TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads
Hello and good morning and welcome once again to another one of these Sunday Morning episodes where people on the teevee talk and I sit at home and type and you hopefully sleep and cuddle with someone you love. My name is Jason. Sorry about the abrupt, non-existence of this thing last week! There was a very last minute work-related thing that commanded by involvement. Did I miss anything? Because if one of these shows actually solved all our problems, then I am going to be very sorry I missed it! (Okay, well, not "very" sorry, anyway.)
I do not think that is the case though because if memory serves me correctly this morning there will be "debates" on two of these shows, in which candidates for office forsake their own constituents because they believe that "debating" in front of the Beltway Fun Bunch is something they ought to be doing. I look forward to the day that we have gotten so dystopian that these shows will feature fewer debates and more battles-to-the-death with rusty salad forks.
Speaking of debates, the people have spoken and have overwhelmingly voted against any change to this liveblog's format, preferring to read it in chronological order, which is fine with me. The vast majority of you wanted to keep to the status quo, I think only one or two wanted it changed. I am somewhat baffled by the larger minority of people who wanted neither the old format, nor the new one, who simply voted "Murkowski." I am not sure I can help you with that.
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
Hey, look! It's Bret Baier or however you spell his name? He's going to be Chris Wallace for the day, as they show discusses the upcoming midterm election slaughter-guignol that the GOP is going to hand to the Democrats and the Dems plan to defend themselves, with words. Also, they have "new evidence of a jobless recovery," which is a lot like saying that they have new evidence that water is wet.
But first, Eric Cantor and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (hereafter Debbie WS, for the sake of the fast-typing) are here to yell at each other, neither are lit well. Cantor looks like he's coming to us live from inside a root cellar, and Debbie WS is lit to the point where I worry she might be having her retinae damaged.
Anyway, why should Americans vote for these people? Cantor says that the Democrats have been terrible and mean and unemployment is awful and people hate unemployment and the Dems plans are unpopular and they love debt and the GOP have "positive alternatives" and we need a "new day in Washington" that will solve unemployment. Debbie WS says that the GOP has new plans and that voters will have a choice between the GOP and Dems that have done things to save jobs and improve health care and reform Wall Street (at least as far as anyone actually wanted to that, which is "not much at all") and tax breaks that they promise to pass after the elections, if there are enough of them left to do so. (They also created more private sector jobs than the Bush administration, she says.) Also, keys to the car, ditch, yadda yadda.
But voters apparently don't want to hear about Bush or get told that the economy is getting better, so why are they saying that? Debbie WS says that not everyone knows or cares about the stuff Stan Greenberg and James Carville say. She then basically says that there are some GOP candidates that are crazy and who dress up as Nazis on the weekends, so the voters will prefer the Dems, for sure.
What about the "pledge to America," which GOP candidates just don't really care about? Cantor says that there is "discussion of the pledge in all the races that I'm in." Doesn't that mean that it's only coming up in his race? Cantor also repudiates the dude who dressed as a Nazi on the weekend. He says that not every one of his people does that -- dress as a Nazi on the weekends. There is a rich and varied tradition of cosplay among the Young Guns, who spend each weekend yiffing each other in hotels.
But what about the pledge? Cantor says that it will help to do stuff for social security. He also uses this construction: "What has been happened." We need discussion and "ideas" on the table. And we need to "stop the politics." I really don't understand much of these "words" and "sentences."
Baier very gamely tries to get very specific about the Social Security? Debbie WS says, Eric wants to privatize Social Security. cantor objects. Debbie WS says, "I didn't interrupt you!" But in fairness, she did, about the guy who dresses as a Nazi on the weekends. She says she wants to see what the debt commission comes up with, and now everyone is yelling about who hasn't sat down and met with who. Baier is trying to get this back on track, and now I think he has a dinner date, with Debbie WS?
Moratorium on foreclosures? Debbie WS is very much in favor of it, because Florida has been decimated by them. She says the banks have refused to help out, and actually, the banks hired terrible robots to process foreclosures at light speed and they cocked it up, big time. Eric Cantor, of course, wants all kinds of foreclosures, because what would happen to the banking industry! We need to "get the housing inductry going again," where "going again" means "massively misallocating resources and capital to homes in which no one wants to live, ever."
More yelling at each other, more Bret trying to disentangle it.
Anyway, that's over. Now we will repeat the same exchange with Karl Rove and Joe Trippi. Great.
