmarks don't have a federal purpose b) obfuscating what they do, instead of allowing "people" to "understand" what the money is being spent for (Greg Sargent provides a good example), none of which serves the end of c) transparency.
Gregory points out, in fact, that Graham was called out (not by name, of course, because that whole "I will make them famous" pledge was predicated on McCain becoming President) for an earmark on McCain's twitter. Which Graham can calmly and succinctly explain, and continue to assert his right to add to the spending bill. It's tough to parse what, exactly, Graham is advocating here, beyond "Lindsey Graham exceptionalism."
Schumer says the earmarks are online, and just like everything else online, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Here's what's coming: all earmark requests will be online, earlier, and they will a smaller percentage of...something. Schumer doesn't really explain.
Graham says Rush Limbaugh is a prominent radio host, who the White House should stop talking about.
Okay. Once again it's time for our weekly coping mechanism for dealing with the MEET THE PRESS panel discussion. Turning it into a terrible one-act play.
TODAY--
"Only We Who Guard The Mystery Of Wall Street Shall Have The Right To Be Unhappy"
a brief and lamentable play, lacking all nuance, in one actDRAMATIS PERSONAE
David Gregory, objectively speaking, the "worst"
Newt Gingrich, celebrated paste-easter of politics
Erin Burnett, CNBC damage-control damsel
Mort Zuckerman, about what you'd expect
Liaquat Ahamed, possibly has no idea what he's getting into
Me, despised internet yeller____________________
GREGORY: OMGZ! Could the Great Depression happen again? Because this panel is itching to crap on the corpse of FDR, in case you haven't noticed. YOU HAVE NOTICED THIS JOKE OF A PANEL, DON'T YOU?
AHAMED: Uhm. Yes. This period is pretty bad. Basically, yes. But I think we are "applying the right medicine this time," the only question being if it's in the "right doses."
GREGORY: OMGZ! Won't someone think of our parent company, General Electric?
BURNETT: YES. DOOM. NOBODY IS THINKING OF THE GENERAL ELECTRICS. And people are saving money, which is terrible. But the real problem is the media! Why do they keep using words like "crash" and "hemorrhage" and "failure" and "zombie" and "complete and utter clusterfuck of epic proportions unleashed by greedy goddamn monsters, all egged on by our own overhyped stock market prognosticator who jumps around like a rabid monkey on crystal meth in his cartoon antechamber making fart noises with sound effects buttons" when the media could be meeting us halfway with euphemisms! The media has "lost perspective!" It's total hyperbole. We'll get the last laugh when it all gets worse and there are no more word to describe it.
GREGORY: BLEEEAAAAGHH. WHAT?
ZUCKERMAN: Nobody believes in anything anymore! How about some Latin vocabulary?
GREGORY: Mr. Gingrich, care to inundate us with talking points?
GINGRICH: What do we have to learn from this? OBAMA IS THE NEW SMOOT HAWLEY! This is not politics as usual! Except for the part where I dance around peddling old ideas and demonization! RAHH! Trial lawyers! Remember the good old days of yelling at them? Obama hates TEH BIZNESSES, too!
ME: Actually, the NAM and many, many chambers of commerce support stuff like the stimulus package.
GINGRICH: But that's not the point! The point is that I have got a kettle full of old crap that I've got shined up and its priced to go!
GREGORY: I cannot even begin to find the words. Words, that is, that would challenge you contentions, on any level.
ZUCKERMAN: Uhm, gosh. I guess I am the balance today! I think the market is responding to economic fundamentals, and not attempting to prove the validity of a particular ideology.
GREGORY: Hey, history dude. Tell me something, if FDR was SOOO GREAT, how come he didn't make things perfect for everybody, forever and ever.
AHAMED: The problem we face is one of equity, and we can't fix that without public money.
GREGORY: There doesn't appear to be political will though! Could that possibly be a solution if it doesn't win in a poll?
BURNETT: Yeah. And the answers are all so unknowable!
GREGORY: OMG. Geithner was pardied on SNL! This is a critical lagging indicator! Does this speak to a fundamental problem?
ME: It speaks to the fundamental humor of Will Forte imitating Tim Geithner, I guess.
GINGRICH: This is a NEW WORLD! We've never seen THIS WORLD before. There was an OLD WORLD, where I had a bunch of ideas that at first people wanted but eventually rejected. But now that we're in this NEW WORLD, we can take me out for a spin again! Honestly, how is it that I am not at the middle strata of refuse in the dustbin of the 20th century? I DON'T KNOW. But here I am! The Bush/Obama spending cycle...
ME: Pardon me. WHAT?
GINGRICH: The Bush/Obama spending cycle has been devastating?
ME: The what, now?
GINGRICH: The Bush/Obama spending cycle.
