Morning Joe 3/1/2012 -- Are Mika and Joe depressed?

I've noticed it lately, but I thought they might be tired from a busy schedule. Joe and Mika appear to be depressed. Maybe they're bored with their job and just want to go through the motions and get the hell out of the studio. I was expecting to see Scarborough napping this morning, and Mika could barely read off the prompter.

Maybe they're down because all their political manipulations haven't worked. They said Gingrich was real when he popped into the headlines for a minute. They said Santorum is definitely real because he talked about his coal-mining grandfather's big hands, but Santorum imploded like we knew he would. They said all this confusion in the Republican Party and the good news in the economy will help Obama, but polls show today that Obama would lose to Romney if the election were held today.

They speculated on someone getting into the race, like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, or, as his buds have suggested, Joe Scarborough. Joe said this morning that it's no longer a possibility for a Jeb Bush to get in. It never was. Scarborough has been wrong about everything, and he prides himself on being a sharp political analyst. He has missed it all at every step. Katty Kay finally told the truth about the Jeb Bush/Chris Christie narrative. If Bush entered the race, it wouldn't be the "extremists" in the GOP who would hurt him -- it would be media and Democrats. They would force Bush to defend his name and the fact that this would be the third Bush as president -- he would be murdered.

Christie would have to answer questions 24/7 about his weight and his temperament. Media would pick at him and everytime he did his tough Christie act, they would pick at every word, the tone and harshness. Christie would be murdered.

Paul Ryan would be attacked because of Medicare. Ryan would have to defend his spending cuts proposals 24/7, and his cold, rational demeanor would be seen as heartlessness, then when he tried to be personable, he would look phony, and this would become an issue. Ryan would be murdered

If Scarborough ran, they would play every stupid thing he's said on tv. Scarborough would be murdered ten thousand times. It sounds good to say a Mitch Daniels or someone should have entered the race, but they all have flaws, and the flaws would be magnified a thousand times. Media and the political class want Obama in for a second term and they will try to murder anyone who tries to defeat him, so Romney is as good as any, and he's probably holding up better than the others could have.

Maybe Joe and Mika are depressed because they have to put idiots like Donnie Deutsche on the show.

Morning Joe 11/14/2011 -- Republicans on foreign policy

This morning on Morning Joe, the crew started off talking about the Republican debate on foreign policy and where the candidates are at in the polls. The guests were Michael Steele, Katty Kay and Major Garrett. The consensus among the Morning Joe crew was that most of the Republicans on stage blustered about foreign policy but didn't give any sophisticated answers. Scarborough praised Rick Santorum's position that we need to maintain a friendship with Pakistan no matter what.

Rick Perry's zero baseline approach to aid was framed by the Morning Joe panel, and many in the media, as ending foreign aid, but what Perry proposed was starting at zero and forcing the recipient countries to make their cases regarding foreign aid to ensure that aid isn't being wasted. This is how media involves itself in political spin rather than reporting the news as it happens.

Romney was criticized for saying he would stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons -- Romney really did say this. The Morning Joe panel laughed at the idea, and Katty Kay said it's impossible to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon because of Russia's support, which implied that if we can get Russia to go along, we can stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But no one believed we can give Russia what it needs to get their cooperation, so why are we even worried about stopping Iran?

Scarborough brought up Huntsman's call to get out of Afghanistan. The crowd cheered this proposal which makes me think that the Republican base is ready to end the war. The other candidates basically said everything needs to be on the table, whatever that means. Ron Paul's positions were not mentioned, of course.

I have to wonder why Santorum and Scarborough believe we need to maintain the same old position with countries like Pakistan. The idea is that Pakistan has nukes and extremists can gain control of the country and the nukes and then bomb NY. So, we pander to Pakistan, ignore their efforts to undermine us and give them billions in aid. Why are we afraid of Pakistan when Pakistan is on the verge of collapse?

India has more to be worried about than America. Is it believeable that even extremists from Pakistan would bomb America with a nuke? Why would anyone from Pakistan bomb America with nukes when it would mean certain obliteration? The Santorum position is an old mindset which ensures the military/industrial complex in America will thrive for a long time to come, and it ensures we will remain entangled in no-win situations in the mideast which are draining our resources.

