Josh Marshall says Cory Booker did not make a gaffe.

Is Booker in this for himself? Are media folk like David Gregory actually conservative when it comes to financial matters?

ADDED: Chris Matthews accuses Booker of "sabotage" and "betrayal."

AND: Ana Marie Cox endorses Obama's "vampire" metaphor:

[I]t's pretty accurate: private equity firms exist to squeeze liquidity out of companies, then syphon off that profit to investors. The metaphor works on a deeper level as well. Just as with vampires, Americans are morbidly fascinated by hyperbolic success. We have an uneasy relationship with late, post-bailout capitalism: it's sexy, it's parasitical, it's dangerous, it's the product of unseen forces, it carries the promise of immortality at the cost of one's soul.

 Let's remember Booker's word: nauseating.  That appeal to emotion and unreason — seen vividly in Cox — is nauseating.

"Democratic Newark Mayor Cory Booker... [t]he articulate, reform-minded, anti-partisan urban legislator..."

"... known for his chummy relationship with Republican Gov. Chris Christie and heat-of-the-moment heroics, looks to have found himself tangled with Democratic Party elite over the last 24 hours."

Why did the two-term mayor, who many considered the likely first African-American president pre-Obama 2004 convention speech, draw the ire of his fellow Democrats? During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday, Booker called the Obama campaign’s attack against private equity “nauseating,” going on to compare the strategy to planned media attacks on the president by outside conservative groups referencing Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Within hours the mayor put together a nearly 4-minute Youtube soundbite clarifying his support for the president and the vetting of presumptive GOP-nominee Mitt Romney’s business record, but still reiterated his frustration with negative campaigning and his feeling of nausea. Many have speculated that Booker’s video explanation came following immediate behind-closed-door rebukes from DNC and Obama campaign headquarters, as the Morning Joe men have since compared the footage to a ‘hostage video.'

ADDED: Allahpundit asks the key question: Why did Booker do it? Why did he go so "wildly, wildly off-message, so much so as to draw a public rebuke from Axelrod and a thinly veiled one from The One himself"?

I assume his thinking was that, since he’s planning to run for higher office sooner or later, he should take advantage of his MTP spotlight to make a splash with potential Wall Street donors. He was bound to tick off a bunch of Obama campaign staff and other powerful Democrats in the process, but he knows they’ll forgive him soon enough if he looks primed to beat Christie or replace Lautenberg in the Senate.

Isn't he better off now than he was before?

MTP discussion on Obama's SSM evolution... beginning with an SNL sketch.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

ADDED: And here's the Newsweek cover:



"The First Gay President"... like Clinton was "the first black President."

AND: That cover... what does it remind me of....



Remember the old Tinky-Winky-Is-Gay controversy? That's the kind of thing that makes me wish I started blogging earlier:

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson endorses Mitt Romney.

On this morning's "Meet the Press."

... Johnson says Romney is the only candidate with a realistic chance of getting the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination.

Johnson also says the candidates have had “a spirited debate” but he thinks it’s time “to end this” and prepare for the campaign against Obama.

I like the way everything is climaxing in Wisconsin.

ADDED: Meanwhile, Governor Scott Walker is not doing an endorsement.

Walker’s campaign spokeswoman said he’s not picking a favorite because his full attention is on defending himself against a recall election scheduled for June. But some political scientists say that’s only part of the story.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz utters a bizarre sentence about Obama's position on the Keystone Pipeline.

On "Meet the Press" today:

It would take 45 years if the Keystone Pipeline were in place, to produce as much oil as President Obama's policy to — on fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles would in increasing those over the next few years.

David Gregory presses her: "So President Clinton had it wrong when he encouraged President Obama to get behind [the Keystone Pipeline?" And with a second shot, she makes the point more clearly:

It would take 45 years to produce out of oil shale from the Keystone Pipeline as much oil as we save in the increase in fuel efficiency standards from President Obama's policy that would be implemented by the middle of the next decade.

So... don't bother developing new oil sources because it's also possible to cut way back on consumption? Don't we need to do both? How small and light are our cars supposed to be? And "the middle of the next decade"? You mean, like around 2025? I can't believe voters will swallow that argument.

"Why publish the story then when you couldn't answer the essential question: What precisely is Herman Cain alleged to have done to these women?"

