Tuesday, February 24, 2009
and now....the republican response is on.
as governor bobby jindal walked out, keith olbermann's mic was not fully down and you could hear him mutter, "oh, god..."
jindal came walking out like fuckin' howdy doody on puppet strings.
how the fuck is an indian american gonna come across like some "gee, golly shucks" hillbilly?
seriously? they want this guy running for president in 2012?
bring. it. on.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
happy oscars, everyone!
sorry the video is a bit pixilated and the sound is a touch off… but this is the song that goes through my head all the time around the academy awards (and it’s liza!).
three other quick predictions for you, and i would give all three of this a will win/should win declaration:
best animated feature: WALL-E
best adapted screenplay: slumdog millionaire, simon beaufoy
best original screenplay: milk, dustin lance black
and i’m still feeling mickey rourke for the win.... just really wish it was sean penn.
oscar! everybody loves ya, oscar! everybody wants to get ya, grab ya, hug ya... hold you tight!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
the curious case of benjamin button
once again for the benefit of my anonymous poster... it should be said that the dark knight is a far superior film to at least two of these nominees, if not more.
i am not willing to say that milk or frost/nixon do not belong on this list. they are easily in my top five.
milk for it's heartbreaking and inspirational storytelling of a movement that is still alive today but is beholden to a great man. van sant and penn make a moving biopic here that is just outside my top spot.
frost/nixon for it's compelling cat and mouse intellectual mindfuck between a fallen president and a man desperate to prove himself. in fact, aren't they both attempting redemption here? the tension builds beautifully until everything unwraps itself in the climatic interview.
i understand the technical and visual wonders that garnered benjamin button a nomination. but it does not belong in the top five.
the reader most certainly does not belong in the top five.
i would replace either of these with the dark knight, revolutionary road or WALL-E.
but one film i most definitely would not replace is slumdog millionaire. this is one of the most thrilling films i've seen in such a long time. it's not thrilling in the way an action film is thrilling...but it will leave you breathless. and from all the grit and grim that these characters are able to pull themselves up from and push themselves to the most delightful and surprising endings in a film this year.... how can slumdog not win?
yes... there is some backlash. there always is when a film becomes this big so fast. there will be naysayers. but fuck 'em all. slumdog millionaire is the best film of the year and deserves to take home the big prize.
it has won near unanimous praise and continues to rack up every prize in its path... including the PGA (producer's guild).
pair the PGA and DGA win...and slumdog seems the final lock of the evening.
will win: slumdog millionaire
should win: slumdog millionaire
Friday, February 20, 2009
david fincher, the curious case of benjamin button
ron howard, frost/nixon
gus van sant, milk
stephen daldry, the reader
danny boyle, slumdog millionaire
this category is pretty open and shut so i'd like to take a moment and note a particular individual who was not nominated in this category. it will make my anonymous poster happy to know i think it was a great shame that christopher nolan was overlooked this year for directing the dark knight. a great shame.
i'd also like to see both daldry and fincher replaced here.... but these are the nominees we have and, therefore, these are the nominees we must analyze.
ummmm.... ya know? who are we kidding.....?
danny boyle will win sunday night for his direction of slumdog millionaire. i'm just not sure i have the energy tonight to really go on and on when the outcome is so obvious.
i should also point out.... i think boyle should win. his direction is fresh and innovative... it's fantastical and yet rooted in a deep reality. it's just a fabulously constructed film.
i'd put gus van sant and then ron howard next.... as i said, i'd leave the other two off the list.
and it's hard to argue any other director when i truly feel boyle deserves it.
i can't even pretend to think that someone else might even possibly upset boyle. it's not gonna happen...
boyle won the DGA (that's the director's guild) and i believe there's about an above 80% chance that the winner of the DGA goes on to win the oscar. that may actually be the percentage for the picture to go on to win after the director wins.... in all honesty, i'd think it was over 90% likely that the winner of the DGA goes on to win the oscar.
and i feel good about it all.... what more is there to say?
