Kudos for the WoW humor - i approve.

Agree with your thoughts. I think Chris needs a vacation; no doubt it makes him angry (we all are) to see so many people hurt but he has let his anger and frustration exceed his thought process.

You do realize that Chris Matthews was not a congressman. He was a staffer for Tip O'Neal (sp) so unlike Scarborough, he had no way to write or pass legislation.

Let's not forget why Scarbrough had to suddenly leave office... it wouldn't have anything to do with the dead woman/mistress they found in his office now would it?

It kills me when he get's on his I was a Congressman soapbox... funny thing he NEVER mentions why he's NO longer in Congress...

If I remember the chain of events, him resigning his congressional seat predated the intern's death, but I'm not sure about that.

Thanks Michael... I know there was only a few words ever written about it... when/if I get more time tomorrow I'll do the research! If my memory serves me right it was ONLY published in a FL paper...

Bottom line is before or after a woman was found dead in his office and nothing was ever said nationally! Yet 40 years later the righties are still beating the Ted Kennedy accident...

Have a nice evening!

My dearest dumb Chuck, I have several issues with you and several of your partners in regards to the BP SPILL;

1:Chuck will you quit speaking for the American people, you don't, you are unqualified in every aspect in regards to the spill, its cleanup, the stopping of the leak and the logistics required to bring this to resolution, so quit pretending, you are clueless as are the rest of the press that continues to embarrass the rest of us American people who are qualified. Have you even bothered to go to the Deepwater Horizon website..duh, you all dropped the ball on this from day one and won't admit that the white house was way ahead of you , you Romanoff, Sestak no story reporter.

2: Chris Matthewscontinues with his unqualified non information reading comments again for the American people, shut up Chris quit speaking for the real people. You have contributed nothing to this issue, you are unqualified and bloviated you no ratings reporter, you may have done a report on pipelines in the 70's but I worked them for 20 yrs.

3: Eugene Robinson: just shut up on this subject, you are another unqualified embarrassment in regards to this issue.

When are we going to see a poll on what the "American people think of the press".

Sorry I agree with Chris on this one, when you say legitimate claims you are emphasising the obvious. No one would ever expect BP to pay a frivolous claim. If I brought a claim for emotional distress for all the mental anguish I have experienced here in Iowa watching the disaster unfold on TV , or a claim for the increase cost of seafood I will purchase in the future, these would not be legitimate claims and no reasonable person would expect BP to pay me, regardless of whether BP said they will pay all claims. By adding "legitimate" BP is making it clear they will determine based upon their standards what is or isn't legitimate.

If past is prologue shrimpers, businesses and others in the gulf with real legitimate claims will have to fight BP for compensation for their loses. I would have felt this way on day one of the spill, but nothing the head of BP has said has caused me to think differently, if anything BP has just reinforced my belief.

Regarding the criticism of Chris Matthews I think many are being too critical. Does Chris go with his gut on issues, and often speak with more authority than he possesses? Yes he does, but to claim he belongs on Fox is not only unfair it's baseless. I disagree with Chris on many issues (I support trying KLM in Manhattan, he doesn't ....), but Chris does try to provide balance on his program.

Also when people can't handle any criticism of Obama, or Democrats by anyone on MSNBC, they risk sounding like the far right. I'm a huge Obama fan, but I wasn't thrilled (to put it mildly) when he came out earlier this year for expanded off shore drilling. People need to not be as hyper-sensitive to any criticism of Obama, and see anyone in the media who questions a policy, or his effort, whether the criticism has no or minimal basis as a personal affront, and a sign they are against Obama.

I rarely watch the Ed Show so I can't speak to current criticism of Ed. I find Ed to be an intellectual light weight and a massive blow hard. I prefer re-runs of CSI if I'm home during the Ed show.

With respect to Romanoff and Sestak, neither should be lumped together. Sestak falsely implied he was offered a job by the WH, most people think of a job as a paid position. Not only was he never offered a paid position, but he didn't speak to anyone directly with the WH. Sestak also allowed pundits to believe the position was Secretary of the Navy. The WH wanted to avoid embarrassing Sestak for allowing a completely false impression to become accepted.

