Sunday Talk Shows

I just received the transcript from NBC's Meet the Press today. Here's Valerie Jarrett on Scott Brown's Senate victory:

I think the question to be asked, and what we learned from the Massachusetts victory, is that people are sick and tired of Washington not delivering for them.

And so, the question is really will the Republican Party become-- be willing to come and work with us? A silver lining is Senator Brown said yes, he's looking forward to coming to Washington and working with the Democrats. And we're hoping that that provides new leadership within the party.

On yesterday's Osama bin Laden tape: [More...]

VALERIE JARRETT: We have no independent-- confirmation that that is, in fact, his voice. But let's look-- the fact of the matter is that he's a murderer. He has attacked Americans. In fact, he's killed more Muslims than any other group in the region. And so, the President is committed to going after Al Qaeda and all other affiliates and bringing them to justice.

DAVID GREGORY: Is he in direct command and control of Al Qaeda? Is that the view of the intelligence community?

VALERIE JARRETT: We have-- we have no independent verification of that whatsoever. But we are gonna go after Al Qaeda and its affiliates and certainly him for the atrocities of the past

On the economy:

JARRETT: ....We turned the economy around. We are moving forward in the right direction. However--

DAVID GREGORY: We can't say-- I'm sorry, you can't say you've turned the economy around when there are four million jobs have been lost on the President's watched. When the debt is higher. And the stimulus did not produce the jobs that the Administration said it would.

VALERIE JARRETT: Well, I actually disagree with everything you just said. Let's-- let's take a look. We have pulled it back from the brink of disaster. That was our first and primary goal. The President took some bold steps that were not necessarily popular, but that did stabilize the financial system.

This is a long haul, David. And we are not satisfied. Having any American who wants to work unemployed is something that the parent-- the President takes to heart each and every day. This isn't something that's gonna be repaired in one year. We're gonna have to push forward. But that doesn't mean that we give up. And that doesn't mean that jobs haven't been a top priority from day one.

More on Scott Brown:

JARRETT: We are working so hard to put out country back on the right track. And what we want is partners in the Republican Party. And we're hoping that with Senator Brown we have that.

On the change Obama has brought during his first year in office:

VALERIE JARRETT: Well, I think what we've seen is-- a dramatic difference in terms of how the United States is perceived around the world. I think that the President has been able to travel across the world and to establish relationships with world leaders that lie-- lay a foundation for keeping America safe. And-- and making us a partner around the world so that we can tackle challenges collectively with other world leaders.

I think that he has pulled back-- the economy from the brink of disaster. That's an enormous amount of change when you consider where we were a year ago. Right on the economic brink. And he's added discipline in government to try to get control of our-- of our fiscal house. So, I think that we've seen enormous change.

Sounds like during his State of the Union, we will hear Obama tell us the economy has turned the corner, we're going to ramp up counter-terror efforts to go after al Qaeda, congratulate Scott Brown and reach out to Republicans.

< Osama Steals Credit For Detroit Failed Plane Attack | NFL Conference Championships >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't hear any change in message. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by observed on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:35:29 AM EST
    She's giving more "hope and change" talk, saying Obama will work  with Republicans. The only difference between now and 1 year ago is  that she can now say what a wonderful job Obama has done.
    PollyHooverAnnaish, if you ask me.

    yep (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Left of the Left on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    Yeah, not trying hard enough to work with Republicans, that's the missing ingredient in getting healthcar- I mean the econom- I mean these poll number- wait, what are trying to do again?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by sleepingdogs on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    I think that the President has been able to travel across the world and to establish relationships with world leaders that lie--
    (emphasis added)

    Imature, I know.  But I can't resist.

    I also her like the slip that the "parent" errr, rather, president has concerns about the unemployed.  Seems to me her brain was working overtime to remember her talking points and get them just right.

    A subtext is that Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by observed on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    can fend for themselves. Obama is looking towards reelection, and if that means working with a Republican Congress---no problem.

    HA (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    I think the question to be asked, and what we learned from the Massachusetts victory, is that people are sick and tired of Washington not delivering for them.

    And so, the question is really will the Republican Party become-- be willing to come and work with us?

    So, it's the Republicans that aren't delivering for the American people...?  Hmmm...I thought the Democrats had a large majority in both houses and the WH....?

    Yeh, IObama's still the candidate, not (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    the president, in such messages from his staff.

    Somebody has got to tell them that is a disastrous message.  Not only for Dems in fall but for all of us in this world.  I've been reading foreign press, and it is not favorable in part for this reason.


    So now we really know what the WH (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    cleaned from the election of Scott Brown.  Or do we?

    Though Note (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by The Maven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    that today's New York Times has a front-page article describing how Obama is reassembling his 2008 campaign team in order to centralize and coordinate election strategy for November.  Several excerpts I found pertinent:
    Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor's races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation -- from the White House to party committees -- after last week's Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.
        --  --  --
    Improving tactical operations addresses only part of his challenge. A more complicated discussion under way, advisers said, is how to sharpen the president's message and leadership style.
        --  --  --
    The discussion inside the White House includes at least two distinct debates: Should Mr. Obama assume a more populist or centrist theme in his message? And should the White House do what it takes to pass compromise legislation or should it force votes, which even if unsuccessful can be used to carry an argument against Republicans in the fall?