will win: danny boyle, slumdog millionaire
should win: danny boyle, slumdog millionaire
Thursday, February 19, 2009
anne hathaway, rachel getting married
angelina jolie, changeling
melissa leo, frozen river
meryl streep, doubt
kate winslet, the reader
interesting category this year... mostly for the absence of the person most deserving of the award: sally hawkins for happy-go-lucky. it's hard to pick a winner when the one person that should win didn't even make the cut.
and far as i'm concerned....she deserves it head and shoulders over the rest.
but i am faced with these five. i agree with three of the nominations. i have problems with the other two... on one level, it's just insulting that they made the cut over hawkins. on the other level, the ultimate winner in this category will be undeserving for this role but wholly deserving for her other role this year.
but let's start with who will not be winning. always a good way to start....
and angelina, i'm sorry - but your nomination hurts me the most. she is unremarkable in a film that is equally forgettable. i'm not sure what happened with clint eastwood this year.... i've often claimed him to be one of the best directors working in films these days... but i found both changeling and gran torino lacking. no, i think mr. and mrs. brangelina will both go home empty-handed this year.
but wasn't nominating them both just adorable.....?
anne hathaway, i thought, was very good in rachel getting married. it was nice seeing her push her acting skills. my friend jason thinks she was a bit over her head... but i thought she did a very nice job so i have no problem with the nomination (accept for the fact that sally hawkins wasn't nominated). but annie will not win this year.... but keep an eye on her.
that leaves three individuals. all three of whom could potentially win.
the least likely of the three is melissa leo. but her performance in frozen river is easily the best performance in this group of five. she gives a hard-nosed and steely performance and felt the most completely inhabited of her role. she is heartbreaking and funny and infuriating...... it is a big performance in a small film and i am so happy she was remembered. i think she has the greatest outside chance of the three at winning....
i read some grumbling on awardsdaily.com today that they see a victory for leo as a real possibility. perhaps if the other two split the votes? it would thrill me.... you know, since sally hawkins wasn't nominated... but i don't really see it.
the next most likely winner is meryl streep. jesus.... what can you say about meryl that hasn't already been said? i think my friend jason put it the best: "streep haters be damned, she played to the back row because this character plays to the back row."
i think it's really a solid performance..... i'm not sure why some people panned her? she is incredible. and i'd rank her second in this group of five.
so what does meryl have going for her? well, beyond the strong performance, this is her 15th nomination. the last time she won was for sophie's choice back in 1982. that's a 26 year and 10 nomination losing streak she's on. and let's be honest... if ANYONE deserves a third oscar, it's the great meryl streep. and the academy voters may decide, yes, it's time to honor her again.
but then there's ms. winslet. kate winslet is easily one of the greatest younger actors working in movies. and this is her 6th nomination. that means this talent has gone home empty-handed five times.
it's really a crime.
the problem i have here is.... she's simply nominated for the wrong film. her performance in the reader is good.... she's good in everything... but she is far superior in revolutionary road. if she were nominated for road, i'd have her at the top of my list (behind sally hawkins, of course).
but in the reader.... she uses the wrong accent... it's easily argued a supporting role.... but here she is. and she's due an oscar. and i do think she'll win the oscar.... i just wish she were winning it for revolutionary road. she is superb in revolutionary road. gut-wrenchingly good. and if she does win, it may be because of that performance just as much as the one she is nominated for (which, by the way, she's never lost when nominated for the reader, no matter what category).
so i predict ms. winslet will finally win her oscar sunday night.... and i will have quibbles over the role and the lack of sally hawkins and that ms. leo is the most qualified in this grouping..... but i will be happy for her. and all my bad feelings will quickly dissolve.
but i'm allowed to bitch tonight.