Prior to Romanoff making any noise about running against Bennet in the primary he applied on-linefor a position with U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and later he called people he knew in the WHabout a possible position. with USAID. 5 days before Romanoff formally announced his challenge to Bennet, Jim Messina, Obama's Deputy Chief of staff called Romanoff and asked if he was still interested in a position at USAID, and told him there were three available positions, that Messina could not guaranteehis appointment to any of the positions, but wanted to know if he was not running for Senate was he still interested in a position at USAID. Obviously Romanoff couldn't run in Colorado and hold a job at USAID at the same time. Romanoff told Messina he had decided to run against Bennet, later that day Messina sent Romanoffan e-mail with the job descriptions, and that was the last contact between Messina and Romanoff.

The facts are different, Sestak was never offered a paid position, and no one from the WH spoke directly with Sestak. Romanoff had previously applied on-line and had contacted people in the WH by phone about his desire for a position at USAID, and later he was contacted about whether he was still interested in a position with USAID and told about 3 available positions. The e-mail does not offer a job, and Romanoff made it clear he was never offered or promised a job, but merely asked if he still was interested in a position he had previously sought. Sorry but the facts don't support wrong doing.

Enjoyed your comment. Point taken; I've been guilty of over-reaction myself with some of the commentary but mostly because the show hosts don't seem to understand that, unfortunately, the govt and the president can only do so much and must rely on the very industry that caused the problem to stop the problem yet they talk as if the president should jump in a wet suit and personally plug the well, or that he's not showing enough emotion or heart or anger. That's when I get annoyed. I don't agree with everything the President does but most of the time I do and I'm willing to trust that he's doing everything he can because he is one smart guy--so the blowhards need to stop blowing and spend more time informing about what the Pres has done, is doing, plans to do--that's what people need to know, that's what people want discussed. What I don't like to see is unreasonable accusations. As I said the other day my frustration is that the media seems to criticize just to criticize, they pick a tidbit and make it into the story of the day or the week and all too often with little substance to justify it other than personal opinion. I have a personal opinion to express and I write it here but I'm not on TV with listeners who believe every word.

Chuck , Keep up the good work. You have a right to speak your mind. Sometimes we may not see eye to eye, but you speak out when things are wrong. I'm surprised that some on these blogs want to shut you up. Goes to show not all are your friends. Matthews have a right to speak up if something is wrong. So do RINOS. I respect your right to say what ever you please. You are doing well. Some on these blogs verge on the fanatic. So do some RINOS. Again, keep talking.

They criticize the spill response, because others are doing so. They are so afraid about being seen as late to a story, and being in bed with Obama, that they over compensate, and become an echo chamber for what others in the media are reporting. It is easier to report on what others are complaining about, instead of doing an in depth story requiring independent research. Even when I agree with many on TV it is clear they were given the talking points by their staff, and accept the staffs research as gospel. The level of knowledge on a specific subject is often very superficial, based upon the research they are provided. Often the research is accurate, but too often it isn't accurate, or accurate but incomplete with far more damaging facts left uncovered.

I'm often amazed at how often cable news show hosts (even those I like) have little more than superficial knowledge on a big story, despite having repeatedly reported on the subject matter. During the Scooter Libby/Rove investigation, and then Libby trial it was clear David Schusterwas the resident MSNBC expert, however too many hosts allowed guest to make false statements without correcting them with facts and data they had only days earlier reported on. If these hosts had actually done the on the ground reporting like David Schuster, as opposed to reading someone elses research a week earlier before a previous show, they would've remembered the prior show's facts, and would be able to debunk the current guests BS. Think of network hosts as reading the cliff notes, where journalist read the book. Not only do you miss substance when you rely on cliff notes as your sole source, but you don't retain what you read at the level you would if you read the book.

Clearly no host with a show 5 times a week can investigate the facts for each story they air, and must rely on their staff, but reliance on others research, including that of other networks is a reason the hosts often lack the in depth knowledge viewers assume they have.