Howard Kurtz asks Politico's Jonathan Martin. Martin flails desperately, and Kurtz keeps going after him.

MR. KURTZ: I think at a lot of news organizations an editor would have said... you don't have the details of the sexually suggestive behavior that made them angry. Go back and get more. You could have waited, there was nothing forcing you to publish this last Sunday.

Martin blabbers. Kurtz makes him suffer. Watch the video at the link.

Meanwhile, on "Meet the Press," David Gregory had a chance to interrogate Maggie Haberman, whom he identifed as "Politico's reporter covering the Cain story." Gregory asked her absolutely nothing about Politico's behavior. He put up a quote from Cain, saying he'd like to leave the story behind and "get back on message," and asks her "So how does he really do that when there are more questions, which are primarily what?"

MS. MAGGIE HABERMAN: Well, I think among the questions are does he remember the second woman who we reported on? He says he has no memory of her whatsoever. Other media outlets have confirmed that there was another woman who had made some kind of complaint about sexually inappropriate behavior.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MS. HABERMAN: And Mr. Cain's campaign last night not only said they don't want to talk about this anymore, but they, you know, said they were going to email people the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, and did to one of my colleagues. I think this is where you're going to see the pivot. They are going to say the media is out to get him. I think that it has served them well this week.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MS. HABERMAN: I think that's how he's gotten around some conflicting answers about what's happened. I don't know that he's going to be able to not answer or at least not get asked them anymore, going forward.

At that point, Gregory moves on to another guest. That is, he lobbed Haberman a question that she was able to use to place the burden on Cain to come forward with the details, and Gregory asked nothing. Unless you consider "Mm-hmm" to be something. Haberman mentioned the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, but that did not rouse Mr. Gregory from his slumbers. Tim Russert would have grilled her. She needed grilling. Why have her on the show and not interrogate her?

Chris Matthews on Barack Obama: "He doesn't like the company of fellow politicians."

This was on "Meet the Press" this morning. David Gregory was asking Matthews about his statement that "Obama is a `transactional' politician; he cuts deals with people, but he doesn't forge bonds. When is he going to bolster this political forces? I keep waiting." Matthews comments:

I know. And he doesn't like the company of fellow politicians. You have to like their company. This forging of bonds is essential in politics. It's what I always thought politics was....

Jack Kennedy started to accumulate troops in high school, when he was in the Navy. He saved the lives of 10 crewmen. They, they looked up to him. He went out and risked his life in the, in the middle of the South Pacific to save their lives. He looked out for his troops. That... word like that gets around. "Hey, this guy looks out for his troops."

The Kennedy party, which my old boss, Tip O'Neill, recognized was a unique party of people that looked out for one guy: Jack Kennedy. And he was their hero. They wore the tie clasp from the PT 109 days. They fought for him, they died for him, they killed his enemies for him. Bobby Kennedy was the number one enforcer. Who is Barack Obama's Bobby Kennedy?...

[JFK]  had to create a political party which was loyal to one person, him. And he built it from the ground up. Obama cuts deals. He raises money, he makes people ambassador, he does all the normal things. But there's no, there's no sealing there.

The reference to making people ambassador is a reference to Jon Huntsman (who was on the show earlier). Matthews imagines Obama's thoughts on the subject: "I made you ambassador to the most important country in the world, and you come back and run against me in the same term?"

In the same vein, Matthews compared Obama to the Clintons:

There are more Clinton people out there today than there are Obama people. Today they're ready to move. If Hillary calls up and says, "I'm going," I mean they're there. She won't do it, but of course. But, I mean, it's--but they're ready....

How sincere was Jon Huntsman when he gave the speech nominating Sarah Palin at the 2008 GOP convention?

He was confronted today on "Meet the Press, for saying "We are looking for a beacon of light to show us the way.... We are looking for Sarah!"

MR. HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I was asked to introduce her and nominate her because I think I was about the only person who actually knew her after John McCain had, had picked her as a running mate. I was chair of the Western Governors Association, I had worked to a limited extent with Sarah Palin. So when you're looking for somebody who can actually go up and nominate her, I was asked to do it, and I did as told.

I did as told!

[DAVID] GREGORY: So you mean you pumped up the case there? You didn't really believe... that the country was waiting for Sarah Palin?

MR. HUNTSMAN: I, I wanted to help my good friend John McCain. I wanted to help his ticket. I wanted to move the Republicans toward victory, and I stepped up and I did what I thought was right.