will win: kate winslet, the reader
should win: melissa leo, frozen river (but really: sally hawkins, happy-go-lucky)
p.s. in case you can't tell.... i put the academy's inability to nominate sally hawkins (who won every critic's award) as the most shameful black eye since judy davis lost to marisa tomei.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
richard jenkins, the visitor
frank langella, frost/nixon
sean penn, milk
brad pitt, the curious case of benjamin button
mickey rourke, the wrestler
here is a category where the academy got it just about right.... i could quibble with probably one nomination here.... but even mr. pitt, it can be argued, deserves a nod. there may be a more deserving nominee out there... but it's not a horrible nod.
unfortunately for most everyone in this category, it's a two man horse race.
let's start with who will not win and we'll go from the least likely to the most likely.
richard jenkins, bless 'em... he was probably lucky to be remembered and even nominated. don't get me wrong, i was thrilled when he was nominated. i've been a long-time fan of jenkins... even before his brilliant turn as the paternal fisher on six feet under. and i think he gives a touching and understated performance in the visitor. but let's be honest... he doesn't stand a chance.
hmmm... the next two are probably interchangeable. but i'll go with brad pitt next. brad pitt is possibly the least deserving in this category.... however, he should get points for ably carrying that mammoth film... once again (like henson in supporting actress), it's a role tailor-made for the oscars and they ate it up. believe it or not... pitt does stand a chance at winning. once again, if they're looking for a way to reward benjamin button, why not honor the man who makes his way through the entire story and must carry so much bullshit on his back to even make the film somewhat watchable? but no.... mr. jolie will not win.
frank langella is possibly my second favorite performances in this category. i mean, he makes richard nixon fucking sympathetic. now THAT'S acting, my friends.... and it's the type of role i, personally, eat up. literate, historical.... demanding. and who ever knew langella's eyes were so expressive....? it's a marvelous performance and, at one time, i thought he was the actor to beat. long-admired, long-overlooked..... it's a prestige film and a historical one at that.... very popular with the academy.
but then there came two other performances. one, i think deserves to win. the other, as of this writing, i think will probably win. but this is the race that i think is most up in the air for the entire oscar evening.... and it comes down to penn v. rourke.
sean penn gives what i believe is the strongest performance in this category. in fact, i think it's one of the best performances of the year. his harvey milk is charming and engrossing and inspiring... and his performance is nothing short of miraculous. he inhabits this character, as he does all his characters.
roger ebert said it best when he said penn creates his characters from the inside out... he is possibly the greatest actor currently working in films. and his win would be a highlight of the evening for me. but he must contend with rourke.
mickey rourke has shot to the top of the charts with his role in the wrestler. once again, personally, i was underwhelmed with the movie. it's possible i was simply turned off by the amount of wrestling. i thought it would take a backseat to the personal stories told... but it's front and center and often a bit more graphic than i would have liked (and no, i don't mind graphic films. i'm a scorsese fanatic, for chrissakes!).
rourke does give a very powerful and moving performance. but i think the strength of his performance and, in fact, the driving force behind his current momentum to win, is coupled much too strongly with his personal story. it is the story of mickey rourke that i believe will win him the oscar more than his performance.
the oscars love a good story.... and rourke's personal life perfectly mirrors the role he presents on film. and it all makes for a very compelling argument to award him the gold.
i think it can go either way... if you ask me in two hours who i think will win, i'll say penn. but if you ask me tomorrow afternoon, i'll be back on rourke.
and they've split the critics awards pretty evenly. penn has won the broadcast film critics, the chicago film critics, the LA film critics, the ny film critics and the SAG. his winning the SAG actually makes me think he may take home the oscar. afterall, it's the same people who vote for the oscars.
rourke has won the BAFTA, the golden globe, london critics circle, chicago, kansas, toronto and san diego.
but they've also both tied in awards presented by the boston society of film critics and the san francisco film critics.
so who will win? will penn's harsh words over the years concerning the academy and the awards season in general hurt his chances? will the fact that he's already won for mystic river hurt his chances?
will rourke's bizarre behavior and momentary flirtation with actual "professional" wrestling hurt his chances?