Hawkeyedemocrat, excellent analysis of coverage by news show hosts. I would like to comment, however, that generally, Rachel Maddow does not fall into that dynamic. She tends to do actual research and much more in depth reporting and analysis than most. (Probably because she is smarter than the average news show host.) Her coverage in Louisiana these last few nights has been outstanding and unusual.

I agree with you to a point - If your going to attack one- attack all. Thats usually something sites like this (liberal) and Townhall (conservative) seem to forget. MSN the right can do no right, and the left is never wrong for most people here and vice versa from conservatives and their views.

My only issue - wether it is illegal or not (which i dont think it is) President Obama campaigned on being a different kind of politician. Hes not. This kind of crap shows it. The only reason anyone is admitting to even speaking about jobs, is because they were found out. If they werent, nothing would have ever been said about it.

So my issue is, at least to me - The President doesnt look very good. Either A) hes doing back door deals, or having his people do back door deals, that he was decrying during his campaign announcing how transparent he would be OR B) he didnt know about them (i dont beleive this is the case) which basically means he put his faith in shady people which doesnt speak highly of his ability to surround himself with people of good judgement and high character.

I have been losing trust and respect in our President, hes no different than any other politician. I lost faith in our Congress years ago. I really feel that you simply cant trust any politician. They are all out for their own personal/party agenda and we are simply there to allow them to proceed.

At least we agree on something. Yes, he campaigned to change Washington but, as democratic party leader, he does have an obligation to his party and unfortunately, that means trying to clear primary fields.

I refuse to lose trust or faith in Pres Obama because I believe, and from his books and the many others I've read about him, he is a different kind of politician in many ways. For one thing, he doesn't throw punches first, he counter punches instead much to the dismay of many progressives; he's willing to compromise on things he believes in to get things done; he reached out to the republicans and before the first meeting with him they held a press conference to announce they would not support his ideas. That's where I agree with you about Congress; the divide is so deep that it is hurting the country and hurting not just democrats but republicans, too. The trouble is that it will take more than one person or one President to change Washington but as Obama often stated--change must happen from the bottom up. For that reason, you and the rest of us regardless of party affiliation must demand more from Congress and from all our elected officials. If we demand, if we e-mail them, if we don't vote for those who don't listen, then we can begin to effect the Change We Can Believe In.

I understand how you feel about losing trust and respect for a President but this is not the one to feel that way about, not yet and especially not because he played a bit of politics. Pres Obama is a smart man who is pragmatic, thoughtful, and a middle of the road guy. Despite all the problems left him, he has diligently tried to move this country forward, to get the economy rolling again, to bring our troops home from Iraq and to try for peace in the Middle East. He's not perfect but no one is. A bit of politics by trying to clear the primary field is nothing. I lost trust and respect for Pres Bush not because I didn't vote for him, not because I disagreed with his policies (that's democracy), not because of 9/11 or Katrina but because he didn't listen to those who questioned Iraq and he took us into an unnecessary war, a dumb war and we're still there 7 years later at great cost to this nation in both human and monetary terms. Pres Bush played God and decided it was his purpose to get rid of an evil dictator when there were other options besides war.

Excellent point Jody; the President has a perfect right to go about the business of selecting his cabinet to being the leader of the Democratic Party-- we can easily distinguish the difference between the the types of politics that the President campaigned on as opposed to simple maneuvers with in our own party.

Are the Republicans THAT stupid and desparate that they will pi$$ and moan about any and everything that the President does? Why they sound like a bunch of whining children compalining about the bully on the playground.

I refuse to lose trust or faith in Pres Obama because I believe, and from his books and the many others I've read about him, he is a different kind of politician in many ways...Jody

Well then,Jody, you're a fool. First, if you trust a politician, you've had way too much koolaid. Second, if you do not review, question their positions, you're letting yourself be led like a sheep to slaughter. I'm sorry your rah rah Obama chants are getting old

I agree with Jody and Anita. The only other thing I would point out is on the issue of transparency. This is fairly common practice in politics, but generally it's not made into a big deal. In the past accusations were made, denials were made, and no one twisted the issue into anything other than standard operating procedure. In this case accusations are made, and the white house is saying yep, that happened, but there is nothing unusual or illegal about it. There is no attempted cover-up, they are honestly explaining what happened as Hawkeyedemocrat describes so clearly in his above post. I always had a lot more problem with the attempted cover-ups and lies (Lewinsky, Plame, etc.) than I would have if they had just told the truth in the first place. The truth is something that can be dealt with, no matter what it is. It is the lies and dishonesty that make such a mess.

