Flush twice... it's a long way to Sally Quinn's place!

Pundit Pap for June 22, 2003
The Peace, Quagmire and Character Assassination Processes
By the Pundit Pap Team: Morrie Friendly • Dash Riprock • Jeff Koopersmith • Tamara Baker

June 22, 2003 -- WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (apj.us) -- There was a strong focus on the Arab world this Sunday, given not only the big Israel-Palestinian peace powwow going on at the World Economic Forum in Shuneh, Jordan, where Secretary of State Colin Powell is in attendance, but the continuing questions about where Saddam Hussein is -- with passing reference to the use, misuse and abuse of intelligence concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction by Bush Jr.'s Council of Hawks.

Looks like Tony Snow was wrong -- that "controversy of the week" looks poised to stick around for a good while longer.

The bad news is that Democrats again seem frightened to take on "Team Smirk" over what looks with each passing week as outright fraud visited on the American people and the world.

At least there were two segments worth watching this Sunday: George Stephanopoulos' all-too brief interview with Jordan's young and very impressive King Abdullah, and Tim Russert's little dustup with Howard Dean.

Here's the skinny:

This Week
Another road trip!
Players: George "Steph" Stephanopoulos, King Abdullah of Jordan, and three Senators: Dick Lugar (R-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

George Stephanopoulos started This Week by allowing a self-proclaimed member of Hamas' "political wing" a few minutes to blast Israel's assassination of a top Hamas leader late yesterday. Can Hamas accept peace with Israel if Israel withdraws from Gaza and stops assassination? There is that possibility, said the spokesman -- Hamas can accept a cease-fire, but the goal is a solution to the Palestinian dilemma.

This offered a major hint of things to come -- is there a rift developing within Hamas along the lines of (but stronger than that between) the "Real IRA"-Sinn Fein dichotomy of recent years?

The marquee interview with King Abdullah did not disappoint. Abdullah is comfortable in front of the camera, and seemed at ease while speaking with conviction and getting his key points across:
• The King is optimistic about a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian issue, although he was vague as to how soon he sees such a resolution falling into place
• King Adbullah said he had expelled Hamas from Jordan, but does not think that Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas is presently in a position to take on Hamas -- he "needs support" to take on the "terrorists", and Israel can help by lowering poverty levels among Palestinians, getting Palestinians back to work, and solving social problems
• When the King said there are "extremists on both sides of the conflict who do not want peace" and that they need to 'figure out" that violence is a dead end, this was a clear and important message to the US and Israel that the progressive forces in the Arab world not only acknowledge that murderous violence emanating from the Islamic fringe is a problem but that Arab nations had best get to work on fighting it
• There should have been more negotiation on the issue of Iraq's WMDs (translation: Smirk bungled and in a big way), but given the reality of where things stand today, it will be a long road to stabilize the country, and there is internal resistance because people are frustrated and suspicious -- and outside parties are involved in the present attacks in Iraq
• Abdullah used essentially the same phrase to describe some Palestinian and Iraqi forces: they feel they "have nothing to lose" by resorting to violence (translation: the US and Israel have to offer them something that they would stand to lose if the violence continues)
• Is Saddam alive? There are rumors, stories of Saddam in Iraq's northwest: "It's like Elvis -- there are a lot of sightings!" -- and the fear that Saddam shadows his people and might come back still haunts many Iraqis, along with the idea that America "will not stay the course" and Saddam might return to power
• King Abdullah believes there were WMD programs (as opposed to WMDs), but made it clear he feels it is more important to examine and address Saddam's repression
• Arabs don't trust America's position on why they went to war against Saddam (translation: they think Smirk and Powell lied) -- but America's commitment to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem shows the US is serious about a positive future for the reason; the King is absolutely convinced that former governor Bush is "100% committed" to a resolution.

Steph then turned to a trio of Senators: Dick Lugar, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, starting with that little "dead soldier a day" problem the US seems to have in Iraq.

Lugar actually said "we oughta understand" that the US is involved in nation building and establishing democracy. (Whoa, Dick -- didn't Chimpy McBunnypants say he wasn't going to get involved in nation-building? Wingnuts might -- horrors -- think the Texas Dauphin lied to them!)

