MTP today

[scandal 951]

Some excerpts I thought were poignant in today's NBC Meet The Press show.

Transcript at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34665249/ns/me...e_press/page/5/

Doris Kearns Goodwin:

I also keep thinking that somehow what we really missed in the beginning of this decade on the war on terror, what would have happened right after September 11th if President Bush had called for independent--a Manhattan Project for independence from Middle Eastern oil? What if he'd called for a lot more people to join the Army? We wouldn't have had these same soldiers going back three and four times. What if we'd had a tax increase, as we've done in every other war, to fight a war? We wouldn't be facing the deficits right now.

...

David Gregory:

David Brooks, then what then becomes the narrative of this new decade, given what we've just come off?

MR. BROOKS: I always look at passionate outsiders. Who are the passionate outsiders who are going to come into the mainstream? Because the people with passion really can control the decade--the feminists in the 1970s, the evangelicals in the 1980s. And so when I look around the world at who are the real passionate outsiders, one, the people that we've already talked about, which are the, the democracy protesters in Iran. But two, and I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of them, but the tea party people. They have real passion. They're now at the outside. If they can merge with responsible leadership and become a real movement--there's real disgust at government, there's real disgust about fiscal issues--they could become maybe a destructive force in the Republican Party, maybe a positive force. But, to me, those are the people with real passion who may play a much larger role in the coming decade and so forth.

[Danno 1,228]

We have three more years of Obama and his policy fights ahead, this will certainly be Nourishment for the Tea Party movement to grow,

just wait until Obama goes for Immigration reform.

Oddly enough, this seems to be a movement without a central leader or even formal headquarters.

In fact it's rather unorganized to be honest, I was trying to get some "times and dates" a while back and I had to google and bounce from 10 didferent web sites to get simple info.

I know my friends on the left think the Tea Party crowd are puppets for Rush or some big money personality..... I rather doubt it because it has been so word of mouth and disorganized.

I have yet to get a random spam email or letter from any group except for one small one I signed up for.

That one only consisted of a bi-monthly note.

While other Rightwing ####### litters my box.

* Dorris kearns has really reduced herself something of a joke IMO.

[scandal 951]

I know my friends on the left

* Dorris kearns has really reduced herself something of a joke IMO.

You have friends on the left Danno? Say it isn't so!

I couldn't disagree with you more about DKG. She's a scholar, a historian, a brilliant recorder of our nation's past.

She's detailed the lives of great Democrats (FDR, LBJ) and Republicans (Lincoln, currently TR) and really is not an overtly partisan or political person at all. Along with Michael Beschloss, they are the two most prominent contemporary historians of American political history.

What did she say here that you can possibly disagree with? That she simply "wonders" how things might have played out if we had made a concerted effort (a "Manhattan Project") to transform our energy supply to something other than Mideast oil? Wouldn't that be a great thing?

The actual Manhattan Project proved vital to ending WWII. The leadership shown by FDR in sponsoring it has proven its historical value. Similarly, Kennedy's challenge to US science and industry to put a man on the moon in the 60s catapulted our space age technologies during the Cold War.

I think the Bush administration had a historic opportunity to use 9/11 as a way to move away from our energy dependence on foreign oil. You think it's a "joke" tat someone points out that fact. Guess we just disagree.

Oh, she also said that it might have played out differently if, like in WWII or Vietnam, the burden of our current wars was spread more evenly across all Americans rather than just those who have chosen to serve. Both through broader actual participation, and financially through our taxes. Why is this a "joke"? I know you are a patriotic American and honor those who serve, after all.

[Danno 1,228]

You have friends on the left Danno? Say it isn't so!

I couldn't disagree with you more about DKG. She's a scholar, a historian, a brilliant recorder of our nation's past.

She's detailed the lives of great Democrats (FDR, LBJ) and Republicans (Lincoln, currently TR) and really is not an overtly partisan or political person at all. Along with Michael Beschloss, they are the two most prominent contemporary historians of American political history.