Heartlight3...excellent and I definitely agree with you. I would prefer the truth any day over a lie...

I just voted/fanned you for that post! With the exception of Savannah... for some 'odd' reason she cannot or will not refer to Obama as President!

Screw the MSM! Or should I say corporate hacks?

Thats right! But they are not journalists - they are pundits! Paid to give their opinions and bring on people that will support that opinion. That's journalism? I can get my news from a newspaper or news online where they do not tell me how I should think about a certain event. I can make up my own mine - thank you very much. So I am slowly disbanding all (except Rachael because she actually researches stuff and brings on people that often do not share her opinion) MSNBC, CNN and yes Fox and Freaks. I mean what's the point. We know what they are going to say and feel in advance.

Pike, The DINOS broke electoral laws, Bush , your favorite whipping boy did not. He made the terrorists tongue loosen. That is legal. Wait on you and your DINOS , we'd all be dead.

Robert I just want to add that public humiliation prior to execution might be in order as well. The late great Hunter S. Thompson suggested bringing back the dunking stool for Poppy Bush. Since that hasn't happened let's honor the late Dr. Thompson by bringing the stocks and dunking stool back for Bushbaby and his cabal.

Mr. Pike,

Can you please explain exactly what illegal acts President Bush committed while in office and why you believe they were illegal? (ie: the articles of the Constitution that were violated). So many on your side rant about this, but I'm confused. The "illegal" war was authorized by Congress if I recall.

Don't mean to go off on a different subject, but since you brought it up.....

Thanks.

For starters-- he just publicize using torture when it was determined to be otherwise...Bush just admitted that today. That's just an appetizer...BP will bury the hell out of executive privileges.

We want every swing %ick thats responsible for this disaster and if they aren't delivered; this administration will catch hell; the President knows that and he is about to show you all his entire ass since you've been taunting him and looking for it and I'm getting a ring side seat and laugh like hell at all of you.

Candice:

I enumerated the acts and referenced both the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution along with the U.S. codes which the Bush administration flagrantly violated. I will re-postthe acts and the references below. It is up to you as an American citizen to do the research and read the reality of these crimes.

That Republican legislator's would demand that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate an act of political loyalty by the Obama administration when they raped the Constitution of the United States by inhibiting the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for illegally launching military attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Article 1: Section 8.; authorizing the torture of prisoners captured during that illegal war in violation of U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 113C and finally authorizing the illegal wiretapping of millions of American citizens is the apogee of hypocrisy. (1)

(1). Judge: Bush Wiretapping Illegal by Paul Elias: Associated Press March 31, 2010. http://www.salon.com/news/2010/03/31/us_warrant less_wiretaps

Boy, take a few days off and come back to a different world. Not to sure about the new format. Time will tell.

About the Bush administration and if they committed impeachable acts... everyone says that Congress read the same intelligence reports that were used to justify the Iraw invasion but that is not true. Congress was given a report prepared by the Whitehouse and Bush adminisration officials. One of the major factors for the war was the assertion, stated as a fact, that Saddam was manufactoring weapons of mass destruction, most notably chemical weapons. The report did not include intelligence that this assertion was most likely false and could not be confirmed. And do not forget that after the first gulf war, we owned the region, had complete control of the area and everything that went on in it. But of course it was confirmed after the invasion. This report to Congress that led to war and was full of lies and distortions, knowingly and willingly, is indeed an impeahable offense.

Frank:

Who was the Lawmaker that so noted in Congress by calling for Bush to be impeached? I'll have to do more research on that-- but if I'm not mistaken...wasn't it voted and approved as a formality just before he left office? If you find that info share it with or anyone else that does for that matter-- I'm got to get going.