Biden said that six months ago he and Republicans had not been talking about the day after the war but the decade after -- and it's time for Smirk to go to the American people and tell the truth (translation: Junior lied about the WMD situation and about how expensive the matter of rebuilding Iraq would be). Hagel said the occupation of Iraq is an "investment for America's future" (read: an investment in Enron, Chevron and Westar) -- and a long term investment at that. Biden said he had met with NATO's Lord Robertson, and they are ready to deploy troops to Iraq NOW (funny how that seems to have eluded the morning papers) -- but they haven't been asked! It is time to internationalize the stabilization of Iraq. (Translation: Smirk does not want "furriners" in Iraq -- he wants it to remain his to privatize as he sees fit).

Hagel tried to shift attention to an administration "struggling" with decisions. (Huh? They don't struggle with decisions -- all they need do is pick up the Weakly Standard to get an idea of what the Official Neoconfederate... er, Neoconservative Doctrine is!). To our delight, Hagel also said that George the Lesser has to be more candid with America.

Where's Saddam? Biden has no idea -- and emphasized the importance to Iraqis of capturing Saddam to ease the concerns of Iraqis who still fear him.

Is the misadministration cooperating with an investigation of WMD intelligence? Hagel said yes (yeah, right) -- but then admitted the scandal is "a huge cloud" and it needs to be resolved. Steph suggested public hearings -- but Hagel dismissed the idea, claiming that a sort of simple explanation to the American people would clear up the whole matter and put the blame on Saddam for not telling the world where his WMDs were. (Yeah, right -- that ought to hold the sheeple.)

Steph said John Kerry and Howard Dean say Smirk "misled" the nation. Biden said that France thought Saddam had VX gas -- and the administration was right that he had them, but exaggerated about Saddam reconstituting his nuclear capabilities, and Biden has not only seen nothing but believes the misadministration was misleading the Senate by claiming a "worst case scenario" they were unable to prove.

Hagel was optimistic about progress toward peace in the Mideast, but Biden thinks the only reason Hamas would agree to peace would be to regroup and reconstitute. Lugar sees a further crackdown on the way.

-- Morrie Friendly

McLaugh-In!
Roll out the bones, and raise up your pitcher, raise up your glass to Good King John. It's the McLaughlin Group. (Apologies to Steely Dan.)
Players: Pope of Pap John McLaughlin, Pitchfork Pat Buchanan, Token Liberal Eleanor Clift, Pimp Daddy Tony Blankley, and FT Tory Lionel Barber

What happened in the first few minutes of the McLaughlin Group this week isn't that important. (I hope -- especially in light of the fact that I didn't get it on tape. Oops!)

When we joined our intrepid group, they were on Issue One: Saddam's whereabouts. The score was as follows: Pat Buchanan thinks they don't have a clue. Eleanor Clift feels the Bushies are clueless, and says they're all working without a "full deck" in reference to the massively stupid and crass marketing tool that is the "Iraqi most wanted" deck of cards. Tony Blankley was forced to spit out that he too felt we were clueless, and a new addition to the endless parade of well-tailored (with the exception of the besotted Chris Hitchens, and deeply confused Andrew Sullivan) expatriates that have infested our country like nutria and set themselves up as experts on what the US should do. The latest to impose his presence on us is Lionel Barber, a Brit from the Financial Times. (It would only seem fair to feature someone from the Guardian of London paper, but something tells me that won't be happening soon. They don't kiss up to Bush.)

Lionel said we were clueless but not to give up hope. King John agreed.

The next issue was appropriately titled "All Map and no Road?" and dealt with Bush's rudderless "policy" in the Middle East. Colin Powell is going to attend a meeting in Jordan with the so-called "Quartet" composed of the four parties that originally drew up the peace plan: The United Nations, Russia, The European Union, and the US

Should the US send troops to deal with the peace plan?

Our British cousin Lionel said no. He's also high on Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen), the Palestinian Prime Minister who is taking the lead now that Arafat has been shoved to the side.

Eleanor said Sharon, true to form, showed no restraint and launched incursions right after the plan was announced.

Tony Blankley, displaying full sartorial splendor in a canary yellow suit, pale purple shirt with white collar, and a dark purple and white tie. (Where was the fuzzy purple wide-brimmed hat with a yellow hatband? And the long, fur collared coat?), was pretty pessimistic. He said that unless "terrorism" can be stopped, there will be no progress, and that Abbas, the new boss, does not have the ability to control it.

Pitchfork Pat said that Sharon has "overdone it" by sending in helicopter gunships, killing a few people, but wounding dozens of women and children in the process, and that this is not helpful. This of course, would be apparent to a child… but evidently not to Sharon.

Eleanor thought that a NATO or UN force should be used to enforce the agreement.