sadly, we won't know until sunday night.... but for now:
will win: mickey rourke, the wrestler (with penn an easy upset)
should win: sean penn, milk
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
amy adams, doubt
penélope cruz, vicky cristina barcelona
viola davis, doubt
taraji p. henson, the curious case of benjamin button
marisa tomei, the wrestler
tonight we arrive at my favorite category... best supporting actress. i'm not sure why i have a special affinity for this category but i just love it. maybe because you get a nice, diverse group of actors? maybe because you find the best character actresses in this category? maybe because they love giving the award to woody allen actresses?
but we'll get to ms. cruz later.....
first i'd like to start with what i perceive as one of the worst nominations of the night: taraji p. henson. my only thought is there remains some residual guilt on the part of the academy for not nominating her for the superior performance she gave in hustle and flow. but whatever it is... i knew two things as i watched benjamin button:
1. this entire film and this particular role was created to woo the oscars.
2. the academy would probably be duped by both.
and they were.... the entire movie is overblown and over-lauded. but here we are....
luckily, i don't think ms. henson has a chance at winning the award (unless the academy is looking for a way to reward benjamin button because it will not win any major award and has so many nominations). i would also like to point out that she has not won a single, major award (critics or otherwise) except the austin film critics. exactly.
so let's look at the other contenders....all of whom, conceivably, have a shot.
we have the prior nominee: amy adams, nominated before as best supporting actress for junebug. ms. adams will one day win an oscar, i believe that. but she is greatly overshadowed here by the other three actors nominated for doubt. i'm afraid she'll have to wait a bit longer.
we have the previous winner: marisa tomei who won in the same category for my cousin vinny. OVER, i might add, a much more deserving judy davis for woody allen's husbands and wives.
a side note: tomei's win over davis continues to be the thorn in my academy's side. tomei is marvelous in vinny, yes... but davis dominated that year and should have easily won. one of the biggest mistakes, in my opinion, in academy history.
tomei was also recently nominated again for in the bedroom. i honestly go back and forth and whether or not i feel she deserves this nomination. she is very good in the movie, but i don't feel the same groundswell for her as i do mickey rourke for that film.
no...this year i see the ranks of the woody allen supporting actresses taking their revenge.
but more on ms. cruz in a minute.....
we also have the first timer: yes, henson is also a first time nominee.... but viola davis quietly and intensely took hold of her first nomination. there was no need to showboat and overact.... instead, her performance is all about holding back.... every struggle her characters endures must take place within.... and davis allows you to see it all without ever letting you see inside.
davis deserves to win this category. she takes on the greatest living screen actress and steals the scene without chewing the scenery. she is easily, the greatest performance in doubt.
and much will be said for her lack of screen time. most estimates have her screen time around 8 minutes.... just over 10 when you include a scene that contains no dialogue for the actress. and her lack of screen time is the biggest hurdle she has to overcome in order to take home the gold.
but there is precedence: judi dench won best supporting actress for shakespeare in love with a mere 8 minutes of total screen time in a much longer film. and her performance was spread out over four scenes.... davis must accomplish it all in one remarkable scene.
beatrice straight won a supporting actress oscar for her 6 minutes in network. they are six amazing minutes.... but again: only six minutes.
so will davis win? sadly, probably not..... i'm not sure she can escape the naysayers who simply say there wasn't enough time.
so the oscar will go to the second most deserving nominee in the category, the woody allen supporting actress. i categorize penélope cruz as a woody allen supporting actress because she comes from a long line of supporting actresses nominated for woody allen roles.
there's the aforementioned judy davis. dianne weist has been nominated twice, and won twice, for supporting roles in hannah and her sisters and bullets over broadway. maureen stapleton received a nod for interiors. mira sorvino turned her nomination into an oscar win for mighty aphrodite. samantha morton in sweet and lowdown. and mariel hemingway in manhattan.
yes, cruz joins a long list of actresses to be recognized in the supporting ranks via an allen film.
and cruz gives the academy voters everything they like... beauty, wit, a range of emotions with lovely dramatic scenes.... and there is a beautiful mixture of fire and insanity behind cruz's eyes throughout her performance.