MR. GREGORY: You think she was capable of being vice president of the United States?

MR. HUNTSMAN: Oh, I think she would--I think absolutely she was capable of being vice president. She was elected as governor. She served a couple of years well, and I think she would have learned a lot on the job.

That was a good recovery. His first instinct was to disown her, but he remembered which party he is asking to nominate him.

The mess that is "Meet the Press" had me laughing until tears ran down my face.

We watch the NBC show on DVR and pause frequently to analyze, dissect, and mock. Here's today's transcript. They had Walter Isaacson, the author of that terrific new biography of Steve Jobs, and then they also had Tom Brokaw, NBC's retired news anchor, who also has a new book. It might make a mildly appreciated Christmas present for any members of the "greatest generation" who still survive in your family. Pushing Brokaw's book, they subjected us to text like this:

"Taxation is theft when you take money from one group to give it to another, when you transfer the wealth."

"Now, taxation could be accomplished with user fees and, you know, highway fees and gasoline taxes and import taxes. But the income tax is based on the assumption that the government owns you, owns all of your income and provides the conditions on which they allow you to keep a certain percentage. That, to me, is immoral, and the founders didn't like it. That's why the Constitution had to be amended in 1913."

Said Ron Paul on "Meet the Press."

In case you're wondering what David Gregory — NBC's Tim Russert replacement — did with that rich, ripe material: He did nothing, just read his next question on the next topic.

Ron Paul, interviewed by William F. Buckley in 1988.

"The libertarian movement has come of age. We've been around for 15 years, and I think we're going to have a real impact...."

Via a reader who wanted me to know — after this — that Ron Paul's eyebrows are real.

And, by the way, I liked Ron Paul on yesterday's Meet the Press.

Herman Cain nailed "Meet the Press."

In my opinion, and I was quite critical of Cain after the last debate. Here's the transcript and video. I'll add a few comments to this post soon.

ADDED: I thought David Gregory really lost his cool early on, as he was questioning Cain about 9-9-9. If you watch the video, you can see he's agitated and grimacing in a way that really lacks the usual polished journalist quality. To excerpt the transcript bits that hint of this attitude:

The reality of the plan is that some people pay more, some people pay less.... You're saying [prices] actually go down?... This isn't about behavior, Mr. Cain, this is about whether you pay--if you don't pay taxes now, and you now have income tax and a sales tax, you pay more in taxes.... Mr. Cain, we talked to independent analysts ourselves.... We're not just reading newspaper clips here...  They tell us, they've looked at this, based on what's available of the plan, and it's incontrovertible.

Gregory's experts are incontrovertible? What kind of a question is that? How does Cain deal with this barrage of disbelief from Gregory? He stands his ground and explains his program:

Some people will pay more, but most people would pay less is my argument.... Who will pay more?  The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods....

This discussion got me thinking about the positive side of switching to sales tax. With a progressive income tax, the political process sets different percentages for different income levels, so, for example, the majority can vote jack up the taxes on other people — "the rich" — and those other people can work on extracting various exemptions and credits and so forth in an elaborate, inscrutable government system. With a sales tax, you control what you pay through your shopping decisions. Every time you forgo a purchase or buy used goods — and isn't that good for the environment? — you pay no tax. And every time you choose smaller amounts or cheaper goods, you pay less tax. Now, you have various needs that you have to meet, but you have far more control, and you aren't at the mercy of the ever-ongoing machinations of the political process.

My point is: After the debate last week, I was thinking about the negative aspects of the sales tax, but as he was talking about it on "Meet the Press" today, I felt open-minded about the potential benefits. And that was while Gregory was going for the jugular.

MORE: Gregory asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement: "Do you empathize, as the president does, with the message of those Wall Street protesters?" Gregory invites him to express empathy, a concept Obama has actively promoted (which Gregory prompts us to recall). Cain homes in on the premise that there is a message and proceeds right to criticism of Obama:

What is their message?  That's what's unclear.  If that message is, "Let's punish the rich," I don't empathize with that message.  They should be protesting the White House.  The White House has basically enacted failed economic policies.  The White House and the Democrats have spent $1 trillion that did not work.  Now the president wants to pass another $450 billion. They have their frustrations directed at the wrong group.  That's what I'm saying. 