Asked if this plan will work, not one of the wise men and women of the Group was hopeful. Little Lionel noted that Bush has staked his credibility on the roadmap being followed -- begging the question, since when has Smirky ever had any?

Next issue: the silliness in California, including the millionaire-bought-'n'-paid-for recall effort targeting Democratic Governor Gray Davis, and debate as to who the Repub candidate will be. Repub congressman Darrell Issa, who made his millions selling car alarms, has contributed over $700,000 dollars to finance an effort to overturn a democratically elected Governor. Issa craves being governor himself but is so extremely right wing that he doesn't stand a chance.

Well, what's a Nazi Republican to do? Of course, you simply BUY what you want! There's never a shortage of people who will do literally anything for money. And then you sit back and get what you want from your grateful puppet, should it all work out.

Besides, what's $700,000? Hell, that's only walking-around money. He'll never miss it. Sure.. it could save a lot of lives by providing critically needed health care. It could put about 23 kids through college… but why do that when it can be used to try to short circuit the entire democratic process?

King John wisely questioned Blankley's saying it looks good for the Repubs by asking why in the world they'd want to be in power when California is in such horrible shape, including a $38 billion deficit and out-of-control financial crisis.

Pat said this is all because Awwnuld Schwarzenegger wants it. He says the only person that could beat him is Dianne Feinstein, and she's not interested.

Lionel was asked what he thought of it. "It's crazy" was his reply. Score one for the Brit!

Eleanor rightly called it "a privately funded coup."

Dianne Feinstein vs. Awwnuld --- who would win the governor race?

Pat says Feinstein. Eleanor agrees. Tony says in a two way race, it would be close, but if the Republicans split the vote, it would be Feinstein. Lionel says Feinstein… but Pope John came up with his inimitable logic and said it was Awwwnuld who would win. His peculiar view was that this mess would create an anti-incumbent climate and the electorate would want something new to straighten it all out.

Then on to unfounded and gratuitous Clinton bashing… still a hit after all these years, evidently.

The wingers are pouncing all over some stupid comment by the braying Susan Estrich who said that the Clintons are "sucking the oxygen" away from the Democratic presidential candidates, concluding with, "Could someone please tell these people to just shut up?"

This is one comment by one relatively minor Democrat -- yet they are all over it and trumping it up to suggest that even the Democrats are now pissed at Bill and Hillary. King John embellished this theme and went typically over the top, suggesting that the Clintons were somehow dominating the media so much that they're actually "huuhrting the Democrats!" Only in a Republican's wet dream perhaps.

The glaring weirdness in all the coverage of the Clintons over the past few weeks is that 99% of the stories I've seen on Hillary's new book -- and there have been a ton -- is about how the Clintons won't go away. They all suggest that the Clintons are big media hounds and that they're somehow addicted to thrusting their mugs into the media.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

First is the most bizarre. The simple fact is that the Clintons themselves get a slim amount of coverage on the actual story. 80% of the rest of the coverage is right wing whining about the fact that they're being covered!! I bet if you did a check of it, you'd find that the Clintons were shown and quoted on TV far, far more in reference to the fact that they still won't just run away and hide like the right commands them to do than it is to the actual story.

So how nuts is it to whine and whine and whine about those terrible Clintons showing up all over the media "sucking the oxygen" out of everything else, when THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA PUNDITS AND TALKING HEADS ARE THE ONES THAT CANNOT STOP YAPPING ABOUT THEM????

Secondly, and equally insane, is the constant suggestion that the Clintons somehow stand out. The fact that they're on TV and getting coverage is, according to these spin-crazy idiots, solely due to some sort of alleged massive effort by the Clintons to keep themselves in the news. They're consistently portrayed as nearly desperate to be in our faces.

This is simply delusional.

The only reason this is even discussed or suggested is because the right is absolutely 100% full-blown psychotic about the Clintons. The Clintons are so superior to them, and therefore considered such frightening and dangerous threats, that the wingnuts truly want them to never appear in the media and are absolutely furious that people are still extremely interested in them. This they just cannot stand, and that fact has caused them to literally lose their minds.

They have tried to eliminate Bill Clinton for about 15 years using every dirty, slimy trick in the book. They failed miserably. They only succeeded in derailing government from truly important issues for years and squandering dozens of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Now they are equally furious because the Clintons won't just slink away and disappear.

Well, screw that!

The Clintons don't exist to please these whack-jobs.