Removing troops from the mideast is our best course, and then letting every country know that in order to protect our nation from attack, we'll do what's necessary, but we won't linger and nation-build. If you read the history of American involvement in the mideast, this blackmail from mideast countries has gone on from the time of Jefferson. Iran and Pakistan will implode if they don't change, and if we just leave the region alone. The mideast region has to solve its own problems -- all we've ever done is complicate the situations. The old rationalizations for our involvement as a Super Power needed to keep peace and protect our interests are beyond ludicrous.

Morning Joe 10/21/2011 -- Democrat Hour of Power

At least Morning Joe hosts and guests are admitting their bias -- this morning Scarborough said that critics are calling them out on their biased slant toward Democrats. Morning does more than inflate Democrats, in fact, they don't inflate Democrats much, because they can't without calling more attention to their damaged credibility -- they simply ignore Democrat deflation. I mean, who can really defend Pelosi, Reid, Biden and the Democrat Senate without coming across as delusional? So what Morning Joe does is what they did this morning -- John Heilemann, Mika, Barnicle, Katty Kay, Carl Berstein, David Gregory and Eugene Washington pick the worse aspects of the Republican candidates for President and they gang-attack the entire party-- they single out Herman Cain and make it appear that Cain represents opposition to Democrats -- they cherry-pick verbal gaffes by Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry and play them up, while giving lip service to the other candidates, Romney, Paul, Gingrich and Huntsman -- they take a temporary poll in a Republican primary without giving complete context of ups and downs in past primaries and make it appear that this temporary fluctuation in polls is indicative of all opposition to Democrats -- they find the most ridiculous statements and focus on these statements without presenting the body of ideas on the Right which contrast with the body of ideas on the Left -- they ignore the implosion among Democrats and horrible economy which the Democrats preside over and the failed policies Democrats are pushing.

The first two hours are propaganda against Republicans, and Scarborough plays the "conservative" voice, but Scarborough is more moderate/modern liberal than limited government conservative, and Scarborough doesn't have a libertarian bone in his body -- he's a Big Government Republican who pretends to be a "small" government conservative. More than that, Scarborough is a political animal who will go wherever the political winds blow. When Morning Joe does have a Republican on the show who can articulate a limited government/free market position, the Republican is overwhelmed with opposition, and I have never seen a real libertarian on the program besides Ron Paul.

This morning on the show, they talked even more about Herman Cain accusing him of running for President to sell books and make money. Either Herman Cain threatens them, or they think it's a good strategy to make it apprear that the Republican base is extreme and wants to elect an unexperienced person for President who will endanger America because he doesn't know anything about foreign policy. You would think that we're deciding on the next Dictator who will make decisions without input from anyone else. In a way this shows how the political class thinks about Presidents and American governance. The executive branch has taken on so much importance in the minds of modern liberals and progressives, they want a Super Technocrat who can really, really manage the US from central control in DC. I mean, Obama's central, technocratic management has been astounding, right? Plus, he's single-handedly killed bin Laden, Awlaki and Ghadafi. But let's not worry about Obama -- let's focus on Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, a year out from the next election. Don't worry about unemployment, the coming financial disaster of Obamacare, the streaming regulations coming from DC and crippling small businesses or the mideast quagmires or the unilateral actions of Obama in Libya and Uganda or Solyndra or Fast and Furious or Democrat support of OWS or Democrat attempts to reward unions with more stimulus money or the stalled and uncertain business community or the continued bleeding of Fannie Mae or the Fed's destructive monetary policy or Dodd-Frank or Democrat cronyism or blocked energy production -- no, let's focus on Herman Cain and his books -- yes, Cain is the biggest issue facing America right now, and he must be stopped at all costs.