What does Karl Rove think about all the money he is raising and spending to win elections? Rove says that he isn't walking around with George Soros money, he just, you know, knows seven or eight billionaires with more money than the entire collection of Democratic fundraising organizations who will give him money to people. But he does not PERSONALLY WRITE HIS OWN CHECKS TO PEOPLE. And that hair, having been split, moves on.
Besides, unions are also big spenders, right? Is the focus on spending disingenuous? Trippi says no, this year there's a lot of corporate money and foreign cash funding campaigns. Everyone is just spending spending spending. And the Chamber of Commerce says that in this case, money has somehow become not fungible. Rove says that the whole Chamber accusation is a desperate political ploy. Trippi explains to everyone what "fungibility" is. Rove pretends that money can be "segregated." Let the Chamber be subjected to forensic fund accounting, then!
Anyway, Giannoulias and Kirk. Rove says that the WHite House has been investing a lot of time there, which must mean that Mark Kirk is awesome. How about Murray and Rossi? Trippi says that this is the Dem firewall in the Senate. Charlie Dent versus John Callahan? Trippi says it's a race where a GOP incumbent could go down and there are maybe five or six more, which might impede the House slaughter. The Indiana 9th district? Rove says that it's going to be a bellwether on the whole night, and you should pay attention to see if the Republican fares better than McCain did in 2008.
Rove also likes the GOP's chances in the New Mexico gubernatorial race, because the GOP has been winning, unexpectedly. Trippi chose the Rick Scott-Alex Sink race, because it has "big implications," as far as redistricting goes. He thinks Sink can win, which would be good news, because Rick Scott is a straight up grifter who should be living in the woods in a loincloth, banished from polite society.
And that's that.
Okay, it's panel time, again. And today there's "no good news" in the economy. Fox News Sunday finally cares about this! Anyway, Juan Williams will do battle with three Republicans, Nina Easton, Dana Perino, and Bill Kristol.
Kristol says that the stimulus is terrible and that's the long and short of why the economy is bad because 2008 no longer exists in anyone's minds. Nina Easton is terribly afraid that people might not get kicked out of their homes as fast as she'd like to see, though, oh sure some banks have made some mistakes. Also, it's time to deny people their pensions! Why can't so many Americans do the honorable thing and drown themselves in a bucket, for the sake of the meritocracy?
Dana Perino says something that I missed and that you probably won't care about. Williams says that the foreclosure episode "has become a proxy for Democrats" to front like they care about the middle class, and that maybe the middle class will like them? Just for a month or two? Like us, please? I actually think there is a big opportunity for some political party, to become an organization that cares about the middle class. Or even the lower class! It would be a neat thing to see! Probably that party would be jailed for sedition.
Kristol says the economy is not picking up and the GOP needs to have a "big financial agenda," but the problem is that they do have one and it's very pro-cyclical, so let's get very Lost Decadey, America.
Nina Easton laments partisanship, and says that Social Security needs to be saved by "both parties coming together." To laugh at all the homeless people, I guess! Williams says that Obama has been trying and trying and trying! Perino also wants people thrown out of their homes. (NO ONE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM IS HAPPENING BECAUSE THE BANKS HAVE COCKED UP THE PROCESS ROYALLY AND ARE FORECLOSING ON HOMES THEY DO NOT OWN.)
More of this panel, of people who want Americans to be tossed from the homes en masse, to save the top tier of the economy. Obama has Tom Donilon replacing James Jones as National Security advisor, but in the new Woodward Gossip Book, Jones and Robert Gates hate him! And yet in front of the teevee, they seem to like him, and say that Woodward is lying. SO DEFINITELY LET'S ASK DANA PERINO, ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY. She says that Bill O'Reilly should subject everyone to a body-language expert? She doesn't have much bad things to say about this, but that it's a sudden change and that must mean that the "wheels are coming off the bus," like that time an idiot become the White House Press Secretary!
Easton thinks it's interesting that there is a lot of tension that arises when people from the military talk to people in the press, and she wonders what that tells us, moving forward, and perhaps she can enjoy finding out by laying back and using some newly homeless people as settees. Kristol doesn't have beef with Donilon, but is entertained by the senior staff leaving the White House, which means turmoil, but isn't a bad thing, because it gives them a fresh start after the election.
