First thoughts: A bumpier 2009?

Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:26 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann
*** A bumpier 2009? You could chalk up the Richardson flap to a simple vetting mistake about the New Mexico governor’s ties to an alleged pay-to-play scheme, or a lack of communication between the Obama and Richardson folks. Yet any big controversy ended as soon as Richardson withdrew his nomination over the weekend; it prevented a rough confirmation hearing. But now Obama's pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA has drawn new criticism because of (1) Panetta’s lack of intelligence experience and (2) the fact that Obama's team apparently didn't even consult the selection with incoming Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, who prefers a career intelligence official in charge of the CIA. The timing of this criticism isn't good for the Obama team, especially since it comes immediately after Richardson withdrawal. The 2008 transition was very smooth. The 2009 transition so far? Well, welcome to the big leagues. But as Ron Fournier writes, “While these are hiccups in what has otherwise been a smooth transition, Obama's response suggests that he is a patient and pragmatic politician, willing to trade time for consensus on legislation and to jettison allies who jeopardize his carefully built reformist image."

*** Competence and ideology: One reason why intelligence has become such a tough nut for Obama to crack: There’s a lot of Democratic rhetoric on intel from the presidential campaign, and it's something that Obama is allowing the intellectual left to have veto power over. Obama finds himself caught in this first intra-party vise between his instinct to pick competence over ideology. His first rumored choices for CIA were competent picks -- but both would have been eviscerated by the intellectual left because of their anger at Bush over interrogation practices. He's allowing ideology to trump competence for the first time in one of his major appointments. Now, the pick of Dennis Blair to be DNI is a tip toward competence, while the Obama folks hoped Panetta was a compromise between competence and ideology. (Panetta was praised as a smart manager during the Clinton White House years.) But it looks like it ain’t being received that way...

*** Welcome back, Congress: When the 111th Congress officially begins today, it appears that the two men who may (or may not) be senator -- Roland Burris and Al Franken -- won’t be seated, at least for today. Per NBC’s Ken Strickland, Burris will show up to Capitol Hill at 10:30 am ET (and will hold a press conference at the Senate’s appointment desk entrance), but he won’t be allowed onto the Senate floor. No one expects there to be confrontation over the matter. Strickland adds that both Burris and Franken lack election certificates (Illinois’ secretary of state won’t sign Burris’, while the Coleman campaign plans to challenge yesterday’s declaration that Franken won the recount for the Minnesota Senate seat). One other thing: Vice President-elect Joe Biden also gets sworn in today. Per a Biden spokeswoman, he won’t become the first VP-elect to do this: LBJ also was sworn in before officially resigning his Texas Senate seat to become vice president. So why is VP-elect Biden being sworn in today as senator? Well, one reason is to go on one final CODEL…

*** Rules "change"? Democrats released a new "rules package," intended as "Common-sense Reforms to Keep Congress Working for America, Continue to Restore Integrity to Institution," the press releases subhead reads. But one of those changes rescinds term limits from committee chairs. Is this really a reform? Is this a healthy thing for the Democratic Party? There are just six chairs who were elected with or after Clinton, while the other 16 came to Congress before Bill Clinton was even a twinkle in James Carville's eye, and six came to Congress before Jimmy Carter was elected! Is this change Democrats can believe in? Shouldn't the House Democrats want new blood running Congress not just serving in it?

*** 2009 vs. 1993: It was 16 years ago -- the last time (1993) that we saw a Democratically controlled Congress getting sworn in with a Democratic president on the way (Bill Clinton). But it’s worth pointing out that Democrats today find themselves in a MUCH STRONGER position than they were in 1993. While Democrats back then held about the same number of House and Senate seats that they hold now, they were a party that was on the decline or stagnant. According to the Vital Statistics on Congress, they held 258 House seats on the first day of the 103rd Congress (1993-95), down from the 267 they had in the prior Congress. And in the Senate, they held 57 Senate seats, up one from the previous Congress. Of course, they lost their hold on both chambers after the 1994 election. But after this past November, Democrats have significantly increased their majorities in both the House and Senate, and Obama won his presidential contest with 53% of the vote (compared with Clinton’s 43%).