    I come away with two major concerns, each of which I find appalling.  First, that the WH remains committed to its idea of making the Democratic Party a mere extension of the Obama Brand™.  Second, that they still believe a (further) turn to the perceived center might be the better course of action.

    I wish I could say that it's obvious that Obama has no real commitment to anything in the way of particular policies and is only about trying to win elections (for himself and allies) and preserving power, but there are still seemingly many folks out there who would follow him down this path.  At this point, I'm not even sure that the ascension of the right wing would be enough to shake them out of this dangerous belief.


    Per Axelrod, no shake-up anticipated (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:37:31 AM EST
    in WH staff:  Washington Post

    Translation (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by The Maven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    Between that bit and the campaign centralization, one has to think that the administration has become drunk on its Kool-Aid, as this amounts to "We haven't screwed anything up, and all of you just need to shut up and listen to the 17-dimensional chess master as we work our magic."

    (Further evidence of this is the way the WH has doubled down and played hardball in making sure they force the bitter pill of a second term for Bernanke down the Senate's throat.  so much for their one day of "populism" when they trotted out Volcker with the bank reform proposal and then promptly stashed him back in the attic.)


    Leadership "style" (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:08:15 PM EST
    how to sharpen the president's message and leadership style...

    I like that leadership is a "style" to be messaged and managed. Nothing to do with conviction or guts.

    Image is all.


    We had some discussion of this (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    last night, if you want to see more reaction: here's the thread<.  Some similar reactions to yours. . . .

    Yes, we've learned that the WH (none / 0) (#31)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:59:52 PM EST
    Hasn't learned a thing.  They're hoping that Brown will come to Washington and be a democrat.  Heck, if the people wanted a democrat, they would have voted for one.  duh.  

    The President is a man (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:40:45 PM EST
    so like all men he does not understand the "I want you to understand what I want, even if my visible action says something else" message, too well. He has to go by what he sees. He saw that voters in Massachussetts elected a Republican who (who campaigned against spending and on being tough on national security) said that he would work with Democrats for bipartisan solutions. So the President has to interpret that people in Massachussetts want bipartisan solutions. If Democrats in Massachussetts wanted to send a message against bipartisanship, they should not have sat at home; they should have voted for Coakley and indicated in exit polls that they were against the present HCR bill or against bipartisanship, etc.

    Iiiiii don't know how to luvvv himmm... what to do (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:53:10 PM EST
    ... how to mooovvve him
    I've been changed
    I've really changed

    Well, there weren't exit polls (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    for reasons discussed here in detail on Tuesday night.

    And Massachusetts is over.  Obama brought his message there, and it didn't work.  

    Now is not the time to keep speaking to Massachusettts and whatever its voters may have meant.  Now, for November, Obama has to get his message to many states.  Some may be similar to Massachusetts, but many are not.  

    Today is the first day of the rest of his first term -- if he wants to get things done in Congress after the fall elections, and if he wants a second term.


    There were no exit polls (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    but a number of organizations have done follow-up polls.  Which I think just means calling people and asking them who they voted for and why.

    I don't know how accurate that as is compared to exit polling.


    Not as reliable (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    because once people know who was the winner, that can influence whether they admit to voting for the loser -- i.e., also being losers.  But then, all polling is fraught with flaws -- exit polling's problems include that there are people who actually think that they ought not be asked how they voted.  Believers in the secret ballot and all.  Imagine that.  Others are just busy and want to get home.  So there have been some indications that some groups of voters are more likely to refuse to participate in exit polling.  But it still has fewer potential problems than more delayed polling.

    What on earth? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by kempis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:17:08 AM EST
    So it really is a goal of the Obama Administration to rebuild the GOP and they hope Scott Brown will be the change we've been waiting for?

    These people are beginning to scare me....

    Isn't the definition (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    of insanity doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results? If, after a solid year of reaching out to repubs and getting repeatedly knived in the back they think Scott Brown is coming to DC with any intention of working with them, they truly have gone off the deep end.

    Scott Brown is from Massachusetts (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    not Mississippi.  He absolutely is not a lockstep national party guy, and he can't be if he has any hope of hanging onto the seat.

    He ran essentially as an independent, despite the R after his name.  He's not a kneejerk neanderthal, he's a throwback to the kind of actual moderate Republicans we used to have a lot of in the Northeast.

    Look for him to pretty quickly establish his independent bona fides on Cap. Hill.  He will almost certainly find early something to co-sponsor with a Dem. or even just vote for against the wishes of the leadership.  It won't be the current health care bill, but he could very well vote for some scaled down bill or partial bill.

    This is not a cookie-cutter Republican here, and it's a big mistake to think he is.


    He May Not Be a Lockstep National Party Guy (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by The Maven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    and from Massachusetts, but then neither are Sens. Collins or Snowe from Maine -- and just how much have they sided with the Dems on anything of importance?