i basically see the race between davis and cruz. it's difficult to gauge based on prior awards due to kate winslet's oft inclusion (and win) in this category for the reader.
but cruz has raked in an impressive list of wins including: the LA film critics, national board of review, ny film critics, boston society of film critics and the BAFTA.
ms. davis has only won a breakthrough award via the national board of review. cruz topped here in the actual supporting category.
this year, the academy keeps it's current european streak alive:
will win: penélope cruz, vicky cristina barcelona
should win: viola davis, doubt
Monday, February 16, 2009
josh brolin, milk
robert downey jr., tropic thunder
philip seymour hoffman, doubt
heath ledger, the dark knight
michael shannon, revolutionary road
funny how similarities can run from year to year. last year's best supporting actor race also saw p.s. hoffman in the third slot....alphabetically. and just like last year, if i were to declare any category a lock this year.... i would bet on best supporting actor.
heath ledger is set to be the first actor to win a posthumous oscar since peter finch won for network back in 1976.
and there has been a lot of talk about whether a ledger win would be a deserving win or simply a way to honor a talent silenced too soon.
i can say without hesitation: heath ledger deserves to win this award. he easily turns in one of the best performances of the year.
his joker is so haunting... so engrossing.... so terrifying. and there is a soul and an understanding deep in those eyes that peer out from behind that deranged make-up. ledger created a villain to rival the cinema greats and silenced any critics.
but those who deserve to win don't always win.... this is true. but i do believe this year the oscars will once again get this category right.
just as last year was too soon for hoffman after his recent win for capote, so is it this year... not that it isn't a deserving a powerful performance.
michael shannon came out of nowhere to snag a nomination for revolutionary road... but despite the surprise, this is probably the second most deserving nomination in this category. and if he had just one or two more scenes... he would probably give ledger a run for his money. the movie lights afire when shannon is on screen and his scenes are the most devastating in an overwhelmingly devastating film.
josh brolin, however, is probably the second actor most likely to win this category. he has won several critics awards include the national board of review and the ny film critics. and his victory would also be for the superb year he had last year with no country for old men, american gangster and in the valley of elah but for which he was ultimately overlooked. he also garnered critical praise this year not just for milk but for his captivating work in w.
that leaves robert downey, jr. for tropic thunder. true, he is one of the three individuals in this category who have previous nominations (best actor, chaplin). and the academy often likes to reward individuals with prior nods. but they rarely give out the big prize to comedies... of course, this category is known for rewarding comedic performances, most notably kevin kline for a fish called wanda and, more recently, alan arkin for little miss sunshine.
but i don't see downey or anyone else winning here.
the night will belong to ledger... he has already won countless awards, including the screen actors guild, the golden globe, the BAFTA, the los angeles film critics, as well as the chicago and broadcast film critics.
depending on who else wins come sunday night... it may prove to be one of the most deserving moments of the evening. and depending on who accepts the award for him, it could also be one of the most moving.
will win: heath ledger, the dark knight
should win: heath ledger, the dark knight
Friday, February 13, 2009
as prologue: this is the type of shit that pisses me off...
so i'm home over lunch, listening to msnbc as i'm known to do. amongst all the chatter over the stimulus package and the house and senate voting, there is a lot of coverage following the plane crash of flight 3407 in buffalo, ny.
let me begin by saying... i can't even imagine. believe it or not...but a fear of a plane crashing into my home is actually on my list of phobias. obviously, it's not something that happens often. but obviously....it happens.
so msnbc is speaking with a woman who lives about a block from where the plane crashed and they ask for what she witnessed.