But the point is, what the HELL do these psychopaths expect? Yes, it's hard to believe it's this stupid and ridiculous, but here it is folks. They expect a former First Lady that was married to a man impeached over receiving oral sex in the White House, a woman that then won by a wide margin a race for Senator of New York, a woman that has had incredible trials and accomplishments and gone through indescribable hell -- a woman that has now written a much-talked-about and much-awaited book about her life and experiences -- is being condemned, slammed, and criticized for APPEARING IN THE MEDIA!!! A person that wrote a book that set all-time sales records is actually being sneered at and considered a glory-hog when she appears on a few shows and is talked about in the media!!

Yes, that's right.

The truly insane right-wingers say this is really bad form. "Why doesn't she just go away?" they say. "She's so power-hungry and wants publicity so desperately."

The fact remains that it would literally be impossible for Hillary Clinton to avoid being all over the news. So I guess what the right is truly pissed about is that she had the bad form to write a book. They hate that. They loudly whine that she got a lot of money for it. Then they whined and condemned her book before they'd even read it, then they predicted that no one would buy it.

They are pathetic.

Likewise for Bill Clinton. If he wants to make a statement, he's going to get coverage. That's not his fault. Bill Clinton doesn't need to alert the media when he speaks. They're there. They WANT to cover him because people are very interested in what he has to say. Is he supposed to sit at home and watch the world go by? The man is a former President and very young. Yet the right are just furious that he says or does anything at all, and just like children, are jealous that some kid not in their class is extremely popular. After all, they think they are guaranteed to be the top dogs, they think the top spots should be given to them. They think it's their right since they're rich or connected. When someone ignores the rules and emerges as a popular and effective leader, they can't stand it. Then they start acting like the petulant brats they are.

This is their true character, or lack of it.

Assuming that there is any problem at all, Pope John framed the question as to whether this complaint about the Clintons is due to their towering stature or the "flat landscape," as he put it.

Lionel the conservative said it was the flat landscape, and then dragged out the chestnut of the Democratic candidates being the "seven dwarfs." He then went further into laziness by repeating the tired spin point that Hillary is plotting for the presidency and that the book was just a calculated step in that direction.

For true and absolute mental illness, notice the trembling fear and loathing that's been exhibited by the Republicans that Hillary may actually run for president. This has been going on literally since before the Clintons were out of the White House, and if she appears anywhere on TV, it is guaranteed that the host will get absolutely crazy and desperately try to make her PROMISE that she won't run. Russert has done it repeatedly. They even do this to any Dem that appears when the subject comes up. They are MORTIFIED at the thought of a Hillary campaign.

And rightfully so: she'd hand them their asses.

The Brit showed more ignorance by going on about how he doesn't understand why Bill Clinton continues to be in the press. He was troubled about the minor story that surfaced about whether he might run for mayor of New York City.

Why can't these people realize that is WASN'T Bill Clinton that creates these stories? Someone else dreamt it up, it got big play, and then Clinton came out and denied it.

But in this bizarre world, this too is Bill Clinton's fault.

Pat spewed the typical glib spin that "The Clintons love the limelight." How stupid is that? This entire class of people live and die to get the "limelight"! The very people that condemn the Clintons for their imagined fault have this exact fault MUCH WORSE THAN THE CLINTONS! These people HIRE agents to try like mad to get them on TV. They'd sell their grandmother to a motorcycle gang to get on TV. The Clintons get coverage just for being the Clintons, yet the reason they're in the news, according to these twits, is because they "love the limelight." What BS.

Pat finally addressed the true psychological pathology of the right by urging John and others to just get over it, and pointing out that the Clintons will be around long past his and John's "natural life, and long beyond." Sound advice, but advice that the freaked-out right simply are incapable of heeding.

Pope John then gave up the charade and asked Clift if she thought this Estrich blather was premature, that of course there's a media flurry right now but it will recede.

The plain fact, as explained by Eleanor Clift, is that the Democratic candidates wouldn't be getting much coverage whether or not Bill or Hillary were in the news. Eleanor said she thinks the Clintons help the Democrats, that they're huge money raisers, and that they'll appear at the Democratic convention, so it's all to the good.

Once again, we saw the pathological fear of Hillary when John immediately asked in ominous tones, "Eleanor, you're tight with Hillary, do you think she'll run for president?" They simply can't ask enough! I mean, I've heard that question asked at least 200 times, and I'm sure that's only a small portion! The right is SO whacked out about Hillary that they will simply keep asking it until they get a no, and then go on for hours afterwards trying to make SURE it's a no. They fear Hillary running for president more than they fear death.