    Sure, Brown is likely to find some areas where he can co-sponsor a measure with a Democratic colleague (and it may even be on something fairly surprising, a la Lindsey Graham on climate change legislation), but when it comes time to achieve cloture on a hotly contested vote, I doubt very much he'd help the Dems get to 60.  Much of his campaign was centered around this point, that he could be vote #41 going the other way.


    We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    He will happily join GOP filibusters on issues he agrees with them on.  But he's got a good deal more independence than Snowe and Collins, actually.

    Look, I'm just responding to the commenter above who announced that Obama was a fool if he thought he could work with Brown because Brown would join the rest of the Senate GOP in voting against every single Dem. bill.

    Brown is actually a pretty interesting cat.  Remains to be seen what he'll do, but I say again he cannot vote in lockstep with the party and expect to get reelected in Massachusetts.


    Well, if I were playing 11 dimensional (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    chess, I could see the value in having Republicans elected who would break the unity of their voting bloc.

    I seem to recall him running (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jeffhas on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    as the 41st vote....

    I find it interesting that you think he is something different.  While I think he'll probably be more moderate than most Republicans, he ran against the Democratic agenda.


    Oh, I don't think that. I'm (none / 0) (#16)
    by observed on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    just imagining how someone in the OFB could spin this.

    He did run as 41. (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    And therefore?

    Of course he ran against the "democratic agenda." And therfore?

    I don't get your point.

    He is patently, obviously, glaringly different from your standard-issue Senate Republican-- and he has to be in order to get relected in 2 years to a full term.  I think the GOP is going to have their hands full with him, actually.


    Any chance that Scott Brown (none / 0) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    will see Elizabeth Warren on the rear view mirror of his truck soon?

    Jay Leno is far, far from a favorite, (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    but he needs to be given his due on this one: "It's hard to believe President Obama has now been in office for a year. And you know, it's incredible.  He took something that was in terrible, terrible shape, and he brought it back from the brink of disaster.  The Republican Party."

    Thank you for once again reminding me (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:56:26 AM EST
    why I no longer watch these shows...

    Memo to Valarie Jarrett:

    (1) The party in power at present is the Democratic Party; the people of Massachusetts did not elect a Republican because it is Republicans who have failed, but Democrats.

    (2) Unless you are urging Republicans to work with Dems in the same way Republicans do it when the tables are turned - "do it our way" - there will just be more and more consequential failure by Dems.

    (3) Your message on the economy sucks.  

    (4) Scott Brown and the Republicans do not want to be your partner, unless by "partner" you mean "people who pretend to listen, whine that you aren't giving them enough, act like they are just so pained that they cannot support you, and, in the end, stand by and watch watered-down, compromised-to-death legislation pass, with everything they wanted from it to begin with."

    (5) Obama had the opportunity to exhibit bold and courageous leadership on the economy; he could have structured policy that both brough the country back from the brink AND did something about jobs.  He chose the weaker, cheaper, course, which placed us a couple feet back from the brink, but still within the danger zone.

    (6) If Obama wants more friends, he needs to spend more time on Facebook and MySpace, and less time accommodating everyone - other than liberals and progressives, whom he takes for granted - who looks at him cross-eyed until he gives then their way; leadership isn't about making friends and being the most popular guy in high school.  Tell your boss to grow the hell up.

    (7) Guantanamo, indefinite detention, state secrets, exigent letters, improper surveillance, an OLC with no director, failures at National Intelligence, retroactive legalization of illegal activities, no FISA fix, wholesale incorporation of Bush policies, backroom deals, heavy influence by industry executives and lobbyists.  Not exactly "change we can believe in."

    Good Lord, it's only been a year, and it's going to be a non-stop campaign of America for Obama (his mentor, Joe Lieberman would love that!) from this point forward.


    At town hall meeting in Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    last week, Obama claimed it was being in D.C. that caused his myopia to what the people want.

    An admission that he was myopic (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    even going into the presidency, since he already was part of the Washington establishment then?

    Message after message is just awful from this White House.


    And transparently (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    self-serving.  Who would buy this?

    excellent post Anne!! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by fly on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    Thanks..you hit the nail on the head!

    Washington's failure to put it on the line (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Scarabus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:54:48 PM EST
    What bothers me is not that my representatives in Washington aren't delivering. It's that they lack sufficient commitment and courage to put their own careers on the line for the sake of justice and the common interest.

    Yoda said, "No try. Do." Scarabus says, "But at least try!"

    I first read Yeats's poem "The Second Coming" when I was in college. It's incredibly depressing to think that this many decades later his words remain as relevant as ever: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity."

    Brown's win was a message to republicans? (none / 0) (#29)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:50:49 PM EST
    >>>I think the question to be asked, and what we learned from the Massachusetts victory, is that people are sick and tired of Washington not delivering for them.

    And so, the question is really will the Republican Party become-- be willing to come and work with us? A silver lining is Senator Brown said yes, he's looking forward to coming to Washington and working with the Democrats. And we're hoping that that provides new leadership within the party.<<<

    Who voted for Brown?  Democrats?  Brown was elected to come to Washington and work with democrats so that they could finally get something done?   Is that what she's saying here?