Nice clarity and brevity and excellent sharp perception of the opportunity in the question asked.

AND: Gregory confronted him with an extreme statement he made back in February: "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country" and followed up with a pointed "You think liberals actually seek to do that, that that's their mission, to destroy the economy?"

Cain stood his ground: "It is their mission.  Because they do not believe in a stronger America, in my opinion. Yes."

Gregory let it go at that and moved on to another one of Cain's presumably insufficiently thoughtful statements: "You've also said that stupid people are ruining America.... Who exactly are you talking about?"

MR. CAIN:  People who are uninformed.  People who will not look at an alternate idea.  People who are so dug in with partisanship and partisan politics.  Open-mindedness is what's going to save this country.  The reason that my message is appealing is because it's simple and people can understand it.  You know, a good idea transcends party politics...

Somehow, the next question on Gregory's list was: "Is race a factor in this campaign?" Obviously, Cain's answer is going to be no. I'm more interested in why Gregory jumped from "stupid people" to race. Gregory next displays the new Newsweek cover, which calls Cain "the Anti-Obama," and starts to put together a question: "You've actually talked a bit about race, though, and you've created a contrast between yourself and your experience as an African-American, a term you don't like, by the way."

So suddenly the topic is the terminology of race: African-American or black American, which Cain prefers. Gregory asks why. Cain says:

Because my roots go back through slavery in this country.  Yes, they came from Africa, but the roots of my heritage are in the United States of America.  So I consider myself a black American.

That's a very rich statement. Slavery is a heritage. But Gregory goes for the implicit distinction between Cain and Obama: "So you draw some distinction between yourself and your experiences as a black man in America and the experience of President Obama."

Cain says:

Absolutely.  I came from very humble beginnings.  My mother was a maid, my father was a barber and janitor and a chauffeur.  We, we had to, we had to learn--do things the old-fashioned way.  We had to work for it.  I--my parents never saw themselves as a victim, so I didn't learn how to be a victim.  I didn't have anything given to me.  I had to work very hard in order to be able to go to school and work my way through school....

Notice how simply and vividly he struck a chord — the classic black American experience — and made it resonate for anyone who works for living. There is a quality of nobility, that fits with the idea of heritage. Gregory is at a complete loss, I think, to do anything with this:

MR. GREGORY:  You actually said President Obama's outside the mainstream.  So you're making a different, more of a social cultural background distinction between you and the president.

MR. CAIN:  More experiential.  Look at his experiences vs. my experiences. It was more at a contrast of experiential differences than anything else.

MR. GREGORY:  Let's talk about foreign policy...

YET MORE: I liked the way, when asked to name his model for the ideal Supreme Court justice, he focused on Clarence Thomas:

I believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, despite all of the attacks that he gets from the left, he basically rules and makes his decisions, in my opinion, based upon the Constitution and solid legal thinking. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of my models.

MR. GREGORY: Has he been targeted unfairly, you think?

MR. CAIN: I think he has been targeted unfairly.

Gregory declines to follow up about what the unfairness was. He moves on to the topic of Cain's wife Gloria, who's been invisible so far. He gave a lovely explanation:

My wife and I, we have a family life, and she is maintaining the calmness and the tranquility of that family life so, when I do get a day off of the campaign trail, I can go home and enjoy my family.

She's his wife, not America's wife. Home is a refuge. That's a good traditionalist message.

Is President Obama, traveling about pushing his jobs bill, on "the campaign trail"?

I had to laugh watching "Meet the Press" today. David Gregory was doing the "roundtable" section of the show, talking to Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Helene Cooper of The New York Times, and Mark Halperin of Time magazine.

Castellanos said:

[T]he president is running, I think, a very strange campaign for re-election.  He is running around the country, in fact declaring his own impotence, saying that, "I'm weak.  I can't get anything done in Washington. Mommy, mommy, please make these Republicans play fair."

Gregory turned to Cooper and said:

I talked to some Republicans and Democrats on the Hill this week who said, "This seems like more of a political exercise, this jobs bill, than anything else." They haven't dropped the bill, by the way.  They haven't introduced the legislation yet; and yet, former President Clinton is saying, "Well, no.  This is really the key.  He's got a good plan." The chances of it passing are not very high.

And Cooper — who, we're told, is reporting on the White House every day — said:

[O]ne of the reasons they haven't dropped the jobs bill yet in Congress is because President Obama decided that he needed to go out and try to sell it first to the American public.

