Also, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham talk about Mark Sanford and the future of the GOP.

Hello 2012.

What did you think?

Here’s the thing…Scarborough and Gillespie can think that conservative values still appeal to most Americans, but they need to remember what type of conservative values were fed to us over the past couple decades. Not necessarily the most positive, future forward thinking.

Also, does anybody really think that the Republican party can go green for real? Especially when there are so many in the GOP who don’t even believe that global warming exists?

And concerning social issues…Scarborough can hope that they’ll be off the table in the future, but the modern GOP wouldn’t exist without the evangelical vote. So you can try to wish those issues away all you want, but it’s unlikely that the GOP can abandon that stuff any time soon.

Still, the biggest threat to the GOP in the long run are the demographic shifts that are happening, and NONE of them favor Republicans in the coming years, so their policies have to change to address those realities.

More as it develops…

Hope everybody’s having a great Easter!

I’m still not liking Gregory as the new anchor, but my guess is that it’s his seat until he wants to leave. That’s how this stuff usually works.

Oh well.

I think it’s pretty clear at this point that folks in the press corps are starting to push the meme that the administration doesn’t know what it’s doing. Most are acting as surrogates for Wall Street and tacitly demanding more “clarity”, but when new details come out the plans are either criticized for being the wrong way to go or we hear more demands for a nebulous clarity.

Well, time to face the facts. These plans have to remain broad in order to be flexible enough to allow for new time bombs to go off. Because that’s the risk right now with a whole batch of exotic mortgages set to implode in the next 6 months and then yet another batch another 6 months after that. And yes, you’ll get more details, but until you detail exactly what type of clarity you want, it’s time to buckle down and try to ride this storm out. Liberals, nationalization isn’t an option so stop asking for it. And conservatives, we’re not going to let the banking system implode, so save the phony populist rage since your deregulatory economic philosophies got us here in the first place.

In any event, watch and share your thoughts.

So 6 weeks in, and even before the stimulus has really started, they’re essentially already saying that it won’t work.

Good times.

I thought it was a decent back and forth, but I think it’s pretty clear that free marketers will NEVER back down from the idea that tax cuts are the greatest good. And during a time when pretty much any tax cut will either be saved or used to pay down personal debt, I just don’t think these folks are being realistic about their ideology. Fair enough, you believe in supply side economics, but you can’t credibly claim that your ideas should be seriously considered if all you’re going to do is rehash the same ideas that many think led to this current crisis.

I don’t know folks, maybe I’m completely missing the boat on this entire stimulus bill, but I continue to be unconvinced by these arguments. They feel extremely hollow after the last eight years and I’m willing to try something new in order to figure out if different ideas work.

One week after I argued that my senator should be on MTP advocating for the stimulus package, well, there she is.

Coincidence?

Yes, probably.

She even tweeted about it today…as well as some thoughts on the stimulus yesterday…

McCaskill brings up a point that I’d like to address because there’s been so much ill will on this blog for the current bill that I’d appreciate at least a little acknowledgment that the legislation that will pass next week is a compromise between Dems and Repubs. It may not be the bill you want, and there may be some stuff in there that you don’t agree with, but Dems have stripped out the silly 1% that Republicans decided to key in on, so they’ve moved towards them, not away from them. To suggest anything else is simply not accurate.

Also, Republicans have set up a transparently dishonest premise that compromise means cutting the bill in half and making the vast majority of it tax cuts. Regardless of your politics, I hope we can agree that there’s no way they can reasonably expect that their Democratic colleagues would adopt those ideas. Not after they oversaw this once-in-a-lifetime economic collapse.

In other words, it’s very clear now that the vast majority of Repubs were going to vote against this thing from the very beginning. So when people talk about the bipartisanship train going off the rails, it’s not Obama who put dynamite on the tracks.

But to McCaskill’s point about Krugman…there’s no such thing as a perfect bill. So if you’re arguing that Senate Dems are simply slaves to Keynesian ideology and they’re using this crisis to prove it, then you’re not paying attention to what’s going on. Ideologues like Krugman would like a $1.2 trillion bill and has said as much. But politics is the art of the possible, and McCaskill rightly argues that without the current cuts, there wouldn’t be the votes to pass it.

So before liberals start to pile on the more moderate politicians, just remember who made it possible that we even were able to do something about this economic crisis in the first place.

Could this mean a new round of bailout money?

Let me just give some friendly advice to Dems…quit using John Kerry as a surrogate on the economy. It’s not that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but a senator like Claire McCaskill would be a much more effective counterpoint to the Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Take a look…

I wrote yesterday about Republicans needing ideas other than tax cuts, and that was based on what John Boehner said during the broadcast. And, as reported elsewhere, they can’t continue to expect Americans to support tax cuts for the wealthy. It simply won’t work.

I understand the GOP wanting to set conditions for their support, but my guess is that Obama and company will argue effectively that the current package represents a sensible middle ground because more than 30% of the money allotted will go for tax cuts and Dems have argued for far more spending on infrastructure.

More as it develops…

Also, the political roundtable talks about the stimulus.

Thoughts?

Also, the economy is obviously the topic du jour. And it seems like everybody agrees that a stimulus plan is needed. Now the debate is between the % of tax cuts vs. infrastructure spending.

Something tells me that Bill feels vindicated by Obama’s victory, especially since Obama spoke up about some hot button issues facing the African American community on the campaign trail like personal responsibility and being good parents. This drew scorn from folks like Jesse Jackson, but we all saw how Jesse ultimately responded on election night.

So, if Israel is still occupying Gaza by the time Obama is sworn in, what do you think the new administration’s response will be?

Furthermore, do you think Israel’s move was timed to force Obama to support the notion that Israel can attack Gaza they way they have? After all, these militants have been shooting their rockets into Israel for years, so one has to ask, “Why now?”