Sometimes I wonder if Bush didn't leave so many disasters and crises for Obama to clean up just so he would be so busy he wouldn't have time to pursue criminal investigations against the previous administration.

Heartlight3-- I have thought about that "constantly". I do remember the look on Boehner's face during the inauguration him shaking his head and I even have the picture of Bush looking VERY angry at the Inauguration. I don't put anything pass them. They REALLY didn't want Obama to win; because they KNEW that he wouldn't cover their butts, but rather let the public see them for what they are.

I like the way the President is handling them-- he's allowing their deeds to condemn them; it will make it MUCH easier for his administration to prosecute as opposed to lies that we know that the right will claim-- that he's targeting them....

Baby Girl... decided to come back for more did ya?

Feisty, I am only interested in hearing constructive thoughts, not petty little playground taunts. Thanks!

LMAO!!! Aw leave her alone Red! LMAO!!! Just kidding carry on!

You two are ridiculous. I don't really know what you think you are accomplishing by your nonsensical rants, but if it makes you feel better about yourselves, then by all means, please feel free to carry on. And, thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion whatsoever.

LMAO!

Anita: Appears friendship is a foreign concept for the DINO! It's only okay to attack someone without provocation...when SHE'S the one doing it...

Looks like she SURE told us... ;0))))

Well, you're essentially raising two separate issues here, Jill.

As for the question of the illegality, as I understand the events to have occurred and assuming that all parties involved are now telling the truth, which is about all I can do unless presented with compelling evidence otherwise, it does not appear as though either incident qualifies even loosely as 'illegal.'

To concisely sum up the Sestak situation's worst case scenario: The man was possibly offered an essentially worthless position by someone outside of the administration, (worthless as in having no monetary value, not worthless in any subjective sense), on an advisory panel. This does not appear to qualify under any of the three laws that have been cited as the laws that might have been broken in the case. All assume that the person to whom the 'bribe' is offered would be enriched in some way. In order for this to have occurred, then some monetary value would have to be arbitrarily assigned to give the worth of one of these unpaid positions. I doubt that any judge would be willing to make that leap, especially since the position was offered by someone outside of the administration.

To concisely sum up the Romanoff incident's worst case scenario: The man was contacted by someone in the administration regarding his interest in a job for which he had already applied. He indicated that he was no longer interested and the matter was dropped. All three of the laws cited require the offending party to be the party that initiates the 'bribe.' Since that is clearly not the case here, then there is no chance under any of the statutes that there would be a conviction.

Now as far as your other issue is concerned. Should we as a people perceive the president to be hypocritical? Your analysis for this is that he campaigned on changing the culture of Washington and on the surface, both of these events appear to do the opposite of that.

Well, 'changing the culture of Washington' is a purely subjective term. It could mean a variety of things. During the campaign, I primarily took it to mean that he would attempt to reduce the level of partisan rancor that is rampant in the nation today. He has ultimately failed to do that, but without some sort of massive mind control device, reducing the level of rancor between the people of the nation requires the willingness of the people of the nation to reduce it. Obviously, the people of the nation have not been willing to reduce it at all, so although that might be viewed as a 'broken campaign promise,' I tend not to hold campaign promises that are utterly out of the control of the person making them and that are impossible to keep due to the events of the day against the person who made them.

I did not hold Bush the Elder's promise not to raise taxes against him, because him raising taxes in the environment that existed at the time was a necessary thing. I am certain that he did not intend to raise taxes, but I think it's a little bit more important to address the issues of the time in which you live than it is to obstinately cling to something you have said and watch the country fall into worse condition just so you can say that you kept a promise.

Obama's statement could also be viewed as a pledge to limit governmental corruption. To the extent that you view this sort of dealing as 'corruption,' I suppose you could say that he is failing to meet the standard he set for himself. But that depends on a couple of things. It depends on you viewing clearing the primary field for candidates of your choice by offering incentives for other candidates to either exit or not enter the race as 'corruption.' Personally, I didn't blink when Reagan did it. I didn't blink when Cheney did it. I didn't blink because it barely registered to me when they did it. It only registers when someone actually makes it an issue.