Williams and Baier then have a few moments of irony in which they talk about how there are some big issues that would be more worth talking about than White House turnover, but then Dana Perino and Bill Kristol prove through the noises emanating from their faceholes that discussions on any issue of merit are an expense of spirit and a waste of shame.
THIS WEEK WITH CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR
We are going Inside North Korea and Inside COnnecticut, to unravel these shadowy cultures of strange human beings. Plus there will be a defense of European austerity. And Pervez Musharraf will yell at us! And there will be a panel! And everyone gets a trip to Australia!
But, what's the hap in Pyongyang? Oh, nuthin'. Just big ass military parades with skipping soldiers and starving paupers waving pom poms. BUT THIS GENERAL DUDE? He totally saluted Kim Jong Il's son! And Bob Woodruff (nice to see him, by the way!) says that this is a sign that a transition is happening. Also, Kim Jong Il is limping. And his son likes basketball, and will maybe try to kidnap Michael Jordan, and force him to be in a North Korean remake of SPACE JAM. (Which would probably be pretty awesome, am I right? Were it not for all of the EVIL?)
Anyway, back to America, specifically Connecticut, and their Senate race between Mark Blumenthal and Linda McMahon.
Well, what would McMahon cut from the budget to save money? She says that she will not be specific, because that would be stupid, but maybe a 10% cut cost across the board? But the big issues that cause most of the spending are defense and entitlements, as Amanpour points out. McMahon, who has learned that whole "I am going to dodge your question and answer one that's more to my liking" says that she will support a Federal hiring freeze and use the stimulus money to pay down the debt. So, there will not be a big dent made in the problem.
We then get a litany of crazy sexist scenes from the WWE, and Amanpour asks what it's like for her to watch her husband force a woman to bark like a dog. She says that now the content is more family-friendly, which doesn't answer the whole, "How does it make you feel?" question. She believes in the First Amendment, and thinks that the WWE's women are "strong" and empowered, when they are forced to bark like dogs.
Meanwhile, Richard Blumenthal says that he is a trusted voice in COnnecticut. But if that's true, why is he running so close in the polls to McMahon. Blumenthal says that it's because McMahon can afford to spend a lot of money on ads, many of which talk about that time Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam.
How badly has that hurt him, Amanpour asks. Blumenthal says he answered the question and that Connecticut voters have moved past that. But that doesn't answer the whole, "how badly has that hurt him" question, because it's obviously hurt him. But Blumenthal says he's happy to run as an underdog against someone who has lied about creating jobs and who has "mistreated" people.
Speaking only for myself, I'd rather not run "as an underdog" against such a person. I'd rather run as the person who is crushing that person by thirty points. But we each have our own path. Richard Blumenthal is on a path of his own, right now. Hopefully he will take note of the fact that it does not go through Vietnam!
Back to McMahon, who says that while many people might find it "hokey" to say they've lived the American Dream, she has, because she can afford to put up $16 million in teevee advertising attesting to that fact.
But we're moving on, to talk about unemployment, and the austerity measures being taken in Europe. So now, here's Christine LeGarde to answer to whether austerity will cripple global growth. This show is moving very wildly, today!
LeGarde says that the public deficit must be reduced because the people will experience "l'ennui" and will have "le preoccupation" with "le savings" and will not indulge in "le depenses" on "la berets" and "le croissants" and trips "a la piscine" and then "ooh, la, la" the "economie" will be "merde." But American economists disagree, says Amanpour. "Some of them," says LeGarde. "BUT THE GOOD ONES, CHRISTINE," says Amanpour, think that stimulus is necessary. LeGarde disagrees and says "her numbers" say otherwise, but it seems like she's saying the opposite -- stimulus worked, but "why would I continue" to do that.
LeGarde says that France and other nations are going to get through this okay because of a strong social safety net of "shock absorbers" that have kept people from falling off an economic cliff. Also, European nations have instituted a tax on certain banking transactions. Both of those things are, of course, anathema in America, where we have people largely underwritten by farm subsidies and other government handouts pretend that they are the paragon of Galtian self-actualization, and shame on all the shiftless people who cannot find work at a time where there are five job seekers for every single job opening.
Amanpour pulls LeGarde's appearance in the movie INSIDE JOB, and asks her what can be done to prevent another Lehman Brothers. She says that in Europe, they've tried to impose regulationa and discipline, but that it's a "constant job" or watchdogging, because the financial institutions very fluidly change their game. "We don't want to but a straitjacket on every thing they do, but we need to put them under supervision and we need to set rules and regulations, that if they violate such rules and regulations, they are really hammered. And that's what's needed." Hey! Hear, hear!