By the way, I think Israel’s move was foolish and will only divide the country further. I’m not sure why people continue to think more violence will end violence, but something is going to have to give in this fight and if Israel wants to be the beacon of Democracy, they can’t keep bombing these places to kingdom come, killling innocent people and hoping that the militants will back down.

In any event…

To the point of national security, here’s something in MTP that exchange John Cole points out between Rich Lowry and Richard Wolffe…

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Here at home we prevented numerous terrorist attacks. We’ll never know how many lives have been saved. But this is for certain, since 9/11, there’s not been another terrorist attack on American soil.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Richard Wolffe, that cannot be denied.

MR. WOLFFE: Sure. But on American soil is the operative phrase here. There have been many terrorist attacks on foreign soil that are the direct outgrowth of what we’ve seen of, of American foreign policy, to be blunt. And it’s true that terrorism is what is responsible for those attacks, not American foreign policy. But that policy has exacerbated it and has taken the problem elsewhere. So al-Qaeda has, has grown into a multiheaded beast which is now extremely difficult to control. Afghanistan is actually in a weaker situation than it was after the Taliban was overthrown. So, you know, there are–he has a, he has a, a historic record in terms of his response to 9/11, no question. People were looking for leadership, and he filled that vacuum in those very, very troubled moments. But longer term, America is–has, has fundamental problems now that are really being kicked to this new administration. [...]

MR. LOWRY: I just want to go back to Richard’s point about the no attacks on U.S. soil. U.S. soil is a big caveat. I mean, that is a key thing. And in our exit interview with President Bush, you’re just struck by the extent to which he was a war president. I mean, that’s what drove him most passionately. And when you talk to him about it, you feel as though he’s just sort of been left behind by the public and by history. And I think that’s because of the very success in preventing another attack on U.S. soil…

MR. WOLFFE: But you can’t…

MR. LOWRY: …which allowed, which allowed the public to move on to, to other issues that they found more urgent.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. WOLFFE: You can’t take America’s national security across oceans to other continents and then only care about its impact on American soil. It’s grossly irresponsible.

I think what Richard Wolffe has zeroed in on is one of the biggest problems with the Bush Doctrine, and one that every revisionist hawk would rather ignore. If we take the fight over there, that’s where our security should be judged. And it has been an utter failure.

Yes, Bush deserves credit for no attacks on US soil, but from the cases we’ve seen that have been highlighted in the media, there weren’t any credible attacks planned against us in the first place. So forgive me if not too keen to give Bush any praise in that regard.

Now, let me just say this…if Rice thinks that US is “respected” and “popular” around the world, then she’s just as delusional as Bush and I’m glad to see her go. And comparing us to China and India? Ugh.

Last note, Gregory wasn’t tough at all. He was throwing softballs the entire broadcast and hardly did any followup on Rice’s assertions. Especially when it came to Sudan and Rice said that intervening in a Muslim country in a unilateral way that was that far away didn’t seem to be a realistic option. I almost fell off my sofa when I heard that.

But Gregory just let it go.

In fact, he just kind of wistfully talked about the last 16 years and Rwanda and genocide and regrets. It was frankly a bit embarrassing to watch.

Let’s hope he gets better…quickly.

Congrats again to Gregory for landing the gig.

By the way, just a note to Chris Matthews and Fox News Sunday and ABC and CBS…why do you not have your Sunday shows embeddable like NBC’s? Because I would embed ALL of them if given the opportunity.

In other words, free up your content! You’ll get more people watching it and make more ad revenue as a result.

A lot of attention has been focused today on the fact that Obama said the economy will get worse before it gets better…

“If you look at the unemployment numbers … the fragility of the financial system and the fact that it’s an international system,” the recession “is a big problem, and it’s going to get worse,” Obama told NBC News’ Tom Brokaw on Saturday. The interview aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Acknowledging that his agenda had changed sharply just in the month since he was elected, Obama said passing a short-term economic stimulus package was now his top priority.

“We’ve got to provide a blood infusion right now, make sure that the patient is stabilized,” he said, adding that the budget deficit, by some estimates more than $1 trillion, would have to be put on the back burner “for now.”

“We’ve got to get the economy moving,” he said.

Anybody think he’s wrong?

More on this pick here.

I wrote about this yesterday hoping it wasn’t true, and today we have confirmation.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

I know, I know…I sound like a big, whiny political baby, but Gregory just doesn’t have the gravitas nor the depth that Russert had. And while I understand that MTP was helmed by more newsy guys like Gregory before Russert came on, Russert passed away way too soon…so not continuing on in his tradition is a mistake, pure and simple.

Long story short, Chuck Todd was the obvious successor, but instead we get the gregs.

Regardless, here’s the scoop from Politico:

NBC News plans to name David Gregory as moderator of “Meet the Press,” infusing one of television’s most prized franchises with a sharp edge leavened by a youthful style and versatility, according to network executives. [...]

The plan to anoint Gregory is not final but will be as soon as today, the executives said. NBC spokespeople refused to comment, saying the network would make the announcement.

The decision was made by Jeff Zucker, president and chief executive officer of NBC Universal, and Steve Capus, president of NBC News.

I’m so disappointed in this decision, and I bet viewership falls off significantly. They’ve lost at least one viewer already.

Of course, I didn’t think Daniel Craig would make a good James Bond either, so I’m more than willing to have Gregory prove me wrong. Still, something doesn’t tell me he will.

One last note, and this is specifically for Chuck Todd: ditch NBC as soon as you can, take over Schieffer’s slot on Face The Nation and make it an hour-long show. Because I’ll stop watching Meet The Press immediately if they’re on at the same time.