So... presumably, it's about drumming up public support for the jobs bill, which really is a jobs bill and not — as Gregory just put it — "more of a political exercise... than anything else."

Then Gregory dragged in Granholm — the super-polished Granholm, and she says:

[Obama has] got to put stuff out there that work--that works. ... So he's doing--he's adopting a plan that will create American jobs, both in the public and the private sector.  And that's exactly what he needs to trumpet.  And I just say, if the Republicans continue to say no to this reasonable plan, game on.

Game on? So... it is a political exercise?

Castellanos breaks in to say:

There's a little bit of a problem.  The American people have televisions and the Internet, and they can see what's going on....

Then there's an interlude about the new Ron Suskind book — which I just pre-ordered here — and Gregory lifts out a quote...

 "Over the past few months, [National Economic Council Chair Larry] Summers had said this, in a stage whisper, to [OMB Director Peter] Orszag and others as they left the morning economic briefings ...  `I mean it,' Summers stressed.  `We're home alone.  There's no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.'"

Wow! That's hot. But Halperin lamely obfuscates, and Gregory goes back to Helene Cooper and asks her if "there [is] a broader vision for the economy that the president goes out and, and runs on?" And here's the part that made us laugh here at Meadhouse. Remember Cooper is the one who was careful to say: "President Obama decided that he needed to go out and try to sell [the jobs bill] first to the American public." And remember Granholm had bolstered that with her rejection of the notion that the jobs bill is "more of a political exercise... than anything else." And Cooper says:

I think there is, and he's, he's, he's, he's put that [broader vision] out there with his, his jobs proposal. And he said, "These are the things I think we need to do." But he's, he's very much hampered by the political reality of where we are right now. That said, I wouldn't--I, I was out on the--not the campaign trail, that's a very--but I was out with him this week as he went to try to pass his jobs bill in Columbus, Ohio, and in Raleigh, North Carolina....

Ha ha. It's all about Obama's reelection! As  Castellanos said: The American people have televisions and the Internet, and they can see what's going on. 

"[N]ot the campaign trail, that's a very..."... Cooper couldn't come up with the right euphemism for "campaign trail" or even the right words to follow "that's a very" that would express, with appropriate euphony, the reason why she's sorry she said "campaign trail."

Game on!

A Palin-Bachmann feud?

Real Clear Politics:

[A]ides from Bachmann’s camps have privately -- and sometimes publicly -- disparaged Palin to an extent that has caused growing exasperation in Palin world....

“It is so pervasive and so continuous that it can’t be rogue people doing it without the understanding and encouragement from the candidate herself,” a Palin supporter in Iowa told RCP. “The entire Bachmann team has gone around the state saying Palin is a lightweight and a quitter and saying that Sarah’s about to endorse Michele. Bachmann’s campaign is radioactively dirty. They are shameless.”...

“She got the vice-presidential thing handed to her,” [said Bachmann’s soon-to-be campaign manager, Ed Rollins.] “She didn’t go to work in the sense of trying gain more substance. She gave up her governorship.”...

“There will have to be distinctions, and I think they should make those on policy and style, but I don’t think either of them will be served by attempting to take down the other one,” Iowa Tea Party activist Ryan Rhoades, who recently endorsed Bachmann, told RCP. “Getting into the fight that the media so desperately wants to see, I think, would be a detriment to both.” 

Yeah... well... everybody loves a cat fight. It's entertaining. But the truth is, you don't need any actual fighting between these 2 candidates for Palin to have a problem with Bachmann. Bachmann is crowding Palin out of the race. Bachmann is Palin2, and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability.

By the way, Bachmann was great on "Meet the Press" today. She is excellent at not letting the interviewer control her. She interrupts appropriately and stands her ground. She has planned, neat responses to the stuff that they will use to try to mess her up — like her statements about gay people — and she resists pressure to restate or elaborate those responses. She is ready for prime time.

I realize GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck was nervous on "Meet the Press"...

... but, man, this should go down in the annals of misspeaking:

MR. GREGORY:  [H]ow do you pay for [tax cuts]?

MR. BUCK:  Well, the, the--we pay for it by cutting spending.  We also pay for it by growing government.  When we leave money in the hands of taxpayers, they buy things, they pay taxes, they grow government.  It's not a one for one exchange in the first year, but, but it would be bad, in my view--and, and I--every economist I've talked to has told me that it would be bad in a recession to try to increase taxes....