"i heard the plane and i knew immediately that something wasn't right. so i started to pray for those individuals that god would watch over them."
well, guess what? god must've been busy. 49 people died on the plane and 1 on the ground.
then she was asked what she felt. "tell us what you felt."
and she started talking about how god must've been looking out for all the people in her community because...all things considered....with the closeness of the houses and the plane coming down.... god was clearly looking out for everyone and had a hand in the miracle since more people were not killed or injured.
so my question for this woman is this: what did the individuals on the plane do? what did the person on the ground do? why did god decide, "yeah, fuck 'em" but not them? why was god looking out for every other individual but those 50?
and what about the woman who was a widow of a 9/11 victim? what did their entire family do that god would take two individuals from this one family in such horrific ways?
were they atheists? all of them....? jews? muslims?
what did they do? why did god look over all of these other individuals but not these 50? what were their crimes?
it pisses me off when people say that shit....
why was god not protecting everybody.....? shouldn't that be the question?
or maybe there simply is no god and the universe is violent and haphazard and sometimes bad shit happens to good people and other times good things happen to shitty people?
but whatever you believe... please...! stop saying god was looking out for everyone... because then you insinuate that god was not looking out for those who died. and how should their loved ones feel about that?
Monday, February 9, 2009
okay... "stabilizing the housing market." we seem to be back on course.
president obama does not have a crystal ball.
well, shit... now we're all fucked.
oh, there's ed henry of cnn. oh, wow... interesting. he's brought up the policy of the white house not allowing the flag-draped coffins returning to the united states to be broadcast. since he's promised so much transparency, will he reverse it? wow.... good question. tough question.
obama reminds everyone it's a timely question: four soldiers were killed in iraq today. but he brushes it off and says they're reviewing it and will not give a definite answer until they're done reviewing the policy.
ugh...what a dodge!
as far as afghanistan.... once again: reviewing all the details and information and intel regarding that forgotten war. sounds like he wants to refocus military efforts on afghanistan. and that includes more diplomacy.
and he just brought up 9/11. a bit of a throw-back to the bush years... but it worked. and bush would've brought it up in the first 2 minutes of the conference.
no timetables. huh...sounds like another throw-back to the bush years.
return to/of credit
another question about the need for credit and lending. he wants everyone to wait for tim geitner to make his announcement tomorrow. seems fair, i guess. he is the new treasury secretary. no need to steal his thunder.
okay....i'm drifting, questions are drifting. obama got his first laugh when a question about a joe biden comment came up and he said he doesn't exactly remember what "joe was referring to."
oh, that crazy joe....
holy shit... a brother from the washington post wasted his question asking about a-rod's use of steroids. seriously? i mean...what's obama gonna say? "well shit, blood. you know.... it improved his game and he kicked some ass. i say god bless 'im!" NO! of course he finds it sad and disappointing... but he seems to think baseball is on the right track to setting things right.
and helen thomas gets a question. probably the final question... she asks about pakistan and if obama knows of anyone who has nuclear weapons.
he gave an answer about pakistan that, i'm sorry, i zoned out. i was thinking about helen and placing the washington post in italics.
but he will not speculate concerning nuclear weapons but he believes conversations need to begin anew about the need for a reduction in nuclear weapons....with the united states leading the way.
glad to hear that.
nope.... helen does not go last and is not allowed a follow-up. but she's on the front row again.
the huffington post goes next. and they ask about any potential prosecution of bush officials or will obama "officially" rule it out now.
he does not rule it out... but does say he's interested in looking forward. but also says he does not think anyone is above the law.
oh! i see ben smith of politico. good site....
and he ends at 8pm CST.
wow... what an interesting change of pace from the past 8 years. not smugness. no verbal fuck-ups. not bravado.
he was serious. he was compelling. he was specific about the stimulus package. a nice inaugural news conference.
and with that... we spell check and sign off.
it feels good to watch a competent, DEMOCRATIC president again.
i'm informed by keith olbermann that the president is expected to talk for about 10 minutes before he starts to take questions from the salivating press.
we await the 44th president of the united states....
and here he is and away we go.....
