American Politics Journal -- Pundit Pap

Pundit Pap
for November 10, 2002
Pundit loudmouths get mandate to spin Iraq attaq, Smirk's so-called "popularity" and more true lies
by JJ Balzer

Nov. 10, 2002 -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- Under "normal" circumstances, the Sabbath Gasbags would make the Republican party's success in achieving a narrow victory in the Senate the top issue.

But on Friday, the UN Security Council passed a new resolution mandating rapid deployment of inspectors to Iraq -- so the global Hatfield-McCoy feud between the Bushes and Husseins topped much of the Sunday blather.

It also served to reinforce the illusion that Saddam is somehow a bigger danger than Al Qaeda.

Um... hello? Mister McLaughlin? Mister Russert? Judas Staphylococcus? Osama looks to be alive somewhere in the vicinity of South Asia. About the only part of Afghanistan that seems even half-"stabilized" is the area around Kabul -- and maybe a couple other cities -- and still imminent danger remains in those places. Our good "friend' Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan has made no progress in reining in "Islamist" thugs. And so-called "chatter" -- communications among these damn criminals being tracked by the world's intelligence services -- has reached pre-9/11/01 levels, with analysts concluding something big is in the offing.

So why the infomercials for Smirky's War -- featuring the likes of Andy Card and the utterly incompetent "Doctor Dumbass" Condoleezza Rice?

Grab your airsickness bags -- here's a little bit of the spin.

ABC This Weak
Where only the truth got "routed" -- and Democrats get bashed

Well, you can tell ABC's position: Elections would be issue two. And the announcer who voices the full minute of pre-pap padding that serves as This Weak's introduction made sure to call the Tuesday election results a "rout".

Rout? Okay, readers, it's time to undo this "rout" baloney. Yes, the GOP controls both houses of Congress, but here's the truth: the margins in both houses are thin (likely one vote in the Senate; the margins of victory in key Senate races were likewise razor-thin and hardly a "mandate" in any case; Dems snagged up a number of governorships; and 9/11 WAS the key issue, helped by Smirk's last minute "scare out the moron vote" scam-paign tour with its emphasis on both the Saddam War and Homeland Bureaucracy.

But we digress.

You want to know what the professional talking heads were saying. Actually, you'd probably rather not -- but you know that you need to know what we're going to be up against for the foreseeable future, so here goes:

Item one on the agenda of This Weak and George "Little Judas" Stephanopoulos would be the UN resolution ordering Iraq to submit to weapons inspections. Then would follow was talk of Chimpy McSmirkster's so-called "mandate."

Mandate? There was NO sweeping tide of "landslide wins" for the GOP -- and more than a few incidents of voter intimidation and outright election fraud, once again targeting likely Democrat voters and Democrat-leaning precincts. And ABC, as usual, is asleep at the wheel. You'd think that the fact that 100,000 votes in Broward County suddenly "materialized" a couple days after the election would be big news, and grist for the Sunday morning political blabfests. But not on the Shrub-friendly ABC -- they were busy ramming the Chimp's so-called being rammed down our throats -- against our will.

George began This Weak once again showing his uncanny talent as a broadcast professional, saying, in a somewhat irritated manner, "How come I can't hear?" There was an obvious technical glitch. A seasoned broadcaster would wing it. Instead, Steph showed that he's still a rank amateur. We were beside ourselves with laughter.

How come you can't hear, George? Because the truth might be too much for you to handle, that's why. Hear this: His Fraudulence didn't have a mandate in 2000. He doesn't have one now.