Can France withstand the protests against austerity? LeGarde says that it's necessary to increase the retirement age to fix the system and preserve things like those "shock absorbers" for a future generation. She points out that longevity has increased by an average of sixteen years.
LeGarde also says that women, rising in the ranks of business, are changing that culture for the better. So that's bad news for Richard Blumenthal, I guess!
And we jump again! This time to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where there has been a serious flareup in tensions. In North Waziristan, deeply embedded and secretive terror networks live and train outside of the reach of government, and the difficult reach makes drone attacks the favored option of the U.S. coalition, and these attacks have very destructive side effects. Subsequently, it's become a zone of misrule. And former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is apparently not very happy with what's going on, today. So he's here to talk about it, from London, the site of his "self-imposed exile."
Amanpour asks about the accusations the U.S. has levelled against Pakistan, that they have not done enough to combat the militants in their country. Musharraf says that Pakistan has done enough. Amanpour counters that this doesn't seem to be the case in North Waziristan. Musharraf says that North Waziristan is its own problem, and he'd prefer that the United States engage on that issue, rather than generalizing about the entire Pakistani effort. So, I guess, we should write a report titled, "OKAY PERVEZ YOU ALL SPECIFICALLY SUCK IN NORTH WAZIRISTAN."
And they also specifically suck in that their intelligence agency, the ISI, continues to "provide sustenance" to al Qaeda, something that I am honestly surprised DOES NOT COME UP EVERY BLESSED DAY. Amanpour brings it up, and Musharraf takes "very strong exception" to the characterization. But he doesn't really answer the question, instead he says that he was always in favor of striking deals with moderates, and that effort continues, but, uhm...al Qaeda, do they have "moderates?"
But Pakistanis have a "deeply unfavorable view" of the United States despite the billions of dollars we've pumped into the country, which is maybe offset by all of the ordinance, that is exploding every day, next to Pakistanis? Musharraf says there is a "lack of understanding on both sides of on the ground realities."
Musharraf may go back and contest the election and make a political comeback because he understands the "on the ground realities," from London. He has to "create an environment of political clout" however, before he goes back.
And, commercial! I'm almost out of breath!
Okay, Panel Time, with George Will and Paul Krugman and Amy Walter and Tavis Smiley.
Wow! She tosses the first question to Walter?! The George Will protocol has been broken! Anyway, yes, Walter say, that guy in Ohio who does Nazi-themed cosplay is weird.
What is going on with Christine O'Donnell? Why does she need to say "I'm you?" Will says that it's because she said crazy things on the teevee. But the Tea Party force is a "net benefit" to the GOP at this point that the Democrats can "only envy." I think that changes after the election! And Tavis Smiley agrees with me. He goes on to say that their angst has not been met with sensible candidates and coherent tactics. Krugman says that they help the GOP win elections, but detracts from their ability to govern -- see also: Mike Castle.
Will thinks that the Tea Party will "instill a skepticism of big government" and that's a good thing. It's also not a new thing, and it's also not so much being instilled in people as it is a people for whom it has already been instilled talking about it very loudly, just like they did when FDR and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton were president. Will is also very aggrieved at five Democratic Senators who say in ads that they voted against TARP when they hadn't even been around in 2008 to vote for it -- but that is something that people on both sides do, and while it's dumb and misleading, it is not the same thing as being pathologically unable to govern coherently, and Krugman points this out.
Walter makes a better point, that the real story here is that Independent voters are up for graps and moving away from Democrats (probably because they and the people they care about are unemployed!). The "Tea Party" people are, to the Democrats, what is known as a "sunk cost": they were never going to vote Democrat, ever. It's just to the Dems misfortune that they can't get their own base to give a crap about voting in the midterms. This is a historic problem that the Democrats have had and have frankly not demonstrated much of interest in solving, in the pre- and post-Howard Dean at the DNC era, anyway. (It doesn't help when the White House blames their base for all their problems, anyway.)
Campaign finance! Will says it's no big deal, people are just upset that the GOP is spending money. Smiley says the system is broken and Democrats have not honored their commitments, and the bottom line is that people have the right to know who is spending what money to influence elections.