4.7% to 15.3%
he immediately says we need to pass the stimulus package and referred to his stop in elkhart, indiana today. they have the fastest growing unemployment in the united states. it's risen from 4.7% to 15.3%.
he is laying out fact after fact. the number of jobs lost in january (over 500,000). the lack of money in individual's pockets to buy goods which then causes employers to lay off more people which results in less people with money in their pockets to buy the goods which causes more layoffs... well, you get the point.
the stimulus package will ensure individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will continue to receive unemployment benefits and health coverage. $2,500 tax credits will go to individuals struggling to pay their college tuition. and finally, $1,000 in tax relief to working and middle class families.
obama points out that tax cuts alone have not helped over the past 8 years... especially when they're targeted to the richest individuals.
lots of talk about infrastructure and dams and bridges and wind turbines and fuel efficient cars.
god, i love liberal plans! welcome back!
over 90% of the jobs will be in the public sector... not in government.
and there's the rub
"my government inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion." keep reminding them of that, barack.
"doing little or nothing at all" will cause more job loss, more deficits, etc.
once again...a call for congress NOT to delay. (best of luck, barack!)
"we have to work together." (once again, good luck!)
nice first question from the AP. "do you lose credibility when you use such dire language?"
oh, nice answer. bringing up japan in the 90's and the "lost decade." he follows with the loss of 3.6 million jobs and the greatest "recession" since the great depression. but he makes sure to emphasize that he thinks we can pass a stimulus package and turn things around.
okay...once again answering criticisms. government MUST do something. it can't just stand by.
good, good... he brought up the need to get credit flowing again. without banks lending credit...all bets are off, people. there MUST be credit available to individuals and businesses.
this continual phrase "saving or creating 4 million jobs" worries me. we need to do more than save 4 million job. yes, that's a good start. but you need to CREATE jobs. i feel like that phrase leaves too much wriggle room.
hmmm, reuters goes second. (the first two questions are also asked by women. nice!) and foreign policy is the topic. a question about iran.
well, pretty tow the line answer. they're interested in nuclear weapons. they're fucking with israel. funding terrorists, including hezbollah. all options are on the table...but he emphasized, "that includes diplomacy."
come on... if you're not giving us anything new, move on!
he keeps taking some nice little jabs at bush and his failures with the economy and diplomacy and foreign policy.
and here's chip reid. what network is he with now...? is he still with nbc or msnbc? and it's a bipartisanship question... or a lack of it question.
"when i made overtures to both republican caucuses"...three republicans in my cabinet (unprecedented) and other ways he's built up trust. but currently, they are not interested in bipartisanship.
"i can't afford to see congress play the usual political games. what we have to do now is deliver for the american people." nice.....
remember george bush's constant smirk...? yeah, i don't miss it.
oops... he took a swipe at republicans... "when i hear this from individuals who presided over the doubling of the deficit" and once again reminds everyone he inherited the deficit. hammer it home, mr. president.
i'm happy to hear him say that certain environmental proposals are NOT wasteful spending... they create jobs immediately and reduce costs in the long run. same with helping move all medical records to electronic records... helping rebuild or improve schools. these create jobs.... and improve things in the long run.
i'm sorry.... i think he's doing one helluva job at selling this package.
ALL RIGHT! chucky t! chuck todd of nbc. my favorite. his question concerns the lack of help tax cuts will make if everyone is simply saving the money or using it to pay off debt. (this is why, by the way, tax cuts do NOT help alone. i know the GOP wants to sell this shit....but as rachel maddow says: "its bull pucky." and it is. you get more bang for your buck using federal spending than by giving tax cuts. over 50 cents more on the dollar.)
hmmm...so if chuck todd is there representing nbc... where is chip reid? abc? cbs? ahh... he moved to cbs in september 2007.
bloomberg news is next. no love for abc or fox (duh!). and a good question about the credit crisis and what to do with the remaining $350 billion in TARP.
lack of oversight and other problems are listed as reasons why it didn't help as much as it should have helped. the president wants to make sure the remaining money is spent wisely. and it will be "transparent" and with clear oversight.
i feel like i should post this and then start another one....i don't want to lose everything i've written.
oh...and there's abc. same question, asked a bit differently. something about all the legs of the stool in place. hmmm....