03/26/2010 05:12 am ET Updated May 25, 2011

TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads

Good morning and welcome...finally! your Sunday Morning Liveblog. My name is Jason and my wifi is functioning slightly better than the Martha Coakley campaign, it seems. But, all appears to be well now, so we're just going to forge ahead and hope for the best. I think the theme of the week has very nicely lent itself to a series of five jokes that Get Your War On author David Rees has up, on of which goes like this:

A member of the House Democratic Caucus goes to the doctor. The doctor says, "I have bad news and good news. The bad news is you have a broken foot. The good news is, you're a congressman, which means you have health insurance, which means you'll be able to get treatment without going totally bankrupt, unlike many of your constituents, who you are actively betraying by thinking only of your electoral prospects. And also," the doctor continued, "I can't believe you actually broke your foot by jumping off a bridge just because a Republican told you to. What kind of spineless loser are you? Get out of my office. I can't stand to look at you."

Exquisite! The rest are here. You should feel free to check those out. Also, you can leave me a comment, or send me an email. You can also follow me on Twitter, if you want my opinions on Project Runway. I have many! And of the Lifetime Channel. Did you know that Thora Birch is going to star in a movie based on those pregancy-pact teens? This is a real thing, happening in, and to, our culture!

Anyway, let's begin.


Today, we'll have Robert Gibbs, gettin' busy. And John Cornyn. So, right about now, you probably wish you were me, instead of someone sleeping through this.

Gibbs is asked if he has the sixty votes to get Bernanke re-upped at the Fed. Gibbs captures retaining Bernanke as a move that will ensure "stability." The problem there is that he just shows no interest in helping to solve the unemployment crisis, which is sort of what you'd expect from someone at the Fed who's probably deep-down at odds with the concept of Obama getting re-elected as president.

Gibbs says that what Wallace calls "bashing the banks" the White House calls getting taxpayer money recouped and putting regulation in place to ensure that it won't happen again (or at least make the amoral geniuses spent a week or so defeating regulation.) Glass-Steagall, baby, it's what should be for dinner!

Oh, wow! The State of the Union is Wednesday night! Gibbs says, "What you're going to hear from the President is the same thing you've heard from him over the past two years." Is the theme going to be, "HIllary Clinton: She's Likable Enough?" No, it will be "BLAH: SPECIAL INTERESTS (at least the ones we aren't working with hand in hane to pass health care reform.)"

Gibbs says health care is popular and it's popular in Massachusetts, and that the only difference between the Obama plan (which is more like "The Senate Plan") is that it includes costs controls.

The main thrust of the SOTU is going to be jobs and the economy. Wallace wants to know if a jobs package is going to do more than run up the deficit. Gibbs says that the stimulus is actually a good thing, and that economic growth happened last quarter. Wallace hits on the same old, "Why do you keep losing jobs...why did you say unemployment was going to be 8%." I think the White House would have been well-served to just say, "Yeah, that 8% prediction was wrong. We were wrong." But most of Wallace's argument is basically: "Why couldn't you make everything perfect, in a year's time."

This seems like a good point to encourage you to read this:

Hey you, come here. I need you to do me a favor. Hold on to this bag for a little bit, okay?

Well, yeah, it is on fire. Funny story about that, I'll tell it to you some time.

In it? Well--and get ready to laugh, this is pretty great--I filled it full of shit. Yep, shit. This, my friend, is a flaming bag of shit, and you're holding it.

Why? You're holding a flaming bag of shit and you're asking me why I filled it full of shit and set it on fire? I was you I'd be figuring out a way to extinguish it rather than doing some kind of, what do you call it, searching moral inventory on how the bag came to be full of shit and set ablaze. Lemme tell you something, kid, I've been around a while: People don't care why the bag is full of shit and on fire. They just want you to put it out. All these questions: Why did you fill the bag full of shit? Why on earth would you set it on fire? Why am I not helping you put it out? Nobody gives a fuck. You're holding the bag. You took it from me. You put it out.

