Morning Joe: people in "The Agency" voted Obama so he can see how hard the job really is

Does that even make sense? THey would vote for someone just to see how hard the job of defending the nation is. This guy is amazing. He thinks it's funny that now Obama doesn't want to read rights to terrorists. He's basically doing the "I told you so" crap.

just curious. I am not at all surprised about Joe's comments - I am baffled.

though Joe alternately pulls the "Eric Holder is such an ideologue " thing all of the time as well, so you would think he would be pleased with this, right? Just like how Joe was trying to say that Sonia was "the most to the left" judge that Obama could nominate, when she was first announced.

the Obama administration position is a bigger deal than some right wing asshole like Joe pissing me off everyday, especially because it seems more like a cave to the right wing media than an effort to actually protect people, as they claim. However, while Joe seems to gloat about how Obama et al "didn't know it would be so hard", I don't have to pat him on the back because he readily contributes to the politicization of terror as Dick/Liz Cheney fanboy, MAKING it "more difficult" and I dont' have to buy the bullshit about him being a moderate republican that his pr team shovels out. Did you read the nyt article? Joe and Mika are really the worst things about the show, the only reason to watch is the guests.

that's why I watch.

No - I did not read the article. But, in the grand scheme of things, he certainly is moderate compared to other leaders of the gop - romney, cheney, boner, mcconnell. I don't care for his huge ego - his self-assessment as a man's-man, raconteur. But he freely admits to being conservative vs claiming to be non-partisan. He admits to lining up with the gop.

recast himself as a libertarian, even on foreign policy.....I'm sorry, I don't remember Joe agreeing with Ron Paul on foreign policy in the Bush years , as he just seemed to claim re: executive power.


The format works though, maybe CNN will come up with better competition and be able to grab the same guest lineup.

we already have a public safety exception for Miranda and that's been around for a long time. If they are talking such an expansion that it swallows up the rule then I will be upset, if it's a minor tweak then not as much.

to amend it to allow Miranda-free interogation of U.S. citizens? That is just unconstitutional.

Not sure how that can be considered a "tweak"

right now under the public safety exception in limited circumstances and have been able to for decades.

Again, my desire is to see how much farther they want to extend, the farther they do, the more problem I have with it.

so I thought Scab was just being evasive cuz he knew full well about this exception...

talks about his made up connections and "inside sources" in the CIA to back up his theories. He also pulls the "People come up to me on the street all the time and say" thing too. If you really want to puke, read the gushing article about Joe and Mika from yesterday's ny times....it was clearly called in as a favor and is sexist as hell, literally...and I kid you not...comparing Joe and Mika to Rock Hudson and Doris Day.

What I found interesting about the article was the suggestive nature of the comments on Joe and Mika's "relationship." I think it is beyond question that they are sleeping together, but apparently their spouses are in on the subterfuge (scarcely disguised, IMO, in this article).

So many unanswered questions there.

Joe's divorce and resignation right after.

Things don't add up, and all roads lead to Joe.

He's full of himself, has bad politics, and may even be a murderer. Makes me wonder why he has a show on cable.

3-4 disasters at one time.

I guess the joke's on them.

They "supposedly" voted for the candidate they didn't think could handle the job? Really? Maybe they shouldn't vote anymore.

Or maybe Joe should stop telling what are likely big lies.