ME: You mean to say that there has been an interconnected spending strategy between the Bush administration and the Obama administration.
GINGRICH: Yes. Bush and Obama are the same. Terrible fire-dragons, these two.
ME: David Gregory, you mean to say you are not going to IMMEDIATELY drop some WTF bombs on this? You realize just how many people are right now, citing this as this Sunday's biggest example of unadulterated crazy talk!
GREGORY: I guess I'm not! But don't worry, I am right now contemplating a seventh and an eighth way of asking Bobby Jindal if he's running for President in 2012. I think I'm really going to nail him!
ME: Good lord, man. GOOD LORD.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENTER, ON THIS LIVEBLOG: This is sort of why we're not ever watching Meet The Press ever again.
ZUCKERMAN: Honestly, I am going to stare incredulously at Newt and try to stave off an asthma attack. You got to give me some credit, here. This is numbing MY brain. I am really meeting you hippies half way today.
GINGRICH: Basically, the Obama presidency is failed! He'll never have the trust of the public!
[SEX SCENE, to the tune of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah."]
GREGORY: Everyong seriously still loves Obama and approves of what he's doing. And people are still terrified.
ZUCKERMAN: But he hasn't figured out a way to "translate his personal popularity into political credibility and to credibility with Congress."
ME: Uhm. Okay. But is it just idiotic to suggest that this says more about CONGRESS than it does about Obama? I mean, let's look at my favorite example. Obama could not use his personal popularity to get Ben Nelson to consider NOT WEAKENING THE STIMULUS. Ben Nelson did it anyway, for reasons he cannot even explain. And because of this new standard where everything must get 60 votes in the Senate, the numbing politicall hackery of Nelson and his ilk won the day. But let's not confuse them winning the day with them being possessed of clarity or credibility. And duh, now all sorts of observers think we might need a second stimulus. But that Keystone Kops act could have been avoided if we hadn't assumed the need to "translate credibility."
ZUCKERMAN: We need Will Rogers, to do an old timey radio show.
BURNETT: You know, as much as this has been captured as a war on wealth, Obama's been very consistent in acting with his campaign promises. Of course, I work for a network that pimps that war on wealth meme all day, and it's working out great for us!
GREGORY: OMGZ, though! The populism! I have a pointlessly circuitous question about this.
AHAMED: Roosevelt was able to tap into the positive side of populism.
GINGRICH: Obviously, though, Obama's popularity is totally illusory. You've heard this talking point? No? Oh, well. Here you go! And the budget is radical! I'm going to highlight the front-end cost of cap and trade, and ignore the back end reduction! And the language and tone! It's frozen capital! These are radical taxes! AND WHO WILL THINK OF THE METROPOLITAN OPERA?
ZUCKERMAN: Agh. You don't know what you're talking about. This slight tax increase is not a killer. But wow, Obama is trying to do too many things. MUST ONLY WORK ON ECONOMY. Stop all work in all other areas!
ME: Energy policy, healthcare policy, education policy are all connected to the economy, bird-brain.
GREGORY: But Peter Orszag says that health care costs need to be dealt with!
BURNETT: It's strange, though! Why is he doing so many things! It's confusing me! WHO WILL THINK OF OUR OVERSIMPLIFIED METANARRATIVES!
GINGRICH: WHO WILL THINK OF ICELAND.
ME: Iceland has a strong infrastructure, national health care, and a well-educated populace. I think people are going to surprised by how well Iceland recovers....especially since so many of you pundits don't see the connections between education and infrastructure and health care to the economy.
GREGORY: Let me drop a little Thomas Friedman into this discussion!
ME: Gah.
GREGORY: Mr. Gingrich, let me make sure we get all your talking points out there. Let's see. Rahm Emanuel is Haldeman, right?
GINGRICH: Yes. This Emanuel is a monster. "It has to trouble you, to have this level of partisanship, in the chief of staff."
ME: David Gregory. You are going to let NEWT GINGRICH, pretend to be "troubled" by someone else's level of partisanship? The guy who danced the government shutdown tango with Clinton? YOU ARE GOING TO LET HIM SAY THIS STUFF?
GREGORY: I am! Mr, Gingrich, I'm sure you have a tidy and well-rehearsed statement on Rush Limbuagh?
GINGRICH: Yes. He is an interesting radio personality. But not a leader. Leaders include Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin.
GREGORY: Do you want to be President? Do you want to be President?
ME: Well, at least he only asked it two different ways.
[Marauding bears devour the panel, to the tune of Katrina and the Waves "Walking on Sunshine."
FIN.
ARGH. I am going to go wash my brain out, with lye and illegal pharmaceuticals. If any of you have any words of encouragement to steel myself through future weeks of MEET THE PRESS, send them to me in haiku form or something. Have a great week, everyone. (And go outside, if it's nice!)