Eleanor said that it seems like running in 2008 is "in her trajectory."

John then whined that Hillary's poll numbers have been climbing. Aww… we feel your pain, John.

Fat Tony added the glib and not so convincing opinion that he thinks it's good for the Republicans that both Clintons are around.

Final Predictions!
Pat Buchanan: The Bushies are going to make a sacrificial lamb out of CIA director George Tenet to shield them from their lies in using fake intelligence to deceive the US and the world into going to war.
Eleanor Clift: She predicts blowback from the CIA as the White House tries to blame all their evils on them.
Tony Blankley: Ominously predicts that "in a month or two the Democrats are going to be very sorry they ever questioned the president's integrity about weapons of mass destruction." Who's Tony been talking to? Is the planting of evidence in Iraq imminent?
Little Lionel: I couldn't understand WHAT he said in the beginning, but he said it will cost John a vacation in France. (Poor John)
Pope John: Abu Mazen (Palestinian Prime Minister) will not resign.

With that, our weekly dose of McLaughlin madness was over.

-- Dash Riprock

Meet the Press
Two Takes
Players: MTP host Tim Russert, Democratic candidate for president and Vermont Governor Howard Dean

Lynching Howard Dean

If you had any doubt that General Electric and Tim Russert's Fortune 100 sponsors would prefer to knock Vermont Governor Howard Dean out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President now, you won't after this morning's performance by Russert.

Of course, Russert will tell you that he likes to play "devil's advocate" -- a perfectly plausible phrase for Russert, who plays an "advocate" for the ultra-right during every waking moment.

Russert, who had no background in real politics when he assumed the chair, and still doesn't get it, has managed to destroyed the once sterling reputation of Meet the Press, and now seems to pride himself on embarrassing people he and his bosses don't like.

His guest this Sunday, Howard Dean was not spared.

Things got so bad during the interview that this reporter thought Dean would jump over the desk and slap the paunchy pundit Russert silly.

Here's how things went:

1) Russert Plays the "Liberal" Card

Russert began not only by labeling Dean as a liberal (as if that were an affront to Russert and his cronies), but also driving a wedge between Dean and his opponents in the primary, claiming that some Democrats "fear" his nomination.

While this might be true, for any number of reasons, the set is important to all interviews. This was the first one-hour exposure on top-drawer pundit television for Dean, and Russert wasn't going to let the opportunity pass without smearing the Vermont governor.

Hey, Tim: Dean is near the bottom of the list in the polls -- you didn't have to make your agenda hurting him -- or at least trying to. You failed, as usual.

2) Russert Plays the "Criminal Son (Alleged, Mind You)" Card

Dean will announce the official launch of his campaign in Burlington, Vermont tomorrow. Yet his son Paul will not be there.

As American Politics Journal unfortunately reported yesterday, Paul Dean was arrested for breaking into a country club beer cooler with some of his friends last week -- and may be indicted on charges of burglary.

And you just knew that Russert wouldn't lose a minute bringing this up -- after, of course, making it clear that Dean is a "liberal" so that viewers could "deduce' that there must be some link between Dean's political leanings and the insinuation that Dean must be a permissive, failed parent.

Here's the fact: Paul Dean's alleged bad behavior has nothing to do with his father's candidacy.

Ask yourself this: would Russert ask a certain former Texas governor similar questions concerning criminal use of fake identification to buy alcohol and rumored incidents of illegal drug use said to involve his daughters?

Russert stupidly asked Dean whether his son Paul was "grounded". Dean, stunned by the remark, said he had imposed far worse than that -- and that his son would have to pay the price, whatever it is.

3) Russert Plays the Phony "Tax Cut" Card

Next, Russert turned to an actual issue -- and began to hammer Dean on his position that the Bush tax cuts must be rolled back. Russert brought out statistics from the Bush Administration and from sources controlled by the GOP which claim that rolling back the cuts would increase taxes for a $45,000 earning family of four by 4000% and a wealthier family by 107%.

Dean said he didn't believe the figures -- but Russert defended them.

The figures were spurious. I checked.

Dean rightfully pointed out that Bush's tax cuts were a shell game, since they force states and local governments to increase their taxes -- leaving the American people most often in far worse shape than before the cuts. Dean also reminded Russert that all of Bush's entitlement programs were left unfunded -- including "Leave no child behind.".