If something doesn't even register on my periscope when it happens, then it probably isn't going to register any 'corruption' flags in my mind. Hence it's pretty hard for me to get worked up about it. Nikki Haley's affairs don't register with me because they happened. They register with me now because it appears that she intends to lie about them occurring, (assuming they occurred), rather than simply telling people, 'Yeah, they happened and they are none of your business.'

I personally think if Bill Clinton had simply said, 'Yeah, Monica Lewinsky and I had sex and it's nobody's business but Hillary's and possibly Chelsea's,' a lot of that nonsense would have ended before it ever started. Kenneth Starr searched for what? 7 years? And ended up getting a flawed man doing what any man caught cheating on his wife does when they are caught... denying having an extra-marital affair? Can you possibly think of a bigger waste of taxpayer's money than that?

Silly season happens all the time in America because there is never a time when we are seeing an election, seeing people ramp up for an election, or seeing people bunkering down because they know the next 'change election' could only be a year or two away. When the founders of the constitution were forging the country, people on average only lived about 35 years. A 4 year presidential term and a 2 year congressional term seemed like a long time to them. They weren't dealing with the constant barrage of 24 hour news beamed straight into their houses.

I personally think we, as a nation, would be pretty well served to increase the duration of a presidential term to 10 years and to have no possibility of re-election. That way, after the election is over, we as a people could go about our business for at least 8 years and every president wouldn't have to spend his first four year term trying to defend the possibility that he will be elected for a second four year term.

A lot of the rancor would disappear immediately for no other reason than we, as a nation, would not be in constant 'election' mode and we would pretty much have to accept that Bush, if he's the one you don't like, or Obama, if he happens to be the one you don't like, is actually in charge.

Michael,

Thanks for your comments. I was less interested in the legality of the White House actions and instead more of the "broken promises" issue. The only reason I really was interested in what people might think about it is due to the "hypocrite" tags people place on Republicans accused of having affairs because they campaign on a platform emphasizing family values.

I, too, think it's unreasonable to hold all candidates to every single thing that they say on the campaign trail, because situations change and with changing situations, your response may have to change as well. To think otherwise would be not only silly, but also (possibly) detrimental to the country. And in terms of "changing the tone of Washington", I am under no illusion (nor do I have any expectation) that Obama has the power to do that by himself. However, I do think that the actions the White House takes is largely within his control, and when he does things like this, which are contrary to his promise to "change the tone in Washington", he should be at least held accountable, i.e., his supporters should call him out on it, not dismiss it as a "non-issue."

And, yes, I think that the whole Bill Clinton thing was a HUGE waste of taxpayer money. And as far as the SC story goes, there is at least a chance that Nikki Haley didn't actually have an affair; just because she's been accused does not mean that she's guilty.

Thank you Anita!!

Needs to be said - but is it falling on deaf ears??

Elise: Thanks!

I don't think so...because Luke Russert bought to their attention that the bloggers were really banding together and getting these people elected. If we are capable of doing that-- then we are capable of forming our own news groups.

We are more engaged in politics than ever now; especially after what the last administration did to all of us. We can't rely on the media because we witnessed the coverage of the Town Hall meetings and Fox has helped as well because they been proved to be entertainment as opposed to news. In my honest opinion-- they can either get it together or not have an audience.

Thanks Forrest:

This needed saying and all of us Libbies shount sing it until they stop the BS complaining.

Thanks Dottie! Are you the same Dottie from PA by chance? If so I seem to remember you are a avid reader and you thoroughly enjoyed 'Renegade'...

Have you had a chance to read 'The Promise' yet? I started it last weekend and it is absolutely fascinating! Love the line about McCain suspending his campaign to fly back to DC and then Senator Obama playing chess in 3-D...LMAO! So TRUE!

Have a splendid weekend my friend...

Yes I am Dottie from Swarthmore PA. I have not read "The Promise" I intend to buy a copy this weekend. I hope you have time to research the article about Joe Scarborough. It really gives you the whole sordid details about his marital infidelity and subsequent resignation from Congress. Let me know what you think after you have read the article

Have a good weekend yourself. Nice to hear from you. I enjoy your posts.