Why did the voters put Scott Brown in office? Gibbs has made the case all week that it was part of a tidal wave of "anger and frustration." (DRINK EVERYTIME YOU HEAR "ANGER AND FRUSTRATION.") Wallace says the Brown had some clear points of divergence with Obama policy. Gibbs responds with something that sounds so dumb to me that I can't understand it: According to some poll, "More people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him." Uhm...that sounds like a poll I'd have to take a look at. I think that probably, the internals show that Massachusetts voters still like Obama personally and what not. I'd be surprised if deep down, Massachusetts voters had strong divergences with Obama policy. But to suggest that people were animated to vote for Scott Brown because of their support for Obama seems to be a little mental.

Wallace asks, "You're not suggesting that this indicates a mandate for Barack Obama?"

Gibbs says, in so many words, "No, but yes...uhm, anger?" Then he says "anger and dis-satisfaction." Drink, anyway!

David Plouffe is coming back, to help with the 2010 elections. Also back: Osama bin Laden, dropping off a new mix tape. Gibbs says, "The reason he pops up on an audio tape is because he's a cowardly, murderous, thug who will hopefully soon be brought to justice."

Gibbs also says that Abdulmutallab was interrogated, and that valuable intelligence was obtained. Wallace seems to not understand that questioning can investigations can continue after Miranda rights are given.

Now it's time for Ponce Cowboy John Cornyn. Cornyn calls Bernanke a "brilliant and honorable man" who nevertheless presided over failure, and so he'll vote against his confirmation. Warren Buffett feels otherwise, and Wallace warns that "voting Bernanke down will send shock waves through the market." Cornyn says that the stock market will fall because of the announced banking plan. I think it would be great if they tossed Bernanke solely on the basis of making Time magazine and Rick Stengel look stupid.

Cornyn offers al Qaeda some boosterism, calling them "criminal masterminds." You know, like Lex Luthor, always exploding his balls!

Cornyn says the "message" of Scott Brown is "starting over" on health care. He says the political repercussions of reconciliation will make "November of 2010...good for us." But also, health care will be passed. Cornyn says that the GOP wants "a seat at the table," not "unconditional surrender."

It's weird to hear Cornyn advise the White House against making the next year all about political tactics and not policy, since his caucus has done nothing for the past 365 days that could be called "policy" or not be called "political tactics."

Cornyn also says that the he does not expect a rush of corporate dollars into federal campaigns, not that corporations are allowed to flood campaigns with money, which is, as they say, a weird bit of denialism.

Okay, panel time! And it's the standard issue panel, today: Hume, Liasson, Kristol and Williams.

What's going on with Bernanke? Hume says that there's a "dissatisfaction with the economy" and it's falling on Bernanke's head. "The pitchforks are out!" Liasson notes that no one is going to lead a filibuster against him, so this opposition is, on some level, part of the drama, where people seize a little bit of the populist mantle without having to carry it the whole way.

Kristol says that criticisms of Bernanke are legitimate, and that it's not "populist demagoguery" to kick him out. "He failed at the chief job of a central banker" -- predicting the crisis ahead of time. Williams hits Bernanke for not doing anything to boost employment, which, to my mind, is the best reason to dump him. Also, that stuff about Time magazine. But that runs second. And I like Bernanke, personally! He came to see a production of Vaclav Havel's The Memorandum that I was in, and after he came we sold out the rest of the run. So, he does have a bit of the Midas touch, in purely limited ways.

Yes! Benjamin Bernanke came to see a Vaclav Havel play! This will never, ever, stop amazing me, really! It will amaze me again next week!

Wallace notes that Paul Volcker has lately been ascendant, but Kristol doesn't think the banking reforms are "serious policymaking," because there's no "white paper" on the White House's website, underpinning them.

Meanwhile, Obama is using the word "fight" more (drink!), also "anger and frustration." Williams says there will be more of this "outside game" stuff, where Obama campaigns for what he wants out in the country, where the populism lives. Think "Where The Wild Things Are" except with David Plouffe. Hume says, "It won't work at all" because "Massachusetts doesn't like the policy." "Healthcare," he says, :"was never anybody's priority." Not even for sick people! They are free to crawl off into the woods to die.

Hume says Obama should "pull a Clinton," and make a "major agonizing re-assessment."

Liasson says that Massachusetts was an indictment of the Democrats failure to pass their signature initiative over a full year.

(I just sort of think that Scott Brown treated the Massachusetts voters with a great deal of respect and affection, and that Martha Coakley treated them like a group of people she couldn't be bothered with meeting, trusting in machine politics to deliver the votes. But people are out of work, everywhere, and nuts to anybody in the world who thinks that America should just shut up and give them a job.)