Russert listened with deaf ears. "You will still raise taxes," he repeated over and over as if he were running an opposition ad for Bush and his cronies. Isn't he?

4) Russert Plays the "Pharmaceuticals for Seniors" Aid Card

Dean also has attacked the "pharmaceutical aid for seniors" legislation running through the House and passed by the Senate. He told Russert that insurance companies would not insure under these rules, just as they haven't in states that have tried similar measures. He said he supported Ted Kennedy from respect but believed the House bill would be so convoluted and unhelpful that the Democrats would not be able to support it, thus leaving the President to blame Democrats for its failure.

I am not certain this will happen, but it will be interesting to watch.

5) Russert Plays the "Balanced Budget" Card

Russert then hit Dean too hard on balanced budgets. Dean said he would hate to call for a federal balanced budget, but that it might be the only way to stop free-spending, free-borrowing Republicans.

So, as usual, Russert tried to embarrass Dean using his favorite tactic: dredging up old quotes that would make it seem as if Dean has said the opposite. Dean retorted that we must roll back the tax cuts and stop the spending.

Russert then accused Dean of wanting to raise the retirement age to 70. Dean said perhaps 68, from the current 67. Russert argues that just the military, social security, and Medicare spend the entire budget now.

So what is Russert talking about? Is he making Dean's point: tax cuts now are foolish? Dean also believes that the top salary ceiling for Social Security payroll tax deductions must be raised.

Russert said, no fewer than three times during this part of the interview, "That's raising taxes!"

It was so ridiculously apparent that Russert had marching orders to attack Dean's policy. Maybe they were General Electric's orders -- perhaps they were his own.

Dean made good points, demonstrating how people were actually hurt by Bush's last round of supposed tax cuts. He pointed out that some people got checks for a few hundred dollars, but then found their retirement funds raped by Bush's allies. He also added the truth -- that states and cities make up for federal shortfalls by increasing their own taxes, most times more than any cut in Federal income tax.

Dean also made the great point that right-wing-supported tax cuts are designed to nearly bankrupt the federal government to provide the excuse to rid the nation of entitlement programs -- including the two most successful in modern history, Social Security and Medicare.

Whether this is the true goal of the neoconservatives is in question -- but many of their academic and policy advisors have written as much.

6) Russert Plays the "Gay" Card

For some stupid reason, Russert then turned to gay marriages.

What's that about?

Russert, a Catholic himself, is constantly harping on gays and the "abortion" issue. I suppose he thinks that will pave his way to heaven.

Russert brought up the fact that Canada -- Canada? -- recently passed laws that recognize gay marriage as legal and that gays are running off to Canada and then coming back to the US. Russert then said he wants to know whether Dean would support the legalization of gay marriages.

Huh?

Hey, Tim: who cares?

I'll tell you: nobody but Russert and his morals-obsessed confederates.

Dean allowed that he would "protect the rights" of gay couples but does not go as far as having to "legalize" gay marriage by federal law which he believes states can handle as they see fit.

But Russert keeps hammering him on this asinine issue. "ARE" they legally married or not, he asked, practically sneering, "DO YOU think they should be?"

Dean said this is a matter for churches.

Russert kept it up -- invoking CIVIL marriages as his last resort. Dean did not take the bait.

7) Russert Plays the "Death Penalty" Card

And of course, Russert tried to embarrass Dean, who once was fully opposed to the death penalty (Vermont has no death penalty) but who now supports it for murder of children, terrorism, and murder of police. Russert hammered him for changing his opinion, but dropped this one quickly.

8) Russert Plays the "Commander-in-Chief" Card

This was the most amusing ploy Russert used: a claim that "some" in Washington are worried that Dean won't be a good president because they think he will be "another George McGovern" (Russert used a quote from Martin Frost, a Texas Democrat who to me is a stealth Republican).

Dean said he believes that the US must focus as much on diplomacy as on military might. He wisely pointed out the historical truth called "encirclement" -- where sole military powers, who act irresponsibly -- for instance, in Iraq -- will find themselves, over the long term, instigating weaker nations into alliances against them which result, in the end, in the defeat of that military superpower.

Russert of course paid no attention -- and instead -- laughably tried to embarrass Dean yet again, asking him exactly how many men and women now serve in the armed forces.

Huh?

This smacked of Karl-Rove-style tactics. To be candid, I would not be surprised to hear Russert was briefed by Rove before the show.

Of course Dean didn't know exactly how many, and Russert was not offering the answer -- preferring to
embarrass the Governor -- who was not embarrassed at all.

