TPM's Nov. 2 in 100 seconds

I love the work that the folks over at TPM do each and every day, but I got a particular kick out of this video - it's yesterday's campaign appearances, as well as the talking heads on Sunday morning, summed up in 100 seconds. (Hey, why watch all of those Sunday morning talk shows when you can get the highlights here?) Okay, I'll still watch them, but this is pretty good.

McCain's greatest hits gaffes

Talking Points Memo has put together an early edition of McCain's greatest hits on the campaign trail, and it's more than worth the five minutes to watch it - it's pretty hilarious.

My personal favorite lines in the vid above:

"...the Iraq-Pakistan border..."

"I will conduct a dispirited, er, spirited debate. Now it will be a forceful debate. I'm a proud conservative liber... Republican... conservative Republican! Hell-o! Easy there!" (How many Freudian slips can you have in one sentence?!?)

"If you want to pay more taxes, then I'm not your guy - Senator Obama is your man. Ah-heh-heh-heh." (That creepy laugh and smile always gives ME a good laugh - see another great example below.)

"Tell 'em to come back and git to work!" (He's referring to Congress, which is currently in recess [and yes, they shouldn't be], and how legislators should return to Capitol Hill to work on an energy policy. However, it's more than amusing that the presidential candidate who has missed more votes than any other presidential candidate since he declared his candidacy would implore Congress to "git to work." I guess he forgot that he's actually a U.S. Senator with responsibilities to his constituents.)

However, I can't believe TPM didn't include this one...

Anyway, it's still a pretty good round-up. I highly recommend you subscribe to TPM's videos on YouTube - they rarely disappoint. Do it by clicking Here.

By the time Nov. 4 gets here, there should be enough fodder for at least two more of these five-minute videos about McCain's gaffes. Let's just hope we don't have to endure four years of his incessant, gaffe-prone babbling. McCain looks and acts like Reagan late in his second term, and he's running for his first.

Tenet should regret it. Does he?

And by "regret it," I mean George Tenet's entire tenure as the director of Central Intelligence.

I already wrote this morning that I'm trying to avoid a lot of press about the book so I can read it with an open mind, but that's becoming more and more difficult to do, since Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, is setting off a firestorm in political circles in Washington.

The above clip, put together by a great political Website, Talking Points Memo, lays out in pretty good detail the president spewing a fountain of lies that Tenet was in a position to stop before they happened.

On Meet the Press yesterday, I was floored how many times Tenet said, sometimes in so many words, "I/we (the CIA) should have stopped that, but we didn't..." It makes one wonder why we even have a CIA in the first place, if all the director is going to do is say "yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes" to the president every time he wants to go to war.

I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around surrounding the various intelligence failures surrounding 9-11 and the War in Iraq. It does seem like any Bush official who is criticized in the book is now running for cover, and they are all using Tenet as a scapegoat.

To be fair, Tenet is not the only official in the Bush administration who could have put a stop to the absurd lies that this administration knowingly used in speeches to promote war with Iraq. Condi Rice could have opened her mouth, but in hindsight, that seems ridiculous, considering the parrot she's become for President Bush these days.

My other question is, where was Colin Powell when all of this was going on? I can almost visualize the rest of the cabinet convening a war game plan while Powell is over in the corner with duct tape over his mouth, in the time-out chair.

One pattern is developing - whenever a former Bush administration official comes out with a book, with his or her version of the truth, and it reflects poorly in any way on Bush, Cheney or Condi, party operatives circle the wagons to protect Bush's already useless reputation like a mother hen protecting her young.

The latest:
Paul O'Neill
Richard Clarke
Christine Todd Whitman
George Tenet

The one person I'm waiting to hear from who used to be very high up in this administration is Powell. I get the feeling we will get a book out of him at some point, but not until Bush leaves office. And there will be others, too. Anyone out there think that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby isn't going to tell his story at some point? I'd be the first in line to buy that book. And as twisted, full of lies, distortions and half-truths as it would be, I'd buy a book by Donald Rumsfeld, too, just so I could shake my head at his ridiculousness.

(Side bar - I wonder if he would write how he talked during his tenure at the Pentagon? "Do I wish we would have planned better for post-war Iraq? Yes." and "Do I regret my open combativeness with the press corps and breathtaking hubris during my time in the Bush administration? No." On second thought, I'd probably wait until I could get a copy of a Rummy book in a used bookstore.)

In the meantime, the president trudges on, defiant and obstinate, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we will never realize "victory" in Iraq.

The only mystery left of his presidency is just how ow Bush's ratings can go. Currently, at 28 percent (the lowest during his entire time in the White House), he has the lowest approval ratings since Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.

In the short-term, it's not likely to change much, however. Bush has shown a penchant for ignoring the polls when they don't favor him, and mercilessly pimping them when they support him.

GOP strafes Pelosi regarding plane

I got a pretty big kick out of the non-story story from this past week - how Nancy Pelosi was requesting an enormous airplane for her trips to and from California. I have to give credit to the press, for the most part, about this story though (but not in all cases).