What did she say here that you can possibly disagree with? That she simply "wonders" how things might have played out if we had made a concerted effort (a "Manhattan Project") to transform our energy supply to something other than Mideast oil? Wouldn't that be a great thing?

The actual Manhattan Project proved vital to ending WWII. The leadership shown by FDR in sponsoring it has proven its historical value. Similarly, Kennedy's challenge to US science and industry to put a man on the moon in the 60s catapulted our space age technologies during the Cold War.

I think the Bush administration had a historic opportunity to use 9/11 as a way to move away from our energy dependence on foreign oil. You think it's a "joke" tat someone points out that fact. Guess we just disagree.

Oh, she also said that it might have played out differently if, like in WWII or Vietnam, the burden of our current wars was spread more evenly across all Americans rather than just those who have chosen to serve. Both through broader actual participation, and financially through our taxes. Why is this a "joke"? I know you are a patriotic American and honor those who serve, after all.

The simple truth is, we have two entanglements in that region, oil and Israel.

Even if one is solved the other remains.

Now the question I have is..... does she want us free from oil dependency or free from entanglements in the middle east?

I suspect it has more to do with Oil than energy because I tried to find just one call from her to drill domestically or build nuclear facilities, but could not.

Rather she blames bush for not searching for the silver Bullet.

I think our "Manhattan Project days are behind us", we use to be the world leader in the monumental projects department but I rarely see signs we, or at least our Public endeavors succeed.

WE can't cure AIDS we can't educate our kids we can't win wars on terrorists, drugs, poverty. We have spent billions on raising people out of poverty and we are told 1 in 6 sometimes goes hungry in this country.

We no longer build the fastest trains, tallest buildings biggest damns.

We have the biggest disaster/ emergency response program the world has ever seen (fema) and we cant evacuate people or deliver food and water.

After a decade we can't seem to even put a sensible plan in place to keep well defined terrorists off airplanes and you think Bush could have somehow reinvented the very source of energy we use in this country.

You and Mrs Kearns have more faith in Bush thaN I EVER DID.

Good historians are often pragmatic, unless their second interest happens to be politics.

Kearns is a wonderful teller of History she is like this person with a thousand small stories which make tired old pages come to life, I just think her politics enter in a bit at times.

And of course you are correct she is a scholar, historian and all those other things but these type professional folks can and do have bias as well.

IN fact I used to get these pod casts which consists of, historians debating figures and events, it was remarkable how -at odds these experts could be.

itunes has a lot of interesting free podcasts if one has the time to listen.

[mawilson 2,133]

transform our energy supply to something other than Mideast oil?

Most of our oil comes from the Americas, not from the Middle East.

Less than 20% comes from the Middle East.

[alienlovechild 75]

I think the Bush administration had a historic opportunity to use 9/11 as a way to move away from our energy dependence on foreign oil. You think it's a "joke" tat someone points out that fact. Guess we just disagree.

Oh, she also said that it might have played out differently if, like in WWII or Vietnam, the burden of our current wars was spread more evenly across all Americans rather than just those who have chosen to serve. Both through broader actual participation, and financially through our taxes. Why is this a "joke"?

As someone who's heard about reducing our dependence on foreign oil since 1973, I don't take any talk of it seriously until our government can take the tough choice and raise gas taxes to force people away from oil. That's not a popular idea but taxes are supposed to reduce consumption.

Share the burden? Fine join the military like some of us did. A draft was introduced by Congressman Rangel to make the wars more unpopular politically and little to do with helping out those in the military. The best thing to happen to the armed forces is to have Obama manage the economy so badly that the high unemployment numbers make military service more attractive from an economic perspective- again doesn't have much to do with more pariotism. Raise taxes to pay to the wars, ok. Why not raise taxes to pay for healthcare, Social Security, Medicare. . . I wouldn't single out one area of spending as we we want everything for next to nothing.

Edited January 4, 2010 by alienlovechild