MR. GREGORY [to the Democrat incumbent, Michael Bennet]:  ... Republican leaders don't agree with what [Buck] just said, which is that you have to pay for tax cuts.  So isn't he--aren't you guys more in line, wouldn't you say?

SEN. BENNET:  Well, I didn't--I actually didn't hear him say that.  I heard him say that you pay for it, and also by growing government you pay for it. I'm not quite sure what that means.  But...

MR. BUCK:  Well, let me explain to you.  Here...

SEN. BENNET:  ...my point is, my point is...

MR. BUCK:  ...you grow government because as people have more money they spend the money and government grows.  When we put people back to work, the government grows, we increase revenue and we decrease unemployment benefits.

SEN. BENNET:  Well I'm definitely not interested in growing government, I can tell you that.

MR. BUCK:  I'm sorry, growing the economy.  I apologize.

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

MR. BUCK:  Growing the economy.

MR. GREGORY:  You're talking about growing the economy.

MR. BUCK:  Right.

We have an awful lot of inexperienced public speakers out there these days, about to move into positions of great power....

"[W]hat if we could just be China for a day?... You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions...."

"... and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment.  I don't want to be China for a second, OK, I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness.  But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions."

So said Thomas Friedman on "Meet the Press" today. And the funniest part of him saying that wasn't the horrible vision of America as a dictatorship.... though it must be hilarious to think of America as a dictatorship, because famous funnyman Woody Allen said it too: "It would be good… if [President Obama] could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly." Nor was it the fact that he said it and at the same time tried to deny that he was saying it with all that "I don't want to be China for a second, OK" business.

No, the funniest part was that he said it right after he deplored the way the political center has been "decimated" in part by the "an Internet where I can create a digital lynch mob against you from the left or right if I don't like where you're going." He's reminding us Internet folk of our lynch-mob powers and then throws us the rope to hang him with that wish that "we could just be China for a day." Come on, everybody, let's destroy Thomas Friedman for saying he knows all the "right solutions" and wishes — or would wish if he could get away with it — that we could have a dictatorship to get it done. 

A love of autocracy often lurks beneath the liberal veneer. There's this idea that the right answers are known and the people are just too deluded and distorted to see what they are and to vote for them. And Friedman openly deplores the internet, which decimates moderation because there are people like me who who persecute elite truthbearers like him. Ooh! It's a lynch mob. Ha. Sorry. I don't want the rope. I just want to laugh at you.

It's late now. Let me sign off with a crazy old song that supposed to be beautiful but that's really dreadful, the way Friedman's lament is dreadful:

If I ruled the world, every man would be as free as a bird,
Every voice would be a voice to be heard
Take my word we would treasure each day that occurred
My world would be a beautiful place
Where we would weave such wonderful dreams
My world would wear a smile on its face
Like the man in the moon has when the moon beams
If I ruled the world every man would say the world was his friend
There'd be happiness that no man could end
No my friend, not if I ruled the world
Every head would be held up high
There'd be sunshine in everyone's sky
If the day ever dawned when I ruled the world

Nighty-night.

Obama skipped "Meet the Press" because David Gregory is too safe and unchallenging?

Sorry, I don't believe that. I mean, I believe David Gregory is utterly bland:

"Meet the Press" is now the de facto safe show on Sunday morning - "safe," that is, for those being interviewed.

Gregory has been handed perhaps the most important program in television journalism. It's time to start acting like the king who rules wisely yet ruthlessly. Otherwise, his legacy will match that of Garrick Utley or Bill Monroe - moderators who were highly respected but not highly feared.

But I'm not buying the notion that Obama avoided MTP — and opted for Leno — because the show is too easy. I think the show is still too hard.

What would someone have to say on "Meet the Press" to prompt a follow-up question from David Gregory?

The previous post is about something Bill Cosby said on today's "Meet the Press." That was part of a segment about what Obama can do to help "the black community" with its "deepest problems." Also in this segment was Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Take a look at this:

[DAVID] GREGORY: You go home to Watts and you go out there and you see young people--the fact that we have a black president, that means something.