*** The latest in New York: According to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Democratic political sources say Gov. Paterson has asked the hopefuls to replace Hillary Clinton for their financial records, and Caroline Kennedy is expected to turn over her records -- as will Congress members Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney, and potentially others. Until now, Kennedy has kept her finances private; she didn’t disclose them when she took her NYC education post in the Bloomberg administration. The simple act of cooperating on this front should be a sign that she's probably still safe to call the front-runner for the appointment.

*** The party of Reagan: Perhaps our biggest takeaway after watching yesterday’s RNC chair forum in DC was all the emphasis on Ronald Reagan. The six candidates vying for chairman -- Saul Anuzis, Ken Blackwell, Katon Dawson, Mike Duncan, Chip Saltsman, and Michael Steele -- mentioned Reagan frequently, much like the Republican presidential candidates did at all the GOP debates during the primary season. And when asked who their favorite Republican president was, all the RNC chair candidates said Reagan. But here’s a little cold water to throw on that Reagan legacy: Your First Read authors, respectively, were 8 years old, 6 years old, 1 year old, and not even born when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. Think about that as the GOP tries to perform better among 18-29 year olds, a group Obama won 66%-32%. What’s more, while conservatives remember Reagan’s legacy as a tax-cutter and anti-communist hawk, he also had a much more pragmatic side. He raised taxes (!!!) and his administration worked through back channels with the Soviets to bring an end to the Cold War.

*** Stimulus odds and ends: One news nugget that didn't get much play yesterday -- the TARP money. Part of the message that was bandied about during the larger meeting between Obama and bipartisan congressional leaders, according to one source privy to the meeting, was to move quickly to get the rest of the TARP money appropriated ($350 billion) before Bush leaves office. No doubt Obama would love to have the entire $700 billion appropriated on 43's watch…

Countdown to Electoral Vote Count In Congress: 2 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 14 days
Countdown to RNC winter meeting: 22 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 154 days
Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 147 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 301 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 665 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

The GOP may love Reagan, but they need a new face to go forward. If they continue to look back at the good ole days of the Cold War, the party will be doomed.

Someone like Michael Steele or Bobby Jindal needs to step up and take the Reagan mantle.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

the Pajama Pundit (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:37 AM)

Oh thank goodness Kieth is back on air. A lot of us missed him and Rachel so much. Welcome back Kieth!

Mia in Miami (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:37 AM)

CA, Tuscaloosa, AL:

All we keep being told over and over and over is that you can’t deal with Hamas. Well, we’re all pretty aware of the history of the Middle East. I can remember when the PLO was considered the worst of the bunch. Wasn’t it they who killed the Israeli athletes in Munich during the Olympics? And now there is peace between them and Israel. Who shot down the plane in Lockerbie? Has Bush not recently reached out to him? Who sold arms to Iran? The list is endless.

My issue with this war is the foreign policy towards Hamas that everyone was on board with. During the ceasefire, nothing was accomplished. Nothing. At Camp David, everyone threw up their arms, their bags were packed and all concerned were literally heading out to their vehicles - with no resolution in sight. It was Carter who brought them back to the table and accomplished – what? -peace.

These neocons in the Bush Admin. have never put on a uniform in their life, never fought for anything but military might to solve problems. We all know the capabilities we have militarily. That’s all we have seen since Bush came into office.

No one can take back the atrocities of WWII, of Vietnam, of September 11th. No one can. The best we can do is learn from them. As far as I’m concerned, the neocons in this Administration are cowards and they are wimps. And I see the justifications working now just as it worked leading up to the Iraq War. Same people.

Btw, did I hear last night that Israel had wanted to put forth another ceasefire with Hamas a while back and Bush nixed it? Bush and his neocon pals’ foreign policy has been a disgrace.

Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion both admitted that Israel did in fact steal land away from the Palestinians. Well, this is a pretty good step towards making amends, somehow, someway. Killing them is not the answer.