Steph welcomed Condi "Doctor Dilettante" Rice, who gave the fully expected sound bites on the coming Iraq attaq. Steph's questions were completely irrelevant. Condi sounded like an android programmed to spout talking points:

The UN resolution makes it clear that any further stonewalling by Iraq will not be tolerated
There will be zero tolerance of weapons of mass destruction
A change of Iraq's attitude will only happen if Saddam realizes he's being taken down
We'll use force if Saddam does not disarm peacefully
The Chinp-in-Chief is showing "resolve... resolve... resolve" along with the "American people" and now the UN ("The American People"! What a laugh! Does that include the estimated 400,000 who showed up a couple weekends ago in DC, San Francisco and other cities to protest Smirk's War?)
Any general who carries out orders of Saddam is carrying out the orders of a brutal dictator who has defied the UN
As long as Iraq defies the UN it will continue to suffer
The US is very concerned about "the Iraqi people" (Really? Then why hasn't Smirk -- or Clinton, or Bush Daddy -- lifted the sanctions that have backfired so badly and only strengthened Saddam's grip in Iraq? "The Iraqi people?" When you look at all the facts, George the Lesser looks more interested in the oil)
We must send a message to the Iraqi people that we want a better life for them (Really? You think we can get that message through to the Iraqi people -- even if Saddam gets deposed? You think they'd believe it after OUR blockades and boycotts that killed THEIR kids?)

Condi had to concede that the grounds for attacking Iraq are not written in stone when Steph forced the issue of scientific work for peaceful means -- in other words, they can be flexible as Smirkster's military handlers come up with any lame excuse to start the bombing if they locate anything that even hints at "dual-use".

Translation: if this becomes a ground war, get ready for the body bags. These imbeciles in the West Wing are out for war at any cost -- including the lives of our kids in the military.

Steph pressed Condi: what happens if the US says there's a violation and UN weapons inspector boss Hans Blix says we're full of hooey?

A look of worry crossed Condi's face as she shifted into some nonsense about the bureaucratic procedure and that it was "not constructive to talk about hypotheticals".

Right -- because His Illegitimacy wants to get his war on, dammit!

Mark your calendars: we're saying the bombing commences December 17.

Steph then switched poles on the "axis of evil" -- will the US stop an humanitarian shipment of oil on its way now to North Korea? Condi slipped -- and quickly fixed her blunder -- when she said that North Korea must "reenter" the community of peaceful nations -- "er... they've never been one."

Huh/ You mean they are at war NOW? With whom? Liechtenstein? Monaco? Luxembourg? Must be a really tiny country if CNN isn't covering it...

After a commercial, Steph welcomed Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN 9), doomed to lose the House Democrat minority leadership spot to Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8) now that Martin Frost (D-TX 24) has dropped out.

Ford said that Americans are NOT happy with Dems in the minority -- Americans want a check to the GOP agenda.

But Steph, in the mood to divert from this key point, tried to push Ford back to the House "vote count". Ford responded with the requisite "I'm confident" song and dance -- but then he attacked Pelosi as being part of the old, "tired" GOP leadership, and claimed he's the man to position the Dems for victory in the House in '04.

Well, here's the truth: Ford is seen by many of the party faithful -- including moderates -- as too willing to work with the majority when it is to the political advantage of democrats to be holy hellraisers.

And Steph -- God bless him for once -- noted that Ford voted in favor of the Bogus POTUS' "Get My War On!" resolution -- and Pelosi voted against.

Ford called it "just" one vote and said there is a bigger issue. "I'm tired of playing defense all the time."

Good. Then get ready for Pelosi to go on the offense.

Steph said that Ford had criticized Pelosi for being an "obstructionist." Ford deflected - but wisely, talking about Smirky's nonstop campaigning. Should the Dems drop their opposition to the Homeland Security bill? Ford said that if Dems had talked tougher, they'd be in the majority, but Democrats -- including Pelosi -- lack passion.

And that's Ford's problems: Pelosi agrees that the old Dem leadership is "tired" and lacks passion -- and she was making an effort to shake things up.

Steph said that the GOP is licking its chops over a "San Francisco liberal" heading Dems in the House -- and suggested some Dems would jump ship. Ford challenged Smirk to support an education bill and pitched the "terrorism insurance" bill -- which is being obstructed by right-wing extremist GOPers in the House.

Following the break -- and as another reminder that ABC is pushing the "Shrub has a mandate" mantra -- Steph welcomed John Kerry, who immediately identified the failure of Democrats to motivate people to vote -- in the wake of a bad economy and fear over the prospects for their kids.