Anyway, Kristol and Williams are fighting with each other. YAMMER YAMMER. Apparently, you can get more of this yammering online, after the show was over. THIS IS WHAT THE INTERWEBS WERE INVENTED FOR.


Today, let's get a little Face The Naysh up in here! Bob Schieffer is going to sort all of this out for us. We got Alternative Universe President John McCain, Dick Durbin, and other people, to talk about EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED, VERY QUICKLY.

We kick it off with ALTPOTUS McCain and Durbin. What's up with this new Osama bin Laden joint? Is the government doing enough to stop terrorism? McCain says that there were significant mistake made where the Christmas Crotchfire attack was concerned. I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the big mistake on that regard this week was rendered by ALTPOTUS, who, it seems, is the last man in America to have found out that the whole "Captain Crotchfire bought a one-way ticket" story was wrong. Of course, bringing that up isn't meant in any way to detract from what I am sure will be a wonderful, hectoring scold from ALTPOTUS.

The Justice Department, ALTPOTUS says, killed any chance that we'll find out where OBL is now that Captain Crotchfire has a lawyer. "That is unbelievable!" Expect, it's totally believable. It's how the criminal justice system works, and has worked, for decades. McCain haz a sad at the "whole Washington game." (BUT PLEASE DON'T VOTE FOR MY NEVER BEEN TO WASHINGTON PRIMARY OPPONENT!)

What about Bernanke? McCain is asked how he will vote, and doesn't answer, saying only that "he's skeptical about his confirmation." Schieffer presses him for an answer, and McCain says he's "both concerned and leaning against." That's the sort of answer you hear from someone who loves ye auld Washington game.

McCain is mad at Roberts and Alito for their "sarcastic coimments" that led to McCain-Feingold getting gutted. He decries their lack of "political experience." This makes me wonder if there was ever a moment where McCain brought this up in their respective confirmations. On that regard, I will have to check. Significant threats to McCain-Feingold should have been anticipated. McCain credits Rehnquist and O'Conner for getting this right, and suggests that their experience in the political arena helped inform them. Could be true: it could also be true that they were just significantly better Supreme Court Justices.

McCain says the health care debate has to start over, and that the GOP has to have a seat at the table, from which they can suggest policies that they will then, ultimately filibuster, unless, of course, Mitch McConnell is just allowed to write the bill.

Dick Durbin says Democrats are "considering their strategy." You know: should they retreat by just backing up, slowly? Or should they just run away, full tilt? So many choices!

Actually, Durbin says it's a serious issue. Schieffer wants to know what would be wrong with starting over, with the GOP? Durbin says that the GOP was engaged in the process, 170 GOP amendments were added to the bill. PLUS THERE WAS THAT WHOLE TERRIBLE GANG OF SIX, THING? Why has everyone forgotten that? Months and months of courting Chuck Grassley, even as Grassley was basically loudly saying to reporters, YES I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT THAT I'M LEADING THEM ON, YET.

As for Ben Bernanke, Durbin is going to vote for him, even though he has "misgivings about his policy" and "unanswered questions." Hopefully, one of those questions will be, "Ben, why do you want to kill our chances of re-election by doing nothing to help the unemployment crisis? Is it because you are a Republican, and you want people to vote for Republicans?"

"I can't wait to see my Republican colleagues, who for years preached against judicial activism, explain the Supreme Court's ruling," Durbin says. They will probably say things like: "AT LAST NORTHROP GRUMMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE!"

Now Nancy Cordes and Jen Crawford are here to talk about things and OH LOOK CBS HAS THEIR OWN LITTLE TRAPEZOID TABLE. It's like a mini-Meet The Press thingy and it is ADORABLE. I don't know why I haven't noticed it before! But I don't care! Cute overload!

Anyway, Scott Brown, he "hit Washington like a thunderbolt!" Cordes points out that Brown's been a bit of a boost for fundraising. Note, Cordes, says, that Brown is a "moderate." Not a Sarah Palin type. "He might be able to make being a moderate cool again." Maybe! I'd love to hear more about that, in the politics version of Tiger Beat (which is Politico's "Click" section).

Crawford says that people will not easily to accept the SCOTUS ruling is bad when the legislators calling it out are so compromised. UHM, HOW ABOUT BOTH THOSE THINGS ARE BAD?