Morning Joe 10/11/2011 -- The Radical Center

On Morning Joe today, during the first 2 hours, the guests were Richard Haas, Charles Blow and Katty Kay, then later Howard Dean, Eugene Washington and George Pataki came on. The discussion, as usual, centered on Republican candidates for president, although there was some discussion surrounding the UN report that the Aghan government is torturing detainees, even kids younger than 18 years of age. The torture story should have received more attention, because if the UN can uncover the torture, then it means American officials know about the torture and have kept it hidden from the public. There needs to be a full scale investigation into this matter, and it's one more reason, as if we need another reason, to leave Afghanistan -- cut and run? Yes, cut the mideast loose and run -- run, run, run. Run away from a situation in which America can never accomplish its goals, whatever they are -- run from a situation which is wasting the lives of young people -- run from a money pit -- run from corruption - run from a political quagmire - cut and run.

Regarding the Republican candidates for president, Scarborough ranted incomprehensibly about all the upstarts not having a chance to win, that Republicans don't take chances on people like Bachmann, Perry or Cain. The Republican establishment chooses people like Ford, McCain, Dole and Bush and, now, Romney -- Scarborough said this approvingly, as if he doesn't understand the disaster of these choices through the years, and how the Center/Establishment has been complicit in leading the government leftward into the financial crisis that government is now making worse. However, later, Scarborough shifted his opinion while agreeing with Pataki that half-measures will avail the Republicans nothing, that they need to be bold and take chances on tough issues like Medicare and SS. So, according to Scarborough, Republicans need to play it safe while also taking risks. Don't try to figure it out -- it's how the Center rolls.

Mika read an exerpt from the newest David Brooks column, and it also shows how the Center rolls -- they are the real radicals, man, according to Brooks. You see, the OWS movement can't national industry, so they can only trash the 1% rich bastards, and the New Republicans want only to not tax the 100%, so that leaves the radical Center who want to use a combination of free market principles and statism to technocratically adjust our economy toward recovery mode, then in a holistic way solve all the other national problems that small-thinkers can never solve. The small minded far-left and far-right cannot think in large enough terms to deal with America's problems. Brooks leaves limited government and a free market out of his recipe, except as sprinkles of spice in a mixed economy.

Richard Haas got it right, and Pataki repeated it, that the deal this year with Republicans is who will win the war between statism and anti-statism. The anti-statists might not be as anti as I'd like, but they are fighting to change the direction of the country. The mixed economy and the Radical Center have both failed, over and over and over and over. Brooks and Scarborough think they're coming up with brilliant and innovative ideas, but this is the same milquetoast centrism that destroyed the Republican Party and the American economy and has continuously gotten us bogged down in international entanglements. It's the centrist sacrifice of free market/limited government principles which has us fighting to protect and rebuild an Afghanistan that's rotten to the core. At least Scarborough is against the Afghanistan War, but centrists like Scarborough take these positions on an ad hoc basis, and he could just as easily support some other international entanglement which causes the same types of consequences if the political wind  blew just right.

We can no longer afford a statist/mixed economy and an interventionist foreign policy. The mixed economy is an illusion, because what we've had is varying degrees of statism from both the Right and Left, and as long as we have a statist system it will negate free market principles which are allowed half-heartedly on a limited basis for show -- the central management in DC always wins as it directs the market away from the most productive opportunities to the most wasteful and un-productive activities, to the bubbles and sugar highs and the inflationary. No, milquetoast is still milquetoast, and the "radical" is simply the reasonable and courageous which not many want to try -- but, we'll see in 2012 -- we'll see. We don't need more Centrist movement leftward -- we need a real opposition movement against  statism.

Morning Joe 9/22/2011 -- Independents or No Label losers?

On Morning Joe today, the first segment guests were Katty Kay, Sam McKinnon, Donnie Deutsche and Dick Durbin. It's amazing how 99.9% of the guests on Morning Joe are Centrists or Leftists, but that's a topic for another day. The Morning Joe crew got their Rick Perry bashing out of the way early. Scarborough believes Perry has done himself irreparable damage by writing in his book that Social Security is unconstitutional -- Scarborough believes that Romney can attack Perry on this point and that Perry has no defense. One defense is that our government does a lot of things that are unconstitutional, so what's new -- and now that SS is ingrained but terribly flawed, it must be reformed. But, Scarborough suggests that Romney should scream like a Democrat on meth, like Scarborough did on his show this morning, that Perry is an extremist rightwinger out to destroy SS. If Romney is the best the Republicans can do, then we're in for big trouble for a while longer. I'm not sure Perry is the answer, but he's better than Romney, and neither are as good as Ron Paul.