He then proclaimed, "NO! NEW! BUSH! TAX CUTS FOR THE RICHEST AMERICANS!"

Steph looked startled, but recovered quickly enough to say that Kerry sounds like a candidate -- and Kerry did the "I'm speaking with staff and colleagues" sidestep that translates, "Yes, I'm a contender and I'm probably throwing my hat in."Kerry then denied he was a candidate before SLAMMING the media for focusing on the conflict of personalities rather than issues, citing the smearing of Max Cleland -- then turned the spotlight on Superfund (and the GOP's mishandling thereof). Steph said that Dems had failed to do that, and cited other Dem leaders talking of other "failures".

Then Steph played a clip of Barbara Walters' interview of Al Gore to be broadcast this Friday in which Gore calls for a "major regrouping" (read: overhaul the leadership and move away from status-quo thinking). Kerry said that the war footing has hurt America's relations with other countries -- and our diplomatic situation is worse than it's been in memory.

Would President Kerry's Iraq policy be different? For now, no -- except Kerry would not be announcing war plans (and he was not just referring to news reports that the US is prepared to deploy a quarter million men and women to Iraq). Kerry specifically slammed Smirk for allowing this information to make it into the news media -- in fact, when you strip away the pundit-ese, he was blasting Smirk for telegraphing strategy that would incite Saddam and stir up the dittoheads.

And Kerry also slammed the election system, tax givebacks for the rich, and even pink tutu Democrats who went along with Smirk's policies and initiatives -- and lost as a result.

Should the Homeland Security bill be passed with civil service protections? It should have already, said Kerry -- who segued back to the sliming of Max Cleland, saying that the kind of negative campaigning we saw against Cleland discourages voters. Steph said it works. Kerry said it's still wrong -- and then turned to gun rights. Kerry, it turns out, is a hunter and gun owner who supports commonsense gun laws. Kerry kept riffing, condemning Smirk for killing the COPS program. Steph cited a claim that the Dems can't get white blue-collar voters to support them. Kerry said that by siding with the GOP, these people voted against their own interests -- and the party has to explain why (which, of course, means tightening relations with big labor).

Would you ask McCain to be your running mate? Kerry laughed off the silly question, saying that he hasn't even declared his candidacy.

The round table followed -- here is a sampling of the outrageous posing that we heard:

The New Republic editor Peter Beinart pushed his theory that everything voters see these days is filtered through national security (he must not know a lot of APJ readers) -- and Bush is not serious about liberalizing the Muslim world and going after loose nukes (OK, score one for Peter).

George Will claimed that Mondale lost Minnesota based on supporting civil service protections for Homeland Security staff (as usual, the delusional Mr. Will neglected the tarring of Mondale with the mischaracterization of Wellstone's public memorial service).

Michelle Martin said that the average American has no idea what is in the bill; Beinart said most Americans "trust" Smirk on the war on terrorism )obviously, not his or our readers) -- and Pelosi will be a big mistake in that it will make Dems the antiwar party (oh, come on -- it will help the Dems by making them the party against regressive, fundamentalist Luddite GOP-ism).

Then the panel took on the Texas Twit's claim of a "mandate". Martin played right into the GOP's hand and said he does. Will LIED and said that there wasn't the triumphalism of '94. (Bushit, George -- Lott was gloating all week) and said something silly supporting judicial activist Miguel Estrada. Beinart said that the Chimp could be Clintonian in compromising on Social Security. Will wants privatization.

Talk turned to the decision by Arrogant Ass-KKKroft to send the "serial snipers" to Virginia for trial. Martin hit it on the head -- Magic Christian John was venue-shopping for the best place to get them killed. And the US is in great company -- Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Iraq are death penalty countries. Beinart said that "states rights" Smirk is being constantly overruled by Ass-KKKroft (yeah, baby -- more GOP-ocrisy).

It's sad that nobody is pointing out that bigot Ass-KKKroft may have a "trifecta" of reasons not to like these suspects: they're black, the older one's a Muslim, and it's been suggested that they might be gay. That crazy John -- his version of "Christian" charity is so interesting.