A few Republicans, most notably staff at the Republican National Committee, tried to make political hay out of Nancy Pelosi's request for an airplane for trips to her home state of California and back. What many of Pelosi's detractors conveniently forgot was that former Speaker Dennis Hastert also had access to a plane to his home state of Illinois.

Each and every Speaker of the House should have secure, sufficient protection, which should include a secure aircraft, and it doesn't matter who the speaker is, or from what party.

This policy began following 9-11, since the speaker is third in line to the presidency, and I'm happy that policy is in place.

However, a report on the CBS Evening News by Sharyl Attkisson this past week stated: "The fuss is over whether Pelosi should fly on the same small jet used by her predecessor Dennis Hastert ... or the much bigger military 757."

However, Attkisson's report neglected to mention that the White House and the House Sergeant at Arms both defended Pelosi's need for a plane that can fly nonstop to and from her district on security grounds, if such a plane with that capability is available.

Here's a press release from the House Sergeant at Arms, as reported in Talking Points Memo:

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

That's not all. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow also thought the whole issue was a non-issue, too stating:

[The White House] position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.

On Thursday of last week, Tony Snow came right out and said that he thought the whole story was "unfair to the speaker."

That didn't stop some from coming after Pelosi anyway, facts be damned.

The Republican National Committee, while Tony Snow was defending Pelosi, issued a press release with this heading:

I won't even get into the details of the press release, which I have read, but I'm sure you can guess.

As Media Matters reported:

A February 9 Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt flatly stated that the C-20, one of the military planes used by former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) for domestic travel when he was speaker, "can make the nonstop flight year-round" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) California district from Washington, D.C. But media reports from the previous two days had reported that the C-20 cannot make it to California nonstop under all conditions. The article by Scarborough and Hurt did not attribute its contrary assertion about the flying range of the C-20 to anyone.

Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, was quoted by ABC News two days earlier saying that the C-20 is "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter." Also, on February 8, the Los Angeles Times reported that the aircraft used by Hastert "require[d] ideal weather conditions to make the cross-country trip without stopping to refuel."

Of course, my favorite Republican Strategist and Pollster, Frank Luntz, weighed in on Sean Insanity's show with his own ill-informed propaganda, first, with this:

LUNTZ: And let me tell you, Sean, this situation with Nancy Pelosi and the aircraft -- that's going to play very badly for the Democrats, and I think that's going to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton who, at this point, is the front-runner.

Later in the same show, this exchange, and it's amazing that Alan Colmes actually grew a set, for once:

COLMES: Frank, you took a shot at Nancy Pelosi. The fact of the matter is: She did not initiate this. It came from the sergeant of arms. Conservatives are making a bigger deal of this than really exists. And we got very little press when there was a Denny Hastert issue when he asked for the same thing. So, you say it's going to resonate and be -- and hurt the front-runner for the Democrats. I disagree. I -- where are you getting this information?

LUNTZ: Well -- no, here's the issue. The public said "no" to the Republican Party in 2006 because they thought that they'd gone native -- that they'd gone Washington -- that there wasn't a sense of accountability. But they will say the same "no" to the Democrats if they seem to be -- abuse their power. And she doesn't need a huge, gigantic plane.

COLMES: She didn't ask for one. She just wants a nonstop --

LUNTZ: If she wants to deny everybody else from flying -- you know what?

COLMES: -- doesn't want to have to refuel. It's a security issue whether or not she should stop to refuel.

LUNTZ: She does -- it is not a -- it is not a security issue. She doesn't need a plane, and American taxpayers -- I can promise you, Alan -- the American taxpayers don't want to be paying for her private flights in huge jets.

COLMES: But it's not her decision, it's the sergeant at arms. She doesn't make that decision, Frank.

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): All right, we gotta run.

LUNTZ: She can say no. She can say no.

MICHAEL BROWN (Democratic strategist): The American taxpayers do not want to pay for a war they don't agree with --

HANNITY: She was offered the plane.

LUNTZ: Just say no, Alan.

HANNITY: She -- he's asking for the bigger plane. She, herself is asking --

COLMES: She didn't make that decision.


HANNITY: -- and it would be $300,000 round trip for the American taxpayer.

COLMES: It was not her decision.

LUNTZ: Exactly.

HANNITY: This is a bad political play, Frank. Frank, I agree with you.

##

Luntz has a long history of disparaging Pelosi, saying on Insanity's show last year, "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a face lift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.'"

First of all, as someone who looks like Howdy Doody (left), Luntz (below, right) has preciously little room for criticizing Pelosi's appearance. Secondly, Luntz should grow up - leave the elementary put-downs to bloggers and such - you're supposed to be a professional. Wait, you consistently appear on Faux News - so much for being a professional. Okay, this IS the sort of thing we should expect from you. Forget everything I just said - keep meeting our lowered expectations of you, Luntz.

I know I'm writing and bringing a lot to you about this, but it's just one example of how the radical Republican press forges ahead, facts be damned.

Give Pelosi her damned plane, like every speaker deserves, and get on with the business of running the country and making our lives better. Republicans seem pretty angry that Democrats so far have made some progress, so we get this pseudo scandal about an airplane.