Are Americans concerned about deficits, Walter says it's a part of what bothers them but it's not the biggest issue in the world for them. Paul Krugman says that contra LeGarde, unemployment is going up in France. Will and Krugman briefly spat over whether Reagan was awesome. I'll give you three guesses what side each man was on.
MEET THE PRESS
This is how stupid MEET THE PRESS is. They are "kicking off" their "Senate debate series," with just a few weeks left before the election. Sounds like a pretty extensive series! So comprehensive! I'm sure you'll get to all the key races. Anyway, today, Alexi Giannoulias and Mark Kirk will yell at each other. And the winner will get to choose either Joe Klein or Peggy Noonan to mate with and create a master race of windbags!
Okay, let slip the dogs of yammering! For a "Meet The Press" style debate! Three dudes, flappin' gums at a bakelite table, like our Founders intended. And first, let's define the change that's come to America since 2009? AG says that Obama inherited a mess from the Bush administration, so DRINK. And the country is better off. BY THE WAY, MARK KIRK VOTED FOR TARP!
MK says that the change has been super big debts! David Gregory probably just lactated! But he holds it together and asks if he wants to stand behind his party's debt-crazy ways, and he says that he won't and he opposes earmarks, which are a drop in the ocean, as far as structural debts go.
MK says the stimulus failed, so DRINK. And the Congress has been anti-business, the way they want to regulate banks so that they don't destroy the economy and oil companies so that they don't destroy the Gulf of Mexico. AG says that he is an OUTSIDER who is from the PRIVATE SECTOR who doesn't have a BELTWAY MENTALITY. But how will he create jobs? Through platitudes? He says that he will find ways to increase liquidity and give banks access to capital and promote green jobs. He says that he is "for stimulus" is "Stimulus" means "tax cuts," which aren't the "stimulating" part of the "stimulus" because it's money that people "saved" or "paid down dept with."
Mark Kirk does not want to increase taxes on the rich, preferring to add $4 trillion to the debt. And he just called himself a fiscal hawk! And WOW, David Gregory is feeling me today! He seems to be taking up this issue. It is a rare thing that Gregory rises to my level, which is amazing, because let's face it, I make it pretty easy. Most yeasts rise to my level.
Essentially, DG hammers MK for flipping on the tax cuts, when before he said we couldn't afford to make the tax cuts permanent. Kirk says that if everyone was as restrained in terms of spending as he was, there wouldn't be the need to worry about raising taxes. (But he's spending $4 trillion by not rolling them back!)
AG says, "saying you are a fiscal hawk doesn't make it true," and wants to know what country he's going to borrow $700 billion from. Kirk says that he will cut $700 billion through spending cuts. Mots of the time, you get a litany of junk that adds up to a sliver of cuts, and Kirk is no different: base closings (that his colleagues will oppose). Also, he says he'll give Obama a line-item veto, which I believe has already been declared unconstitutional and beyond that -- with the GOP taking over at least one house of Congress, how awesome would it be for Obama to get a line-item veto? That's why I dismiss that talk out of hand.
But what would Alexi Giannoulias cut? He says he would have voted against the omnibus spending bill. But Gregory wants him to get rid of Social Security, so what would he do? He says he'll wait for the deficit commission to come up with a plan. In fairness, THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DEFICIT COMMISSION -- to give politicians political cover, so they don't have to explain to their constituents what they would do to entitlement programs if they don't want to. It's a pretty good scam, when you think about it!
MK will repeal the health care reform act and will replace it with something that does tort reform that's already been done in 45 states and the across-state-lines plan that will have every insurance company moving to whatever state will let them get away with the worst coverage. Will Giannoulias "run on health care?" Uhm, sort of? He's happy about the whole pre-existing conditions thing, and he likes the bending the cost curve stuff, and he's happy about the efficiencies that will level Medicare costs. Mark Kirk is upset at the Medicare cuts, at least for the period of time that this debate takes. If elected, he will probably be pro-Medicare cuts, because that is a traditional plank of the GOP platform.
Giannoulias is asked about the terrible bank his family owned. He says he left the bank in 2005 but took a big tax break based on work he did in 2006, which was the year the bank got into some shady deals. AG says that he left the bank in 2005, doing day-to-day operations. And he's paid taxes. And the bank was awesome, it was like that one in Bedford Falls and stuff! But why did he tell the IRS he worked there in 2006? Uhm...because he left day-to-day operations in 2005, but apparently worked in some other way in 2006. Outside of our concept of the "day." In 2006, Giannoulias was breaking new ground in metaphysical banking.