During the break, we caught another loaded boner from ABC:: in their commercial for Barbara Walters' interview with Gore, ABC lies -- saying that the GOP "trounced" Democrats "again" in 2002.

Point one: there was no wave of landslides in 2000, and had the Supremos not interfered, Gore would have won Florida.

Point two: almost all of the GOP victories at the federal; and state level were narrow -- and the margins in the House and senate remain razor-thin.

This is "trouncing"? Not by a long shot.

Is ABC spinning for the Smirking Fraud? You'd better believe it.

We skipped Will's "final word".

McLaugh-In
John bloviates, Mike Barone gloats, Eleanor Clift throws cold water on the party

Issue one: Bush blowout!

There they go again! Once you look at the results, the elections were no "big blowout" or mandate or huge vindication for the GOP -- they did gain control of the House and Senate, but had best be careful what they do with that majority..

Michael Barone called the "scope pretty big" -- but then admitted that "preliminary" figures show 52% of voters went for the GOP and 46% for Dems among those who voted.

Translation: Dems failed to get out the vote.

But here's the problem: other analyses show a much smaller margin for Republicans -- the difference having been made in conservative states where Prince Numbnutz campaigned during a time of war! Take those states away and it turns out Dems did quite respectably.

Barone then claimed that voters see Smirk as a "strong leader". We almost spit our coffee out through our nose. Eleanor Clift pointed out that the GOP gained only two seats -- but it does have a huge psychological impact. She also hit one point few others dared mention: the GOP may campaign moderate but govern from the hard right. Tony Blankley said that the Clinton insurgency into the South has been "turned back" -- most dramatically in Georgia. There was a little talk about Chambliss and the Confederate flag. Tony gushed over Lyin Lindsey Graham's win in South Carolina, pointing out with glee that he was a House Manager.

John then turned to New England and John Sununu Jr's win in New Hampshire -- and Larry O'Donnell had to remind John that New Hampshire is the most Republican state in New England. Tony said that "this is the end of the Democrats playing the Social Security card" (and like most of his predictions, we think he'll eat crow). Eleanor reminded the panel that the GOP will push privatization, ANWR drilling, and the rest of their pro-corporate agenda. Mike Barone admitted that voters can be fooled into supporting privatization when the matter is presented the "right" way (and he's right -- it takes a Goebbels to know a Goebbels).

John asked the panel about "proxy races" -- races that actually show the popularity of another (i.e. Jebbie KKKrow and Smirk). Larry said that Smirk arguably lost Florida in 2000. Eleanor said John got it backwards: George was a stand-in for Jeb, who has higher ambitions. John talked about the proxies showing Smirk's "heavenly power" -- which prompted Eleanor to remind John of Smirk's 9/11 and war fearmongering. Mike called Karl Rove a "political genius". Tony said Reagan did the same thing Snippy did -- running around campaigning, and Smirk "connected" the same way Reagan did (but only in areas where he knew he could get away with it -- you'd never see him campaigning, say, in New York or San Francisco).

Then John asked an interesting question: how invincible is Smirk to enact his agenda?
Mike: Limited, because nobody "controls" the Senate.
Eleanor: Limited -- sixty votes are needed to get legislation started -- but he'll get his judicial activists.
Tony: Depends on the coalitions he can build.
Larry: He'll get his judges, but legislation will move slowly.

We're going to make our own prediction here: Prince Smarming is going to try to ram his judges through, but again the Senate will become a big problem -- and a few GOPers will side with Dems on judicial extremists.

Issue two: Democrats divided and conquered! Gephardt quits! Should he feel sorry for losing six seats?