There is a reason why President Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Anyway, Happy New Year. Let’s hope Barack Obama is who he says he is. A man who believes in listening to both sides, not just one.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:37 AM)

The party of Raygunz will remain a loser's party until they come up with something much better. We are winessing the total repudiation of Raygunz's Tinkle Down economics that have left the whole world suffering from the wrong kind of Golden Shower. Raygunz was all wrong and the repugnant ones have been all wrong ever since.

That fool Diane Feinstein needs to get a clue. She was nothing but an appeaser of the bushwhacker's poor judicial appointments and she should not be on the Intelligence Committee in any capacity. Her clueless ranting against Panetta is just proof she's out of touch with reality on the intelligence issue. We need Panetta to clean up the mess that is the CIA.

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:41 AM)

It's clear that Obama is drunk with power. Even he has started to believe the Messiah tag people are placing on him. The man has an ego as big as the Hindenburg, and because of that the results of his presidency will have the same end as the blimp did. The man is clearly not thinking straight and has no clue what he is doing. Obama will end up the same way as the governor in his home state where even his own party will hate him. Obama certainly has a agenda he's not sharing with his peers in Congress. Those leaders in Congress have huge egos too and won't put up with any power play attempts from Obama.

Marcia Watkins, Brentville OH (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:41 AM)

With Obama is charge we assume things will get better .... or maybe we need a different president.

OUI (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:43 AM)

"Competence v. Ideology," is a bum frame for the CIA debate. The point is that the CIA has NOT BEEN COMPETENT, but rather a disfunctional agency that has engaged in illegal and immoral practices that Obama (and expert consensus) believes to be useless or even counterproductive. Panetta, on the other hand, is a highly competent manager. Ideology and competence are not opposed in this case.

Cormac, NYC (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:44 AM)

C. Kennedy, NY You Know NY (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:44 AM)

Who expected that the transistion would be perfect and there would be nary a problem? Ofcourse Obama is going to have some problems even within his own party. I have faith that Obama will intelligently negotiate the problems and turn them into successes.

I would be far more hopeful if the Congress doesn't release anymore of the TARP money before the bushwhacker leaves office. I would rather see Obama's intelligent economics team dispense the money than see it wasted by the incompetent fools of the current administration of buffoons. We need someone who will protect us taxpayers not someone who just wants to give their big banking pals more bonus money.

Investigate Bush and Cheney and throw them in Prison!

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:46 AM)

From the Washington Monthly.com:

'...But at this point, Feinstein and Rockefeller are hardly the most credible of critics. Rockefeller was a feckless ranking member of the Intelligence Committee during much of Bush's presidency. As for Feinstein, as John Cole noted, she "had no problem voting yea for Porter Goss, George Tenet, and Michael Hayden, as well as Mike Mukasey, Robert Mueller, and Donald Rumsfeld," so it's odd that she'd try to "knee-cap her own party's nominee for CIA." Digby added, "The fact is that DiFi is actually implicated in the torture regime and should just shut up on this."...'

To say NOTHING of Feinstein voting FOR the first Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, Domestic wire taps, Phone company immunity for spying on Americans, tax cuts, Bush's Supreme court nominees, ad nauseum

The current leadership of the CIA is too compromised by torture, water boarding, and 'enhanced' interrogration techniques.

DiFi and Rockefeller slept through this new torture regime

A torturer is NOT ACCEPTABLE as CIA chief

The current CIA 'leadership' were asleep and missed 9/11 !
Where were they ?
Didn't they FAIL in preventting 9/11 ?

The current CIA leadership lied about WMDs
They probably faked the 'yellow cake' letter, critical in greasing the skids for a illegal war

The current CIA team has shown gross incmpetence and stupidity

Time for some new blood

MSierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:47 AM)

I'm curious as to why you are characterizing Obama's initial CIA choice as showing a preference for "competence" over "ideology." Why use the word "competent" to describe anyone remotely involved with intel over the last eight years, given the disastrous record of that period? And I wasn't aware it was a "leftist ideology" to oppose torture and a suspension of basic constitutional rights or to oppose any potential appointee who signed off on such policies. Seems to me that support of the Constitution and existing international law is pretty "conservative" and "pragmatic."

Ross Kennedy, Bloomington, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:48 AM)

There seems to be a lot of noise over the Panetta appointment. Senator Diane Finestein has a bit of a bruised ego that she wasn't informed of the appointment. Panetta is a good choice as he does have excellent management skills and is against torture. It is also noteworthy that the "Intelligence Team" does have experts who will collaborate and work together (Panetta's strong suit) Senator Byah from Indiana will support the Panetta nomination, as will other Senators. Panetta's appointment will go through.

Franken will join the Senate at a later date. Who knows the outcome of Burris. The fact that Obama spoke out against Burris gives the Senate a lot of cover to exclude him...at least for now.

Ron Indiana (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:49 AM)

'...both would have been eviscerated by the intellectual left because of their anger at Bush over interrogation practices...'

'interrogation practices' ?
What a PRETTY NAME FOR TORTURE !!

'interrogation practices' !!

We didn't torture, we just have different 'interrogation practices'

Isn't TORTURE a VIOLATION of the Geneva Convention ?

'interrogation practices'
How SWEET !!

NO TORTURERS ! NO WAY !

MSierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:51 AM)

I have never understood the "worshipping" of Ronald Reagan. I thought he was a terrible president. An actor. A mentally unsound president at best and yet people talk about his presidency as if he walked on water. I will never forget Nancy leaning over to him after being asked an question and saying to him "We're doing the best we can, Ronnie" of which he then repeated that to the reporter. I just have never seen in him what others appear to see.

Diane from Illinois (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:51 AM)

'interrogation practices'

MSierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:52 AM)

"He's allowing ideology to trump competence for the first time in one of his major appointments."
----------------------------------------------------

Torture is not a matter of "ideology." It's something that civilized nations don't do. Unfortunately, people with managerial in intelligence agencies have been tainted over the past 8 years with by association with the criminal practices of the Bush regime. That's why Obama had to go outside of the intelligence community to find a CIA director.

By the way: E. J. Dionne pointed out that George H. W. Bush was appointed CIA director even though he came from outside the intelligence community. There's nothing particularly surprising about Obama doing the same.

Houston (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:56 AM)

.... and I don't understand the worshipping of Barack Obama, who hasn't done squat for this country
and will rely on a previous administration for some misguidance. Ugh.

Sarah of Cincinnati (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 AM)

Reagan saved us from the Commies, 'nough said!

Michael Furlong, Long Island, NY (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 AM)

Reagan lied about not raising or cutting taxes. The first thing he did was cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on the middle class. He did away with middle class tax deductions, while opening loopholes for the rich. I was so disappointed after I saw my taxes go up. The modern day republicans give Reagan way to much credit for the fall of the soviet empire and the bringing down of the Berlin wall. The Changes in Eastern Europe were instigated from within more than from outside pressures. I am astonished to hear some of the praises reaped on Reagan as if he were a God. When the republicans first proposed replacing Roosevelt with Regan on the dime I could not conceive why. Now I know it is part of the myth building that surrounds Reagan. The slogan “What would Reagan do” is so funny, just because it is reflected of “What would Jesus do” When I hear “what would Reagan do?” I ask Jesus my landscaper what would he do.

TEC-Spring-TX (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:59 AM)

"His first rumored choices for CIA were competent picks -- but both would have been eviscerated by the intellectual left because of their anger at Bush over interrogation practices. He's allowing ideology to trump competence for the first time in one of his major appointments." - First Read
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is one thing to say that someone is inexperienced. It is quite another to say they are incompetent. Considering Leon Panetta's resume, I think it is EXTREMELY UNFAIR to label him incompetent.

Could it be that President-Elect Obama is seeking a NEW PERSPECTIVE by selecting someone OUTSIDE OF the intelligence establishment (the very same intelligence establishment whose questionable judgments and assessments have paid a crucial role in leading us into our Iraq and Guantanamo Bay debacles), and that the choice of Panetta is a step in the RIGHT DIRECTION?
However, regardless of whether everyone agrees on the pick or not, let's not pretend Leon Panetta was training Arabian horses before he got this job (yeah, I'm picking on you again Brownie).

P.S. Kinda seems like Senator Feinstein is more concerned about her spot in the pecking order than about the actual job at hand. Was she a part of the Democratic leadership that went along like willing sheep for all the torture and wirless wiretapping? Perhaps she does not have the President Elect's trust, and based on her knee jerk reaction, I can see why.

P.S. Please try to refrain from using phrases like "the intellectual left" whenever possible - doesn't make much sense and makes you sound all "media elite" - and we don't want that, now do we? :)

Nashville_fan (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:00 AM)

I have never understood the "worshipping" of Ronald Reagan. I thought he was a terrible president. An actor. A mentally unsound president at best and yet people talk about his presidency as if he walked on water.

Diane from Illinois

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those Cold War and Berlin Wall deals? Nothing special. Anyone could have taken of those problems. Reagan was just in the right place and the right time to take all the credit.

Mark K., Ohio (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:02 AM)

The only "bumps in the road" are the Dems.

Tax breaks that are nothing short of welfare for those who don't or won't work and Illinios political corruption.

Runnin' For Cover (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:06 AM)

The reason the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 was because they passed Clinton's deficit reduction act of 1993.
The GOP "spun" it as "the largest tax increase in U.S. history," (It was not)
Also, Democrats passed Clinton's Crime Bill in September of 1994, which included severe restrictions on assault weapons, and closed "sales show" loop holes on background checks. It also included money for inner city programs that kept youths off the streets after dark, and put more cops on the beat nationwide.
Republicans whined and complained about the gun restrictions, and labeled the inner city programs as wasteful spending.
The crime bill reduced violent crime nationwide by nearly 35%, and we all know about the economic boom of the 1990's.
So, my question to the Oh-so-knowledgable "analysts" at FIRST READ is.....how can you label the Democrats of 1993 as a pary that was in "decline or stagnant?"
Aside from censoring all criticism of Barack HUSEIN Obama, and giving multiple posting space to his supporters, aside from being total OBAMA-LACKEYS, you're also a group of wet-behind-the-ears PUNKS who haven't got the foggiest idea what your talking about.
Obviously, whatever Jr High you were attending during the 1990's didn't encourage reading a newspaper.
Here's a quarter, buy a clue!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:06 AM)

I would like to take this opportunity to play - Chris Matthews, and predict how the media will play this year with their so called "NEWS".

First - there will be nothing said about the great things President Obama will have done and how well it served America.

Second - every decision he makes or contemplate will be scrutinizes before it is even implemented.

Third - whatever he says - will be twisted to mean someone else, and it will never be positive.

Forth - no matter how well how economy recovers, or when our troops finally begin to come home from Iraq and we begin to win the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan or even if we capture or kill Osama bin laden - the media will find some why to credited George Bush.

My point - the media has become a joke - they are head hunters and story spinners. They can't be trusted to provide us "factual news".

They have become the largest "drama queens" in America's history.

That's way we will turn to other sources and "news'. As much as I like Chris Matthews - shows like his will soon fade away - because no body wants to see a "political fight" they want to hear factual news.

No one will care anymore about the titles - liberal or conservative, etc.

Yet - you media folks keep talking in these divisive ways, don’t you media executives get it - we don't want your drama or your spins or your so called experts - hell half the time they are wrong anyway.

Your days will be numbered if you can't get it together. We will not stand for the Media in their attempts to degrade President Obama or to spin and make BS news to somehow make him seem incompetent.

It will not be ALLOWED - get it through your thick media skulls OK.

Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA

The - Democrat Soldier (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:07 AM)

"Your First Read authors, respectively, were 8 years old, 6 years old, 1 year old, and not even born when Reagan first won the White House in 1980."

ha, ha! I love First Read. You guys make me chuckle. I was 22 when Reagan was elected and while I never hated him, as I hated George W., nothing about his administration makes me nostalgic for a Reagan II.
Reagan was a nice enough guy but again, the rich got richer and the energy crisis was never addressed.

I am a Democrat because I grew up in the Nixon era, under an appalling Presidency. I imagine George W. has spawned another generation of "I will never vote Republican" voters.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:10 AM)

Remember the worshipping of Obama and all the money raised.

This man will fall harder than anyone can imagine.
The bigger they are .......

Polythene Pam (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:16 AM)

Congress to have " rules change " to bring integrity to the institution ?

2008 bailouts proved how irresponsible and corrupt the U.S.Congress really is.

Barack Obama " CHANGE " you can't believe in.

joe gingras (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:18 AM)

joe gingras (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:20 AM)

.... and I don't understand the worshipping of Barack Obama, who hasn't done squat for this country
and will rely on a previous administration for some misguidance. Ugh.
Sarah of Cincinnati (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 AM)
---------
Reagan did squat for this country before he became president. He would not have won but for Carter. He was an incompetent and fool of a president. He's responsible for all our economic woes. One of the worst recessions happened at the end of his first term. He drove our defecits up to the point we saw double digit interest rates! Mortgage rates during his presidency were, on average, 13%! And that was a good rate then! He inaugaurated Trickle Down Economics, and for over 25 years, its not worked! I'm still waiting for the pennies to trickle down to me from the millions of dollars given to the very rich ala Reagan! Whatever.

I guess Repukes are trying to create a Reagan Myth, because the Reagan Reality was not a pretty picture.

Pat Huntington NY (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:20 AM)

Now that is rich. The Liberals questioning Reagans credentials, but giving Obama a pass on his credentials (or lack there of).

Heidi Ross, CA (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:24 AM)

Obama is an empty suit. He will start stuttering a lot more now that he is faced with reality. No doubt he will be smoking heavily soon. He is in it for the image, the glory and the power. God pray for America.

claire deleun (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:28 AM)

"...But as Ron Fournier writes, “While these are hiccups in what has otherwise been a smooth transition, Obama's response suggests that he is a patient and pragmatic politician, willing to trade time for consensus on legislation and to jettison allies who jeopardize his carefully built reformist image." .....

Okay, so Ron Fournier is full of crap too.

First of all this hasn't been a "smooth" transition. It has been fractured and pedestrian, at best.

The Blagojevich flap, the Panetta selection to head the CIA (absolutely no intel experience), the selection of nothing but Clinton aids/prior appointees after promising "change, and now Richardson's withdrawel is indicative of Obama's naivity, and inexperience.

Secondly, Obama's silence regarding the current crisis in the Middle East shows his inability to speak out on current events, without a teleprompter in front of him.

He has a bully pulpit, as U.S. President Elect, from which he could have spoken out and, perhaps, saved a few lives.

But, he couldn't put the words together, and instead he chose to drop back 5 and punt by having his aids say "there's one President at a time."

This guy doesn't represent change.

He's a "made for TV" politician who sounds great when he repeats the stump-catch-phrases, and buzz-words.

But, when he is presented with issues of importance on an international level; when he is challenged with REAL issues and faced with an international crisis....he will fall flat on his face.

I guaranty it, because you're seeing a preview of it right now.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:28 AM)

The great economic booms of the past have always featured tax cuts as part of the recovery package. Bravo to the new president-elect for shunting aside his own campaign rhetoric flailing the Bush tax cuts in favor of a more pragmatic approach.

allen liles (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:32 AM)

Pat you need to wake up and smell some coffee! People have tried to talk peace to the middle east for 50yrs or more to no avail. Give it up. No country is going to talk their way to peace in the middle east and especially your washed up has been crappy president Jimmy Carter.
And I'm tired of hearing about how Obama can bring the world together for peace and harmony. Newsflash, not gonna happen.
MSNC forums are all just a bunch of government haters. All you can do is ride the Bush hating band wagon. Now that Obama is in office we get to see what you all whine about now and we'll see how safe we are these next 4 yrs.

And whoever posted they were happy Keith is back, you watch way too much tv. He's a pompous idiot! That's why he got bumped from his anchor spot.

nut, clinton township, mi (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:32 AM)

So, when did being against torture and rendition automatically become a leftist ideal only? It'd help if you didn't add your spoonfed Republican talking points into your posts.

twostepcub, trenton, NJ (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:33 AM)

SARAH IN CINCINATTI AND WHAT HAS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DONE THAT IS SO GOOD FOR AMERICA ESPECIALLY UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!! YOU INJECT POLITICAL HATRED INTO THE MINDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE VERY FOND OF MR OBAMA LIKE MYSELF, YET IT IS YOU SARAH THAT HAS A UNREALISTIC POINT OF VIEW ON POLITICS, JUST LOOK AT YOUR OWN CORRUPT PARTY!

SEAN CULPEPER (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:36 AM)

Breaking news for the GOP! This just in: RONALD REGAN IS DEAD! (Furthermore, Nancy is a couple of braincells away from dementia)

It's hilarious that Republicans accuse Obama supporters of idol worshiping when Regan has pretty much become the GOP's Golden Calf.

Separate point. Is it me, or are the sore-losers here just praying for Obama to screw up. Or even worse. They're hoping for another 9/11 attack so that they can say "I told you so". There's something almost sickly sadistic in some of the postings here. Rather than simply accept what's happened and hope for the best, they're praying for the worst. To quote Bill Maher, these people are "horny for the end of days." These are the same people who accused those who didn't buy into Bush's Bu--Sh-- of being "unpatriotic", "unamerican", and "terrorist". I often wonder what their criteria for "patriotisim" is. I certainly wouldn't expect folks to "unconditionally" support our new president anymore than I did the old one, but in all of my own criticisms of the Bush administration, I never hoped for or cheered its failure. Indeed, Bush could have been as good a president as he's currently trying to spin himself into. His own hubris was his undoing, and sadly, ours. I'm hoping that Obama can undo the damage to this country done by the outgoing administration. Not for his sake, but for ours.

14 Days Until Inauguration Day!
http://jawillie.blog.com

jawillie, Philadelphia, PA. (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:38 AM)

to those here that wish Obama would fail, you better think that again and hope he is a success....the country's success as well as most of ours depend on it. Some here have a strong hate for the success of our country while most of the world hates the Bush administration.

larry (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:42 AM)

You know, the job, in the Senate, you know? You know, I'd like that job, you know, cause it would be, you know, so cool to have, you know. First thing I'd do, you know, would be to, you know, help the children, you know. I am so, you know, looking forward to, you know, representing, you know, the people of you know, New York. You know.
C. Kennedy, NY You Know NY (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:44 AM)
_______________

Wow, I pray your children never develop any disabilities or tics...looks like they would have an amazingly unsympathetic harpy taking care of them...you know?

JT (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:46 AM)

and I don't understand the worshipping of Barack Obama, who hasn't done squat for this country
and will rely on a previous administration for some misguidance. Ugh.
Sarah of Cincinnati (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 AM)
_________________

He isn't President yet, and he isn't a Senator anymore either. Just exactly what do you expect him to be doing right now???

Unbelievable.

Jackson, Seattle (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:48 AM)

Sidebar: Eisenhower is on the dime, not Roosevelt.

I think the world is a far too dangerous place at the moment to have someone outside the Intelligence Community to take over the CIA.

As a supporter of the Democratic Party, I want to know more about Kennedy's qualifications to take over the NY seat. This is not the time in American history to be trivial with these kinds of decisions. We need competence and experience in all positions of power in DC to get us thru this mess we find ourselves in.

Anonymous Moderate Denver CO (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:50 AM)

Reagan also set the stage for the economy we see today with de-regulation and trickle-down economics.....anyone seen any trickle down to you????
Ask the homeless Vets what he did for them? I believe he closed down facilities that were taking care of them (in California) and they are now homeless. Yep, that's putting the "country first", isn't it? Another hypocritical Republican politician......and THIS is the guy they ALL respect? Prepare to see Dems in control for a very long time.
And Sarah of Cincinnati: Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet....I'll bet you'd have something more to say if he was making decisions right now, too, wouldn't you? Geesh. Get over it. He's going to be YOUR president, too, come Jan. 20th! And it can't come soon enough.

Diane from Illinois (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:51 AM)

Interesting – The authors of the little blurb are from the arrogant dis-connected generation that believes that text messaging is somehow connected to intelligence.
How dare those evil Republicans admire a president that served before their diminutive lifetime! I never was an admirer of Reagan or the Republican Party but the socialist avalanche of the Democratic Party has appalled me.
It would be wise for those in the 18 to 29 year old group who slept through their History classes, plugged in to iPods, to recall the words of Santayana “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”
Change and Hope are marketing buzzwords. They are neither plans nor direction and do not indicate an iota of leadership. Freedom and Liberty require a huge amount of personal responsibility. Not a Nanny government.
Not happy with comparisons with Reagan? Try Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, FDR, or better yet, read Washington’s letter to the American people as he left office.

Realsurf (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:07 AM)

My parents were Reagan Democrats, but I never could figure out why he was so popular (great communicator my a$$). And now, with our economy in shreds, we can all understand the stupidity of "trickle-down economics" that never actually DID trickle anything down to the middle class. Yes, he did end the cold war, or at least took advantage of the already crumbling power structure in the USSR, but he RUINED our economy with his love of tax relief for the rich and abhorence of regulations so the rich could get even richer. The next leader of the GOP needs to move forward, not backward, if they want to expand their influence. As an Independent (albeit Democrat-leaning), I think it's to the country's benefit to have two strong parties to keep everything in balance.

Indie Woman in Denver (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:19 AM)

Eric Salacious is apparently knowledgeable about the right kind of golden shower.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:23 AM)

Where was the Intelligence Committee for the last eight years? Now they find their voice. Unbelievable!

Shar, Wisconsin (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:23 AM)

Freedom and Liberty require a huge amount of personal responsibility.

Realsurf (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:07 AM)

___________

And just exactly how much personal responsibility did Bush require of his cabinet? Zero. None of them took personal responsibility for any of it, and Bush had them dodge all the subpeonas they were given.

So, before you start talking about how the democratic party appalls you, you better check the other side of the room. There is no accountability over there either.

So, either leave the glass house, or put down the stones.

Death to hypocracy (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:30 AM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY - how obvious your disgust for PE Obama and yet I would bet you were a 2 time George Bush supporter.

PE Obama is just that President Elect! In our constitution there is only 1 president at a time - so just because George Bush is not the leader he need to be or should have been - gives you no authority to condemn PE for your so called version of his inactions.

Get a grip - you can hate PE Obama all you want - but the fact of the matter is - anything said by a John McCain supporter or George Bush supporter doesn't matter and frankly - never will.

People like you have poor judgment - because you are blind by prejudice ways - and trapped in your delusional box of hate.

One thing you will never realized is - people that talk ill about PE Obama are already condemn in their meaning and though - because you would have to be a complete idiot, stupid or down right prejudice to criticize this man - after all the BS George Bush and his administration has put this country through.

Bottom line - no body cares about what people like you think.

Thank you and GOD BLESS AMEIRICA

The - Democrat Soldier (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:31 AM)

"As a supporter of the Democratic Party, I want to know more about Kennedy's qualifications to take over the NY seat...."
Anonymous Moderate Denver CO (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:50 AM)

She has none.
But then again, why should she be any different than our new President, or his CIA Director?
"Lack of experience" didn't stop the kiddies from pushing Obama to national prominence. Why should it stop a potentialy unqualified Senate candidate.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:38 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1733496