So Russert asked the question again!

Dean then got angry and asked what in the world that has to do with anything. Russert got annoyed and then asks other "How many" questions -- for example, how many are in Iraq, how many are in Afghanistan -- and which Dean answers "correctly.

Dean did something smart -- he said asking questions like this is like asking who the ambassador to some little nation is. That's right -- Dean played the Bush card. He made Russert look small, and did a good job of it.

9) Russert Plays the "You're a Draft Dodger" Card!

And then -- sure as the sun rises, Russert went after Dean for having a 1Y deferment -- for a spinal problem that keeps him from running long distances.

This backfired on Russert -- although, unbelievably, Russert pointed out that immediately after receiving his deferment Dean went to Aspen to ski for months! What a laff-riot!

It turns out that, as is the usual case, Dean went down for his physical and the military itself deferred him, except in time of national emergency.

Russert looked, again, like the elephant's ass he is.

Dean also pointed out that only one candidate -- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- ever served in the regular military, and that Bush served in the National Guard (sometimes, Howard). Did Russert serve?

"Buh... but, there are concerns...," whined Russert -- afraid that the GE board will fire him.

I was laughing out loud. Dean had smacked the porcine pundit silly! It was too much.

10) Russert plays the "Iraq" Card

This was also a hoot: Russert got bent out of shape, visibly and emotionally quoting Dean, because Dean remarked that he didn't know if the US was better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Dean, of course, thought it was terrific that Saddam was gone, but he didn't see that Americans were better off from it since the White House has yet to prove that Saddam was a threat to the United States -- which of course he was not, at least not at the time we attacked. Dean said that he did not know now what the final pay off for the United States would be. The negatives are certainly clear, and Dean pointed out some of them -- and called for an independent investigation of what Bush knew and didn't know, and when.

Sure, Howard. That's gonna happen.

11) Russert plays the "Disloyal Democrat" Card

As Dean stood up to Russert time after time, Russert was forced into the farcical -- this time accusing Dean of attacking his fellow Democrats.

Gee, isn't this a primary race between Democrats?

Dean had remarked publicly that Democrat candidates better "get a backbone transplant" because they were all busy applauding the President and supporting his outlandish programs while the American people suffered.

Russert called on Dean to name names which, of course, Dean refused to do -- saying he wanted to keep at least a "semblance of unity" within the Democrat Party.

And Russert kept it up -- asking for names. He must have used the word "backbone" half a dozen times. It didn't work.

12) Russert plays the "Temperament" Card

Tim asked whether Dean thinks he has the "temperament" to be president -- because he attacked fellow Democrats.

Hmmmm... was this for real, or was Tim Russert drowning?

Dean brushed it off. "When I am wrong, I am not afraid to apologize."

Russert then parenthetically accused Dean of being a "bomb thrower" by quoting someone else.

Dean retorted well, saying that Democrats have to stop with statesmanship -- which is really hedging the issues (and that's a truthful statement you can take to the bank).

13) Oh, Joy! Russert Finally Plays His Favorite, the "Abortion" Card!

Naturally, holier-than-thou Russert attacked Dean for his stand against parental notification for abortion when a minor is involved. Russert brought up a convoluted story about Dean having talked to the National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) about a patient Dean had -- a 12-year-old whom he suspected at the time had been raped by her father. Later, this turned out not to be true -- but it had struck Dean that not all children, because of a variety of factors (including beatings from their parents
or worse) could tell their parents they were pregnant and seeking or considering having an abortion.

Russert unbelievably attacked Dean for NOT telling NARAL that it turned out the girl had been raped by someone else! Ha, ha, ha -- wow, Tim, that's really a whopper! Dean's point to NARAL had nothing to do with this specific girl -- very few 12-year-olds get pregnant -- it was merely an anecdote about how he came to believe that laws should not be passed forcing kids under the age of majority to tell their parents they are pregnant.

I happen to believe this position is fraught with problems -- but I can also see Dean's point.

But Russert would not give up -- he kept saying that Dean could have sought a judge's opinion -- as if judges are all so perfect. What if the judge was anti-choice? offered Dean.

Russert's use of a 12-year-old was typical bottom feeding. Why not simply ask the question?

Here's why: Russert is out to smear -- and to smear at all costs.

Yet we never see him attacking Secretary of State Colin Powell for lying to the United Nations about Saddam Hussein's active import of materials from Africa to construct nuclear weapons.