Larry was half right when he said there was in effect no political plan by the Democrats after 9/11/01 (he should have said that Chimpy used 9/11 as his political plan). Eleanor said that many Dems were angry with Gephardt's support of some Smirk initiatives -- including his feud with Saddam. Is the ascent of Pelosi going to be divisive? Larry called it quite an "experiment" -- but eve he had to concede Pelosi's showing leadership. John called her a liberal (as if that's some sort of disease), but Eleanor said that as Minority Leader she will control the debate. John and Eleanor feuded over labeling members of Congress part of "the loony left" -- but again Larry interjected that opposition to Iraq war was based on policy. Mike Barone whined that some on the left have a "hate" of Smirk that is "out of step" with the "majority" (well, that's true -- once you get people thinking about Prince George's politics, they strongly dislike him -- that's not quite hate) -- then lit into the memorial service for Wellstone (right -- like politically active people don't have a right to sound off when they're mourning the death of a hero). John asked if this means that Pelosi is going to push the Dems in the House to the left, and Tony said that there are about 30 conservative Dems in the House. Eleanor fired back at Barone 's cheap shot, saying that opposing Smirk is not the same as "hating" him.

So what percent of the GOP's congressional victory is the result of Democrat failure?
Mike: 25
Eleanor: 60
Tony: 15
Larry: 100
John: 50

Hey, John -- here are a few questions for you:

What percentage of the GOP victory is attributable to dishonest and deceptive ads by the likes of Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA Liar)?

What percentage of the GOP victory is attributable to intimidation of minority voters?

What percentage of the GOP victory is attributable to the media's concerted effort to silence the Democrats' message?

Meet the Press
Russert -- in control! But why is he attacking Republicans?

"Our topics today: Republicans in control!" And Meat the Press host Tim Russert sounded darn proud.

Tim's first guest: Andy Card. The topic -- more talking points... um... make that Iraq!

A few weeks ago, we condensed an entire segment of a FAUX News Sunday into spin-enhanced shorthand, so readers could follow the REAL conversation. Similarly, here is what Tim and Andy were really saying:

Tim: What happens if Saddam does not let inspectors in by Friday? You going to bomb him immediately, I hope?
Andy: Nah. He'll let the inspectors in. He has to say yes to everything the inspectors want -- when they say jump, he jumps.

Tim: What if he says no?
Andy: The burden's on Saddam, not the inspectors. C'mon, Tim, buddy -- I'm not gonna say we'll bomb as soon as the inspectors spill the beans and we can spin it, even though that's as plain as the smirk on George's face -- that's not how we play the game!

Tim: The UN Security Council ruling says that if he says no, inspectors report back. This is murky language!
Andy: The UN has called for him to comply. And of course it's murky -- otherwise we couldn't move unilaterally!

Tim: What if they report back and say, "Let's look a little more" -- we do have the ability to go ahead and bomb, don't we!
Andy: Yeah, bay-bee! If Saddam doesn't do it, there will be consequences.

Tim: So we can go ahead
Andy: WE don't need their permission. WE rule the world. Fear the Smirk. Who's yo' daddie?

Tim (after quoting Cheney dissing inspections): Why the sudden new confidence in inspections?
Andy: Saddam can't say no now -- he has to say yes to inspectors by Friday. The onus is on Saddam -- and if even one "i" is not dotted, one "t" crossed, it's a Rumsfeld wet dream!

Tim: Who decides there IS a material breach?
Andy: Any inspector from any country -- it's a test of fact, not opinion. And since we control the media, we control the facts!

Tim: So if there's a breach, we will take action.
Andy: He'd better not be in breach or there will be action. God, do we want some action!

Tim then quoted an inane piece by Bill "Satire" of the New York Times.
Andy: We want to disarm Saddam. The world wants Saddam to disarm!

Tim: So if he disarms, he can stay in power.
Andy: I feel regime change is best for the Iraqi people. His regime is likely over anyway. Got that, Saddam? Time to move into that retirement condo next door to the Idi Amin family.

Tim (quoting the off-the-wall Moonie Times about Iraq having anthrax -- as if that's a surprise): Do you have full confidence in Hans Blix?
Andy: I believe Blix will do his job objectively -- he'd better not report editorial content. Don't want the world to start seeing us for what we are.

Tim: We're on a war footing, and the papers say so.
Andy: It's not appropriate for me to comment, even though anyone listening between the lines knows it! If we have to go to war, we will, and we will win.