She goes on to point out that there are all sorts of lessons to be had from the Brown election. The GOP should actually legislate, not obstruct, the Obama Administration should not use confetti, more politicians should appear in magazines with their blurred wangs hanging out. I HAVE PREACHED THESE CAUSES, FOR YEARS.

Schieffer has a final thought, which are like Keith Olbermann's special comments, except reasonable? He says that Brown's election has touched off a debate. Schieffer wryly notes the way the media jumps into the post-game a bit ahead of the available evidence, and cites a new, clarifying poll from Massachusetts voters that say while the country had gone off course, they wanted Scott Brown to bridge the divide and work with Democrats on policy, to get GOP ideas into legislation. Schieffer says that his thought is that the vote was more about a statement against a government mired in processes that prevent it from "getting out of their own way." He encourages both sides to work together: "Who knows, they might even like it." I don't think his comparison of the Christmas Crotchfire attack to Hurricane Katrina is particularly smart.

Oh, man! Suddenly I am getting that feeling of "pre-emptive irritation!" I wonder why that's happening, all of the sudden?


We get things started today with Valerie Jarrett. What's up with the new Osama mixtape? Is he finally responding to Jay-Z's "Empire State of Mind?" Jarrett says, no, they haven't even confirmed that it's his voice yet. Is he using Auto-Tune, maybe? If so, remember: OBL still sounds like junk. And, as far as reponses to Jay-Z, the gold standard, is this:

Anyway, what about Ben Bernanke, who allowed the economy to light its crotch on fire. Is he on his way out? Jarrett says the White House is confident that he'll get confirmed, and will continue to be of no help at all in mitigating the unemployment crisis.

So, now, for what's on everybody's mind: the ascendance of President Scott Brown, in accordance with the Mayan Doomsday Calendar. Jarrett says it was a "stunning victory" for Brown, that, to my mind, stunned nobody, really? But Brown can't really claim to be an opponent of the socialized healthcare, because Massachusetts has it. But Obama will continue to fight for health care, whatever health care comes to mean.

OKAY I GUESS IT MEANS THIS: "The people who do not have insurance need insurance. The people who do have insurance are losing it because of preexisting conditions. That the deficit is looming out of control in large part because of health care. And that small businesses are having to choose between laying off people and paying for health care."

None of that "changed as a result of the election," Jarrett says. He's not giving up, he's making phone calls, he's committed to delivering, la dee dah.

David Gregory asks if Obama will fight for health care about 24 more times. Jarrett points out that he's already proven himself willing to work with the GOP, and let them suggest provisions, and add amendments, which they've then voted against and pretended never happened. "And so, the question is really will the Republican Party become-- be willing to come and work with us? A silver lining is Senator Brown said yes, he's looking forward to coming to Washington and working with the Democrats." You maybe have the nominal backing of the least senior member of the GOP caucus if you rewind the tape and search for symbolism in the background noise. Really, good luck with that!

David Gregory says that no one can say the Obama administration has been good on the economy because jobs have been lost on his watch and the economy isn't perfect yet, and the debt is higher. I hate to sound like the hackiest of scolds here, but I'd like to ask David Gregory, who has never made a mistake ever in his life apparently, to just forward to me all of the tapes of him concern trolling over this since the beginning of the 21st century, because one thing that has defined the past decade is that each and every year, job growth consistently came in under where it should have, and every year, the federal debt expanded. You get right on that, NBC!

Jarrett says that this is "a long haul" and that it's not "gonna be repaired in one year." Well, obviously not! But maybe you could also add that you were way off with your employment projections!

What will the administration do to create jobs? First, he'll give "his State of the Union Address this week on Wednesday," which will help print media reporters keep their jobs. He will talk about the "middle class," a lot. They are, "struggling out there...and they're frustrated, they're angry." By Wednesday, they will be taking a drink, everytime you say that!

Anyway, the stimpak saved "thousands and thousands of jobs," mainly "schoolteachers and firemen and teachers" and "policemen," and...uhm, teachers?

Gregory notes that Obama's all CHANGIN' THE TONE and GETTIN' ALL POPULISTIC AND SHIZZ. Jarrett's all: "You should peep his speech at the NASDAQ back in '07, that was straight fire!" I'm not sure why she's bringing that up!