One thing is clear, the Center/Left coalition is not the answer, but this is what a large part of the conversation was about this morning. Sam McKinnion is a No Labels founder. You aren't sure what No Labels is? Don't feel alone, hardly anyone knows what it is, but they have started a movement to back "independent" candidates and possibly create an independent run for President. Katty Kay said she doesn't think the nation is ready for an independent ticket and asked McKinnon who would be on the ticket. McKinnon had already rattled off some of his suggestions, Erskine Bowles, Bloomberg and a few other mixtures of what appear Left and Right, but are just Center/Center -- in other words Left-lite and Left-lite. McKinnon and companay are offshoots of the neo-conservative/neo-liberal alliance of Irving Kristol and Milton Friedman decades ago, status quo protectors of a certain version of American ideals. This version of America is based on a mixed economy, smart government, compromise, American leadership in the world based on Democracy, equality and openmindedness, a vague America which slowly progresses through statism and a relatively open market which is regulated smartly but allowed to achieve some innovation but that doesn't create market chaos. It's about reasonable, strong leaders who will work together in a bipartisan fashion to prevent extremes and maintain a steady course, maintaining basic civil liberties but sacrificing as much economic liberty as necessary to promote the greater good -- a greater good determined, of course, by the wise, benevolent technocrats.

On the face of it, the Center approach appears pragmatic and reasonable, but as McKinnon unintentionally showed during one part of the show, it raises some serious questions. When talking about Obama's Jobs "bill", it was agreed that Obama's playing politics and is really blocking efforts that could lead to jobs, but they all agreed it's politically smart because the polls say it's smart, so McKinnon said Republicans should vote for the bill and move on so they can "get things done". Here is the problem. If the jobs bill is not good policy, then why pass it, and what are the things to get done? The Center approach has no convictions regarding the conflict between those who believe more government intervention is necessary and those who believe government should be limited and that a free market approach is necessary. The Center says it likes a little of both, but what happens is that they continue to compromise with State power, and as long as State power is not resisted, it will grow -- it's the nature of the beast, and history bears this out -- our own experience in America bears this out.

At this point, Katty Kay is right -- both sides in DC will reject a Center approach. McKinnon might be right, and I think he is, that there's a growing number of independents, but he has misread independents as Center/No Label/Squishes. I don't think independents are looking for a Bloomberg/Bowles ticket, or something similar. If congress agreed today to raise taxes significantly while at the same addressing entitlements, they might be able to get public support, but only if taxes were raised on the rich and the entitlement reform didn't significantly change benefits or age requirements. What would happen is that such a bill would simply confiscate more money from wealth producers to keep our statist system afloat. Independents are not a monolithic group, and they are probably diverse individuals who when asked say they're disgusted with the two party system in Washington. I'm sure they want our government to function properly, but do they want watered down solutions which only increase State power and cost Americans more money? If I had to guess, I would say most independents who have a good understanding of political issues want government to intervene less in the economy, and if they are younger people, they realize that entitlements are broken and expect major changes during their lifetime.

But regardless of what  "independents" want, they, and everyone else, ought to have a clear choice this year between a statist/iprogressive/interventionist approach and a limited government/free market, and if an independent ticket wants to run, then good, but I don't buy the narrative that Americans are craving a Center approach of incremental increases in State power. I also don't buy, yet, that the choice of Republicans will mean a limited government/free market direction -- so you can see why a lot of Americans might be concerned about the 2012 election and our limited choices -- fast expansion of State power or slow expansion of State power. If an independent does run, it shouldn't be from the Center -- it should be as a limited government/free market ticket -- then we'd have a real choice.