Tim:So we get the oil fields?
Andy: It's not appropriate for me to comment that they will be handed over to Texas-based energy companies.

Tim: The Chimp says he wants terrorism insurance -- the House GOP leadership is blocking it -- will he rein in Armey and DeLay?
Andy: Tim! YOU'RE ATTACKING REPUBLICANS! STOP IT! We need to protect the homeland! Or they might get us! In the homeland! That's why we need to waste billions on a new, bloated, politicized bureaucracy GET WITH THE PROGRAM, FAT BOY!
Tim: Do you have the votes to pass it?
Andy: We'd like to see it done. We want to see terrorism insurance pass.
Tim: BUT REPUBLICANS ARE OBSTRUCTING IT!!!!
Andy: WE WANT IT PASSED! PUT A SOCK IN IT!.

Tim: Why did Harvey Pitt resign the night of elections rather than the night before?
Andy: Well, at least I knew you'd bring that up. Pitt did a great job trying to hamstring regulation and help our supporters screw over the "little guy" shareholders, he was poisoned by politics -- not to mention the fact he was a sleaze bag, but our sleazebag -- and he found himself counterproductive.
Tim: But he had YOU call Bill Webster and HID the facts about Webster being on the audit board of a double-dealing defense contractor!
Andy: I respect Bill Webster. He's respected on both sides of the aisle.
Tim: So he'll stay?
Andy: I see no reason for him to leave -- now that WE control Congress..

Tim: Lemme show you a chart. The economy stinks. The deficit has exploded. When will you balance the budget?
Andy: We inherited a recession! Really! Even if the most recent numbers don't say so! We've got to blame Clinton! Don't go weak on us now, Tim -- even you're replaceable! And then there was 9/11/01! The travel industry's been hammered! Smirk got his trifecta -- which ALLOWS for a deficit!
Tim: BUT HE NEVER SAID THAT IN THE CAMPAIGN!
Andy: Who cares what you think, you stealth Democrat? His priorities are right -- load the judiciary with extremists, give back tax money to the superrich, and abolish reproductive rights, otherwise Falwell and Robinson will stop scaring up support for us! And then there's securing the homeland and winning the war.

Tim: Andy Card, thank you.
Andy: Thanks -- for nothing. And if you find a horse's head in your bed tonight, blame Rove, fat boy.

Then Tim welcomed Trent Lott. Tim and Trent discussed when he will actually become majority leader -- and Lott looked like he was doing everything he could to keep from salivating all over the Meet the Press set. It's obvious he wants it now, but will push to become leader when the unctuous Jim Talent (Neofascist-MO) is sworn in. Tim mentioned several Democrats Trent is trying to woo to the GOP -- and Trent said he doubts Zell Miller will do so "unless his hand is forced" (translation -- once the Dems take a tack to the right, he might jump ship). What about Lincoln Chafee? Trent telegraphed a little worry in his reply. What about giving Jeffords a committee chair? Trent took great pains to say that James Inhofe, arguably the dumbest yokel in the Senate, is getting a chairmanship, adding that the Senate should pass the Republican version of the Homeland Security Bill. Trent dissed the Democrat version as "bureaucrat security." Of course, don't expect him to tell you that civil service protections are a strong defense against cronyism and corruption.

Tim then blasted Trent on the terrorism insurance front -- and Trent said he wants liability limits! He tried to claim this is not "tort reform" -- but it does strip citizens of access to fair reimbursement for their losses.

Tim then talked about the possibility that the upper middle class would be forced to pay a higher Alternative Minimum Tax (well, boo, hoo, hoo). Trent hinted that he wants to scrap the IRS code, cloaking it in "fairer for working families" (but omitting the part about ending corporate taxes and stuffing the pockets of the superrich).

Tim then said three-fourths of Americans pay more in payroll than income taxes. Trent tried to act like a supporter of Social Security -- but said he wants to reduce the burden. (How, Trent? Through privatization? Scared to say?)