REP. WATERS: Well, of course it means something. He's absolutely a role model. I was watching the young boys from the Ron Clark school who have a--they were in a choir, and they have created a song about Obama. And I was watching their faces. And certainly if there's one thing you can say about this historic election, it is that he has created hope. He has, you know, let young people know and young black boys know that you can, you can indeed succeed.

Let me tell you about this parenting issue. I have--or we just had a Black Caucus retreat, and parenting emerged as the number one concern in that retreat. Now, as a public policymaker and a legislator, I think about ways by which we can be helpful in bringing about the kind of public policy that will assist families. And so parenting is one thing that I'm going to spend a lot of time on, because I think that we should dedicate personnel in our public schools to work with parents and to get parents involved. The PTA does not do that. But the teachers cannot do that, the teachers cannot be concerned about what is going on in the classroom and follow the kids home. But if we have a component in the school that's dealing with going to the home, finding out what is happening with this child, what are the circumstances under which they are living, and be able to direct resources toward that family and give families support, I think we can use parenting as a way to begin to deal with these very serious problems where children drop out and children are already considered failures before they reach high school.

I'm really feeling hopeless about David Gregory as Tim Russert's replacement on MTP. No follow-up question? Does he even listen to what the guests are saying?

Waters just said that the teachers can't follow the kids home, but that there ought to be "a component in the school" that — what? — follows the kids home? What sort of "component"? I'm afraid of these components! What is Waters proposing, and does Gregory have any capacity for critical thinking? How is it acceptable for government authorities to intrude into the home this way?

Then, Bill Cosby is going on about service:

... these Jesuits, I — they have an answer, and they make their boys go out into the community and give service... One of the things I've heard... is that when a person gives, when a person does a service, that there's something that happens to them emotionally. I've heard people in prison working with prisoners talk about prisoners breaking down and crying because they taught another prisoner, they mentored another prisoner to learn how to read. And that the, the mentoring person started to cry. You can't--as a policeman, as a policeman said to me -- make a man cry by punching him in the face. They don't cry. But here this man is, and it's something emotional about us giving to each other, teaching each other. And that's what this family's talking about.

Again, no follow-up from Gregory. Is Cosby suggesting that the government — like the Jesuits — should make their boys go out into the community and give service? A public-service draft? Could Gregory give some critical push-back?

Or was Gregory patronizing black people? Not only was he sparing his black guests any challenging questioning, he also abysmally failed to see the libertarian interests of black people as those guests went on about following black kids home from school to check on whether their parents are decent and forcing young black men into service. If those proposals had been made in a way that seemed to extend beyond the "black community" with its "deepest problems," would the light bulb in Gregory's brain turn on? What exactly are you talking about doing? How would you respond to those who would argue that this is an unacceptable — perhaps even an unconstitutional — burden on individual liberty?

Did you notice how pro-Israel Harry Reid was on "Meet the Press" today?

David Gregory asked whether the invasion of Gaza was offensive or defensive. Reid answered:

I spoke to Prime Minister Olmert a couple of days ago. He indicated that they would do the ground activities. Let's understand the background. For eight years they've been firing rockets into Israel. They've become more intense the last few months. Israelis have been killed, maimed and injured. Sometimes more than 200 a day coming into Israel. If this were going on in the United States from Vancouver, Canada, into Seattle, would we react? Course we do. We would have to. I think what the Israelis are doing is very important. I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away. They've got to come to their senses. The Fatah group, which is--makes up part of Palestinian group, has a peace arrangement with Israel. Hamas should do the same....

And, and, and Israel, for--since 1967, controlled Gaza. They gave it to the Palestinians as a gesture of peace. And all they got are a bunch of rockets in return....

So you think that Israel ought to move forward and try to remove Hamas from power?

They have to. I, I'm not concerned about removing Hamas from power, I'm concerned about stopping the rocket fire and the mortar fire into Israel. That is the key, and that's what Israel's up to according to the prime minister.

Should there be an immediate cease-fire?

If the Hamas organization will agree and there is some degree of certainty that they will follow through. They, in the past, have simply not lived up to what they said they would do. If there's a way of enforcing this cease-fire, then yes. Otherwise, Israel has to continue till they stop the rockets and mortars coming into Israel, maiming, injuring and killing Israelis.

So you, you're in sync with the Bush administration on this point?

Yes, I am.

