Election Central Sunday Roundup
Illinois Lt. Gov.: We Can Have Blago Out Before Feb. 12
Appearing today on Face The Nation, Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn predicted that the state legislature could successfully impeach and remove Rod Blagojevich before Lincoln's 200th birthday on February 12. He also said that while he hopes they can have a special election to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, it would not take place before June.
Obama Speaks To Condoleezza Rice About Israel
Barack Obama had an eight-minute phone call with Condoleezza Rice, monitoring the situation in Israel and Gaza. However, an Obama spokesperson was careful to note that "there is one president at a time."
Caroline To NYT: "I Thought You Were The Crack Political Team"
In an interview with the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy became somewhat annoyed when asked to describe the moment when she decided to seek Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. "Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman's magazine or something?" said Kennedy. "I thought you were the crack political team."
Gibbs: Obama "Wants And Expects" Disagreement Within His Administration
In an interview with ABC News, incoming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to the idea that Obama's politically diverse cabinet could lead to serious internal divisions. "I think the far greater risk is assembling a group of people that whenever the president opens their mouth they all nod their heads in agreement," said Gibbs, adding that Obama "wants and expects there to be disagreement within that room," with Obama making the final decisions.
Axelrod On Rick Warren Pick: We Have To Find Ways To Work Together
In an appearance on Meet The Press, David Axelrod defended the selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inaugural. "You have a conservative evangelical pastor who's coming to participate in the inauguration of a progressive president," said Axelrod. "This is a healthy thing and a good thing for our country. We have to find ways to work together on the things on which we do agree, even when we profoundly disagree on other things."
Laura Bush: The Shoe-Thrower Shows That Iraqis Are Now Much Freer
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she was offended at the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at the president, but also looked on the bright side. "As bad as the incident is, in my view, it is a sign that Iraqis feel a lot freer to express themselves," said Mrs. Bush.
Laura Bush: The Bush Presidency Was Not A Failure
Also in her Fox News interview, Laura Bush rebutted the charge that her husband's administration was a failure. "I know it's not, and so I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way," said Mrs. Bush. "I think history will judge and we'll see later."
Poll: FDR Edges Out Reagan As Better President
As a further sign that the country appears to be taking a real turn to the left, a new Rasmussen poll pitted Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan against each other in a two-man race, asking respondent who was the better president. The numbers: Roosevelt 45%, Reagan 40%, with a ±3% margin of error.
I'm indifferent to who Paterson appoints, but that Kennedy story is hilarious. I wish more politicians would call out the "serious journalists" for the gossip rag crap. Obama is doing it some, but even he resists outright ridicule.
December 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
About time someone told the MSM what the public thinks of their new content. I'd say she just proved she has what it takes to handle the job.
December 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The conflict with Hamas is beyond complex. I can understand Israel's frustration, but they clearly overreacted. I can't understand why these two countries can't come to some long term agreement that would avert anymore bloodshed?
December 28, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because there are people on both sides who insist that it is a religious conflict. The secular government of Israel and the secularists in Fatah could and would have cut a deal years ago if not for that. But you can't compromise with the other side when you're getting your orders directly from God and your authority is scripture.
December 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In an interview with the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy became somewhat annoyed when asked to describe the moment when she decided to seek Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. "Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman's magazine or something?" said Kennedy. "I thought you were the crack political team."
*Scratches head*
Although Kennedy is asking here precisely the sort of question I've been wanting someone to ask our major media source for some time, that's... actually a pretty legitimate question that the NYT asked her in the first place. Actually it's extremely relevant and I'd like to know the answer.
What is this person's motivation in politics, her motivation in entering politics? What drives her? Why does she want this seat? These are the most basic things you can ask of any candidate for high office.
December 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the New York Times article (surprise, surprise) misconstrued the nature of the question. The actual transcript reads:
That's not the same thing as being "asked to describe the moment when she decided to seek Hillary Clinton's Senate seat," it's a question about her marital relationship, but of course, the Times' commitment to accuracy has been a punchline for years now.
December 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. She was being asked to tell a story about her emotions. I hate that crap, even with sports questions: "What was going through your mind when you caught that touchdown? How did you feel abou it?"
Even in its paraphrased form, there's an implicit assumption that the decision was made in a moment.