What happened to the GOP as the budget balancing party? Trent talked a good game about Afghanistan, terrorists, Iraq, and so on. (Lame excuse. How about trimming the fat from the Department of Defense and using our fighting forces more effectively?) Trent also came out as a supporter of a prescription plan for seniors on Medicare -- which let Tim cast Trent as a budget buster! So what'll it be: homeland defense or prescription drugs? For some reason, Trent got on the estate tax, calling it abominable (for the very rich, of course).

When talk returned to Social Security, Trent talked about Moynihan and the "problem" of Social security. He did NOT say one word about private accounts -- and Tim did NOT push him on that specific issue. Trent talked a good game about pension reform -- but the ideas he mentioned (stock options) only benefit the rich. Trent also tried to sound like a Democrat by supporting education for those on welfare.

Tim also mentioned that Louisiana's GOP governor will not endorse the GOP candidate for the Senate. Trent said Breaux works with the GOP (read: sellout).

Then Tim welcomed Tom Daschle. What happened? Daschle ticked off these bullet points:

Popular president.
War backdrop.
Get out the vote.
We didn't articulate our economic agenda.

Hey, Tom, how about these?

Failure to challenge or criticize Smirk's Authoritarian Homeland security plans.
Failure to blast that neo-fascist John Ashcroft on his attacks on constitutional rights.
Failure to say no the Smirk's feud with Saddam.
Failure to ask why the war against terrorist thugs is getting nowhere -- and failure to call for a full investigation of events leading up to 9/11/01.
Acquiescence and appeasement tat would make Neville Chamberlain blush.

Tim played a sound bite of DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe last week on MTP: "Bush does not have coattails". Daschle sort of disagreed -- Bush did not have coattails in South Dakota (which is true). Is Terry Mac secure in his job? Daschle thinks so. Will Daschle be challenged? He thinks not.

How tough is Smirk? He speaks a language people can understand (translation: he knows how to speak "dumbed-down-ese"); we respect him (translation: we respect Karl Rove, who tells him what to do); it's a mistake to underestimate him (translation: we underestimated Rove).

When Tim said that Shrub had promised to change the tone, Daschle said he did -- it's worse, it's far more partisan and nasty. Daschle pointed to the ugly tiff over the hard right wing of the House GOP trying to rewrite terrorism insurance. Tim then brought up the President (note that he said the President, not Saxby Chambliss) used the homeland security issue against Cleland. Daschle pointed out that the GOP filibustered the bill five times -- and that it was wrong to politicize the department. Tim: "Will you NOT filibuster it?" Daschle said, "O f course we won't filibuster it" -- but the GOP is playing the "blame the Democrat" game when in fact the bill should have been passed in the first place. Tim and Daschle mixed up over cloture and the possibility that Byrd might filibuster it.

Daschle spent most of the rest of the interview fretting about getting the Democrat message out and, in reply to Tim's question about all the Democrats that lost in their Senate races, Daschle talked about articulating issues and positions (which, of course, is an exercise in frustration, since the Dems cannot get their message out through corporate media). Tim then played an ad from the ultra-right-wing Club for Growth (a front group for anti-regulatory, anti-tax zealots). Daschle said the ads sputtered and died in his mostly-GOP state. Tim asked an inane question about whether he took Snippy's campaigning "personally". Daschle scoffed, and raised the issue of reviewing every judicial appointment. Tim essentially said that filibustering would not go over with Americans (huh? most Americans have no idea what a filibuster is). When Tim raised the possibility of Supreme Court appointments, Daschle hinted that they would filibuster judicial extremists as he "work[s] with" the Chimp.

There was more talk about getting the message out -- this time with respect to the big tax givebacks, war, and prescription benefits. And Daschle finally showed a little muscle, saying Smirk's agenda can't be done, and they will push the issues.

Will Democrats defect? No. Will Chafee defect? "It's happened before," said Daschle with a grin. Will you go all-out in Louisiana? "Yes." Are you running for President? "No plans."

Tim wrapped up Meet the Press with a self-serving salute to its 55th anniversary.

All in all, it was a pretty grim pundit Sunday. It should have Dems mad. Fighting mad.

JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.