The Sunday News Shows were moderately boring today. They talked a lot about the so-called "financial reform" bill. From what was said, the Republicans are going to cave, after "getting a few more loopholes" (according to the CNN reporter on Meet the Press), and the bill will be passed. There was a lot of banter about it between the conservative and more liberal commentators, but basically no one thought that ultimately it wouldn't pass. That' doesn't mean it is going to solve the problems of excessive greed, but it makes for decent politics at the moment.

I thought that David Brooks, (yeah - him) had one interesting blurb. He spoke, at one point during Meet the Press, about why the republican voters were going to choose the further right candidates over the "centrist" candidates, such as what is going on in Florida and Arizona. He tried to disavow what is happening in places such as Florida and Arizona, where very right-wing candidates are giving serious challenge, and very well may unseat establishment Republican candidates who are considered "moderate." Brooks said that the right wingers are coming off as "principled" and thus "gets voters."

That's a cheap way out for the republicans and Brooks. "Principled" means nothing...well...maybe not nothing...but it doesn't automatically absolve the "principled" either. I'm sure that Mao, Hitler, Castro, Papa Doc, Idi Amin, and the like were all "principled." It all comes down to what those principles are. Our constitution's principles are basically that people should have equal opportunity, shouldn't be subject to excessive punishment, should have the right to change the government and to due process. But the leaders mentioned above, and many others, have principles that whatever it takes to stay in power is what they need to do. So Brooks dodge at the subject of how the republicans are moving far right is well noted.

Krauthamer kept saying that we need to "build a fence" between Arizona and Mexico, insinuating that the lack of a fence is the source of all the immigration problems leading up to the likely unconstitutional and ethically bankrupt recently enacted Arizona immigration reform bill. For someone that tries to come off as being superiorly intelligent, Krauthamer is really ignorant of many things, such as how the everyday person lives. Hey, I guess he might be "principled" and that makes it all ok, huh?

Pat Buchanan really ripped Goldman Sachs on McLaughlin Group. That didn't really surprise me, but the venom with which he went after them did suprise me a little. But I did chuckle and agree when he called them as "big hustlers." Another thing that didn't surprise me was that McLaughlin had Mort Zuckermann on to defend Goldman Sachs. The problem with Zuckerman talking about investments is that it is like Custer talking about military strategy. The guy has no credibility. He, trying to greedily reap unrealistic profits, lost a bunch to Bernie Madoff. I would never invest a penny with Zuckermann, and I wouldn't invest a penny of belief of what he has to say on McLaughlin or any other show. He is totally agenda driven in my opinion, and he has two agendas - money and Israel. Other than that he is hollow.

Again, "To the Contrary" had a wonderful discussion about whether women are supporting Obama or not. I can't remember the name, but a Democratic African-American congresswoman from Maryland was a guest (the first time I recall seeing her on national media) who was very articulate and persuasive. No wonder she got elected! I give a lot of kudos to "To the Contrary." Their show continues to improve and dig deep into subjects that the other shows wouldn't dare touch.