Interesting. I wonder if he'd be admitting that he was "in sync with the Bush administration" if the Bush administration weren't about to leave — or if he would have admitted he was "in sync with the Bush administration" about a lot of things in the past if only the Bush administration had been about to leave.

Anyway, I added some boldface to the transcript to draw attention to something that doesn't quite fit together. Is it important for Israel to remove Hamas from power or not? He seems to contradict himself. [ADDED: I think maybe he said "They have to" as a response to whether "Israel ought to move forward" and didn't mean it to apply to "and try to remove Hamas from power."]

Obama on "Meet the Press."

I'll link to the transcript when it becomes available. And here are a few idle observations:

1. He keeps talking about changing light bulbs! This reminds me of the old tire-gauge solution to high gas prices. What will he do about the economy? First, replace a lot of government light bulbs.

2. His biggest rhetorical tic: breaking up answers into "the short term" and "the long term." Anything he wants to do now is "the short term," and it doesn't much need to make economic sense other than to "jump start" the economy. To the extent that there are other things that we should be doing, he puts them in the "long term" category. Having the 2 headings helps make disparate things look coherent.

3. Obama's idea of the auto bailout is a little opaque, but it's clear that he wants to get the companies to make small cars. But how will he do that? How can they become economically viable on small cars, especially with the low gas prices of today? Brokaw suggests imposing a tax on gas to make the price $4 again. Obama won't go there, of course, but I don't understand where he will go.

AND: One more thing about the light bulbs. (First, watch the movie clip in the next post.) In yesterday's address -- the weekly radio address of the President elect -- he said:

Today, I am announcing a few key parts of my plan. First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won't just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.

See? Light bulbs first. They're supremely important! They will save us all! Light bulbs!

MORE: Here's the transcript. Striking my ear the wrong way:

You know, tomorrow, you had mentioned earlier, is when we commemorate Pearl Harbor, and so I'm going to be making announcement tomorrow about the head of our Veterans Administration, General Eric Shinseki, who was a commander and has fought in Vietnam, Bosnia, is, is somebody who has achieved the highest level of military service.

Tomorrow? That sent me checking the calendar. (Brokaw, earlier, had said "today.") [CLARIFICATION: At the beginning of the transcript -- watching live, I'd missed the first few minutes -- Brokaw said the interview was recorded "yesterday." Later, he said: "Sixty-seven years ago this day, one of your predecessors, Franklin Roosevelt, faced Pearl Harbor." I guess he meant that 67 years ago to the day, FDR "faced" the events that would occur the following day.]

Also, this bugged me:

MR. BROKAW: ... Let me ask you as we conclude this program this morning about whether you and Michelle have had any discussions about the impact that you're going to have on this country in other ways besides international and domestic policies. You're going to have a huge impact, culturally, in terms of the tone of the country.

PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Right.

MR. BROKAW: Who are the kinds of artists that you would like to bring to the White House?

PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Oh, well, you know, we have thought about this because part of what we want to do is to open up the White House and, and remind people this is, this is the people's house. There is an incredible bully pulpit to be used when it comes to, for example, education. Yes, we're going to have an education policy. Yes, we're going to be putting more money into school construction. But, ultimately, we want to talk about parents reading to their kids. We want to invite kids from local schools into the White House. When it comes to science, elevating science once again, and having lectures in the White House where people are talking about traveling to the stars or breaking down atoms, inspiring our youth to get a sense of what discovery is all about.

The question was arts.

Finally, he gets to the arts, which by now, I'm convinced he cares little about:

Thinking about the diversity of our culture and, and inviting jazz musicians and classical musicians and poetry readings in the White House so that, once again, we appreciate this incredible tapestry that's America.

So that, once again, we appreciate this incredible tapestry that's America? Once again? Is there any reason to think that the arts events in that George Bush had at the White House were lacking in cultural or ethnic diversity? And Obama doesn't name even one artist, perhaps for fear of leaving someone out. Speaking of diversity: he merely ticks off the high-class categories: jazz, classical, poetry. Some incredible tapestry! Then he comes out with this:

I--you know, that, I think, is, is going to be incredibly important, particularly because we're going through hard times. And, historically, what has always brought us through hard times is that national character, that sense of optimism, that willingness to look forward, that, that sense that better days are ahead. I think that our art and our culture, our science, you know, that's the essence of what makes America special, and, and we want to project that as much as possible in the White House.

Nothing like specificity.