Grover Norquist should never appear anywhere in any medium without the tag "Grover Norquist, unindicted co-conspirator and Jack Abramoff cabana boy." Why he isn't busy with woodwork in some low-security Federal pen is beyond me.

I can't believe how stupid the liberals of this country are.

Don't you guys listen to Rush?

Most of this mess has been caused by the Clinton Administration and the rest has been caused by Jimmy Carter.

We would all be better off if we just cut the capital gains tax. I know it would help me to shelter my losses. I could record a $5000 loss and not pay taxes on it. Then I could use the savings to buy the products I hear about on Rush.

See, it is all so simple.

Thank God we have courageous conservatives like Norquist who are willing to speak truth to power.

And let me be the first to say it: the markets will recover later in Obama's term because people will be anticipating the return of a GOP president and sane economic policies.

Well Grover is entitled to his opinion....unfortunately this isnt one, its just political propaganda.

Steve Benen wrote: "Maybe now would be a good time for television bookers to take Norquist's name out of their rolodexes?"

Get real.

Why should they do that, when Norquist is propagandizing the American people in furtherance of the ruthless, rapacious class warfare of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. against everyone else -- which is exactly what "television bookers" are paid to do by the giant media corporations that employ them?

Maybe now would be a good time for "sensible liberal" bloggers to realize that the handful of giant corporations that own and control virtually all of America's mass media are not performing some sort of public service, out of the goodness of their hearts, impartially and accurately informing the American people about facts and issues -- but are simply and straightforwardly using the vast propaganda power of the mass media to advance their profit-driven agenda?

The SCLM pick spokespukers from the Parties and Interests to show "balance" in the petty sense of dividing up time and effort not to get "quality." They want "notorious" icons of polar interests because that's more dynamic tension, etc. IOW, it is media market psychology and not the way the responsible sector of the academic establishment works.

Again, as I've said to Kevin D. and to Steve B. et al a lot: Yeah, I can dig the rhetorical question as "stance" but why don't you folks go ahead and show briefly that you get why things work the way they do. Playing the affable perplexee is a cute literary conceit but it isn't helpful to the real debate.

tyrannogenius

That parody AL is funny, such witty sarcasm.

Two reasons why Norquist is on. Corporate media wants Republicans back in power as soon as Obama cleans up the mess and Republicans have worked their asses off making sure they're on television morning noon and night spouting talking points.

This meme by Norquist will be repeated over and over, expect George Will to be saying something similar on Sunday and Fox News everyday until 2010.

Anyone that has any sense about what has occurred on Wall ST. and the global economy knows that Norquist's premise should be laughed out of the public discourse but it won't be, instead it will become conventional wisdom.

Why all the crying Grover? You pretty much got the world you wanted with the exception of drowning the government in a bathtub (unless you count Katrina) and it's all gone to shit.

Of course it is better to blame the Dems for this clusterfuck than to admit that maybe the incredibly stupid ideas you were pushing may have a lot to do with this.

At this point, a RW economist or lobbyist should be treated with the same contempt, disdain and behind-the-back laughter that communists got after the fall of the USSR.

I would really like to know who funds the shenanigans of el Grover, one of the most swollen assholes in Washington.
Asking for economic advise of el Grovo is like asking a lion about vegetarian cooking. Useless to the point of comedy.

CNBC needs to be purged. Mass firings of the program directors. New minds now please!

Maybe it's better to put him on TV daily. He's so transparently fraudulent that, while he will reinforce the 27% below the Keyes Horizon, the other 73% will be reinforced against him.

Maybe now would be a good time for television bookers to take Norquist's name out of their rolodexes?
Why would they do that? He comes pre-scripted and ready to plug into any narrative. No matter the issue, Norquist can be relied upon to argue a tax cut as the only solution.

Looking to the future and our own Man's choices to compete with Norquistism etc: We should at least consider those critics who think this team is largely of the same stock that helped generate this crisis in the first place. See e.g. http://www.alternet.org/election08/108507/ and more from the same site. Is Obama really making the best effort to challenge the Republican way of doing things? His people are "better" than Norquist types, but are they better enough?

I remain pleased that Obama was elected, but - he is not really a Messiah. We can and must ask and press the point.

When will Grover shrink to a size we can drown in a bathtub?

Was Grover referring to the George Bush tax increase of 2010? Always remember, this pending tax increase was supported by George Bush with virtually unanimous Republican support.

When will Grover shrink to a size we can drown in a bathtub?

NTodd, all we need is a really big tub.

In any sane society Norquist would be in chains, and a society with a personality disorder leave Norquist's head in a basket, alas in America a society with a several severe mental disorderss Norquist is an influential policy maker and given voice on television and print.

Again, as I've said to Kevin D. and to Steve B. et al a lot: Yeah, I can dig the rhetorical question as "stance" but why don't you folks go ahead and show briefly that you get why things work the way they do. Playing the affable perplexee is a cute literary conceit but it isn't helpful to the real debate.

Meh. DC journos and talking heads obviously read this site, Drum's site and others. It's the after-effect of Drudge ruling their world for so long - they now turn to blogs to find analysis and ideas for what they're supposed to be talking about. Drudge used to have a monopoly, now there are a lot more out there.

