Hear, Hear (cont.)

TW: Matthews is exasparating and cloying frequently but here he is spot on:
"...Sen. David Vitter, R-La...was asked where he stands on whether President Obama should be sued for not being an American, and he said that such a suit would be "valid and possibly effective."

Question: Why would a United States Senator support a court case arguing that the President isn't one of us, isn't an American? Why would he say for all to hear that bringing such a case in U.S. courts could be an "effective" way of exposing the President of the United States as an undocumented alien, who not only doesn't have the right to be in the White House, but also, on the same legal basis, doesn't have the right to be among us in the United States? Why would he say that the president needs to be deported to some country where he, according to this brand of thinking, was born?

So, Vitter backs "Birthers." Well, that's bad enough... But there are a dozen other Republican members of Congress who've backed the Birther movement.

This no-nothing-ism is catchy. During the last presidential campaign, a trio of Republican candidates – Tancredo (No surprise there!), Huckabee (Join the club!), and Sam Brownback – all said that they didn't believe in evolution.

The beat goes on. No matter how much information is accumulated on climate change, it's okay in the Republican Party to simply deny it, this despite the fact that the Nixon Library just released a memorandum from Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1969 warning of the impact of climate change. Four decades of science is simply rejected. Not a single Republican Senator is now ready to take action on climate change.
Sarah Palin likes to talk about being a "common sense conservative."

Where's the common sense in all this refusing to use your brain?"

The Late Jody Powell

TW: Jimmy Carter's former press secretary and key aide Jody Powell passed away yesterday of a heart attack. Carter had some mediocre staff but I always liked Powell as a straight shooter and his reputation held up better than many from the Carter years. Powell (is standing on the right) for those not quite as wonky as me. But do you recognize the guy sitting in front of Powell? I posted a similar photo last fall. Chris Matthews was a speechwriter for Carter along with the guy sitting on the left who is Hendrik Hertzberg now an editor at the New Yorker.

Craig Crawford related a Powell story about the infamous "Jimmy Carter attacked by a rabbit" case on his blog and it goes to show media craziness is not a brand new phenomenon:

From Powell's autobiography-
"It began late one afternoon in the spring of 1979. The President was sitting with a few of us on the Truman Balcony. He had recently returned from a visit to Plains, and we were talking about homefolks and how the quail were nesting and similar matters of international import. Suddenly, for no apparent reason -- he was drinking lemonade, as I recall -- the President volunteered the information that while fishing in a pond on his farm he had sighted a large animal swimming toward him. Upon closer inspection, the animal turned out to be a rabbit. Not one of your cutesy, Easter Bunny-type rabbits, but one of those big splay-footed things that we called swamp rabbits when I was growing up. The animal was clearly in distress, or perhaps berserk. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind. What was obvious, however, was that this large, wet animal, making strange hissing noises and gnashing its teeth, was intent upon climbing into the Presidential boat."

Apparently, the president shooed the offending rabbit away with his paddle. The story would have died of natural cases, had Powell not made the mistake of passing it along to a reporter, Brooks Jackson of CNN. Still, the reporter wrote the story in a lighthearted fashion. Powell wrongly thought it would be received as a "mildly amusing incident" and laughed it off.

More Powell:
"We were soon corrected. The Washington Post, exercising the news judgment that we in the White House had come to appreciate so keenly, headed the piece 'President Attacked by Rabbit' and ran it on the front page. The more cautious New York Times boxed it on page A-12. That night, all three networks found time to report the amazing incident. But that was just the beginning. It was a nightmare. The story ran for more than a week. The President was repeatedly asked to explain his behavior at town hall meetings, press conferences, and meetings with editors. There was talk of a suit under the Freedom of Information Act to force release of the picture showing the President, paddle and rabbit in close proximity. Shortly after the Reagan administration took office, they stumbled upon a copy of the picture -- apparently while searching for a foreign policy -- and reopened the old wounds by releasing it to the press."

It Has Been One Year Since Tim Russert Died

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TW: There was no political journalist for whom I had greater respect than Russert. He died one year ago today.

Matthews Sums It Up

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TW: Chris Matthews gist is right. I do believe part of American exceptionalism or dynamism such as it is, is to move relatively profoundly is new directions. Certainly the friction associated with the change makes it seem slower than perhaps it is. But there is real movement even if this particular part of the journey remains barely started.

We Need a Big And Successful Presidency

TW: The last "successful" presidency (defined as one the majority of folks look back upon longingly), Clinton could have been but when you screw as badly as he did with Lewinsky you disqualify yourself) would be Reagan's. Before that one could go to JFK but that one was truncated and incomplete. In other words, successful presidencies have been few and far between over the past 50 years. We need another regardless of the current circumstances.

When Obama was in the primary I supported him over Clinton because he represented the best chance for a home run POTUS, not a single or doubles hitter like perhaps Clinton would have been. There is risk to swinging for the fences but we need a homer. The fiscal challenges posed by entitlements and the evolution of the U.S.'s role in world require big time innovation and action. Unless you are a Hooverite or neo-con, Obama is the best chance for both.

From Chris Matthews:
"President Obama...delivered his most pronounced message since taking office. He wants to be a president who does more than muddle through. He wants to be a transformative president on the model of Roosevelt and Reagan. He wants to do big things...He was saying "I'm not going to be Bill Clinton and do school uniforms and family home leave, I'm going to do big stuff. Dick Morris is not advising me. I'm here to do business like the big guys, like Reagan and Roosevelt and maybe Lincoln. I'm going to be an important president or I'm not going to be a good one."

...I think President Obama has a very coherent plan: He is going to force the United States Senate to vote up or down on his budget. He's not going to let them walk away and do it piecemeal. He's going to wrap up energy, health care and education into one big casino style vote for Congress to take or leave. It looks to me like he is to insist that they take it up as a reconciliation matter where they only require 50 votes to do it. I think he's going to jam it. I think what we're seeing here day after day is this push. I think last night's speech was about President Obama saying, "I'm not here just to get by. I'm not just here to get through the business cycle. I'm going to change the American economy to compete in the future."
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/25/1865612.aspx

New Media Alignment

TW: Stewart hits upon an interesting question of how the cable channels in particular MSNBC and Fox will deal with a new sheriff. Chris Matthew's comments were cringingly embarrassing on Tuesday; Fox, of course, was holding on to W. Bush until the bitter end. But then if one recalls 2001, MSNBC covered Clinton similarly (but then roughly 50% of the folks actually were regretting his departure as opposed to the maybe 25% Bush's this time). My suspicion is that Fox will settle into the opposition role quickly and effectively as they built their network on the back of opposing Clinton. MSNBC will have some work to do transitioning into the cheerleader role, but Fox did it so it can be done.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Inauguration Media Coverage

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Hermit Crab

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TW: Matthews cogently summarizes the vacuity of Bush relative to Iraq.