Gregory then plays a tape of Evan Bayh, titled, "Up With Hyper-Timid Bitchassness, by Evan Bayh." For more on that, click here. Jarrett says the president will "continue to fight," and maybe, just maybe, even "start" to fight. Also, Evan Bayh looks like he's going to get challenged for his seat by Mike Pence, so it's too bad that he's spent all year trying to be a pale imitation of Mike Pence, isn't it?

Jarrett says that the White House must do something to change the culture in Washington, maybe by letting a new culture gatecrash Washington at it's next event. Jarrett also says that David Plouffe returning means nothing, DO NOT LOOK AT DAVID PLOUFFE'S RETURN AS ANYTHING REMARKABLE!

And now, representing Humana Health Insurance, we have Mitch McConnell, who wants to "start over" on health care, so that it can be rendered into an even more ineffective marm than it is already. Or maybe he's just doubling down on making sure C-SPAN's cameras capture everything. Hey, I would like more stuff on C-SPAN, too! But let's not pretend it's mission critical, hardly anyone will watch it.

Gregory tries to pin McConnell down on whether there's any part of the current health care legislation they'd keep, because they keep talking as if there's good stuff the GOP would support that's just gotten overwhelmed by stuff the American people don't want. Of course, McConnell cannot name anything or be specific, because he's lying. The thorny facts are these: the bill that the House passed -- the House! -- is chock-a-block with policies that the GOP supports, because the GOP asked for their inclusion, and the Dems included in a spirit of compromise.

But here's McConnell, struggling to dodge the question:

DAVID GREGORY: So, what elements of the President's reform plan would you keep as part of comprehensive health care reform?

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: We'd have to sit down and discuss that. But it's--

DAVID GREGORY: Well, we've been discussing it for months now.

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: Well, the problem is we haven't been a part of the discussion. We've had a number of different ideas. None of which are in the bill.

DAVID GREGORY: How many Republicans were negotiating on the Finance Committee?


DAVID GREGORY: Right. So, weren't they part of the process from the start?

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: Yeah, but-- but it's not just about talking. It's about what you end up with.

Again, I'll point out that there was that whole Max Baucus-led Gang of Six thing that we are now, I guess, pretending never happened?

Asked to tick off the "top three points of the Republican plan" for HCR, McConnell says:


Gregory asks if "universal coverage is a priority," and McConnell points out that the current bill isn't universal. But it's that way only because they've been trying to navigate around getting 60 people on board, and have had to limit the bill's efficacy. And the reason people have been withholding their support for it in polls is because people want a better bill with a public option and so forth. But, McConnell never really answers the question, as to whether universality is a GOP priority, and that's because the answer to that, is no.

McConnell suggests that health care is foundering because the White House has been arrogant in not listening to public opinion. That's true, to an extent, but it's mainly been the White House at odds with the public in that the public prefers a better bill.

McConnell says that the current HCR bill is "finished" but he is not "pronouncing it finished." AND YEAH, RIGHT ABOUT NOW I'M WONDERING WHY THE GOP KEEPS ASKING THIS MAN TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC ON THEIR BEHALF.

More bet-hedging!

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: [Benjamin Bernanke] will have bipartisan support in the Senate. And I would anticipate he'd be confirmed.

DAVID GREGORY: Will you vote for him?

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: He's gonna have bipartisan support.

DAVID GREGORY: But you won't say how you'll vote?

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: I'll let you know in the day or so.

DAVID GREGORY: You have concerns about his re-nomination?

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: He's-- I think he's gonna be confirmed.

DAVID GREGORY: But do you have concerns about his re-nomination?

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: Some of my members do. But I think he's gonna be confirmed.

I don't know how much airtime costs, but that exchange was so worthless that NBC should send McConnell an invoice. Anyway, Bernanke will have "bipartisan support" that may or may not be equal to or greater than the bipartisan opposition. Also, in a few days, after he has voted, you can ask him how he is going to vote. MARK THAT ON YOUR CALENDAR.

McConnell goes on to say that the GOP plan to save jobs is to allow health care costs to spiral out of control and support the enforcement of policies that promote long cycles of economic downturn. He does support the formation of a deficit reduction commission that will get gridlocked and accomplish nothing, because that will take the heat of members to make tough choices and aid in their re-election.