Way to go, CK. Snappy answers to stupid questions. Very refreshing in a politician. I hope to see a bit of that from Al Franken :-)
December 28, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snappy answers to stupid questions.
Now if she would just deign to provide some snappy answers – or any answers at all, really – to questions about her positions on policies important to New Yorkers.
December 28, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The history the Bush White House is trying to whitewash, Laura? Bush has been a disaster for the country and sticking your head in the ground and pretending anything difference is the only thing you can do to cope with it.
The problem with the media is if you try and fight them, you'll lose. There is a story on the yahoo mainpage where Obama is growing more and more frustrated with the "presidential bubble" especially the constant media pool coverage. Why does the President need a media pool when taking his daughters to the theme park or when going to get a haircut? I guess folks will say what they say to most folks who complain about the paparazzi - he liked the coverage when it benefitted him, he liked being on ET and on the front of all of the magazines - he's essentially a pop culture figure now.
December 28, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh yeah, I read that Politico article. It was their typical substance-free, psychoanalysis-via-fiction hack job. It sounds like Obama is trying to enjoy some quasi-normal time with his kids before he becomes president. I wouldn't put too much stock in Politico's "analysis."
December 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Followed, inevitably, by the typical staggeringly stupid whack-job comments that tell you all you need to know about the devoted fans of Politico.
December 28, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You read the comments?
December 28, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I started innocently enough, reading cranky letters in the local paper about forced annexation and complaints about secularists forcing prayer out of city council meetings. Then I started reading letters at Salon and they seemed okay. Next thing I knew, I'd dropped into the seamy world of comments at network news websites and, before I knew it, I was reading the really, really hardcore stupidity at Politico and, greatest shame of all, Hillaryis44.org.
But, hey, I can quit any time I want. Really.
December 28, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah...that's how I feel too. The journalism practically everywhere is so bad that I pay more attention to the comments than the articles. At the mixture of gross stupidity and arrogance can be amusing sometimes.
December 29, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really amazed that the major news sites feel a need to have a comments section. You would think they wouldn't want to provide a platform for blatant racism, especially as they constantly bemoan the "angry commenters" on liberal blogs, but hey, that's the MSM for you.
December 29, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's OBVIOUS FDR was a better President than Reagen, that vote probably split along ideological lines but some of the programs FDR has implemented are used 70 YEARS LATER.
P.S. O plans on usurping them both. YEAHHHHHH
December 28, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan's standing will decline as his cult of personality dies off. Historians will not look kindly on his legacy, which culminated in the disaster of the Bush years.
December 28, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also keep in mind most people don't even remember who FDR is. So yeah, this is a no contest. Especially considering what some of Reagan's ideology is doing to the country now.
That being said he was a transformational picture and a pretty good Prez.
December 28, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
figure
December 28, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes.
I gotta say, Eric: you can call me a glass-half-empty guy, but to me the very idea that Ronnie freakin' Reagan could poll anywhere in the ballpark with FDR is a sign of how successful the stupid right has been in promoting both right-ism and stupidity.
FDR is in a class with Washington, Lincoln, and, if you want to stretch things, Jackson, in both historical significance and personal greatness. Saint Ronnie by any objective standard stands at least two tiers below.
One man, for all his many flaws, arguably helped save the US Constitution and American Capitalism, helped create the modern welfare state, and was instrumental in defeating history's most destructive tyranny; materially improving the lives of hundreds of millions, billions maybe. The other took credit for watching the Soviet Union implode while weakening America's long-term economic strength and aggressively ignoring problems that threaten our destruction today. And FDR wins by five goddamn points? Pardon me if I don't celebrate.
December 28, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not at all clear to me that Andrew Jackson was a great president by a "stretch." He facilitated an unnecessary campaign of genocide, he pioneered a form of Bush-style cronyism, and his ideologically-driven economic policies led to a major recession. Beyond being a colorful character, I've never understood why his face made it onto currency. Then again, I'm a contemptible federalist at heart.
December 28, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
fair enough on Jackson. I think there's an argument to be made for his historical significance ranking with the Big 3 -- wrt defining the role of the office -- but to put him in their company on "greatness" was just sloppy writing on my part.