14) Russert Plays the "Gun Control" Card

Conveniently, Russert shifted to the left on this issue because Dean is not a supporter of gun control laws and believes it is a state by state issue. The issue fizzled.

And so did the show.

Russert reminded the audience to "stay tuned" -- and then, following numerous commercials from a variety of Fortune 100s who pay his ridiculously huge salary, he returned not to tell us more but to say good-bye.

The show ended.

Howard Dean may not be able to win the Democratic nomination, but his candor is refreshing and his remarks about backbone are true.

If Dean serves only to push stronger Democrat candidates toward calling this President what he is, then he has served his country well.

-- Jeff Koopersmith

Call It RNC/MTP

I watched all of MTP today -- or as I'm thinking of it now, "RNC/MTP v. Dean."

As expected, Prosecuting GOP Attorney Russert played dirty pool. He was doing everything he could think of to see if he can catch Dean off guard or trap him in some way.

It didn't work all that well.

For one thing, Dr. Dean parried most of Russert's smears almost before they had left Russert's mouth. Even on the issues that Russert thought he had the best chance to trap Dean, Dean escaped with nary a scratch.

Early on, Russert brought up charges from certain of Dean's enemies in a Vermont newspaper that Dr. Dean, who used to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, had very recently changed his position to appeal to the voters in the important primary state of South Carolina. (Russert also tried to imply that Dean would use the death penalty just as gleefully as Bush did and does.)

Did Russert succeed in "trapping" Dean?

Hardly.

The good doctor, with an amused smile on his face, pointed out that the same newspaper that printed those charges had also printed, back in 1994, how his position on the death penalty had changed as a result of the Polly Klaas and other cases involving children being raped and murdered. (Dean took great pains to point out that he supported the death penalty ONLY in such extreme circumstances -- not for some kid who robs a convenience store or some such.) Dr. Dean also pointed out that the most heinous child molesters are essentially untreatable, and have been known to get out of prison, through escapes or legal screw-ups -- and then proceeded to cite, in detail, one such case.

Did Prosecuting GOP Attorney Russert admit that Dean had a point there, and that Dean's attackers were lying?

Are you kidding?

This is Tim "Shill for the RNC" Russert we're talking about here.

He not only refused to admit that Dean was right and his attackers wrong, he then brought up remarks made in 1997 by a Catholic bishop concerning Dean's death penalty stance.

(This brings up a question for Prosecuting GOP Attorney Russert: if Russert already knew about the Catholic bishop's 1997 comments -- so much so that he had them slapped onto the TV screen -- why did he try to push the lie that Dean had changed his stance barely a few weeks ago to get the redneck vote?)

Moving right along, Dean said that Bush is badly botching things in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that both countries, far from being better off, are rapidly falling apart. If we're going to be over there at all, we need more troops in both countries to stabilize the situations, and we shouldn't be making deals with warlords (this is a reference to the PNAC Platoon's ongoing efforts at making deals with the Taliban, the folks who we invaded Afghanistan to get rid of!).

Prosecuting Attorney Russert, speaking for the Republican National Committee, tried to rattle Dean with a question on exact troop levels, and Dean supplied him with a 135,000 figure, and with General Eric Shinseki's comments that we needed at least 100,000 more. (General Shinseki, as APJ's readers will remember, was Chief of Staff of the Army under Army Secretary Thomas "Enron" White. Both Shinseki and White were axed by Darth Rumsfeld because Rumsfeld doesn't want to deploy more US troops right before the 2004 election season heats up. He's gambling that he can somehow get more bodies out of the UK, and that will somehow magically solve the situation -- even though current events are already proving otherwise.)

All in all, it was a good taste of the RNC's strategy against Governor Dean. And Howard Dean did a damned good job. Not only did he not get flustered, he caused Russert to get flustered -- and to jump on him so hard, and so unfairly, that even my usually-disinterested husband noticed it.

This will backfire on Russert and his GOP masters, and create more sympathy -- and votes -- for Howard Dean.

-- Tamara Baker

Morrie Friendly gave up a career as a political consultant to become a management consultant and pseudonymous travel guide author. He retains close ties to top players in both the Democratic and Republican parties and lives with his dog in Georgetown.

Dash Riprock is a free-lance smart aleck based in Moline, IL. who's enjoying the summer and hopes you are too. You can reach Dash at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com.

Jeff Koopersmith is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist."

Tamara Baker has written about politics and high-end audio for periodicals as diverse as The Abso!ute Sound, Online Journal and American Politics Journal. She lives in Minnesota.