You can take that one of a few different ways - you could just routinely call them out in a shrill voice day in and day out on how stupid they are, or you can more subtly prod them into thinking for themselves about why they do the things they do - the Socratic approach if you will. Bob Somersby pretty much has the "shrill voiced examples of how stupid you are" market cornered - no one's going to do it more shrill or more obviously than he is - so having a selection of folks who use a more Socratic approach is not a bad thing. And as an upshot, they probably get read by the people who need to hear it more than Somersby does.

Okay, Norquist is completely full of sh*t, but is "far-right" an accurate description of his politics. As far as I know, his only agenda is tax cuts über alles, and he's never signed on for the agendas of the theocratic and warmongering factions of the Republican party.

I remain pleased that Obama was elected, but - he is not really a Messiah.

Indeed!

(There should be a question mark at the end of the first sentence of my previous comment.)

He should be on all the time, the more the better. Before he was on Colbert I just assumed he had the general size and demeanor of Toby Keith; when I actually saw him I found out he looked and acted like the guy from Harry Potter who spent most of his life disguised as a rat. This is the self-described Menshevik who wants to flush American government? He can't even flush himself! Sad how those who were most likely bullied as children try as adults to become bullies themselves; really sad is how America rewards them for it. So please, let him play the fool all he wants. Just don't pay him for it.

I second that, and add the name of Mark Halperin. Halperin has never been right about anything, yet is mysteriously invited to sound off on politics again and again on several cable shows. This is a man whose political judgment is so flawed that when Obama was wrapping up his triumphant trip to Europe, gave "the week" to John McCain. That's the John McCain who was, that same week, chasing down hapless shoppers in grocery stores trying to explain his domestic economic agenda. Even the jars of applesauce were jumping off the shelves trying to get away from him. Mark Halperin, unabashed member of the lucky sperm club.

In the first five years of the Bush II federal spending increased 45% [this doesnt include bailouts]

For comparison eight years of Clinton resulted in 32% increase in federal spending.

Somehow I dont think people will be asking for more 'sane' [as comic AL says] Republican economic policies.

Nony, it be nice for some analysis instead of vague questions followed by crypto character assassination based on something absurd Norquist said. It's a technique you'd expect from Malkin. Besides the questions can be easily dismissed, a thorough breakdown of Norquist's career as one of the most corrupt people in modern american politics would be more useful.

It's insane that Norquist is on television at all expounding theories and not doing a perp walk. Why is this so? The answer isn't taking him out of the rolodex but why is he in the rolodex to begin with.

On the other hand, yesterday there was a sober sounding guy who said something like this: "I believe in the free market, but I don't know if the banking system can exist in a free market."

With two other guests and a host listening in, nobody disagreed with him.

And most disgusting of all, for me anyway, on MSNBC Michelle Bernard said that we need to stop spending and bring down the deficit. This was yesterday! Why wasn't she John McCain's running mate? We know what Grover Norquist is going to say, but some of these guests seem like lobbyists waiting for the right moment to cause trouble.

Jersey Tomato wrote: "Halperin has never been right about anything, yet is mysteriously invited to sound off on politics again and again on several cable shows."

Sigh. There is nothing "mysterious" about it.

It doesn't matter whether Halperin has ever been "right" about anything. What matters is that, just like Norquist, Halperin is a reliable propagandist for the interests and agenda of America's corporate ruling class. That's why the handful of giant corporations that own virtually all of America's mass media consistently favor people like Norquist and Halperin for the cable infotainment shows.

The corporate-owned so-called "news" media is not about "getting things right". It is not about "journalism". It is all about propaganda and brainwashing Americans into supporting the interests of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. over their own interests.

Neil B wrote: "Playing the affable perplexee is a cute literary conceit but it isn't helpful to the real debate."

It is worse than unhelpful. It reinforces and perpetuates the propagandistic power of the corporate mass media.

A significant part of the propaganda power of the corporate-owned, so-called "mainstream media" comes from its ability to masquerade as "journalism" and convey a fake, phony impression of impartiality. That's what makes it effective at brainwashing the majority of Americans -- in contrast to the openly, ludicrously partisan right-wing extremist media like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, which is targeted at a different sector of the electorate (the dittohead base).

By reinforcing the false idea that the corporate-owned mass media is practicing legitimate, impartial, fact-driven journalism instead of profit-driven, propagandistic advocacy of the corporate agenda, "sensible liberal" bloggers like Steve Benen and Kevin Drum are part of the problem.

Consider this: why is it that neither Steve Benen nor Kevin Drum has ever, ever, ever, even once, blogged about something they saw or heard on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! program?

Why are they not using their mighty blogospheric position to promote genuinely progressive, hard-hitting investigative journalism and reporting -- instead of focusing on the predictable, endless stream of corporate propaganda spewing from CNBC and its ilk?

Why is CNBC even interviewing Norquist? The man needs to be reduced to a size where we can drown him in a bathtub.

Have you ever watched CNBC? I may be wrong, but isn't it in partnership somehow with the WSJ for some period? If so, nuff said.

Why would they stop having Norquist on? Nearly everyone on CNBC, from Maria Bartiromo on down, has essentially the same worldview as him.

CNBC? Isn't that the cable outlet NBC created to criticize every economic decision of the Clinton administration? The channel that urged viewers to buy, buy, buy and borrow, borrow, borrow because the market was going up, up up? Who could have possibly predicted CNBC would now be undercutting the Obama administration? Do we care what CNBC tells its 140,000 viewers?