Say what? Andrea Mitchell has claimed that the Tea Party’s goals of cutting taxes while limiting spending are “totally conflicting.” The NBC correspondent made her anti-factual assertion on today’s Morning Joe, participating in the election post-mortem.
Perhaps we should be kind and chalk it up to Mitchell presumably having had a long night. Otherwise, how can you possibly explain her gaffe? How could she not understand that it is precisely the limiting of spending that, far from conflicting with, facilitates the cutting of taxes? Transcript after the jump.
ANDREA MITCHELL: The problem I think that’s going to confront these new members, is these Tea Party activists are coming to Washington saying we want the tax cuts to be extended and we don’t want more government spending. So they’ve got two totally conflicting mandates that they are bringing to Washington. And any realistic approach to this is going to be, this is a train wreck. There has to be some way of coordinating the impulse.
I’m guessing that Joe Scarborough was appalled by Andrea’s flub, but tried to cover for her by suggesting that there’d have to be compromised.
Note: the heat wave has gotten to me. Please read this one with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
I was wondering why Mark Halperin was missing from the Morning Joe set today. His “Game Change” co-author John Heilemann was there, and the two are normally a matched set. Then the show rolled a segment on the conviction and deportation of those ten Russian spies, in a deal for the return of several Western agents.
Wait for a second! Who is that guy, second-from-the-right in the bottom row [photo left]? Sure looks a lot like Halperin [photo right]. The spy’s nom de guerre: Donald Heathfield [real name Andrey Bezrukov].
Halperin. Heathfield. Mark missing from Morning Joe. Hmmm . . .
Faced with his administration’s failure to head off the Christmas Day and Times Square bombers, or to stop the Fort Hood shooter before his murderous rampage, Pres. Obama sent his chief counter-terrorism adviser out this morning with apparent instructions to resort to that last refuge of scoundrels: patriotism.
When on today’s Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace confronted John Brennan, PBO’s top terrorism advisor, with this record of failure, Brennan sought to twist the question into an attack on our nation’s troops, invoking their patriotism.
CHRIS WALLACE: Some top Republicans are saying that the administration has been more lucky than good in some of these terror cases, given that Shahzad and the Christmas Day attempted bomber, Abdul mutallab, both detonated bombs that just failed to go off. Do you consider the Times Square attack a success for Homeland Security?
JOHN BRENNAN: I consider that Homeland Security, law enforcement, intelligence, the military have done an outstanding job since 9-11. You know when I hear these references to being lucky, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of American men and women who are serving in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world. Who are at our ports of entry. Who is working around the clock here in the United States and abroad? That’s not luck. That’s patriotism. That’s dedication. That’s capability and talent.
Listen to the faux outrage in Brennan’s voice. He knew very well that Wallace wasn’t criticizing the efforts of our troops, but that of the likes of Brennan, Napolitano, and Pres. Obama himself. But oh so convenient to hide behind the skirts of our fighting forces.
Bob Schieffer predicts that Newt Gingrich will make a run for the presidency and Sara Palin won’t.
Appearing on The Early Show today, Schieffer saw Palin’s resignation as Alaska governor as too big of a political obstacle in the primaries. Here’s how the Face The Nation host imagined a GOP primary opponent putting it to Palin in a debate:
BOB SCHIEFFER: “Sarah, when the going gets tough, will you get going–and going out?“ I mean, what is that all about? I think that’s still a very tall hill for her to climb. Others might disagree with me. But I still believe that. I don’t think she’ll make [a run].
My two cents say Palin might not run, but that her resignation won’t be a big factor in making her decision. By the time the primaries roll around, her resignation will be ancient political history, and she will have four years of a record of fighting for Republican issues and candidates to run on. Any opponent who tries to play the resignation card on her would wind up looking pretty petty and unpleasant.
There I was this morning, watching a Today segment about tougher new airport screening procedures. A clip rolled of Homeland Security honcho Janet Napolitano talking about the program when suddenly I said to myself: wait for a second! Who’s that standing behind Napolitano?
Darned if it wasn’t . . . Patrick Kennedy! You remember good old Rep. Kennedy: the fellow who a few years ago . . . shoved a 58-yr. old airport security screener when she tried to stop him from barging through without submitting his oversized bag to x-ray screening.
So what was Kennedy doing there? Then it clicked: Patrick must be Janet’s poster boy—Exhibit A of the kind of person, under the new plan, who will be subjected to extra screening, maybe even put on a no-fly list!
But no . . .
Turns out Napolitano announced the new program while in Rhode Island, touring areas ravaged by recent floods. Kennedy was there in his capacity as a local congressman. Should have known that one Dem would “posterize” another! Even so, you might have thought that Kennedy would have been smart enough to find a way to keep himself out a photo op about tougher airport security
Ron Christie has to be among the most loyal Republicans around. The former aide to Dick Cheney and George Allen is a regular on Ed Schultz’s MSNBC show, where he ardently defends GOP positions, typically in the face of a liberal double-team.
So when Christie comes this close to calling on RNC Chairman Michael Steele to resign, it’s news. And that’s exactly what happened on this evening’s Ed Show . . .
Schultz set things off with a question referring to today’s revelations about the RNC reimbursing charges at a strip club with a lesbian-bondage specialty.
ED SCHULTZ: Ron Christie, is this trouble for Mr. Steele?
RON CHRISTIE: I think it is, Ed. I’m getting really sick and tired of the slow drips coming out of the RNC. First, there’s a memo that had some very disparaging things about President Obama. Now you hear something about a strip club and spokesmen come out and say it’s a big misunderstanding. These people need to raise money and recruit candidates to run for office. I’m getting sick and tired of these distractions coming out of the RNC, and I just wonder whether or not this might be the third strike for Mr. Steele. I’m not going to call on him to resign just yet, but I’m just about a millimeter away from going on the airwaves–and I’ll probably do it on the Ed Show–and saying it’s time for him to go.
Mr. Steele, when Ron Christie says he’s on the verge of calling on you to quit, it’s time to say goodnight.
You might think you’re a citizen with certain unalienable rights. But in the eyes of Pres. Obama, you’re no better than an acid raindrop . . .
On today’s Good Morning America, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley–no raging conservative he–raised doubts as to the constitutionality of the way ObamaCare negates state law and forces every American to buy a government-approved health insurance policy–under penalty of law.
Turley went on to explain how ObamaCare treats citizens like pollution: a problem to be dealt with.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Congress often does pre-empt state law or pushes it aside in areas like the environment. What’s different here is that they’re treating individual citizens almost like polluting factors that amount to an interstate problem.