About the only other notable part of this exchange comes when McConnell is asked about the recent SCOTUS decision to turn loose corporations, foreign and domestic, to stage a money-gangbang on all elections, forever. McConnell says it's "an important victory for the first Amendment," which apparently was created to allow organizations to drown out the opinions of actual human beings. "Right now, if you're General Electric and you own NBC, you can say anything you want to about any candidate right up to the day of the election. But if you're a corporation or a union that doesn't own a media outlet, you haven't been able to." BUT THE PRESS IS PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ANYWAY, I THOUGHT? Anyway, that makes very little sense to me. And it's not like McConnell has ever mourned the corporate takeover and consolidation of media before.

Anyway, McConnell says that "if the President wants to govern in the middle, there'll be Republicans there to meet him." Except that it's pretty clear that his concept of "the middle" is nowhere near moderate. If it were, he be admitting that there are, say, ELEVEN THINGS IN THE HOUSE HEALTH CARE BILL THE GOP SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR AND GOT. But McConnell's right: if the election were held today, the GOP would do quite well. But they'll do even better in November after the American people witness the Dems follow people like Evan Bayh on a full retreat from principle.

And then Mike Pence will beat Evan Bayh, in the election. See, this is how it always works: you breed quislings in your opposition, and then defeat those quislings, in elections.

Oh, lordy, it's panel time. Featuring E.J. Dionne, Peggy Noonan, Chuck Todd, and Katty Kay. LET'S DO THIS, AND THEN WATCH FOOTBALL, shall we?

OK. David Gregory! He is excited, about the politics! Especially in the way that people might vote to eat an apple in one instance, and then drink orange juice in another. FROM BREAKFAST TO LUNCH, POP-TARTS HAVE EXPERIENCED A FORTY-ONE POINT SHIFT. Peggy Noonan says, "AHH ME, THE CENTRISMS, WHEREFORE ART THEY" Also, "America never stops being dynamic."

Dionne notes that Obama is losing the base, as well as independent voters. Because all of them wanted effective health care reform, with a public option, maybe?

Now we get to the point of the show where MEET THE PRESS just pimps for Jon Meacham's magazine...I can't remember what it's called..."Cracked," I think? "Juggs?" Anyway, Obama has been terrible to the juggs.

Also, the Politico said something about "the big bang?" And now Chuck Todd is talking about how "odd it is that they have a message problem" when they're "out there all the time." Also, people have lost faith in institutions? And Todd thinks that Obama is going to struggle to "run against his own Congress?" One institution I've lost faith in, lately, is Chuck Todd's ability to form a coherent paragraph of thought.

Noonan says, "There is no right magical way," to talk, thus refuting her own existence. She, by the way, would go on and on and on and on if Gregory did not cut her off, which he does, in the bravest act of journalism this show has managed under his tenure.

Dionne is the last man in America to make the "GOP Superminority" joke.

Todd seems to think that Dems have lost focus on the fact that health care is connected to the economy...but that's why they are fixing it in the first place? What?

And now they are showing an old tape of E.J. Dionne talking about health care, back in 1994, apparently because this show is proud of the fact that they've not even attempted to do anything different for 15 years? Or maybe it was important to play "GOTCHA" with Dionne?

DRINK! Noonan says that "America is a center right country!" (This center right country, by the way, really wanted a "public option.")

Dick Armey says that the Dick Army (aka Tea Partiers) are the "center," and everyone laughs. Chuck Todd says that now when senators and Congressmen bring back pork to their home districts, they are on the defensive instead of bragging. And I do not really think that is true, either, because it would be easy enough to either a) not request earmarks or b) just not brag about them.

"Burrowing, gouging out, mining, penetrating, perforating, piercing, pitting, pricking, punching, puncturing, reaming, riddling, sinking, tunnelling." These are all synonyms for "boring," just not for the definition of "boring" that I am most feeling right now.

Anyway, Noonan would like health care bills to be "small and discrete," like her household servants.

And now, seriously, this show is showing highlights of itself! What a weird show this is! I mean, isn't this a news show?

Anyway, everyone get ready for STATE OF THE UNION WEDNESDAY, which will not interfere with the premiere of LOST in any way, thanks to the intense lobbying of Disney, or something! Enjoy what little of your coming week that you can!