And I'm sorry but this is just painful. AG is asked, did you know you were lending money to people involved in criminal activity. He answers, "We didn't know the extent of that activity." So: he was aware, but he thought it would only be a little criminality. You know, just a dash. To spice things up! Kirk has a sheet of paper listing all of the mobsters that the bank bankrolled. AG says that Kirk just doesn't understand the "private sector."
Now they are fighting over this, and AG says MK is lying and MK is saying AG is a terrible banker.
After we come back, I think Kirk is going to get his turn.
Okay, so Mark Kirk, he likes to lie, elaborately, about his military record, because he doesn't understand that it's easy to check on these things in 2010. Kirk says that he made mistakes and was careless and he learned a humbling lesson about accountability. Basically, his take is: Now that I've been caught lying, I have learned that lying is wrong. It was okay to lie, for a long time, but now that he's running for Senate and not Congress, it's important to learn this lesson.
Now Gregory seems to be very mad at Alexi Giannoulias for calling Kirk a liar in ads, but I don't understand why this is a cause for alarm. Calling Mark Kirk a liar is like calling a duck a "duck." But David Gregory is a weak-willed mouther of political twaddle who obviously prefers to use words like "exaggerates." It is just not polite to use words like "lie!" And so now, the fact that Giannoulias accurately called a liar a liar is made out to be as equally bad as the actual lying because OH MY STARS AND GARTERS YOU HAVE INFLAMMED DAVID GREGORY'S SENSE OF PROPRIETY!
AG points out that Kirk likes to vote one way on issues and then tell Illinois voters that he'll stop voting that way.
MEET THE PRESS has a huge awesome partnership with Facebook, and it yields forth a single question, and a very tired one, "Name a way you bucked your party." MK likes stem cell research, AG hates TARP, of course, TARP was something that Hank Paulson did, so he's bucking Hank Paulson.
And so that's Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias, currently running one of America's most "That's Your Boyfriend" Senate races.
Now, let's see if I can get through this meeting of the minds: David Gregory, Joe Klein, and Peggy Noonan, without needing to put by brain on dialysis.
Joe Klein points out what I already pointed out about the whole "I didn't know the whole extent" of the criminals banking at Alexi Giannoulias' bank. It's just a marvel that Gregory didn't notice it!
Peggy Noonan is TERRIBLY AFFLICTED WITH THE VAPORS by the way everyone is so negative! Can't they see that the country is in CRISIS!
Joe Klein says that people are FREAKED OUT and PANICKED and want to hear REAL IDEAS!
More good news, everyone: it seems that in October 2010, Joe Klein is just about up to speed with what happened in 2008, when the economy died and all the jobs went to job heaven. Noonan says there is a "new soberness," which makes very little sense, considering the people who destroyed the economy have been allowed to go right back to doing the same old thing. I mean: on to next bubble, America.
David Gregory has a Google Map of everywhere Joe Klein went to discover that Obama is respected but not admired and that the President is "floating over the debate." He says that people are slowly coming around on the stimulus and starting to come around on the auto bailout. Noonan says that the president has "offpointedness." And that the GOP isn't very much trusted, either. And that's part of the "sadness," in America.
Basically, it seems that at MEET THE PRESS today, for the very first time, people in the media are confronting the possiblility that there is a disconnect between the priorities that are upheld in Washington and obsessed about on teevee, and the needs, wants, desires, and aspirations of actual Americans. And this is fascinating! Because who knew?
Anyway, Noonan says the results of the election are already baked in and not changing. Klein says that Americans want the government to pass job programs, and they don't care about deficits, at all. GAH, SEE MY VERY LAST POINT! I bet Klein's astounding revelation will vanish from the set of MEET THE PRESS as quickly as a fart.
Next week: Meet The press will have a debate between Michael Bennet and Ken Buck that will not be informed by any of the insights that have been belatedly achieved today on this show! GOD CAN YOU TASTE THE ELECTION FEVER!
Anyway, that is that, and I am you, so long as YOU = SOMEONE WHO HATES THESE SHOWS AND WANTS TO GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES. So, I'm out! You all have a great week! And thanks so much for the feedback on liveblog formatting you gave me two weeks ago! That was very, very kind of you.
[More liveblog is to come! If you're bored and need something right now, go check out my friend Amanda's music blog, Pinna Storm, why not?]