December 28, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign, big time. The b-movie actor???? What a joke. FDR and the b-movie actor aren't even in the same league. If the republican administrations didn't do their damdest to dumb down america so much, FDR would be ahead by 50 points. The b-movie actor only presided over the slow destruction of our economy, the beginning of the massive transfer of wealth to republican contributors, and the undermining of government regulation. He had absolutely nada to do with the implosion of the soviet union. Regardless of who was in power, it was going to happen anyway.
December 28, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, I am a true believer that all people should have equal rights that includes the GLBT community. I think they should have the same rights as straight couples, but this Rick Warren argument is really pissing me off. It's not that I think GLBT should STFU about it, it's just as a moderate individual who has other worries beside gay marriage, I'm getting really tired of hearing about how much of a mistake is was for Obama to chose Warren. I understand the frustration, and to some the frustration is definitely justified, but I would really like to hear what else the Obama team is thinking about, not just having to defend the Rick Warren decision or being asked about the Blago corruption case, which is what I hear most of Meet The Press was about this morning.
I know, I know...Obama made the decision, but if I'm getting tired of it (and I'm a gay rights supporter), then I can just imagine what a non-supporter feels right about now, they are probably more pissed than I and or definitely more willing to close their hearts and minds the the gay right struggle.
I think that this is a problem for the gay rights movement. I mean,they have my support, but with all this calling Obama a bigot, saying that gays have been "thrown under the bus" or comparing discrimination against gays to slavery, they are slowly but surely losing me. I'm not saying that I don't still believe in gay rights, I'm just getting to the point that I am going to no longer talk about it at all, I'm tired of the accusations, tired of the drama, this fight along with the Blago mess has distracted the nation from the problems at hand...war, economic depression, global warming.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
December 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The true problem is either if you think Rick Warren is strictly against gay people or gay marriage.The latter is not a problem(many people argainst gay marriage for their own reasons, including me and most of both parties) the former is where a true problem arises, then it would be like rewarding a bigot.
December 28, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted essentially the same thing here a few days back and you should have seen the reaction. I was called a hater and a bigot and a homophobe. You know, the same names they called Obama!
The self-absorbed behavior of many in the gay community over this Warren invite is a huge turn-off, even to people who fully support gay equality like you and me.
Warren has said ridiculous things about a number of groups but the gay community acts as if he's only made comments about gays and are demanding Obama disinvite him . . . or else! They act as if this inauguration is ONLY about gay rights.
If and when Obama takes some policy position contrary to his expressed support for gay rights, I will call him out on it. This over-reaction to Warren's invocation is doing is causing the gay community to lose support. They're also wasting valuable political capital that should be used to push for actual policies!
December 28, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasted political capital is definitely what arises bro. Some reactions to the invite were astonishing, now if you think Warren is against gay PEOPLE altogether than I see where the anger stems from. Take Prop 8 for example. I wouldn't have voted in favor of taking away the rights already given to some, HOWEVER if there were say, a Prop 9, instituting a gay marriage in New York I would vote against it. Does that make me a bigot? To some maybe, however I believe in equality to the full extent, as well as civil unions, however, fundamentally, gay marriage is where the line is drawn for me, and for Warren I believe.
December 28, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan created a permanent class of homeless people in U.S. Before Reagan there weren't panhandlers and homeless people on the sidewalks of nearly every city in the country. Why did it take us until now to decide his policies weren't so great?
December 28, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it's because we actually know who those homeless people on the sidewalks of nearly every city in the country that we have become aware of where it all began.
December 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because nobody was losing staggering amounts of money, (if you overlook the quintupling of the national debt), till now.
December 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that FDR edges out Reagan right now. What this says is that when the economy is in the tank than Americans go towards the Democrats.
December 28, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rebut" means not only disagreed with, but did so successfully. Please use English correctly.
December 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she was offended at the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at the president, but also looked on the bright side. "As bad as the incident is, in my view, it is a sign that Iraqis feel a lot freer to express themselves," said Mrs. Bush.
Well shit, if getting tortured and being forced to sign false confessions (or at least false expressions of regret) is freedom I'd hate to know what Laura Bush thinks is Oppression!
December 28, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, that comparison between FDR and the b-movie actor was a ratsmussen poll. We all know how credible the right-wing hack polling outfit is. I bet the actual numbers are a much greater lead by FDR. Tainting a great president like FDR with a comparison with a buffoon like the b-movie actor is disgusting.
December 28, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink