Fooled the shit outa you, didn’t he?

Howard Baker (who was Everett Dirksen’s son-in-law) was Nixon’s “Mole” on the Senate Watergate Committee…

You oughta read some of the transcripts of Nixon’s Oval Offrice tapes…

I have said many times, that I refuse to bother with these shows any more because they are a waste of time. Our “press corps” (such as it is) is comprised of very lazy, overpaid individuals who are doing the bidding of the corporations that pay them their big salaries.

MTP and Matthew’s are SO predictable–all the panelists who are “journalists” have a very smug attitude that they are sooooo bright and travel in such venerated circles–when in reality they are all very insecure, little phonies.

I know for a fact, that Chris Matthews wants Guiliani to be the next president and he is pushing that agenda so hard that it is sickening. I know this because 2 very close friends of Tweety’s who spend time with him told me.

I come here on Sunday, as well as Atrios, Think Progress and Crooks and Liars to see who said what–otherwise, I would have very high blood pressure–and these folks in the press, don’t mean a thing to me because they are phonies pretending to be journalists.

Democratic rebuttal talking point: We just passed an Iraq funding bill. With a timetable to bring the troops home. Bush has threatened to veto it. We ARE focusing on the issues. It’s the Sunday talk shows that are focused on scandals.

Shorter rebuttal: These scandals are issues.

Throwing Abu Gonzalez under the bus does not accomplish that. Abu has his own integrity problems, which may lead to his resignation but the investigation cannot end there.

On MTP, Specter and Durbin agreed that WH testimony will be necessary as is a transcript. Of course Specter says a lot of things on matters of principle and later, away from the camera lights, backtracks.

The remaining sticking point is whether the hearings are public or private and whether witnesses take an oath to tell the truth. Because to BushCo politics is everything, I don’t think Rove will testify in a public hearing without a court battle that decides he is compelled to do so.

Litigating the balance of power between the congressional subpoena and executive privilege will take twenty months. That path has only political value not a substantive one.

So get White House officials in private under oath and with a transcript.

The panel on Chris Matthews saw Rove’s involvement in the US Attorney issue as strictly political payback, and an opportunity for the Dems to rake Rove over the coals. They bought into the Presidents talking point.

Is was shocking to me they have no sense of the relevance of:

-Rove’s history of manipulating FBI investigations against political opponents,
-the facts regarding prosecutions of Democrats versus Republicans,
- the lies by senior officials indicating a cover-up of the purge, and
- no recognition of the role of a well documented motive, the agenda to cement a permanent Republican majority.
- BushCo tendency to use all the levers of power, legally or otherwise.
- Bush’s assigning importance to the issue by declaring, “there is no indication there was any wrongdoing.”

Is it just me or are our most televised pundit class completely out to lunch? The dots I connect are speculative but there was no mention of these at all, only mention of political motivated political payback for the purpose of retribution only. And this, after a segment investigating the seriousness of the US Attorney purge.